Interested in linking to "Measure your progress"?
You may use the Headline, Deck, Byline and URL of this article on your Web site. To link to this article, select and copy the HTML code below and paste it on your own Web site.
By Ronald H. Dieck, Ron Dieck Associates, Inc.
Perhaps you are thinking that you are having a great day. Well, let’s hope that you still feel that way after this “pop quiz” on measurement uncertainty terminology and symbols. Dr. Gooddata wants to see how much you’ve learned so far from this series. Hopefully, this quiz will be fun and educational rather than a downer for you. The answers to the questions appear later in this article, but no cheating.
Featured Sponsor
Dr. Gooddata hopes that you aced this quiz (without checking out the answers first, of course). However, just in case you don’t agree with the answers, let’s go over the tough questions.
Consider Question No. 5:
5. You need to calculate degrees of freedom for:
a. random uncertainties taken alone
b. the root-sum-square of systematic uncertainties when infinity cannot be assumed
c. the result uncertainty when infinity cannot be assumed
d. all the above
Well, you need degrees of freedom for all the above: for the random uncertainties in the absence of systematic ones, the RSS (root-sum-square) of systematic uncertainties if degrees of freedom can’t be assumed to be infinity, and for the uncertainty of the result. The last is because we must have the proper degrees of freedom to look up Student’s t95 in the equation for uncertainty even if there are no systematic uncertainties.
How about Question No. 9:
9. When evaluating the combined effects of errors, you should:
a. root-sum-square their estimates
b. algebraically add their estimates
c. use only the larger of the errors
d. use only the smaller of the errors
Here, remember that errors (actual signed displacements from the true value) add algebraically but uncertainties (the estimates of the limits of errors with some confidence) add in root-sum-square. [This also should clear up Question No. 10, too.]
Now for Question No. 11:
11. A “measurement uncertainty” estimate is:
a. the error of an experiment
b. an estimate of an experiment’s or test’s error
c. a reason for legal action in border disputes
d. an estimate of an experiment’s or test’s error limit with some confidence
Remember that the measurement uncertainty is an estimate of the limits to which an error can go with some confidence. The uncertainty is not the error. It is also an estimate of those limits. Some errors will actually exceed the uncertainty limits. In fact, because we calculate uncertainty at 95% confidence, 5% of the time the actual errors will surpass the uncertainty limits.
Don’t forget Question No. 12:
12. When a temperature measurement is reported as 75°F 5°F, the 5°F is:
a. the experimental error
b. an estimate of the experimental error
c. twice the measurement uncertainty
d. none of these
Note that here no answer is correct but “d.” That 5°F is not the error, not an estimate of the error, and not twice the uncertainty. It is an estimate of the limits to which the experimental error can go with some confidence. It is the uncertainty.
Finally, let’s look at Question No. 14:
14. Systematic uncertainties are reported as:
a. two standard deviations
b. the random error
c. one standard deviation
d. one standard deviation of the average
This one is really tricky. Remember that all root-sum-square operations in measurement uncertainty calculations utilize and not . That is, we always use the standard deviation of the average, . When we are dealing with systematic uncertainties, most people estimate them as two standard deviations of the average and then root-sum-square them. How can we do that? Well, we actually have only one shot at each systematic uncertainty in each experiment or test. Remember it is the constant error in our experiment we are estimating with the systematic uncertainty. Well... that means we also have the standard deviation of the average, right? Think about it.
The equation for calculating the standard deviation of the average is: . Because we only have one shot at each systematic error, we’ve only got N =1, so, like magic, = for systematic uncertainties.
So, we’re okay with this. Does that help?
Well, that’s all for now. We’ll try this all on some actual data next time.
Until then, remember, “use numbers, not adjectives.”
Ronald H. Dieck is principal of Ron Dieck Associates, Inc., Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. E-mail him at rondieck@aol.com.
ChemicalProcessing.com focuses exclusively on serving professionals designing and operating plants in the chemical industry. The unique content helps you make your sites as efficient, safe, environmentally friendly and economically competitive as possible.