Scientific Measurement Experiments

Your Name
Lab Partner:
TA:
Date

1. Part A: Significant Figures

a. Data: Line Length
Ruler Markings Line A Line B
1m 0.1 m 0.1 m
1 dm Start 0.10 m 0.10 m
End 0.21 m 0.20 m
1 cm Start 0.100 m 0.100 m
End 0.213 m 0.202 m
1 mm Start 0.1000 m 0.1000 m
End 0.2129 m 0. 2019 m
b. Results: Calculated Line Measurements
Ruler Markings Line A Line B
1m 0.1 m 0.1 m
1 dm 0.11 m 0.10 m
1 cm 0.113 m 0.102 m
1 mm 0.1129 m 0.1019 m
c. Discussion:
i. As the units for the measurements become smaller, the more
distinguishable the difference of the lengths of the two lines is.
Hence, the decimeter markings showed a more distinguishable
difference between the lengths of the two lines than the meter
markings did and etc.
ii. Yes, two significant figures are sufficient because they include the
least significant digit. Recording to more digits would have
claimed more precision than is legitimate and recording any less
would have made the data less valuable.

2. Part B: Volume Measurements Using a Pipet

a. Data: Pipet Volume Measured Using a Graduated Cylinder
Trial Volume from graduated cylinder (ml)
1 Start: 2.02 ml
End: 7.02 ml
2 Start: 1.90 ml
End: 6.95 ml
3 Start: 2.81 ml
End: 7.90 ml
 b. Results: Calculated Volume Measurements
Trial Volume from graduated cylinder
(ml)
1 5.00 ml
2 5.05 ml
3 5.09 ml
Mean and 5.05 ± 0.05
Standard
Deviation

c. Discussion:
i. To measure out 5 ml of something, it is more accurate to use a
pipet because the 5 ml pipet has an accuracy of ± 0.02 ml which is
closer to the actual measurement compared to the accuracy of the
10 ml graduated cylinder, which is ± 0.1, and the accuracy of the
50 ml beaker, which is ± 2.5 ml.

3. Part C: Mass Measurement

a. Purpose: The purpose of this experiment is to distinguish a pre-1982
penny from a post-1982 penny by measuring the difference their masses
using an analytical balance.
b. Data:
Data for Pre-1982 Pennies
Pre-1982 Penny Mass (g) Observations
1 3.0913 g Dirty, worn
2 3.1207 g Dirty, worn, chipped
3 3.0814 g Dull, dirty
4 3.0672 g Dirty, worn
Experimental total 12.3594 g
mass

Data for Post-1982 Pennies

Post-1982 Penny Mass (g) Observations
1 2.5104 g Slightly dirty and worn
2 2.4989 g Pretty clean
3 2.4814 g Not that worn out
4 2.5114 g Slightly dirty
Experimental total 10.0013 g
mass (g)
 c. Results: Calculated Total Masses and the Standard Deviation and Mean of
the data
Results for Pre-1982 Pennies
Standard deviation and mean 3.09 ± 0.02
Calculated total mass (g) 12.3606 g

Results for Post-1982 Pennies

Standard deviation and mean 2.50 ± 0.01
Calculated total mass (g) 10.0021 g

d. Discussion:
i. Based on the data, one can distinguish a pre-1982 penny from a
post-1982 penny by comparing their masses. From the data, it is
evident that the pre-1982 pennies have larger masses than those of
post-1982.
ii. Because the pre-1982 pennies have larger masses than the ones
from post-1982, the zinc metal is denser than the copper metal. The
calculated total mass (g) of the Pre-1982 pennies is 12.3606 g
while the calculated total mass (g) of the Post-1982 pennies is
10.0021g; therefore, the zinc metal is denser than the copper since
the pre-1982 pennies were made from zinc.

e. Error Analysis:
i. The standard deviation for each set of four pennies is higher
compared to the experimental uncertainty due to the balance,
which is ±0.0001 g per penny. This shows that due to certain
possible instrumental uncertainties and/or experimental errors, the
calculated total mass of each set of pennies is somewhat
inaccurate. The standard deviation for the pre-1982 pennies have a
higher standard deviation than the post-1982, which might be due
to the addition of the mass of the dirt on the pre-1982 pennies
which is described in the observation part of the data.

4. Graph Preparation

a. Data: Beaker Diameter and Circumference

Beaker size (ml) Diameter (cm) Circumference (cm)

150 ml 5.42 cm 18.62 cm
250 ml 6.50 cm 22.15 cm
400 ml 7.18 cm 25.00 cm
600 ml 8.20 cm 28.65 cm
 b. Graph

Diameter vs. Circumfirence of Beakers

Circumfirence = Diameter x Pi
30

28

26
Circumfirence (cm)

24

22

20

18
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Diameter (cm)

c. Results: Slope, Intercept and their respective Standard and Percent

Deviations of the data
Standard Deviation Percent Deviation
Slope 3.6 ± 0.11 ± 15.8 %
Intercept -1.2 ± 0.77 ± 139.3 %
d. Error Analysis;
a. The percent deviation of the slope from the expected value is ±
15.8% because of certain instrumental uncertainties and
experimental errors. The string that was used to measure the
circumference and diameter of each beaker may have certain
uncertainties such that the string may have been pulled more
tightly around one beaker compared to another. Also, as the string
was measured using a centimeter ruler, it is uncertain whether the
string was stretched out more tightly for certain beakers than for
others, causing the circumference or diameter measurement to be
slightly longer or shorter than the actual measurement. In addition,
the accuracy of the ruler used to measure the string is unknown.
e. Calculation: