Troubleshooting Gradient Errors in Linear Graphs: Tips and Techniques

AI Thread Summary
To troubleshoot gradient errors in linear graphs, it's essential to calculate the percentage error in the gradient using the RMS error for y-values divided by the change in y. While the graph theoretically should pass through (0,0), forcing the intercept is not advisable unless justified by the data. Experimental values should be accurately represented, and chi-squared minimization can help determine the best fit line constants. Each measurement's uncertainty should be accounted for, as it may not follow standard deviation. Proper error analysis is crucial for reliable results in experiments related to energy levels and magnetic fields.
garyman
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I am trying to work out the error in the gradient for a linear graph. I have worked out the the RMS error for the y-values, but since I am using excel to determine the graident of the graph I am a little unsure about how to work out the percentage error in my gradient from the RMS error. Am i right in thinking that I should work out the gradient by hand using points within my data range and the relative error will be the RMS error (for Y-values)/Change in Y? IS there a simpler way?

I know the graph in theory should pass through (0,0) since the x values are the magnetic field strength, should I force the intercept through (0,0) or just include that point when drawing the line of best fit?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, you will have to be more descriptive. What are your experimental values, and how do they relate to the theory of your experiment? John Taylor has the best error analysis book, and you should try and find it.
 
Its a plot of energy level spittings for transisitions for a cadmium dischrage lamp(J) against varying margnetic field(mT). The Graident of which is the Bohr Magnetron.
 
Alright, but what equation are you using? Are you supposed to interpolate data points for best fit? What is it that you found experimentally (energy?) and what are you calculating with E*B^2/pq (made up)?
 
\DeltaE=2\mu*B ,where E is doublet energy spacing, mu is the Bohr Magnetron and B is the magnetic field strength. I used excel to plot a linear-least squares regression line.
 
This is all taken from Taylor, imagine you have a line of y=A+Bx, and if you want to fit to a line then a chi squared minimization would tell you that the constants will be

A=\frac{\sum x^2 \sum y - \sum x \sum xy}{\Delta}

B = \frac{B \sum xy - \sum x \sum y}{\Delta}

\Delta = N \sum x^2 - (\sum x)^2

The measurements of each yi, in your case the energy, have their own uncertainty that does not necessarily follow the standard deviation, so we do a sort of least squares standard deviation

\sigma_y = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N-2}\sum_{i=1}^N (y_i - A -Bx_i)^2}

and now the uncertainties on each of the constants would follow as

\sigma_A = \sigma_y \sqrt{\frac{\sum x^2}{\Delta}}

and

\sigma_B = \sigma_y \sqrt{\frac{N}{\Delta}}

You should have seen the constant A pass through zero, but if you didn't then you cannot force it. Experimental data must be represented in its entirety unless Chauvenet's Criterion tells you that you can reject a certain point, if you have a measurement way outside the spread of the distribution, say a couple sigma for a normalized distribution.

Is this helpful? Sorry I couldn't get back to you before now.
 
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