Accurately Reading a Vernier Scale

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kazza_765
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reading Scale
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around accurately reading a vernier scale using a traveling microscope during a physics practical. Participants are attempting to clarify the correct reading from the scale, which involves understanding the relationship between the main scale and the vernier scale divisions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are discussing various interpretations of the readings from the vernier scale, with some suggesting specific values like 31.25mm and 31.12mm. Questions arise about how to align the scales and the significance of the increments on the vernier scale.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of different readings and methods for interpreting the vernier scale. Some participants are providing insights into how the scale works and questioning the assumptions made about the number of divisions on the scales. No consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note discrepancies in the number of lines on the vernier scale used in their practical compared to standard examples, which may affect their readings and interpretations.

Kazza_765
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
During a physics prac today, we were using a traveling microscope with a vernier scale. My demonstrator told me I was reading the scale wrong, and as much as I tried to convince him otherwise he insisted he was right. Can anyone here tell me what the correct value to be read from the vernier scale pictured below is. The lower set of lines is a section of the centimetre scale, the top is the vernier scale. Assume that the '0' line on the vernier scale is just slightly to the right of the line highlighted in blue, and that the two lines marked in red line up perfectly. I read this as being 3.112cm but he said that was wrong and I could only be accurate to 0.01cm (even though he couldn't give me a correct reading).
 

Attachments

  • Vernier.JPG
    Vernier.JPG
    12.7 KB · Views: 2,723
Physics news on Phys.org
looks like 31.25mm to me.
 
I'm curious how you got 31.25mm. 31mm I understand, but I thought next you look for where the two scales line up and take the value from the top scale. So in this case we get 31mm + 0.12 mm = 31.12mm.

Ps. I realize that in this diagram the scales line up in several places, which is why I highlighted one of the lines in red, but it was the best I could do with powerpoint.
 
I agree with your 31.12 (or 31.21 but I know your diagram is off). I would make sure to double check the smallest increments on the vernier though. If it is on the order of .01 mm and not .01 cm then I say you are correct.
 
Imagine the upper scale is moved just a tiny bit so that the first line lines up with 31mm on the bottom. This would obviously be 31.00mm. At the same time, the line labelled .1 will line up with the 4 (cm). This is how a vernier works; the 10 lines on the upper scale fall on 9 lines on the lower. This shows that the lines beyond .1 on the upper scale are superfluous. Now imagine moving the upper scale slowly back towards the way it was in the picture. First the next-to-leftmost line will line up with the 32mm line; that would be 31.1mm: then the next line lines up; thatr would be 31.2mm: a little more, and both the 3rd and 4th are eqally aligned, as is the case in the picture; that's 31.25mm. Imagine you move it further: as soon as the 10th line lines up (meaning 31 + 1.0 = 32.0mm), you notice also that the first line lines up with the 32mm on the bottom scale. This consistency is what you look for in determining how to interpret the scale.
 
Yeah I think that is what my demonstrator was getting at because that is what the example in our book looked like. However, the vernier scale we were using didn't have 10 lines in 9, it had 49 lines in 50 (equivalent to 99 lines in 100 on my diagram but we had 0.5cm divisions on the lower scale). And with 49 lines in 50 it had to be read with an attached magnifying glass. So if I started with the first line at the 31mm mark, and slowly moved it to the 31.5 mm mark, first the 0.01mm mark at the top would line up perfectly, then the 0.02mm mark etc.. all the way to 0.49 mm.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
90K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K