Experiment 1: Errors, Uncertainties and Measurement

Laboratory Report
Janrovi Michael Mari, Kim Rine Mariano
Department of Math and Physics
College of Science, University of Santo Tomas
Espaa, Manila Philippines
Abstract
The experiment conducted is
regarding the measuring the diameter of
metal sphere through the use of foot rule
(ruler), a Vernier caliper, and a Micrometer
caliper, and measuring the width of the
thumb in order to get a variety of other data
to study about the errors that can arise from
the procedures and the uncertainties in the
measurements.
1. Introductions
Measurements
are
prone
to
uncertainty, because there can be no
measurement that can exactly measure how
long nor how much weight, etc. an object
has; Measurements will always be
incomplete. There are two degrees of
uncertainty: Accuracy which refers to how
closely the measured value of a quantity
corresponds to its true value and Precision
expresses the degree of arrangement
between repeated measurements. On one
side from uncertainties, there can be errors
in measurement; a systematic error, which is
a component of error that depends in a
specific manner on some other quantity, and
a random error is associated with the fact
that when a measurement is repeated, it will
provide a different value. In this experiment,
the researchers should must study errors and
how they propagate in simple experiment,
determine the average deviation of a set of
experimental values and the mean of a set of
experimental values as well as set of average

deviation of the mean, and familiarize the

students with the Vernier caliper, micrometer
caliper,
and
foot
rule.
2.Theory
The experiment shows the theory of
indirect measurement, it provides more
accurate and efficient methods for
processing indirect measurement data. This
theory eliminates the need to calculate the
correlation. It depicts the intervals and data
in calculating a well-grounded estimation of
measuring its uncertainty and errors.
Average deviation:

a.d. =

d
n

where

d is the deviation of each measurement of

diameter and n is the number of
observations, which is n=10.
Average deviation of the mean: A.D.
a .d .
n
Percent error of diameter: %

error =

A.D.
d

Volume (cm ): V
3

4
3

r3

3. Methodology
The researchers used a foot rule,
vernier
caliper,
micrometer
caliper,
electronic gram balance and a sphere. The
researchers compared the accuracy of these
measuring instruments (foot rule, vernier
caliper and micrometer caliper). They made
use of certain formulas to determine the
errors of the measuring instruments. They
made ten independent measurements for the
diameter of the sphere using the foot rule
and also determined the density of the
sphere given its proportions and mass.
4. Results and Discussion
Table 1 shows the comparison of
initial values obtained from using the foot
rule, vernier caliper and micrometer caliper;
Table 2 shows subsequent values obtained
through computation.
Table1. Diameter of Sphere as measured
by Foot Rule, Vernier Caliper and
Micrometer Caliper

Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Foot
Rule
1.55
1.50
1.70
1.65
1.50
1.55
1.70
1.55
1.60
1.65

Diameter of Sphere (cm)

Vernier
Micrometer
Caliper
Caliper
1.695
1.685
1.700
1.620
1.690
1.850
1.680
1.730
1.696
1.635
1.750
1.660
1.700
1.725
1.665
1.695
1.675
1.640
1.690
1.670

Table2. Subsequent Data Obtained

Through Computation

Mean diameter
(cm)
Average
Deviation [a.d.]
(cm)
Average
Deviation
of the Mean
[A.D.] (cm)
%Error of
Diameter
Volume (cm)
Mass (g)
Experimental
Value
of Density
(g/cm)
Accepted Value
of Density
(g/cm)
%Error for
Density

Foot
Rule

Vernier
Caliper

Micrometer
Caliper

1.60

1.694

1.691

0.076

0.023

0.067

0.024

0.007

0.021

0.015
2.125
28.05

0.004
2.545
28.05

0.012
2.532
28.05

7.53

6.66

6.70

7.8

7.8

7.8

3.46%

14.61%

14.1%

When measuring the diameter of the

sphere, the micrometer caliper showed its
accuracy by getting the closest value to the
original value as verified by having the
lowest percentage of error.
Table3. Width of Thumb of Proponents
measured with Foot Rule
Group
Member

Width of
Thumb
(in)

0.700

0.80
0

The data from this Table show that

the ancient standard of inch, the thumb, is
unreliable. It is evident that using the thumb
as an alternate standard for an inch will
produce inaccurate and imprecise results due
to the fact that the standard itself does not
have a consistent value. The values obtained
from the activity displayed at least 0.300
difference from 1 inch.
5. Conclusion
The researchers were tasked to
measure the spheres diameter,on the first
activity, using the foot rule, vernier caliper
and micrometer caliper. Computations on
the spheres mean diameter, deviation of
each measurement, average deviation (a.d.),
average deviation of the mean diameter
(A.D.), percentage error for the diameter,
volume and the density of the sphere. On the
second activity, they were tasked to measure
the width of their thumbs to know if the
thumb could be a standard for measurement.
Even though there was a systematic error
occurred in the process, the most accurate
device became the foot rule instead of the

micrometer
caliper,
the
goals
of
familiarizing and comparing the accuracy of
the given measuring devices as well as the
determination of an objects density were
achieved.
7. References
Lepla Org. (nd). Errors and
Statistics: Instrument Uncertainty and Least
Count. Retrieved from the World
Rabinovich,
Semyon
MEASUREMENT
ERRORS
UNCERTAINTIES, 2005

G.

,
AND

O.S.U. (nd). Experimental

Error. Retrieved from the World Wide Web
on
December
4,
2012
[http://chemistry.osu.edu/~coe/research/docu
ments/experimental_error_new2.pdf]
N.M.S.U. (nd). Types of
Experimental Errors. Retrieved from the
World Wide Web on December 4, 2012
[http://www.physics.nmsu.edu/research/lab1
10g/html/ERRORS.html]