Uncertainty Calculation for a Complex Formula with Known Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesJames
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Error
Click For Summary
To calculate the uncertainty of the formula q = [exp(x/2)][t^(1/2)], one must consider the known uncertainties in x and t, as they both influence q. The appropriate method for this is to use the error propagation formula: δq² = (∂q/∂t)² δt² + (∂q/∂x)² δx², which accounts for how changes in x and t affect q. While some debate exists about the strictness of this approach, it is widely accepted for independent variables. Resources like the NIST and NPL websites provide extensive material on uncertainty analysis, and John Mandel's work is recommended for further understanding. Mastering error calculation is crucial for accurate experimental data analysis.
JamesJames
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
How do I calculate the uncertainty of


q = [exp(x/2)][t^(1/2)]

where both x and t have known uncertainties.

I could have done the thing if there was no exp(x/2) term. But that term is causing me a lot of stress.

Can someone please help me.
I am really confused.
James
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In one of my lab courses, we were given a short write-up on error analysis. It gave the formula that I'm going to put below. So you are trying to calculate a quantity q that depends on two other quantities you have measured (and therefore whose experimental uncertainties you know): x and t. Well, the uncertainty in both x and in t will affect the error in q, because q depends on both. Assuming that x and t are independent variables, the formula we were given for "Errors propagating through a functional relationship:"

\delta q^2 = \left(\frac{\partial q}{\partial t}\right)^2 \delta t^2 + \left(\frac{\partial q}{\partial x}\right)^2 \delta x^2

where delta q represents the uncertainty in q, for example. This formula makes sense to me sort of, because the uncertainty in q depends on the individual uncertainties in x and t, as well as the rate at which q changes with each one. For instance, if dq/dt (<--meant to be partial) is large, the even a small delta t will affect q significantly. However, a friend of mine with a math BSc was telling me that these formulas aren't strictly correct, and that you're not actually supposed to be doing calculus per se. Error analysis seems to me to be a very complicated, convoluted subject. Hopefully somebody here will be able to comment on whether using this formula is indeed the best method.
 
At this time the formula that cephid quoted is correct. You have KNOWN errors, the problem arises when you do not know the errors. I have been reading a lot about error calculation lately because my employer needs to know the no (&()&) error for some of the apparatuses we use and bought commercially. The calculation of errors is essentially a mathematical problem, a very complex mathematical problem. If you go to the NIST website (www.nist.gov[/url]) or the NPL ([url]www.npl.co.uk[/URL]) and look for uncertainty analysis you'll find a massive amount of material out there. A good place to start is with John Mandel, Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data, I have learned enough to be somewhat dangerous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K