Taking multiple readings with vernier calipers, such as measuring the diameter of a coin at (5.06±0.04) mm, does not reduce fractional error caused by systematic errors. Systematic errors are consistent and predictable, allowing for adjustments to be made to obtain the true value. In contrast, random errors are unpredictable and cannot be corrected through averaging. Therefore, averaging multiple readings is ineffective in mitigating systematic errors.
PREREQUISITESStudents in physics or engineering, metrology professionals, and anyone involved in precision measurement and error analysis will benefit from this discussion.
Thanks!FactChecker said:I'm not exactly sure about your terms, but here is my two cents:
A systemic error may be very consistent and predictable. That makes it conceivable to determine the error and make adjustments to the measured value and get the true value. On the other hand, a truly random error is difficult to determine and you can not make adjustments to the measured value.
A systemic error may just repeat the same error over and over, so taking the average of multiple readings will not reduce the error.