The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 3 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects
Open accessAbstract
A little-known method of measuring the volume of small objects based on Archimedes' principle is described, which involves suspending an object in a water-filled container placed on electronic scales. The suspension technique is a variation on the hydrostatic weighing technique used for measuring volume. The suspension method was compared with two other traditional water displacement methods of measuring volume, i.e. placing an object in a measuring cylinder and recording the rise in the water level and immersing the object in a water-filled container with an overflow spout to record the volume of overflow. The accuracy and precision of the three methods was compared using ten accurately machined PVC cylinders ranging in volume from 1.5 to 15.7 ml. The mean difference between the actual and measured volumes was 3.3 ± 7.3%, -1.6 ± 7.2% and 0.03 ± 0.45%, for the level, overflow and suspension methods respectively. Each measurement was repeated twice to obtain the reproducibility of the three displacement techniques. The reproducibility was -1.7 ± 8.5%, 0.09 ± 3% and -0.04 ± 0.43% for the level, overflow and suspension techniques respectively. The results show that the suspension technique is more accurate and precise than the traditional water displacement methods and is more accurate than measuring volume using Vernier calliper measurements.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
16 Own result · 9 Own interpretation · 2 No full text of the sources · 2 Own method · 1 Sources not found · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reproducibility was -1.7 ± 8.5%, 0.09 ± 3% and -0.04 ± 0.43% for the level, overflow and suspension techniques respectively.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean difference between the actual and measured volumes was 3.3 ± 7.3%, -1.6 ± 7.2% and 0.03 ± 0.45%, for the level, overflow and suspension methods respectively.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean difference between the actual and measured volumes was 3.3 ± 7.3%, -1.6 ± 7.2% and 0.03 ± 0.45%, for the level, overflow and suspension methods respectively.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reproducibility was -1.7 ± 8.5%, 0.09 ± 3% and -0.04 ± 0.43% for the level, overflow and suspension techniques respectively.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean difference between the actual and measured volumes was 3.3 ± 7.3%, -1.6 ± 7.2% and 0.03 ± 0.45%, for the level, overflow and suspension methods respectively.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 shows that the absolute error in measuring the cylinder volumes using the suspension method is always smaller than the absolute error in measuring the cylinder volumes by the other methods.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference between the suspension method and the other two is most noticeable for the 1.5 cm 3 cylinder.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Discussion
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average the difference between the actual and suspension volume expressed as a fraction of the error in the actual volume was 0.33 ± 0.25.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the overflow method, the average drop volume was found to be 0.092 ± 0.005 ml.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“After a fairly extensive search of physics textbooks and the scientific literature over a number of years, no direct references to the technique have been discovered 1 .”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Bland J M, 1986, Lancet source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the Bland-Altman technique shows that there is a clear difference in the accuracy and precision of the overflow and level techniques and yet the difference in the correlation coefficients is only 0.0001!”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A survey of the specifications of pycnometers shows that in the volume range 0-50 ml they have a typical accuracy of 0.03% and reproducibility of 0.015%.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To a first approximation, the volume of the immersed object is simply the increase in weight divided by the density of the fluid, i.e.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Introduction
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Archimedes' principle states that an object fully or partially immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid that the object displaces (Halliday et al 1997).”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halliday et al 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The theoretical precision of the suspension technique is given by the precision of the scales, which is ±0.1 mg; the error in measuring the volume will be ±0.1 mm 3 .”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Additional information
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Each volume measurement was performed twice to determine reproducibility by the method of Bland and Altman (1986).”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Materials and methods
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bland and Altman (1986) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The volumes calculated from the Vernier dimensions were taken as the 'gold standard'.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Materials and methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also the value of unity (as calculated by Microsoft Excel) for the correlation coefficient for the suspension method could lead one to assume that there is perfect agreement, which is not true.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The precision of this method of measuring volume was assessed by measuring the average volume of each drop.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Materials and methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show that the suspension technique is more accurate and precise than the traditional water displacement methods and is more accurate than measuring volume using Vernier calliper measurements.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“The results clearly show that the suspension method is superior to the overflow and level methods.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Abstract
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The technique described in this article is a slightly simpler version of the classic hydrostatic weighing method.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The suspension technique is much faster than the level and overflow methods.
“The suspension technique is also much faster than the other two methods.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The suspension method is little-known, particularly in education circles.
“Hydrostatic weighing is familiar to those in metrology laboratories but from the author's experience does not appear to be well known in education circles (i.e. in schools and universities).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Abstract
“0.03 ± 0.45%, for the level, overflow and suspension methods respectively.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Discussion
“| Suspension 0.001 ± 0.015 | 0.01 ± 0.27 1.0 | |”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Abstract
“The mean difference between the actual and measured volumes was 3.3 ± 7.3%, -1.6 ± 7.2% and 0.03 ± 0.45%, for the level, overflow and suspension methods respectively.”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Discussion
“| Level | -0.14 ± 0.16 | 3.3 ± 7.1 | 0.9989 | | Overflow -0.04 ± 0.21 | -1.6 ± 7.4 | 0.999 | |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Additional information
“a reproducibility of 0.04% for pycnometry compared with 0.015% for suspension”
§ Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects > Additional information
“A survey of the specifications of pycnometers shows that in the volume range 0-50 ml they have a typical accuracy of 0.03% and reproducibility of 0.015%.”
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Ives, K. J. (1978) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9938-1_8 · Cited by 463
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Halliday D, 1997, Fundamentals of Physics
- Heath T L, 2002, The Works of Archimedes
- Kirkup L, 1994, Experimental Methods
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, M., Zhao, N., Yu, Q., Liu, Z., Qu, R. T., Zhang, J., Li, S., Ren, D., Berto, F., Zhang, Z. F., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30873-9 · Cited by 270
Nardini, A., Battistuzzo, M., & Savi, T. (2013) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.12288 · Cited by 225
Wolff, S. J., Lin, S., Faierson, E. J., Liu, W. K., Wagner, G. J., & Cao, J. (2017) · Acta Materialia · doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.04.027 · Cited by 195
Savi, T., Bertuzzi, S., Branca, S., Tretiach, M., & Nardini, A. (2014) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13112 · Cited by 167
Monitoring deep-tissue oxygenation with a millimeter-scale ultrasonic implant
Sonmezoglu, S., Fineman, J. R., Maltepe, E., & Maharbiz, M. M. (2021) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-021-00866-y · Cited by 139
Metadata
- Authors
- Hughes, S. W.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Hughes, Stephen W
- ORCID
- Hughes, Stephen W
- Venue
- Physics Education
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2005-09-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 468-474
- ISSN
- 0031-9120 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6552
- OpenAlex
- W2024090057
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 1.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Physics Education (publishedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Experimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Education › Various Chemistry Research Topics
- Keywords
- Archimedes' principle, hydrostatic weighing, volume measurement, small objects, suspension method, water displacement, electronic scale, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, reproducibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0031-9120/40/5/008
- The paper
- Hughes, S. W. (2005). Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects. Physics Education. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/40/5/008
