IEP104 - Industrial Materials and Processes
Exercise No. 1
Single Dimensional Measuring Devices: Linear Measurement
Title
Day:
Friday
Time: 7:00 AM
Date Performed: September 15, 2023
Date Submitted: September 12, 2023
Submitted by: Royce Gracie A. Manahan
Course/ Year: 2BSIE-A | 2023
ENGR. RIZAL M. MOSQUERA, PME, PhD.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 1
Professor
Exercise No. 1
Single Dimensional Measuring Devices: Linear Measurement
I.
Objectives:
I.1 To be able to differentiate Metric Systems of Units (MKS) from English Units (FPS).
I.2 To classify Non-precision, Precision, and High Precision Measuring Devices.
I.3 To become familiar with the different kinds of linear measuring devices.
II.
Discussion:
International System of Units (French Le Syste’me International d’Unites), name adopted
by the Eleventh General Conferences on Weight and Measures, held in Paris in 1960, for a
universal, unified, self-consistent system of measurement units based on the MKS (meterkilogram-second) system. The international system is commonly referred to throughout the world
as SI, after the initials of System International. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 commits the
United States to the increasing use of, and voluntary conversion to, the metric system if
measurement, further defining metric system as the International System of Units as interpreted or
modified for the United States by the secretary of commerce.
At the 1960 conference, standards were defined for six base units and for two supplementary units;
a seventh base unit, the mole, was added in 1971. The seven base units are listed in Table 1, and
the supplementary units are listed in Table 2. The symbols in the last column are not abbreviations
(hence, no periods are used), and they are exactly the same in all languages.
The meter and the kilogram had their origin in the metric system. By international agreement, the
standard meter had been defined as the distance between two fine lines on a bar of platinum-iridium
alloy. The 1960 conference redefined the meter as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the reddish-orange
light emitted by the isotope krypton-86. The meter was again redefined in 1983 as the length of the
path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.
III.
Materials
3.1) 24” Steel Ruler
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 2
- A ruler, sometimes called a rule or line gauge, is an instrument used in geometry,
technical drawing, printing as well as engineering and building to measure distances or to rule
straight lines. The ruler is a straightedge which may also contain calibrated lines to measure
distances
-A steel rule is used for measuring straight rule lines, because of its straight edge. It can
also be used as a guideline when lying out lines and also for cutting. A steel rule comes in two
versions, rigid and flexible.
3.2) 300’ Lawn Tape Measure
-A tape measure or measuring tape is a flexible ruler. It consists of a ribbon of
cloth, plastic, fiber glass, or metal strip with linear-measurement markings. It is a common
measuring tool. Its design allows for a measure of great length to be easily carried in pocket or
toolkit and permits one to measure around curves or corners. Today it is ubiquitous, even appearing
in miniature form as a keychain fob, or novelty item. Surveyors use tape measures in lengths of
over 100 m (300+ ft).
3.3) 25’ Steel Tape Measure
- A tape of cloth, paper, or steel marked off in a linear scale, as of inches or centimeters, for
taking measurements. Also called tapeline.
3.4) 6” Vernier Caliper
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 3
- The vernier, dial, and digital calipers give a direct reading of the distance measured with
high accuracy and precision. They are functionally identical, with different ways of reading the
result. These calipers comprise a calibrated scale with a fixed jaw, and another jaw, with a pointer,
that slides along the scale. The distance between the jaws is then read in different ways for the three
types.
- Vernier, dial, and digital calipers can measure internal dimensions (using the uppermost
jaws in the picture at right), external dimensions using the pictured lower jaws, and in many cases
depth by the use of a probe that is attached to the movable head and slides along the center of the
body. This probe is slender and can get into deep grooves that may prove difficult for other
measuring tools.
3.5) 25 mm Micrometer Caliper
- A micrometer sometimes known as a micrometer screw gauge, is a device incorporating
a calibrated screw used widely for precise measurement of small distances in mechanical
engineering and machining as well as most mechanical trades, along with
other metrological instruments such as dial, vernier, and digital calipers. Micrometers are usually,
but not always, in the form of calipers (opposing ends joined by a frame), which is
why micrometer caliper is another common name. The spindle is a very accurately machined
screw. The object to be measured is placed between the spindle and the anvil. The spindle is moved
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 4
inward by turning the ratchet knob or thimble until the object to be measured is lightly touched by
both the spindle and the anvil.
3.6) 12” Height Gage/ DepthGage
A height gauge is a measuring device used either for determining the height of something,
or for repetitious marking of items to be worked on. These measuring tools are used
in metalworking or metrology to either set or measure vertical distances; the pointer is sharpened
to allow it to act as a scriber and assist in marking out work pieces. Devices similar in concept,
with lower resolutions, are used in health care settings (health clinics, surgeries) to find the height
of people, in which context they are called stadiometers.
Height gauges may also be used to measure the height of an object by using the underside
of the scriber as the datum. The datum may be permanently fixed or the height gauge may have
provision to adjust the scale, this is done by sliding the scale vertically along the body of the height
gauge by turning a fine feed screw at the top of the gauge; then with the scriber set to the same
level as the base, the scale can be matched to it. This adjustment allows different scribers or probes
to be used, as well as adjusting for any errors in a damaged or sharpened probe.
The vernier, dial, and digital calipers give a direct reading of the distance measured with
high accuracy and precision. They are functionally identical, with different ways of reading the
result. These calipers comprise a calibrated scale with a fixed jaw, and another jaw, with a pointer,
that slides along the scale. The distance between the jaws is then read in different ways for the three
types.
Vernier, dial, and digital calipers can measure internal dimensions (using the uppermost
jaws in the picture at right), external dimensions using the pictured lower jaws, and in many cases
depth by the use of a probe that is attached to the movable head and slides along the centre of the
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 5
body. This probe is slender and can get into deep grooves that may prove difficult for other
measuring tools.
3.8) Dial Indicator
Dial indicators are precision measuring tools
with a myriad of applications in the machine shop.
Once you move beyond the basic machining operations
you will definitely want to have one or more of these
in your workshop.
Dial Indicators may be used to check the
variation in tolerance during the inspection process of
a machined part, measure the deflection of a beam or
ring under laboratory conditions, as well as many other
situations where a small measurement needs to be
registered or indicated.
An indicator is any of various instruments used
to accurately measure small distances and angles,
and amplify them to make them more obvious. The
name comes from the concept of indicating to the user
that which their naked eye cannot discern; such as the
presence, or exact quantity, of some small distance (for
example, a small height difference between two flat surfaces, a slight lack of concentricity between
two cylinders, or other small physical deviations).
IV.
Safety Precautions
Safety precautions are crucial when using any measuring instrument, including a vernier
caliper. Here are safety precautions to follow when using a vernier caliper:
1) Wear Safety Gear:
• Always wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) like safety glasses
or goggles to protect your eyes from debris or accidental splatter.
2) Inspect the Vernier Caliper:
• Before use, check the caliper for any visible damage or defects. Do not use a
damaged caliper, as it can give inaccurate measurements or pose safety risks.
3) Secure Workpiece:
• Ensure that the object you're measuring is securely fastened within the caliper
jaws. Unstable objects can lead to inaccurate measurements and potential injuries.
4) Avoid Pinching Fingers:
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 6
•
Be cautious when closing the jaws of the caliper. Avoid placing your fingers
between the jaws while operating it to prevent pinching injuries.
5) Handle with Care:
• Treat the vernier caliper gently. Avoid dropping it or applying excessive force
when opening or closing the jaws.
6) Proper Technique:
• Learn and practice the correct technique for using a vernier caliper. Incorrect use
can result in inaccurate measurements and potential accidents.
7) Avoid Contact with Sharp Edges:
• Be aware of sharp edges or pointed objects when measuring. Take precautions to
avoid cuts or injuries.
8) Keep the Caliper Clean:
• Keep the caliper clean and free from dust, debris, or oil that could affect its
accuracy.
9) Use the Right Caliper for the Job:
• Ensure you're using the appropriate type of vernier caliper (e.g., digital or dial) for
the specific measurement task at hand.
10) Measure in Adequate Lighting:
• Ensure there is sufficient lighting to clearly see the measurements and markings
on the caliper. Poor lighting can lead to reading errors.
11) Store Properly:
• After use, store the vernier caliper in a protective case or cover to prevent damage
and to keep it in good working condition.
