Undergrad Understanding Measurement Uncertainty: Calculating Accuracy and Precision

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding measurement uncertainty, particularly how to calculate accuracy and precision. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between systematic and statistical uncertainties, with systematic errors being consistent across measurements and statistical errors varying randomly. The conversation also touches on the two types of uncertainty estimates: Type A, which relies on repeated measurements, and Type B, which incorporates manufacturer specifications like accuracy and calibration tolerance. Participants emphasize the need to consult manufacturers for clarity on how these specifications relate to uncertainty. Overall, a comprehensive grasp of both types of uncertainties is essential for accurate measurement analysis.
fonz
Messages
151
Reaction score
5
I have seen similar threads on here but not one with any detailed answer so I felt I would ask myself.

I took a short undergrad module in measurement and uncertainty, intended to prepare for the numerous lab sessions and reports that would follow in the proceeding modules. In that particular module the concept of uncertainty was introduced along with a basic method of calculating the uncertainty from a set of results. Without going into detail the method to calculate the uncertainty essentially relied upon repeated measurements to be taken and the uncertainty derived by some statistical analysis of the results.

What never crossed my mind at the time was the question where does the accuracy (and precision) of the instrument used to record the results factor into this estimate?

Suppose that I were to make just one measurement using an instrument with a specified accuracy then want to find the uncertainty of the measurement I have just made, how is this acheived?

And finally, let's say I have the stated accuracy of the instrument from the manufacturer and the calibration tolerance. What is the relationship between the two and how do they contribute to the uncertainty?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general you can split your uncertainty into two components:
- systematic: you are wrong in the same way no matter how often you repeat the measurement. This can be a ruler that is too long or a poorly calibrated scale or similar things.
- statistical: you are wrong in a random way each measurement. You can often estimate this by taking multiple measurements. If that is not feasible you can use other, experiment-dependent approaches to estimate this uncertainty.
fonz said:
And finally, let's say I have the stated accuracy of the instrument from the manufacturer and the calibration tolerance.
If in doubt, ask the manufacturer.
 
mfb said:
In general you can split your uncertainty into two components:
- systematic: you are wrong in the same way no matter how often you repeat the measurement. This can be a ruler that is too long or a poorly calibrated scale or similar things.
- statistical: you are wrong in a random way each measurement. You can often estimate this by taking multiple measurements. If that is not feasible you can use other, experiment-dependent approaches to estimate this uncertainty.
If in doubt, ask the manufacturer.

Thank you for your reply. When you say experiment-dependent approaches is there a standard for estimating uncertainty in this way?

EDIT: I just did a quick Wikipedia search and found that there are two types of uncertainty estimates; Type A and Type B. I suspect that the module I took described the Type A method whereas my question appears to be answered by the description of the Type B method. Can you confirm?

Also, is the calibration tolerance a measure of uncertainty in the same way that the manufacturer's stated accuracy is a measure of uncertainty? and are they systematic uncertainties, random uncertainties or a combination of both?
 
Last edited:
fonz said:
Thank you for your reply. When you say experiment-dependent approaches is there a standard for estimating uncertainty in this way?
It depends on the experiment and the analysis method, there is no rule that fits all (or even most) experiments.
fonz said:
I suspect that the module I took described the Type A method whereas my question appears to be answered by the description of the Type B method. Can you confirm?
Yes.
fonz said:
Also, is the calibration tolerance a measure of uncertainty in the same way that the manufacturer's stated accuracy is a measure of uncertainty?
Ask the manufacturer.
fonz said:
and are they systematic uncertainties, random uncertainties or a combination of both?
If you use the same scale for all measurements, a wrong scale will have the same deviation in every measurement (assuming the measurements are not done at completely different points of the scale). It is a systematic uncertainty.
 
  • Like
Likes fonz
mfb said:
It depends on the experiment and the analysis method, there is no rule that fits all (or even most) experiments.Yes.
Ask the manufacturer.If you use the same scale for all measurements, a wrong scale will have the same deviation in every measurement (assuming the measurements are not done at completely different points of the scale). It is a systematic uncertainty.

Very helpful thank you.
 
You may be able to estimate the error of an instrument if you understand how the instrument works.
If you are visually estimating a length against a set of graduations (like a ruler, or a graduated cylinder with liquid), the rule of thumb is that the error is 1/10 of a graduation. If the device is sensitive to electronics noise, you may be able to calculate the thermal noise in an amplifier and noise in a A/D converter.
If the device is a photon counting device, then your intensity measurement will have a shot noise component, proportional to sqrt(n). There may be other sources of noise that also contribute.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
729
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
634
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K