The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
English_Bloke wrote:
> Kat wrote:
> What's all this 'feeling low' and 'depressed' stuff about? are you
> attention seeking again?
>
> *Falls to the floor in dramatic way*
>
> Nah, just feeling completely wiped at the moment, mentally and
> physically. Never mind, two weeks off soon!
Ahh, how come? Training too hard? You need a good woman that's all...
> Kat wrote:
> What's all this 'feeling low' and 'depressed' stuff about? are you
> attention seeking again?
>
> *Falls to the floor in dramatic way*
>
> Nah, just feeling completely wiped at the moment, mentally and
> physically. Never mind, two weeks off soon!
Ahh, how come? Training too hard? You need a good woman that's all...
Heh heh.
"I hate you"
*Storms off to room and slams door*
*Storms off to room and slams door*
Kat wrote:
> are you attention seeking again?
Again?
Again?
How can that be, when he never stops...
I luv ya reely EB, I reely du.
*Ahem*
:-D
> are you attention seeking again?
Again?
Again?
How can that be, when he never stops...
I luv ya reely EB, I reely du.
*Ahem*
:-D
Kat wrote:
> What's all this 'feeling low' and 'depressed' stuff about? are you
> attention seeking again?
*Falls to the floor in dramatic way*
Nah, just feeling completely wiped at the moment, mentally and physically. Never mind, two weeks off soon! well, in a month that is
> What's all this 'feeling low' and 'depressed' stuff about? are you
> attention seeking again?
*Falls to the floor in dramatic way*
Nah, just feeling completely wiped at the moment, mentally and physically. Never mind, two weeks off soon! well, in a month that is
Simon Says wrote:
>
> Well, I'm speculating here, and also I'm probably too late but what
> the hell.
>
> It's a bit like Donald Rumsfeld said " As we know, there are
> known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there
> are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we
> do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't
> know we don't know.
>
> Systematic errors are things we know we don't know.
>
> I'd guess that the systematic uncertainties are things like how
> accurate your measuring devices are. If you have digital scales for
> example, that have 2 D.P. then your error would presumeably be +/-
> 0.005 units. That's a systematic error. If your measuring jugs
> measure down to the ml level then your error is +/- 0.5 ml.
>
> Random errors are things that you can't measure. There is still a way
> to estimate it though, but I don't remember exactly how. I think it
> involves 1/square root of 2 multiplied by your measurement, but I'm
> not sure.
>
> Does that help any, or am I way too late?
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.
>
> Well, I'm speculating here, and also I'm probably too late but what
> the hell.
>
> It's a bit like Donald Rumsfeld said " As we know, there are
> known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there
> are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we
> do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't
> know we don't know.
>
> Systematic errors are things we know we don't know.
>
> I'd guess that the systematic uncertainties are things like how
> accurate your measuring devices are. If you have digital scales for
> example, that have 2 D.P. then your error would presumeably be +/-
> 0.005 units. That's a systematic error. If your measuring jugs
> measure down to the ml level then your error is +/- 0.5 ml.
>
> Random errors are things that you can't measure. There is still a way
> to estimate it though, but I don't remember exactly how. I think it
> involves 1/square root of 2 multiplied by your measurement, but I'm
> not sure.
>
> Does that help any, or am I way too late?
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.
Kat wrote:
>
> Man... I was relying on you to get here and help as well! This course
> is really basic, it's for people with no previous experience in
> scientific study, so I don't think I need to go too deep, they just
> need to know that I understand the difference between random &
> systematic uncertainties. I don't really understand, with regards to
> the wind affecting it, because I can't measure the effects of wind,
> does that make it random or systematic. Cos obviously I don't know to
> what level of uncertainty the wind will affect it, and how well it
> CAN be measured. They wouldn't expect us to know about that level of
> science and they don't ask for a reason why I've chosen random or
> systematic, so basically it's either right or wrong, so I guess I
> have 50/50 chance of getting it right!
