The discussion revolves around identifying factors that may cause discrepancies between the experimental value of acceleration due to gravity and the accepted value in free fall experiments. Participants explore various potential sources of error, including air resistance, human error, instrument error, and calibration issues.
The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the nature of errors and their potential impact on the results. Some guidance has been offered regarding the importance of specificity in describing the experimental setup, particularly in relation to the role of human error and instrument calibration.
Participants note that the experimental setup involved a picket fence and a photogate, which may influence the types of errors that are relevant to the discussion. There is a recognition that certain factors may have varying degrees of impact depending on the specifics of the experiment.
Delphi51 said:All of those plus g does vary a little on the Earth's surface. Oil companies actually use the variation to find likely oil fields.
Much depends on how you measured g. The usual approach is to estimate the inaccuracy in measured quantities and "propagate" those errors through to the final calculated answer.
nnis13 said:So all these (air resistance , human error , instruments error or wrong calibration) are true? Because it's a question i have to answer for an experiment
ideasrule said:Well, exactly how did you do the experiment? If we tell you "air resistance" and the experiment used a vacuum chamber, that isn't too useful, is it?
nnis13 said:It was an experiment with a picket fence and a photogate
ideasrule said:Well, then there's no human error because a computer is doing the measurements. (You could of course say there's an error associated with the person dropping the picket fence--and in fact that's the main source of error here--but you have to be way more specific.) Instrument error, calibration errors, etc. are all valid, but they probably play a small role.