Instructional Exemplar 11.

1
Investigation: Thickness of Aluminum Foil
Observations
Table 1: Measurements of Mass, Length and Width of Alcan Aluminum Foil at Room Temperature
Trial Mass (±0.01g) Length (±0.05cm) Width (±0.05cm)
1 0.73 13.20 12.90
2 0.70 15.00 15.00
3 0.78 15.10 15.95
Qualitative observations of the aluminum foil:
Shiny on one side, dull on the opposite side, grey in colour, slightly crumpled, rectangular in shape, not all sides were equal
length and width

Analysis
Using trial 1 data and the known density of Error analysis:
aluminum, DAl = 2.70 ± 0.01 g.cm-3 :
m % rel uncert in ttrial 1 = % rel uncert in m + % rel uncert in w + % rel uncert l
ttrial 1=
Dlw
% rel uncert in ttrial 1 =  0.01 100  +  0.05 100  +  0.05 100 
     
ttrial 1 = 0.73  0.73   13.20   12.90 
(2.70)(13.20)(12.90)
% rel uncert in ttrial 1 = 1.37% + 0.38% + 0.39%
ttrial 1 = 0.001587798 cm
% rel uncert in ttrial 1 = ±2.14%

thus the measurement 0.0015878 cm is subject to ±2.14% uncertainty

or
the final result is 0.00159 ± 0.00003 cm

(NOTE: without knowledge of the error associated with each measurement your
final answer would be 0.0016 cm based on the 2 significant digits in the mass.)

Table 2: Average Thickness of Aluminum Foil

Trial Thickness (Height)
1 0.00159 ± 0.00003 cm
2 0.00115± 0.00002 cm
3 0.00120± 0.00002 cm
Average 0.00131± 0.00002 cm

Average thickness calculation: Error analysis:

Average t = (trial 1 + trial 2 + trial 3) / 3 % rel uncert in Average t = sum absolute uncert of trials
Average t = (0.00159 + 0.00115 + 0.00121)/ 3 sum of trials
= 0.00394/3
0.00003+0.00002+0.00002
= 0.00131 % rel uncert in Average t =
0.00394

% rel uncert in Average t = 1.7766 %

thus the average thickness 0.00131cm is subject to ±1.8 %

uncertainty
or
The final result is 0.00131 ± 0.00002 cm
Conclusion:
After performing mass, length, and width measurements (refer to Table1), the average thickness of the aluminum
foil was calculated to be 0.00131 cm and the associated error was ±0.00002 cm (refer to Table2). The accepted
value lies outside the range of uncertainty of the experimental data since the literature value[1] reported thickness
of aluminum foil to be 0.0015cm.

The precision of the experiment is determined by examining the spread of the data collected under similar
circumstances. All 3 trials lie above (trial 1) and below (trial 2 & 3) the accepted value are and the absolute error
is greater than 2%, this is not very precise. One would expect that when using instruments with a precision of
1/100th and 5/100th that the data would be more precise but when dealing with small measurements, even small
variations in uncertainty can have dramatic effects on calculations. Furthermore when the absolute uncertainties
are considered for each measurand and compared to the literature value, the data is not very accurate.

The percent error was found to be:

|𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑑 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙|
× 100
𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑑

|0.0015 − 0.00131|
× 100
0.0015
=12.7%
Based on this calculation, the results of aluminum foil thickness should be deemed inaccurate.

Evaluation
The range of the results are both above (0.00159 cm) and below (0.00115) the accepted results, but
most of the results are lower than the literature value. Since the percent error is greater than the percent
relative uncertainties we can conclude that there must be both random and systematic errors. The
method to determine the thickness using density may be flawed.

One probable random error can be the wrong assumption of the rectangular shape of the measured foil.
Consider the diagram below:

If one measured the side “W” with “l” the area would be larger than expected
and a smaller thickness would result. If one measured the side “w” with “l”
then a smaller area and larger thickness would result.
To correct this, measure a rectangular piece of aluminum foil that has the
same width and length on each edge, using a ruler.

This produces another issue when measuring the length and the width of the foil. Using only a ruler, it
was impossible to produce an exact rectangle resulting in inaccurate dimensions used in the
calculations of the thickness. If the square was consistently larger, a larger area would be measured and
a smaller thickness would result. A protractor could be used to produce square edges, giving a more
accurate result and preventing this systematic error.

The mass of the foil used was small & limited the precision of the measurement to 1/100th.
Disregarding even a slight change in mass on such a small sample of aluminum as found in the foil
form could have large effects on calculations. The relative percent uncertainty of the mass was the
greatest (see calculation of trial 1 thickness). This systematic error reduced the precision of the
thickness determination. Setting the electronic balance to +/- 0.001g or using a larger piece of foil, one
that was greater than 1.000g, would result in greater precision and more accurate results.

1. Wikipedia:Aluminum Foil. September 9 2012. , September 10, 2012, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_foil>.