Well, I'm speculating here, and also I'm probably too late but what the hell.
It's a bit like Donald Rumsfeld said " As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.
Systematic errors are things we know we don't know.
I'd guess that the systematic uncertainties are things like how accurate your measuring devices are. If you have digital scales for example, that have 2 D.P. then your error would presumeably be +/- 0.005 units. That's a systematic error. If your measuring jugs measure down to the ml level then your error is +/- 0.5 ml.
Random errors are things that you can't measure. There is still a way to estimate it though, but I don't remember exactly how. I think it involves 1/square root of 2 multiplied by your measurement, but I'm not sure.
Does that help any, or am I way too late?
>
> Man... I was relying on you to get here and help as well! This course
> is really basic, it's for people with no previous experience in
> scientific study, so I don't think I need to go too deep, they just
> need to know that I understand the difference between random &
> systematic uncertainties. I don't really understand, with regards to
> the wind affecting it, because I can't measure the effects of wind,
> does that make it random or systematic. Cos obviously I don't know to
> what level of uncertainty the wind will affect it, and how well it
> CAN be measured. They wouldn't expect us to know about that level of
> science and they don't ask for a reason why I've chosen random or
> systematic, so basically it's either right or wrong, so I guess I
> have 50/50 chance of getting it right!
Well, I'm speculating here, and also I'm probably too late but what the hell.
It's a bit like Donald Rumsfeld said " As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.
Systematic errors are things we know we don't know.
I'd guess that the systematic uncertainties are things like how accurate your measuring devices are. If you have digital scales for example, that have 2 D.P. then your error would presumeably be +/- 0.005 units. That's a systematic error. If your measuring jugs measure down to the ml level then your error is +/- 0.5 ml.
Random errors are things that you can't measure. There is still a way to estimate it though, but I don't remember exactly how. I think it involves 1/square root of 2 multiplied by your measurement, but I'm not sure.
Does that help any, or am I way too late?
Simon Says wrote:
> Sounds like you need to do some nice error analysis.
>
> I've got a book on it somewhere but I haven't actually done any in a
> very long time.
Man... I was relying on you to get here and help as well! This course is really basic, it's for people with no previous experience in scientific study, so I don't think I need to go too deep, they just need to know that I understand the difference between random & systematic uncertainties. I don't really understand, with regards to the wind affecting it, because I can't measure the effects of wind, does that make it random or systematic. Cos obviously I don't know to what level of uncertainty the wind will affect it, and how well it CAN be measured. They wouldn't expect us to know about that level of science and they don't ask for a reason why I've chosen random or systematic, so basically it's either right or wrong, so I guess I have 50/50 chance of getting it right!
> Sounds like you need to do some nice error analysis.
>
> I've got a book on it somewhere but I haven't actually done any in a
> very long time.
Man... I was relying on you to get here and help as well! This course is really basic, it's for people with no previous experience in scientific study, so I don't think I need to go too deep, they just need to know that I understand the difference between random & systematic uncertainties. I don't really understand, with regards to the wind affecting it, because I can't measure the effects of wind, does that make it random or systematic. Cos obviously I don't know to what level of uncertainty the wind will affect it, and how well it CAN be measured. They wouldn't expect us to know about that level of science and they don't ask for a reason why I've chosen random or systematic, so basically it's either right or wrong, so I guess I have 50/50 chance of getting it right!
Sounds like you need to do some nice error analysis.
I've got a book on it somewhere but I haven't actually done any in a very long time.
I've got a book on it somewhere but I haven't actually done any in a very long time.
English_Bloke wrote:
> Me? I'm shocked. Shocked and stunned.
What's all this 'feeling low' and 'depressed' stuff about? are you attention seeking again?
> Me? I'm shocked. Shocked and stunned.
What's all this 'feeling low' and 'depressed' stuff about? are you attention seeking again?
Page: