Experimental errors and uncertainties

Similarly, when we measure, for example, atomic positions obtained in a diffraction experiment, the effects of molecular vibrations will result in a normal distribution of values, provided those motions can be described as harmonic. We can then define the mean, or average, value of the variable Xj of the N different measurements as 

A normal distribution of values, with the a standard deviation confidence levels marked. 

We can also define the width, or the spread, of the distribution by means of the standard deviation, a. 

Clearly, data derived from experiment are measurements, and are therefore subject to margins of error. Random errors (such as those observed in the measurement of our piece of string) arise from instabilities of the radiation source, sensitivity of the detection device, etc. But this is not the only source of error in our experiments. When we measured our piece of string, if it turned out that the ruler was in some way defective, then a systematic error would be present, which would affect all our measurements to the same degree. Systematic errors in experiments can arise from the methods we use to process the data. For example, we use a parameterized model in a least-squares refinement. Any assumptions we make in that model (e.g. the choice of molecular symmetry) and any numerical treatment of the data as we process them will affect the results we obtain. 

We should now highlight the distinetion between accuracy and precision, because the two types of errors we have discussed affect them to very different degrees. An aceurate measurement is one that is very elose to the true answer a precise measurement is one that is very similar eaeh time we obtain it. A good analogy 

---

Values for Da and D can also be estimated in terms of reference values for water in air and oxygen in water (Dx = Dref[MWref/MWx] ). The exponents have been estimated from experimental observations. It is now possible to estimate evaporation rates under static conditions by first estimating molecular diffusion coefficients, deriving values for the partial transfer velocities and calculating fctot-The data summarized in Table 4.6 use some laboratory observations listed in Tables 4.3-4.5 to evaluate this model. Reasonable agreement is observed between the calculated and observed values, considering possibilities for experimental error and uncertainties in the values for Henry s law constant, and so on. 

Calculated values correspond reasonably well with observed values considering experimental errors and uncertainties in It and estimates. 

Many recent publications from the field of Cl are based on a competitive mindset and aim at ultimately replacing experiments with computations. In our experience, this rarely ever happens. Instead, computational approaches are typically seen as additional and complementary sources of information that can in some cases be used to prioritize experiments or to move experiments to a later phase. Thus, we expect of lot of impact from methods that combine and integrate computational and experimental approaches in intelligent ways. To achieve this. Cl researchers will have to embrace experimental errors and uncertainties, but also biases and simplifications inherent to in silico methods. Along these lines, computational methods could, for example, be used to explain why certain experiments fail or generate inconsistent results while tailored experiments could be performed to derive correction factors for certain computations. 

Pressure drop and heat transfer in a single-phase incompressible flow. According to conventional theory, continuum-based models for channels should apply as long as the Knudsen number is lower than 0.01. For air at atmospheric pressure, Kn is typically lower than 0.01 for channels with hydraulic diameters greater than 7 pm. From descriptions of much research, it is clear that there is a great amount of variation in the results that have been obtained. It was not clear whether the differences between measured and predicted values were due to determined phenomenon or due to errors and uncertainties in the reported data. The reasons why some experimental investigations of micro-channel flow and heat transfer have discrepancies between standard models and measurements will be discussed in the next chapters. 

Say we model our process (read fitting the open-loop step test data) as a first order function with time delay, and expecting experimental errors or uncertainties, our measured or approximate model... 

The estimated uncertainties in the average values bb/ aa and bbAaa °f Tables V and VI are respectively 0-02 and 0.01 (resulting from both experimental errors and deviations from the theorem of corresponding states). This unavoidably leads to rather high inaccuracies in 8 and p (20% in the case of CH4-Kr considered above). 

In contrast to the previous example, the numbers in column (5) are not all integers. The ratio of the numbers of atoms of the two elements must be the ratio of small whole numbers, in order to satisfy one of the postulates of Dalton s atomic theory. Allowing for experimental errors and any uncertainty from calculations, we see that the entry of oxygen in column (5), 3.499, is essentially 3.500 when we allow for error. If we round off to 3.5 we can come to a whole number by multiplying by 2 (to get rid of the 0.5). Of course, we must multiply the remaining elements in the ratio to preserve the relationship. When we do so, we arrive at a 2 2 7 ratio shown in column (6), arriving at K2CT2O7 as the formula of the compound. 

