Scribd
Upload
63 views5 pages

Error Analysis: Total Area 1.8326 M 0.0039

This document discusses various sources of error in an experiment involving dilution, pipetting, measurement, timing of results, calibration of equipment, and placement of samples in the equipment. It identifies potential random errors from a single reading and systematic errors from inconsistent procedures. Specific systematic errors discussed include timing of culture transport and removal from incubation, as well as calculation of errors when combining random and systematic error sources for temperature differences, heat load, and overall heat transfer coefficients.

Uploaded by

Daniel Dube
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views5 pages

Error Analysis: Total Area 1.8326 M 0.0039

This document discusses various sources of error in an experiment involving dilution, pipetting, measurement, timing of results, calibration of equipment, and placement of samples in the equipment. It identifies potential random errors from a single reading and systematic errors from inconsistent procedures. Specific systematic errors discussed include timing of culture transport and removal from incubation, as well as calculation of errors when combining random and systematic error sources for temperature differences, heat load, and overall heat transfer coefficients.

Uploaded by

Daniel Dube
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Error analysis

This experiment has several steps and each one gives potential for error. Possible errors in
this experiment are in the following steps; dilution, pipetting and measurement. Systematic
errors found in this experiment are poor timing of taking/recording results and the uv-vis
spectrometer was not calibrated after being used by different groups. Another systematic
error is; a wrong reading was recorded due to cuvette being placed wrongly in the uv-vis
spectrometer and it took an extra two minutes to rectify the mistake.
It is not possible to determine random error; because only one reading was taken for each
step. The random error is based on a set of readings. It is equal to the standard deviation.

There are several other errors which contributed to the result obtained being different
from the expected pattern. These include;
 The sample took about 3 – 4 minutes to reach the last bench on which this
experiment was conducted. In this case the flask containing the culture had been
opened several times, this might have contributed to replication of bacteria
starting earlier than expected.
 Sometimes the shake flask was brought out of the incubator before the correct
time for the sample to be taken out.

Random Errors –
Random errors cause the measured value to be different from the expected value, they
usually result in higher recorded value.

Systematic Errors –
The systematic error for a reading is stated as ± half the smallest value.
Sampl Absorbance Systematic Error
e
A 0.240 ±0.0005
B 0.383 ±0.0005
C 0.523 ±0.0005
D 0.966 ±0.0005
E 1.210 ±0.0005
Table 3 Table of systematic errors for raw data

Area – Length = 0.748 ± 0.0005m


Width = 0.245 ± 0.0005m

Total Area=1.8326 m2 ± 0.0039


Combining Random and Systematic Errors –

To obtain the total error for the raw data the random and systematic errors were combined.
This was done using the following method:

Error for Steam Pressure (PT68) at 50% flowrate –


ε =√ ε r 2+ε s2
¿ √ 0.03442 +0.00052
¿ 0.0344

The total errors calculated are shown above in Table 1 alongside the results from the raw
data.

4.1 Example Error Calculation -

Log mean heating Temperature difference error – Top line

2 2
ε Thm=√ ( 0.033 ) + ( 0.0097 )
¿ 0.0011

Log mean heating Temperature difference error – Bottom line


0.033 2 0.0097 2
ε Thm=0.0942 ×

¿ 9.345 ×10−5
√( 36.4068
+ ) (
24.058 )
Log mean heating Temperature difference error total
2
0.0011 2 9.345 ×10−5
ε Thm=131.15 ×

¿ 0.141
√( 11.99)(+
0.0942 )
Therefore T hm =131.15℃ ± 0.141
Log mean cooling Temperature difference error – Top line

2 2 2 2
ε Tcm=√( 0.1337 ) + ( 0.005 ) + ( 0.0641 ) + ( 0.0097 )
¿ 0.1487

Log mean cooling Temperature difference error – Bottom line subtraction


2 2
ε Thm=√ ( 0.0097 ) + ( 0.005 )
¿ 1.191× 10−4

2 2
ε Thm=√ ( 0.0641 ) + ( 0.1337 )
¿ 0.148

Log mean cooling Temperature difference error – Bottom line division


−4 2 2
ε Thm=0.536

¿ 0.0171
√( 1.191 ×10
14.808 )(
+
0.148
8.6598 )
Log mean cooling Temperature difference error total -
0.1487 2 0.0171 2
ε Thm=11.46 ×

¿ 0.03
√( )(
6.1482
+
0.536 )
Therefore T cm=11.46 ℃ ± 0.03

Heat load error -


0.7597 2 36.41−24.06 2
45.582
ε q=
60
¿ 1410.5 W
× 4.187 × ( 36.41−24.06 ) ×
√( 2.584 ) (
+
0.34396 )
Therefore Q=39.28 kW ± 1.41
Overall heat Transfer Coefficient Error -

1.41 2 0.039 2 0.03 2


ε Uc=1.870×
√(
¿ 0.067 kW /m 2 K
)(
39.28
+ ) (
1.8326
+
11.46 )
Therefore U c =1.870 kW /m2 K ±0.067

1.41 2 0.039 2 0.141 2


ε Uh=0.295 ×
√(
¿ 0.011 kW /m2 K
) (
39.28
+ )(
1.8326
+
131.15 )
Therefore U c =1.870 kW /m2 K ±0.011

You might also like