Practice 0 EXPERIMENTAL ERRORS AND DATA ANALYSIS

G. lvarez-Carreto1, A. Camacho-Perea2, M.A. Carrasco-Raya3, J.A. Estrada-Garca4, B. FuentesRodriguez5

Unidad Profesional Interdisciplinaria en Ingeniera y Tecnologas Avanzadas

Av. Instituto Politcnico Nacional 2580, Barrio La Laguna Ticomn, Gustavo A. Madero, 07340, Mxico .D.F.
1 galvarezc1101@alumno.ipn.mx, 2

acamachop1201@alumno.ipn.mx, 3 mcarrascor1200@alumno.ipn.mx,

4 jestradag1200@hotmail.com, 5bfuentesr1100@alumno.ipn.mx

Abstract
The existence of errors while measuring in an experiment is inevitable, even if we warranty the calibration of the instruments, it must be considered that there are errors caused by the way the measurements are performed, this error percentage must be reported along with the results of the experiment. By performing this experiment, it was possible to observe that even when the same magnitude is measured with the same instrument the obtained measure isnt always the same one. Using some mathematic methods, it is possible to calculate some data, as the standard deviation and the gauss error function, that allow to know how accurate and precise were the performed measurements.

INTRODUCTION
[1]All physical magnitude is real and accurate, When a magnitude is measured we obtain a value, the difference or deviation, that exists between the obtained value and the exact value of the magnitude is called error of measurement, or uncertainty. A distinction between "precision" and "accuracy" of the values of the measures of a physical magnitude must be established, it is said that the result from a measure is "exact" if it is relatively free of systematic error, and accurate" when the random or accidental error is minimum. The fact of knowing that it can never exist a measure without error, forces the investigator to indicate explicitly that the result obtained in a measure isnt entirely reliable or trustworthy. As the likelihood of obtaining the same result at two different measures, carried out under the same conditions is very small, because both devices, the observer and the environment, or the same physical system that is measure are potential causes of error. To obtain more accuracy there isnt another alternative but to the perform a large amount of measures and then to calculate their average value, which will be the most probable value of magnitude. Thus implicitly correcting errors of Parallax which occurs by observing a graduated scale and not being visually normal to it.

THEORY
Measurements are made in science and engineering aim to establish the numerical value of a given magnitude. This numerical value does not correspond to the actual value of the magnitude that is measured, the results obtained in the measurement process are approximate because they are obtained in presence of experimental error. To tackle these values and obtain useful conclusions from them is necessary to evaluate the error associated with the magnitude in question during the measuring process. Any action must be followed by a unit, compulsory the International System Units. When a measurement is being performed, there must be take great care not to cause a disturbance in the system under observation. For example, when measuring the temperature of a body, it gets in touch with a thermometer, when we put them together, some energy or "heat" is exchanged between the body and the thermometer, resulting in a small change in the temperature of the body that we want to measure. Thus, the measuring

instrument somehow affects the amount we wanted to measure also all the measures are affected to some degree by an experimental error. 1.-All experimental results or measurement made in the laboratory must be accompanied by the estimated value of the measurement error, and then the units used. The basic task of the experimenter is to measure magnitudes in order both to establish new laws as to check the validity of other previously established. The measurement process inevitably introduces errors or lack of foresight in the results, due mainly to two factors: >Imperfections of the measuring equipment. >Limitations attributed to the experimenter. The errors of the first type are inevitable because there isnt a perfect measurement device. Human error must be, if not eliminated, reduced to a minimum. The level of imprecision in an experiment can be deduced from the different results of an experiment. Therefore it is very important to provide the measured value as the estimated error collection. Mainly the error analysis has two objectives: >Estimate the errors that are unavoidable. >Minimization of accidental errors. If not seen anything different from what happened with your control, the variable you changed may not affect the system under investigation. If there was a consistent trend, reproducible in their series of experimental runs, there may be experimental errors affecting your results. The first thing to check is how you are doing your measurements. Is the measuring method questionable or unreliable? You may have read a scale incorrectly, or the measuring instrument is working erratically. If you determine that experimental errors are influencing your results, carefully rethink the design of the experiments. Review each step of the process to find potential sources of error. If possible, have a scientist review the procedure. The design experiment can sometimes fail obvious. Random Errors If your measurement method is not the cause, try to determine if the error is systematic or random.

The random errors are more obvious. They result in reproducible data that make no sense. In this case, the runs with the same combination of variables, and even control itself cannot be duplicated. Some randomness is always present in nature. You must judge whether the differences in the data can be explained by natural randomness. A random error can occur because you are doing something different in each run. For example, neglect cleaning the reaction vessels and some of the remaining chemicals from previous experiment passed to the next. Scientists use several statistical tests to determine if the differences between the runs are due to natural randomness, or have something to do with the way in which the experiments are being performed. Systematic Errors Systematic errors are more difficult to find. Your data and results may appear consistent and reproducible. In this case you can be doing something that youre not aware of - that makes all the actions wrong and diverted by the same magnitude. For example, if you are not aware that the ruler is chipped and missing 2 mm, all measurements made with that ruler will be wrong, giving an error of 2 mm of excess. This is a systematic error because all data are affected in the same quantities, and in the same direction. One way to check for systematic errors is to design different experiments to be giving the same answers. Scientists often make different kinds of experiments to cross its results. Another way to locate errors is to make an independent investigator repeat their experiments. Others must obtain the same results that you obtained. [2] In probability theory, the normal (or Gaussian) distribution is a continuous probability distribution, defined by the formula

The parameter in this formula is the mean or expectation of the distribution (and also its median and mode). The parameter is its standard deviation; its variance is therefore 2. A random variable with a Gaussian distribution is said to be

normally distributed and is called a normal deviate. If = 0 and = 1, the distribution is called the standard normal distribution or the unit normal distribution, and a random variable with that distribution is a standard normal deviate. Normal distributions are extremely important in statistics, and are often used in the natural and social sciences for real-valued random variables whose distributions are not known. [3]

Description of the experiment

The first set of measurements began with dropping of two tennis balls, from the second floor of a building. There were dropped 2 different balls and the time it took them to fall to the ground was measured with one different timer each one. Two colleagues measured the times. this experiment was performed 30 times with each ball and thus with each timer. In the second set of measurements there was used meters and measuring tapes, in order to measure a laboratory table, just as in the other set of measurements 30 measurements were performed with each device. For the third and last set, with the same instruments, a hallway was measure, 30 times with each instrument. After performing the experiment the frequencies of each result were obtained, also it was necessary to graph the histograms of each set of measurements in order to graph the Gaussian bell we apply to the practice .

Results
Chronometer 1 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.25 1.2 1.1 1
14

Frequencies 1 3 1 3 13 6 3

12

10

Frecuencias

0 1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25 1.3 Lecturas

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

Distribucin normal 3.5

2.5

P(x)
1.5 1 0.5 0 1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2 x

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

Distribucin normal

Chronometer 2 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 1

14

Frequencies 4 13 9 3 1
P(x)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 1.48

1.485

1.49

1.495 x

1.5

1.505

1.51

1.515

12

10

0 1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2 Lecturas

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

Distribucin normal 4

3.5

Table length (ruler) 1.52 1.511 1.51 1.513 1.498 1.496 1.5 1.499 1.501
14

Frequencies 2 3 1 1 3 1 13 3 3

Frecuencias
P(x)

2.5

1.5

12

10

0.5 1

Frecuencias

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2 x

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

0 1.495

1.5

1.505 Lecturas

1.51

1.515

1.52

Table length (flexometer) 1.498

Frequencies 30

Distribucin normal 70

60

30

50

40

25

P(x)
30 20 10 0 1.49

20

Frecuencias

15

1.495

1.5

1.505 x

1.51

1.515

1.52

1.525

10

0 1.498

1.4982

1.4984

1.4986 1.4988 Lecturas

1.499

1.4992

1.4994

Hall lenght (flexometer) 6.55 6.555 6.56 6.561 6.54 6.554

Frequencies 7
Frecuencias

7 6

7 2 1 1 12

5 4 3 2 1 0 6.548

6.55

6.552

6.554

6.556 Lecturas

6.558

6.56

6.562

6.564

12

Distribucin normal
10

120

100

Frecuencias

80

P(x)
6.545 6.55 6.555 Lecturas 6.56 6.565 6.57

60

40

0 6.54

20

0 6.54

6.545

6.55

6.555 x

6.56

6.565

6.57

6.575

Distribucin normal 120

100

80

P(x)

60

MEASUREMENTS

40

x Mean 1.5029

Standard deviation 0.0065

Variance

20

0 6.53

Table (ruler)
6.535 6.54 6.545 6.55 x 6.555 6.56 6.565 6.57 6.575

0.0805

Table (flexometer) Hall lenght (ruler) 6.55 6.56 6.556 6.557 6.555 6.549 6.561 6.553 6.548 6.551 6.554 6.552 Frequencies 8 2 3 1 6 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 Ball (chronometer 1) Ball (chronometer 2) Hall (ruler)

1.498 0.00018257

0.0135

1.1983

0.1185

0.3443

1.2

0.105

0.3241

6.5531

0.0036

0.0598

Hall (flexometer)

6.5535

0.0038

0.062

Conclusion
The results of this experiment confirmed the initial hypothesis, that stated that the measurements obtained in an experiment there are always errors that affects the measures obtained. The error function allow us to observe that the standard deviation value wasnt very high, so we can conclude that the errors presented while doing the measurements were almost inexistent in some of the measurements that were performed, in other cases this value was bigger, on this cases it can be said that the measurements performed werent very precise. This experiment allow us to observe that the precision of the experiment depends on the instrument used an the person who performed the measurements

Bibliography
[1]Fsica experimental, F.J. Glvez Martnez, R. Lpez Rodrguez. Editorial Universidad Politcnica de Valencia. Pg. 8-10. [2] Introduccin a la metodologa experimental. Gutirrez Aranzeta. Edit. Limusa 2da edicin, 1999. [3] Normal Distribution, Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology