Error Analysis of Varying Measurements
Benjamin Bennett
University of Houston
Phys 3313
(3/13/2022)
The purpose of this lab was to get familiar with different forms of measurement and calculating
the error associated with those measurements. We did this by noting the error for the various tools
we used and using propagation of errors. We performed density measurements of an aluminum
bar and found the bar’s density to be 2.894±.02 g/cm3 with a percentage difference of 6.9±.7%
from the accepted density of aluminum which is 2.71 g/cm3. The two values of current we found
are .003333±.0004A and .003621±8 × 10−7A those have a percent difference of 8.28%. The
resistances we found are 1397.3±.3𝛺 and 1551.5±200𝛺 with a percent difference of 10.45%.
Finally with the oscilloscope the digital multimeters stopped giving accurate results at 20kHz. We
calculated the frequencies to be 2000±800Hz, 200±80Hz, and 20000±800Hz.
I. Introduction lab. We are also finding multiple values in a DC
circuit. We are measuring the resistance of two
The purpose of this experiment was to familiarize resistors and then calculating the total resistance
us with various tools measuring tools around the using
lab while also getting us in the habit of noting and
1 1 1
calculating error. We used a micrometer, vernier 3) =𝑅 +𝑅
𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 1 2
calipers and two different digital multimeters to
do our wide variety of measurements. These
Rtotal is the resistance, R1 is the resistance of the
measurements allowed us to do several different
first resistor and R2 is the resistance of the second
calculations. Such as finding the density of an
resistor. And the propagation of errors for that
aluminum bar with
formula is
𝑚
1) 𝜌 =
𝑙𝑤ℎ 2 2
𝜕𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝜕𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝛥𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = √( 𝛥𝑅1 ) + ( 𝛥𝑅2 )
the density formula where 𝜌 is the density of the 𝜕𝑅1 𝜕𝑅2
bar, l is the length, w is the width and h is the
height. And since we are keeping track of error, the delta values representing the error values. We
we also need the formula for error of propagation, are also measuring the total current of the circuit
and calculating the current going through each
𝑑𝜌 2
𝑑𝜌 2
𝑑𝜌 2
𝑑𝜌 2 resistor using
𝛥𝜌 = √( 𝛥𝑙) + ( 𝛥𝑤) + ( 𝛥ℎ) + ( 𝛥𝑚)
𝑑𝑙 𝑑𝑤 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑚
4) 𝑉 = 𝐼𝑅
the delta values of each represent the error of the
original value. We will be comparing the value V being the voltage, I being the current and R
we measured to the accepted value of aluminum’s being the resistance. Using an oscilloscope, we
density using percentage difference which is measured the frequency and voltage of a DC
signal and compared it to the voltage reading of a
|𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 −𝑥𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 | digital multimeter using
2) |𝑥𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 +𝑥𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 |⁄
× 100 = %
2 𝑉
5)
√2
𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 is the accepted value of aluminum’s
density and 𝑥𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 is the density we found in
this time V being the value measured on the we used the oscilloscope probe and hooked the
oscilloscope. probe to the oscilloscope. Thankfully ours was
already calibrated. So, we immediately hooked
II. Experimental Procedure ours up to the AC power supply. We set the
power supply to produce a sinusoidal current
We started by measuring the density of an with a frequency of 2000 Hz and an amplitude
aluminum bar. To do this, we measured the of two volts. Once the current was going, we
length, width, and height of the bar. For the length looked at the screen on the oscilloscope to
we used vernier calipers since the micrometer record our measurements. We recorded the
was too small. For width we used a micrometer to measured amplitude and frequency and
get as accurate a measurement possible. For continued the process for a 200 Hz signal and a
height we did the same procedure as the width. 20kHz signal. When we finished all that, we got
We took each measurement three times to get a started with our calculations.
mean and a standard deviation of the mean. Then
we used a digital scale to get the mass of the bar. III. Results and Analysis
We took that measurement three times as well to The results of the lab are the various
the same effect. measurements we made. The dimensions of the
aluminum bar are reported in Table 1. Using the
After we had finished our measurements of the data from Table we found the density of the
aluminum bar, we then began measuring the aluminum bar using the mean values of each
values of a DC circuit. To start we used a BK dimension.
Precision digital multimeter and an Extech digital
multimeter to find which one was more precise. Table 1. The dimensions of an aluminum bar.
We chose to use the BK Precision digital Length(cm) Width(cm) Height(cm) Mass(g)
multimeter. Using the BK precision digital 10.73±.01 2.126±.001 .904±.001 61.84±.01
multimeter, we measured the resistance of two
resistors. After recording the resistances, we put 10.75±.01 2.121±.001 .953±.001 61.82±.01
both resistors in a parallel circuit. 10.75±.01 2.123±.001 .952±.001 61.79±.01
Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
±.0006 ±.0006 ±.006 ±.0006
10.74333333 2.123333333 0.93633333 61.81666667
We found the density of the aluminum bar to be
2.894±.02 g/cm3. The accepted value for the
density of aluminum is 2.71 g/cm3 using Eq. 2 to
find how off we were we calculated a 6.9±.7%
difference.2 This is far off from the .2% we were
Figure 1: A circuit with parallel resistors.1
aiming for.
Using a similar circuit as in Fig. 1 we measured
total current at point A and measured the voltage Next, we have a variety of results to report from
across each resistor. After all measurements the circuit portion of our lab. The Extech digital
were obtained, we started calculations. First multimeter reported the voltage of the circuit as
finding the current across each resistor and 5.18 ± .01V. However, the BK Precision digital
comparing that total to the total measured multimeter reported the voltage to be 5.1710
current. ±.001V. The percentage difference between
the two was .17%. Our power supply was set
Once we were done with the circuit, we started to a flat 5.00 ±.01V. So, both multimeters
to do our oscilloscope measurements. To take were off by around the same amount. Using
these measurements we used a Tektronix the BK Precision multimeter, we got the
oscilloscope. We began by making sure the results of Table 2 which is the measured
oscilloscope was properly calibrated. To do this, resistances of the resistors we used.
If we take the amplitude from the
Table 2. The measured resistances of Resistors oscilloscope and put it into Eq. 5 we get
1&2 1.41±.141V and the readings from the digital
Resistor 1(Ω) Resistor 2(Ω) multimeters is within error except for the
1986.5±1 4706.5±1 readings at 20000 Hz. For calculating the
1987.5±1 4707.1±1 frequency based off the period we get
2000±800Hz, 200±80Hz, and 20000±800Hz.
1987.7±1 4706.5±1
So, calculating the frequency gives us an
Mean: ±.525 Mean: ±.283 egregious amount of error but the base value is
1987.233333 4706.7 spot on.
For calculations going forward the Mean value IV. Discussion
for each resistor and the standard deviation of
the mean will be used for the error. The Most of our measured values were a few ways off
measured voltage across Resistor 1 was from the expected results and if they were spot
5.0599±.001V and the measured voltage across on, they had quite a bit of error associated with
Resistor 2 was 5.0595±.001V. Using those them. The experimental value for the density of
values and Eq. 4 we found the current across aluminum we got was 2.894±.02 g/cm3 with the
Resistor 1 to be .002546±8 × 10−7 A and the accepted value for the density of aluminum being
current across Resistor 2 to be .001075±2 × 2.71 g/cm3 the accepted value isn’t even within
10−7A. Adding those together we get a total our experimental error margin. We didn’t even
current of .003621±8 × 10−7 A. This seems get within a 5% difference. Sources of error
close to the mean total current we measured would be misreading the micrometer or vernier
which was .003333±.0004A but a percentage calipers, taking more measurements would be
difference of 8.28% says otherwise. Next, we able to account for that. There could have been an
had to calculate the total resistance of the circuit error in the calculation.
using Eq. 3 the result being 1397.3±.3𝛺. Then
using Eq. 4, the voltage of the circuit measured For the circuit portion of the lab, our error wasn’t
using the BK Precision multimeter and the too bad since we used a very precise instrument.
measured mean total current we calculated a The initial voltage readings being off could be
different total resistance of 1551.5±200𝛺. The because of the multimeter being in the circuit. All
first value is within the error of the second and errors of measured values are where the
the percentage difference of the two is 10.45%. multimeter was fluctuating. Our current being off
by 8.28% isn’t ideal but it’s better than our two
Finally, we have the results for the oscilloscope different resistance values being off by 10.45%.
part of the lab. We were asked to hook up an All of our other readings are fairly accurate, and
oscilloscope to an AC power supply and record the primary source of any error would be the
the amplitude and periods at certain frequencies. multimeter. Our calculated errors are small
And to compare the amplitude to the readings of though.
two digital multimeters. Table 3 contains all
measured results. The oscilloscope part of the lab was very short
with a little amount of data. Our periods were spot
Table 3. All data measured results form the on with the error coming from the fact we were
oscilloscope and multimeters. eyeballing the graph. If we were to have used the
Frequency Amplitude Period readings on the oscilloscope our results would
(Hz) (V) (μs) DMM 1 (V) DMM 2 (V) have been much different. Error comes from the
spacing on the graph displayed by the
2000 2 ±.2 500±20 1.3254±.0001 1.304±.001
oscilloscope. Our calculated frequencies have a
200 2 ±.2 5000±200 1.3533±.0001 1.361±.001 large amount of error but otherwise they are spot
20000 2 ±.2 50±2 .5896±.0002 .383±.001 on.
V. Conclusions
To conclude, the objective of the lab was reached.
We did get ourselves familiar with the different
measuring tools in the lab and with calculating
error. After using the propagation of error
formula so many times we have certainly gotten
accustomed to using it. Getting our results once
we had figured out what we were doing went very
smoothly and with few hiccups. We
experimentally found the density of our
aluminum bar to be 2.894±.02 g/cm3 which is
6.9±.7% off from the accepted value of 2.71
g/cm3. That percent difference means something
went wrong with our measurements. For the
circuit most of our measured values seem to be
accurate but. When you look at the calculated
results we see our two currents, .003621±8 ×
10−7A and .003333±.0004A don’t agree with
each other. Same with our resistances,
1397.3±.3𝛺 and 1551.5±200𝛺. And with
percent differences of 8.28% and 10.45% we see
just how off our results are. Finally, with the
oscilloscope when the digital multimeters were
giving accurate results they were within accepted
values. And our measured frequencies
2000±800Hz, 200±80Hz, and 20000±800Hz
did line up with what they were supposed to be,
just with a large amount of error.
1. Forrest, R. L. (2019). Measurement and
Error Analysis.
2. The density of aluminium and its alloys -
thyssenkrupp materials (UK).
Materials UK. (n.d.). Retrieved March
13, 2022, from
https://www.thyssenkrupp-
materials.co.uk/density-of-
aluminium.html
