Relative error


by jenny777
Tags: error, error analysis, lab report, math analysis, physics, relative
jenny777
jenny777 is offline
#1
Feb11-14, 12:13 PM
P: 28
Hello,
If I have a measurement of 1cm, and have an absolute error of 0.1 cm, I know that I can write my measurement as (1±0.1)cm.
If I want to write it with its relative error instead of an absolute error, can I still use the bracket?
i.e) (1±10%)cm ???

Thank you!!
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists design quantum switches which can be activated by single photons
'Dressed' laser aimed at clouds may be key to inducing rain, lightning
Higher-order nonlinear optical processes observed using the SACLA X-ray free-electron laser
nasu
nasu is online now
#2
Feb11-14, 01:05 PM
P: 1,904
10% is not in cm. So it does not make sense to write it inside the parenthesis.
jtbell
jtbell is offline
#3
Feb11-14, 02:01 PM
Mentor
jtbell's Avatar
P: 11,239
To put it another way, the relative error would be 10% no matter what units you're using. So I would write it as 1cm ± 10%.

dauto
dauto is online now
#4
Feb11-14, 02:41 PM
P: 1,251

Relative error


I, on the other hand, would write it as (1±10%)cm. % is not in cm so we must multiply it by cm in order to get the correct unit. Keep in mind that % is short hand for 1/100.
nasu
nasu is online now
#5
Feb11-14, 03:12 PM
P: 1,904
It works here (the value is 1 cm) but what if it's 2 cm with an error of 10%?

Then you will multiply 10% by cm to get 0.1 cm?
But the error is actually 0.2 cm.
jbriggs444
jbriggs444 is offline
#6
Feb11-14, 03:30 PM
P: 748
Quote Quote by nasu View Post
It works here (the value is 1 cm) but what if it's 2 cm with an error of 10%?

Then you will multiply 10% by cm to get 0.1 cm?
You multiply 2 cm by +/- 10% to get +/- 0.2 cm.
Or you multiply cm by +/- 10% and take two of them to get +/- 0.2 cm.
Or you multiply 2 by +/- 10% and use units of cm to get +/- 0.2 cm

But the error is actually 0.2 cm.
Yes. That's right. No matter which of the three ways you choose to interpret 10%. There may be motivations to choose one interpretation over the others, but an off-by-a-factor-of-two problem is not one of them.
.Scott
.Scott is offline
#7
Feb11-14, 03:31 PM
P: 420
Quote Quote by nasu View Post
It works here (the value is 1 cm) but what if it's 2 cm with an error of 10%?

Then you will multiply 10% by cm to get 0.1 cm?
But the error is actually 0.2 cm.
No.

2cm±10% is 2cm±0.2cm
(2±10%)cm is (2±0.2)cm

It works either way.
In most cases, I have seen the first one (2cm±10%) much more often.
The second on is common in specifications. For example:
Pin hole depth (cm): 2±10%

Or in table form:
Parameter ... Value ... units
Pin hole depth ... 2±10% ... cm
.Scott
.Scott is offline
#8
Feb11-14, 03:33 PM
P: 420
Quote Quote by jbriggs444 View Post
Or you multiply cm by +/- 10% and take two of them to get +/- 0.2 cm.
I have never seen that.
I guess it would be 2(cm±10%) !?!
jenny777
jenny777 is offline
#9
Feb11-14, 07:26 PM
P: 28
hmm I guess I could use it either way then.

I actually have another question at this point, it's about Millikan oil drop experiment.

I've got
mg=kvf, when the e-field is zero, (taking downwards direction as positive), k is some constant and vf is the terminal velocity of an oil drop.
Then when the e-field is on, mg+kve=Eq, where Eq is the force from the electric field, and k is the same constant and ve is the drift velocity of an oil drop.
When I isolated q (charge), i got

q=[(ve+vf)/vf]*dmg/V

and keep in mind that q=ne, where n is the number of charge and e is an elementary charge (q is of course the number of charge in an oil drop)

I got something like 8*10^-18 for q, and I'm trying to find n, so that I can plot q vs. n to find the slope of the line (which is e)

but in order for me to find the number of charge (n), don't I have to divide the q by e?
I'm a little confused here because I thought the whole point of doing this experiment is to determine e. but by dividing q by e to obtain n, aren't I misinterpreting the whole the experiment?

How can i find n without dividing q by e?
dauto
dauto is online now
#10
Feb12-14, 11:05 AM
P: 1,251
You find n by looking at many drops and noticing that they form bunches. Each bunch correspond to a different value of n. So you just count the bunches starting from n=0 for those drops that were unaffected by the electric field.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#11
Feb12-14, 07:02 PM
Mentor
P: 16,477
Quote Quote by jtbell View Post
To put it another way, the relative error would be 10% no matter what units you're using. So I would write it as 1cm ± 10%.
Columbia agrees.

http://phys.columbia.edu/~tutorial/r...tut_e_3_2.html
dauto
dauto is online now
#12
Feb13-14, 09:45 AM
P: 1,251
Quote Quote by dauto View Post
You find n by looking at many drops and noticing that they form bunches. Each bunch correspond to a different value of n. So you just count the bunches starting from n=0 for those drops that were unaffected by the electric field.
That post was intended for a different thread (oops). Does anybody know how I can remove it from here?
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#13
Feb13-14, 10:27 AM
Mentor
P: 16,477
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
However NIST disagrees:

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html

They use % as simply the number 1/100. So they would express it as, e.g. 5 cm (1 ± 3 %).


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Thermo. Relative Error Introductory Physics Homework 0
Relative error question Introductory Physics Homework 1
Relative Error!? Introductory Physics Homework 8
relative error from heck Introductory Physics Homework 0
absolute and relative error Introductory Physics Homework 1