When measuring a small quantity of liquid, which instrument would permit the most accurate reading?
542238
a very slender graduated cylinder with markings for individual mL.
756835
A graduated cylinder is calibrated to contain and dispense....it is an accurate tool for measuring volumes. A beaker is for containing and is not intended to dispense. As long as a few rules are followed an graduated cylinder is accurate to dispense within the limitations set on the cylinder. The rules include following the substance's rules for reading the meniscus. (bottom middle or top) for different substances with different specific densities. \nA beaker is for mixing and containing and has much different tolerances for dispensing.
217873
Measure concentration. Use a dummy (with water only) measuring that with a LabPro probe. Then compare that to a certain volume of a variable soft drink. I did this in high school, hope it works!
915631
Thea answer is basic:\nBecause one can measure mass to a higher degree of accuracy than volume.
428624
You need to be a bit more specific about which quantities you are trying to determine.  "Flow" is not a quantity to be calculated.
291507
What is required for definite measurement for any volume is a sense of boundary. Therefore, we could estimate the volume of the universe, but we aren't sure.  Therefore it's pure speculation.\n\nIn terms of liquids, they do have a defined boundary by the changes of the index of refaction from when light enters the liquid.  Therefore, with a predefined container that has calibrated unit of measurement, one can easily determine the volume of liquid for a given temperature and pressure.  Remember, liquids can expand and contract due to changes of pressure and temperature, although the changes in volume do not change sinificantly.\n\nOn the other hand, a gas that is lighter than air would be very difficult to maintain within a system to measure directly.  Given a closed container, with a definite pressure and temperature, you could estimate the amount of volume that the gas should fill.  Rememeber, since it's lighter than air, the mass would be difficult to measure, unless you had a airflow meter to measure gas flow by mass.  The result should be the same for every repeated condition, a certain amount of mass should fill the vessel to a specific pressure at the given temperature.  On the other hand, gases that are heavier than air should be more easier to measure their volume; this case can only be applied to gases that has a define boundary due to color.  Therefore, at a specific temperature and pressure, you could estimate their volume and measure their mass.\n\nIn measuring gases, usually volume is correlated to temperature and pressure.  Usually, the best thing to define about any liquid or substance is the density at a given temperature and pressure.  This will undoubtedly define the physical property of the object at those conditions.
724819
To determine the concentration of a reagent.
224476
It's like asking how many seconds in a gallon.\n\nMilliliters measures volume (think liters of soda).\nGrams measures mass.\n\nYou can't compare the two.
739157
Direct measurement will be correct.\nPeople can be mistaken, or lie.\n\n;-D Where did you not learn to spell? Wow.
840473
Need more specifics as to your problem.\n\nHowever, I assume you are trying to do a quantitation on a UV or vis absorbing substance.\n\nMake up  a set of standards of known concentration of your analyte in the solvent you will be analyzing in.  Then do some scans over the whole wavelength range. \n\nUsually pick the wavelength at the top of the largest absorbance peak, unless that is a wavelength which will have interferences from other substances present.  If so, then pick a wavelength with good absorbance that is not subject to such interference.
953596
http://www.komar.org/faq/manometer/\nhttp://www.science-house.org/student/bw/flight/manometer.html\nhttp://bagpipejourney.com/articles/manometer.shtml\n\nhope these might help!\nkayt
867589
Mechanical measuring devices have some frictional mechanical resistance to movement, so might not be moved at all by small pressures.  That would be an error of 100%.  A manometer has frictional resistance approaching zero, so it is a good choice for getting a measurement with an error which is very small compared to the true value of the pressure.
725263
I think you are talking about diameter and that too about graduated cylinder.\n\nThen a small measuring cylinder is more accurate than large measuring cylinder.\n\nGenerally, as a cylinder is narrowed, more precise measurements can be obtained in readings, as the graduation markings are farther apart for the same volume.
556687
2) Use stop wave:\nPlace a speaker of known, variable frequency close to a micro, the micro is connected to a microamperemeter.\nPlace that in the top of a long glass tube, slowly fill the tube with water until the the microamperemeter show a maximum. Continue filling the tube with water to get the next maximum. The distance between the two consecutive maximums is half the wavelength.\nSpeed = wavelength x frequency.\nRepeat the experiment several times and get the averange. That should be close to actual value.
562654
Okay, I'll try this one -\n\nRun this experiment twice (or more times), each time with a piece of metal having different density.  The metal piece should be of adequate size (a sewing needle isn't going to do it), it needs to be big enough to significantly affect the temperature of the water.  You will need to know the mass of the metal (i.e., weigh it) and have a thermometer capable of reading from room temperature up through boiling or so.  Please note this is not going to give you a highly accurate answer, but can give you a ballpark idea (I'm guessing you're probably not doing this in a 500 million dollar lab).\n\nThe procedure:\n\n1)  Measure and record room temperature as T1.\n\n2)  Weigh the metal, call it M1.\n\n3)  Bring a known quantity of water (weigh it, or measure it and convert to weight, call it M2) to a temperature just short of boiling (say 180F to 200F, use the same temperature for each run of this experiment).  Record the temperature as T2, and remove the heat source (take it off the burner, etc.).\n\n4)  Drop in a metal piece at room temperature.  Allow a couple of minutes for heat to exchange.  Make sure you use \nthe same amount of time for each run of this experiment.\n\n5)  Measure and record the new temperature of the water as T3.\n\n6)  Repeat with your other metal samples.\n\nYou can now estimate the specific heat capacity for each metal.  It will not be super-accurate (heat escapes your system, and temperatures won't have completely equalized), but should give you some idea.  Just assume all temperatures did equalize and that no heat escaped for calculational purposes.\n\nSince (you are assuming) the heat which left the water went into the metal, then the product of mass, specific heat capacity, and temperature change should be the same for both the metal and the water (but in opposite directions).\n\nThis means that:\n\n(M1)(c1)(T3-T1) = (M2)(cw)(T2-T3)\n\nwhere c1 is the specific heat capacity of the metal, and cw is the specific heat capacity of water (look it up on Google to get the units you need).\n\nSolving this, you get:\n\n......(M2)(cw)(T2-T3)\nc1 = -----------------\n........(M1)(T3-T1)\n\n(sorry about the dots, I'm trying to keep everything aligned)\n\nRepeat the calculations for each of the metals.\n\nYou will need to calculate (or look up) the densities of each of the metals.  Then, graph density vs. the specific heat capacities you calculated, and see if your hypothesis is true.\n\nHave fun!
932184
Measure them with an accurate measuring device.
1135299
A medicine dropper is used to measure our exact quantities of liquids.