The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm trying to finish an assignment and I keep coming back to this annoying thing about systematic and random uncertainties.
If anyone knows anything that could possibly help I will be eternally grateful! It's driving me mad!
I've done a precipitation recording experiment, and I have the data, but they need 3 examples of uncertainties, at least 1 systematic and 1 random. The 3 uncertainties I thought of are:
Wind affecting the level of water that goes in the pot, which could mean that the levels are either reduced or increased, but you cannot measure it, so it's a random uncertainty.
Rain splashing off the funnel, so less water and systematic uncertainty as I could prevent it by placing something on top of the pot to ensure the splashes go back into the pot.
and the pot falling over, which would be less water and a systematic uncertainty as it is just one loss of water, not a constant loss.
I have no idea if any of that is right, and I'm so bored of doing web research and being even more confused!
Any advice you can give would be seriously helpful.
Thanks!
If anyone knows anything that could possibly help I will be eternally grateful! It's driving me mad!
I've done a precipitation recording experiment, and I have the data, but they need 3 examples of uncertainties, at least 1 systematic and 1 random. The 3 uncertainties I thought of are:
Wind affecting the level of water that goes in the pot, which could mean that the levels are either reduced or increased, but you cannot measure it, so it's a random uncertainty.
Rain splashing off the funnel, so less water and systematic uncertainty as I could prevent it by placing something on top of the pot to ensure the splashes go back into the pot.
and the pot falling over, which would be less water and a systematic uncertainty as it is just one loss of water, not a constant loss.
I have no idea if any of that is right, and I'm so bored of doing web research and being even more confused!
Any advice you can give would be seriously helpful.
Thanks!
Page:
H²O wrote:
> Kat wrote:
> H²O wrote:
> Top your self with drugs.
>
> Now now. What if I was 8 posing as a 25 year old?
>
> All the more reason in my opinion.
Talking of topping yourself with drugs did you see that programme on a couple of months ago about a guy who overdosed purposefully live on his webcam while his parents were sleeping in the next room, and everyone on this forum (bad forum, bad) were encouraging him to do more.
Freaky.
> Kat wrote:
> H²O wrote:
> Top your self with drugs.
>
> Now now. What if I was 8 posing as a 25 year old?
>
> All the more reason in my opinion.
Talking of topping yourself with drugs did you see that programme on a couple of months ago about a guy who overdosed purposefully live on his webcam while his parents were sleeping in the next room, and everyone on this forum (bad forum, bad) were encouraging him to do more.
Freaky.
Yeah, I'm just one, smart pimpin' machine...
*runs*
*runs*
English_Bloke wrote:
> Kat wrote:
> Ahh, how come? Training too hard?
>
> Working/training. I go out on my own very soon and do you know what
> that means? A nice big pay raise.
I hate you
>
> You need a good woman that's all...
>
> True...but I also need a bad woman...
You should get one from Icarus - his ones put him in hospital...
> Kat wrote:
> Ahh, how come? Training too hard?
>
> Working/training. I go out on my own very soon and do you know what
> that means? A nice big pay raise.
I hate you
>
> You need a good woman that's all...
>
> True...but I also need a bad woman...
You should get one from Icarus - his ones put him in hospital...
Kat wrote:
> H²O wrote:
> Top your self with drugs.
>
> Now now. What if I was 8 posing as a 25 year old?
All the more reason in my opinion.
> H²O wrote:
> Top your self with drugs.
>
> Now now. What if I was 8 posing as a 25 year old?
All the more reason in my opinion.
Kat wrote:
> Ahh, how come? Training too hard?
Working/training. I go out on my own very soon and do you know what that means? A nice big pay raise.
> You need a good woman that's all...
True...but I also need a bad woman...
> Ahh, how come? Training too hard?
Working/training. I go out on my own very soon and do you know what that means? A nice big pay raise.
> You need a good woman that's all...
True...but I also need a bad woman...
Simon Says wrote:
> Yeah, I'm pretty busy at the moment, plus I'm demonstrating less, and
> when I am the students deadlines are getting close which means
> they're panicing and asking more and more questions.
Oops sorry, you come on here to get away from work and have another student asking you awkward questions!
>
> I'm not sure I understand your problem. How do you know the expriment
> as a whole has an uncertainty of 0.5mm?
Well because I'm measuring in millimetres it says that the uncertainty will be 0.5mm as that's the range of uncertainty.
>
> Wind is a bit of a difficult one. If the wind is a nice uniform wind
> of constant velocity and direction and the rain is nice uniform rain
> then it shouldn't change your results at all, because for every
> amount of rain that misses your vessel because of the wind another
> one will hit it that wouldn't have otherwise, but wind and rain
> aren't like that, so the wind probably could be classed as a random
> uncertainty.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks for that.
>
> For example if you have a large diameter then the height measurement
> might be far more important incomparison. I'd probably consider
> evapouration to be a good random error that you could consider. The
> random errors are far harder to consider because you'll do your best
> to eliminate them (e.g. not letting your housemate take a leak in
> your experiment) but some things cannot be avoided.
Well they list evaporation as a systematic error, so it kind of throws me!
>
> If you knew that the pot had fallen over then you would probably just
> consider that result useless and move on. Similarly if the pot was
> entirely full.
Oh, so you think I shouldn't use that example as an uncertainty?
>
> Hope that helps a little
Thanks, I appreciate your help x
> Yeah, I'm pretty busy at the moment, plus I'm demonstrating less, and
> when I am the students deadlines are getting close which means
> they're panicing and asking more and more questions.
