Hall Effect Measurement Error Analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mindscrape
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error Measurement
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the analysis of Hall Effect measurements using a bismuth strip as a Hall probe. The author applied a least squares fitting method, represented by the equation A^T A = A^T b, to derive regression lines for four distinct data sets. Uncertainty calculations were performed using the formula \sigma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N-2} \sum_{i=1}^N (y_i - A - Bx_i)^2}. The author seeks clarification on whether to average the errors or sum them in quadrature, concluding that adding uncertainties is the most logical approach given the nature of the errors involved.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Hall Effect and its measurement techniques.
  • Familiarity with least squares regression analysis.
  • Knowledge of statistical error analysis, including systematic and random errors.
  • Proficiency in using mathematical formulas for uncertainty calculations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research advanced techniques in regression analysis, particularly in experimental physics.
  • Learn about error propagation methods in measurements, including both systematic and random errors.
  • Explore the implications of correlation in measurement uncertainties and how to conduct correlation tests.
  • Investigate the Hall Effect in different materials and its applications in sensor technology.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, experimental researchers, and students involved in measurement analysis and error evaluation in the context of the Hall Effect and related experiments.

Mindscrape
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
1
I did an experiment on the Hall Effect, and found the voltage for the Hall "probe" (it was a strip of bismuth) as a function of a current magnetizing the B-field. Anyway, I did a least squares fit to find the regression line with A^T A = A^T b, and found four lines for each of my four data sets. I also found the uncertainties on the each of the four with [tex]\sigma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N-2} \sum_{i=1}^N (y_i - A -Bx_i)^2}[/tex].

My question is that if I find the average regression line, using [tex]\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{y_i}{N}[/tex], would I simply take the mean of errors since they will all be dependent on the same factors? Should I add the errors in quadrature since they were all errors would be random, and dependent on different random factors?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are asking the right questions! The answer depends on how you made your measurements. Are the uncertainties uncorrelated? If one is a voltage and another is a dimension, for instance, then you can assume no correlation = rms. If they are related, for instance the same meter is used separately to measure current and voltage, and there's a systematic error (meter calibration is off), then you might need to sum the errors.
 
They are correlated, though I haven't actually done a correlation test, because all I did was increase the magnetic field until the galvanometer measuring the voltage hit its sensitivity peak, and then I turned the current back to zero (to get rid of remanent magnetization) and did the test all over again.

At the same time, I could see how since any error on the measurements will be a random error, as any systematic error would repeatedly show in every test, why they would be uncorrelated. Random events can't really correlate together.

Ultimately, I guess that simply adding the uncertainties will make the most since though.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K