Talk:Measurement uncertainty

message: The new Wikipedia entry on Measurement uncertainty has been prepared to reflect, and to be consistent with, the work of Working Group 1 Measurement uncertainty of the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM). The working group has international responsibility for maintaining and promoting the Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM), which is the primary document regarding measurement uncertainty. The working group has had no formal involvement in the preparation of the entry, which replaces the previous entry with the agreement of the main author of that entry. --Az628 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page overhaul 

message: The page suggests that "6.67428(67) ... stands for (6.674 28 ± 0.000 67) ..." but the IUPAC guideline (page 83 of the "green book" available as a PDF from http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/gbook/index.html) says that the +- notation should be 2*sigma and the parenthetic notation should be 1*sigma.  The page cites the IUPAC as an authority, so I think the example should be changed, but I am reluctant to do that, without discussion.  For more on this, please see the example in the green book on page 83, section 4.1, about 1/4 of the way down the page. --Dankelley (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The example for parenthetic notation is incorrect according to IUPAC 

message: The Kline & McClintock method is a useful tool for uncertainty analysis. Should be covered. Kline & McClintock is the standard for quantifying measurement uncertainty taught in US engineering curricula. Tjcognata (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it differ from the GUM method? The GUM is an ISO standard and as such also applicable in the United States. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of that I'm not certain, I have not till here been introduced to the GUM method. But, then, as for standards, the unfortunate thing is that there are so many. Tjcognata (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes. From what I gleaned of this article GUM is applied strictly to measurements to evaluate the "true" value and its uncertainty. K&M is a constant odds method for predicting the uncertainty of values which are a function of uncertain measurements. While not strictly a measurement uncertainty, it is sometimes referred to as such since the value is often what an experimenter desires to "measure". Perhaps not appropriate as a part of this article, my apologies. Tjcognata (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know, the GUM does not speak about "true" values. I do not see how K&McC differs from the propagation of measurement uncertainties according to the GUM, would be interesting to have some input from someone who knows both the valid standard and what is taught at engineering schools (which, at least in my experience, is all too often different from each other). --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Propogation of uncertainty is precisely the function of K&M - If you think it can add to the discussion, I'll set aside time next weekend or that following to bring a discussion of K&M into the article. That should invite further input from anyone familiar with the merits of both GUM & K&M. Tjcognata (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Found a very useful reference which I'll have to leaf through a bit more thoroughly later. Apparently Kline and McClintock pioneered the modern concept of uncertainty propagation, which is likely why professors refer to the method by their names. ISO's GUM and ANSI's "Test Uncertainty" standards, which apparently are identical save in terminology, have their roots in and may be largely based upon the work of K&M in their consideration of the propagation of uncertainty. Tjcognata (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Kline & McClintock 

message: Looks like this page needs at least a section (if not a major overhaul) written less academically--more toward the practical.  The theoretical text seems content rich, but still could use a bit of tweaking.  —EncMstr 07:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely needs an overhaul, for a start the first sentence is very misleading, worst case uncertainties aren't often quoted in practice. A level confidence of say 95% or 99% would be more normal. JMiall 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs an overhaul 

message: This page is rubish and needs a complet overhal Mat.roesslein 14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is rubish 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Measurement uncertainty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525062043/http://ukas.com/library/Technical-Information/Pubs-Technical-Articles/Pubs-List/Lab34.pdf to http://www.ukas.com/library/Technical-Information/Pubs-Technical-Articles/Pubs-List/Lab34.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225012616/http://ukas.com/library/Technical-Information/Pubs-Technical-Articles/Pubs-List/M3003_Ed3_final.pdf to http://www.ukas.com/library/Technical-Information/Pubs-Technical-Articles/Pubs-List/M3003_Ed3_final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I am researching on "errors and mistakes" from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Least count and experimental error are strongly related with the precision or resolution of the instruments and, after computations, with error propagation,  in several "Experimental Physics" works. Here, in Wikipedia, experimental error is redirected to observational error. The latter states that it is different from measurement uncertainty. And, this article does not mention least count even once.
Is measurement uncertainty related to "least count"? Or are both, experimental/observational error AND measurement uncertainty related to it? George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is measurement uncertainty related to "least count"?