1
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

hope I am right in this section.

I am unsure with error propagation. When calculation the error in a titration, many errors has to be taken into account:

Error in Glassware/ Error in Balance/ Error in Burette etc.

I learned that the absolute and relative error have only 1 significant figure and that the total amount is rounded to the decimal place of the error.

Therefore 5.34532g ± 0.001428g would be 5.345g ± 0.001g

The relative error is 0.001g/5.345g = 0.00018709 = 0.0002 If there is an experiment with a lot of steps and error propagation wouldn't the rounding of all the errors in every single step change the result a lot? Wouldn't rounding the error just in the end make more sense?

Many thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Emilio Pisanty, Kyle Kanos, ACuriousMind, user36790, Bill N Oct 29 '15 at 15:30

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1
$\begingroup$

There is no good reason to round intermediate calculations. "Round to one significant figure" means that an error of 0.16 and 0.24 would propagate the same way when they are different by 50%.

Just don't believe the additional digits - but there is no reason to drop them.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.