Question about Measurements and sig. figs.

  • Thread starter Thread starter junior_J
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurements
AI Thread Summary
Determining the least count of a measuring device, like an analog ammeter, involves understanding the smallest division on the scale and often estimating measurements to the nearest half division due to the thickness of the pointer. The precision of a measurement is typically indicated by the manufacturer, and it’s important to note that the quoted precision should not exceed the least count. For example, a meter rule with a least count of 1mm may be reported as (1.25 +/- 0.05) cm, reflecting the estimated error based on the scale's divisions. When uncertainty varies, such as +/- 0.05mm versus +/- 0.1mm, it indicates different levels of precision or manufacturer specifications. For accurate error estimation, consulting the instrument's documentation is recommended.
junior_J
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
This is a question about practical physics ... if its posted in the wrong section my sincere apologies !

How do i decide the least count of a measuring device such as an ammeter (analog) ?
I know that the least count is the smallest division of measurement ... but why do people take the measurement to the nearest half division ?
Does it have something to do with the pointer(needle) of the ammeter ?? may be its thickness ... i have the same problem with understanding why a measurement made by a metre rule with a least count of 1mm is quoted as say (1.25+/-0.05)cm .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A good instrument normally has a specification of the precision of the reading, but it for sure isn't better than the last digit (otherwise the manufacturer would have added digits !). Also, most serious manufacturers don't make a fool of themselves by providing totally meaningless digits.

So if you have no specific indication, then guessing that one unit of the last digit is in the ballpark of the error on the measurement is often, with lack of better knowledge, a good idea. But for any serious error study, you should look at the detailled specifications of precision of the instrument, as given by the manufacturer.

You consider that the display of an analog instrument is digitized by the finest grading scale you are using.
If the error is 1 scale jump, then you can model that by +/- 0.5 a scale jump. Remember, in any case you're guessing here, and an order of magnitude for the error is the best you can get this way. If you want to have a better estimate of your error, you should consult the documentation of the instrument.
 
So if you have no specific indication, then guessing that one unit of the last digit is in the ballpark of the error on the measurement is often, with lack of better knowledge, a good idea.

Im sorry i don't understand ... ! Can u elaborate a bit more . what last digit ??

Ive skimmed through some textbooks and websites ... What i don't understand is why some quote the uncertainty for a regular metre rule as
+/-0.05mm and others as +/-0.1mm ... and what's the difference between the two ? The same thing with the analog ammeters ...

Thank u !
 
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 '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