3 ms·
This heavily depends on the kind of experiments, especially the possible sources of error. Calibration can reduce most errors in physical chemistry where the me
by nkmnz 3y ago
This heavily depends on the kind of experiments, especially the possible sources of error. Calibration can reduce most errors in physical chemistry where the measurements themselves are the usually the main part in the experiment. From my point of view, calibration of the devices should be part of the teaching lab – but equipment is often very old, so you don't calibrate the equipment itself, but rather try to measure some kind of error and clean up you data (theoretically, this is a calibration as well).
If you the teaching lab was about synthesis, calibration of pipettes, scales etc. will reduce the error as well, but having a more precise stop watch doesn't make you a better runner: the result can still be influenced by non-calibratable things like the cleanliness of your flasks, the consistency of your heating device, the purity of your reactants, the speed with which you can perform certain working steps etc. – also, synthesis can involve quite some luck.
- fuzzfactor 3y agoCalibration very often makes the most difference in analytical results. This sounds like a pH meter scenario. Where the instrument is subject to more drift because it is a community device, and undergrads doing identical experiments had never gotten very ideal results. The variation was accepted for "as good as it gets" and the powers that be were not prepared for an outlier that goes the extra mile for quality. Sometimes the most important lesson is that readings which are assumed to be accurate enough to calculate consistency (but are not fully verified) can often have more inherent variation than dissimilar bench techniques.