OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this experiment is to carry out performance test and to compare
percentage error between gas meter when conducted individually and simultaneously.

DISCUSSION
Based on the result obtained, it can be seen that the percentage of error when the experiment
was conducted individually is higher compared to the experiment for simultaneous
verification of diaphragm gas meter. The percentage error in simultaneous verification of
diaphragm gas meter for the first two minutes is 0%, 19.35%, 0%, 0% and 21.8 % for each
meter 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The percentage error for individual verification of
diaphragm gas meter only occurred in meter 1, meter 3 and meter 4 which are 6.82%, 2.44%
and 2.4% for the first two minutes. The percentage error for the next four minutes is 20.0%,
-14.4%, 11.1%, 4.0% and 33.3% for meter 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively in the simultaneous
experiment. Percentage error in individual experiment after four minutes occurred in meter 1,
meter 3 and meter 5 which are -5.26% , 2.44% and 2.5%.
The flow of the gas through the instrument is divided into many valves. When the experiment
was conducted simultaneously, the gas was forced to enter many valves which can cause
lower error rate than the individual measurement. It is essential to distinguish between the
error and the uncertainty in any result obtained from calibration process which normally be
presented in most calibration certificates. Error could be easily defined as the difference
between the measured and true values and is unknown while the uncertainty is half the range
within the true value is expected to lie with a stated probability. The uncertainty must never
be quoted separately from the probability or confidence level which is associated since the
two are interdependent. Four kinds of error that can be present in any measurement are
spurious error, random error, constant systematic error and variable systematic error.
When the experiment was conducted, the temperature throughout the experiment was always
in room temperature and does not affect the calibration. The recorded pressure is also
different for each meter. This shows that every valve have different errors. When the gas

calibration was conducted simultaneously, the pressure shown for every meter was lower than
the individual experiment. This proved that it was better to calibrate the gas separately rather
than simultaneously.

CONCLUSION
All the gas meters need to be calibrated before it can use in any operation. The accuracy of
reading can be affected due to the differences in pressure and velocity that flows through each
meters. The accuracy of experiment can be affected badly when using 5 meters
simultaneously rather than using individual meters at a time. It can be conclude that meter no.
2 is well calibrated with 0% error for both 2 minute and 4 minute in individual experiment. It
proves that the objective of the experiment was achieved.