FIE- School of Engineering 1

Taylor’s University

Practical 1
Measurements and Uncertainty

Name : Yap Eng Ping

Student ID : 0327690

Group Members : 1. Ng Chee Swean

Date of Experiment:24th August2016

Foundation of Engineering Report due date: 2nd September2016
Report submission date: 1st
School of Engineering September2016
Checked by:
Taylor’s University
Item/marks
Malaysia Format/10
Abstract and Introduction/10
Figures and Diagrams/15
Materials and Method/10
Results Discussions/45
References/10
Total
FIE- School of Engineering 2
Taylor’s University

Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................3-4

2.0 Experimental Design ..............................................................................................................5-7

2.1 Materials ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Methods ..............................................................................................................................8-9

2.3 Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 10

3.0 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................11-14

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 15

References ..................................................................................................................................... 16
FIE- School of Engineering 3
Taylor’s University

ABSTRACT

This report concentrates on the concept of uncertainty in measurements. In this experiment,

physical quantities like length, mass, volume and time were measured. Some measuring
instruments were used in this experiment such as ruler, Vernier calipers, micrometer screw
gauge, electronic balance, measuring cylinder and stopwatch. Then, the uncertainties of each
measurement were determined. Micrometer screw gauge has higher accuracy compared to
Vernier calipers and ruler as the smaller the percentage uncertainty, the higher the accuracy of
the measuring instrument.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this experiment is to show the concept of absolute uncertainties and percentage
of uncertainties over different types of measurements. We have to understand that the results
obtained from any experiments aren’t 100% accurate. Undeniably, measurement uncertainty is
unable to avoid or to prevent, it can only be reduced. Uncertainty can be found about the value
of a result. Sometimes the arising of uncertainty can be occurred due to random effects.
However, uncertainty is definitely playing an important role to assess the reliability of the result.
The uncertainty of a result of a measurement can be classified to two group, which are random
error and systematic error. Random error happens from unpredictable variations of influence
quantities. It can be reduce by doing the observations of the measurement more frequently.
Systematic error usually comes from the measuring instruments. According to an article from
The Columbia Encyclopedia, “Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976) developed the uncertainty
principle as a result of his work in creating quantum mechanics in the 1920s” [1]. If the
accuracy is the degree of how close a measurement is to the actual value, then the uncertainty in
a measurement is an estimate amount that can deviate from the actual value [2]. Errors or
uncertainties can be minimized by repeating the measurements and taking the average of it or
using a measuring device of higher accuracy but unfortunately, uncertainties cannot be avoided.
Thus, uncertainty exists in every measurements no matter how advanced the instruments used
are [3].

The absolute uncertainty of a quantity can be represented by using the symbol “±”. For example:
20cm ± 1cm. According to this example, the actual value of that quantity is within the range of
19cm to 21cm. On the other hand, the percentage uncertainty can be calculated using the
formula,

𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦
% 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = × 100% … (1)
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
FIE- School of Engineering 4
Taylor’s University

Percentage uncertainty is independent of units; it is just the percent of ratio of uncertainty to its
measured value [4]. Thus, it is easier to use percentage uncertainty in calculation than the
absolute uncertainty. According to Eq. 1, the percentage uncertainty of the example, 20cm ±
1
1cm, is20 × 100% = 5%. During calculation involving uncertainties, there are a few equations

that should be taken note of [4].

Firstly, if V = a + b, the uncertainty of V is:

∆𝑉 = ∆𝑎 + ∆𝑏 … (2)

Secondly, if V = a – b, the uncertainty of V is:

∆𝑉 = ∆𝑎 + ∆𝑏 … (2)

Thirdly, if V = ab, the uncertainty of V is:

∆𝑉 ∆𝑎 ∆𝑏
= + … (3)
𝑉 𝑎 𝑏

Lastly, if V = a/b, the uncertainty of V is:

∆𝑉 ∆𝑎 ∆𝑏
= + … (3)
𝑉 𝑎 𝑏
FIE- School of Engineering 5
Taylor’s University

2.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Part A

Figure 1.1 Measuring Thickness, t of Weight Cell using Ruler

Figure 1.2 Measuring Thickness, t of Weight Cell using Vernier Calipers

Figure 1.3 Measuring Thickness, t of Weight Cell using Micrometer Screw Gauge
FIE- School of Engineering 6
Taylor’s University

