Measuring Height 1 (cm Height 2 (cm Height 3 (cm Average

± .05cm) ± .05cm) ± .05cm) Height

Block Height Block slightly 4.4 5.8 5.0 5.1cm ±
Set 1 offset from 0.4cm
ruler
Block directly 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0cm
in contact ± .05cm
with ruler
Block Height Block slightly 3.0 2.5 3.4 3.0cm ±
Set 2 offset from 0.4cm
ruler
Block directly 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.9cm
in contact ± .05cm
with ruler
Block Height Block slightly 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5cm ±
Set 3 offset from 0.5cm
ruler
Block directly 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.0cm
in contact ± 0.1cm
with ruler
Table 1 (Part A): This table communicates the measurements took of a wooden block’s height
when slightly offset from the ruler and when directly in contact with the ruler.

Length (cm ± Width (cm ± Height (cm ± Mass (g ± .05g)

.05cm) .0025cm) .0025cm)
Measurement 1 3.1 3.1 3.15 286.9
Measurement 2 3.2 3.2 3.18 286.9
Measurement 3 3.0 3.2 3.10 286.9
Table 2 (Part B): This table communicates the measurements of length, width, height and mass
of a metal block given to the group. Length was measured with a meter stick and the width/
height with a Vernier caliper. Mass was measured with a standard scale.

Initial Cylinder Final Cylinder Change in Volume

Volume (mL ± Volume (mL ± (ΔV= Vi-Vf)
0.5mL) 0.5mL) (mL ± 0.5mL)
Measurement 1 70 33 37
Measurement 2 90 51 39
Measurement 3 49 13 36
Table 3 (Part C): This table communicates the measurement of the displacement of water of the
metal block used for the measurements in table 2. With this information the density of the block
can be found to prove that it is copper.
Reading Error for Table 1

Section A (Block offset from the ruler)

(4.4𝑐𝑚+5.8𝑐𝑚+5.0𝑐𝑚)
Set 1: = 5.1cm 5.8cm-5.1cm = 0.4cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the reading error of value 0.4cm

(3.0𝑐𝑚+2.5𝑐𝑚+3.4𝑐𝑚)
Set 2: = 3.0cm 3.4cm-3.0cm = 0.4cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the reading error of value 0.4cm

(4.5𝑐𝑚+4.0𝑐𝑚+5.0𝑐𝑚)
Set 3: = 4.5cm 5.0cm-4.5cm = 0.5cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the reading error of value 0.5cm

Section B (Block directly against the ruler)

(4.9𝑐𝑚+5.0𝑐𝑚+5.0𝑐𝑚)
Set 1: = 5.0cm 5.0cm-5.0cm = 0cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the observation error of 0.05cm

(4.9𝑐𝑚+4.9𝑐𝑚+4.8𝑐𝑚)
Set 2: = 4.9cm 4.9cm-4.9cm = 0cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the observation error of 0.05cm

(4.9𝑐𝑚+5.0𝑐𝑚+5.1𝑐𝑚)
Set 3: = 5.0cm 5.1cm-5.0cm = 0.1cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the reading error of 0.1cm

Reading error for Table 2

(3.1𝑐𝑚+3.2𝑐𝑚+3.0𝑐𝑚)
Length: = 3.1cm 3.2cm-3.1cm = 0.1cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the reading error of 0.1cm

(3.1𝑐𝑚+3.2𝑐𝑚+3.2𝑐𝑚)
Width: = 3.16 3.2cm-3.16cm = .04cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the reading error of 0.04cm

(3.15𝑐𝑚+3.18𝑐𝑚+3.10𝑐𝑚)
Height: =3.14cm 3.18cm-3.14cm = .04cm
3

Therefore the error observed is the reading error of 0.04cm

 (286.9𝑔+286.9𝑔+286.9𝑔)
Mass: = 286.9g 286.9g-286.9g = 0.0g
3

Therefore the error observed is the observation error of 0.5g

Reading error for Table 3

(37𝑚𝐿+39𝑚𝐿+36𝑚𝐿)
ΔV: = 37mL 39mL-37mL = 2.0mL
3

Therefore the error observed is the reading error of 2.0mL

Calculation of Density and Propagation of Errors

B) Density from volume and mass:

𝑉 = 𝑙𝑤ℎ 𝑉 = (. 031𝑚)(.0316𝑚)(.034𝑚) 𝑉 = 3.3 × 10−5 𝑚3

Propagation of Errors:

∆𝑦 ∆𝑥 2 ∆𝑥 2 ∆𝑥 2 ∆𝑦 .001𝑚 2 .0004𝑚 2 .0004𝑚 2

≈ √( 𝑥 1 ) + ( 𝑥 2 ) + ( 𝑥 2 ) ≈ √(.031𝑚) + (.0361𝑚) + ( .034𝑚 )
𝑦 1 2 2 𝑦

∆𝑦
≈ √1.30 × 10−3 ∆𝑦 ≈ (3.3 × 10−5 )0.0361 ∆𝑦 ≈ 1.19 × 10−6 ∆𝑦 ≈
3.3×10−5 𝑚3
−6
1.0 × 10

Therefore the volume is 𝑉 = 3.3 × 10−5 𝑚3 ± 1.0 × 10−6 𝑚3

𝑚 .2869𝑘𝑔
𝑝= 𝑝 = 3.3×10−5 𝑚3 𝑝 = 8693.9 𝑝 = 8.7 × 103 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑉

Propagation of Errors:

∆𝑦 ∆𝑥 2 ∆𝑥 2 ∆𝑦 .0005𝑘𝑔 2 1.0×10−6 𝑚3 2 ∆𝑦
≈ √( 𝑥 1 ) + ( 𝑥 2 ) ≈ √(.2869𝑘𝑔) + (3.3×10−5 𝑚3 ) ≈ √9.213 × 10−4
𝑦 1 2 𝑦 𝑦

∆𝑦
≈ 3.04 × 10−2 ∆𝑦 ≈ (8.7 × 103 )3.04 × 10−2 ∆𝑦 ≈ 2.64 × 102 ∆𝑦 ≈ 3.0 × 102
8.7×103

103 𝑘𝑔 102 𝑘𝑔
Therefore the density is 8.7 × ± 3.0 ×
𝑚3 𝑚3

C) Density from displacement: ∆𝑦 = √(∆𝑥1 )2 +(∆𝑥2 )2 +(∆𝑥3 )2 ∆𝑦 =

√(0.5𝑚𝐿)2 +(0.5𝑚𝐿)2 +(0.5𝑚𝐿)2

10−6 𝑚3
∆𝑦 = √0.75𝑚𝐿2 ∆𝑦 = 0.866𝑚𝐿 ∆𝑦 = 0.9𝑚𝐿 ( ) ∆𝑦 = 9.0 × 10−7 𝑚3
1𝑚𝐿
10−6 𝑚3
𝑉 = 37𝑚𝐿 ( ) 𝑉 = 3.7 × 10−5 𝑚3
1𝑚𝐿
Therefore the volume of the metal is 3.7 × 10−5 𝑚3 ± 9.0 × 10−7 𝑚3
 𝑚 .2869𝑘𝑔
𝑝= 𝑝 = 3.7×10−5 𝑚3 𝑝 = 7.75 × 103 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 𝑝 = 7.8 × 103 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑉

Propagation of Errors

∆𝑦 ∆𝑥 2 ∆𝑥 2 ∆𝑦 .0005𝑘𝑔 2 9.0×10−7 𝑚3 2 ∆𝑦
≈ √( 𝑥 1 ) + ( 𝑥 2 ) ≈ √(.2869𝑘𝑔) + (3.7×10−5 𝑚3 ) ≈ √5.947 × 10−4
𝑦 1 2 𝑦 𝑦

∆𝑦 103 𝑘𝑔
≈ 0.02439 ∆𝑦 ≈ (7.8 × )0.02439 ∆𝑦 ≈ 1.90 × 102 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
7.8×103 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 𝑚3

∆𝑦 ≈ 2.0 × 102 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 Therefore the density of the metal based on its mass and volume is
7.8 × 103 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ± 1.90 × 102 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
Discussion and Conclusion

In this laboratory experiment, students were able to learn the ability of being able to

estimate uncertainties when measurements are not directly related to what is the goal

measurement. For instance, measuring the density of a substance by measuring its length, width,

height and mass was done as an example of this. With devices such as meter sticks, Vernier

Calipers and graduated cylinders there is a certain amount of uncertainty that must be taken into

account when measuring. The meter stick used, for example is not a very accurate or precise

instrument as shown with a precision of 92.8%. The meter stick is only able to show accuracy to

the nearest centimeter. All modern equipment has some level of inaccuracy and therefore no

measurement can be said to have 100% accuracy or precision. Accuracy is the ability of a

measurement to come close to the actual value and precision is the ability of the measurement to

zone in on the most correct measurement (1.06 units is more precise than 1.1 units for example).

