‭Mustafa‬‭1‬

‭ABDULLAH MUSTAFA‬

‭100914124‬

‭PHY1010U - PHYSICS I‬

‭“THIS SUBMISSION IN ITS ENTIRETY‬

‭IS MY OWN WORK”‬
 ‭Mustafa‬‭2‬

‭Lab Report 1: Measurement and Evaluation of‬

‭Physical Parameters‬

‭INTRODUCTION‬
‭ his laboratory report is focused on the measurements and accuracy of different‬
T
‭measurement methods. In the world of physics, measurements are essential as they‬
‭allow us to quantify physical quantities and test different theories. Some measurements‬
‭can be done indirectly through mathematical analysis of a few variables related to the‬
‭object. This might involve the use of kinematic equations. while some measurement‬
‭procedures directly measure the object through measurement tools. Although these‬
‭methods are fairly accurate, they are not perfect. It can be claimed with certainty that‬
‭there is no error in these measurements. There are many factors such as human error,‬
‭instrumental error, or environmental error which can compromise the accuracy of the‬
‭measurements.‬
‭OBJECTIVE‬
‭ he main objective of this lab measure a regularly‬‭shaped object and an‬
T
‭irregularly shaped object and use different measurement methods (direct and indirect)‬
‭to check their accuracy and explore the cause of error in both methods.‬

‭HYPOTHESIS‬
‭ sing the vernier scale to record the height and diameter and using those‬
U
‭readings to analyze the volume of an object is more accurate than using the water‬
‭displacement method. The reason is that the water displacement method has more‬
‭steps compared to the vernier method and can be considered more complicated.‬
‭Instrumental error can compromise the accuracy of a measurement. Since there are‬
‭more steps in the water displacement method than in the vernier method, there is more‬
‭room for human error in the experiment as well.‬

‭RESULTS‬
‭MASS MEASUREMENTS‬
‭Object‬ ‭ ass (g)‬
M ‭Trial 2 (g)‬ ‭Trial 3 (g)‬ ‭Trial 4 (g)‬ ‭Trial 5 (g)‬ ‭Average‬
‭Trial 1‬ ‭mass m, g‬

‭ egular-shap‬ ‭66.90‬
R ‭66.85‬ ‭66.90‬ ‭66.80‬ ‭66.80‬ ‭66.85‬
‭ed object‬
 ‭Mustafa‬‭3‬

I‭rregular-sha‬ ‭66.90‬ ‭66.95‬ ‭66.75‬ ‭66.85‬ ‭66.80‬ ‭66.85‬

‭ped object‬
‭ he mass of both objects was measured and results showed that they weighed the‬
T
‭same.‬

‭HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS OF CYLINDRICAL OBJECT‬

‭Object‬ ‭Height of the object, cm‬ ‭ verage‬
A
‭height, cm‬

‭regular-shaped object‬ ‭6.380‬ ‭6.330‬ ‭6.355‬ ‭6.380‬ ‭6.355‬ ‭6.360‬

‭ he height of the cylindrical object was measured as it is one of two measurements that‬
T
‭are required to calculate the volume of the object.‬

‭DIAMETER MEASUREMENTS OF CYLINDRICAL OBJECT‬

‭Object‬ ‭Diameter of the object, (cm)‬ ‭ verage‬
A
‭diameter,‬
‭cm‬

‭Irregular-shaped object‬ ‭2.220‬ ‭2.230‬ ‭2.250‬ ‭2.210‬ ‭2.220‬ ‭2.226‬

‭ he other measurement that is required to calculate the volume is the radius which has‬
T
‭a direct relation to diameter.‬

‭DISPLACE VOLUME OF THE OBJECTS‬

‭Object‬ ‭Displaced volume of the object, (cm^3)‬ ‭ verage‬
A
‭displaced‬
‭volume,‬
‭cm^3‬

‭regular-shaped object‬ ‭24.60‬ ‭23.90‬ ‭24.20‬ ‭25.00‬ ‭24.90‬ ‭24.52‬

‭Irregular-shaped object‬ ‭26.10‬ ‭25.50‬ ‭25.60‬ ‭25.00‬ ‭25.20‬ ‭25.48‬

 ‭Mustafa‬‭4‬

‭ANALYSIS‬
‭ ean (average)‬ I‭nstrumental‬ S
M ‭ tatistical‬ ‭ bsolute‬
A
‭value‬ ‭uncertainty‬ ‭uncertainty‬ ‭uncertainty‬

‭Height, h‬ ‭6.360cm‬ ‭0.05 cm‬ ‭0.009cm‬ ‭0.05cm‬

‭ iameter of‬
D ‭2.226cm‬ ‭0.05cm‬ ‭0.007cm‬ ‭0.05cm‬
‭cylinder or‬
‭width of block,‬
‭d/w‬

‭ olume‬
V ‭24.75cm^3‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭0.16cm^3‬
‭calculated, V‬‭B/C‬

v‭ olume‬ ‭24.52cm^3‬ ‭0.5cm^3‬ ‭0.208cm^3‬ ‭0.542cm^3‬

‭displaced, VD‬

‭Volume of the regular-shaped object V‬‭B/C‬ ‭=‬‭24.75cm^3‬

‭Volume of the regular-shaped object VD =‬‭24.52cm^3‬

‭Irregularly shaped object‬

‭ ean value‬
M I‭nstrumental‬ ‭ tatistical‬
S ‭ bsolute‬
A
‭(cm^3)‬ ‭uncertainty‬ ‭uncertainty‬ ‭uncertainty‬
‭(cm^3)‬ ‭(cm^3)‬ ‭(cm^3)‬

‭ olume‬
V ‭25.50‬ ‭0.5‬ ‭0.2‬ ‭0.5‬
‭displaced, V‬‭D‬
‭Volume of the irregular-shaped object VD =‬‭25.50cm^3‬

‭Mass calculations‬
‭Object‬ ‭Mass m,g‬ I‭nstrumental‬ ‭ bsolute‬
A
‭uncertainty (g)‬ ‭uncertainty (g)‬

r‭ egular-shaped‬ ‭66.85‬ ‭0.05‬ ‭0.022‬

‭object‬
 ‭Mustafa‬‭5‬

i‭rregular-shaped‬ ‭66.85‬ ‭0.05‬ ‭0.0351‬

‭object‬

‭Density calculations‬
‭Object‬ ‭ olume V,‬
V ‭ bsolute‬
A ‭ ass m,‬
M ‭ bsolute‬
A ‭ ensity‬
D
‭(cm^3)‬ ‭uncertaint‬ ‭(g)‬ ‭uncertainty‬ ‭(g/cm^3)‬
‭y‬ ‭(cm^3)‬

r‭ egular-shaped‬ ‭24.75‬ ‭0.09‬ ‭66.85‬ ‭0.022‬ ‭2.701‬

‭object, indirect‬
‭volume equation‬
‭method‬

r‭ egular-shaped‬ ‭24.52‬ ‭0.545‬ ‭66.85‬ ‭0.022‬ ‭2.726‬

‭object, direct‬
‭displaced volume‬
‭method‬

I‭rregular-shaped‬ ‭25.50‬ ‭0.534‬ ‭66.85‬ ‭0.035‬ ‭2.6236‬

‭object, direct‬
‭displaced volume‬
‭method‬

‭ ensity of the regular-shaped object =‬‭2.701g/cm^3‬

d
‭Material:‬‭Aluminum‬‭,ρref =‬‭2.7g/cm^3‬
‭density of the irregular-shaped object =‬‭2.6236g/cm^3‬
‭Material:‬‭Aluminum‬‭, ρref =‬‭2.7g/cm^3‬
 ‭Mustafa‬‭6‬

‭CONCLUSION‬
I‭n this experiment, we measured the volume of two objects (regularly shaped and‬
‭irregularly shaped) through different methods. The first method calculated the volume of‬
‭the regularly shaped object by measuring the diameter and the height of the object.‬
‭These two measurements were taken by a vernier caliper and were used to calculate‬
‭the volume of the object given by the formula, V=πr^2h. Then, we calculated the volume‬
‭of the same cylindrical object by using the water displacement method. This method‬
‭directly calculated the volume of the object by displacing water.‬
‭The calculated volume from the first method came to be 24.75cm^3 while the‬
‭measured volume from the second method was 24.52cm^3. It is important to note that‬
‭the same object was used in these two methods but the results are different from one‬
‭another. This indicates that there was some error which compromised the accuracy of‬
‭the results in the experiments.‬
‭The water displacement method had an instrumental uncertainty of 0.5 while the‬
‭vernier caliper had an instrumental uncertainty of 0.05. This means that the values that‬
‭were calculated using the vernier method are 10 times more accurate than the water‬
‭displacement method. The vernier method is more precise since the instrumental error‬
‭is significantly less compared to the water displacement method.‬
‭We can find out what material the objects were made from by measuring the‬
‭mass of the objects. The masses were measured by the triple beam balance. Using the‬
‭equation Density = Mass/Volume, we calculated the the density of the objects and came‬
‭to the conclusion that the objects were made from aluminum since the density of the‬
‭objects was close to aluminum’s.‬
‭For the cylindrical object, the density was 2.7g/cm^3 which is very close to the‬
‭density of aluminum (2.7g/cm^3). For the irregular object, the density was 2.62g/cm^3‬
‭which is a little bit farther from aluminum density which gives rise to the idea that there‬
‭was an error in the experiment. This error could’ve been caused by the instrument.‬
‭We noticed that the needle on the triple-beam balance was damaged and‬
‭could’ve been the cause of inaccurate readings for mass. The absolute uncertainty‬
‭values for the density experiment are close to one another which shows that the results‬
‭were consistent.‬
‭The objective of the lab was successfully achieved. We used the displacement‬
‭method and calculation method to find the volume of an object and came to the‬
‭conclusion that the calculation method is more precise and accurate than the‬
‭displacement method. We came to this result after considering the fact that the‬
‭instrumental uncertainty of the calculation method was more accurate than the‬
‭displacement method.‬