Appendix 5 ‘Treatment of errors (@) Types of error. Experimental errors cause a measure ‘ment to differ from its true value and are of two main types, (BA systematic error may be due to an incorrectly cali- brated scale on, for example, a ruler or ammeter. Repeating the observation does not help and the existence of the error may not be suspected until the final result is calculated and checked, say by a different experimental method. If the systematic error is small a measurement is accurate (ii) A random error arises in any measurement, usually when the observer has 10 estimate the last figure, possibly in an instrument which lacks sensitivity. Random errors are small for a good experimenter and taking the mean of a number of separate measurements reduces them in all cases. A measure- ‘ment with a small random error is precise but it may not be accurate. Fig. AS.la shows random errors only in a meter reading, whilst in Fig. AS.1b there is systematic error as well Repeated readings True value .— scale Fie value Pointer (a) Random error (b) Systematic error + Fig. AS.1 (b) Estimating errors in single measurements. In more ad vanced work, if systematic errors are not eliminated they can be corrected from the observations: made q assume they do not exist and then make a reasonable estimate Of the likely random error, Two examples follow Using a metre rule the length of an object is measured as 2.3 em. At very worst the answer might be 2.2 or 2.4 em, the maximum error itis possible to make using a ruler marked The possible error (p.e.), is said to be Here we sh possible error (p.p.c.) is (40.1 x 100)/2.3 = 48% Using verier calipers capable of measuring £00.01 em the length of the same object might be read as (2.36 + 0.01) em. In this case the pie. is £0.01 cm and the p-p.e. is (£0.01 > 1002.36 = 40.4% Ia large number of readings of one quantity are taken the amean vale is likely to be close tothe tue value and statistical methods enable a probable error 1 be estimated. Here, we adopt the simpler procedure of estimating the maximum error likely, i.e. the possible error. (©) Combining errors. The result of an experiments usually calculated from an expression containing the different quant. ties measured, The combined effect of the errors in the various ‘measurements has to be estimated. Three simple cases will be considered. (i) Sum. Suppose the quantity Q we requite, is related fo ‘quantities a and b which we have measured, by the equation Q=atb Then total pie. in Q= pe in a+ pee. in 6. Thus it a=5.1£0.1cem and 6=32+0.lem then Q= 8.3 + 0.2 cm. That is, in the worst eases, if both a and b are read 0.1 em too high Q = (5.2 + 3.3) = 8.5 em, but if both are 0.1 em too low then Q = (5.0 + 3.1) = 8.1 em. (ii) Difference. IQ = a ~ b, the same rule applies, i. the total p.e. in Q = pe. ina + pee. inb. (ii) Product and quotient. I the individual measuremens hve to be multiplied or divided it can be shown that the total percentage possible error equals the sum ofthe separate percen- {age possible errors. For example, if a,b and ¢ are measure iments made and ab? ° thon if the pape. in a is +2%%, that in bis £1% and thatin eis £2, then the p.p.e. in B? is 2(+1)% = +2% and in els M22)% = 1%, Hence total pipe. in Q = (ppc. ina + ppe. in b? + papee. in 2) 2+24 1) = 45% The answer for Q will therefore be accurate to 1 part in 20 and, if the numerical result for Q is 1.8 then itis written Q=1844Xx18= 18401 It would not be justifiable to write Q = 1,852 since this would be claiming an accuracy of a few units in 1852. According t0 ‘our estimate this accuracy is not possible with the apparatus used. ; It is instructive to estimate whenever possible the total p.p.c. for an experiment; it indicates (i) the number of Significant figures that can be givem in the result, (i) the limits ‘within which the result les and (i) the measurements requit= ing particular care. There is little point in making one ‘measurement {0 a very high degree of accuracy if itis not possible with the others: a chain is only as strong as the ‘weakest link