12) Regular Calibration:
• Periodically check and calibrate the caliper to maintain its accuracy. Follow
manufacturer guidelines for calibration.
13) Training and Supervision:
• If you're new to using a vernier caliper, seek proper training and supervision from
an experienced instructor or colleague until you're proficient in its use.
14) Emergency Response:
• Know the location of emergency equipment, such as first aid kits or eyewash
stations, in case of accidents or injuries.
15) Report Damaged Calipers:
• If you notice any damage or malfunctions during use, report it to the appropriate
personnel so that the caliper can be repaired or replaced.
Following these safety precautions when using a vernier caliper will help ensure accurate
measurements while minimizing the risk of accidents or injuries in the laboratory or workplace.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 7
V.
Procedures
1. Prepare the materials needed for the exercise by borrowing them from the
Laboratory custodian accomplishing the filling-up of necessary borrower’s form.
2. Using all the equipment as mentioned in the apparatus, it would be used as
appropriately for the object to be measured.
3. Perform the measurement for the trials for every instrument for the same object
being measured.
4. Make a table for every instrument used and complete filling-up all the necessary
details.
5. With the measurement results of every instrument, compose your observation and
decide whether of the instrument used are precise as compare with the others.
6. Make three (3) trials making sure that the values taken in all trials are consistent.
7. Solve necessary calculation and fill up the data sheet.
8. With the results, make your analysis and draw your observations.
9. Make your conclusions of the exercises by answering the objectives.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 8
VI.
Completed Data Sheet:
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
(100%)
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
Ruler
Sample: Packaging Box
Measured Dimension
Trials
Length
MKS
%Error
1
0.115m
0%
2
0.114m
3
0.116m
Average 0.115m
Width
FPS
%Error
0.04m
%Error
FPS
%Error
0.76%
0.1312ft 0.85%
-0.87% 0.3739ft -0.85% 0.041m
0.03%
0.1345ft 3.38%
0.87%
0.3804ft 0.88%
0.038m
-4.28% 0.1246ft -4.23
0%
0.3711ft 0.06%
0.0397m -1.16% 0.1301ft 0
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
0.3772ft 0.03%
MKS
Page 9
Actual Size :
Dimensions Specification | 11.5cm x 4cm x 4cm
Height | 11.5 cm
Length | 4cm
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 10
Width | 4cm
VII.
Computations
MKS | Meter – Kilograms – Seconds | Length
Trial 1 | 11.5 cm
Trial 2 | 11.4 cm
Trial 3 | 11.6 cm
Convert Centimeters to Meters :
(11.5𝑐𝑚)
0.01𝑚
= 0.115𝑚
1𝑐𝑚
(11.4𝑐𝑚)
0.01𝑚
= 0.114𝑚
1𝑐𝑚
(11.6𝑐𝑚)
0.01𝑚
= 0.116𝑚
1𝑐𝑚
Calculating the Average:
0.115 + 0.114 + 0.116
= 0.115𝑚
3
Calculating the % Error :
Formula :
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
(100%)
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 11
Trial 1 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.115 − 0.115
(100) = 0
0.115
Trial 2 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.114 − 0.115
(100) = −0.87%
0.115
Trial 3 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.116 − 0.115
(100) = 0.87%
0.115
Average of % Error :
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 =
0 + (−0.87) + 0.87
= 0%
3
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 12
FPS | Foot – Pound – Seconds | Length
Trial 1 | 11.5 cm
Trial 2 | 11.4 cm
Trial 3 | 11.6 cm
Convert Centimeters to Foot :
1cm = 1/30.48
1cm = 0.0328
(11.5𝑐𝑚)(0.0328) = 0.3772𝑓𝑡
(11.4𝑐𝑚)(0.0328) = 0.3739𝑓𝑡
(11.6𝑐𝑚)(0.0328) = 0.3804𝑓𝑡
Calculating the Average:
0.3772 + 0.3739 + 0.3804
= 0.3771
3
Calculating the % Error :
Formula :
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
(100%)
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 13
Trial 1 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.3772 − 0.3771
(100) = 0.03%
0.3771
Trial 2 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.3739 − 0.3771
(100) = −0.85%
0.3771
Trial 3 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.116 − 0.115
(100) = 0.88%
0.115
Average of % Error :
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 =
0.03 + (−0.88) + 0.88
= 0.06%
3
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 14
MKS | Meter – Kilograms – Seconds | Width
Trial 1 | 4 cm
Trial 2 | 4.1 cm
Trial 3 | 3.8 cm
Convert Centimeters to Meters :
(4𝑐𝑚)
0.01𝑚
= 0.04𝑚
1𝑐𝑚
(4.1𝑐𝑚)
0.01𝑚
= 0.041𝑚
1𝑐𝑚
(11.6𝑐𝑚)
0.01𝑚
= 0.038𝑚
1𝑐𝑚
Calculating the Average:
0.04 + 0.041 + 0.038
= 0.0397𝑚
3
Calculating the % Error :
Formula :
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
(100%)
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
Trial 1 | % Error
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 15
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.04 − 0.0397
(100) = 0.76%
0.0397
Trial 2 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.041 − 0.0397
(100) = 0.03%
0.0397
Trial 3 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.038 − 0.0397
(100) = −4.28%
0.0397
Average of % Error :
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 =
0.76 + 0.03 + (−4.28)
= −1.16%
3
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 16
FPS | Foot – Pound – Seconds | Width
Trial 1 | 4 cm
Trial 2 | 4.1cm
Trial 3 | 3.8 cm
Convert Centimeters to Foot :
1cm = 1/30.48
1cm = 0.0328
(4𝑐𝑚)(0.0328) = 0.0328𝑓𝑡
(4.1𝑐𝑚)(0.0328) = 0.0328𝑓𝑡
(3.8𝑐𝑚)(0.0328) = 0.0328𝑓𝑡
Calculating the Average:
0.1312 + 0.1345 + 0.1246
= 0.1301
3
Calculating the % Error :
Formula :
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 17
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
(100%)
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
Trial 1 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.1312 − 0.1301
(100) = 0.85%
0.1301
Trial 2 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.1345 − 0.1301
(100) = 3.38%
0.1301
Trial 3 | % Error
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
0.1246 − 0.1301
(100) = −4.23%
0.1301
Average of % Error :
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 =
0.85 + 3.38 + (−4.23)
= 0%
3
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 18
VIII.
Data Analysis
Measured Dimension
Trials
Length
MKS
%Error
1
0.115m
0%
2
0.114m
3
0.116m
Average 0.115m
Width
FPS
%Error
0.3772ft 0.03%
MKS
0.04m
%Error
.FPS
%Error
0.76%
0.1312ft 0.85%
-0.87% 0.3739ft -0.85% 0.041m
0.03%
0.1345ft 3.38%
0.87%
0.3804ft 0.88%
0.038m
-4.28% 0.1246ft -4.23
0%
0.3711ft 0.06%
0.0397m -1.16% 0.1301ft 0
Graph 1 : The Relationship of MKS to FPS (Length)
MKS & ERROR
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
1
2
3
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
MKS
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Error
Page 19
In this data analysis, we conducted three trials to measure the height of the box,
with the actual height being 11.5 cm or 0.115 m. The graph displayed depicts the
results. The blue line, although appearing straight, indicates that there are
differences in millimeters between the first and third trials, which might not be
readily visible without precise measurement tools.
To evaluate the accuracy of our measurements, we calculated the percentage error
for each trial. In the first trial, the percentage error was 0%, indicating an exact
measurement. In the second trial, there was a -0.87% error, while in the third trial,
it was 0.87%.
By taking the average of the three trials, we arrived at a measurement of 0.115 m.
Comparing this average to the actual size of the box (0.115 m), we find that they
match, resulting in a total average percentage error of 0%. This suggests that the
steel ruler used for measurement was accurate, and our measurements were
conducted correctly.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that conducting multiple trials contributes to
obtaining a more accurate and reliable representation of the true value. The greater
the number of trials, the more refined and precise the data becomes.
The ruler used for measurement in this analysis has limitations in accuracy as it can
only measure in millimeters and inches. This limited scale makes it challenging to
measure curved or irregular shapes accurately. For precise measurements of smaller
objects and complex shapes, a specialized tool like calipers is more appropriate.
