EXERCISE 1

All the values are measured using a digital multimeter. Given the multimeter is a digital
device, the uncertainty in one single measurement is:

ΔRi = εp = 1 Ω

I calculate the mean of the set of measurements, which is the best approximation to
the true value of R:

∑10
𝑖=1 Ri
𝑅̅ = = 20.39 Ω
10
I use the next table and formula to calculate the standard deviation on 𝑅̅ :

i Ri ± 0.1(Ω) Ri − R̅ ̅ )2
(Ri − R
1 20.5 0.11 0.0121
2 21.2 0.81 0.6561
3 19.8 -0.59 0.3481
4 19.9 -0.49 0.2401
5 20.1 -0.29 0.0841
6 21 0.61 0.3721
7 20.7 0.31 0.0961
8 20.5 0.11 0.0121
9 20.2 -0.19 0.0361
10 20 -0.39 0.1521
∑ 203.9 2.009

2 ∑10 ̅ 2
𝑖=1(Ri−R)
εacc (𝑅̅) = √ 10
= 0.448219 Ω

The final uncertainty is the maximum of the uncertainty in a single measurement and the
standard deviation:

ΔR = max(εp , εacc) = max(0.1 Ω, 0.4 Ω) = 0.4 Ω (Rounded Uncertainty)

𝑅̅ = 20.4 Ω (𝑅̅ rounded according to the Uncertainty)

Final solution:
̅ ± 𝜟𝑹 = 20.4 ± 0.4 Ω
R=𝑹
EXERCISE 2
According to the Ohm's Law:
V = IR R =V/I
Calculation of the resistance(R1):
V1 = 4.49 V
I1 = 220.1 mA
R1 = V1 / I1 = 20.3998 Ω
ΔR1 is calculated using the propagation of uncertainty:
ΔV1 = 0.01 V
ΔI1 = 0.1 mA
f (I, V) = V/I
𝜕𝑓(𝐼1,𝑉1) 𝜕𝑓(𝐼1,𝑉1)
ΔR1 = | | 𝛥V1 + | | 𝛥I1 = ΔV1/ I1 + V1 ΔI1/I1^2 = 0.0454 + 0.00926 = 0.05467 Ω
𝜕V1 𝜕I1

Final Solution (Rounded):

R = R1 ± ΔR1 = 20.40 ± 0.05 Ω
EXERCISE 3
3.1
y = 20.9x – 0.12 (Obtained in 3.3)
Error Bar: Vertical 0.01V / Horizontal 0.0001 A

4.9

4.8

4.7
Voltage (V)

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.3

4.2
0.21 0.215 0.22 0.225 0.23 0.235 0.24 0.245
Current(A)

3.2
According to Ohm’s Law: V = IR, which establishes the dependence of V in terms of I. This
coincides with the linear equation y (V)= m*x(I) + b where m is the straight line's slope and b
is the intercept.
The graphic shows that when the measurements are plotted a linear regression can be
easily drawn and the measurements show a clear correlation and proportionality.
Hence, based on these two proofs, it can be easily proven that the equation can is
equivalent to that of a straight line. But since drawing a line would be rough, we use a more
precise method called least square to approximate as much as possible the straight line to
the real equation and values.
3.3

i y=V x=I xy x2 (𝐼 − 𝐼 )̅ ^2
1 4.91 0.2402 1.179382 0.05769604 0.000199
2 4.84 0.2374 1.149016 0.05635876 0.000128
3 4.78 0.2335 1.11613 0.05452225 5.48E-05
4 4.71 0.2308 1.087068 0.05326864 2.21E-05
5 4.63 0.2269 1.050547 0.05148361 6.4E-07
6 4.58 0.2245 1.02821 0.05040025 2.56E-06
7 4.51 0.2219 1.000769 0.04923961 1.76E-05
8 4.46 0.2182 0.973172 0.04761124 6.24E-05
9 4.39 0.2153 0.945167 0.04635409 0.000117
10 4.32 0.2123 0.917136 0.04507129 0.00019
∑ 46.13 2.261 10.4466 0.51200578 0.000794
Mean 4.613 0.2261 7.94E-05
εacc
(square root
of Mean) 0.008909

