Graphing Data in Excel: Error Bar Confusion

Click For Summary
When graphing the inverse of length in Excel, the error bars should reflect the uncertainty in the original measurement, so they remain at .001 m, not 1/.001. For the theoretical frequency squared, the error bars should be calculated based on the propagation of errors, resulting in an error of 17, not 17^2. To find the uncertainty in y = 1/x given δx = 0.001 m, the uncertainty δy can be determined using error propagation formulas. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly applying error propagation techniques to ensure accurate representation of data. Proper understanding of these concepts is crucial for presenting experimental results effectively.
Hi Im Paul
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm currently writing a paper over an experiment I did for class and I have a very stupid question over I need clarification on before I continue.

I am using excel to graph out data, and I have determined that the error in my Length is .001 m. However, I am graphing the inverse of length to show that my theoretical model is proportional to 1/L. Will the error bars I use be .001, or will the error bars be 1/.001? Surely it can't be 1/.001!

Also, I determined through error propegation that the error in my theoretical frequency is, let's say 17. However, I am graphing my theoretical f^2. Will my error bars by 17, or 17^2?

Could use some reassurance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider your variable to be y = 1/x. The uncertainty is δx=0.001 m. What is the uncertainty δy? Then propagate errors in f(y) knowing δy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
923
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
42
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K