Optimizing Error: Minimizing Rx for L1=50cm

  • Thread starter Thread starter LogicX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around minimizing the uncertainty expression for a resistance measurement in a physics lab context, specifically focusing on the relationship between two lengths, L1 and L2, constrained by the equation L1 + L2 = 100 cm. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the validity of the provided uncertainty expression and its dependency on L1.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the process of minimizing a function, questioning the correctness of the given uncertainty expression and its derivation. There is discussion about the relationship between L1 and L2, and whether substituting L2 = 100 - L1 is the correct approach to minimize the uncertainty.

Discussion Status

Some participants express agreement that there may be an issue with the original expression, suggesting that the inner part of the function should be simplified. Others provide guidance on how to approach the minimization by substituting L2 in terms of L1, indicating a potential path forward without reaching a consensus on the correctness of the initial expression.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions feeling unprepared for the lab's expectations and expresses frustration with the instructional support received. There is a noted lack of resources addressing the specific type of error discussed, which adds to the confusion surrounding the problem.

LogicX
Messages
175
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Show that this uncertainty expression is minimized for L1=50cm:

Uncertainty in Rx= R3 (1/L1 + L2/L1^2)σL

(that is R sub x, L sub 1, σ sub L etc.)

Homework Equations



I don't know.

The Attempt at a Solution



This is the uncertainty for sliding a contact up and down a 100cm stick. So L1 and L2 are related by L1+L2=100cm

I don't know if the above expression is even right (though that's what was given to me). Let's say instead I made L1= 55 cm (meaning L2 is 45cm). Guess what! the uncertainty is lower.

Of course, I'm supposed to somehow derive this uncertainty expression on my own. But of course, as with everything in this bull**** 1 credit hour physics lab course, they just throw a bunch of strange questions at us, most of which we are completely unequipped to handle. Like, here, use calculus to derive this uncertainty expression where these two variable are dependent on each other! And the foreign TA just talks really loudly when I ask him how to do it, I think as his defense mechanism for not knowing anything. So I just leave even more confused and wondering how he got away without actually answering any questions. And then they tell us to study those questions for what is going to be on the final. Oh and of course it makes sense that the exams for this LAB are worth 90% of the grade, whereas the 4 hour long weekly lab reports are worth just 10%. Makes complete sense. For one credit hour. I just want to get my A and never think about this stupid course ever again.

Sorry that you had to experience my anger about physics lab.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Given any function f(x) do you know how to minimize it?
 
praharmitra said:
Given any function f(x) do you know how to minimize it?

Yes. Take the derivative set it equal to zero, solve, plug back into original function. But they have already told me that the mimimum arises when L1=50cm. But if I put a different value in for L1, I can get a lower value for the uncertainty, making me think they gave me the wrong expression.

I'm pretty sure I only have to worry about the inner part of the function, (1/L1 + L2/L1^2), since the other stuff is just constant. Minimize that part and the entire expression will be minimized. Am I supposed to be setting L2=100-L1?

EDIT: Just tried that, I keep getting all my L's to cancel out, leaving me with -200=1.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. something is amiss. the part inside the brackets is actually just 100/L1^2. What is L in your original expression?
 
praharmitra said:
I agree with you. something is amiss. the part inside the brackets is actually just 100/L1^2. What is L in your original expression?

The original expression for Rx is Rx=(L2/L1)R3

R3 is a constant. (This lab was measuring an unknown resistance using a wheatstone bridge)

I could normally easily find the uncertainty expression for this equation but my book says that it "differs from the error equation we would normally obtain because the errors in L1 and L2 are not independent, i.e. L1+L2=100cm. Thus, if one makes a positive error in L1, this would result in a negative error in L2."

I've never encountered something like this before, and there is nothing in any of my books about this type of error. So I'm kind of confused.

I appreciate the help by the way.
 
ya, what the book is basically saying is that you should put L2 = 100 - L1, then minimize the function of L1. Then the answer would indeed be 50cm.

However, what I don't see is how you went from this expression (your last post) to the first expression (first post)?
 
praharmitra said:
ya, what the book is basically saying is that you should put L2 = 100 - L1, then minimize the function of L1. Then the answer would indeed be 50cm.

However, what I don't see is how you went from this expression (your last post) to the first expression (first post)?

The second equation I gave is how you actually find the unknown resistance. The first expression was the equation for the propagation of uncertainty of the second equation, which was somehow derived using calculus.
 

Similar threads

Replies
67
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K