In Part A of this experiment, height was measured using a meter stick. The dimensions

found are stated in table 1 of the observations section. As seen, the meter stick was able to give a

close range to the wooden block’s actual height, but there was still an estimation that had to

occur. The block, when measured correctly, was found to be 4.9cm ± 0.5cm. This shows that this

measurement was approximately 91.8% accurate as the lack of precision between 4.4cm and

5.3cm results in almost a 10% loss in accuracy. This portion of the laboratory experiment was

efficient in proving that every measurement is not 100% accurate and that there is a range of

error that can occur for measurements. To improve the precision of these measurements, a meter

stick with more units of measurement can be used. An example of this would be a meter stick

with smallest units being millimeters instead of centimeters (±.001m instead of ±.01m). Another

way is to, instead of estimating through a parallax perspective (---), directly measuring the
wooden block. As seen in the observations, the block’s measurements were substantially less

accurate when measured offset from the ruler compared to when it was put directly against the

ruler. The precision of the measurements increased from having an error range of ±.5cm to

±.05cm which is substantially more precise.

Part B continued the proof of the fact that all measurements are not 100% accurate. Using

a meter stick for length and a Vernier caliper for the width and the height of the metal block, our

group was able to determine the dimensions of the metal block according to the precision of the

meter stick (±.5cm) and the Vernier caliper (±.05cm). The Vernier caliper was substantially more

precise than the meter stick (accurate to ± .0025cm instead of ± .05cm) although there was still a

margin for error. Every ruler of any sort will have portions between the measurement dashes

which are unspecified, and the Vernier caliper as seen on this lab is the same. Furthermore the

scale used to determine the mass of the metal block was precise to ±.5g. The error ranges for

both of these sets of measurements resulted in the need for propagation of errors to be calculated,

specifically the formula for dividing and multiplying in order to get the volume as well as the

102 𝑘𝑔
density. The density’s error range was found to be quite large (3.0 × ) which may be due to
𝑚3

the lack of accuracy in both the measuring devices used for volume as well as the scale. The

scale, for instance, may not have been calibrated properly. To fix this, one could use a scale

calibrated more efficiently as well as a scale with more precise units of measurements.

103 𝑘𝑔 102 𝑘𝑔
The density was found to be 8.7 × ± 3.0 × which is closest to the value
𝑚3 𝑚3

103 𝑘𝑔
given for Brass (8.6 × ). This means that the answer was 99% correct (1% error) as found
𝑚3

when we divide the actual density by the density calculated. This measurement was quite

𝑘𝑔
accurate, but not precise as it was noted that the error was approximately ±300𝑚3 . This margin of
 𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔
error means that the measurement waivers between 9000𝑚3 and 8400𝑚3 . Neither of these are

very accurate to the actual measurement of brass. We can improve our measurements by

increasing the precision of the measurements taken for volume as well as mass of the metal

block. The precision of this measurement of density had 3.4% error (found by dividing the error

by the measurement found).

Part C was a secondary way of measuring the density of the metal block. Using the mass

and the volume of the metal, which was found by calculating the displacement of water, we were

able to determine the metal block’s density and compare it to Appendix I to determine which

metal we had received. The density of the metal was found to be 7.8 × 103 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ± 1.90 ×

102 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 which is closest to the density of Iron. This measurement is a total of 1% off from the

actual measurement as calculated when we divide the actual density by the found density and

𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔
subtracting 100. With the error the measurement will lie between 7990 and 7610 . This
𝑚3 𝑚3

measurement is not very accurate when we consider the error range. This may be due to the

graduated cylinder used for measuring the volume which was only accurate to 0.5mL or, once

again, the scale used to measure the mass of the metal block. A way one can fix this to reduce the

range of error is by including smaller units on the graduated cylinder as well as the scale. Part C,

therefore also confirms that the measurement tools used are not exact, and therefore we must

calculate the error and propagation of error. The density of this portion of the experiment was

found to have an error range of 2.5% (found by dividing the error by the actual density found in

the experiment).

In this experiment the accuracy and precision of measuring tools was tested. For part A

the measurements made sense. As the block is put closer to the measuring device it becomes
more evident as to what the actual measurement of the block is when viewing it in a parallax

form (--). The measurements for parts B and C do not coincide though, as for part B a density of

103 𝑘𝑔 102 𝑘𝑔
8.7 × ± 3.0 × whereas for part C it was found to be7.8 × 103 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ± 1.90 ×
𝑚3 𝑚3

102 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 . This is contradicting because part B shows the metal was Bass yet part C shows the

metal was Iron. This, of course is due to the error in precision of the measuring devices used. To

say whether te graduated cylinder was less accurate than the meter stick and Vernier caliper

though cannot be said as they have different units and different scales on the measuring

apparatus. The propagation of errors following the use of the metal’s dimensions versus it’s

displacement of water results, therefore, result in different amounts of error for each method as

well. These errors are in themselves estimations of the actual value of the measurement, which

means that this experiment proves that there are errors even when measuring simple quantities

such as dimensions, mass, and volume displaced.