1.

Notes/Introduction
- Measuring an aluminium block to obtain its mass, height, length and width to
calculate its density.
- Using different equipment to calculate its density twice, once with a ruler and a
triple-beam balance, another with a digital balance and vernier calliper
- Equations being used are:
- Error propagation when the only operations in the function are
multiplication and division
δ𝑧 δ𝑥1 2 δ𝑥2 2 δ𝑥𝑛 2
𝑧
= ( 𝑥1
) +( 𝑥2
) +... + ( 𝑥𝑛
)
- Volume of aluminium block
𝑉 = 𝐿 × 𝑊 × 𝐻
- Density
𝑚
ρ = 𝑉
- Percent error
|𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
( |𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
) × 100

2.Data
a. Measuring the aluminium block with a ruler and triple-beam balance

Measurement Value
Mass (Triple-beam balance) 48. 72 ± 0. 05𝑔

Length (Ruler) 3. 85 ± 0. 05𝑐𝑚

Width (Ruler) 2. 53 ± 0. 05𝑐𝑚

Height (Ruler) 1. 83 ± 0. 05𝑐𝑚

b. Measuring the aluminium block with a vernier calliper and digital balance
Measurement Value
Mass (Digital balance) 48. 56 ± 0. 01𝑔

Length (Vernier Calliper) 3. 876 ± 0. 001𝑐𝑚

Width (Vernier Calliper) 2. 548 ± 0. 001𝑐𝑚

Height (Vernier Calliper) 1. 874 ± 0. 001𝑐𝑚

3. Calculations
a.Derivation of equations
I. Deriving the error propagation equation for density
δ𝑧 δ𝑥1 2 δ𝑥2 2 δ𝑥𝑛 2
𝑧
= ( 𝑥1
) +( 𝑥2
) +... + ( 𝑥𝑛
)

δρ δ𝑚 2 δ𝐿 2 δ𝑊 2 δ𝐻 2
ρ
= ( 𝑚
) +( 𝐿
) +( 𝑊
) + ( 𝐻
)
δ𝑚 2 δ𝐿 2 δ𝑊 2 δ𝐻 2
δρ = ( 𝑚
) + ( 𝐿
) +( 𝑊
) + ( 𝐻
) (ρ)
II. Density equation
𝑚
ρ = 𝑉
𝑚
ρ = (𝐿 × 𝑊 × 𝐻)
b.Calculating the density based on the measurements taken by the ruler and
triple-beam balance.
I. Calculating the density
𝑚
ρ = 𝐿×𝑊×𝐻
(48.72𝑔)
ρ = (3.85𝑐𝑚) × (2.53𝑐𝑚) × (1.83𝑐𝑚)
3
ρ = 2. 733222𝑔/𝑐𝑚
3
ρ = 2. 733𝑔/𝑐𝑚
II. Calculate the uncertainty of the density
δ𝑚 2 δ𝐿 2 δ𝑊 2 δ𝐻 2
δρ = ( 𝑚
) + ( 𝐿
) +( 𝑊
) + ( 𝐻
) (ρ)
 (0.05𝑔) 2 (0.05𝑐𝑚) 2 (0.05𝑐𝑚) 2 (0.05𝑐𝑚) 2 3
δρ = ( (48.72𝑔) ) + ( (3.85𝑐𝑚) ) + ( (2.53𝑐𝑚) ) + ( (1.83𝑐𝑚) ) (2. 733𝑔/𝑐𝑚 )
3
δρ = 0. 0361(2. 733𝑔/𝑐𝑚 )
3
δρ = 0. 0986613𝑔/𝑐𝑚
3
δρ = 0. 1𝑔/𝑐𝑚
III. Final value of density
3
ρ = 2. 7 ± 0. 1𝑔/𝑐𝑚
IV. Percentage error
|𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
= |𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
) × 100
3 3
|(2.7𝑔/𝑐𝑚 ) − (2.699𝑔/𝑐𝑚 )|
= 3 ) × 100
|(2.699𝑔/𝑐𝑚 )|
= 0.03705%
= 0.04%

