Physics Lab Report

Experiment I - Measurement and Uncertainty

Sec. 6
Names: ID No:
1. Sofonias Berhane UGR/0767/17
2. Elianna Shimeket UGR/3450/17
3. Aksen Tessema UGR/1539/17
4. Eyerusalem Alem UGR/5298/17
Contents
Pre-Lab Assignment ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Objectives...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Equipment ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Procedure ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Discussion...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Accuracy and Precision ............................................................................................................................. 4
Effect of Repeated Trials on Reliability ...................................................................................................... 5
Sources of Errors ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Significance of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 6
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Questions ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Pre-Lab Assignment
1. What scientific concept(s) are used in this experiment?
This experiment explores the concepts of measurement uncertainties, precision,
accuracy, and error analysis. These concepts are foundational for understanding how
physical quantities are measured and how uncertainties affect experimental results.
2. Describe the specific actions you are expected to do in this experiment.
o Measure dimensions (length, width, thickness, or diameter) of given objects
using a ruler, Vernier caliper, and micrometer screw gauge.
o Measure masses using a triple-beam balance and time using a digital stopwatch.
o Perform three trials for each measurement, calculate averages, and compare
them to estimated or expected values.
o Calculate errors, uncertainties, and densities of the objects.
3. How will the objectives help you learn about the scientific concepts?
By performing this experiment, we will learn how measurement uncertainties arise and
how they affect accuracy and precision. We will also understand how to quantify errors
and improve reliability through repeated trials.
4. Predict the outcome of this experiment.
We hypothesize that measured values will differ slightly from estimated values due to
instrument limitations and human error. However, by averaging repeated trials, we
expect the precision of the results to improve.

Objectives
In this experiment, you will
• practice estimating distance, mass, and time interval,
• practice how to use vernier calipers and micrometer screw gauges,
• make basic length, mass, and time measurements with increasing precisions,
• make calculations of volume and density.

Equipment
• Meter Stick or Metric Ruler (x1)
• Vernier Caliper (x1)
• Micrometer Screw Gauge (x1)
• Triple-beam balance (x1)
• Graduated Cylinder, 25 mL (x1)
• Stopwatch-digital (x1)
 • Rectangular block (x1)
• Cylindrical Blocks (copper and aluminum) (x2)
• Coin (1 Birr) (x1)

Procedure
1. Measured dimensions of objects using the appropriate instruments.
2. Conducted three trials for each measurement to improve reliability.
3. Recorded the data and calculated averages.
4. Compare the measured averages to estimated values to determine percentage errors.
5. Determined the volume and density of the objects using standard formulas.

Discussion
Accuracy and Precision
In this experiment, the percentage errors calculated for each measurement provide insight into
the accuracy of the tools used. The percentage error for length, mass, and time can be
calculated using the formula:

After applying this formula to each measurement:

 • Length error = 2%
• Mass error = 0.74%
• Time error = 6.64%
The results suggest that the tools were sufficiently precise for the measurements, though some
discrepancies were observed. The least count of each instrument, such as the ruler, vernier
caliper, and micrometer screw gauge, indicates the smallest measurable unit on each tool. A
smaller least count generally corresponds to more precise measurements. The least count of
the tools used in this experiment is:
• Ruler (for length) = 0.1 cm
• Vernier caliper (for diameter) = 0.1 mm
• Micrometer screw gauge (for thickness) = 0.01 mm
These values contributed to the measurement uncertainties, but overall, the tools used were
accurate within the expected range.

Effect of Repeated Trials on Reliability

The repeated trials in this experiment were crucial for evaluating the reliability and precision of
the measurements. By performing multiple trials (three in this case), we minimized the
influence of random errors and obtained more consistent results. After averaging the
measurements from each trial, we found that:
• Average length = 5.0 cm
• Average mass = 85.7 g
• Average time = 4.46 s
The averages provided a more accurate representation of the true values by reducing the
impact of outliers and extreme values (such as human error in measurement). This is
particularly important in experiments where precision and consistency are key. By calculating
the average, the random fluctuations from each trial were balanced out, improving the overall
reliability of the data.

Sources of Errors
Several sources of error may have impacted the measurements in this experiment:
• Instrumental Errors: Each measuring instrument has a certain level of uncertainty, which
is determined by its least count. For example, the ruler (with a least count of 0.1 cm) and
vernier caliper (with a least count of 0.1 mm) have inherent limits in precision, and
these contributed to minor errors in the measured values. These limitations should be
considered when interpreting the results.
 • Human Errors: Common human errors in measurement include parallax error, which
can occur when reading the scale of an instrument at an angle instead of straight on.
Inaccurate placement of the object or misreading the markings can also cause
discrepancies in the measurements. The act of estimating measurements can also
contribute to error, especially if the observer's judgment is inconsistent.
• Environmental Factors: Temperature fluctuations or vibrations in the environment
during measurements could have influenced the results, especially for sensitive
instruments like the micrometer screw gauge or digital stopwatch. Temperature
changes can lead to expansion or contraction of the materials being measured, affecting
the results. Vibrations from external sources (such as nearby machinery or traffic) could
cause slight variations in time measurements, adding uncertainty to the data.

Significance of Findings
The results from this experiment highlight the importance of understanding the limitations of
measurement tools and sources of error. Even highly precise instruments have inherent
uncertainties due to their least count. For instance, the vernier caliper and micrometer screw
gauge offer relatively fine measurements, but they are still subject to minor errors based on the
observer’s ability to read them accurately.
The percent errors calculated for the measurements underscore the fact that no tool or
measurement technique is perfect, but by understanding these limitations, we can make more
informed decisions and take steps to minimize errors. The use of repeated trials and averaging
helps to improve the reliability and accuracy of our results, providing a clearer representation of
the true values.
In conclusion, this experiment emphasizes the need for careful consideration of accuracy and
precision when conducting scientific measurements. By minimizing errors and understanding
the role of uncertainties, we can enhance the reliability of our results and draw more accurate
conclusions.

Conclusion
This experiment successfully demonstrated the importance of understanding measurement
uncertainties, accuracy, and precision in scientific work. Through the process of measuring
length, mass, and time with different instruments, we were able to observe firsthand how
different sources of errors can influence our results.
The percent errors calculated for each measurement provided valuable insight into the
precision of our measuring instruments. While the tools used, such as the ruler, vernier caliper,
and micrometer screw gauge, were generally precise, the smallest measurable units (the least
count) determined the accuracy and contributed to measurement uncertainties. These errors
were not necessarily large but were inherent to the limitations of each instrument. The average
of repeated trials allowed us to mitigate random errors and outliers, showing that averaging
measurements can lead to more reliable and consistent results.
By conducting repeated trials, we observed that the average values were often more reliable
than any single measurement. This is because the effects of human error, like misreading or
misjudging the instruments, were minimized. The trials helped average out these potential
inaccuracies and produced a more accurate representation of the true value.
Additionally, several sources of error impacted the measurements. Instrumental errors were an
inevitable factor due to the low count of the instruments, as even the most precise instruments
have some inherent uncertainty. Human errors also played a role, such as parallax errors and
slight misreading of the tools. Environmental factors, such as temperature fluctuations or
vibrations, could have also influenced the precision of the measurements, particularly for
sensitive instruments like the micrometer screw gauge or the digital stopwatch.
The findings from this experiment underline the importance of understanding the limitations of
measurement tools and how these limitations impact the overall accuracy and reliability of
scientific results. Recognizing that every measurement has an uncertainty allows us to approach
data more critically, enabling us to make better-informed conclusions. Minimizing errors,
whether through repeated trials, careful reading of instruments, or controlling external factors,
leads to more accurate and consistent results.
In summary, this experiment highlights the crucial role of careful measurement practices in
scientific experiments. By learning to account for measurement uncertainties, we can improve
the accuracy of our data and ultimately the validity of our conclusions. This understanding is
essential not only in the context of laboratory work but also in real-world applications where
precise measurements are critical for making informed decisions, whether in engineering,
medicine, or any other field.

