Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

Gokongwei College of Engineering


Chemical Engineering Department

LBYCHED EA2
Final Laboratory Report

Experiment # 1

Calibration of Thermometers

Group Name

Group One
NAME

Section
SIGNATURE

EA2
Criteria

1.

Ardon, Adrianne P.

2.

Arogo, John Ismael A.

3.

Coronel, Antonio Louis O.

Methodology (15%)

4.

Gonzales, Patricia Shaine B.

Results | Disc. (45%)

5.

Lazarte, John Paolo L.

Score

Abstract (10%)
Intro (10%)

Style | Grammar
(20%)
Total (100%)

1 June 2016
Date of performance

15 June 2016
Date of Submission

Dr. Kathleen B. Aviso


Mr. Roy Alvin J. Malenab
Instructors

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
Cruz,

Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only)

[1]

Dr. Lawrence P. Belo

Adrianne Ardon, John Ismael Arogo, Antonio Louis Coronel, Patricia Shaine Gonzales, John Paolo Lazarte
Department of Chemical Engineering, Gokongwei College of Engineering, De La Salle University,
2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004, Philippines
ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

AY 20152016 | Term 3
LBYCHED EA2
Final Laboratory Report
Experiment # 1
Date Performed: June 1, 2016
Date Submitted: June 15, 2016

Temperature is regarded as an important thermodynamic property. As such, a branch


of thermodynamics was dedicated to the study of temperature measurement, called
thermometry. Accuracy of temperature-measuring devices, called thermometers, are
crucial in large scale processes and as such, a method called calibration was
devised. This experiment was aimed to further expose students to more types of
thermometers and to compare its accuracy with one another. The first part of the
experiment tackled with the calibration of thermometers based on the physical
quantities of pure substances. This was done by heating water to its boiling point and
cooling water to its melting point and then comparing the readings of the various
thermometers used at certain intervals. It was discovered that for mercury
thermometers, when temperature is plotted as a function of length of the reading,
they produce similar slopes indicating that there is proportionality between the two
properties. Afterwards, parity charts were constructed to determine the differences
between the readings of the thermometers used from the standard temperatures. It
has been determined that the readings of the thermometers used have a very high
regression value with respect to the standard temperatures, indicating that various
usually used thermometers are considerably accurate. Though it is also important to
note that thermometers need time to equilibrate with its surroundings. If this is
neglected, a phenomenon called hysteresis occurs. Therefore, time was also allotted
before reading the measurements. It is observed that hysteresis occurs when
monitoring is done while the device has not yet been in thermal equilibrium with its
surroundings, which is evident in our first readings for the last part of the
experiment, having a significant percentage error as compared to the latter readings,
which were close to one another.

Keywords
Thermometers, Thermometry,
Hysteresis, Calibration

Cruz,

Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only)

[2]

Dr. Lawrence P. Belo

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. Thermometers are instruments that measure temperature. Temperature is one essential thermodynamic

property that has to be accurately specified in physical or chemical transformation, including those in industrial
and largescale processes. The accuracy in its measurement is actually important for process control and product
quality control. Temperature-measuring devices should therefore function well, accurately, and precisely.
Calibration is a method that can be done to these devices to ensure so [1].
III.
IV. Thermometry, or the branch of thermodynamics that specifically deals with temperature measurement,

started 1600AD in Italy [2]. Since then, may developments in the field have been done, including the invention of
several types of thermometers or temperature-measuring devices. Expansion thermometers have three sub-types
but all rely on the principle that the volume of a substance changes with temperaturesubstances expand when
heated and compress when cooled. Expansion thermometers may be made of liquid-in-glass, of a solid medium,
or of a gaseous medium. Electrical resistance thermometers, instead of looking at the volume of a substance,
applies the principle that electrical resistance of metal conductors change with temperature. Most common
examples of these are Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs) which are wire-wound and thin-film devices.
Thermocouples are made of pairs of dissimilar metal wires that are joined at least at one end. The electric
potential generated at the other unattached end of the two wires is affected by temperature so it is considered as a
temperature-measuring device [3]. Some other types if thermometers are pyrometers, thermistor temperature
sensors, and fiber optic thermometers [4].
V.
VI. With these many types of thermometers, errors, small errors, sometimes arise from measurements. This is

why calibration and correction is very important. There is actually a correction equation for liquid-in-glass
thermometers that are not fully immersed in the substance being measured. The correction equation (1) is shown
below.
VII.
VIII.

CF 0.00009 X M T1 T2

IX. (1)

X.
XI. This equation is used for mercury thermometers. The correction, C F, in F is added algebraically to the

temperature reading for a more accurate value. X M is the length of exposed mercury thread in oF, T1 is the
temperature indicated by the thermometer in oF, and T2 is the calibrated temperatures with full immersion, also in
o [5]
F .
XII.
XIII.

With this understanding of thermometers and for the realized importance of calibration, this
experiment was conducted to help demonstrate the concepts that have been discussed. This experiment also aims
to familiarize students with various types of temperature-measuring devices, specifically the mercury, and other
liquid-in-glass, thermometers, thermocouples, dial thermometers, and more. Moreover, these temperaturemeasuring devices were calibrated as needed to ensure accurate and precise measurements and the different
types were compared after analyzing the readings and the calibrations [1].
XIV.
XV.
METHODOLGY
XVI.
2.1 Materials and Reagents
3 mercury thermometers (various temperature ranges)
Dial thermometer
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[3]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
Thermocouple
Block calibrator
Ice bath
Steam bath
Beaker
Electric heater
Bunsen burner
Tripod
Wire gauze
2.2 Equipment
A. Thermocouple
XVII. Thermocouple was one of the temperature measuring instrument used in the experiment. It looks like any
digital multimeter, especially due to the presence of probes because the principle of operation is almost the same.
The device reads the temperature by the two wires (thermoelements) that are separately connected in the voltmeter
at the tail end and joined at the junction end (see figure 2.2.1). This junction is immersed in the solution while the
tail end is exposed to ambient temperature, creating a voltage difference [6]. This reading is converted to the
corresponding temperature. In the absence of a good calibrating device, this device suffice as a good reference as
exhibited in the experiment.
XVIII.

XIX.
XX.

Figure 2.2.1 Schematic of a thermocouple

XXI.
B. Block Calibrator DB-700A
XXII. Another tool used in the experiment for calibration was the block calibrator DB-700A. It makes use of
the so-called "drywell" for calibration. A drywell makes use of high stability metal blocks with drilled wells having
a temperature range from 45 oC to 1200 oC [7]. The temperature of the drywell is determined by the presence of an
internal thermometer. The value displayed by the internal thermometer was used as the reference temperature in the
calibration of the instruments under test which were put in the drywell or dry-block (see figure 2.2.2).

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[4]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

XXIII.
XXIV. Figure 2.2.2. Block calibrator and thermocouple in set-up
XXV.
2.3 Experimental Procedure
XXVI. Five devices were calibrated in this experiment, namely: three mercury thermometers of different
graduations, and a dial thermometer. The three mercury thermometers with maximum temperature capacity of 360 oC,
100 oC, and 100 oC were labelled as thermometer 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The thermocouple was used in calibration
both as the instrument under test and the reference for the measurement of temperature of the system. In calibrating the
devices methods enumerated below were conducted.
XXVII.
A. Calibration using ice bath
XXVIII. This procedure was done to calibrate the devices using the melting point/ freezing point of water as
the reference temperature. In order to achieve this, an ice bath with small amount of water was prepared. The five
devices tested were submerged one at a time, recording the initial temperature and the succeeding readings every
five seconds. Readings were stopped when the temperature reading shown in the instrument reached its minimum.
XXIX.
B. Calibration using steam bath
XXX. The devices were also calibrated using the boiling point of water. Steam bath was prepared for this
procedure. The devices in analysis were dipped into the steam generator one at a time and the temperature readings
were recorded every thirty seconds for thermometer 1 because the steam generator has not reached boiling point
when measurements were done for this instrument. The interval was set to 5 seconds for the rest. Readings were
stopped when the temperature reached its maximum.
XXXI.
C. Calibration using thermocouple
XXXII. After calibration using a set temperature, calibration was done by increasing and decreasing the
temperature. In this part of the experiment, the thermocouple was used as the reference for measurements. All the
instruments were placed inside the same water bath under a heating plate as the system. Magnetic stirrer was used
to homogenize the temperature of the system to make the temperature readings from all instruments more accurate
since it would be impossible to put all the instruments on the same spot inside the beaker. The temperature reading
reported for each instrument (3 mercury thermometers and one dial thermometer) was measured from 45 oC to 100
o
C reported on the thermocouple every 5 oC increment. After reaching 100 oC, heat supply was stopped and ice was
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[5]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
added to lower the temperature back to 60 oC. The temperature readings of other instruments were also recorded
every 5 oC drop in temperature as indicated in the thermocouple.
XXXIII.
D. Calibration using block calibrator
XXXIV. The last part of the experiment dealt with calibration of the instruments under the temperatures above
boiling point. Two of the instruments were calibrated, the thermocouple and thermometer 1. Thermometer 1 was
used because among all the thermometers available, it is the only one with a capacity of up to 360 oC. The
temperature range covered was from 100 oC to 200 oC and readings were conducted every 10 oC interval. However,
before measurements were made, it was made sure that the block calibrator has stabilized at the temperature
desired and that the two devices have stabilized as well. In order to achieve this, the devices were allowed to come
into equilibrium for 2 minutes after the block calibrator has stabilized. The readings obtained from the two
instruments for each interval were recorded for analysis.
XXXV.
XXXVI.

Ice bath was prepared


Each instrument was subjected to test (Thermometer 1,2 , and 3, dial thermometer, and thermocouple)
Temperature was recorded every 5 seconds until reading stabilizes into the minimum temparature

Calibration using
Ice Bath

Steam bath was prepared


Each instrument was subjected to test (Thermometer 1,2 , and 3, dial thermometer, and thermocouple)
Temperature was recorded every 5 seconds until reading stabilizes into the minimum temparature

Calibration using
Steam Bath

Reference for the measurement was the thermocouple


All devices were dipped into the same water bath
The temperature reported for each instrument was measured from 45C to 100C for heating while 100C to
60C for cooling at an increment of every 5C
Two instruments were calibrated: thermocouple and a mercury thermometer
The temperature was measured from 100C to 200C at an increment of 10C
Before recording the temperature reading, block calibrator was allowed to stabilize for 2 minutes

Calibration using
Thermocouple
Calibration using
Block Calibrator

XXXVII. Figure 2.3.1. Summary of the experimental Procedure

XXXVIII.
XXXIX.
XL.
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[6]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
XLI.
XLII.
XLIII.
XLIV.
XLV.
XLVI.
XLVII.
XLVIII.
XLIX.
L.
LI.
LII.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
LIII.
LIV.

3.1 Calibration Based on Physical Properties of Pure Substances


LV.

LVI.
LVII. Fig 3.1.1. Experimental and actual plots of temperature vs. stem length of mercury thermometer 1

LVIII.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[7]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

LIX.
LX.Fig 3.1.2. Experimental and actual plots of temperature vs. stem length of mercury thermometer 2
LXI.

LXII.
LXIII. Fig 3.1.3. Experimental and actual plots of temperature vs. stem length of mercury thermometer 3

LXIV.
LXV. The graphs above show the plots of the temperature against length in each of the three thermometers
used in this experiment. Using the data acquired from the melting point and boiling point test, a linear equation
was produced labeled as experimental. The line labeled as actual plots the length of thermometer scale over the
maximum temperature reading of the thermometer. The equations below were obtained using the plots of the
thermometers.
LXVI.

LXVII.
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[8]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
LXVIII. Where x = the length of the mercury reading in cm relative to the stem length and y = the temperature
reading of the mercury thermometer. Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 are the derived equations from the experimental data and the
actual calibration of thermometer 1 respectively. These equations are illustrated in Figure 3.1.1.

LXIX.
LXX. Where x = the length of the mercury reading in cm relative to the stem length and y = the temperature
reading of the mercury thermometer. Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 are the derived equations from the experimental data and the
actual calibration of thermometer 2 respectively. These equations are illustrated in Figure 3.1.2.

LXXI.
LXXII. Where x = the length of the mercury reading in cm relative to the stem length and y = the temperature
reading of the mercury thermometer. Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 are the derived equations from the experimental data and the
actual calibration of thermometer 3 respectively. These equations are illustrated in Figure 3.1.3.
LXXIII.
LXXIV.
It was observed that the slope of the entire thermometer and the slope of the boiling and melting
point obtained were similar for each thermometer. Both plots were linear coinciding with one another. This means
that the expansion of the mercury in the thermometer is linear which is proportional to the maximum temperature
reading of the thermometer and its length. The markings are linear of each of the thermometers are linear
throughout the range of the thermometer. It was noted that the slopes of each thermometer were different. This
means that the calibration of each of the thermometers is different. The variances are due to the differences in
length and diameter housing the mercury.
LXXV.
LXXVI. Table 3.1.1 Melting and boiling points measured from different thermometers

LXXVII. Thermomete
r

LXXVIII. Boiling
Point (C)

LXXIX. Percent Error


(%)

LXXX. Melting Point


(C)

LXXXI. Mercury
Thermometer
1
LXXXVIII. Mercury
Thermometer
2
XCV. Mercury
Thermometer
3
CII.
Dial
Thermometer

LXXXII.
LXXXIII. 98.0

LXXXIV.
LXXXV. 2.00

LXXXVI.
LXXXVII. 0.0

LXXXIX.
XC.
96.0

XCI.
XCII. 4.00

XCIII.
XCIV. -1.0

XCVI.
XCVII. 98.5

XCVIII.
XCIX. 1.50

C.
CI.

CIII.
CIV.
99.9

CV.
CVI.

0.10

CVII.
CVIII. 1.2

CX.
CXI.

CXII.
CXIII. 0.20

CXIV.
CXV. 0.8

CIX.

Thermocoupl
e

99.8

0.0

CXVI.
CXVII. However, the comparison between mercury thermometers against a dial thermometer and a
thermocouple shows the accuracy of each device varies. The variations occur when particular devices are used to
measure certain temperature ranges. At the boiling temperature of water, the thermocouple and the dial
thermometer provide temperatures close to that of the theoretical boiling point of water at 0.2% and 0.1%
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[9]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
respectively. The mercury thermometers lagged behind at 2%, 4% and 1.5% error. This means that at higher
temperatures the thermocouple and the dial thermometer are reliable measuring tools. At the melting point, the
mercury thermometers stabilized at around 0 C, however thermometer 2 deviated from this trend yielding a
temperature reading of -1.0 C. Meanwhile the dial thermometer and thermocouple had their temperatures flatten
out at the 1.2 C and 0.8 C respectively. Here, the mercury thermometers fared better than the thermocouple and
the dial thermometer.
CXVIII.
CXIX. The errors of the thermometers differ due to the differences in the method of measurement (mercury
thermometers, a dial thermometer, and a thermocouple) as well as faults in the equipment used. The different
types of thermometers used have particular temperature ranges in which they are more accurate than others. Based
on the theory, the thermocouple is ideally used at higher temperatures although can still operate in low
temperature with acceptable accuracy. This could explain why at the boiling point the error was only 0.1%. In
contrast, the melting point was relatively less accurate than that of the other thermometers used.
CXX.
CXXI. As for faulty equipment, it is possible that the thermometers are not calibrated correctly. Comparing the
three mercury thermometers used in this experiment, it is evident that thermometer 2 did not produce
measurements similar to the accuracy of the other two thermometers. This is significant in both the boiling point
measurement as well as the melting point. The inconsistent in the readings of thermometer 2 greatly depreciates
its reliability.
CXXII.
3.2 Comparison of Temperature Readings with Standard Instrument
CXXIII. Since a temperature galvanometer is not available, the group made use of the thermocouple connected to
a Fluke digital monitor as the standard for this experiment. For this experiment, three mercury thermometers and one
dial thermometer were used to measure the readings at certain temperatures. The group performed this two ways. In the
first one, the group measured the temperature as the water bath was being heated while on the second one, the group
measured the temperature as the bath was being cooled down. For both methods, the reading was done every 5 degrees
Celsius.
CXXIV.

f(x) = 1.02x - 1.02


R = 1

CXXV.
CXXVI.

Fig. 3.2.1. Parity chart of mercury thermometer 1 vs standard temperature (heating)

CXXVII.
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[10]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

f(x) = 1.02x - 0.72


R = 1

CXXVIII.
CXXIX.

Fig. 3.2.2. Parity chart of mercury thermometer 2 vs standard temperature (heating)

CXXX.
CXXXI.

f(x) = 1x + 0.1
R = 1

CXXXII.
CXXXIII. Fig. 3.2.3. Parity chart of mercury thermometer 3 vs standard temperature (heating)

CXXXIV.
CXXXV.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[11]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

f(x) = 1.03x - 1.13


R = 1

CXXXVI.
CXXXVII. Fig. 3.2.4. Parity chart of dial thermometer vs standard temperature (heating)

CXXXVIII.
CXXXIX. While measuring the temperature readings as the water bath was being heated, the group observed that
the readings from the thermometers deviated from the standard instrument at an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius. The
readings from each of the thermometers were plotted against the standard temperature in the parity charts found in
Figures 3.2.1 to 3.2.4. The group started recording the readings from 45 degrees Celsius until 100 degrees Celsius. The
parity charts show that the readings are linear with the standard temperature. However, deviations can be seen as some
points are either a little bit higher or lower than the standard temperature.
CXL.
f(x) = 1.02x - 1
R = 1

CXLI.
CXLII. Fig. 3.2.5. Parity chart of mercury thermometer 1 vs standard temperature (cooling)
CXLIII.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[12]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

f(x) = 1.02x - 1.89


R = 0.99

CXLIV.
CXLV. Fig. 3.2.6. Parity chart of mercury thermometer 2 vs standard temperature (cooling)

CXLVI.
f(x) = 1.03x - 2.08
R = 1

CXLVII.
CXLVIII. Fig. 3.2.7. Parity chart of mercury thermometer 3 vs standard temperature (cooling)

CXLIX.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[13]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

f(x) = 1.02x - 0.79


R = 1

CL.
CLI.

Fig. 3.2.8. Parity chart of dial thermometer vs standard temperature (cooling)

