How Is Error Managed When Measuring the Difference Between Two Values?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on how to manage error when measuring the difference between two values, particularly in the context of weighing a small mass with a tare weight. It highlights that the accuracy of a scale is defined by its error, e, which can significantly affect the measurement of a 5 μg mass. When calculating the difference between two measurements, the error is treated similarly to that in summation, meaning the total error can be represented as Δm±e. The conversation also touches on the use of relative error and the application of partial differentials for more precise error calculations. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurate measurement in scientific contexts.
liquidFuzz
Messages
107
Reaction score
6
Me and some colleagues discussed accuracy of measurements. We didn't agree on how to treat the accuracy if two values are used to find the value, i.e. the difference between two values.

Situation (explanation)
The weight of a mass m of approximately 5 μg is to be scaled. The scale has an error e. How would you treat the error in this measurement if the scaling is done as such. 1 m is scaled in a ≈2 g container. 2 the ≈2g is scaled without m. 3 the difference is between measurements 1 and 2 is used to find m.

What is the error in this measurement?

Cheers!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
First, the term for that ≈2g is tare.
What you have not specified is the error: e.

In general, the accuracy of a scale is specified by a weight.
For example, if e=10μg, then you will not be able to weight your 5μg mass.
If e=1μg, then you should be able to measure your mass to within 1ug. But since two measurements are made it is possible to have a worse-case situation where the error is 2μg.

Sometimes e is specified as a percentage.
So if e = 0.1%, you will not be able to measure 5μg with 2g of tare.
If e = 0.0001%, you will be able to measure 5μg with 2g of tare to within 2μg.
 
Hi, thanks for the input! Sorry if the example wasn't well thought out...

I found some data sheets for the scales. It seems it is accustom to present the error e as linear, thus the measurements for m can be presented as Δm±e, not Δm±2e as if the error is random, or Δm as if the error is constant.
 
liquidFuzz said:
Me and some colleagues discussed accuracy of measurements. We didn't agree on how to treat the accuracy if two values are used to find the value, i.e. the difference between two values.

The error in the difference of two values is treated the same as the error in the sum of two values. Just think of the difference as adding a negative value with the same error.
 
bobob said:
The error in the difference of two values is treated the same as the error in the sum of two values. Just think of the difference as adding a negative value with the same error.

Yes Sir i agree 👍
And then if you need relative error then divide in the end 💪

By the way you can also use the magic formula with partial differentials to get to error. 😇
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top