These error bars are very small which suggest that there were not a lot of random errors made. However, some random errors are irregular shape of some of the objects used, and also some of the measurements f length which led to calculating the volume were not read accurately. Moreover, only limited amount of object (six) were used and therefore not a lot of readings were taken to further explore the accuracy of the data collected. The random errors of the mass were too small to be considered and therefore were not drawn on the graph.
The small uncertainties can be due to lots of trials for each object. All the apparatus used in this experiment were very accurate. The scale for measuring the mass of the objects was given with an uncertainty of В± 0. 05 g. To measure the length, height and width of the object a fernier aliped was used, this device is very accurate compared to any other device for measuring those variables. The smallest division of the caliper was 0. 005 CM, meaning the uncertainty of this device was approximately В± 0. 003 CM.
Moreover, as it can be clearly seen in the graph, the line goes through the origin and there is no y-intercept. This means that the systematic errors have not had a big effect on the results and their accuracy. The experimental value can always be different than the theoretical value, and this can have many reasons such as the ones stated above. The theoretical value for the density of brass is 8. 7 gum-3. Using this value and also the experimental value, the percentage discrepancy can be calculated: Percentage discrepancy = (Accepted value-experimental value)/ (accepted value) (8. 7-8. 34)/8. 47 . 53% This means that the value found by the experiment for the density of brass is only 1. 53% different than that of the accepted value. Evaluation The data collected were quite reliable; this was also checked with the theoretical value above and there was only around 1. 5% of difference between the theoretical and the calculated values. Same measurement devices were used wrought the whole experiment to keep the controlled variables constant. Also all the sides of the objects had the same number of readings and repetitions to get more reliable data.
The devices used in the experiment to measure the mass and the lengths of the sides of the shapes were quite accurate objects with low systematic errors. However, the objects that were measured were not all regularly made, meaning one side was bigger than the other side and this caused different readings in different trials and this led to some random errors. The measurements of mass were only measured once, this is because the mass as measured using a electronic scale, which even if 5 readings were made, the same values would have been written.
The values for length, width, and height however, were measured five times each to reduce any type of random error. The readings for the trials were mostly exactly the same and even if there was a difference it was around 0. 005 CM which is a very small value and shows the precision of the readings. The masses and similarly the volumes of the objects used were not increased/decreased with a certain interval. This is why on the graph, the distance between different points vary a lot. The graph gave straight, linear line which went through the error bars and resulted in precise data.
In any experiment there is always some room for improvement. This can be done by reducing the systematic and random errors. First of all more objects should be used and more readings should be taken to further explore the pattern, have a higher range, and get more accurate data. Moreover, each object should be regular so when the sides are measured the same or similar readings are found. These can give more accurate results and reduce the random errors. Since the errors in the experiment were mostly random, repetitions will lead into more accurate results.