Measurements invariably involve errors and uncertainties. Only a few of these are due to mistakes on the part of the experimenter. More commonly, errors are caused by faulty calibrations or standardizations or random variations and uncertainties in results. Frequent calibrations, standardizations, and analyses of known samples can sometimes be used to lessen all but the random errors and uncertainties. In the limit, however, measurement errors are an inherent part of the quantized world in which we live. Because of this, it is impossible to peiform a chemical analysis that is totally free of errors or uncertainties. We can only hope to minimize errors and estimate their size with acceptable accuracy. In this and the next two chapters, we explore the nature of experimental errors and their effects on the results of chemical analyses. 

In view of the above comments, error estimates are usually made on the basis of overall reproducibility of, and matching between independent experimental or theoretical results, rather than on the basis of the precision reachable with a particular measurement and refinement model. There are several approaches that allow us to gain quantitative information on experimental reproducibility and uncertainties. These include the pseudoatom interpretation of error free, theoretical data [56, 57, 70-72], comparative analysis of experimental data sets in terms of different constrained models [73], theory versus experimental comparison of results obtained for the same system [74-76], systematic studies on a series of related compounds [77], and the simultaneous analysis of data collected at different temperatures [66]. 

The value for the out-of-plane, z, disorder 0.003 is probably at the limit of experimental errors and should be ignored. The in-plane disorder is equal in both x andy directions and represents a positional uncertainty of about 0.1 A and an angular imcertainty of about 4°. 

Relate the Balmer-series wavelengths you calculated in Question 1 to those determined experimentally. Allowing for experimental error and calculation uncertainty, do the wavelengths match Explain your answer. One angstrom (A) equals 10 ° m. 

Such a scatter in results may be due to experimental errors, and primarily to the use of the Arrhenius plot method in conditions far from optimal when the ratio Tmax/AT achieves too high values (see Sect. 4.6). For example, the Tmax/AT ratio in work by Zawadski and Bretsznajder [10] was 30, 30, and 100 at CO2 pressures of 0.026, 0.039, and 0.059 bar, respectively. Even if the rate constants k2 and ki were measured to within an error of 2-3% only, the uncertainty in the determination of the E parameter could reach 200-300%. 

The reason for this is that there was no reason to differentiate between these temperatures since the difference between the properties at 298 and 300K was less than the experimental error or uncertainty of the estimates. 

For Ag-Au, Pb-Sn and Bi-Sb, there are no significant disagreements between theory and experiment. By contrast, the composition dependence of S for Mg-Cd (and to a lesser extent In-Tl) is very different from that expected on theoretical grounds. Small departures from the substitutional model and the condition of constant kp can be allowed for but detailed calculations show that such corrections do not alter the theoretical curve by more than a few per cent. In particular, the discrepancies for liquid Mg-Cd are well outside the experimental errors and the uncertainties introduced by departures from ideal behaviour. 

At this point we must address two questions What happens if the network cannot learn the training data And, how good (accurate, reliable) are the predicted results In response to the first question, we note that usually a network cannot or will not completely learn the training data Very often, this turns out to be inconsequential because as a rule there is experimental error or uncertainty associated with data, both input and output. Also, it often happens... 

Lgjs separately can be obtained from the same experimental data if independent information on (Ssis//sis) and (y rV ) is available. The most usual procedure, however, is to assume that F = Fj (in most cases Fsis > F if the SIS is an isotopolog, reflecting possible occlusion effects) and that the constant loss parameters Lf and Ljij are both zero. (Note that it is possible that nonzero values of Lf and Lju may interact with one another, due to competition for the active sites in the clean-up procedure.) Finally, the best accuracy and precision are achieved when is determined by direct weighing of an SIS of known purity (both chemical and isotopic) but it is common practice to dispense trace level quantities as measured volumes v jg of a solution of concentration Cgig. Then Qgjg = v i. C is, so that resulting errors and uncertainties in are reflected directly in the values deduced for Q. ... 

Allow students to deal with uncertainty (experimental error) and ambiguity and... 

Absolute random errors can be used to decide whether or not your experimental errors are in agreement to within experimental error or uncertainty. For example, the two measurements 9.5 0.2 cm and 10.3 0.2 cm do not have overlapping ranges. Hence taking into account experimental uncertainty the two measurements do not agree. However, the two measurements... 

---