Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

# Measurement and Error, Part 1 9/13/11 Authors: Marcin Welninski, Scott Kleymann, Keenan McLaughlin Objectives and Introduction

In this lab, we learned how to take a proper measurement and how to determine the error of the measurement. In addition, we learned the basics of obtaining volumes and densities with the help of a Vernier caliper and a scale. Procedure In this experiment, ten similar ball bearings were collected from a bin. We then lined them up on a piece of tape in order to keep track of their order. Starting with the first ball, we took diameter measurements of each bearing in centimeters using the Vernier caliper, recording them all in the Experiment 1: Ball Bearings table. Next, we took our ball bearings over to the scale, using tape to keep track of their order. We placed them one by one onto the scale and recorded their masses in grams onto the Sphere mass column in the Experiment 1: Ball Bearings table. After receiving an adequate amount of information, we were then able to solve for the spheres volume, and for the density. Using this solved information we then were able to solve for averages and errors. In the second part of this experiment, we measured diameters of seemingly similar marbles using the Vernier caliper in centimeters. Much like the ball bearings, the measurements were then recorded in the table labeled Experiment 2: Marbles. Next, we moved them to the scale with a piece of tape to make sure they were still in order. They were then measured for their mass in grams and were also recorded onto the table labeled Experiment 2: Marbles. Like in the previous experiment, we then filled out the rest of the information, including sphere volume, density and estimated errors. In our feeble attempt to gain extra credit, we then attempted experiment 3 where we filled a 50 ml graduated cylinder with 25 ml of water. Taking the ball bearings used in experiment 1, we dropped them in to the cylinder making sure not to splash or spill any water. We then recorded the new volume in ml on the blanks provided. Our volume of all the spheres came from taking the original meniscus line and subtracting the second line of the meniscus after the ball bearing were dropped into the graduated cylinder. Our estimated errors in mass and volume came by educated guesses.

Using our minimal and maximum densities we came about getting our density error range.

(Above are pictures of the materials being used in experiment 1 through 3. From left to right and followed by the bottom the materials are as follows: ball bearings, marbles, graduated cylinder and Vernier caliper) Results and Analysis

Table 1 - Experiment 1: Ball bearings Sphere number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Averages Sphere diameter (cm) 0.797 0.819 0.819 0.794 0.813 0.812 0.815 0.81 0.811 0.813 Average Diameter (cm) 0.8103 Error in Diameter (cm) 0.001 7.86411 7.99802 Sphere volume (cm) 0.265 0.288 0.288 0.262 0.281 0.28 0.283 0.278 0.279 0.281 Average Volume (cm) 0.279 Error in Volume (cm) 0.0011 Sphere mass (g) 2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 Average Mass (g) 2.21 Error in Mass (g) 0.1 Density p (g/cm) 7.55 7.64 7.64 8.02 8.19 8.21 8.13 7.91 8.24 7.83 Average Density (g/cm) 7.936

## (g/cm) Density Error Range

+/- 0.066955

In our results, overall we found that error human and instrument error does not play a huge role in the outcome of a measurement or result of a lab. This is partially proved through experiment 1. In the data we pulled from our work, table 1 shows that the ball bearings have little variance in both mass and volume. However, there were obvious variations in the measurements than desired. Volume had measurements that ranged from 0.262 to 0.288 cm, a 0.026 cm variance. While this is a small number by all other means, any number larger than this would probably be able to throw off the rotation of a bearing. Measuring mass of the ball bearings yielded measurements that ranged from 2 to 2.3 grams in mass, 0.3 grams variance. The density error was at +/- 0.066955 g/cm, which indicates that there were some minor differences in expected density. The table indicates that the measurements showed little differences in measurement, and only slight differences in density. Overall, ball bearings were proved to be extremely accurate and held to their manufacturing standards for the most part. Table 2 - Experiment 2: Marbles Sphere number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Averages Sphere diameter (cm) 1.619 1.632 1.713 1.618 1.65 1.643 1.582 1.552 1.568 1.555 Average Diameter (cm) 1.6132 Error in Diameter (cm) 0.001 2.4753 2.4976 +/- 0.0112 Sphere volume (cm) 2.22 2.28 2.63 2.22 2.35 2.32 2.07 1.96 2.02 1.97 Average Volume (cm) 2.204 Error in Volume (cm) 0.009905 Sphere mass (g) 5.5 5.8 6.4 5.4 5.8 5.7 5.3 4.9 5.1 4.9 Average Mass (g) 5.48 Error in Mass (g) 0.1 Density p (g/cm) 2.48 2.54 2.43 2.43 2.47 2.46 2.56 2.5 2.52 2.49 Average Density (g/cm) 2.4271

Instrumental Errors Minimum Value of Density Maximum Value of Density (g/cm) Density Error Range

