Experiment 1: Errors, Uncertainties and Measurement

Laboratory Report
Clarisse Cuevas, Leanne Curaming, Aline De Castro, Adrienne De La Cruz, Ida Dy
Department of Math and Physics
College of Science, University of Santo Tomas
Espaa, Manila Philippines
Abstract
The experiment was divided into two
parts: the first part made use of the foot
rule, vernier calliper and micrometer
calliper to measure a sphere of known
composition while the second part made use
of a foot rule to measure the thumb of
different people. The first activity aimed to
prove which of the following devices is the
most recommendable for measuring
substances. The measuring device with the
least amount of percentage error was the
micrometer calliper. The second activity
focused on using constant standards in
measurements. After measuring the thumb of
each group member, it was confirmed that
the thumb cannot be generalized as a
measure of an inch. Overall, the experiment
explored devices, errors and uncertainties in
measurement.
1. Introduction
Measurement has become a vital part
of our lives. From choosing whether to buy
half or whole meal for lunch to preparing the
ingredients for baking or Chemistry Lab, the
application of measuring is continuous.
Measuring requires much attention, although
sometimes goes unnoticed because of the
habitual practice, and specific devices to

attain satisfactory comparison with a given

standard.
Through the activities in this
experiment, students are expected to:
to study errors and how they
propagate
in
simple
experimentation
to determine the average
deviation of a set of
experimental values
to determine the mean of a
set of experimental values as
well as set of average
deviation of the mean
to familiarize the use of the
vernier
calliper
and
micrometer calliper
to compare the accuracy of
the devices
to determine the density of an
object, given its mass and
dimensions
2. Theory

Propagation of Error is the effect of

variables' errors on the uncertainty of a
function based on them. Variables have
uncertainties due to measurement limitations
(e.g., instrument precision).
The uncertainty of a measuring
device is 50% of the least count. The least
count is the smallest subdivision given on

the measuring device. The uncertainty of the

measurement should be given with the
actual measurement.[1]
The vernier principle is the
difference between two scales.
Estimating
Uncertainties
in
Measurements: It is good practice to
perform repeated measurements so that a
mean value can be estimated together with
the standard deviation and/or the standard
error in the mean.
Uncertainty in Direct Reading
Devices: For a direct reading device (like
the ruler or caliper) the reading uncertainty
is the smallest division for a single
reading. This means the smallest division
for a distance.[2]

xi

i=1

Average deviation: a.d.

d
n

Average deviation of the mean: A.D.

error =

A.D.
d

Volume (cm3): V
Mass (g): M

4
3

= 28 g

Accepted value of density (g/cm3): AV

7.8 g/

cm

Percent error for density: %

ERROR

| AVAVEV x 100|

Legend:
d

mean diameter

a .d .
n
Percent error of diameter: %

M
V

n number of observations
n = 10
a.d. average deviation
A.D. ave. deviation of the mean
d deviation
V - volume

10

Mean diameter: d

Experimental value of density (g/cm3): EV

- sum of deviations

- pi

r mean radius
m mass
EV experimental value
AV accepted value
||
absolute value
3. Methodology
The group used a foot rule, vernier
caliper, micrometer caliper, electronic gram
balance and a sphere. The group 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
Tria
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Diameter of Sphere (cm)

Foot
Vernier
Micrometer
Rule
Caliper
Caliper
1.90
1.780
1.853
2.00
1.890
1.903
2.00
1.900
1.852
1.90
1.900
1.852
1.90
1.900
1.850
1.85
1.710
1.851
1.90
1.900
1.851
1.95
1.900
1.852
1.90
1.900
1.850
2.00
1.900
1.852

Table2. Subsequent Data Obtained

Through Computation

Foot
Rule
Mean
diameter
(cm)
Average
Deviation

1.93
0.04
6

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

0.01
3
0.66
%

0.016

0.0048

0.86%

0.26%

3.76
28.0
0

3.41

3.35

28.00

28.00

7.45

8.21

8.36

7.8
4.49
%

7.8

7.8

5.26%

7.18%

In measuring the diameter of the

sphere, the micrometer caliper proved its
accuracy by getting the closest value to the
original value as verified by having the
lowest percentage of error. Next to it,
unexpectedly, is the foot rule instead of the
vernier caliper which is expected to have
more accurate results than a foot rule. A
possible reason for this may be the incorrect
placement of the sphere which supposedly
should be in the middle.
Below is table 3 which shows the
width of the thumb of the proponents
measured with a foot rule.

Vernie
r
Calipe
r

Micromet
er
Caliper

1.868
0.049

1.857
0.015

Table3. Width of Thumb of Proponents

measured with Foot Rule
Group
Member

Width of
Thumb
(in)

0.700

0.60
0

0.65
0

0.75
0

The data from Table 3 proves the

ancient standard of inch, the thumb, as
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. Thus, it can be
concluded that it is vital to make certain that
the value of the standard to be used is
consistent so as to produce reliable results.
5. Conclusion
On the first activity of the
experiment, the researchers were tasked to
measure independently, for ten times, the
spheres diameter 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 respective thumbs to know if the thumb
could be considered as standard for
measurement. Although there was a
systematic error occurred in the process, the
most accurate device became the foot rule
instead of the micrometer caliper (take note
that least count of the latter instrument is
lesser than the former), the goals of
familiarizing and comparing the accuracy of
the given measuring devices as well as the

0.70
0

determination of an objects density were

achieved.
6. Applications
1. Which among the three measuring
devices give you the least % error? Is
the accuracy of a measurement
affected by the least count of the
measuring device?
In the percentage error of the
diameter, the micrometer
calliper produced the least
value. The accuracy of a
measurement
is
indeed
affected by the count of
values attainable by the
measuring device because it
provides the extent the device
can read the most accurate
measurement of the object.
Since the micrometer calliper
possessed the most value for
measuring, it produced the
measurement with the least
amount of uncertainty.
In the percentage error of the
density, the foot ruler
produced the least value.
Although the device was
expected to have the most
unreliable result compared to
the two other measuring
devices, it was still able to
produce the least inaccurate
result for density. This result
may have been caused by the
usage and relationship of the
value of the mass to the value
of the diameter.

