Strange Result of Error Calculation

AI Thread Summary
The experiment involved measuring the bending of X-Rays in a NaCl crystal to determine the K_{\alpha} and K_{\beta} wavelengths using the Bragg equation. An initial error in theta was calculated at 0.3 degrees, leading to unexpectedly high error values of around 100 pm for the wavelengths of 64 pm and 72 pm. A comparison with another lab report indicated a significant discrepancy in error calculations, prompting a review of the conversion of theta from degrees to radians. After converting to radians, the error in wavelength was recalculated to be 2.9 pm. The discussion highlights the importance of unit conversion in error analysis for accurate results.
Lunar_Lander
Messages
33
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



We conducted an experiment on the bending of X-Rays in crystals and determined the K_{\alpha},K_{\beta} lines of the first order and the corresponding wavelenghts of the radiation by means of the Bragg equation. We used a NaCl crystal with a d=283 pm. We determined the error of theta to be 0.3 degrees. Our two wavelenghts for the two lines were then 64 and 72 pm respectively. Inserting the respective values into the second equation given under (2) to obtain the errors, results in strange high errors, such as 100 pm.

Homework Equations



\lambda=\frac{2d \cdot \sin(\theta)}{n}
\delta\lambda=\frac{2d \cdot \cos(\theta)}{n} \cdot d\theta

The Attempt at a Solution


Comparison with a similar lab report (where the wavelenghts were 72 pm and the error of theta 0.2 degrees) showed that when I inserted their values, I also obtained errors of about 100 pm instead of the 1 pm they had obtained as a result. I cannot understand why using the same formula with the same variables gives numbers which deviate by a factor of 100.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you converted \delta\theta to radians?
 
I now did and now I calculated the new \delta\theta=5.24~mrad. With that I get \delta\lambda=2.9~pm. Thanks!
 
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 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
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