Estimate Systematic Error
Contents |
just how much the measured value is likely to deviate from the unknown, true, value of the quantity. The art of estimating these deviations systematic error examples should probably be called uncertainty analysis, but for historical reasons is referred to
Random Error Calculation
as error analysis. This document contains brief discussions about how errors are reported, the kinds of errors that can occur,
How To Reduce Random Error
how to estimate random errors, and how to carry error estimates into calculated results. We are not, and will not be, concerned with the “percent error” exercises common in high school, where the
How To Reduce Systematic Error
student is content with calculating the deviation from some allegedly authoritative number. Significant figures Whenever you make a measurement, the number of meaningful digits that you write down implies the error in the measurement. For example if you say that the length of an object is 0.428 m, you imply an uncertainty of about 0.001 m. To record this measurement as either 0.4 or 0.42819667 would imply types of errors in physics that you only know it to 0.1 m in the first case or to 0.00000001 m in the second. You should only report as many significant figures as are consistent with the estimated error. The quantity 0.428 m is said to have three significant figures, that is, three digits that make sense in terms of the measurement. Notice that this has nothing to do with the "number of decimal places". The same measurement in centimeters would be 42.8 cm and still be a three significant figure number. The accepted convention is that only one uncertain digit is to be reported for a measurement. In the example if the estimated error is 0.02 m you would report a result of 0.43 ± 0.02 m, not 0.428 ± 0.02 m. Students frequently are confused about when to count a zero as a significant figure. The rule is: If the zero has a non-zero digit anywhere to its left, then the zero is significant, otherwise it is not. For example 5.00 has 3 significant figures; the number 0.0005 has only one significant figure, and 1.0005 has 5 significant figures. A number like 300 is not well defined. Rather one should
brothers, and 2 + 2 = 4. However, all measurements have some degree of uncertainty that may come from a variety of sources. The process of evaluating the uncertainty associated with a measurement result is often types of errors in measurement called uncertainty analysis or error analysis. The complete statement of a measured value should instrumental error include an estimate of the level of confidence associated with the value. Properly reporting an experimental result along with its uncertainty zero error allows other people to make judgments about the quality of the experiment, and it facilitates meaningful comparisons with other similar values or a theoretical prediction. Without an uncertainty estimate, it is impossible to answer the http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~labgroup/pdf/Error_analysis.htm basic scientific question: "Does my result agree with a theoretical prediction or results from other experiments?" This question is fundamental for deciding if a scientific hypothesis is confirmed or refuted. When we make a measurement, we generally assume that some exact or true value exists based on how we define what is being measured. While we may never know this true value exactly, we attempt to find this ideal quantity http://www.webassign.net/question_assets/unccolphysmechl1/measurements/manual.html to the best of our ability with the time and resources available. As we make measurements by different methods, or even when making multiple measurements using the same method, we may obtain slightly different results. So how do we report our findings for our best estimate of this elusive true value? The most common way to show the range of values that we believe includes the true value is: ( 1 ) measurement = (best estimate ± uncertainty) units Let's take an example. Suppose you want to find the mass of a gold ring that you would like to sell to a friend. You do not want to jeopardize your friendship, so you want to get an accurate mass of the ring in order to charge a fair market price. You estimate the mass to be between 10 and 20 grams from how heavy it feels in your hand, but this is not a very precise estimate. After some searching, you find an electronic balance that gives a mass reading of 17.43 grams. While this measurement is much more precise than the original estimate, how do you know that it is accurate, and how confident are you that this measurement represents the true value of the ring's mass? Si
the design of the experiment. Systematic errors cannot be estimated by repeating the experiment with the same equipment. Consider again the systematic error example of measuring an oscillation period with a stopwatch. Suppose that the stopwatch is running slow. This will lead to underestimation of all our time results. Systematic errors, unlike random errors, how to reduce shift the results always in one direction. Systematic errors are much harder to estimate than random errors. After all, how could we have known beforehand that our stopwatch was unreliable? In order to identify systematic errors, we should understand the nature of the experiment and the instruments involved. Sometimes you will encounter significant systematic errors in your experiments. If you suspect that your measurements are biased, you should try to identify the possible sources of systematic error. << Previous Page Next Page >> Home - Credits - Feedback © Columbia University
IOPcorporate IOP for R&DScience fueling innovation IOPselect Articles from the past year selected by our editors Publishing partners Partner organisations and publications Open access IOP Publishing open access policy guide Review articles The latest review articles from our journals IOP Conference Series Read open access proceedings from science conferences worldwide Books Login Username Password Remember me Cancel Forgotten password? Create account Benefits of a My IOPscience account Login via Athens/your Institution Primary search Search Article lookup Find article List of journal titles: 2D Mater. (2014 - present) Acta Phys. Sin. (Overseas Edn) (1992 - 1999) Adv. Nat. Sci: Nanosci. Nanotechnol. (2010 - present) Appl. Phys. Express (2008 - present) Biofabrication (2009 - present) Bioinspir. Biomim. (2006 - present) Biomed. Mater. (2006 - present) Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express (2015 - present) Br. J. Appl. Phys. (1950 - 1967) Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. (2001 - 2008) Chin. J. Chem. Phys. (1987 - 2007) Chin. J. Chem. Phys. (2008 - 2012) Chinese Phys. (2000 - 2007) Chinese Phys. B (2008 - present) Chinese Phys. C (2008 - present) Chinese Phys. Lett. (1984 - present) Class. Quantum Grav. (1984 - present) Clin. Phys. Physiol. Meas. (1980 - 1992) Commun. Theor. Phys. (1982 - present) Comput. Sci. Disc. (2008 - 2015) Converg. Sci. Phys. Oncol. (2015 - present) Distrib. Syst. Engng. (1993 - 1999) EPL (1986 - present) Environ. Res. Lett. (2006 - present) Eur. J. Phys. (1980 - present) Flex. Print. Electron. (2015 - present) Fluid Dyn. Res. (1986 - present) IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. (2008 - present) IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. (2009 - present) Inverse Problems (1985 - present) Izv. Math. (1995 - present) J. Breath Res. (2007 - present) J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. (2003 - present) J. Geophys. Eng. (2004 - present) J. High Energy Phys. (1997 - 2009) J. Inst. (2006 - pres