Errors in Measurement [of time]

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the topic of measurement errors, specifically in the context of timing measurements and their relation to device precision and counting statistics. Participants explore different methods for estimating errors in measurements involving time and counts, with a focus on the implications of using different error models.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why errors are sometimes represented as \(\sqrt{N}\) (where \(N\) is the number of counts) and other times as half of the device precision, using an electronic timer with a precision of 10ms as an example.
  • Another participant asserts that the accuracy of a timer is not dependent on the length of time measured, suggesting that \(\sqrt{t}\) is not applicable in this context.
  • A participant describes their experimental setup involving a wheel and a detector, seeking clarification on how to calculate velocity and associated errors, particularly whether the error in time should be considered systematic rather than statistical.
  • One participant proposes that if the timer has a ±5ms error, the total error for multiple runs should be calculated as 5 times the square root of the number of runs.
  • Another participant states that the error of the clock is half the precision, indicating that this error arises from the resolution of the device, contrasting it with the \(\sqrt{N}\) model used for Poisson distributions in counting events.
  • There is a discussion about combining uncertainties from counts and time when calculating velocity, with one participant emphasizing the importance of understanding the propagation of error in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate model for estimating measurement errors, with no consensus reached on whether to use \(\sqrt{N}\) or half of the precision of the device. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to quantify errors in the specific experimental setup described.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in their understanding of error propagation, particularly in distinguishing between systematic and statistical errors. There are also unresolved questions about how to apply different error models in the context of their measurements.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I wanted to ask something concerning the errors...
Why sometimes the errors are taken to be [itex]\sqrt{N}[/itex] where N is your measured value (such as the number of counts from a detector) and why is it sometimes given as half of your device precision (eg a common ruler's error is 0.5mm)?
In my case I had an electronic timer which was able to measure the time of a wheeler going left or right, with a precision of 10ms .. since it was automatic I think it gets the measured time from electric signals [as it does for the counted events], so I am not sure whether its error is 5ms or the [itex]\sqrt{t}[/itex] of the measured time t.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not ##\sqrt{t}##, since the accuracy of a timer is not dependent on the length of time.
 
even if the timer works in the same way as the counts?
In my device I had a wheel of "target" which moved left and right [trying to use Doppler effect], and the detector was measuring then my photons.
While the wheel was moving left, I had the counts measured for left and the time elapsed [for several left runs] until I stopped the wheel. The same for the right...
So for some speed of the wheel [itex]u[/itex] I had counted 5,000 events left and the wheel was moving for 100ms in total (let's say 7 runs) on some distance d each (so the total distance for left is [itex]s=7 \cdot d[/itex]... In this case I want to measure the velocity (something like calibrating the motor with the velocity), and get also the error.
[itex]u_L= \frac{s}{t_L}[/itex]
[itex]\delta u_L = u \sqrt{ (\frac{\delta t_L}{t_L})^2 + (\frac{\delta s}{s})^2 }[/itex]

So you say the [itex]\delta t_L[/itex] should come from the systematic error of the device? and it wouldn't be [itex]\sqrt{t_{L}}[/itex]?
Also shouldn't that depend on the runs ? because it stops (when right-to-left ← motion stops) and then reruns (when left-to-right → stops and right-to-left ← reruns).

http://www.chemicool.com/img1/graphics/mossbau2.gif
my setup, the only difference is that we didn't move the source, but the target.

Also from my script:
After pressing the start button of the absorber velocity control, a gate pulse is generated as soon as the absorber has reached the left position of return. Then, depending on the running direction of the absorber the detector pulses are fed from the single-channel-analyzer (SCA) into the counters N(LR) and N(RL), respectively. At the same time the pulses from the timer are put into the counters T(LR) or T(RL). These counters provide the duration of both measurements. The number of left-to-right turns is indicated by the run counter. After pressing the stop button the counters are only stopped when the number k of left-right and right-left runs is equal. The total swing of the device is d=25.1mm . From N(LR),N(RL),T(LR) and T(RL) the counting rates for both directions can be computed (attention when calculating the errors). Due to an offset-voltage in the operational amplifiers of the control circuit T(LR) may differ from T(RL).
Also the electronic circuit is attached:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_1.png
    Screenshot_1.png
    14.3 KB · Views: 482
Last edited:
I was thinking of a simpler set up. Anyway, if the timer has of plus or minus 5ms error, then I think the total error for 7 runs should be 5 times the square root of 7. Maybe someone does Mossbauer experiments can give a better answer.
 
In this case, the error of your clock is half the precision, since the error simply comes from the resolution of the device.

You use ##\sqrt{N}## when you are measuring something with a Poisson distribution, which arises frequently when you are counting independent random events. In this case, you are asking a totally different question. Your measurement is presumed to be exact, since it is an integer count, but you have an uncertainty in the population. That is, you could measure exactly 55 photons hitting a screen, but if you measure it again, you might expect to measure ##55 \pm \sqrt{N}## photons to hit the screen this time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
You didn't say how you measure the velocity. Do you take the counts and divide by time? In this case you would have to take the uncertainty in the counts (sqrt(N)) and combine it with the uncertainty of the time (+-5ms). You combine errors in the usual way.
 
the velocity?
I am measuring the time and I know the distance my wheel is covering in that time...
For example if (to get 5,000 events for Left to Right) I needed some time Left to Right=1000ms and 10 runs (each run is 25 mm) then the velocity is given by:
[itex]u = \frac{10 ~runs \times 25 mm}{1000 ms}[/itex]
Dividing the counts by time I'm getting the count rate (which I do) and yes, I can understand the propagation of error. I just could not understand why you needed the sqrt error or when you get the half of precision.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K