table 3. comparison of accepte values to experimentally obtained values

Buzhidao authors

4 min read

·

06-03-2025

3

0

Share

Decoding Table 3: A Deep Dive into Experimental vs. Accepted Values

Introduction:

Scientific research hinges on comparing experimental results with established, accepted values. This comparison allows us to assess the accuracy and precision of our methods, identify potential sources of error, and ultimately, build confidence in our findings. Table 3, a ubiquitous feature in scientific papers, presents precisely this comparison. This article will explore the intricacies of interpreting Table 3, highlighting its significance and offering practical guidance for understanding the implications of discrepancies between experimental and accepted values. We will use hypothetical examples to illustrate key concepts, acknowledging that the specific data in a real Table 3 will be unique to the experiment it represents. While we won't be referencing a specific ScienceDirect article with a "Table 3" directly due to the abstract nature of the request, the principles discussed are universally applicable to scientific data analysis.

Understanding the Components of Table 3

A typical Table 3 comparing experimental and accepted values might include the following columns:

• Parameter/Variable: This column lists the physical quantities or characteristics being measured (e.g., density, wavelength, reaction rate).
• Accepted Value: This column presents the established or theoretical value for each parameter, often sourced from reputable handbooks, databases, or previous, well-established research. These are considered the "gold standard" against which experimental results are benchmarked. The source of the accepted values should always be clearly cited.
• Experimental Value: This column displays the values obtained from the experiment. This usually includes a mean (average) value and a measure of uncertainty, such as standard deviation or standard error. The number of trials or repetitions should also be indicated to demonstrate the robustness of the measurements.
• % Error/Percent Difference: This column quantifies the discrepancy between the experimental and accepted values. The percentage error is calculated as: [(Experimental Value - Accepted Value) / Accepted Value] x 100%. A small percentage error indicates good agreement, while a large percentage error suggests significant discrepancies requiring further investigation.
• Uncertainty (Standard Deviation or Standard Error): This column reflects the inherent variability in the experimental measurements. A larger uncertainty indicates less precision. Understanding uncertainty is crucial; a small percentage error might be meaningless if the uncertainty is large, suggesting the experimental value is not reliably close to the accepted value.

Example Scenario: Determining the Density of Aluminum

Let's imagine an experiment to determine the density of aluminum. Our hypothetical Table 3 might look like this:

Analysis of the Example:

In this example, the experimental density of aluminum (2685 kg/m³) is very close to the accepted value (2700 kg/m³). The percentage error is only -0.56%, indicating good agreement. However, the uncertainty of ±5 kg/m³ is significant. This means that the true value of the experimental density could lie anywhere between 2680 kg/m³ and 2690 kg/m³. While the mean experimental value falls within the accepted range, the substantial uncertainty highlights limitations in the experimental methodology. This could be due to factors like inaccuracies in the mass or volume measurements or inconsistencies in the aluminum sample. Further analysis might involve identifying and minimizing these error sources.

Interpreting Discrepancies: Large Percentage Errors

When significant discrepancies exist between experimental and accepted values (large percentage errors), several factors warrant consideration:

• Systematic Errors: These are consistent errors that affect all measurements in the same way (e.g., a faulty measuring instrument, improper calibration). Identifying and correcting systematic errors is crucial for improving experimental accuracy.
• Random Errors: These are unpredictable fluctuations in measurements due to various uncontrollable factors (e.g., variations in temperature, slight imperfections in samples). Random errors can be minimized by increasing the number of trials and employing statistical techniques like averaging.
• Methodological Errors: These errors stem from flaws in the experimental design or procedure. For instance, incomplete reactions in chemical experiments or incorrect assumptions in physical calculations can lead to large errors.
• Limitations of the Model/Theory: Sometimes, discrepancies reflect limitations in the underlying theoretical model used to predict the accepted value. New experimental findings might challenge existing theories, leading to refinements or revisions.

Practical Applications and Added Value

Beyond simply comparing numbers, Table 3 provides a powerful tool for:

• Quality Control: In industrial settings, comparing experimental data (e.g., product dimensions, material properties) against accepted standards ensures quality control and consistency.
• Process Optimization: Identifying sources of error through analyzing Table 3 can guide the optimization of experimental procedures, leading to increased efficiency and accuracy.
• Hypothesis Testing: Comparing experimental results to predictions based on a hypothesis provides crucial evidence to support or reject the hypothesis.
• Calibration: Table 3 is essential in instrument calibration, comparing instrument readings to known standards to ensure their accuracy.

Conclusion:

Table 3 is a critical component of scientific reporting, providing a concise yet powerful way to compare experimental data to established values. Analyzing this table requires a deep understanding of experimental uncertainties, potential sources of error, and the context of the scientific investigation. By carefully considering these factors, researchers can draw meaningful conclusions, identify areas for improvement, and advance scientific knowledge. While the specific data within any given Table 3 will be experiment-specific, the principles of comparison, error analysis, and critical evaluation remain universal and essential for scientific rigor.