Using the table (last row elements correspond to the summations of the rest of elements in
the column) and least square formulas, the equation can be calculated:
∑ 𝑦𝑖 ∑ 𝑥𝑖 −𝑛 ∑ 𝑥𝑖 𝑦𝑖
m= = 20.92027 Ω
(∑ 𝑥𝑖 )2 −𝑛 ∑ 𝑥𝑖2

∑ 𝑥𝑖 ∑ 𝑦𝑖 𝑥𝑖 −∑ 𝑦𝑖 ∑ 𝑥𝑖2
b= = -0.11707 V
(∑ 𝑥𝑖 )2 −𝑛 ∑ 𝑥𝑖2

Calculation of the uncertainties:

σ = Δyi = 0.01 V

n𝜎 2
∆m= √ = 0.354958 Ω
𝑛 ∑ 𝑥𝑖2 −(∑ 𝑥𝑖 )2

𝜎 2 ∑ 𝑥𝑖2
∆b=√ = 0.08031 V
𝑛 ∑ 𝑥𝑖2 −(∑ 𝑥𝑖 )2

Once the equation is calculated, it is time to see its correlation with the Ohm’s Law:
𝑉
𝑉 = 𝐼𝑅, 𝑅= , 𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑏, 𝑦 = 𝑉, 𝑥 = 𝐼;
𝐼
𝑉 = 𝑚𝐼 + 𝑏
𝑏
𝑉 = 𝐼(𝑚 + )
𝐼
 𝑉 𝑏
𝑅= =𝑚+
𝐼 𝐼
Resistance can be calculated using the previous table and the formulas and concepts from
exercises 1 and 2. Since m and b were calculated from the given values of I and V, it makes
sense to calculate an approximation of I for all these values and its uncertainty and use it to
calculate R.
𝑏
𝑅 = 𝑚 + ̅ = 20.92027 -0.11707/0.2261 = 20.40249 Ω
I

2 ∑10 ̅2
𝑖=1(Ii−I)
εacc (I) = √ 10
= 0.008909

ΔI = max (εp , εacc) = max (0.0001, 0.008909) = 0.009 A

Calculation of the propagation:

𝜕𝑅(𝑚,𝑏,𝐼) 𝜕𝑅(𝑚,𝑏,𝐼) 𝜕𝑅(𝑚,𝑏,𝐼) 𝑏 1 𝑏
ΔR = | | 𝛥m + | | 𝛥b +| | 𝛥𝐼 = 𝛥m |1 + 𝐼 | + 𝛥b |𝑚 + 𝐼 | + 𝛥𝐼 |𝑚 − 𝐼2 | =
𝜕𝑚 𝜕𝑏 𝜕𝐼

= 2.49228 Ω
Answers (Rounded when necessary):
∑ 𝑥𝑖 = 2.261

∑ 𝑦𝑖 = 46.13

∑ 𝑥𝑖 𝑦𝑖 = 10.446597

∑ 𝑥𝑖2 = 0.51200578

n = 10

σ = 0.01 V

m = 20.9 Ω

∆m = 0.4 Ω
b = -0.12 V
∆b = 0.08 V
m = R1 ± ΔR1 = m ± Δm = 20.9 ± 0.4 Ω
b = b ± Δb = -0.12 ± 0.08 V
R = R ± ΔR = 20 ± 2 Ω
3.4
Comparison of relative errors:
𝛥𝑅1
Εr1 = 100%( 𝑅1 ) = 0.4/24.4 * 100% = 1.67%

Εr2 = 0.02%
Εr3 = 10%
The first measurements were at least 8.33% (Εr3- Εr1) more accurate than the last ones with
the second one being the most accurate. Probably because the least square method, a
method too sensitive to outliers, was used to obtain the last result and also because an
excessive amount of indirect measurements was used, more than in any other exercise,
which makes it more prone to errors.
Hence, to improve the accuracy of the last result, we should use other methods since the
measurements were already precise enough. The least square method serves to find
equations to represent a straight line but is not always precise enough for calculating the
single values and constants composing the equations.
When comparing the second result with the first one, it seems obvious the instrument
precision or human errors affected the first result measurements, as the second one was
correctly measured and was more precise. The first resistance has a bigger uncertainty
because the values differ too much, which can only be explained by measurement errors,
since no special method was used to calculate the uncertainty, only the mean and the
typical deviation.
Also, in the last exercise, an approximation of the value of I was used, which can affect the
uncertainty a bit and increase it, but not enough to affect the uncertainty, which was
already too high.