#$&*
course Phy 232
6/3 2 pm
Question: Suppose you measure the length of a pencil. You use both a triply-reduced ruler and the original ruler itself, and you make your measurements accurate to the smallest mark on each. You then multiply the reading on the triply-reduced ruler by the appropriate scale factor.
Which result is likely to be closer to the actual length of the pencil?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The original ruler would be the closest to the length of the pencil.
#$&*
What factors do you have to consider in order to answer this question and how do they weigh into your final answer?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
What ever amount the triply-reduced ruler is off by would be off by that times the scalar amount.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: Answer the same questions as before, except assume that the triply-reduced ruler has no optical distortion, and that you also know the scale factor accurate to 4 significant figures.
Which result is likely to be closer to the actual length of the pencil?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The original ruler because the uncertainty of the measurement wont be distorted.
#$&*
What factors do you have to consider in order to answer this question and how do they weigh into your final answer?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The scale factor and having to multiply your measurement by it. The human uncertainty would play a large factor.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: Suppose you are to measure the length of a rubber band whose original length is around 10 cm, measuring once while the rubber band supports the weight of a small apple and again when it supports the weight of two small apples. You are asked to report as accurately as possible the difference in the two lengths, which is somewhere between 1 cm and 2 cm. You have available the singly-reduced copy and the triply-reduced copy, and your data from the optical distortion experiment.
Which ruler will be likely to give you the more accurate difference in the lengths?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I would use singly-reduce copy.
#$&*
Explain what factors you considered and how they influence your final answer.
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The amount of human uncertainty being increased in the final answer if the triply reduced
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: Later in the course you will observe how the depth of water in a uniform cylinder changes as a function of time, when water flows from a hole near the bottom of the cylinder. Suppose these measurements are made by taping a triply-reduced ruler to the side of a transparent cylinder, and observing the depth of the water at regular 3-second intervals.
The resulting data would consist of a table of water depth vs. clock times, with clock times 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, ... seconds. As depth decreases the water flows from the hole more and more slowly, so the depth changes less and less quickly with respect to clock time.
Experimental uncertainties would occur due to the optical distortion of the copied rulers, due to the spacing between marks on the rulers, due to limitations on your ability to read the ruler (your eyes are only so good), due to timing errors, and due to other possible factors.
Suppose that depth changes vary from 5 cm to 2 cm over the first six 3-second intervals.
Assume also that the timing was very precise, so that there were no significant uncertainties due to timing.
Based on what you have learned in experiments done through Assignment 1, without doing extensive mathematical analysis, estimate how much uncertainty would be expected in the observed depths, and briefly explain the basis for your estimates. Speculate also on how much uncertainty would result in first-difference calculations done with the depth vs. clock time data, and how much in second-difference calculations.
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The uncertainty would not be that high in observed depths, since the observations are made over such a short length, 2cm to 5cm, and that the timing was accurate. If the experiment is done over several times, the times may change slightly due to markings on the side of the cylinder. The uncertainty would be magnified slightly over the first difference calculations. Any uncertainty would therefore be magnified even more for the second difference calculations.
#$&*
How would these uncertainties affect a graph of first difference vs. midpoint clock time, and how would they affect a graph of second difference vs. midpoint clock time?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The uncertainties would cause the first difference vs. midpoint clock time to not appear to have a constant slope. The graph of the second difference vs. midpoint clock time would appear to have even less of an apparent relationship between data points
#$&*
How reliably do you think the first-difference graph would predict the actual behavior of the first difference?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I think the first difference graph would be fairly reliable to predict the actual behavior of the first difference because the uncertainties will not be that apparent yet.
#$&*
Answer the same for the second-difference graph.
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I think the second difference graph would not be that reliable because the uncertainties will be magnified more and harder to accurately predict the actual behavior.
#$&*
What do you think the first difference tells you about the system? What about the second difference?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The first difference will give the velocity of the water coming out and the second difference will give the acceleration of water coming out.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: Suppose the actual second-difference behavior of the depth vs. clock time is in fact linear. How nearly do you think you could estimate the slope of that graph from data taken as indicated above (e.g., within 1% of the correct slope, within 10%, within 30%, or would no slope be apparent in the second-difference graph)?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
If the behavior is linear then I think I would be able to predict the correct slope to within 10% of the actual slope because of the apparent relationship.
#$&*
Again no extensive analysis is expected, but give a brief synopsis of how you considered various effects in arriving at your estimate.
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Because the relationship is apparently linear, the uncertainties would not be very high and the slope would be easier to predict an accurate slope.
#$&*
"
&#Good responses. Let me know if you have questions. &#