LAB SESSION –

BASIC MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT

AND MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY

KING MONGKUT’S UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY LATKRABANG

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDUSTRIAL AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

01006702– PHYSICS I LABORATORY

BASIC MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT

AND MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY

INSTRUCTED BY: MR. SUPUN DISSANAYAKA

NAME: SIRAWAT AKSORNSUWAN

OLAN ASSAVAPISITKUL
KITTITOUCH LERTPIRIYAWONG
KIARTTIWUT SOEN
STUDENT ID: 62011246
62011180
62011140
62011138
GROUP NO: 4
DATE OF SES.: 13 AUG 2019
DATE OF SUB.: 20 AUG 2019
Purpose:

On Tuesday August 13,2019 I conducted a lab experiment with the purpose to determine uncertainty and
accuracy produced by measurements taken with standard experimental equipment by taking data to find the
accurate and estimate results. And to deals with assessing the uncertainty in a measurement. An experiment
designed to determine an effect, or estimate the numerical value of a physical variable will be affected by
errors due to instrumentation, methodology, presence of confounding effects and so on. For the confidence in
results.

Theory
Accuracy is the closeness of agreement between a measured value and a true or accepted value.

Precision is a measure of how well a result can be determined.

The statement of uncertainty associated with a measurement should include factors that affect both the
accuracy and precision of the measurement.

Random Errors

statistical fluctuations (in either direction) in the measured data due to the precision limitations of the
measurement device. Also cause by the (human error??) due to improper measuring methods. These Random
deviations can be reduced by averaging over a large number of observations

Systematic Errors

Reproducible inaccuracies that are consistently in the same direction. These errors are difficult to detect. If a
systematic error is identified when calibrating against a standard, the bias can be reduced by applying a
correction or correction factor to compensate for the effect. Unlike random errors, systematic errors cannot be
detected or reduced by increasing the number of observations.
Pre-Lab
The error of this lab mostly come from “human error” because everybody in the group haven’t get the same
measuring result. This error maybe come from “parallax error” someone doesn’t get the right angle from arm
to read in front of the measurement.

And the “Instrument resolution” is the problem for some people in the group.

1. Incomplete definition – random error

2. Failure to account for a factor - random error
3. Environmental factors – random error
4. Instrument resolution – random error
5. Failure to calibrate or check zero instrument – systematic error
6. Physical variations – systematic error
7. Parallax – random error
8. Lag time and hysteresis – systematic error
9. Instrument drift – systematic error
10. Human error – random error
Exercises

1 • Two spheres are cut from a certain uniform rock. One has radius 4.50 cm. The

mass of the other is five times greater. Find its radius.

𝑟 = 4.5

𝑚1 𝑚2 = 5𝑚1
𝑚1 𝑚2
𝑑1 = 𝑑2 =
𝑣1 𝑣2

Two spheres are cut from a certain uniform rock. So that means these two spheres have the
same density. >>> 𝑑1 = 𝑑2
𝑚1 𝑚2
=
𝑣1 𝑣2
𝑚1 5𝑚1
4 = 4
𝜋𝑟13 𝜋𝑟23
3 3

𝑟23 = 5𝑟13

𝑟23 = 5(4.5)3

𝑟23 = 455.625
3
𝑟2 = √455.625

𝑟2 = 7.69 𝑐𝑚

ANS The radius is 7.69 cm.

2 • Newton’s law of universal gravitation is represented by
F = GMm
r2
Here F is the gravitational force, M and m are masses, and r is a length. Force
has the SI units kgm/s2. What are the SI units of the proportionality constant G ?
𝐺𝑀(𝑘𝑔) 𝑚(𝑘𝑔)
𝐹(𝑁) = 2
𝑟(𝑚 2)

2
𝐹(𝑁) 𝑟(𝑚 2)
𝐺=
𝑀(𝑘𝑔) 𝑚(𝑘𝑔)

* Force has the SI units kgm/s2*

2
𝐹(𝑘𝑔.𝑚) 𝑟(𝑚 2)
𝑠2
𝐺=
𝑀(𝑘𝑔) 𝑚(𝑘𝑔)

∴ 𝐺 𝑚3 Ans
( 2 )
𝑠 ∙𝑘𝑔

3 • A useful fact is that there are about 𝜋 𝑥 107 s in one year. Find the percentage
error in this approximation, where ”percentage error” is defined as

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 3.1416 𝑥 107 𝑠/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

365 𝑑𝑎𝑦 24 ℎ𝑟 60 𝑚𝑖𝑛 60 𝑠𝑒𝑐
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = ( )( )( )( ) = 31536000 𝑠/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
1 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 1 ℎ𝑟 1 𝑚𝑖𝑛
= 3.1536 𝑥 107 𝑠/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
(𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = [ ] 𝑥100
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

(3.1536 𝑥 107 ) − (3.1416 𝑥 107 )

=[ ]𝑥100
3.1416 𝑥 107
= 0.3819 % ANS
Procedure
1. Prepare measuring equipment >(Vernier Caliper, Micrometer Screw Gauge, Spherometer) and objects
> ( Wooden Cylinder, PVC Pipe, Glass cup, Metal Sphere, A4 paper, Acrylic Square)

2. Learning how to use the equipment and consider how suitable between objects and equipment because
some equipment cannot measure some objects

3. Use measuring equipment to measure the material objects that mentioned above (3 times per each
object)

4. Take note of each object that have already measured

5. Calculated errors and uncertainties

6. Write a lab report

Observations
Process

1.First I say that we need to learn how to use the spherometer

2.Then you spin the golden circular place until it hit the plastic strip

3.Read the measurement

Correct thickness of the A4 paper t (cm) = use your old data minus 0.01mm Coin= 2.60, 2.56,
2,62 cm Plastic strip = 0.41, 0.38, 0.42 cm
Calculations
Precision is often reported quantitatively by using relative or fractional uncertainty:

Relative Uncertainty = Uncertainty/Measured Quantity

Accuracy is often reported quantitatively by using Relative Error:

Relative Error = (Measured Value – Expected Value)/Expected Value

Least count of Vernier Caliper = Least Count of Main Scale/Number of divisions on the Vernier scale

Results and Conclusion

Generally speaking, a measured result agrees with a theoretical prediction if the prediction lies within the
range of experimental uncertainty. Similarly, if two measured values have standard uncertainty ranges that
overlap, then the measurements are said to be consistent (they agree). If the uncertainty ranges do not overlap,
then the measurements are said to be discrepant (they do not agree). However, you should recognize that these
overlap criteria can give two opposite answers depending on the evaluation and confidence level of the
uncertainty. It would be unethical to arbitrarily inflate the uncertainty range just to make a measurement agree
with an expected value. A better procedure would be to discuss the size of the difference between the
measured and expected values within the context of the uncertainty and try to discover the source of the
discrepancy if the difference is truly significant.

Discussion
1.This experiment shows how accurate and precise the measurements of a Vernier caliper and a

Micrometer caliper are.

2.Vernier caliper and Micrometer can be measured as close to real objects.

3.The Vernier caliper can measure objects that are larger than the micrometer.

4.The measurement error depends on the object measured and the measurer.

5.The measurement of each cycle has a slight deviation.