Rinsing (1 Viewer)

[Akshara Patil]

Are errors associated with rinsing random or systematic? I read an article saying it's random but not too sure... @jimmysmith560 @jazz519

 

[jimmysmith560]

Essentially, random errors are caused by unknown and unpredictable changes in the experiment. These changes may occur in the measuring instruments or in the environmental conditions. This technically means that they are things/factors/events that you cannot stop from occurring.

On the other hand, systematic errors usually arise from the measuring instruments. They may occur because:

• there is something wrong with the instrument or its data handling system
• the instrument is used incorrectly by the experimenter.

Additionally, the following piece of information treats errors associated with rinsing as neither random nor systematic, but rather as student mistakes:

Student mistakes are just student mistakes; they are neither random nor systematic errors. Examples in this category are spills, misreading a device such as a burette, misinterpretation of the procedure, incorrect handling of a micro-pipettor, and forgetting to rinse out a beaker when doing a quantitative transfer. These errors are known and easily preventable, if the experiment is repeated. Systematic errors occur with each repetition of the experiment, assuming no changes in instrumentation. Mistakes should be noted in the Results section of your report as mistakes.

Of course, jazz can confirm whether the above information is accurate and whether errors associated with rinsing are considered random or systematic.

I hope this helps!

 

[Run hard@thehsc]

@jimmysmith560 Thanks - yh I think it should be random....

 

[Akshara Patil]

@jimmysmith560 thanks for confirming

 

[Eagle Mum]

The operator is part of this system. The operator likely has a flawed understanding of the procedure and will likely (systematically) apply the same error whenever s/he carries out this procedure so it is a systematic error - one that can be corrected by explaining the error and correct action to the operator.

As per jimmysmith560’s response, the operator may have just been distracted at the time so it could have been random in any particular case, but in a scientific approach to troubleshooting, one should first consider whether it’s likely to be a correctable systematic error and only after actively excluding or fixing systematic error, should one attribute an error like this to a random uncontrollable error.

 

[someth1ng]

A systematic error should be predictable and consistent (e.g. an incorrectly calibrated balance that reads 2% higher than expected for all weights).

Improper rinsing is not predictable, so it's wrong to say that it's a systematic error. This is much more consistent with a random error.