Calipers offer finer measurement increments and are better suited for handling
intricate shapes and smaller objects.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 20
Graph 2 :
FPS & ERROR
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
1
2
FPS
3
Error
In this data analysis, we've represented the measurements of three trials using FPS
Units (Foot – Pound – Seconds). In the first trial, we obtained a measurement of
0.3772 feet, in the second trial, 0.3739 feet, and in the third trial, 0.3804 feet. The
blue line on the graph shows that the measurements from the first to the second trial
form a straight line, and the second trial to the third trial exhibits a slight elevation.
Now, let's examine the percentage error. In the first trial, there's a 0.03% error, in
the second trial, there's a -0.85% error, and in the third trial, there's a 0.88% error,
represented by the orange line. These errors are all close to 0%, indicating that our
trial measurements are quite accurate when compared to the actual height of the
box, which is 11.5 cm or 0.3772 feet.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 21
After analyzing this data, we calculated the average of the measurements, which is
0.3711 feet using FPS units. The percentage error for this average measurement is
0.06%. When comparing this average measurement to the actual height of the box
(0.3772 feet), we find that they are very close. This suggests that the FPS
measurement is also accurate when compared to MKS Measurement.
MKS vs FPS based on accuracy
In comparing MKS (Meter-Kilogram-Second) to FPS (Foot-Pound-Seconds)
regarding accuracy, the data clearly demonstrates that MKS stands out as the more
accurate system for measurements. The superiority of MKS in accuracy can be
attributed to its precision and ease of use, especially for measuring physical
attributes such as length, similar to using a ruler.
On the other hand, FPS shares some characteristics with MKS, but it presents
challenges when it comes to practical use. When measurements are expressed in
feet, FPS often results in values with numerous decimal places, which can be
cumbersome and prone to introducing errors. While FPS has the potential for
accuracy, its practicality is hindered by the complexity of its decimal-based system,
in contrast to the user-friendly and precise nature of MKS.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 22
MKS & ERROR
0.02
0.01
0
1
2
3
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
MKS
Error
FPS & ERROR
0.5
0
-0.5
1
2
3
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
FPS
IX.
Error
Observations:
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 23
Based on the data we collected it's evident that careful measurement and precision
are critical in obtaining accurate results. Here are the observations
1. The choice of measurement tools significantly impacts accuracy. Specialized
tools like calipers or using appropriate units, such as MKS, tend to yield more
accurate results compared to less precise tools or units with many decimal places.
2. Calculating the percentage error allows for the assessment of measurement
accuracy. In most cases, when percentage errors are close to zero, it indicates that
measurements are accurate and reliable.
3. Conducting multiple trials enhances the accuracy of data. The more trials
conducted, the more refined and precise the measurements become, reducing the
margin of error.
4. The practicality and ease of using a measurement system can significantly
impact its accuracy. Systems that are user-friendly and less prone to errors, like
MKS, tend to be more accurate in practice.
5. Precision vs. Complexity, While systems like FPS can offer accuracy, they may
introduce complexity and challenges due to the handling of decimal places,
potentially making them less practical for everyday measurements.
In summary, achieving accurate measurements requires the right tools, units, and
techniques, along with a focus on precision and practicality. Careful attention to
these factors helps ensure that the data collected is reliable and can be used
effectively in various applications.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 24
X.
Discussion of Findings:
In our comparison of MKS (Meter-Kilogram-Second) and FPS (Foot-PoundSeconds) measurement systems, we found that MKS consistently displayed higher
accuracy due to its use of metric units, making it more user-friendly, especially for
physical measurements. In contrast, FPS, with its reliance on numerous decimals,
presented practical challenges, particularly when measuring in feet, leading to an
increased risk of errors.
Our analysis highlighted the importance of conducting multiple measurement trials,
which improved overall accuracy and instilled greater confidence in the reliability
of the data. Additionally, we found that calculating percentage error was a valuable
method for assessing accuracy; lower percentage errors indicated measurements
closely aligned with actual values.
In summary, the choice of the right measurement system and tools is crucial for
accuracy. While both MKS and FPS have their merits, MKS stands out for its
precision and ease of use. Incorporating multiple trials and employing
percentage error calculations are essential practices to ensure reliable
measurements, which hold significance in scientific, industrial, and everyday
applications.
XI.
Conclusions:
In comparing MKS (Meter-Kilogram-Second) and FPS (Foot-Pound-Seconds)
measurement systems, our analysis reveals that MKS consistently demonstrates
superior accuracy and practicality. Its reliance on metric units simplifies
measurements and reduces the risk of errors, making it an optimal choice for
various applications.
Additionally, the data collected from our measurements, as well as the earlier
provided data, underscores the significance of precision and multiple trial
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 25
measurements. These practices enhance the reliability of collected data, ensuring it
aligns closely with actual values.
XII.
Recommendations:
Given the limited use of a ruler in this activity for measuring object dimensions I
recommend to explore and incorporate more advanced measurement tools such as
advance calipers. Further exploration on how to use advanced measurement
instruments to enhance precision and accuracy in measurements. cutting-edge tools
has the potential to significantly improve the reliability of measurements across
various domains, including scientific research and industrial applications.
Incorporating more sophisticated measuring equipment like calipers can contribute
to more accurate and detailed measurements, ensuring that data collected is of the
highest quality. This avenue of research aligns with the ongoing efforts to advance
measurement practices and technology, making it a valuable area of investigation
for enhancing the reliability and usefulness of measurement data.
XIII.
Answers to Questions
1. Define non-precision measuring devices
2. Define precision Measuring devices
3. Define High precision measuring devices
1. Non-Precision Measuring Devices
Non-precision measuring devices are tools or instruments that provide
measurements with a limited degree of accuracy and precision. These devices are
typically used for general measurements where a high level of precision is not
critical. Examples of non-precision measuring devices include tape measures,
wooden rulers, and bathroom scales.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 26
2. Precision Measuring Devices
Precision measuring devices are instruments designed to provide highly accurate
and precise measurements. These devices are used in applications where exact
measurements are crucial. Examples of precision measuring devices include
micrometers, vernier calipers, and digital multimeters. These tools are often
employed in engineering, manufacturing, and scientific research to ensure accuracy
and consistency in measurements.
3. High Precision Measuring Devices
High precision measuring devices are specialized instruments that offer an
exceptionally high level of accuracy and precision in measurements. These devices
are used in fields where minute variations can have a significant impact. Examples
of high precision measuring devices include laser interferometers for measuring
length with extreme precision, atomic clocks for timekeeping, and electron
microscopes for detailed imaging at the nanoscale. These instruments are critical in
applications like astronomy, semiconductor manufacturing, and advanced research
where the utmost precision is required.
XIV.
References:
[1] R. Gupta, “Types of measuring instruments,” MechanicalJungle, Sep. 11, 2023.
https://mechanicaljungle.com/types-of-measuring-instruments/
[2] “Science 1222 lab measurement.”
https://www.honolulu.hawaii.edu/instruct/natsci/science/brill/sci122/SciLab/L5/measure.h
tml
[3] Admin, “Accuracy and precision – definition, examples, need for measurement,
differences, practice questions and FAQs,” BYJUS, Jan. 2023, [Online]. Available:
https://byjus.com/physics/accuracy-precision-measurement/
[4] S. Laddha, “Precision Measuring Instruments: Types and Uses | Gokul Traders,”
Gokul Traders, Jun. 22, 2017. https://gokultraders.com/precision-measuring-instrumentstypes-uses/?amp=1
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 27
XV.
Preliminary Data Sheet/s:
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 28
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 29
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 30
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 31
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 32
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 33
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 34
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 35
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 36
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 37
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 38
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 39
Laboratory Exercise Grading Rubric
Lab Title:
Single Dimensional Measuring Devices: Linear Measurement
Student
Name:
Royce Gracie A. Manahan
Instructor:
Prof. Rizal M. Mosquera
Date:
09/17/23
Excellent
(5)
Good
(4)
Satisfactory
(3)
Needs
Improvement
(2)
Unsatisfactory
(1)
Objective
Fulfillment
The student
fully met all
the stated
objectives and
demonstrated
a deep
understanding
of the
experiment's
purpose and
concepts.
The student
met most of
the stated
objectives and
demonstrated
a good
understanding
of the
experiment's
purpose and
concepts.
The student
met some of
the stated
objectives and
demonstrated
a basic
understanding
of the
experiment's
purpose and
concepts.
The student
partially met
the stated
objectives and
demonstrated
limited
understanding
of the
experiment's
purpose and
concepts.
The student
did not meet
the stated
objectives and
demonstrated
a lack of
understanding
of the
experiment's
purpose and
concepts.
Safety
Precautions
The student
consistently
followed all
safety
precautions,
showing a high
level of
awareness and
responsibility
for safety.
The student
followed most
safety
precautions
but had minor
lapses in
safety
awareness.
The student
followed some
safety
precautions
but had
noticeable
lapses in
safety
awareness.
The student
followed few
safety
precautions
and
demonstrated
inadequate
safety
awareness.
The student
consistently
ignored safety
precautions,
posing a
significant
safety risk.
Criteria
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Score
(out
of 5)
Page 40
Procedural
Accuracy
The student
executed all
steps of the
procedure
accurately,
resulting in
precise and
reliable data.
The student
executed most
steps of the
procedure
accurately,
with minor
errors that did
not
significantly
affect the
data.
The student
executed
some steps of
the procedure
accurately, but
there were
notable errors
impacting data
reliability.
The student
executed few
steps of the
procedure
accurately,
leading to
significant
errors in data.
The student
consistently
failed to
execute the
procedure
accurately,
rendering the
data unusable.
Data
Collection
and Analysis
The student
collected
complete and
accurate data,
performed
complex
calculations
effectively, and
presented
results with
exceptional
clarity.
The student
collected
mostly
complete and
accurate data,
performed
calculations
with minor
errors, and
presented
results clearly.
The student
collected data
with some
gaps or
inaccuracies,
made
noticeable
calculation
errors, and
presented
results
adequately.
The student
collected
incomplete or
inaccurate
data, made
significant
calculation
errors, and
presented
results with
limited clarity.
The student
collected data
with severe
gaps or
inaccuracies,
made
numerous
calculation
errors, and
presented
results
unclearly.
Critical
The student
Thinking and
demonstrated
Interpretation exceptional
critical thinking
skills, offering
insightful
interpretations
of the results
and relating
them
effectively to
the
experiment's
objectives.
The student
demonstrated
good critical
thinking skills,
offering
interpretations
of the results
that mostly
aligned with
the
experiment's
objectives.
The student
demonstrated
basic critical
thinking skills,
providing
interpretations
of the results
but with
limited depth
or relevance
to the
experiment's
objectives.
The student
demonstrated
minimal
critical
thinking skills,
offering
interpretations
that were
largely
irrelevant or
inaccurate.
The student
showed no
critical
thinking skills
and offered no
meaningful
interpretations
of the results.
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 41
Conclusion
and
Reflection
The student's
conclusion was
comprehensive
and wellstructured,
reflecting on
the results,
their
significance,
and potential
sources of
error.
The student's
conclusion
was clear and
addressed the
results and
some potential
sources of
error.
The student's
conclusion
was present
but lacked
depth, missing
key elements.
The student's
conclusion
was unclear,
lacked
structure, and
did not
address the
results or
potential
sources of
error.
The student
provided no
meaningful
conclusion or
reflection.
Neatness and
Organization
The student's
work was
exceptionally
neat,
organized, and
wellpresented,
enhancing the
overall quality
of the report.
The student's
work was
generally neat
and organized,
contributing to
the report's
overall quality.
The student's
work was
somewhat
neat and
organized,
with some
distracting
elements.
The student's
work was
disorganized
and messy,
detracting
from the
report's
quality.
The student's
work was
entirely
disorganized
and
unreadable.
Adherence to
Instructions
The student
followed all
instructions
precisely and
consistently,
demonstrating
a high level of
attention to
detail.
The student
followed most
instructions
but had minor
deviations or
oversights.
The student
followed some
instructions
but deviated
from several
important
ones.
The student
followed few
instructions
and frequently
deviated from
important
ones.
The student
ignored most
instructions,
leading to an
incomplete or
incorrect
report.
Overall Score (out of 50):
Instructor's Signature:
Industrial Materials and Processes Lab.
Page 42