Part B

Figure 2.1 Measuring Diameter, d of Copper Wire s.w.g. 22

Part C

Figure 3.1 Volume Before Immersing Pendulum Bob

Figure 3.2 Volume After Immersing Pendulum Bob

FIE- School of Engineering 7
Taylor’s University

Part D

Figure 4.1 Experimental set up for Oscillation of Simple Pendulum

2.1 Materials

PART A:

 Ruler
 Vernier calipers
 Micrometer screw gauge
 Weight cell

PART B:

 Micrometer screw gauge

 Copper wire s.w.g. 22

PART C:

 Measuring cylinder (25 cm3 @ 50 cm3)

 Pendulum bob
 30 cm thread
 Weight balance

PART D:

 Pendulum bob
 50 cm string
 Stop watch
 Retort stand, clamp, boss
 Electronic balance
 Wooden block
FIE- School of Engineering 8
Taylor’s University

2.2 Methods

PART A:

1. The thickness, t of a weight cell was measured by using ruler, Vernier calipers, and
Micrometer screw gauge.

2. The results of the repeated measurements were recorded and the average value of the results
is being determined.

3. Limitations of ruler, Vernier calipers and micrometer screw gauge are they can only measure
up to 0.1cm, 0.02mm and 0.01mm respectively.

4. Any zero errors were checked and calibrated for each instrument.

5. The position of the eyes when taking the readings was parallel to the scale of the instrument
to prevent parallax error.

PART B:

1. The diameter, d of the copper wire was measured five times along the length of the wire in
different spots using a micrometer screw gauge. Measurements were recorded from different
parts of the wire because the diameters along the wire are not consistent. The average of the
readings was determined.

2. Limitation of the micrometer screw gauge is it can only measure up to 0.01mm.

3. Zero error was checked and calibrated for the micrometer screw gauge.

4. The position of the eyes when taking the readings was parallel to the scale of micrometer
screw gauge to prevent parallax error.

PART C:

1. The mass of the pendulum bob was measured using an electronic balance. Calibrations were
made before weighing the pendulum bob.

2. The volume of pendulum bob was determined using the water displacement method where
volume of pendulum bob = volume of water after immersing pendulum bob – volume of
water before immersing pendulum bob in the measuring cylinder.

3. Density, ρ of the pendulum bob was determined using the formula,

𝑚
𝜌= … (4)
𝑣
FIE- School of Engineering 9
Taylor’s University

4. Limitations of the electronic balance and the measuring cylinder are they can only measure
up to 0.01g and 0.5ml respectively.

5. The position of the eyes when taking the readings was parallel to the meniscus of the water
in the measuring cylinder to avoid parallax error.

PART D:

1. The total time it takes to make 20 oscillations was measured using stopwatch

2. The measurements were repeated twice and the average of time taken to make 20 oscillations
was determined.

3. The position of the eyes when adjusting the length, l of simple pendulum to 40cm was
parallel to the scale of meter ruler to avoid parallax error. The length of the simple pendulum
is the distance from the point of suspension to the centre of the ball.

4. When the swinging motion becomes elliptical, the swinging action was repeated so that it
stays as close as possible to the vertical plane.

5. There might be some error in the measurements due to human reaction time, thus the
uncertainty is based on human reaction time.
FIE- School of Engineering 10
Taylor’s University

2.3 Procedure
Part A
1. The thickness, t of a weight cell was measured using a ruler.

2. The measurement was repeated using a ruler, Vernier calliper, and a Micrometre screw
gauge.

3. The uncertainties of the measurements were determined.

4. The results were tabulated in a table.

Part B
1. The diameter, d of the copper wire was measured five times along the length of the wire
in different directions using a micrometre screw gauge.
2. The uncertainties of the measurements were determined.
3. The results were tabulated in a table.

Part C
1. Using the water displacement method, the density of the pendulum bob was measured.
a) The mass of the pendulum bob was measured.

b) The volume of water in the measuring cylinder was measured.

c) The pendulum bob was immersed inside the measuring cylinder and the new volume
was measured.

2. The results were tabulated in a table.

Part D
1. The experimental equipment was set up as shown in Fig. 1.4.

2. The length, l was adjusted to approximately 40cm.

3. The bob was displaced from its equilibrium position by an angle of approximately 30°,
and then the bob was released to allow it to swing back and forth.

