Re: Systematic vs. Random

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

> Thanks for the thoughts.  It would seem that there should be a hesitancy
> prior to assigning systematic error (with a check of the data.)
>
> Today in a continuing discussion the measurment error did just barely
> include the zero but that team also failed to adjust for the cm (as in
> written instructions).  As the length shortened the proportion of error
> increased (it may have been systematic but it was done with care).  Just
> enough of error to go around.

I must point out that a failure to adjust for cm (a consistent length
error) *is* a systematic error of exactly the sort indicated.

Leigh