Propogation of uncertainty in a data set (finger-math at most)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating uncertainty in a lab experiment measuring the distance traveled by a falling weight. The absolute uncertainties for time and distance are given as ±0.010s and ±0.001m, respectively. The participant is confused about how to apply these uncertainties to calculate the relative uncertainties for velocity, acceleration, and the y-intercept of the velocity versus time graph. They question whether each data point requires a unique relative uncertainty or if a single percentage can be applied across all points. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in handling uncertainties in a dataset, suggesting that individual calculations may be necessary for accuracy.
ZamielTheGrey
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have conducted a simple lab, that involves getting the distance traveled by a vertically falling weight at certain time intervals. Velocity is calculated for every time interval (distance traveled per time interval). Then I graph velocity versus time to get acceleration which comes out decently close to g.

Now the part I am confused about is calculating uncertainty for:
a) Velocity
b) Acceleration
c) y-intercept of velocity vs. time graph (acceleration line)

Absolute uncertainty for time is +-0.010s, and +-0.001m (1mm) for distance.

Homework Equations


Relative uncertainty % = Absolute Uncertainty / Measured value
* and / of uncertainties with each other adds their relative uncertainties

The Attempt at a Solution


Since this is of a data set, you have many measured values, and it makes no sense to have a single relative uncertainty in the above equation. It would be different for each data point, correct?

Am I missing something from this concept? Or do I literally have to calculate out a different uncertainty for each velocity? Another possibility could be finding relative uncertainty for the first data point and using that % throughout the problem for all of them but that can't be right...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mump
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top