Finding Propagation of Uncertainty?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the propagation of uncertainty for the density of a cylinder, given measurements of mass, length, and diameter. The mass is measured as 584.9 ± 0.5 grams, the length as 18.195 ± 0.003 cm, and the average diameter as 2.131 ± 0.0695 cm. The correct formula for uncertainty propagation involves using the exponents of the variables in the function, specifically f(m,d,L) = (4/π)M^1 d^-2 L^-1. The final calculation requires multiplying the square root of the summed squares of relative uncertainties by the density value to obtain the absolute uncertainty, which resolves the issue with the online grading system.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of uncertainty propagation in measurements
  • Familiarity with basic calculus and derivatives
  • Knowledge of density calculation and its formula
  • Experience with online grading systems for scientific calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of uncertainty propagation in physical measurements
  • Learn how to derive and apply the formula for density and its uncertainties
  • Explore the use of online tools for calculating uncertainties
  • Review examples of similar problems in experimental physics
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics or engineering courses, laboratory technicians, and anyone involved in experimental data analysis and uncertainty calculations.

Monkey618
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
You measure the mass of the cylinder to be m = 584.9 +- 0.5 grams, and you measure the length of the cylinder to be L = 18.195 +- 0.003 cm. Just like in the lab you performed, you now measure the diameter in eight different places and obtain the following results.
Diameter (cm)
2.125
2.090
2.065
2.240
2.110
2.100
2.080
2.240

This gives an average of 2.131 +- 0.0695

This makes the density = 9.01 g/cm^3 +- propagation of uncertainty

Trying to calculate this, I have: sqrt( ((1*0.5) / 584.9)^2 + ((-2 * 0,0695) / 2.131)^2 + ((-1 * 0.003) / 18.195)^2 ) = 0.0652

However the online grading system say's that I'm wrong. So where have I gone wrong with the uncertainty of the density. All of the other values have been graded and marked correct, so where did I mess up with the uncertainty.

I'm not really clear where the "1", "-2", or "-1" came from in the formula above, I was basing it on my notes from class.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Monkey618 said:
You measure the mass of the cylinder to be m = 584.9 +- 0.5 grams, and you measure the length of the cylinder to be L = 18.195 +- 0.003 cm. Just like in the lab you performed, you now measure the diameter in eight different places and obtain the following results.
Diameter (cm)
2.125
2.090
2.065
2.240
2.110
2.100
2.080
2.240

This gives an average of 2.131 +- 0.0695

This makes the density = 9.01 g/cm^3 +- propagation of uncertainty

Trying to calculate this, I have: sqrt( ((1*0.5) / 584.9)^2 + ((-2 * 0,0695) / 2.131)^2 + ((-1 * 0.003) / 18.195)^2 ) = 0.0652

However the online grading system say's that I'm wrong. So where have I gone wrong with the uncertainty of the density. All of the other values have been graded and marked correct, so where did I mess up with the uncertainty.
It looks like you forgot to multiply the "sqrt" by the calculated value of the function being evaluated (the density value).
I'm not really clear where the "1", "-2", or "-1" came from in the formula above, I was basing it on my notes from class.
They are values that depend upon the exponent of the variable in the function. Write out the function being evaluated in one line (promote the variables in the denominator to the numerator and adjust exponents accordingly):

$$f(m,d,L) = \frac{4}{\pi}M^1 d^{-2} L^{-1}$$

You can pick out the values as the exponents of the variables. Thus, for example, the value "-2" is associated with the diameter variable d.
 
You calculated the relative uncertainty, and both the formula and the result look good. Similar to gneill, I think the online grading system wants the absolute uncertainty.
 
I've been meaning to get back here to say Thank You! Multiplying by the density was exactly what I needed to do for WebAssign (the online grading system) to accept the answer.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K