QUALITATIVE OBSERVATION LABORATORY ACTIVITY 1.
1. ACHIEVING PRECISE MEASUREMENTS FOR A SPECIFIC SAMPLE BECOMES NOTABLY MORE
ACCURATE WHEN EMPLOYING BOTH A VERNIER CALIPER AND A MICROMETER.
2. GIVEN THE INHERENT VARIABILITY IN MEASUREMENTS, IT IS PRUDENT TO RELY ON THE
AVERAGE MEASUREMENT DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE TRIALS FOR GREATER ACCURACY.
3. MATERIALS SUCH AS WOOD BLOCKS, STAINLESS STEEL CYLINDERS, AND COINS CAN BE
EFFECTIVELY ASSESSED FOR THEIR DIMENSIONS BY EXAMINING THEIR CONSTITUENT PARTS
4. MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED USING A RULER TEND TO EXHIBIT A HIGHER DEGREE OF
INACCURACY.
5. CONSISTENCY IN MEASUREMENTS ACROSS ALL TRIALS IS NOT ALWAYS GUARANTEED.
QUANTITATIVE OBSERVATION LABORATORY ACTIVITY 1.1
1. USING A RULER TO MEASURE THE WOOD BLOCK, WE HAVE CALCULATED A SURFACE AREA
OF 25.4375 SQUARE INCHES AND A VOLUME OF 8.2031 CUBIC INCHES. EMPLOYING A
VERNIER CALIPER FOR A MORE PRECISE ASSESSMENT, WE OBTAINED MEASUREMENTS OF
169.8 SQUARE CENTIMETERS FOR SURFACE AREA AND 140.8 CUBIC CENTIMETERS FOR
VOLUME.
2. UPON ANALYZING THE DATA, WE'VE IDENTIFIED A PERCENT ERROR OF 3.47 PERCENT IN
SURFACE AREA AND 4.74 PERCENT IN VOLUME COMPARED TO THE ACCEPTED WOOD BLOCK
SPECIFICATIONS.
3. AFTER CONDUCTING MULTIPLE TRIALS, WE'VE MEASURED THE DIAMETER OF THE
STAINLESS CYLINDER TO BE 0.983 CM AND THE CIRCUMFERENCE TO BE 3.00 CM. THROUGH
CALCULATIONS, WE'VE DETERMINED THE VALUE OF Π TO BE APPROXIMATELY 3.0519, WITH A
PERCENTAGE ERROR OF 2.86 PERCENT.
4. FOR THE CENTAVO COIN, OUR TRIALS HAVE YIELDED A DIAMETER OF 1.977 CM AND A
CIRCUMFERENCE OF 6.3 CM. FOLLOWING CALCULATIONS, WE'VE DERIVED A Π VALUE OF
APPROXIMATELY 3.1818, RESULTING IN A TOTAL PERCENTAGE ERROR OF 1.28 PERCENT.
5. WHEN COMPARING THE GIVEN DATA, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CONVERSION FACTORS FOR
SQUARE INCHES TO SQUARE CENTIMETERS ARE 1 IN²: 6.6752 CM² AND 1 IN²: 6.4516 CM².
SIMILARLY, FOR CUBIC INCHES TO CUBIC CENTIMETERS, WE HAVE 1 IN³: 17.1642 CM³ AND 1
IN³: 16.387 CM³. FURTHERMORE, WHEN COMPARING THE APPROXIMATIONS OF PI, WE FIND
THAT 3.0519 IS CLOSE TO 3.1416, AND 3.1818 IS ALSO CLOSE TO 3.1416. HOWEVER, IT IS
NOTEWORTHY THAT THESE VALUES DO NOT PERFECTLY ALIGN WITH THE ACCEPTED VALUE
OF PI, 3.1416, DEMONSTRATING THE INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF ACHIEVING ABSOLUTE
PRECISION.
INTERPRETATION – QUALITATIVE
1. VERNIER CALIPERS AND MICROMETERS CAN MEASURE LENGTHS OF LESS THAN 1 MM,
WHEREAS RULERS AND TAPE MEASURES CAN ONLY MEASURE MINIMUM LENGTHS OF 1 MM;
THEREFORE, MICROMETERS AND VERNIER CALIPERS ARE MUCH MORE ACCURATE
INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING (NAGWA, N.D.). IT IS APPLICABLE TO MEASURING THE
DIMENSIONS OF THE MATERIALS TESTED.
2. IN THE TRIALS OF THE STUDENTS, THERE ARE DIFFERENT VALUES OF MEASUREMENT FOR
EVERY TRIAL; THAT'S WHY THEY USED THE AVERAGE OF THE COLLECTED DATA ABOUT THE
MEASUREMENTS. ACCORDING TO BHANDARI (2023), TAKING MULTIPLE MEASUREMENTS AND
AVERAGING THEM IS A QUICK AND EASY WAY TO INCREASE PRECISION.
