Tips

for Studio Deliverables, With Specific Reference to Common Cents

You have performed the first studio activity (including Warmup and assignment of the deliverable). This activity is a good example, with few exceptions, of how the rest of the semesters labs will unfold. Below are some tips about how to approach the deliverable, in particular the lab notebook. This page includes general tips you should observe all semester; the second page clarifies several aspects of the Common Cents activity of studio_01. Your workflow should be notebook first and then worksheet, not the other way around. The deliverable instructions (included on the worksheet) state report your intermediate and final results in your lab notebook, and summarize them below. This requirement was relaxed for the first studio, but in future studios, you should be entering everything in your lab notebook, and then using it after the fact to fill out your worksheet. For studio_01, you should transcribe your studio notes into your lab notebook, and consider reprinting the worksheet before submitting. Your workflow should always include checking the Warmup solution before starting the lab. The Warmups are challenging because you will not necessarily see the exact answers to the questions in the supplied materials; however, this typical studio approach doesnt mean you wont have the answers needed to do the lab. Warmup solutions are posted at the beginning of studio (daily plans folder). Question your instructors if you dont understand Warmup answers. Notebook entries should be neither exhaustive nor scant. The lab description states that the notebook should contain method explanation, recorded measurements, uncertainty analysis. These directions will not change significantly over the semester. The notebook should contain an explanation of how you are doing the experiment and any observations you make along the way. The recording of measurements should be obvious. Uncertainty analysis involves calculations, and for this as well as for any other calculations, you do not have to show every calculation. Instead, you should include a sample calculation, and note the extent to which the rest of your calculations follow the method you have sampled. An example of a reasonably good notebook entry (awarded roughly 3.5-4 out of 5 pts) has been posted to the studio_01 daily plans. A 4.5-5 score would have been awarded for more method explanation. Uncertainty propagation. The upper/lower bound method of uncertainty propagation is a straightforward way to determine how uncertainties will combine when calculations of two or more uncertain values are made. See the link we provided in the assignment for detailed information. As an example, below is an outline of how to determine the uncertainty when dividing two numbers. The two numbers are b with an uncertainty of b and c with an uncertainty of c. The result of dividing these two numbers is the quotient r: Given: Result: b b
rupper =

c c
rlower =

r=

b + !b c " !c

b ! "b c + "c

b c r "r !r = upper lower 2

It is likely that you will have to iterate the procedure, because very few results are based on a single calculation. You must determine how to apply this approach in each lab.

The typical digital mass scale uncertainty is 0.1 g. Note that you do not actually know the accuracy of the scale; to learn this, you would have to perform a calibration against a known standard, which is outside the scope of our normal work. Instead, we can reasonably assume that the scale is accurate, and take the precision of the scale as the uncertainty. However, even this approach has nuances. For example, in the video, you may have noted that multiple pennies were measured, with the result being divided by the number of pennies. This is a typical way to increase the precision even though the instrument does not appear to be able to support it. For example, the result for one single penny might be 2.6 0.1 g. On the other hand, if 10 pennies are measured at once, the result might be 26.8 0.1 g. Dividing by 10 then yields a higher precision: 2.68 0.01 g. How is the division of the uncertainty justified? As a plausibility argument, consider how the measurement of 10 pennies might look on a more precise digital mass scale: (2.670.01)+(2.660.01)+(2.690.01)+(2.640.01)+(2.590.01)+ (2.720.01)+(2.750.01)+(2.700.01)+(2.640.01)+(2.750.01) = 26.81 0.1 Note two important observations: a) each of the more precise uncertainties adds in an upper/lower bound fashion to match the uncertainty of the actual measurement, and b) although the calculated total is 26.81, this precision is not supported by the final uncertainty. The final answer of 2.68 0.01 g combines both a reasonable interpretation of the uncertainty and also a knowledgeable truncation that is consistent with that uncertainty. The single result of 2.6 0.1 g is not necessarily a worse result; rather, it is consistent with the method used to get the result. The typical caliper uncertainty is 0.005 cm. This result is somewhat more difficult to discern from the information you were given in the Warmup. Note that the answer of 0.001 cm was also accepted on the Warmup but is not technically correct. It was accepted because it is a reasonable guess based on the experience with the digital mass scale; however, note that aligning the marks on the caliper allows the two most precise digits to only be values such as { 20, 25, 30, 35 }. This alone should suggest, as for the digital mass balance, that the uncertainty has a value of 05. Because these digits are typically divided by 10 (see video), the typical uncertainty is 005, or 0.005 cm. In addition, industry procedure is to mark the caliper with the measurement uncertainty (typically denoted 1/20 mm). It remains as an exercise for the student to determine whether measuring more than object in the caliper can lead to a higher precision, as for the digital mass scale.

But really, what is the mass of a typical penny? In addition to the nuances of using the mass balance, some students may have noted that otherwise indistinguishable pennies had masses that differed by as much as 25%. Such discrepancies may occur in lab work, and if you make such an observation, you should not ignore it or neglect it in your notebook entries. According to sources such as the U.S. mint (http://www.usmint.gov) or the Wikipedia entry for the Penny, the composition of the coin changed in 1982, without changing its dimensions. This can lead to a noticeable discrepancy between coins that are randomly selected, with a resulting complication in both the uncertainty analysis and the method. As you should surmise by now, measurement and uncertainty are complex scientific fields in and of themselves and can be quite subtle and complicated. Our goal in studio is not to train you in all aspects of this science, but to introduce you to some useful everyday concepts.