Oops sorry, you come on here to get away from work and have another student asking you awkward questions!
>
> I'm not sure I understand your problem. How do you know the expriment
> as a whole has an uncertainty of 0.5mm?
Well because I'm measuring in millimetres it says that the uncertainty will be 0.5mm as that's the range of uncertainty.
>
> Wind is a bit of a difficult one. If the wind is a nice uniform wind
> of constant velocity and direction and the rain is nice uniform rain
> then it shouldn't change your results at all, because for every
> amount of rain that misses your vessel because of the wind another
> one will hit it that wouldn't have otherwise, but wind and rain
> aren't like that, so the wind probably could be classed as a random
> uncertainty.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks for that.
>
> For example if you have a large diameter then the height measurement
> might be far more important incomparison. I'd probably consider
> evapouration to be a good random error that you could consider. The
> random errors are far harder to consider because you'll do your best
> to eliminate them (e.g. not letting your housemate take a leak in
> your experiment) but some things cannot be avoided.
Well they list evaporation as a systematic error, so it kind of throws me!
>
> If you knew that the pot had fallen over then you would probably just
> consider that result useless and move on. Similarly if the pot was
> entirely full.
Oh, so you think I shouldn't use that example as an uncertainty?
>
> Hope that helps a little
Thanks, I appreciate your help x
Kat wrote:
>
> Thanks Si, you're not too late, I'm scared of guessing, just cos I
> hate getting stuff wrong!
>
> I do understand what you're saying but I can't seem to apply that to
> my actual uncertainties! I mean, for my experiment as a whole the
> uncertianty is 0.5mm. But for each individual uncertainty I can't
> figure out how to work out whether that is systematic or random.
>
> What would you say for the wind then?
>
> How are you by the way? Busy? You haven't been on here for a while.
Yeah, I'm pretty busy at the moment, plus I'm demonstrating less, and when I am the students deadlines are getting close which means they're panicing and asking more and more questions.
I'm not sure I understand your problem. How do you know the expriment as a whole has an uncertainty of 0.5mm?
Wind is a bit of a difficult one. If the wind is a nice uniform wind of constant velocity and direction and the rain is nice uniform rain then it shouldn't change your results at all, because for every amount of rain that misses your vessel because of the wind another one will hit it that wouldn't have otherwise, but wind and rain aren't like that, so the wind probably could be classed as a random uncertainty.
I think I'd be right in saying that there is a systematic error associated with everything you measure in your experiment because of the limited accuracy of your measuring tools. e.g. the height of the liquid, the time span you conduct your experiment for, and if you're converting your height measurement into a volume then there will be errors with all the measurements there. e.g diameter of the vessel. These errors all get carried through your calculations but you may find that some are far more significant than others.
For example if you have a large diameter then the height measurement might be far more important incomparison. I'd probably consider evapouration to be a good random error that you could consider. The random errors are far harder to consider because you'll do your best to eliminate them (e.g. not letting your housemate take a leak in your experiment) but some things cannot be avoided.
If you knew that the pot had fallen over then you would probably just consider that result useless and move on. Similarly if the pot was entirely full.
Hope that helps a little
>
> Thanks Si, you're not too late, I'm scared of guessing, just cos I
> hate getting stuff wrong!
>
> I do understand what you're saying but I can't seem to apply that to
> my actual uncertainties! I mean, for my experiment as a whole the
> uncertianty is 0.5mm. But for each individual uncertainty I can't
> figure out how to work out whether that is systematic or random.
>
> What would you say for the wind then?
>
> How are you by the way? Busy? You haven't been on here for a while.
Yeah, I'm pretty busy at the moment, plus I'm demonstrating less, and when I am the students deadlines are getting close which means they're panicing and asking more and more questions.
I'm not sure I understand your problem. How do you know the expriment as a whole has an uncertainty of 0.5mm?
Wind is a bit of a difficult one. If the wind is a nice uniform wind of constant velocity and direction and the rain is nice uniform rain then it shouldn't change your results at all, because for every amount of rain that misses your vessel because of the wind another one will hit it that wouldn't have otherwise, but wind and rain aren't like that, so the wind probably could be classed as a random uncertainty.
I think I'd be right in saying that there is a systematic error associated with everything you measure in your experiment because of the limited accuracy of your measuring tools. e.g. the height of the liquid, the time span you conduct your experiment for, and if you're converting your height measurement into a volume then there will be errors with all the measurements there. e.g diameter of the vessel. These errors all get carried through your calculations but you may find that some are far more significant than others.
For example if you have a large diameter then the height measurement might be far more important incomparison. I'd probably consider evapouration to be a good random error that you could consider. The random errors are far harder to consider because you'll do your best to eliminate them (e.g. not letting your housemate take a leak in your experiment) but some things cannot be avoided.
If you knew that the pot had fallen over then you would probably just consider that result useless and move on. Similarly if the pot was entirely full.
Hope that helps a little
Kat wrote:
>
> Ahh, how come? Training too hard? You need a good woman that's all...
That'll probably put him in hospital for ever... :)
>
> Ahh, how come? Training too hard? You need a good woman that's all...
That'll probably put him in hospital for ever... :)
H²O wrote:
> Top your self with drugs.
Now now. What if I was 8 posing as a 25 year old?
> Top your self with drugs.
Now now. What if I was 8 posing as a 25 year old?
Top your self with drugs.
Page: