I How Do You Calculate Error with a Single Measurement in Physics Lab Reports?

AI Thread Summary
First-year engineering students often struggle with error analysis in lab reports, particularly in physics. When dealing with random error related to mass, taking multiple measurements is crucial for calculating mean and standard deviation. If only a single measurement is available, the standard deviation cannot be defined, making it impossible to derive random error from that measurement alone. Instead, students should refer to the measuring device's documentation for its reported measurement error. Understanding these concepts is essential for accurate lab reporting and analysis.
Derik
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm currently in first year engineering and I seem to be struggling with Physics, which is not unlikely uncommon. A simple problem I've come across is not doing correct error analysis when writing up lab reports. In my current lab, which is justifying the relationship of angular frequency, force, mass and radius in centripetal motion, a portion of the questions ask to analyze different sources of random error; one of which being random error related to the mass. Since I didn't take multiple measurements of the same mass, how would I go about finding a mean and standard deviation? It doesn't make any sense to me to compare masses of two completely different apparatus setups, so am I looking at the problem wrong or did I just make an error by not taking multiple measurements (which the lab specifically says to do when it's required)?

Would really appreciate the help and can definitely go more in depth or even supply some lab data if it's required.

Thanks

Edit: Disregard the picture, too long of a story to explain :^)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Derik said:
Since I didn't take multiple measurements of the same mass, how would I go about finding a mean and standard deviation?
Hi Derik, welcome to PF!

The only other way I know is to look into the documentation of the measuring device and hope that the manufacturer tested and reported the device's measurement error.
 
Dale said:
Hi Derik, welcome to PF!

The only other way I know is to look into the documentation of the measuring device and hope that the manufacturer tested and reported the device's measurement error.
I do in fact have measurement errors, but how would I derive the random error using standard deviation?
 
Derik said:
I do in fact have measurement errors, but how would I derive the random error using standard deviation?
The standard deviation of the measurement is the "random error" of the measurement.

If you have to perform any computations using the measured value then you can estimate the standard deviation of the computed value through the propagation of errors.
 
Dale said:
The standard deviation of the measurement is the "random error" of the measurement.

If you have to perform any computations using the measured value then you can estimate the standard deviation of the computed value through the propagation of errors.
I mis-worded that. I do understand that the standard deviation of the measurement is the random error, but I'm wondering how I'm actually supposed to calculate it (as easy at that sounds). Let's say for example that my mass measurements have an uncertainty of +/- 0.05g and the measurement is arbitrarily 100g, a second measurement using a different apparatus setup is 200g +/- 0.05g. I know the equations used to find the standard mean, standard deviation and the deviation from mean, but I don't know how to do it with a single measurement. For example, I calculated the standard deviation from mean for my angular frequency; the difference is that I had 3 measurements for the same test.
 
Derik said:
I don't know how to do it with a single measurement.
You can't. The standard deviation for a single measurement is undefined.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top