3. AS STATED BY DIEZEL (2020), IF YOU POSSESS AN OBJECT THAT POSSESSES A
CONVENTIONAL GEOMETRIC FORM, SUCH AS A CUBE OR A SPHERE, YOU CAN DETERMINE
ITS VOLUME BY MEASURING ITS DIMENSIONS AND APPLYING THE APPROPRIATE
MATHEMATICAL EQUATION. IN ESSENCE, IT IMPLIES THAT BY MEASURING SPECIFIC ASPECTS
OR CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE MATERIALS, SUCH AS THE LENGTH, WIDTH, HEIGHT,
DIAMETER, OR THICKNESS OF THEIR CONSTITUENT PARTS, ONE CAN GAIN A GOOD
UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR OVERALL SIZE AND SHAPE.
4. IN COMPARISON WITH THE VERNIER CALIPER AND MICROMETER, RULERS HAVE A LOWER
PROBABILITY OF GETTING AN ACCURATE MEASUREMENT (NAGWA, N.D.). MEASUREMENTS
OBTAINED WITH A RULER ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPRECISE OR NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE
COMPARED TO MEASUREMENTS TAKEN USING MORE PRECISE OR ADVANCED MEASUREMENT
TOOLS AND METHODS.
5. ERRORS IN MEASUREMENT ARE VIRTUALLY INEVITABLE DURING AN EXPERIMENT, EVEN
WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE TIGHTLY CONTROLLED. ALTHOUGH COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF
ERROR IS NOT POSSIBLE, IT IS STILL FEASIBLE TO MINIMIZE IT (BHANDARI, 2023). WHEN YOU
REPEAT A MEASUREMENT MULTIPLE TIMES, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL GET
IDENTICAL RESULTS EACH TIME. VARIABILITY OR DIFFERENCES IN MEASUREMENTS MAY
OCCUR DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS.
INTERPRETATION – QUANTITATIVE
1. FOLLOWING MULTIPLE OBSERVATION TRIALS, THE OBSERVER HAS DERIVED AN AVERAGE
MEASUREMENT. THIS SUBSTANTIATES THE ASSERTION THAT VERNIER CALIPERS HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO MEASURE A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 0.1 MM, WHILE MICROMETERS CAN
PRECISELY MEASURE DOWN TO 0.01 MM. IN CONTRAST, RULERS AND TAPE MEASURES BOTH
EXHIBIT A STANDARD MINIMUM LENGTH MEASUREMENT OF 1 MM (NAGWA, N.D.).
2. AFTER ANALYSIS, THE OBSERVERS FOUND A PERCENT ERROR OF 3.47 PERCENT IN
SURFACE AREA AND 4.74 PERCENT IN VOLUME IN COMPARISON TO THE ACCEPTED WOOD
BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS. PROVING THAT EVEN IN TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES,
MEASUREMENT ERRORS DURING AN EXPERIMENT ARE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID.
ALTHOUGH THESE ERRORS CANNOT BE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED, THEY CAN STILL BE
MINIMIZED (BHANDARI, 2023).
3. THE OBSERVERS HAVE DETERMINED THE VALUE OF PI FROM THE DIAMETER AND
CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE STAINLESS CYLINDER THROUGH CALCULATIONS TO BE
APPROXIMATELY 3.0519, WITH A PERCENTAGE ERROR OF 2.86 PERCENT. PROVING THAT
FINDING THE EXACT VALUE OF A DESIRED MEASUREMENT CAN BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT
AND, IN SOME CASES, MAY EVEN BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE (LOWER, 2022).
4. THE OBSERVERS HAVE OBTAINED A COMPUTED VALUE OF PI THAT CLOSELY ALIGNS WITH
THE ACCEPTED VALUE OF PI, WITH ONLY A MINIMAL ERROR OF 1.28 PERCENT. THIS
UNDERSCORES THE CHALLENGE OF PRECISELY GAUGING THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE HAVE
APPROXIMATED THE "TRUE" VALUE (BHANDARI, 2023).
5. AFTER CONDUCTING NUMEROUS COMPUTATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE
TRIALS, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN A PERFECT MATCH WITH
THE ACCEPTED VALUES OF RATIO AND PI. THIS UNDERSCORES THE CHALLENGE OF
DETERMINING THE "TRUE VALUE" OF A DESIRED MEASUREMENT, AND IN SOME CASES,
DEFINING SUCH A VALUE MAY PROVE TO BE ELUSIVE (LOWER, 2022). IT SERVES AS A
REMINDER OF THE INHERENT COMPLEXITIES AND UNCERTAINTIES IN MEASUREMENT AND
SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVORS.
3
REFERENCES
Nagwa. (n.d.). Lesson Explainer: Measurement Tools Physics.
[Link]
%20measures%20both,tool%20is%20therefore%20a%20micrometer.
Bhandari, P. (2023). Random vs. systematic error: Definition & examples. Scribbr.
[Link]
Deziel, C. (2020). How to measure the volume of a solid object. Sciencing.
[Link]
Lower, S. (2022). 2.4: The Meaning of Measure. Chemistry LibreTexts.
[Link]
02%3A_Essential_Background/2.04%3A_The_Meaning_of_Measure