4. The total time it takes to make 20 oscillations was measured.

5. The results were tabulated in a table.

FIE- School of Engineering 11
Taylor’s University

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Part A
Table 1. Tabulated Results for the Thickness, t of a Weight Cell
Instrument Readings 1 2 Average ± uncertainty

Ruler t (mm) 7.00 7.50 7.25 ± 0.5mm

Vernier Calipers t (mm) 6.91 6.90 6.91 ± 0.02 mm

Micrometer Screw Gauge t (mm) 7.25 7.26 7.26 ± 0.01 mm

1. Calculate the % uncertainty for each of the measurement instruments used in the experiment.
𝛿𝑡
a) For ruler: % uncertainty of thickness, 𝑡 = ± 𝑡
× 100%
0.5
𝑡 = ± 7.25 × 100%

= ± 6.9%
b) For Vernier caliper: % uncertainty of thickness, 𝑡 = ± 𝛿𝑡𝑡 × 100%
0.02
𝑡 = ± 6.91 × 100%

= ± 0.29%
c) For micrometer screw gauge: % uncertainty of thickness, 𝑡 = ± 𝛿𝑡𝑡 × 100%
0.01
𝑡 = ± 7.26 × 100%

= ± 0.14%

2. Compare and comment on the % uncertainties calculated above.

The smaller the percentage of uncertainty, the higher the accuracy. Micrometer screw gauge
has the smallest percentage of uncertainty, followed by Vernier calipers, then lastly ruler.
Hence, micrometer screw gauge has the highest accuracy, followed by Vernier calipers, and
then the least accurate which is the ruler.
FIE- School of Engineering 12
Taylor’s University

Part B

Table 2. Tabulated Results for the Diameter, d of a Copper wire s.w.g. 22

Readings 1 2 3 4 5 Average ± uncertainty

Diameter, mm 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.77 0.76 ± 0.01 mm

1. Calculate the average diameter, d with its uncertainty.

Average diameter, d = (0.76+0.76+0.76+0.75+0.77) mm / 5
= 0.76 mm
Uncertainty = ± 0.01 mm
Thus, the diameter, d of a copper wire s.w.g. 22 is 0.76 ± 0.01 mm
𝛿𝑑
2. Calculate % uncertainty of the diameter, 𝑑 = ± × 100%
𝑑
0.01
𝑑=± × 100%
0.76
= ± 1.32%

Part C

Table 3. Tabulated Results for the Volume and Mass of Pendulum Bob

Volume before 20.00 ± 0.5 cm3

Volume after 23.50 ± 0.5 cm3

Volume of pendulum bob 3.50 ± 0.5 cm3

Mass of pendulum bob 29.75 g ± 0.01g

1. Determine the density, ρ of the pendulum bob along with its absolute uncertainty.
29.75
Density, ρ of the pendulum bob = g cm-3
3.5

= 8.5 g cm-3
Absolute uncertainty of the density involves division of uncertainty of volume and
uncertainty of mass, thus:
According to Eq. 2,
∆𝑉 ∆𝑎 ∆𝑏
= +
𝑉 𝑎 𝑏
FIE- School of Engineering 13
Taylor’s University

∆𝜌 ∆𝑣 ∆𝑚
= +
𝜌 𝑣 𝑚
∆𝜌 0.5 0.01
= +
8.5 3.5 29.75
∆𝜌 = ±(0.143 + 0.00034)
= ± 0.14g cm-3

2. Determine the % uncertainty of the density, ρ.

0.5
% uncertainty of volume of pendulum bob = ± 3.5 × 100%

= ± 14.29%
0.01
% uncertainty of mass of pendulum bob = ± 29.75 × 100%

= ± 0.034 %
% uncertainty of the density, ρ = ± (14.29 + 0.034)%
= ± 14.324%

3. Suggest 2 ways to minimise the error through improving the measurement.

i) Use a smaller division measuring cylinder.
ii) Prevent parallax error by ensuring eye position is parallel with the meniscus of the water
in the measuring cylinder.

