Physics I Laboratory Faculty of Science, Ontario Tech University

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of

Physical Parameters
Student’s name Eric Pilecki_ CRN 72275_ Date _Feb 1st, 2023__________

TA Signature_____________________

Experiment #1: Linear Dimensions and Volume

Hypothesis
What method do you think will be more precise for measuring the object’s 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 think so?

I think using calipers will be more precise for measuring the object’s volume because they have a much
lower instrumental uncertainty compared to the graduated cylinder.

Measurements
Shape of the regular-shaped object: ________Cylinder_______________

Table 1.1. Measurements, linear in cm and volume in ml (cm3)

Object Height of cylinder or block, h, cm Diameter of cylinder, d, or
width of block, w, cm

regular-shaped object 6.35 6.37 6.35 6.37 6.35 2.23 2.25 2.23 2.25 2.23
cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm
irregular-shaped
N/A* N/A
object
*Not Applicable

Object Length of block only, l, cm Displaced volume, VD, ml (cm3)

regular-shaped object 25 ml 27 ml 27 ml 27 ml 25 ml

irregular-shaped 27 ml 27 ml 25 ml 25 ml 25 ml
N/A
object

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Parameters

Physics I Laboratory Faculty of Science, Ontario Tech University

Experiment #2: Mass and Density

Measurements
Table 2.1. Measurements
Object Mass m, g
regular-shaped object 67.2 g

irregular-shaped object 66.8 g

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Parameters 2

Physics I Laboratory Faculty of Science, Ontario Tech University

Experiment #1: Analysis

Regular-shaped object:
Table 1.2: Analysis
Mean Instrumental Statistical Absolute
(average) uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty,
value, x̄ σ x,inst σ x, stat σx

Height, h 6.36 cm 0.005 cm 0.01 cm 0.01 cm

Diameter of cylinder or
2.24 cm 0.005 cm 0.01 cm 0.01 cm
width of block, d/w

Length of block only, l

Volume calculated, VB/C 25.1 cm3 N/A N/A 0.23 cm3

Volume displaced, VD 26 ml 0.5 ml 0.5 ml 0.71 ml

Volume of the regular-shaped object VB/C = _ 25.1 cm3______

Volume of the regular-shaped object VD = __ 26 ml_________

Irregular-shaped object:

Instrumental Statistical Absolute

Mean value, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty,
x̄ σ x,inst σ x, stat σx

Volume displaced, VD 26 ml 0.5 ml 0.5 ml 0.71 ml

Volume of the irregular-shaped object VD = __26 ml_________

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Parameters 3

Physics I Laboratory Faculty of Science, Ontario Tech University

Experiment #2: Analysis

Table 2.1. Measurements
Instrumental Absolute
Mass m, g uncertainty, uncertainty,
Object
σ m ,inst , g σm , g
regular-shaped object 67.2 g 0.05 g 0.05 g

irregular-shaped object 66.8 g 0.05 g 0.05 g

Table 2.2. Analysis

Absolute Absolute Absolute
Volume, Mass, Density,
Object uncert., uncert., uncert.,
V, cm3
σV, cm3 m, g σm, g ρexp, g/cm3 σ , g/cm3
ρ
25.1 cm3 0.23 cm3 67.2 g 0.05 g 2.68 g/cm 0.025
3
regular-shaped object,
g/cm3
indirect volume
equation method
26 cm3 0.71 cm3 67.2 g 0.05 g 2.6 g/cm3 0.071
regular-shaped object,
g/cm3
direct displaced
volume method
26 cm3 0.71 cm3 66.8 g 0.05 g 2.6 g/cm3 0.071
irregular-shaped
g/cm3
object, direct displaced
volume method

Density of the regular-shaped object ρexp = ___2.68 g/cm3_________

Material: Aluminum_________, ρref = _2.7 g/cm3________

Density of the irregular-shaped object ρexp = __2.6 g/cm3_________

Material: Aluminum_____________, ρref = _2.7 g/cm3___________

Conclusion and Error Analysis

In this lab we determined the volume of two objects, one regularly shaped and the other irregularly
shaped, using the volume equation method and the displaced volume method. For the regularly shaped
object, the volume equation method yielded a volume of 25.1 cm3, while the displaced volume method
yielded 26 cm3. The volume uncertainties are 0.23 cm3 and 0.71 cm3 respectively. As we can see, the volume
equation method is more precise because it has a lesser degree of uncertainty. These values are reasonable as the
calipers have less instrumental uncertainty than the graduated cylinder. The sources of error in these two
methods stem from instrumental uncertainties. There were no rough experiment errors and the objects’ masses
were obtained using a triple-beam balance. The densities of the objects were 2.68 g/cm 3 for the regularly shaped
object and 2.6 g/cm3 for the irregularly shaped, where the actual density of their material was 2.7 g/cm 3. The

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Parameters 4

Physics I Laboratory Faculty of Science, Ontario Tech University

sources of error in the density experiment come from instrumental and statistical uncertainties. Density
uncertainty values are reasonable as they show less uncertainty with the calipers. The purpose of this experiment
has been reached as the volumes and densities of the two objects have been measured using two distinct
methods, and their resulting components compared. It is clear which method is more accurate after this
experiment, that is, the volume equation method.

Report PhyI-01: Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Parameters 5