When working out the Uncertainties, what to do with the constants?

AI Thread Summary
When calculating uncertainties in the equation Q=mcT, where m and T have uncertainties, the uncertainty in Q can be determined by adding the percentage uncertainties of m and T. The constant c is typically ignored in uncertainty calculations, as its value from tables has minimal uncertainty compared to the experimental uncertainties. If the constant's uncertainty were significant, it would need to be considered only if it matched the magnitude of the experimental uncertainty. For example, in the case of water, the specific heat capacity c is accurate to over one part in 4000, making it negligible for most experiments. In similar equations, such as v=2as, the constant (2) can be ignored, focusing solely on the uncertainties of the measured variables.
acronym
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Q=mcT, variables with uncertainties are m and T.
If it were only Q=mT, the %uncertainty of Q would be %uncertainty of m + % uncertainty of T.

But c=constant (no uncertainties), so what is the uncertainty of Q when Q=mcT? Do you just multiply the constant to the %uncertainties of m and T?
What generally happens to constants when working out uncertainties?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You would normally ignore it, as the value of the constant found in tables would have a very small uncertainty.
Any uncertainty in the constant would need to be of the same order of magnitude as your experimental uncertainty for it to be necessary to include it.
In your example, if it was water you were using, the value of c can be found from tables to be 4186 J/kg. This is presumably accurate to over one part in 4000. Much more than your readings.
If your experiment used data that was more accurate than this, you would need to get the value of c to even greater accuracy.
 
Oh ok I see...
so eg. v=2as,
then would I need to multiply the 2 to the uncertainties of a and s, or would I ignore it like you said?
 
In that formula, just add the % uncertainties in the things you measure. Ignore the 2.
It is the uncertainty in the measured values that you need to account for.
 
ok, thanks so much!
 
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