c.Calculating the density based on the measurements taken by the vernier calliper and
digital balance.
I. Calculating the density
𝑚
ρ = 𝐿×𝑊×𝐻
(48.56𝑔)
ρ = (3.876𝑐𝑚) × (2.548𝑐𝑚) × (1.874𝑐𝑚)
3
ρ = 2. 623771𝑔/𝑐𝑚
3
ρ = 2. 6237𝑔/𝑐𝑚
II. Calculate the uncertainty of the density
δ𝑚 2 δ𝐿 2 δ𝑊 2 δ𝐻 2
δρ = ( 𝑚
) + ( 𝐿
) +( 𝑊
) + ( 𝐻
) (ρ)
(0.01𝑔) 2 (0.001𝑐𝑚) 2 (0.001𝑐𝑚) 2 (0.001𝑐𝑚) 2 3
δρ = ( (48.56𝑔) ) + ( (3.876𝑐𝑚) ) + ( (2.548𝑐𝑚) ) + ( (1.874𝑐𝑚) ) (2. 623𝑔/𝑐𝑚 )
3
δρ = 0. 000740(2. 623𝑔/𝑐𝑚 )
3
δρ = 0. 00194102𝑔/𝑐𝑚
3
δρ = 0. 002𝑔/𝑐𝑚
III. Final value of density
3
ρ = 2. 624 ± 0. 002𝑔/𝑐𝑚
IV. Percentage error
 |𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
= |𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
) × 100
3 3
|(2.624𝑔/𝑐𝑚 ) − (2.699𝑔/𝑐𝑚 )|
= 3 ) × 100
|(2.699𝑔/𝑐𝑚 )|
= 2.7788%
= 3%

4. Discussion

The density calculated in Experiment 1(ruler and triple-beam balance) was

The results may not align with our expected results as we may have assumed
Experiment 2 to have results closer to the expected value due to its measuring
equipment being more precise, such as the vernier calliper having finer measurements
as compared to the ruler. We will address the possible errors that occurred during this
experiment.

In the case of Experiment 1, the triple-beam balance may not have been
calibrated properly at the beginning of the experiment, causing a systematic error. For
example, the pointer above the zero-line at the beginning of the experiment would
yield in an underestimate of the mass of the block because it would take a larger
amount of mass to balance it out. To add on, the triple-beam balance may have been
affected by air currents or vibrations which consequently varies our results of the mass
from its true value, thus resulting in a random error. Furthermore, the ruler only has
intervals down to 1mm, making it very likely for human error to occur, as we might
not be accurate in predicting the precise value of the lengths of the sides of the block
to its 0.1mm values. Therefore, this results in a random error and could easily yield
overestimates or underestimates. Lastly, the volume of the aluminium may have been
affected by the fluctuations in the surrounding temperature as it may have expanded or
contracted, depending on the heat transfer occurred. This produces a random error for
each of the measurements taken by the ruler: length, width, height and therefore also
its volume.

On the other hand, in Experiment 2, the digital balance may also have had the
results being impacted by air currents around the laboratory room, causing the mass of
the aluminium block to fluctuate from its true value, which results in a random error,
since it may cause an overestimate or underestimate. The vernier calliper on the other
hand could have yielded inaccurate results due to a positive zero error, which could
easily impacted the outcome, making it higher than its true value. This means that the
jaws of the vernier calliper when fully closed, reads a value higher than 0, resulting in
a constant overestimate of the lengths measured. This is a systematic error. Similar to
Experiment 1, the temperature may also have affected the volume of the aluminium
block, with fluctuations in the temperature possibly expanding or contracting the
block. In result, it varies the results taken by the vernier calliper: length, width, height
and therefore the volume as well, making this a random error.

To sum up the results and its possible errors, Experiment 1 had many random
errors and could have produced a result closer to the expected value by chance, as the
overall measurements could have averaged out close to the actual values, therefore
having its random errors cancel each other out. Conversely, Experiment 2 had both
random and systematic errors, possibly having overestimates of the denominator of
the density equation: length, width and height; or underestimates of the numerator:
mass, or even possibly both. This affects the result by producing a lower density than
its actual value.

There are several ways to improve this experiment in terms of accuracy and
precision, in which we will list down. Carrying out the experiment in a controlled
environment where air currents are as minimised as possible or even 0. This can be
done by moving the experiment to an enclosed space or using draft shields to ensure
that air currents aren’t producing any force impacting the digital balance or
triple-beam balance. The experiment should also be carried out in a
temperature-regulated environment, so as not to cause any random errors with the
readings of the volume of the aluminium block. Furthermore, the accuracy of the
lengths measured by the ruler and vernier calliper can be improved by using
magnifying glasses, to obtain better estimates of the values, rather than observing with
our naked eyes. The vernier calliper could also produce more accurate results by
ensuring the zero error is taken into account when measuring the lengths. For
example, if the vernier calliper provides an overestimate, reading 0.2mm when its
jaws are fully closed, the final result should have 0.2mm subtracted from it.