Part D

Table 4. Tabulated Results for the Time Taken for 20 Oscillations of Simple Pendulum

Time (s) for 20 oscillations

1 2 3 Average ± uncertainty

25.43 25.46 25.41 25.43 ± 0.02 s

1. Calculate the period, T (the time taken for one complete oscillation).
25.43
Period, T = s
20

= 1.2715s
0.02
Uncertainty of time taken for one complete oscillation, ∆t20 = 25.43 × t20
0.02 25.43
= 25.43 × 20

= ± 0.001s
FIE- School of Engineering 14
Taylor’s University

Since “the percent uncertainty of a measured quantity equals the percent uncertainty of its
calculated inverse” [5],
Uncertainty of Period, T = ± 0.001 s-1

2. Calculate the value of g in m/s2 and the uncertainty of g. The period of oscillation of a
𝑙
simple pendulum is expressed as, 𝑇 = 2𝜋√𝑔

0.4 ± 0.0005
1.2715 ± 0.001 = 2𝜋√
𝑔

0.4 ± 0.0005
0.2023 ± 0.0002 = √
𝑔

0.4 ± 0.0005
0.041 ± (4 × 10−8 ) =
𝑔
0.4 ± 0.0005
𝑔=
0.041 ± (4 × 10−8 )
𝑔 = 9.77 m/s2

∆𝑔 0.0005 0.4
Uncertainty of g, = + 0.041
𝑔 0.4

∆𝑔 = (0.2 × 9.77) m/s2

= ± 1.954m/s2

3. State three sources of error of limitations for this experiment.

i) Reaction time of human.
ii) The swinging motion of the simple pendulum becomes elliptical.
iii) Estimation of the point of suspension and the centre of pendulum bob caused an
uncertainty in the length of the simple pendulum.

4. Suggest three improvements that could be made to this experiment. (You may suggest the
use of other apparatus or different procedures or techniques).
i) increase the number of repetitions and determine the average
ii) change the string into something that does not stretch, for instance, a wire
iii) increase the number of oscillations from 20 to 40
FIE- School of Engineering 15
Taylor’s University

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The aim to show the concept of absolute uncertainties and percentage uncertainties over
different types of measurements has been achieved.

From all the results in Table 1., Table 2., Table 3. and Table 4., the values obtained are not
constant, thus it clearly stated that uncertainty exists.

Different types of measuring instruments will give us different uncertainty because they have
different scale and divisions. In general, the uncertainty of a quantity is the smallest division on
the measuring instrument [4]. Thus, we can know that the smaller the smallest division of the
measuring instrument, the higher the accuracy of that instrument. For instance, micrometer
screw gauge is used to measure the diameter, d of copper wire s.w.g.22 in Part B because it has
smaller division, hence, higher accuracy achieved.

From Part A, it is found that micrometer screw gauge (±0.14%) has smaller percentage
uncertainty compare to Vernier calipers (±0.29%) and ruler (±6.9%). Also, micrometer screw
gauge is more accurate as it can measure up to 0.01mm compared to Vernier calipers and ruler
which can only measure up to 0.02mm and 0.5mm respectively. Therefore, we can conclude that
the greater the accuracy, the smaller the percentage uncertainty.

From Part C, it is found that the uncertainty of density, ρ (± 0.14 g cm-3) can be calculated using
uncertainty of volume and mass obtained through the experiment. Thus, an uncertainty of a
certain physical quantity can be calculated by combination of uncertainties of several quantities.

The complications encountered include faulty electronic balance which results in incorrect mass
of pendulum bob obtained at first and misuse of the micrometre screw gauge by turning the
thimble too much and not using the ratchet properly which leads to the object measured being
compressed. However, fortunately, some calibrations and corrections were made to amend the
errors.

Improvement that can be made to Part A of the experiment is taking more measurements before
calculating the average value so that a more precise reading can be made. For Part B, a thicker
and longer wire can be used so that readings can be taken more easily. For Part C, a measuring
cylinder with smaller divisions and thus smaller uncertainty and higher accuracy should be used.
Lastly for Part D, a protractor should be provided so that the angle of displacement can be
measured and not by sheer estimation.
FIE- School of Engineering 16
Taylor’s University

REFERENCES

[1] Uncertainty principle (2015). [Online]. In The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press. Available from:
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/columency/uncertainty_principle/0 [Accessed 27
August 2016].

[2]P. Urone, College physics. Australia: Brooks/Cole, 1998, pp. 11-12.

[3]L. Kirkup, Experimental methods. Brisbane: J. Wiley, 1994, 54-76.

[4] Nor Aini Naim et al., Experimental physics. Selangor, Malaysia: Pearson/Prentice Hall,
2004, pp. 79-90.

[5] Experimental Uncertainties. (2011). [Online] Available at:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~dbrookes/ExperimentalUncertaintiesCalculus.pdf [Accessed 27 August.
2016].