Questions
1. Why is it important to correctly estimate length, time, and mass?
Accurate estimations allow for reliable data collection and minimize significant
discrepancies during measurements.
2. Compare your estimates of length, mass, and time to actual measurements by
calculating the percent errors.
|𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
Percent error = x 100
𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Table 1
• Estimated length: 5.1 cm
• Measured length (average): 5.0 cm
 |5.1−5.0|
Percent error = x 100 = 2%
5.1
Table 2
1. Estimated length: 3.74 cm
Measured length (average): 3.7 cm
|3.74−3.7|
Percent error = x 100 = 1.1%
3.74
2. Estimated length: 1.96 cm
Measured length (average): 1.9 cm
|1.96−1.9|
Percent error = x 100 = 3.16%
1.96
Table 3
• Estimated diameter: 2.77 cm
• Measured diameter (average): 2.7 cm
|2.77−2.7|
Percent error = x 100 = 2.59%
2.77
Table 4
1. Rectangular block volume:
o Estimated volume: 14.25 cm³
o Measured volume: 16 cm³
|14.25−16|
Percent error = x 100 = 10.94%
14.25
2. Copper cylinder volume:
Estimated volume: 10.49 cm³
Measured volume: 10 cm³
|10.49−10|
Percent error = x 100 = 4.9%
10.49
3. Aluminum cylinder volume:
• Estimated volume: 1.2 cm³
• Measured volume: 2 cm³
 |1.2−2|
Percent error = x 100 = 66.67%
1.2
4. One birr coin volume:
• Estimated volume: 1.14 cm³
• Measured volume: 1 cm³
|1.14−1|
Percent error = x 100 = 12.3%
1.14
Table 5
1. Copper cylinder mass:
o Estimated mass: 85.6 g
o Measured mass: 85.7 g
|85.6−85.7|
Percent error = x 100 = 0.12%
85.6
2. Aluminum cylinder mass:
• Estimated mass: 3.65 g
• Measured mass: 3.7 g
|3.65−3.7|
Percent error = x 100 = 1.35%
3.65
Table 6
1. Copper cylinder time:
o Estimated time: 4.17 s
o Measured time: 4.46 s
|4.17−4.46|
Percent error = x 100 = 6.5%
4.17
2. Aluminum cylinder time:
• Estimated time: 3.98 s
• Measured time: 4.27 s
|3.98−4.27|
Percent error = x 100 = 7.29%
3.98
3. Why are the highest and lowest data points often disregarded when taking the
average?
Extreme values may be outliers caused by errors, and disregarding them improves the
reliability and consistency of the average.
4. Which is more accurate, individual measurements or their average? Explain.
The average is typically more accurate because it reduces the effect of random errors
and increases precision.
5. Suppose you are provided with a ruler whose ends are worn. How should you start
measurements to minimize errors?
Begin measurements from a marked point (e.g., 1 cm) rather than the worn end, and
subtract this offset from the final value.
6. For the figures below, identify the value of the major and minor marks and write the
reading from the instrument.

1. Meterstick
• Major mark: 1 centimeter
 • Minor mark: 1 millimeter
• Readings: 5.1, 1.9, 1.5
2. Vernier caliper
• Major mark: 1 millimeter
• Minor mark: 0.1 millimeter
• Readings: 3.71, 1.91, 0.93
3. Micrometer screw gauge
• Major mark: 1 millimeter
• Minor mark: 0.01 millimeter
• Readings: 2.773, 1.920, 0.247
4. Triple-beam balance
• Major mark: This is the larger division on the scale. On the middle beam, each
major mark typically represents 100 grams. On the front beam, each major mark
represents 10 grams. On the back beam, each major mark represents 1 gram.
• Minor mark: 0.1 gram
• Readings: 85.6, 3.81, 85.7