Charge to Mass Lab Error Analysis

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on error analysis in a lab measuring the charge to mass ratio of an electron using Helmholtz coils. The participant conducted 15 measurements based on varying radii and accelerating potentials, calculating uncertainties using the formula δ(charge to mass ratio)=(average charge to mass ratio)* √[(δI/I)^2+(δr/r)^2+(δV/V)^2]. The main issue raised is how to express the final value considering the uncertainties of each measurement. A consensus suggests using a weighted average of the measurements, factoring in the variances, to achieve a more accurate final result.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of error propagation in experimental physics
  • Familiarity with Helmholtz coils and their application in magnetic fields
  • Knowledge of calculating charge to mass ratios
  • Experience with statistical analysis, specifically weighted averages
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "weighted averages in experimental physics" for accurate data representation
  • Study "error propagation techniques" to enhance measurement accuracy
  • Explore "Helmholtz coil configurations" for optimal magnetic field generation
  • Investigate "standard deviation vs. variance" in data analysis for better understanding of uncertainty
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, laboratory technicians, and researchers involved in experimental physics and error analysis will benefit from this discussion.

DerekSessions
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
In a lab measuring the charge to mass ratio of an electron I am having trouble with the error analysis. Specifically, this lab measured the radius of a curved path of an electron in a magnetic field (generated by Helmholtz coils with a a current 'I' running through them) with the velocity of the electron due to an accelerating potential in an anode. My question is about the uncertainty in the final answer. Measurements were taken at 5 set radii, for 3 set accelerating potential, and I measured the current in the Helmholtz coils required to reach the 5 radii at the 3 accelerating potential.

There was uncertainty in the radii, in the accelerating potential, and in the current through the Helmholtz coils. I solved for the charge to mass ratio of each of these 15 measurements (3 accelerating potential for each of the 5 radii) and I propagated error through each of the 15 measurements using:

δ(charge to mass ratio)=(average charge to mass ratio)* √[(δI/I)^2+(δr/r)^2+(δV/V)^2]

(I=current through coils, r=radius, V=accelerating potential)

My issue is, I have 15 measurements for the Charge to mass ratio and the 15 corresponding uncertainties. How do I use these to express the final value in the lab? Because if I use a standard deviation of the 15 measurements, I'm essentially throwing my 15 calculated uncertainties out the window, am I not? Should I not be averaging the 15 measurements for the charge to mass ratio to begin with? Any insight is helpful as I am clearly at a loss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry you are not finding help at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us?
 
All electrons are the same, so you are making duplicate measurements of the same thing, so the uncertainty in your result will decrease as you take more measurements.

I think you take a weighted average of each measurement (weighted by 1/variance) to get the result, and add the inverses of the variances together to get the inverse of the variance of the result.

You should also do a check to make sure that your measurements are reasonably consistent with each other. The standard deviation in the measurements should be similar in scale to your estimated measurement uncertainty for each measurement.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
984
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K