RANDOM AND

EXPERIMENTAL
ERRORS
 Objectives
The learners will be able to:

• differentiate random errors from systematic

errors
• estimate errors from multiple measurements
of a physical quantity using variance
• develop patience in listing down some
common source of errors and how to prevent it
 Let’s Throw It!
Pre Activity
Needed materials:
• Small Ball (You can use paper ball)
• Stop watch (You can use stop watch of the cellphone, watch)
• Paper and pen
 Procedure

1.Prepare the necessary materials.

2.Get a pen and paper and copy the
table below.

3.
3. Get the initial data. Throw
the ball upward and use the
stop watch to get the time in
which the ball reaches the
ground.
4. Input the initial data per
second.
•5. After 3 minutes, throw
again the ball to get the data
for Trial
• 6. Repeat the step 5 for the
succeeding trials.
 Guide Questions:
1. What can you observe on the data
you’ve gathered?
2. Why do you think the data is not
consistent?
All experimental uncertainty is due
to either random errors or
systematic errors. Random errors
are statistical fluctuations (in
either direction) in the measured
data due to the precision
limitations of the measurement
device.
Measurement errors may be
classified as either random or
systematic, depending on how
the measurement was obtained
(an instrument could cause a
random error in one situation
and a systematic error in
another).
 Random errors usually result from the
experimenter’s inability to take the
same measurement in exactly the same
way to get exact the same number.
Random errors can be evaluated
through statistical analysis and can be
reduced by averaging over a large
number of observations (see standard
error).
Systematic errors, by contrast,
are reproducible inaccuracies
that are consistently in the
same direction. Systematic
errors are often due to a
problem which persists
throughout the entire
experiment.
• These errors are difficult to detect and
cannot be analyzed statistically. If a
systematic error is identified when
calibrating against a standard, applying a
correction or correction factor to
compensate for the effect can reduce the
bias. Unlike random errors, systematic
errors cannot be detected or reduced by
increasing the number of observations.
Direction error-always one
side(higher/lower)
Direction error – always random
• When making careful measurements,
our goal is to reduce as many sources of
error as possible and to keep track of
those errors that we cannot eliminate. It
is useful to know the types of errors that
may occur, so that we may recognize
them when they arise. Common sources
of error in physics laboratory
experiments:
When making careful
measurements, our goal is to
reduce as many sources of error as
possible and to keep track of those
errors that we cannot eliminate. It is
useful to know the types of errors
that may occur, so that we may
recognize them when they arise.
Incomplete definition (may be
systematic or random) — One reason
that it is impossible to make exact
measurements is that the
measurement is not always clearly
defined. For example, if two different
people measure the length of the
same string, they would probably get
different results because each person
The best way to minimize
definition errors is to
carefully consider and
specify the conditions
that could affect the
measurement.
Failure to account for a factor
(usually systematic) — The most
challenging part of designing an
experiment is trying to control
or account for all possible
factors except the one
independent variable that is
may inadvertently ignore air
resistance when measuring free-fall
acceleration, or you may fail to
account for the effect of the Earth's
magnetic field when measuring the
field near a small magnet. The best
way to account for these sources of
error is to brainstorm with your peers
about all the factors that could
Environmental factors (systematic
or random) — Be aware of errors
introduced by your immediate
working environment. You may
need to take account for or protect
your experiment from vibrations,
drafts, changes in temperature,
and electronic noise or other
effects from nearby apparatus.
Instrument resolution (random) — All
instruments have finite precision that
limits the ability to resolve small
measurement differences. For instance,
a meter stick cannot be used to
distinguish distances to a precision much
better than about half of its smallest
scale division (0.5 mm in this case). One
of the best ways to obtain more precise
measurements is to use a null difference
Calibration (systematic) — Whenever
possible, the calibration of an
instrument should be checked before
taking data. If a calibration standard
is not available, the accuracy of the
instrument should be checked by
comparing with another instrument
that is at least as precise, or by
consulting the technical data
Zero offset (systematic) — When making a
measurement with a micrometer caliper,
electronic balance, or electrical meter,
always check the zero reading first. Re-zero
the instrument if possible, or at least
measure and record the zero offset so that
readings can be corrected later. It is also a
good idea to check the zero reading
throughout the experiment. 8 Failure to zero
a device will result in a constant error that
Physical variations (random) — It
is always wise to obtain multiple
measurements over the widest
range possible. Doing so often
reveals variations that might
otherwise go undetected. These
variations may call for closer
examination, or they may be
combined to find an average
Parallax (systematic or random) —
This error can occur whenever there is
some distance between the measuring
scale and the indicator used to obtain
a measurement. If the observer's eye
is not squarely aligned with the
pointer and scale, the reading may be
too high or low (some analog meters
have mirrors to help with this
Instrument drift
(systematic) — Most
electronic instruments have
readings that drift over
time. The amount of drift is
generally not a concern, but
occasionally this source of
Lag time and hysteresis
(systematic) — Some measuring
devices require time to reach
equilibrium, and taking a
measurement before the
instrument is stable will result in a
measurement that is too high or
low. A common example is taking
temperature readings with a
A similar effect is hysteresis where
the instrument readings lag behind
and appear to have a "memory"
effect, as data are taken
sequentially moving up or down
through a range of values.
Hysteresis is most commonly
associated with materials that
become magnetized when a
Personal errors come from
carelessness, poor technique, or
bias on the part of the
experimenter. The experimenter
may measure incorrectly, or may
use poor technique in taking a
measurement, or may introduce a
bias into measurements by
 ESTIMATING
UNCERTAINTY IN
REPEATED
MEASUREMENTS
 standard deviation is the most
common way to characterize the
spread of a data set. The standard
deviation is always slightly greater
than the average deviation, and is
used because of its association with
the normal distribution that is
To calculate the standard deviation for a
sample of N measurements:
1. Sum all the measurements and divide by
N to get the average, or mean.
2. Now, subtract this average from each of
the N measurements to obtain N
"deviations".
3. Square each of these N deviations and
add them all up.
4. Divide this result by (N − 1) and take
the square root.
The significance of the standard deviation
is this: if you now make one more
measurement using the same meter stick,
you can reasonably expect (with about
68% confidence) that the new
measurement will be within 0.12 cm of the
estimated average of 31.19 cm. In fact, it
is reasonable to use the standard deviation
as the uncertainty associated with this
single new measurement. However, the
deviation of the mean, which is
always less than the standard
deviation.