This is my lab report and I am struggling in finding accepted value for the result table. Please help me on that part. Thank you so much!

Lab #1: Measuring Density Objective: Calculate the density of a metal cylinder using different low/high precision instruments by measuring the mass, length, and diameter. Procedure: 1. Within your group, choose a metal sample. 2. Grab a meter stick, vernier caliper, and a triple beam balance 3. Each group member must measure a) the mass of the sample using the triple beam balance, b) the length and diameter using the ruler, c) the length and diameter using the vernier caliper. 4. Measure the associated uncertainty for the meter stick, the scale, and the vernier caliper during step 3. 5. Record each measurement and uncertainty in the data table. 6. Calculate the average mass, average uncertainty (om = 1/N V[(om, ) + (8m2)2 + ... + (8m )'] ), average length, average diameter, for each instrument using the recorded measurements. 7. Calculate the density using the mass/length/diameter (p = 4 m/(n d' 1)), then calculate the uncertainty in the density (op/p = [(8m/m) + (2 ad/d)2 + (81/1)?]) for both the caliper and ruler measurements.Data: Solid #2: Copper Table 1: Mass (beam balance) Uncertainty {g 3 45.0 4 6. Uncertainty (cm) Average Results: Vernier Caliper Ruler Accepted Value p 8.58 g/cm 9.49 g/cm3 8.96 g/cm op 0.07 g/cm' 0.5 g/cm op/p 0.8% 5% % Difference from -4.24% 5.92% accepted value Calculations: Density p = 4 m/(xd21) Phigh- 4 m/(nd'1) = (4(45.2g)/(nt(1.255cm) (4.259cm) = 180.8g/21.07cm' = 8.58g/cm' Plow- 4 m/(nd'1) = (4(45.2g)/(nt(1.20cm) (4.21cm) = 180.8g/19.0cm =9.49g/cm' Average Uncertainty om = 1/N V[(8m,) + (8m2) + ... + (8mN)'] om = (1/4) (0. 05) + (0. 05)+ (0.05) + (0. 05) = 0.03g 6dhigh = Slnigh = (1/4) (0. 01) + (0. 01) + (0.01) + (0. 01) = 0.005cm 8dow = Slow = (1/4) (0. 05) + (0. 05) + (0. 05) + (0. 05) = 0.03cm Uncertainty of Density op = PV(8m/m) + (28d/d) + (81/1)2 ophigh = 8. 58V (0. 03/45. 2) + (2 * 0. 005/1. 255) + (0. 005/4. 259)" = 0.07 g/cm' 8Plow = 9. 497 (0. 03/45. 2) + (2 * 0. 03/1. 20) + (0. 03/4.21) = 0.5 g/em'Percent Difference % Difference = [(actual - theoretical) / theoretical] x 100 % Di_f__'___r_er_i_cem,L1 = (8.58g/cm3 - 8.96gtcm3) ..-' 8.9t'igtcm3 = 4.24% % Differencem : (9.49gfcm3 - 8.96g/cm3) 8.96gfcm3 : 5.92% Sources of Error: One source oferror comes from the eyesight of the person reading the measurements, as the devices involved can require very precise observation to attain their lowest stated uncertainty. The difficulty of measuring oddly-shaped things using a ruler or caliper can be another signicant source of uncertainty. For instance, it is challenging to use a ruler to determine the diameter of a spherical object. The inappropriate use ofa ruler and caliper, such as not measuring in the proper manner, erroneous reading, improper calibration, and defective equipment, are additional sources ofuncertainty. Both human error and the uncertainty ofa balance's reliability after several uses are causes of unceitainty when utilizing a triple beam balance. Inaccurate calibration, friction, and corrosion or wear are other sources of error. Conclusion: Using different instruments to measure quantitative values can result in different concluding calculations. In this experiment, the achieved experimental density using the vemier caliper was 8.58 g/cm3 with an uncertainty of0.07 gfcm3. In comparison, the achieved experimental density using a ruler was 9.49g/cmJ with an uncertainty of0_5 g/cm3. After analyzing our calculations, the vernier caliper achieved a density value closer to the accepted density value ofcopper which is 8.96gfcm". Curiously, however, the vernier caliper's measurement ended up only slightly more accurate than that achieved by the ruler, despite its stated uncertainty being far lower. Also, the difference between the vernier caliper's measured density and the true density ofcopper is several times larger than the expected uncertainty that can be calculated. This suggests that either the vernier caliper is not as accurate as its supposed unceitainty would imply, or some other sort of error inhibited the accurate measurement ofthe density in a way unaccounted for in the uncertainty calculations