CLII.
CLIII. The same was observed when the group recorded the reading as the water bath was being cooled down.
There were also some slight deviations to the standard temperature, at an average of 0.25 degrees Celsius. A parity chart
for all the readings recorded per instrument is also prepared by the group illustrated in Figures 3.2.5 to 3.2.8. Similar to
that of the trial that recorded as the temperature was increasing, the recorded temperatures are also linear with the
standard temperature. However, slight increase or decrease on the reading can be seen when compared to the standard
temperature.
CLIV.
CLV. The slight deviation from the standard temperature may be caused by many factors. One of the factors that
we consider is the error due to inconsistent reading. The small increments on the thermometer can make it difficult for
the student to read the temperature. The inconsistent eye level at which the reading was taken can also be a cause of the
error. The percentage errors for the reading at each temperature is illustrated in Table 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
CLVI. Table 3.2.1. Recorded data and percentage error on heating water bath

CLVII.

Standard

Temperature (C)
CLXI. 45

CLVIII.

Average

Reading of Hg
Thermometer (C)
CLXII. 44.80

CLIX. Reading of

CLX. Percen

Dial Thermometer

tage Error

(C)
CLXIII.45

00

(%)
CLXIV. 0
.
4
4
4

CLXV. 50
CLXIX.

55

CLXVI. 49.80

CLXVII. 50

4
CLXVIII.

00
CLXX. 54.76

CLXXI. 54

0.4000
CLXXII. 0

67

.
4

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[14]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
2
4
CLXXIII.

60

CLXXIV.

2
CLXXVI.

CLXXV. 59

9.666
CLXXVII. 65

7
CLXXVIII. 6
4.566

0.5556
CLXXIX.

CLXXX. 0

6
6
6

CLXXXI.

70

CLXXXII. 6
9.600

CLXXXV.

76

CLXXXIX. 80

0
CLXXXVI. 7

CXC.

CLXXXIII. 6
8
CLXXXVII. 7

4.566

7
79.43

CXCI. 79

7
CLXXXIV.
0.5714
CLXXXVIII.
1.8860
CXCII. 0

33

.
7
0
8

CXCIII.85

CXCIV. 84.06

CXCV. 84

3
CXCVI.1

67

.
0
9
8

CXCVII. 90

CXCVIII.

CXCIX.88

CC.

0
1

8.966

1
4
8

CCI.

95

CCII.

93.66
67

CCIII. 93

1
CCIV. 1
.
4

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[15]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
0
3
CCV.

100

CCVI. 98.83

5
CCVIII.1

CCVII. 98

33

.
1
6
6
7
CCIX.

CCX. Table 3.2.2. Recorded data and percentage error on cooling water bath

CCXI. Standard
Temperature

CCXII.

Average

CCXIII. Reading

Reading of Hg

of Dial

CCXV. 95

Thermometer (C)
CCXVI.94

Thermometer (C)
CCXVII. 94

CCXIX.90

CCXX. 89.43

CCXIV.

Per

centage Error
(%)
CCXVIII.
1.0526
CCXXII. 0

CCXXI.89

33

.
6
2
9

CCXXIII.

85

CCXXIV.

6
CCXXVI.

CCXXV. 85

4.666
CCXXVII. 80

7
CCXXVIII. 8
0.333

0.3922
CCXXIX.

CCXXX. 0

4
1
6

CCXXXI.

75

CCXXXII. 7
4.333

CCXXXV.

70

CCXXXIX. 65

3
CCXXXVI. 7

CCXXXIII. 7
5
CCXXXVII. 7

0.100

0
CCXL. 64.93

CCXLI. 64

33

7
CCXXXIV.
0.8889
CCXXXVIII.
0.1429
CCXLII. 0
.
1

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[16]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
0
2
CCXLIII.

60

CCXLIV.

CCXLV.60

0.166

6
CCXLVI.
0.2778

7
CCXLVII.
CCXLVIII. Aside from personal errors, there can also be errors caused by the instrument. The group believes that
a phenomenon called hysteresis is observed in this experiment which caused the deviations of the reading from the
standard temperature. Hysteresis is a phenomena at which the value of the quantity being measured lags behind the
changes that caused it. This means that the reading in the thermometer is slightly delayed than the actual reading that
should be observed. For the liquid-in-glass kinds of thermometers, the reason for the lagging may be due to the thermal
expansion of mercury. Since there is no time to stabilize because the water bath is continuously being heated, the
expansion of the mercury is also continuous. Which means that at the exact same time the reading was taken, the
expansion of the mercury may have accounted for a different temperature. The same can be said for cooling of the
water bath. The only difference would be that instead of the mercury expansions due to the heat, it is slowly
compressing itself back to its original form.
CCXLIX.

Heating of Water Bath

Mercury Thermometer
(mean)
Dial Thermometer

CCL.
CCLI. Fig. 3.2.9. Combined graph of average reading from mercury thermometer and dial thermometer vs standard temperature
(heating)
CCLII.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[17]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

Cooling of Water Bath

Mercury Thermometer
(mean)
Dial Thermometer

CCLIII.
CCLIV.Fig. 3.2.10. Combined graph of average reading from mercury thermometer and dial thermometer vs standard
temperature (cooling)
CCLV.

CCLVI. As for the differences between the readings of the two types of thermometers used, the values are close to
one another. Minimal differences can be due to the significant figures of the instrument used. For the mercury
thermometers, the increments allow for the value to be read up until the tenth decimal place. For the dial thermometer,
the increments allow for the value to be read up until the ones place only. The average reading of the mercury
thermometers and the dial thermometer was combined into one graph as seen in Figures 3.3.9 and 3.3.10.
CCLVII.
3.3 Using Block Calibrator for Temperatures above Boiling Point of Water
CCLVIII. For the last portion of the experiment, a block calibrator was used to emulate standard temperatures
above one hundred degrees Celsius or the boiling point of water. A thermocouple and a mercury thermometer were
utilized to measure the temperature that the block calibrator was simulating and was compared with the digital reading
that was attached to the block calibrator. Since two minutes were allotted for the readings to adjust, hysteresis was
observed yet not evident in the results. Parity charts comparing standard temperatures with the readings from the
mercury thermometer and the thermocouple can be seen below:
CCLIX.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[18]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

Parity Chart 1

f(x) = 1x + 1.59
R = 1

CCLX.
CCLXI.

Fig. 3.3.1. Parity chart comparing standard temperatures and readings from mercury thermometer 1

CCLXII.

Parity Chart 2

f(x) = 1.01x - 2.26


R = 1

CCLXIII.
CCLXIV. Fig. 3.3.2. Parity chart comparing standard temperatures and readings from thermocouple

CCLXV.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[19]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS

Standard Temperature vs Readings

Mercury Thermometer #1 (C)

Thermocouple (C)

CCLXVI.
CCLXVII. Fig. 3.3.3. Comparison of standard temperatures and readings from both mercury thermometer #1
and thermocouple
CCLXVIII.
CCLXIX. It can be seen that the regression values for both parity charts are both close to one, having a value of
0.9982 and 0.9996, respectively. This further confirms that the readings from the mercury thermometer and the
thermocouple, though not exact, is very close to the standard temperature. A plot of the percent error as a function of
standard temperature can be seen below, where the relationship between the gap of the standard temperature from the
temperature readings of the mercury thermometer and thermocouple at certain temperatures can be seen.
CCLXX.

Percent Error vs Standard Temperature

Mercury Thermometer #1 (C)

Thermocouple (C)

CCLXXI.
CCLXXII. Fig. 3.3.4. Comparison of standard temperatures and readings from both mercury thermometer #1
and thermocouple
CCLXXIII.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[20]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
thermometer and the thermocouple. Afterwards, the highest readings were just 1% for the mercury thermometer and
-0.57% for the thermocouple, which is considerably insignificant as compared to the initial percent errors. From the
data that was gathered, it can be deduced that hysteresis is evident when the temperatures are being read but have not
yet been in thermal equilibrium. The reason for this is that it takes time for the probes of the thermometers to be at
thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, thus resulting to a significant difference at reading the temperatures if
thermal equilibrium is still not achieved when the temperatures are being monitored.
CCLXXV.
CCLXXVI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
CCLXXVII. The results of the experiment confirm the calibration of thermometers used. In the experiment,
the initial test performed affirmed the calibration of the mercury thermometers using the boiling point and melting
point measured by each thermometer. The latter two tests performed on the thermometers were used to compare
the calibrated thermometers with that of standard instruments; a thermocouple and a block calibrator.
CCLXXVIII. The outcome of the calibration was that the mercury thermometers were calibrated after
comparing the similarity with the slopes of temperature vs. length of the measurements obtained with the
thermometer standard. The comparisons of the mercury thermometer with standard measuring equipment affirm
the calibration of the former. The errors of the mercury thermometers against the thermocouple provided percent
errors ranging from 0.300-1.8860% during the heating and 0.1026-1.0526% during cooling. For the block
calibrator comparisons, the errors fluctuated at the beginning at 5% and 2.5% for the mercury thermometer and
the thermocouple. However, the errors stabilized and peaked at about 1%.
CCLXXIX. The comparison to standard equipment is significant since they provided evidence of hysteresis
for the mercury thermometers. They readings of the mercury thermometers lagged with the standard through time.
For future experimentation, hysteresis can be further investigated by determining the rate of heating or cooling
required in order to lessen the effects of hysteresis by allowing the thermometers more time to thermally
equilibrate.
CCLXXX.
CCLXXXI.
CCLXXXII.
CCLXXXIII.
CCLXXXIV.
CCLXXXV.
CCLXXXVI.
CCLXXXVII. REFERENCES
CCLXXXVIII. [1]
Olao, S.S.B. Experiments in chemical engineering thermodynamics. De La Salle University Press.
CCLXXXIX. [2]
Available online at http://es.rice.edu/newgalileo/sci/instruments/thermometer.html
CCXC. [3]
Available online at http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/thermometer.html
CCXCI. [4]
Available online at http://www.temperatures.com/thermistors.html
CCXCII. [5]
A. Wilmer Duff. A text-book in Physics. 5th ed. P. Blakistons Son & Co. Philadelphia, 1921, pp. 207208.
CCXCIII. [6]
Available online at
http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/utc/thermocouple/pages/ThermocouplesOperatingPrinciples.html
CCXCIV. [7]
Available online at
http://www.catrents.ca/Products/Equipment/Rental_Equipment/Instrumentation/Temperature_
and_Humidity/downloads/Techne_DB700A_DryBlock_Calibrator.pdf
CCXCV.
CCXCVI.
CCXCVII.
CCXCVIII.
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[21]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
CCXCIX.
CCC.
CCCI. APPENDICES
CCCII.
CCCIII. Table 1. Standard Temperatures from Block Calibrator vs Readings from Mercury Thermometer #1 and
Thermocouple
CCCIV. Block
CCCVI. Hg
CCCVIII. Ther
Calibrator
Thermometer 1
mocouple
CCCV.(C)
CCCVII. (C)
CCCIX. (C)
CCCX. 100
CCCXI. 95
CCCXII. 97.5
CCCXIII. 110
CCCXIV. 110
CCCXV. 110
CCCXVI. 120
CCCXVII. 119.5 CCCXVIII. 1
20
CCCXIX. 130
CCCXX. 129.9
CCCXXI. 130.
2
CCCXXII. 14 CCCXXIII. 139.9 CCCXXIV. 1
0
40.8
CCCXXV.150
CCCXXVI. 149
CCCXXVII. 1
50
CCCXXVIII. 16
CCCXXIX. 159
CCCXXX. 1
0
59.9
CCCXXXI. 17 CCCXXXII. 168.5 CCCXXXIII. 1
0
70
CCCXXXIV. 18 CCCXXXV. 178.3 CCCXXXVI. 1
0
80.5
CCCXXXVII.
CCCXXXVIII. 1 CCCXXXIX. 1
190
88
90.3
CCCXL. 200
CCCXLI. 198
CCCXLII. 2
00.5
CCCXLIII.
CCCXLIV. Table 2. Measured Boiling Points and Melting Points of the Thermometers
CCCXLV. Ther
CCCXLVI. Boiling
CCCXLVIII. M
mometers
Point
elting Point
CCCXLVII. (C)
CCCXLIX. (C)
CCCL. Hg
CCCLI. 98.0
CCCLII. 0.0
Thermometer 1
CCCLIII. Hg
CCCLIV. 96.0
CCCLV. -1.0
Thermometer 2
CCCLVI. Hg
CCCLVII. 98.5
CCCLVIII. 0.0
Thermometer 3
CCCLIX. Dial
CCCLX. 99.9
CCCLXI. 1.2
Thermometer
CCCLXII. Mercu
CCCLXIII. 99.1
CCCLXIV. 0.8
ry Thermometer
CCCLXV.
CCCLXVI. Table 3. Mercury Thermometer Length and Measured Boiling Point Reading Length
CCCLXVII.
CCCLXVIII. Th CCCLXIX. Thermo
CCCLXX. Boil
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[22]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
ermometers

meter Length (cm)

