DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

Gokongwei College of Engineering

Chemical Engineering Department

Engineering Thermodynamics Laboratory

Final Laboratory Report

Experiment # 1
Calibration of Thermometers

Group Name N3P Section EA1

NAME SIGNATURE Criteria Score

1. Cellona, Kimberley B. Content (50%)
2. Dar, Lloyd Ross M. Presentation (25%)

3. Javier, Mona Lyndsay C. Relevance (25%)

4. Lopez, Maristela Ann F. Total (100%)

5. Soriano, Elijah Jeremie D. Percentage Equivalent

31 July 2018 7 August 2018

Date of performance Date of Submission

Dr. Lawrence P. Belo

Instructor
Engineering Thermodynamics Laboratory

Calibration of Thermometers
Kimberley B. Cellona, Lloyd Ross M. Dar, Mona Lyndsay C. Javier,
Maristela Ann F. Lopez, Elijah Jeremie D. Soriano
Department of Chemical Engineering, Gokongwei College of Engineering, De La Salle University,
2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004, Philippines

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

AY 2017–2018 | Term 3
LBYCHED EA1
Final Laboratory Report
Experiment # 1
Date Performed: July 31, 2018
Date Submitted: August 7, 2018
Keywords
Mercury thermometer, thermocouple,
dial thermometer, scale calibration
Temperature is one of the most important parameters that needs to be considered in a
chemical engineering problem application. Thus, measuring the temperature of
materials involved in a process and making sure that these are compatible with each
other is very vital for the successful operation of a chemical plant. Measurement of
temperature is done using a thermometer. There are different kinds of thermometers,
each with a different function and mechanism. In this experiment, three mercury
thermometers, one dial thermometer, and a thermocouple were calibrated using a
block calibrator as the standard. It could be concluded from the results that the
thermocouple is more accurate as compared to the dial thermometer, and the dial
thermometer is more accurate as compared to the mercury thermometers. The
percent error of the thermocouple is 0.907%, the dial thermometer 0.134%, and the
three mercury thermometers averaged at 0.259%.

I. INTRODUCTION that expands or contracts when it is subjected to heating

Temperature is one of the most important operating
conditions that a certain company or industry must
constantly monitor. Different equipment can tolerate
various temperatures, depending on the application.
Hence, it is vital to have proper temperature
measurements and control, since even the slightest
change in temperature could cause massive repercussions
on the operating plant. It is, therefore, essential to have
accurate temperature-measuring devices that will monitor
the temperature of any given system. Accordingly, proper
calibrations of these devices must be conducted to have
the most exact measurements [1]. In this experiment, the
students are tasked to operate and calibrate various
temperature-measuring devices.
Currently, there are different types of thermometers
available, which has different functions and mechanisms
on how those devices indicate the temperature. Some of
which are electrical resistance thermometers,
thermocouples, optical pyrometers, and pyrometer cones
[1]. Commonly, the expansion thermometers are used,
which exploits the concept of thermal expansion. Those
thermometers have liquids encased inside a glass tube
[1]
or cooling, respectively. Thermal expansion is necessary
plays a vital role for expansion thermometers, since the
volume of which the liquid will change depends on this
factor. Mercury has been widely used as the medium for
these thermometers, since it has the adequate thermal
expansion necessary for the said equipment. However,
due to health reasons, it has now been changed with
liquid alcohols [2]. Proper handling for all types of
thermometers is a must, to ensure correct readings and
lessen potential damage to the equipment.
There are two different temperature scales used for
representing the temperature of a substance, the relative
and absolute scale. The relative scale is based on the
increments found between the freezing and boiling point
of water. Similarly, both the zero points of the Celsius
and Fahrenheit scale were arbitrarily set by their
inventors. For the former, the zero point represented the
freezing point of water, while the latter’s zero point
represented the coldest achievable temperature that both
ice and salt water could attain. However, the absolute
scale was then devised to have the absolute zero point as
the lowest possible temperature that a substance could
attain. This then indicated that all temperature
measurements would yield positive values. Kelvin is
used for the Celsius scale, whereas Rankine is used for
the Fahrenheit scale [3].

Correction factors are set for the proper calibration of the

thermometers. For liquid-in-glass thermometers that is
partially immersed in the fluid, the following corrective
factor is done to compensate for the equalization of
temperature found at the non-immersed portion of the
thermometer:
Figure 1. Boiling water setup (left) and ice bath (right) for
C F =0.00016 X M ( T 1 −T 2 ) (1) determining boiling and ice point for each thermometer.

