Finding the Density of Metals by Measuring their Dimensions Using

a Ruler, a Vernier Caliper, a Micrometer Caliper, and a Digital

Weighing Scale
Bienica Yzabelle G. Tinte, Adrianne C. Rilloraza*, Karen H. Reguine, Jaime S. Rivera, Krisha Kai A.
Cadangen, Wilbur H. Galarion
Department of Physical Sciences, University of the Philippines – Baguio, Governor Pack Road, Baguio City
*
adriannerilloraza@gmail.com.ph

Abstract
This paper focuses on measuring the same dimensions from the same objects but
with different devices to compare the accuracy and precision of these devices in
measuring more objects for future experiments. Three metals in form of shapes
were measured by three different devices, namely, a ruler, Vernier caliper, and
micrometer caliper.

By measuring these metals and comparing their densities with the actual
densities of metals and also the qualities of these metals, it was concluded that
the metals were aluminum, copper, and iron.

Upon further calculation and in depth analysis of the experimental set-up, it was
concluded that the micrometer caliper is the most accurate measuring device
because of less percentage error, and the ruler, the most precise because of the
lower standard deviation. However, the Vernier caliper could cater more objects
to measure than the other two could, because of its features and better holding
capacity.

1. Introduction
Measurements are quantitative data of magnitudes assigned to physical bodies that are based on
conventional units. The fundamental units of measurements in mechanics are units of time (second), length (meter),
and mass (kilogram). Determining the magnitude of a measurement of a physical body requires a measuring device
that is designed specifically to measure a certain physical quantity. There is no exact physical measurement.
Therefore, there is a need to indicate errors and uncertainties in measurements.

This experiment would use a ruler, Vernier caliper, micrometer caliper, and a digital weighing scale to
measure the dimensions. The data gathered from these devices should be analyzed and be used to calculate the mean
and standard deviation. The type of metal could also be determined from these data by calculating the density from
the obtained mass and calculated volume. The experimenters should compare the calculated density to the actual
density of the metals, whichever measuring device gives the density that is closest to the actual density of the metal
is the most accurate. However, since no measurements are made under perfect conditions and as a result have
uncertainties, the experimenters should also determine the uncertainty and errors in the measurements.

By doing this experiment it can be learned that there are no exact measurements. All measurements are, to
an extent, uncertain. A measurement is not complete without an uncertainty to represent the errors in measuring.
Errors in the measurement can come from various sources such as the measuring device and the environment in
which the experiment is conducted.
 In this experiment the dimensions of three different metals of varying shapes, hollow cylinder, rectangular
block, and sphere will be measured using a ruler, a Vernier caliper, and a micrometer caliper. A digital weighing
scale should be used to determine the mass of the metals.

2. Methodology
To find the density of any object, its mass should be divided by its volume. First, the researchers measured
the dimensions of the rectangular cube. To find its volume, a ruler was first used to measure its length, width, and
height simply by reading the calibrations present in the ruler (see Figure 1). The researchers conducted three trials
for every dimension measured by the ruler.

Figure 1. Standard plastic foot rule

Since the ruler’s calibrations are not too accurate for measuring small objects, the Vernier caliper (see
Figure 2) was next used to measure the same object. The object was then inserted into the lower jaws of the caliper.
The main reading came from the metric scale on the lower part of the caliper’s arm which reads inches. Then, the
corresponding decimal places from the line that exactly aligns to the 1/10-inch reading above it are then multiplied
by 0.02 (the uncertainty of the device) then added to the metric reading. For higher accuracy, the researchers also
conducted three trials for each dimension measured by this device.

Figure 2. Measuring a block with a Vernier caliper

The rectangular block was then measured using the micrometer caliper (see Figure 3). The object was
locked between the anvils of the caliper and the measurements were read based on the device’s specifications. On
the upper part of the sleeve are millimeter measures. The last number seen uncovered by the thimble is the whole
number cited in the measurement. A half millimeter is to be added only when a line after the millimeter measure
aligns with the thimble. Two more decimals that correspond the reading in the thimble are then added to the
measurement. Like the previous devices, the researchers correspondingly conducted three trials for each dimension.

Figure 3. Micrometer caliper

 The same procedures were used with the hollow cylinder where the outside and inside diameter, and height
were measured thrice per device. Only this time, the upper jaws of the cylinder were used to measure its inner
diameter. However, due to the limited space from which the object is supposed to fit between the anvils of the
micrometer caliper, the cylinder was “divided” into segments that the caliper could measure. Then, the
measurements of these segments were added to find the best estimate of its height.

After measuring the dimensions for volume, all three metals were weighed on a digital weighing scale with
an uncertainty of ±0.01 to determine the mass of each object. After calculating the volume of each object, its mass
was divided by the volume, giving off the density for the rectangular block, hollow cylinder, and sphere,
respectively.

3. Results and Discussion

After conducting the experiment, upon comparing the theoretical and experimental densities of the
metals, it was founded that metal 1 is aluminum shaped as a rectangular block, the cylinder metal 2 is copper, and
metal 3 is an iron sphere.

Table 1. Shows the different percentage errors calculated in getting the density of the metal aluminum
MEASURING DEVICE EXPERIMENTAL DENSITY PERCENTAGE ERROR
(g/cm3)
RULER 3.02 ± 0.22 12%
VERNIER CALIPER 2.10 ± 0.44 22%
MICROMETER CALIPER 2.45 ± 1.53 9.3%

The actual density of the aluminum block is 2.7 g/cm3. It weighs 1.36 g on a digital weighing scale. By
gauging its dimensions using different measuring devices, the researchers came up with the different percentage
errors as shown in table 1. After calculating the densities, the experimenters observed that the measurements taken
using the Vernier Caliper have the highest percentage errors.

Table 2. Shows the different percentage errors calculated in getting the density of the metal copper
MEASURING DEVICE EXPERIMENTAL DENSITY PERCENTAGE ERROR
(g/cm3)
RULER 9.70 ± 1.05 8.74%
VERNIER CALIPER 11.8 ± 0.73 32.6%
MICROMETER CALIPER 8.62 ± 4.87 3.36%

The actual density of the copper cylinder is 8.92 g/cm3. Its mass is 7.12 g by the digital weighing scale. By
finding its dimensions using different measuring devices, the experimenters came up with the different percentage
errors as seen in table 2. After calculating the densities, the researchers observed that the measurements taken using
the Vernier Caliper have the highest percentage errors.

Table 3. Shows the different percentage errors calculated in getting the density of the metal iron
MEASURING DEVICE EXPERIMENTAL DENSITY PERCENTAGE ERROR
(g/cm3)
RULER 11.3 ± 6.97 × 10-3 44.1%
VERNIER CALIPER 7.82 ± 0.02 0.661%
MICROMETER CALIPER 6.68 ± 0.400 15.1%

The actual density of the iron sphere is 7.87 g/cm3. It has a mass of 16.30 g on a digital weighing scale. By
measuring its dimensions using different measuring devices, the researchers came up with the different percentage
errors as shown in table 3. After calculating the metal’s densities, the experimenters observed that the measurements
taken using the ruler have the highest percentage errors.

The errors computed in the experiment may be due to the irregularity of the shape of the metal (e.g. the
cylinder measured is slightly skewed to one side). This enabled the experimenters to get different dimensions in
every trial of measuring. Another cause is the quality and variety of the measuring devices; this caused the
experimenters to not get the exact values of the dimensions. Some measuring devices are precise but not accurate
and some are accurate but not precise. However, the errors were slightly, if not completely, reduced with the use of
uncertainties in the dimensions and computations of the measurements.

4. Conclusion
From the given data above, it can be seen that for each metal, different measuring devices noted the highest
percentage errors. As for metals 1 and 2, Vernier Caliper had the highest percentage errors. On the other hand, the
ruler has the highest percentage error for the metal 3.

From this experiment and results alone, it could be inferred that the most accurate measuring device is the
micrometer caliper, because it had the least percentage error in two out of three metal densities. Based on the same
results, it could also be inferred that the ruler is the most precise because it gave the least value of the standard
deviation in two out of three metal densities. Based on the device’s features and quality, the Vernier caliper could
cater more objects to be measured because it could measure more dimensions of greater measures than the other two
could.

The results may have been affected by the current state of the metals and of the quality of the measuring
devices. For future pursuit of researches in relation to this, it would be highly recommended to take into
consideration the condition of the metals to be observed and the measuring devices to see to it that the measured
values would not be far from each other, and even the environment in which the experiment will be conducted. If it
is possible, it should also be taken into consideration the type of material being measured. This experiment focused
on measuring metals that expand with heat, thus not assuring the same measurements between periods of time.

References
1. “Densities of Pure Metals.” Sapling Learning. Google Sites. n.d. Web. 9 Feb. 2016