In experiment 2, we proved to have about the same result. However, table 2 shows that the marbles have larger measurable variance in both mass and volume than the ball bearings. These variations were expected since marbles usually have less strict production parameters and are made for toys more than anything else. Volume had measurements that ranged from 1.96 to 2.63 centimeters cubed, a 0.67 cm variance, which is about 25 times that of the ball

bearings. Measuring mass yielded measurements that ranged from 4.9 to 6.4 grams in mass, 1.5 gram variance. The density error was at +/- 0.0112 g/cm, which indicates that there were some minor differences in expected density. The reason the errors in density were less than the ball bearings density variance is because the averages were used in measuring estimated instrumental error. The ball bearings actually had more consistent measurements, but were much lower in size and mass. Therefore, the calculated instrumental errors would have greater effect on the ball bearings than the larger marble calculations. Table 3 - Experiment 3 (Volume of Ball bearings) Position of First Meniscus (ml) 25 Position of Second Meniscus (ml) 28.5 Total Volume of Spheres (cm) 3.5 Average Volume of Spheres (cm) 0.35 Estimated Error in Volume (cm) 0.1 Estimated Error in Mass (g) 0.1 Maximum Value of Density (g/cm) 4.689 Minimum Value of Density (g/cm) 9.240 Density Error Range (g/cm) +/- 2.276

In experiment 3, we dropped all the marbles in a graduated cylinder in an attempt to correctly measure the volume. Table 3 shows the average of all the volumes of the marbles to be .35 ml or .35 centimeters cubed. The meniscus line would allow the observer to calculate change in volume by adding all the ball bearings, then dividing that volume by the amount of bearings in the fluid. This method doesnt show individual masses, so there could possibly be a larger variance in marble volumes, but allow for an overall average volume. The density error range (+/- 2.276 g/cm) was much larger since the error in volume was 0.1 cm instead of the 0.001cm variance of the Vernier caliper. The differences in measurements allow one to realize the large changes in consistent production between marbles and ball bearings. The calculated errors in density relied upon the averages between the counted measurements and didnt take into account the large variance marbles had in their measurements. The ball bearings had a largest density of 8.24 g/cm and smallest density of 7.55 g/cm, which was a total of .69 g/cm largest difference in density. However, the marbles had a largest density of 2.56 g/cm and a smallest density of 2.56 g/cm centimeters cubed a total of .13 g /cm. The density difference is less with the marbles because it has less mass to volume ratios than the much more dense ball bearings. Questions 1. The difference between the experiment 1 and 3 volumes is 0.715. Taking into account that there is a dip in the water, we see that the two results are reasonably close. However the graduated cylinder volume we trust more since there is less chance of computational or error in calculating. As we should trust it more since there seems to be a large range for error. 2. Error could arise as colder air temperatures in the room could cause the water to become a changing factor in the volume we recorded. The warm water we drew from the tap may too have been a factor.

3. The ball bearings are much smaller in size when compared to the marbles we were using. The ball bearing sizes seemed to be more consistent than the sizes in volume of the marbles. With sizes being very consistent this can cause the calculated densities to be either very close to the true density or to cause massive fluctuations of the masses themselves are different or measured to be different. 4. The densities of the metals: copper, aluminum and steel are 8.96 g/cm^3, 2.375 g/cm^-3 to 2.7 g/cm^-3(dependent on if it is at melting point or room temperature respectively), and 7.85 g/cm^3 respectively. Based on this information and on our results and finding it is possible to conclude that the ball bearings are made out of steel or mostly steel. Error Discussion Besides the obvious human error and computational error that could arise in doing this experiment, other errors that can arise and did arise while doing this experiment include mechanical measurements being inaccurate, or not accurate enough to the farthest decimal. The received results could and may be skewed by the temperature of the room and the temperature of the water used when doing experiment three. Error can and does seem to arise in the measurement of the marbles, though this can be blamed on human error, it is quite possible that the marbles that were chosen to be measured were of different sizes (factory error), which would lead to extremely different diameter measurements, different volume measurements and much worse, high and low mass measurements which lead to density measurements, that when averaged give us very inaccurate recorded data. Conclusion Using the information we were able to gather about the ball bearings we used in experiment 1 and 3, and with the help of question number 4, all help to suggest that the primary component, if not the only component of the ball bearings we used are made of steel. Though our results vary by 0.08 g/cm^3 roughly when compared to our density average for the ball bearings when compared to steel, this difference that we see may come from human error measurements, machinery inaccuracy, our results seem to be very close. Also one should keep in mind that the density error range for the ball bearings is plus or minus 0.066955 g/cm^3, which makes the difference between steel density and the ball bearings density hardly any different. Overall, this lab showed how measurement errors can have a large effect on expected outcomes and presented one the tools to account for such errors in the results.