Where C F is the correction factor in oC [4], X M is the

length of the thread of exposed mercury, T 1 and T 2 are
the indicated temperature and calibrated temperature both
in oC, respectively.

Similarly, correction factors are also done for

measurements done in pressures other than atmospheric,
and is given by the equation:

T 1−T 2
B= (2)
P1−P2
Figure 2. Setup for the comparison of temperature readings for
Mercury thermometers and the dial thermometer.
Where B is the external pressure coefficient, expressed
in F/psia, T 1 and T 2are the temperatures read at P1 and
o

P2, both in oF. While P1 and P2 are the external absolute

pressure in psia.

II. METHODOLGY

2.1 Materials and Reagents

Ice and tap water were used for the experiment.

2.2 Equipment
This experiment involved four set-ups: stream bath,
ice bath, temperature-controlled water bath, and a
block calibrator. Three mercury thermometers, a dial 2.3 Experimental Procedure
thermometer, and a thermocouple were used to
measure the temperature in the different set-ups
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only)
[2]
Figure 3. Block calibrator and setup for calibration above
boiling temperature of water.
2.3.1 Calibration Based on Physical Properties of
Pure Substances
An amount of ice was placed in a beaker and
cold water was added. The initial temperature
of the thermometer was noted before
Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
 submerging it into the ice bath (Note: The bub
must not touch the surface of the beaker.). The
temperature was recorded every 15 seconds
until the thermometer reaches a constant
reading. The constant reading is the melting
point reading for the particular thermometer.
The whole procedure was repeated for all
temperature reading devices.
An amount of water was placed in the steam
bath apparatus. The apparatus was heated
using a Bunsen burner. Once the water is
boiling, the initial temperature of the
thermometer was noted begore placing the
thermometer on top of the boiling water (Note:
The bub must not be submerged underwater.).
The temperature was recorded every minute
until the thermometer reaches a constant
reading. The constant reading is the boiling
point reading for the particular thermometer.
The whole procedure was repeated for al
temperature reading devices.
2.3.2 Comparison of Temperature Readings with
a Standard Instrument
In this part of the experiment, the
thermocouple connected to the Fluke digital
monitor was considered as the standard
instrument. The thermometers and
thermocouple were hanged using a support
and were submerged in water contained in a
beaker. The beaker was then heated until the
Fluke digital monitor reading was 100 oC. The
temperature reading of the other thermometers
were then recorded. The procedure was
repeated for every 5 oC drop on the Fluke
thermometer was also recorded with the
thermocouple’s temperature. This procedure
was repeated at 10 oC intervals until 200 oC.
In the analysis of the data, it is noted that the
measurement of the length of Mercury immersed in
the liquid was not conducted in the procedure, and
therefore Eq. 1 cannot be used. Further, [4] also
illustrates that the correction factors obtained from
applying the equation are minimal, and thus for this
experiment will be assumed negligible. Lastly, since
the experiment was conducted in atmospheric
pressure, Eq. 2 will also not be used.
III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
3.1 Calibration based on Physical Properties of Pure
Substances
With expected readings of 0oC and 100oC for the
melting point and boiling point of water under
atmospheric pressure, the five thermometers
examined exhibited different readings from the same
steam bath and ice bath setups, thus highlighting the
need for calibration. Fig. 4 shows a bar chart
illustrating the melting and boiling points observed
for each device, and their difference from the 100 oC
and 0oC line.
Melting Point
120
98.9 98.2 100 99.5 99.6
100
80
60
Temperature (oC)

40
digital monitor reading until the reading
reaches 60 oC. 20
0.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0
0
Mecury Thermom...

Mecury Thermom...

Mecury Thermom...

Dial Thermometer

Thermocouple

2.3.3 Using Block Calibrator for Temperatures

above Boiling Point of Water
A mercury thermometer and thermocouple
were placed on the respective ports on top of
the block calibrator. The initial reading was
recorded. The calibrator’s temperature was set Figure 4. Ice and boiling points observed for each thermometer.
at 100 oC and the thermocouple reading was
left to stabilize. Once it showed a constant Analyzing these data, Table 1 lists the melting and
reading, the temperature in the mercury
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[3]
 boiling points alongside their errors based on the
400
expected melting and boiling point of pure water at
atmospheric pressure referenced earlier. 340

Temperature (oC)
280
Table 1. Summary of accuracy of thermometers according to
melting point and boiling point of water at 1 atm. 220

  Melting Point Boiling Point 160

Erro Erro
100
Temp r Temp r
Thermometer . (oC) (%) . (oC) (%) 40
Mercury thermometer 0.29
1 0.1 0.04 98.9 5 -20 0 5 10 15 20 25
Mercury thermometer 0.48 Distance (cm)
2 0.0 0 98.2 2 Total 1 Total 2
Mercury thermometer
3 0.0 0 100.0 0 Figure 5. Scale calibration of three Mercury thermometers
0.13 used.
Dial Thermometer 2.0 0.73 99.5 4
0.10
From the graph, Fig. 4 illustrates that the graduations
Thermocouple 0.0 0 99.6 7
per degree of temperature in the thermometers are
From the table, it can be initially observed that the precisely linear, but not exactly accurate as the
thermometers studied are nonetheless precise and dotted lines, representing the ice to boiling
exhibit accuracy with only at most 0.5% error. temperature over length data, do not properly
Further, it can be observed that the thermometer with coincide with the solid lines, representing the total
the highest accuracy is Mercury thermometer 3, range of temperature over total length. However,
having reached equilibrium at 0oC and 100oC under they are nearly aligned with each other, hence being
the ice and steam bath setups respectively. This is precise. Quantitatively, Table 2 lists the comparison
followed by the digital thermometer or the on scale calibration data for each thermometer,
thermocouple, wherein it was able to reach 0 oC at which represent the slopes of the lines from the
equilibrium in the ice bath setup, however only at figure.
99.6oC in the steam bath. Lastly, on the other end,
Table 2. Scale calibration of three Mercury thermometers used.
the thermometer with the least accuracy relative to
others according to the test is the dial thermometer, Scale Calibration (oC/cm)
Thermomete
having errors on both its equilibrium melting point r Total Ice-
Difference (%)
Length boiling
and boiling point readings. The errors incurred,
nonetheless, are fairly minimal and close to each 1 16.87 16.07 4.867
other. They may be attributed to (1) human bias in 2 6.930 6.235 10.55
reading thermometers with several fine graduations, 3 22.16 20.20 9.225
and (2) the offset in calibration of the equipment
with use over time. From the table, it can be observed that Mercury
thermometer 1 is the most linear in terms of its
Further, looking into the scale calibration of the three calibration scale, having the least percent difference
Mercury thermometers used, Fig. 4 shows the between progression or slope of the ice to boiling
temperatures plotted against their distance from the temperatures over length, and the total temperature
first graduation in the thermometer length. range over length. In contrast, Mercury thermometer
2 is the least linear in terms of its calibration scale,
with the highest percent difference evaluated.
Altogether, the data indicate that the rise in
temperature for each thermometer is not
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[4]

Further, it can also be observed from Table 2 that
Mercury thermometer 3 is the longest thermometer,
followed by Mercury thermometer 1 and with 2
being the shortest. This relates Mercury thermometer
2 having the greatest resulting percent difference,
despite actually having the smallest absolute error
(0.8 for MT1, 0.69 for MT2, and 1.95 for MT3)
among the three, as the effect of the deviation is
more pronounced for smaller values or ranges.
3.2 Comparison of Temperature Readings with a
Standard Instrument
Recording the temperature readings from a defined
range, set as from 40oC to until boiling point,
approached from an increasing temperature (heating)
and a decreasing (cooling) manner, the temperatures
read from each thermometer are compared against a
standard temperature, taken as the thermocouple
used in the experiment. The parity charts are
illustrated in the following figures for each
thermometer.
100
Temperature Reading (oC)
90
80
70
60
50
40
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Standard Temperature (oC)
Standard
Mercury Thermometer 1 - Heating
Mercury Thermometer 1 - Cooling
Figure 6. Parity chart for Mercury thermometer 1 against Fluke
standard temperature.
From Fig. 6, the temperatures recorded for Mercury
thermometer 1, from both heating and cooling directions,
can be observed to lie close to the standard temperature
line. A small extent of hysteresis can be observed within
the range of standard temperature 65oC to 85oC, wherein
white spheres, representing some of the points from the
cooling dataset, are found below the black spheres,
representing the heating temperatures dataset, and the
standard line. However, it is also considered that this
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only)
[5]
hysteresis is not entirely uniform over the range, as can
be observed at coinciding spheres at 70oC and 80oC
standard temperatures, but only more pronounced to be
inconsistent as compared to other ranges from both data
sets. The difference in temperatures may also be
accounted to human bias in reading the thermometer
prior to change in temperature of the standard, or the
fluctuation in temperature during the forced cooling
(addition of ice) conducted instead.
100
Temperature Reading (oC)
90
80
70
60
50
40
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Standard Temperature (oC)
Standard
Mercury Thermometer 2 - Heating
Mercury Themometer 2 - Cooling
Figure 7. Parity chart for Mercury thermometer 2 against Fluke
standard temperature.
Similarly, in Fig. 7, the datasets overall lie closely along
the standard temperature line, wherein minor
inconsistencies, which can be considered hysteresis, can
be observed from 60oC to 75oC of the standard
temperature. In comparison to Fig. 6, the white boxes,
representing the cooling temperatures, are above the
black boxes, representing the heating temperatures, and
the standard line, while some of the latter data points are
located below the standard line. However, similarly, this
hysteresis is less pronounced or not uniform over the
range. Further, the difference in temperatures may also be
accounted to human bias, or the fluctuation in
temperature during the cooling procedure.
Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
 from the dial thermometer to lie above and below the
100
standard line. Further, hysteresis or inconsistencies with
Temperature Reading (oC)

90 the heating and cooling data sets is similarly observed in

80
70
60
50
40
40 50 60 70 80
Standard Temperature (oC)
Standard
Mercury Thermometer 3 - Heating
Mercury Thermometer 3 - Cooling
Figure 8. Parity chart for Mercury thermometer 3 against Fluke
standard temperature.
In Fig. 8, the data for the Mercury thermometer 3 can be
observed to lie mostly above the standard line rather than
on it. At the same time, however, it can be noted that the
temperatures were observed to be the same for both
heating and cooling directions, hence the overlapping and
the projection of only black triangles as data points.
Hysteresis was therefore not observed for this
thermometer. The accuracy of the readings, as denoted by
the data points lying above the standard line, may be
the standard temperature range of 60oC to 80oC, with the
difference between the white and black data points as the
most defined relative to the previous figures observed.
This pronounced hysteresis can be attributed to the nature
of the dial thermometer, which measures the temperature
according to the expansion and contraction of the metal
attached to the dial [5]. The thermometer could have
90 100
been expanding or contracting at the moment the
temperature was read, and therefore was not able to
accurately display the proper temperature [5]. Further,
the data can also be indicative that the calibration of the
thermometer is already poor, as compared to other
thermometers used in the experiment.
Altogether, superimposing all temperature datasets from
each thermometer against the standard temperature line,
an overall comparison on the accuracy of the
thermometers studied can be observed. Fig. 10 shows
this, combining the temperature readings from the
previous figures into one graph.
100
Temperature Reading (oC)

90
attributed to the loss in calibration of the thermometer
with use over time. In addition, human bias may still be 80
considered as a contributing factor, however, given the
70
reproducibility of the readings from both directions, may
be considered minimal. 60

50
100
40
Temperature Reading (oC)

90 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

80 Standard Temperature (oC)

Standard
Mercury Thermometer 1 - Cooling
70 Mercury Themometer 2 - Cooling
Mercury Thermometer 3 - Cooling
60 Dial Thermometer - Cooling
Mercury Thermometer 1 - Heating
Mercury Thermometer 2 - Heating
Mercury Thermometer 3 - Heating
Dial Thermometer - Heating

Figure 10. Temperature readings from different thermometers

50
against standard.
40
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The thinner outer lines observed mark the datasets for the
Standard Temperature (oC)
Standard Mercury thermometer 3 and the dial thermometer as
Dial Thermometer - Heating these were the devices with the pronounced difference
Dial Thermometer - Cooling
Figure 9. Parity chart for Dial thermometer against Fluke
from the standard line as discussed earlier. This is
standard temperature. indicative, therefore, that the Mercury thermometers 1
and 2 are more accurate or properly calibrated than the
For the last device, Fig. 9 illustrates data points read two, in terms of providing incremental temperature
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[6]
readings over a temperature rang. This is in comparison
with the Mercury thermometer 3 and the dial
thermometer being considered as more accurate than
thermometers 1 and 2 in the previous section according
to their data on the melting and boiling point
temperatures alone. To further analyze, Fig. 11 shows the
plot of the error incurred from each thermometer against
the standard temperature.
5.00
4.00
3.00
Error (%)
2.00
1.00
0.00
40.00 55.00 70.00 85.00
Standard Temperature (oC)
Mercury Thermometer 1 Mercury Themometer 2
Mercury Thermometer 3 Dial Thermometer
Figure 11. Percent error of temperature readings from each
thermometer.
From the graph, and as discussed from Figs. 6 to 9,
Fig. 11 now directly illustrates that the data obtained
from the Mercury thermometer 3 and the dial
thermometer include more error (around 1.5-4%)
than those read from thermometers 1 and 2 (0 to
1.5%). Hence, the graph supports the earlier
conclusion wherein, in comparison to the results
from the previous section, the comparison against a
standard temperature test shows that the Mercury
thermometers 1 and 2 are more accurate than
thermometer 3 and the dial thermometer.
Considering these two contrasting results, it is more
practical to consider Mercury thermometers 1 and 2
to be overall more accurate given their accuracy in
terms of providing the temperature data over a range
of temperatures as compared to the other two
devices. Further, their results in the previous section
are also close with those for thermometer 3 and the
dial thermometer, indicating that they were only
found less accurate relative to thermometer 3 and the
dial, but nonetheless still accurate as their own
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only)
measurements. Further, from these two, the overall
instrument with the greatest accuracy, referring from
Figs. 6 to 9 and 11, is thermometer 1.
Nonetheless, as the errors for all thermometers
remain below 5%, the devices remain adequate for
measuring temperatures, however could use
recalibration to produce more accurate data for
future use.
3.3 Using a Block Calibrator for Temperatures above
Boiling Point of Water
Supplementing the calibration for temperatures until
the boiling point of water, Fig. 12 shows the
temperatures obtained from a Mercury thermometer
and a thermocouple plotted against the standard
temperature from a block calibrator, over the
temperature range of 100oC to 200oC.
100.00 210
190
Temperature Reading (oC)
170
150
130
110
90
90 110 130 150 170 190 210
Standard Temperature (oC)
Block Calibrator Mercury Thermometer Thermocouple
Figure 12. Parity chart for Mercury thermometer and
thermocouple readings against standard block calibrator
temperature.
From the graph, it can be observed that the Mercury
thermometer and the thermocouple studied were both
fairly accurate and precise, having the data points lie
close toe the standard line and to each other, with the
black spheres, representing the temperatures from the
Mercury thermometer, only slightly above the standard
line than the white spheres, representing the temperatures
from the thermocouple. The thermometer and the
thermocouple used can therefore be considered properly
calibrated. However, similar with the previous section, to
further analyze, the plot of the error incurred against the
Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[7]
standard temperature should be observed, as shown in
Fig. 13.
5.00
4.00
3.00
Error (%)
2.00
1.00
0.00
100 120 140 160 180 200
Standard Temperature (oC)
Mercury Thermometer Thermocouple
Figure 13. Percent error of Mercury thermometer and
thermocouple readings.
From the graph, it can be more accurately observed that
the thermocouple is more accurate than the Mercury
thermometer used as clearly shown by the range of their
error curves. A constant low percent error was incurred
throughout the range (0-0.5%) for the thermocouple, in
contrast with that of the Mercury thermometer (1-2%).
This difference may similarly be explained by comparing
the nature of the two thermometers. While the Mercury
thermometer relies on the expansion or contraction of the
Mercury inside the glass, the thermocouple measures the
temperature according to the potential difference at its
junctions [6]. Therefore, the time for the expansion or
contraction of the Mercury thermometer may have been a
factor in displaying the accurate temperature at the time a
reading was made, in comparison to the instant
electromotive force generated and read by the
thermocouple, hence it’s more accurate readings [6].
Nonetheless, similar to the previous section, as the errors
for both devices are very low, at most of 2%, both
thermometers can be considered fairly accurate for
measuring temperatures. Recalibration of the
thermometer may be advised to further minimize its
relative error. In addition, the noticeable outlier
temperature in the data set of the Mercury thermometer,
at 190oC standard temperature, may be attributed to an
error during the operation of the block calibrator.
Similarly, human bias, however may be considered
minimal due to the accuracy of the data in this section,
remains a present factor as in all parts of the experiment.
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only)
Lastly, individual observations from the experiment
are as follows:
(1) The mercury thermometers registered different
temperatures even though they were in the same
system, thus the requirement for calibration
(Cellona).
(2) There are varying temperature readings per
equipment, which also depend on the accuracy of the
person reading it. It was seen that the temperature
measuring devices were not accurate with the results.
The thermometers must first be cooled before
applying to another liquid to prevent heat errors
(Dar).
220 (3) It is difficult to measure temperature from various
types of thermometers, since each thermometer
varies on the scale. Moreover, it is also difficult to
perform this experiment as a group because the
readings will depend not only on the type of
thermometer used, but on the reading interpretation
of the person reading the temperature. However, in
this experiment, we saw a pattern/trend regarding the
types of thermometers (i.e. certain thermometers
almost always give reading that are higher than the
others). (Javier).
(4) Temperature readings depend on the person reading
the thermometer, and the accuracy of the
thermometer itself. Not all thermometers are able to
provide the same reading as different types of
thermometers employ different methods in
determining the temperature of the body being
observed. However, it can be noted that digital
thermometers help minimize human bias or error in
reading temperatures, as they rely on a more
instantaneous approach, such as the generation of
potential due to a temperature difference for the
thermocouple. Nonetheless, calibration is therefore
important in order to be able to properly adjust
temperature readings obtained and make use of
proper temperature data when utilizing for studies
(Lopez).
(5) The different temperature measuring devices used in
this experiment gave slightly different temperature
readings. This emphasizes the importance of
properly calibrating devices as well as establishment
of a fixed scale for measurement (Soriano).
Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[8]
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
From the data collected and the graphs presented, it can
be observed that from the temperature measuring device
tested, the temperatures measured deviated from the
temperature indicated by the block calibrator. These may
have been caused by deviations of pressure from 1 atm as
well as by instances where the device touched the walls
of the beaker. The thermocouple gave the lowest percent
error while the dial thermometer has the highest.
Hysteresis was observed and mostly evident in the dial
thermometer. The mercury thermometer and
thermocouple had minimal error however it was
observed that as the temperature increased, the error also
increased. Among the five thermometers, the
thermocouple is the most accurate. In measuring the
temperatures of different objects, it is important that the
devices being used are properly calibrated in accordance
with international standards. Furthermore, external
pressure correction and emergent steam correction should
be taken into account to obtain more accurate data. It is
also recommended in the calibration using a standard
thermocouple to repeat the run to avoid hysteresis.
Repeating the setup instead of cooling the already hot
water may avoid the bias error committed in the
experiment.
3.
V. ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS
1. What are the various units used in temperature
measurements? State their origin and the
equations to convert one to the other.
Temperature is measured in two ways, the relative
scale and the absolute scale. First, the relative
scale is the temperature measurement wherein the
zero points were set by the respective inventors.
These units are expressed in degrees Celsius,
named after Andres Celsius, and degrees
Fahrenheit, named after Daniel Gabriel
Fahrenheit. It is known that at zero degrees
Celsius, the water is frozen [7]. However, that
zero point isn’t the lowest possible temperature
that the atoms would stop moving. This
temperature is known to be the absolute zero
temperature, which is based on the absolute
temperature scale, expressed in Kelvin, for the
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only)
[9]
Celsius scale, and Rankine, for the Fahrenheit
scale [8]. To convert from one unit to the other,
the following equations, found in Table 8, are
used.
2. What is the property of mercury which makes it
an ideal medium for liquid-in-glass thermometer?
The property that makes mercury the ideal
medium for liquid-in-glass thermometers is its
coefficient of expansion. Theoretically, this liquid
could be replaced with other liquids, such as water
and alcohol. However, water has very low
coefficient of expansion, having little perceivable
changes in volume once subjected to heating or
cooling. Conversely, alcohols have a high
coefficient of expansion, varying volumes even at
the slightest change in temperature. At the middle
of these two liquids is mercury, in which is
considered to be the best medium, since it has
greater coefficient of expansion than water,
making it easier to visibly see volume changes,
and has lower coefficient of expansion than
alcohol, making it easier to read the measurement,
since it doesn’t drastically change its volume [9].
Describe the principle of a thermocouple. Give at
least 5 types of thermocouples not mentioned in
the discussion. How are they classified? Specify
the temperature range and limitations of each
type.
A thermocouple is one of the many temperature
measuring devices available in the market. It
operates by having two dissimilar metal wires,
joined at both ends, while one end is heated. Once
the junction is heated or cooled, a certain voltage
is produced that is correlated with the change in
temperature of the system [10]. There are several
types of thermocouples, which has varying
temperature range and limitations. These types are
listed in Table 9.
4. Explain the reason why temperature of the vapor
is measured just above the surface of the liquid.
Once the liquid boils, it produces vapors above its
surface. Hence, it is logical to place the
Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
 temperature-measuring devices just above that
surface, since that region is where the vapor
would settle. Similarly, placing it closer to the
liquid might simple measure the heat produced of
the liquid from the boiling process, not the vapor
temperature itself. This is also the reason why the
device shouldn’t be placed too far above the
liquid, since the evaporated vapor would simply
mix together with the air in the space in between
the device and liquid.
5. Describe at least four modern instruments to
measure temperature.
Currently there are many different temperature-
measuring devices, which vary primarily due to its
purpose and application. The resistance
temperature devices or RTD’s exploits the change
in resistance of a material as temperature is
changed. On the other hand, infrared temperature
measuring devices determine the body’s
temperature through the radiation the material
emits. The bimetallic temperature measuring
devices, which exploit the difference in thermal
expansions of various metals. The amount of
bending produced from this device is correlated
with the temperature of the system. Lastly,
change-of-state temperature measuring devices,
which takes advantage of the change in
appearance or by having an indicator once a
certain temperature is reached [12].

REFERENCES

[1] LBYCHED Manual [PDF Document]

[2] Available online at: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/Temperature-and-Thermometers
[3] Available online at: https://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/temperature_scales.htm
[4] Available online at https://icllabs.com/using-a-partial-immersion-thermometer-incorrectly-immersed/
[5] Available online at https://www.explainthatstuff.com/thermometers.html
[6] Available online at https://www.brighthubengineering.com/manufacturing-technology/53682-what-is-a-
thermocouple-how-thermocouple-works/
[7] Process Variables Temperature [PDF Document].
[8] Available online at: https://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html
[9] Available online at: https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/why-is-mercury-used-in-thermometers.html
[10] Available online at: https://www.omega.com/prodinfo/thermocouples.html
[11] Available online at: https://www.thermocoupleinfo.com/
[12] Available online at: https://sea.omega.com/ph/prodinfo/temperaturemeasurement.html

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[10]
 APPENDICES

A. Raw Data

Table 3. Melting and boiling temperatures of different thermometers.

Mercury thermometer Mercury thermometer Mercury thermometer
Dial Thermometer Thermocouple
1 2 3
Melting Melting Boiling Melting Boiling Melting Boiling
Time Temp Boiling Temp Temp Temp Temp Temp Boiling Melting Temp
(s) (oC) Temp (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) Temp (oC) Temp (oC) (oC)
20 4.0 97.8 0 98 2.0 98 18 96 0.8 99.7
40 2.0 98.5 0 98.2 0.1 99 4 98 0.2 99.7
60 1.0 98.5 0 98.2 0 99 4 99 0.1 99.6
80 1.0 98.7 0 98.2 0 100 2 99.5 0 99.6
100 0.1 98.7 0 98.2 0 100 2 99.5 0 99.6
120 0.1 98.9 98.2 0 100 2 99.5 0 99.6
140 0.1 98.9 0 100 2 99.5 0 99.6
160 0.1 98.9 100 2 99.5 0
180 0.1 98.9
200   98.9                

Table 4. Measuring total Mercury thermometer length.

Thermomete Lowest Maximum o
Distance (cm) C/cm
r Reading (oC) Reading (oC)
1 -10 356 21.70 16.87
2 -11 112 17.75 6.93
3 -10 360 16.70 22.16

Table 5. Measuring calibration for the Mercury thermometers.

Thermomete Measured ice Measured boiling o
Distance (cm) C/cm
r point (oC) point (oC)
1 0.1 98.9 6.15 16.07
2 0 98.2 15.75 6.23
3 0 100 4.95 20.20

Table 6. Comparison of temperature readings against a standard instrument.

Fluke Mercury thermometer 1 Mercury thermometer 2 Mercury thermometer 3 Dial Thermometer
Standar Heatin Coolin Erro Heatin Coolin Erro Heatin Coolin Erro Heatin Coolin Erro
d (oC) g (oC) g (oC) Ave. r (%) g (oC) g (oC) Ave. r (%) g (oC) g (oC) Ave. r (%) g (oC) g (oC) Ave. r (%)
40.5 41.0 40.5
40.00 41.00 40.00 0 1.25 42.00 40.00 0 2.50 42.00 41.00 41.50 3.75 40.00 41.00 0 1.25
45.0 45.5 44.5
45.00 46.00 44.00 0 0.00 46.00 45.00 0 1.11 46.00 46.00 46.00 2.22 44.00 45.00 0 1.11
50.5 50.0 49.0
50.00 51.00 50.00 0 1.00 50.00 50.00 0 0.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 4.00 48.00 50.00 0 2.00
55.5 55.5 55.5
55.00 56.00 55.00 0 0.91 56.00 55.00 0 0.91 56.00 56.00 56.00 1.82 56.00 55.00 0 0.91
60.0 59.5 59.5
60.00 60.00 60.00 0 0.00 58.00 61.00 0 0.83 62.00 62.00 62.00 3.33 58.00 61.00 0 0.83
65.0 65.0 66.0
65.00 66.00 64.00 0 0.00 65.00 65.00 0 0.00 66.00 66.00 66.00 1.54 66.00 66.00 0 1.54
70.0 70.0 69.5
70.00 70.00 70.00 0 0.00 69.00 71.00 0 0.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 2.86 68.00 71.00 0 0.71
75.0 74.5 73.5
75.00 76.00 74.00 0 0.00 75.00 74.00 0 0.67 76.00 76.00 76.00 1.33 73.00 74.00 0 2.00
80.0 80.0 79.0
80.00 80.00 80.00 0 0.00 80.00 80.00 0 0.00 82.00 82.00 82.00 2.50 78.00 80.00 0 1.25
85.0 84.5 83.0
85.00 86.00 84.00 0 0.00 85.00 84.00 0 0.59 86.00 86.00 86.00 1.18 83.00 83.00 0 2.35
90.0 89.5 88.0
90.00 90.00 90.00 0 0.00 89.00 90.00 0 0.56 92.00 92.00 92.00 2.22 88.00 88.00 0 2.22
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[11]
 95.0 94.0 92.5
95.00 96.00 94.00 0 0.00 94.00 94.00 0 1.05 96.00 96.00 96.00 1.05 93.00 92.00 0 2.63
98.0 98.5 100.0 98.0
100.00 98.00 98.00 0 2.00 99.00 98.00 0 1.50 100.00 100.00 0 0.00 98.00 98.00 0 2.00

Table 7. Using block calibrator for temperatures above the boiling point of water.
Block Mercury Error Thermocouple Error
Calibrator (oC) thermometer (oC) (%) (oC) (%)
100 102 2.00 100 0
110 112 1.82 110.3 0.273
120 122 1.67 120 0
130 132 1.54 130 0
140 142 1.43 140 0
150 152 1.33 150 0
160 162 1.25 160.4 0
170 172 1.18 170 0
180 182 1.11 180 0
190 194 2.11 190 0
200 202 1.00 200 0

Table 8. Temperature Unit Conversions

From To Equation
Degrees Celsius Degrees Fahrenheit T(oF) = T(oC) (1.8) + 32 (1)
Degrees Celsius Kelvin T(K) = T(oC) + 273.15 (2)
Degrees Fahrenheit Rankine T(R) = T(oF) + 459.67 (3)
Rankine Kelvin T(K) = (1.8) T(R) (4)

Table 9. Thermocouple Temperature Ranges [11]

Thermocouple Type Temperature Range Standard Error Limit Special Error Limit
K -454 to 2,300 oF (–270 to 1260 oC) +/- 2.2C or +/- .75% +/- 1.1C or 0.4%
J -346 to 1,400F (-210 to 760C) +/- 2.2C or +/- .75% +/- 1.1C or 0.4%
T -454 to 700F (-270 to 370C) +/- 1.0C or +/- .75% +/- 0.5C or 0.4%
E -454 to 1600F (-270 to 870C) +/- 1.7C or +/- 0.5% +/- 1.0C or 0.4%
N -454 to 2300F (-270 to 392C +/- 2.2C or +/- .75% +/- 1.1C or 0.4%
S -58 to 2700F (-50 to 1480C) +/- 1.5C or +/- .25% +/- 0.6C or 0.1%
R -58 to 2700F (-50 to 1480C) +/- 1.5C or +/- .25% +/- 0.6C or 0.1%
B 32 to 3100F (0 to 1700C) +/- 0.5% +/- 0.25%

B. Sample Calculations

 Scale calibration for the total length of Mercury thermometer 1

℃ (356 ℃−(−10 ℃ )) ℃
= =16.87
cm 21.7 cm cm

 Percent error for thermocouple at standard temperature 110oC in calibration with block calibrator
|110℃−110.3 ℃|
Error= ×100=0.273 %
110 ℃
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[12]
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[13]