CCCLXXI. Hg
Thermometer 1
CCCLXXIV. H
g Thermometer 2
CCCLXXVII. H
g Thermometer 3

CCCLXXII.
CCCLXXV.

ing Point
Reading Length
(cm)
CCCLXXIII. 9
.5
CCCLXXVI. 2
5.1
CCCLXXIX. 2
7.3

38
27.2

CCCLXXVIII. 31.0

CCCLXXX.
CCCLXXXI.
CCCLXXXII.Table 4. Temperatures recorded from the thermometers while heating water bath in comparison with the
Fluke standard temperature
CCCLXXXIII. F CCCLXXXIV. CCCLXXXV. H CCCLXXXVI. CCCLXXXVII. CCCLXXXVIII.
luke Standard

Hg

g Thermometer

Hg

Dial

Hg Thermometer

Temperature (C)

Thermometer 1

2 (C)

Thermometer 3

Thermometer

(mean) (C)

(C)
CCCXC. 44.9

CCCXCI. 44.5

CCCLXXXIX.
5
CCCXCV.50
CDI. 55
CDVII.

60

CCCXCVI.

(C)
4 CCCXCIII.

5
5
5 CCCXCVII. 4 CCCXCVIII. 4 CCCXCIX.

4.8
CD.

49.8

9.5
CDIII. 54.5

9.9
CDIV. 54.9

0
CDV. 54

CDVI. 54.76666

CDVIII. 60

CDIX. 59.5

CDX. 59.5

CDXI. 59

667
CDXII. 59.66

64.8

CDXVII. 64

666667
CDXVIII. 64.56

CDXXI. 69.4 CDXXII. 69.5


CDXXVII. 7 CDXXVIII. 7

CDXXIII. 68
CDXXIX. 74

666667
CDXXIV. 69.6
CDXXX. 74.56

CDXXXV.79

666667
CDXXXVI.

CDXLI.

9.43333333
CDXLII. 84.06

CDXIV.

CDXIX. 70
CDXXV. 76

CDXX. 69.9
CDXXVI. 75

CDXXXI. 80

CDXXXII.

64.5

CDXV.64.4

4.1
7 CDXXXIII.

9.9
9.3
CDXXXVIII. 8 CDXXXIX.

CDXVI.

4.6
7 CDXXXIV.

4.1
CDXLIV. 89

4
CDXLV. 88.9

CDXLIX. 95

CDL. 94

CDLI. 93

CDLVI.

99

9.1
8 CDXL. 84.1

CDXLIII. 90

CDLV.100

CCCXCIV.

0
CDII. 54.9

CDXIII. 65

CDXXXVII. 85

(C)
CCCXCII.

CDLVII. 98.5

84

CDXLVI. 89

CDXLVII.88

666667
CDXLVIII.

CDLII.

94

CDLIII.

93

8.96666667
CDLIV. 93.66

CDLVIII. 99

CDLIX.

98

666667
CDLX. 98.83

333333
CDLXI.
CDLXII.
CDLXIII. Table 5. Temperatures recorded from the thermometers while cooling down the water bath in comparison
with the Fluke standard temperature
CDLXIV.
Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[23]

LBYCHED EA2

CALIBRATION OF THERMOMETERS
CDLXV. Fluke
Standard
Temperature (C)
CDLXXI. 95

CDLXXXIX. 80

CDLXVI. Hg
Thermometer 1
(C)
CDLXXII. 9
4
CDLXXVIII. 8
9.5
CDLXXXIV. 8
5
CDXC. 80

CDXCV. 75

CDXCVI. 75

DI. 70
DVII. 65

DII. 70
DVIII. 64.5

DXIII. 60

DXIV. 60

CDLXXVII. 90
CDLXXXIII. 85

CDLXVII. H
g Thermometer
2 (C)
CDLXXIII. 9
4
CDLXXIX. 8
9.5
CDLXXXV. 8
5
CDXCI. 81.5

CDLXX. Hg
Thermometer
(mean) (C)
CDLXXVI. 9
4
CDLXXXI. 8 CDLXXXII. 8
9
9.43333333
CDLXXXVI. 8 CDLXXXVII.8 CDLXXXVIII.
4
5
84.66666667
CDXCII. 79.5 CDXCIII. 78
CDXCIV. 80.33
333333
CDXCVII. 7 CDXCVIII. 7 CDXCIX. 75
D. 74.33333333
3.5
4.5
DIII. 70.3
DIV. 70
DV. 70
DVI. 70.1
DIX. 65.3
DX. 65
DXI. 64
DXII. 64.93333
333
DXV. 60.5
DXVI. 60
DXVII. 60
DXVIII. 60.16
666667
DXIX.

Ardon,, Arogo, Coronel, Gonzales, Lazarte

[24]

CDLXVIII. H
g Thermometer
3 (C)
CDLXXIV. 9
4
CDLXXX.89.3

CDLXIX. Dia
l Thermometer
(C)
CDLXXV.94

Вам также может понравиться