Scribd
Upload
51 views

Conclusion

1. The author's results from measuring circumference and diameter of objects to determine pi were inaccurate, with pi calculated to be 2.95 instead of the actual 3.14. This -6.05% error was likely due to measurement errors. 2. Accuracy and precision in measuring circumference and diameter were essential for obtaining accurate results. Imprecise measurements would significantly impact the results. 3. Major experimental errors included an unreliable measuring string that was difficult to read precisely, as well as imprecise rulers. The string would stretch and loosen, affecting measurements. Rulers had chips or rounded edges compromising accuracy.

Uploaded by

Thomas Back
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views

Conclusion

1. The author's results from measuring circumference and diameter of objects to determine pi were inaccurate, with pi calculated to be 2.95 instead of the actual 3.14. This -6.05% error was likely due to measurement errors. 2. Accuracy and precision in measuring circumference and diameter were essential for obtaining accurate results. Imprecise measurements would significantly impact the results. 3. Major experimental errors included an unreliable measuring string that was difficult to read precisely, as well as imprecise rulers. The string would stretch and loosen, affecting measurements. Rulers had chips or rounded edges compromising accuracy.

Uploaded by

Thomas Back
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Conclusion

1. My results brought me a graph that a bit more inaccurate than I would have hoped, as some
items with the same diameter has the same circumference for example. When I divided my
slope of my best fit line I resulted with pi being 2.95 which is a bit off from the real number of
pi which is 3.14. Because of these results my error of percentage being -6.05% due to a lot of
measuring errors which therefore carried over to my graph and the rest of my conclusion.

2.Accuracy was used as the main basis of this lab. Accuracy was essential when measuring the
circumference and diameter as this would determine how the rest of your results and accuracy of
your graph later turn out. Precision also has a lot to do with how your lab conclusion will play
out. You need to have accurate precision when measuring your objects in order to come out
with a result that is as close as possible to the actual measurement. If your precision is off it will
most likely change all the results of your lab traumatically. Significant figures also played a key
role as they helped to keep the recorded measurements and data more accurate.

3. One major experimental error would be the unreliability of the measuring string. The string
did not have accurate and precise endpoints for measuring as they did not have a real ending
point but more of fuzz coming out of the ends that made it extremely hard to pinpoint where
the measurement should be made. Another error with the string is its ability to stretch and
expand and then become loose again. This made it difficult to read what the actual
measurement was, as when measuring the object the string would stretch but when your
going to measure the string with a ruler after it becomes loose. The last error would have to
be within the ruler's themselves. Most rulers would have chips or rounded edges which
made the readings of the measurements inaccurate.

4. Given that D=M/V then the information would need to discover a material's density would
be the mass and the volume of your material, so that you can divide the mass by the volume,
and result with its density. You would graph this equation by making mass=y and the
volume=x and then plug in whatever data you received. After this you can find the slope of
the graph's best fit line and divide that to discover the density is.

You might also like