You multiply 2 cm by +/- 10% to get +/- 0.2 cm.It works here (the value is 1 cm) but what if it's 2 cm with an error of 10%?
Then you will multiply 10% by cm to get 0.1 cm?
Yes. That's right. No matter which of the three ways you choose to interpret 10%. There may be motivations to choose one interpretation over the others, but an off-by-a-factor-of-two problem is not one of them.But the error is actually 0.2 cm.
No.It works here (the value is 1 cm) but what if it's 2 cm with an error of 10%?
Then you will multiply 10% by cm to get 0.1 cm?
But the error is actually 0.2 cm.
I have never seen that.Or you multiply cm by +/- 10% and take two of them to get +/- 0.2 cm.
Columbia agrees.To put it another way, the relative error would be 10% no matter what units you're using. So I would write it as 1cm ± 10%.
That post was intended for a different thread (oops). Does anybody know how I can remove it from here?You find n by looking at many drops and noticing that they form bunches. Each bunch correspond to a different value of n. So you just count the bunches starting from n=0 for those drops that were unaffected by the electric field.
However NIST disagrees: