Physics I Laboratory

Faculty of Science, UOIT

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of

Physical Parameters
Students name Madison Bratina CRN 41974____ Date Oct 1st______

Experiment #1: Length, Diameter and Volume

Hypothesis
What method do you think will be more precise for measuring the objects volume (a) using calipers to
measure linear dimensions and then calculate the volume or (b) just measuring the volume of water
displaced by the object? Why do you thing so?
Ithingthat the Callipers will be more accurate because I feel that the water had too large of a variance.
I think
However, for the arbitrarily shaped pieces, the water will definitely be more accurate because we cannot
measure its linear dimensions.

Measurements
Object
regular-shaped object

Height of cylinder or block, h, cm

1.589

1.589

irregular-shaped
object
Object
regular-shaped object
irregular-shaped
object

3.160

1.589

1.590

1.589

Table 1.1. Measurements

Diameter of cylinder, d, or width of block, w,
cm
4.489

4.488

4.489

4.489

N/A

N/A

Length of block only, l, cm

Displaced volume, VD, ml (cm3)

3.155

3.155

3.160

3.160

N/A

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Parameters

4.489

25.0

25.0

24.9

25.0

25.0

25.3

24.9

25.2

24.9

25.3

Physics I Laboratory

Faculty of Science, UOIT

Analysis
Table 1.2. Analysis
Object
regular-shaped object
irregular-shaped
block

h , cm

h, cm

d / w , cm

d/w, cm

l , cm

1.589

0.00005

4.489

0.0002

3.158

N/A*

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

B/C, cm3

V D , cm3

D, cm3

25.0

0.02

25.1

0.02

l, cm

Object
regular-shaped object
irregular-shaped
block

VB / C

cm3

0.001

25.0

0.02

N/A

N/A

N/A

* Not Applicable

Experiment #2: Mass and Density

Measurements
Table 2.1. Measurements
Object
regular-shaped object

Mass m, g
65.40

irregular-shaped object

66.85

Analysis
Table 2.2. Analysis
Object
regular-shaped object
irregular-shaped object

m, g

m, g

exp, g/cm3

, g/cm3

ref, g/cm3

65.40

0.001

2.550

0.001

2.70

Material
Aluminum

66.85

0.001

2.622

0.001

2.70

Aluminum

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Parameters

Physics I Laboratory

Faculty of Science, UOIT

Conclusions and Error Analysis

To determine the volume of the two shapes, we used two methods. One method we used to calculate
the volume of the shapes, was calculating the volume based on the volume of displaced water from an
overflow container. For the regular-shaped object we measured the dimensions and calculated the
volume based on our measurements. According to my measurements, the regular-shaped object had a
volume of about 25.0 cm3. When using the overflow container, the volume of the regular-shaped object
was also 25.0cm3. The measurements showed no uncertainty for the volume. It was calculated out to be
0.02cm3, the same as when using the container method, 0.02cm3. Although my measurements showed
no difference in uncertainties, Id imagine the measuring method was more precise. The uncertainties
for the methods were reasonable, as they were the same. If there were any errors, the sources of these
errors could arise from two places. The first is the human error caused by the operator of the tools. For
example, when measuring, if the measurer was not perfectly parallel with the edge they are measuring
then the measurement would be larger. Furthermore, if the measurer misread the measurement then, of
course, the measurement would be inaccurate. Then there is the systematic errors caused by the tools
themselves. Each tool and method had its own designated error to it. While we did multiple trials to
slim down this error, an error could still exists. For example, calipers had an error of 0.002 cm, this
would mean that each measurement (even if take as best as humanly possible) would have its own
inherent uncertainty. The displaced volume method is what I would define as a rough experiment
because of two reasons. Firstly, it was the least accurate. Secondly, the accuracy was in the fact that the
measurement method had large inherited uncertainties. This would make it nearly impossible to be
very accurate. The way we calculated density was threw calculation. We weighed the pieces and then
divided their weight by their volume to get their density in g/cm3, which we could then reference to
find out what material we were dealing with. We determined the density through calculation. This
calculation was based on the measured volume and the weighed weight. When comparing our density
with that of true Aluminum, we find that our density is at the most 0.15g/cm3 off of the referenced
density. I believe that this is a successful experiment to come so close to the real density considering
the conditions. This lab was carried out in an open environment. The metal was vulnerable to wear,
warp, oxidization, and was handled by first time students. The sources of errors are from the error in
volume (calculated and presented in part one of the lab), the error in the weight (displayed on scale),
and human error. We could have weighted it wrong, or misread the weight. The obtained uncertainty
values are very reasonable. To come so close to the actual density, I have no doubt that these
uncertainty values are too small to allow the consideration that the metal was not Aluminum. The
general purpose of this lab was to teach students how to calculate uncertainties and to find out what
material the mystery metal pieces were made out of, by referencing deduced densities with the
theoretical values.

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Parameters