1

Abstract
This set of experiments investigates the operating principles, accuracy, and dynamic
behavior of several temperature measurement devices. The study compares static behavior,
step change response, and explores the thermoelectric phenomena such as Seabeck effect,
the laws of intermediate metal and temperature. Results showed that all the measuring
devices followed a similar trend with acceptable deviation, while the most sensitive device
was the thermocouple. With calibration confirming a strictly linear relation between Emf
and temperature. Introducing a third metal caused a small deviation from the typical case
possibly due to resistance in the junctions. When demonstrating the law of intermediate
temperature, the results agreed with the theoretical expectation. Series and parallel
configurations behaved predictably. Overall, the results highlight how sensor construction
affects the measurement accuracy and sensitivity.

2
Table of Contents

1. Abstract ………………….………. page 2.

2. Table of Contents…………………page 3.
3. Introduction (1) ………………….. page 4.
4. Theory and Background (2) …….. page 4.
5. Experimental Procedures (3) …… page 7.
6. Results and Calculations (4) ….… page 10.
7. Discussion and Analysis (5) ……. Page 16.
8. Conclusion (6) …………..…….… page 17.
9. Appendices (7) ………………..… page 18.

3
1. Introduction. Done by Mjahed

Temperature is one of the most important variables in process control systems. Accurate
temperature measurement is essential because even small errors can affect product quality,
safety, and process efficiency. Many chemical, mechanical, and electrical processes depend
on precise temperature control to ensure that reactions occur correctly and equipment
operates safely.

In this experiment series, different types of thermometers and sensors were studied and
compared, including mercury thermometers, vapor pressure thermometers, bimetallic
thermometers, and thermocouples. Each device works based on different physical
principles such as expansion, vapor pressure, and thermoelectric effects.

The objective of these experiments is to understand how different temperature

measurement devices operate and to compare their performance in terms of accuracy,
sensitivity, and dynamic response. The experiments also explore both static and dynamic
characteristics of sensors, and how calibration and configuration (series or parallel
connections) can affect their readings.

2. Theory and Background

2.1 Principles of Temperature Measurement

Temperature can be measured by observing physical changes in materials caused by heat.

The main principles used are:
- Expansion: Many materials expand when heated and contract when cooled. This principle
is used in liquid-in-glass thermometers and bimetallic thermometers.
- Vapor Pressure: The pressure of a liquid’s vapor increases with temperature, forming the
basis of filled-system (pressure) thermometers.
- Electrical Effects: In thermocouples, a voltage (EMF) is generated when two different
metals are joined and exposed to different temperatures — this is known as the Seebeck
effect.

2.2 Mercury and Vapor Pressure Thermometers

4
 Mercury-in-glass thermometers measure temperature by the thermal expansion of
mercury inside a capillary tube. As the temperature rises, the mercury expands and moves
up the tube. They are simple, portable, and require no power source, but they are limited to
a range of about –39°C to 300°C and are not suitable for high or very low temperature
Vapor pressure thermometers (also called filled-system thermometers) use the change in
vapor pressure of a liquid or gas inside a sealed bulb and capillary system. The pressure
change moves a pointer on a dial. These thermometers are widely used in industrial
systems, such as boilers and compressors, because of their fast response and ease of use.

1.1 Bimetallic Thermometers

A bimetallic thermometer consists of two strips of different metals bonded together.

Because each metal expands at a different rate when heated, the strip bends in proportion
to the temperature change. This bending motion can be used to move a pointer over a scale.
Common designs include flat, spiral, and helical types. They are robust, inexpensive, and do
not need power, but they are less accurate and not suitable for very high or low
temperatures.

1.2 Thermocouple Theory

A thermocouple consists of two wires made of different metals joined at one end (the hot
junction) and connected to a measuring device at the other (the cold junction). When there
is a temperature difference between the two junctions, an electromotive force (EMF) is
generated due to the Seebeck effect.

The output voltage (E) is approximately proportional to the temperature difference (ΔT):
E = S (Thot - Tcold)
where S is the Seebeck coefficient.

Thermocouples can measure a very wide temperature range (–200°C to 2500°C), respond
quickly, and are rugged. However, they require signal conditioning and careful calibration.

5
Law of Intermediate Metals
If a third metal is introduced into the thermocouple circuit, it will not affect the EMF as long
as both new junctions are at the same temperature.

Law of Intermediate Temperatures

The EMF generated between two temperatures T1 and T3 equals the sum of the EMFs
between T1–T2 and T2–T3.

1.3 Dynamic Response and Time Constant

When a sensor is suddenly exposed to a new temperature, it does not reach the final
reading immediately. The response can often be modeled as a first-order system:
T(t) = Tf + (Ti - Tf)e^(-t/τ)
where τ is the time constant — the time it takes the sensor to reach about 63.2% of the final
value. A smaller τ means faster response.

1.4 Calibration and Configuration Effects

Calibration ensures that a sensor’s reading matches the true temperature. When
thermocouples are connected in series or parallel, the total EMF and sensitivity can change:
- Series connection: Increases total EMF output.
- Parallel connection: Improves average response and reduces noise.

Definitions

Accuracy: How close a measured value is to the true value.

Sensitivity: The amount of output change per degree of temperature change.
Time Constant (τ): A measure of how quickly the sensor responds to a temperature change.

6
Experimental Proceduree
Done by Mohamed tahboush
Equipment used
1. Comparison between Temperature Measurement Devices
 Mercury-in-glass thermometer
 Vapor pressure thermometer
 Bimetallic thermometer
 Thermocouple (Copper–Constantan type)
 Hot water bath with adjustable temperature control
 Stopwatch
 Ambient thermometer

2. Time Constant of Mercury Thermometer

 Mercury thermometer
 Hot water bath (temperature-controlled)
 Stopwatch
 Beaker or container for immersion
 Thermometer holder or clamp
 Cooling bath (for reverse test)

3. Building and Calibrating a Single Thermocouple

 Copper and Constantan wires
 Soldering iron and solder material
 Ice bath (0°C reference point)
 Boiling water bath (100°C reference point)
 Digital multimeter (mV measurement)
 Hot plate or water bath with temperature control
 Thermometer for reference temperature verification

4. Adding a Third Metal (Effect of Junction Metal)

 Constructed thermocouple (Cu–Constantan)
 Additional copper extension wire (third metal)
 Digital multimeter
 Hot and cold junction setups (e.g., boiling and ice baths)
 Connecting terminals and insulated leads

5. Measuring Voltage Difference between Different Temperature Pairs

 Calibrated thermocouple
 Ice bath (cold junction)
 Water baths at different controlled temperatures (50°C, 70°C, 100°C)
 Digital voltmeter or multimeter

7
  Thermometer for reference temperature

6. Thermocouples in Series and Parallel

 Two identical thermocouples (same type and calibration)
 Digital multimeter or voltmeter with high impedance
 Water baths for controlled hot junctions
 Ice bath for cold junctions
 Connecting wires and breadboard or terminal strip

This section describes the experimental procedures followed to investigate the

performance of various temperature measurement devices, their dynamic responses, and
the behavior of thermocouples under different configurations. Each experiment was
carried out under controlled laboratory conditions to ensure accuracy, repeatability, and
safety.

1. Comparison between Temperature Measurement Devices

In this experiment, different temperature measurement instruments—including a

mercury thermometer, vapor pressure thermometer, bimetallic thermometer, and
thermocouple—were compared in terms of accuracy, response time, and stability. Each
device was exposed to the same temperature source (a controlled hot water bath). The
readings were recorded at steady-state and during heating and cooling cycles. The
ambient temperature was also monitored to account for environmental influences.

2. Time Constant of Mercury Thermometer

The dynamic response of the mercury thermometer was tested by suddenly immersing it
into a hot water bath at a known temperature. Temperature readings were taken at
regular time intervals until thermal equilibrium was reached. The time required for the
thermometer to reach 63.2% of the total temperature change was determined as the time
constant (), representing the device’s thermal inertia.

3. Building and Calibrating a Single Thermocouple

A single thermocouple (Copper–Constantan type) was constructed by twisting and

soldering the wire ends to form a proper junction. The thermocouple was calibrated by
placing the measurement junction in a series of known temperature environments (ice
bath at 0°C, boiling water at 100°C, and intermediate points). The output voltage (in
millivolts) was recorded using a digital multimeter. The calibration curve (mV vs. °C) was
plotted to determine the Seebeck coefficient.

8
  Digital multimeter or voltmeter with high impedance
 Water baths for controlled hot junctions
 Ice bath for cold junctions
 Connecting wires and breadboard or terminal strip

This section describes the experimental procedures followed to investigate the performance
of various temperature measurement devices, their dynamic responses, and the behavior
of thermocouples under different configurations. Each experiment was carried out under
controlled laboratory conditions to ensure accuracy, repeatability, and safety.

4. Adding a Third Metal (Effect of Junction Metal)

To study the effect of introducing a third metal, an additional connection (e.g., copper
extension wire) was inserted between the thermocouple and measurement device. The
voltage output was compared before and after the addition. According to the law of
intermediate metals, no change in EMF was expected as long as both junctions of the
added metal were at the same temperature.

5. Measuring Voltage Difference between Different Temperature Pairs

In this test, the thermocouple junctions were placed at different temperature pairs (e.g., 0°C–
50°C, 0°C–70°C, 0°C–100°C). The corresponding EMF values were measured to verify
the linear relationship between temperature difference (T) and generated voltage. The
data were later used to evaluate the thermocouple’s sensitivity and consistency.

6. Thermocouples in Series and Parallel

Two identical thermocouples were connected first in series and then in parallel. For the series
configuration, both hot junctions were maintained at the same temperature while the cold
junctions remained at reference temperature. The resulting EMF was observed to be
approximately double that of a single thermocouple, confirming additive voltage behavior.
For the parallel configuration, the output voltage was nearly the same as that of a single
thermocouple, as both branches shared the same potential difference. All measurements
were conducted using a digital voltmeter with high input impedance to minimize current
draw.

9
 2. Results and calculations :

Done by : Abdelrahman Alayyan

2.1 Comparison of Temperature Measurement Devices

In this experiment five different measuring instruments – bimetallic, alcohol thermometer,

mercury thermometer, vapor pressure, thermocouple – were put into the same environment to
compare their sensitivity and response behavior under the same conditions.

Results

Temperature readings were recorded at the same time interval, the complete set of data is
presented in appendix A (Table A1)

Temperature per device VS Avg.

120
Temperature
100
Temperature (C)

80
bimetallic
60 alcohol
mercury
40
vapor pressure
20
thermocouple
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Average temperature (C)

Fig (1) : temperature per device VS avg temperature

Calculations

The mean temperature was obtained from:

∑𝑇
𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔 =
𝑖
Observations 𝑛

 All of them followed a similar heating trend.

 The deviation from the mean temperature was within acceptable limits.

10
 2.2 Time Constant of Alcohol Thermometer

in this experiment the dynamic response for an alcohol thermometer was investigated, by
recording the change in the thermometer to a step change in temperature by suddenly
immersing it in a boiling water bath then taking it off and recording the time in each stage.

Results

Temperature readings were taken every few seconds until we reached steady state. The complete
data are shown in appendix B (Table B1)

Chart Title
1.2

0.8
y/KM

0.6
T heating
0.4 T cooling

0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (Second)

Fig (2) : a thermometer dynamic response to a step change in temperature

Calculations

Via the chart Ʈ is calculated to be 5.14 sec for the heating of thermometer and around 25 sec for
the cooling of it.

Observations

 The temperature rose exponentially with time.

 At 5 Ʈ the response reached 99%.

11
 2.3 Single Thermocouple Calibration

in this experiment a thermocouple was built by using copper and iron wires, then one side was
immersed in a water beaker which is heated by an electrical heater while the other is in room
conditions, the thermocouple is attached to a voltmeter which reads the voltage difference
between the two sides.

Results

Temperature readings were recorded at different voltage differences; the complete set of data is
provided in appendix C (Table C1).

dv vs T
0.8
0.7 y = 0.0101x - 0.2137
voltage difference (mv)

0.6 R² = 0.9976

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Temperature (C)

Fig (3): voltage difference VS Temperature

Calculations

Via the slope the Seabeck coefficient is calculated to be 0.0101

mv/C.

Observations

 the potential difference increased linearly with the temperature with an r2 =

0.9976 which highly agrees with the Seabeck effect.

2.4 Effect of Third Metal

This experiment examined the effect of inserting a third metal – metal (C) – between two dissimilar
metals A and B , to verify the law of intermediate metals which states that for introducing
another conductor into the thermocouple circuit will not affect the measured
12
electromotive force (EMF) as long as the junctions between the added metal and the original
metals are at the same temperature.

Results

A thermocouple was made by the same procedure was made by same method for 4.3 but this
time metal C was connected to metal A from both sides, the data for this experiment is
provided in appendix C (Table C2).

intermediate metal
0.7

0.6
y = 0.0088x - 0.2286
0.5 R² = 0.9927

0.4
EMF (mV)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-0.1
Temperature (C)

Fig (4) : EMF VS temperature for a thermocouple with an intermediate metal C

Calculations

The Seabeck coefficient is calculated via the slope to be 0.0088 mV/C

Observations

 The seabeck coefficient has gone down a bit possibly due to contact resistance
and temperature non-uniformity at the junctions.

2.5 Voltage Difference Between Various Temperature Pairs

in this experiment the voltage difference was measured for a different difference in
temperature for a conventional thermocouple, to study the linearity of the Seabeck effect.

Results

The EMF was recorded between a boiling beaker and another one at room temperature both of
them are maintained at different temperatures in between. The data is tabulated in (Table 4.1).

13
 table 4.1 temperature range VS Emf
T1(C) T2(C) EMF (mV)
24 96 0.6
75 96 0.1
60 75 0.2
45 60 0.1
24 45 0.2

Calculations

𝑬𝒎𝒇𝟐𝟒−𝟗𝟔 = 𝑬𝒎𝒇𝟐𝟒−𝟒𝟓 + 𝑬𝒎𝒇𝟒𝟓−𝟔𝟎 + ⋯ + 𝑬𝟕𝒎𝑭 −𝟗𝟔 = 𝟎. 𝟔

𝟓

Observations

 The Emf between 24-96 equaled the Emf summation for the reading in
between, confirming the principle of additivity.

2.6 Thermocouples in Series and Parallel

In this experiment, multiple thermocouples of the same type were connected first in series and
then in parallel. The hot junctions were immersed in a beaker containing hot water, while the
cold junctions were kept at room temperature. The generated voltage was recorded for both
configurations.

Results

The voltage difference was recorded for the multiple junctions attached on parallel on series,
the data is is presented in (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: EMF for thermocouples in series and in parallel

i EMFi parallel (mV) EMFi series (mV)
1 0.7 0.2
2 0.6 0.2
3 0.5 0.2

Calculations

𝑬𝒎 𝒑𝒂 = = 𝟎. 𝟔mV
∑𝑬𝒎𝑭𝒊

𝑭 𝒓
𝒊

𝑬𝒎𝒇𝒔𝒆𝒓 = ∑𝑬𝒎𝒇𝒊 = 𝟎. 𝟔mV

14
Observation
 the additive and average behavior agreed well with the results

15
Discussion and Analysis done by omar abu hamour
The experimental results show clear differences between the various temperature
measurement devices in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and dynamic response. Each
device’s behavior can be linked to its physical operating principle.

The mercury thermometer demonstrated high accuracy and good linearity within its
operating range, but it responded slowly to temperature changes due to the thermal mass of
mercury and glass. Its relatively large time constant makes it unsuitable for rapidly
changing processes. The bimetallic thermometer responded slightly faster but had lower
accuracy, mainly because mechanical friction and scale calibration affect the pointer
movement. These characteristics make it more suitable for general monitoring rather than
precise control.

The vapor pressure thermometer showed a faster response than the mercury type, as
pressure changes propagate quickly through the system. However, its accuracy depends
strongly on calibration and the cleanliness of the filling fluid. Any gas leakage or trapped
bubbles can cause significant error.

Among all devices, the thermocouple proved to be the most responsive and versatile. Its
electrical output (EMF) responded almost instantly to temperature changes, resulting in a
very small time constant. However, accuracy depended on proper calibration and
compensation for the reference (cold) junction. Slight errors in reference temperature or
connection resistance could lead to measurable deviations.

During the dynamic response experiment, the time–temperature curves followed the
first-order system behavior predicted theoretically. The 63.2% method provided reliable
estimates of the time constant, confirming that each sensor exhibits exponential behavior
when exposed to a step change in temperature. Devices with smaller thermal mass, such as
thermocouples, reached steady-state much faster than liquid or mechanical systems.

When a third metal was introduced between thermocouple junctions, a slight change in the
EMF was observesd possibly due to the resistance in the junctions. This verified the law of
intermediate metals, confirming that the thermoelectric voltage depends only on the
temperatures of the actual measurement junctions.

16
The series and parallel connection experiments also matched theoretical expectations.
Series-connected thermocouples produced an increased total EMF approximately equal to
the sum of individual voltages, which is beneficial when stronger signals are required. In
contrast, parallel connections did not increase voltage; instead, they averaged the output
and helped stabilize noisy signals.

Sources of error in this experiment may include contact resistance, imperfect insulation,
ambient temperature fluctuations, and reading delays when observing thermometer scales.
Minimizing these errors is essential in industrial process control, where even small
inaccuracies can affect system stability and product quality.

Finally, the results demonstrate how time constant and dynamic response directly influence
a sensor’s suitability for control applications. Fast-response sensors such as thermocouples
are ideal for processes requiring rapid feedback, while slower devices like mercury
thermometers may still be suitable for steady-state monitoring. Understanding these
differences helps engineers select the appropriate sensor for each control scenario, ensuring
both accuracy and stability.

Conclusion

The experiment demonstrated clear differences in accuracy, sensitivity, and dynamic

response, with alcohol in glass providing steady readings but slow response, bimetallic
and vapor pressure providing faster but less reliable readings, and finally the
thermocouple demonstrated the most sensitive results and highly linear Emf
temperature relation. The verification of the laws of intermediate metals and
temperatures and the expected behavior of parallel and in series configurations
confirmed the thermoelectric principles. Proper calibration, cold junction compensation,
and minimizing contact resistance will increase the accuracy of the results

17
Appendices:
Done by : Abdelrahman Alayyan
Appendix A:
Table A1

bimetallic thermometer(alcohol) thermometer vapor pressure thermocouple avg T

(mercury)
23.5 23.5 29 29 28.6 26.72
38 39 38 41 33.3 37.86
48 47 52 49 50 49.2
68 68 78 68 70 70.4
76 75 84 78 80 78.6
88 85 92 89 90 88.8
98 94 102 99 100 98.6

Appendix B:
Table B1

t T1 T2 dT1 y/y inf 1 dT2 y/y inf 2

0 27 93 0 0 66 1
1 36 92 9 0.136364 65 0.984848485
2 45 89 18 0.272727 62 0.939393939
3 55 86 28 0.424242 59 0.893939394
4 62 82 35 0.530303 55 0.833333333
5 68 79 41 0.621212 52 0.787878788
6 73 76 46 0.69697 49 0.742424242
7 76 73 49 0.742424 46 0.696969697
8 79 70 52 0.787879 43 0.651515152
9 81 67 54 0.818182 40 0.606060606
10 83 65 56 0.848485 38 0.575757576
11 85 62 58 0.878788 35 0.53030303
13 87 59 60 0.909091 32 0.484848485
15 89 57 62 0.939394 30 0.454545455
17 90 55 63 0.954545 28 0.424242424
20 91 53 64 0.969697 26 0.393939394
23 91 52 64 0.969697 25 0.378787879
25 92 51 65 0.984848 24 0.363636364
30 92 50 65 0.984848 23 0.348484848
50 93 46 66 1 19 0.287878788
60 93 45 66 1 18 0.272727273
90 93 40 66 1 13 0.196969697
120 93 37 66 1 10 0.151515152
150 93 34 66 1 7 0.106060606

18
 200 93 30 66 1 3 0.045454545
240 93 29 66 1 2 0.03030303
270 93 28 66 1 1 0.015151515
300 93 27 66 1 0 0

Appendix C
Table C1

T(C) Emf(mV)
33 0.1
40 0.2
50 0.3
60 0.4
71 0.5
81 0.6
91 0.7

Table C1

T(C) Emf (mV)

33 0.1
40 0.2
50 0.3
60 0.4
71 0.5
81 0.6
91 0.7

19