2. What do you mean by error? What

are the types of errors? What are the
error you encountered in this
experiment?
Error is defined by the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
as an act that through
ignorance, deficiency, or
accident departs from or fails
to achieve what should be
done. [3]
There are two types of errors:
systematic errors and random
errors. Systematic errors are
consistent effects which
change the system or the
measurements made on the
system
under
study.
Systematic error affects the
accuracy (closeness to the
true value) of an experiment
but not the precision (the
repeatability of results). [4]
It is stated at the website,
physics.nmsu.edu,
that
systematic errors may be of
four kinds: instrumental,
observational, environmental
and theoretical.[5]
Random errors are positive
and negative fluctuations that
cause about one-half of the
measurements to be too high
and one-half to be too low. [4]
Random error affects the
precision of an experiment,
and to a lesser extent its
accuracy. [5]
3. Sketch a) a vernier caliper that reads
5.08cm and b) a micrometer caliper
that reads 2.55cm.

Please refer to attached paper

for the sketches.
4. A student weigh himself using a
bathroom scale calibrated in
kilograms. He reported his weight in
pounds. What is the percentage error
in his reported weight if he used this
conversion: 1kg=2.2pounds? The
standard kilogram is equal to 2.2046
pounds.

|SVSVEV |100

error =

100
|2.20462.2
2.2046 |

error =

% error = (2.026546312

10-3)

100

% error = 0.208654631 %
% error = 0.21 %
5. In an experiment on determination of
mass of a sample, your group
consisting of 5 students obtained the
following results: 14.34g, 14.32g,
14.33g, 14.30g and 14.23g. Find the
mean, a.d. and A.D. Supposed that
your group is required to make only
four determinations for the mass of
the sample. If you are the leader of
the group, which data will you omit?
Recalculate the mean, a.d. and A.D.
without this data. Which results will
you prefer?
D=

of values
number of values

D=14.304 g

14.34 g+ 14.32 g+14.33 g+

5

deviation 1= DiD

.D .
|SVSVEV |100=|a . d .A
| 100=|0.
a .d .

error =

deviation 1=14.3414.304

deviation 1=0.036
deviation 2= DiD

error =55.28
When the value 14.23g is removed

deviation 2= 14.3214.304
deviation 2=0.016

D=

deviation 3= DiD

of values
number of values

14.34 g+14.32 g+14.33 g+14.30 g

4

deviation 3= 14.3314.304

deviation 3=0.026

D=14.3225 g

deviation 4= DiD

deviation 1= DiD

deviation 4= 14.3014.304

deviation 1=14.3414.3225

deviation 4=0.004

deviation 1=0.0175

deviation 5= DiD

deviation2= DiD

deviation 5= 14.2314.304

deviation 2= 14.3214.3225

deviation 5=0.074

deviation 2=0.0025

a . d .=

d
n

0.036 +0.016+0.026+ 0.004+0.074

5

a.d. = 0.0312
a.d .
A . D .=
n

0.0312
5

A.D. = 0.013953064

deviation 3= DiD

deviation 3= 14.3314.3225
deviation 3=0.0075

deviation 4= DiD
deviation 4= 14.3014.3225

deviation 4=0.0225

a . d .=

d
n

0.0175+ 0.0025+0.0075+0.0225
4

a.d. = 0.0125
A . D .=

a.d .
n

0.0125
4

A.D. = 0.00625

|SVSVEV |100
a . d . A . D .
|
| 100
a .d .
0.01250.00625
|
|100
0.0125
error =

error =50
We would prefer the latter result
which resulted to a 50% percentage error. It
is more accurate and acceptable than the
former results percentage error of 55.28%.
The lower the percentage error, the more
accurate the results are.
7. References
[1] Lepla Org. (nd). Errors and
Statistics: Instrument
Uncertainty and Least Count.
Retrieved from the World
Wide Web on December 4,

2012
[http://www.lepla.org/en/mod
ules/Activities/p04/p04error4.htm]
[2] Uregina. (nd). Experiment 109-1:
Measurements, Uncertainties
and Errors. Retrieved from
the World Wide Web on
December 4, 2012
[http://uregina.ca/~szymanss/
uglabs/p109/Experiments/109
-1Meas&Error08.pdf]
[3] Merriam - Webster. (2012). Error.
Retrieved from the World
Wide Web on December 4,
2012 [http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/error]
[4] O.S.U. (nd). Experimental Error.
Retrieved from the World
Wide Web on December 4,
2012
[http://chemistry.osu.edu/~co
e/research/documents/experi
mental_error_new2.pdf]
[5] N.M.S.U. (nd). Types of
Experimental Errors.
Retrieved from the World
Wide Web on December 4,
2012
[http://www.physics.nmsu.ed
u/research/lab110g/html/ERR
ORS.html]