Error Uncertainty Systematic
Contents |
/ Calculators Reference Materials Material Properties Standards Teaching Resources Classroom Tips Curriculum Presentations Peers to Contact Home - General Resources -- Accuracy, Error, Precision, and Uncertainty Introduction All measurements of physical quantities are subject difference between measurement uncertainty and systematic error to uncertainties in the measurements. Variability in the results of repeated measurements arises random uncertainty vs systematic uncertainty because variables that can affect the measurement result are impossible to hold constant. Even if the "circumstances," could be precisely controlled, systematic uncertainty calculation the result would still have an error associated with it. This is because the scale was manufactured with a certain level of quality, it is often difficult to read the scale perfectly, fractional systematic error estimations between scale marking may be made and etc. Of course, steps can be taken to limit the amount of uncertainty but it is always there. In order to interpret data correctly and draw valid conclusions the uncertainty must be indicated and dealt with properly. For the result of a measurement to have clear meaning, the value cannot consist of the measured value alone. An indication of how
How To Reduce Random Error
precise and accurate the result is must also be included. Thus, the result of any physical measurement has two essential components: (1) A numerical value (in a specified system of units) giving the best estimate possible of the quantity measured, and (2) the degree of uncertainty associated with this estimated value. Uncertainty is a parameter characterizing the range of values within which the value of the measurand can be said to lie within a specified level of confidence. For example, a measurement of the width of a table might yield a result such as 95.3 +/- 0.1 cm. This result is basically communicating that the person making the measurement believe the value to be closest to 95.3cm but it could have been 95.2 or 95.4cm. The uncertainty is a quantitative indication of the quality of the result. It gives an answer to the question, "how well does the result represent the value of the quantity being measured?" The full formal process of determining the uncertainty of a measurement is an extensive process involving identifying all of the major process and environmental variables and evaluating their effect on the measurement. This process is beyond the scope of this material but is detail
of the measurement device. Random errors usually result from the experimenter's inability to take the same measurement in exactly
Systematic Error Calculation
the same way to get exact the same number. Systematic how to reduce systematic error errors, by contrast, are reproducible inaccuracies that are consistently in the same direction. Systematic errors are random error examples physics often due to a problem which persists throughout the entire experiment. Note that systematic and random errors refer to problems associated with making measurements. Mistakes made https://www.nde-ed.org/GeneralResources/ErrorAnalysis/UncertaintyTerms.htm in the calculations or in reading the instrument are not considered in error analysis. It is assumed that the experimenters are careful and competent! How to minimize experimental error: some examples Type of Error Example How to minimize it Random errors You measure the mass of a ring three times using the same https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/plab193/labinfo/Error_Analysis/05_Random_vs_Systematic.html balance and get slightly different values: 17.46 g, 17.42 g, 17.44 g Take more data. Random errors can be evaluated through statistical analysis and can be reduced by averaging over a large number of observations. Systematic errors The cloth tape measure that you use to measure the length of an object had been stretched out from years of use. (As a result, all of your length measurements were too small.)The electronic scale you use reads 0.05 g too high for all your mass measurements (because it is improperly tared throughout your experiment). Systematic errors are difficult to detect and cannot be analyzed statistically, because all of the data is off in the same direction (either to high or too low). Spotting and correcting for systematic error takes a lot of care. How would you compensate for the incorrect results of using the stretched out tape measure? How would you correct the measurements from improperly tared scale?
Treatments MSDS Resources Applets General FAQ Uncertainty ChemLab Home Computing Uncertainties in Laboratory Data and Result This section considers the error and uncertainty in experimental measurements and calculated results. First, here are some fundamental things you should realize about uncertainty: • Every measurement has an uncertainty associated https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chemlab/info/resources/uncertain.html with it, unless it is an exact, counted integer, such as the number of trials http://www2.sjs.org/friedman/PhysAPC/Errors%20and%20Uncertainties.htm performed. • Every calculated result also has an uncertainty, related to the uncertainty in the measured data used to calculate it. This uncertainty should be reported either as an explicit ± value or as an implicit uncertainty, by using the appropriate number of significant figures. • The numerical value of a "plus or minus" (±) uncertainty value tells you the range of systematic error the result. For example a result reported as 1.23 ± 0.05 means that the experimenter has some degree of confidence that the true value falls in between 1.18 and 1.28. • When significant figures are used as an implicit way of indicating uncertainty, the last digit is considered uncertain. For example, a result reported as 1.23 implies a minimum uncertainty of ±0.01 and a range of 1.22 to 1.24. • For the purposes of General Chemistry lab, how to reduce uncertainty values should only have one significant figure. It generally doesn't make sense to state an uncertainty any more precisely. To consider error and uncertainty in more detail, we begin with definitions of accuracy and precision. Then we will consider the types of errors possible in raw data, estimating the precision of raw data, and three different methods to determine the uncertainty in calculated results. Accuracy and Precision The accuracy of a set of observations is the difference between the average of the measured values and the true value of the observed quantity. The precision of a set of measurements is a measure of the range of values found, that is, of the reproducibility of the measurements. The relationship of accuracy and precision may be illustrated by the familiar example of firing a rifle at a target where the black dots below represent hits on the target: You can see that good precision does not necessarily imply good accuracy. However, if an instrument is well calibrated, the precision or reproducibility of the result is a good measure of its accuracy. Types of Error The error of an observation is the difference between the observation and the actual or true value of the quantity observed. Returning to our target analogy, error is how far away a given shot is from the bull's eye. Since the true value, or bull's ey
the empirical resources are exhausted need we pass on to the dreamy realm of speculation." -- Edwin Hubble, The Realm of the Nebulae (1936) Uncertainty To physicists the terms "error" or "uncertainty" do not mean "mistake". Mistakes, such as incorrect calculations due to the improper use of a formula, can be and should be corrected. However, even mistake-free lab measurements have an inherent uncertainty or error. Consider the dartboards shown below, in which the 'grouping' of thrown darts is a proxy for our laboratory measurements. A 'precise' measurement means the darts are close together. An 'accurate' measurement means the darts hit close to the bullseye. Notice the combinations: Measurements are precise, just not very accurate Measurements are accurate, but not precise Measurements neither precise nor accurate Measurements both precise and accurate There are several different kinds and sources of error: Actual variations in the quantity being measured, e.g. the diameter of a cylindrically shaped object may actually be different in different places. The remedy for this situation is to find the average diameter by taking a number of measurements at a number of different places. Then the scatter within your measurements gives an estimate of the reliability of the average diameter you report. Note that we usually assume that our measured values lie on both sides of the 'true' value, so that averaging our measurements gets us closer to the 'truth'. Another approach, especially suited to the measurement of small quantities, is sometimes called 'stacking.' Measure the mass of a feather by massing a lot of feathers and dividing the total mass by their number. Systematic errors in the measuring device used. Suppose your sensor reports values that are consistently shifted from the expected value; averaging a large number of readings is no help for this problem. To eliminate (or at least reduce) such errors, we calibrate the measuring instrument by comparing its measurement against the value of a known standard. It is sometimes quite difficult to identify a systematic error. Get in the habit of checking your equipment carefully. Make a preliminary analysis of your data early in the experiment; if