what is the best method and most accurate method for measuring stone (Fill)?
967829
For uneven shape , use graduated cylinder.\nFor regular shape, use vernier caliper or micrometer for more accuracy.\n\n(A graduated cylinder (Grad or graduate for short), also referred to as a measuring cylinder, is a type of laboratory glassware comprised of a tall cylinder with a range of calibrated markings that is used for visually measuring the volumes of liquids in a quantitative manner. A graduated cylinder can be made of translucent plastic or borosilicate glass such as Pyrex. Often, the largest graduated cylinders are made of polyethylene or other rigid plastic, making them lighter and less fragile than glass, but more difficult to sterilize.)\nFor more pl. visit:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_cylinder
983191
Depends what medium is eroding it.\nI think you're looking for the hardness scale.
744192
There are 6.35029318 kilograms in a stone
119142
There are several standards: Brinell uses a ball forced into the metal with a known force, the diameter is then measured and indexed. Rockwell is similar, with the depth being measured. Shores uses a diamond tip hammer is dropped onto the material and the bounce of the hammer measured. Vickers is similar to Brinell but a diamond shape is used instead of a ball. The Monotron Indicator  forces a point into the metal to a determined depth and the force required is measured. Keeps test uses a drill bit to penetrate the metal at a predetermined force and number of revolutions, the depth measured. Each has their own uses in various industries. There are numerous hardness conversion tables to compare the various methods.
735291
The best way to measure its volume is to get a measuring cylinder with water in, pop the ring in the water (making sure that is is completely covered) and then measuring the change in the water level.\n\nThat will give you the volume of the ring.
488134
It measures mineral hardness.
937460
There is a whole battery of scientific tests used in mineral identification today however there are a number of tests that have been in use for a very long time which still work well.\n1) Observation - what does it look like, colour, the streak it leaves on an unglazed tile. the weight in your hand etc.\n2) Hardness. Its resistance to being scratched by a range of other minerals (Moe's scale)\n3) Density - how much it weighs compared to the same volume of water.\n4) The shape and form of its crystals.\n5) Chemical analysis.\nIf you put these together with a lot of experience there are not many minerals you cannot identify.
703711
Well, I can only partly answer your questions.\nPorosity is a measure of whether a rock has empty spaces in it. That's important because the rock could hold water or oil, for example.\nPermeability is a measure of whether fluids can move around in a rock--are the pore spaces connected to each other or not? That's important because water or oil can't really move through rocks that are not permeable. \n\nSandstone, which is a rock made of small particles, can be very porous and very permeable--depending on how well the grains have been cemented together, and also whether it has fractures, etc. \nNow..to the tricky part of your question: about rose quartz. Quartz is a mineral. A single crystal of quartz will have essentially zero porosity or permeability(unless its full of cracks). You could make a nice water bowl out of rose quartz because it wouldn't leak or soak up the water. But sandstone could be made entirely of rose quartz grains cemented together....So....the rose quartz sandstone could be porous and could be permeable...or not, depending on how well it was cemented.\nCalcite...is a mineral. same story. A pure crystal would have essentially no porosity or permeability. But, calcite grains could make up a sandstone (see above). Also, limestone is made of calcite (or aragonite), and it can be both highly porous and permeable--that's why there are so many caves in limestone.\n\nYou don't ask a question about grain sorting, so I don't know how to respond. I'm guessing you want to know how it relates to porosity and permeabilty. Imagine dumping a bunch of marbles of the same size into a barrel. They would be perfectly sorted (same size and shape), and you could calculate how much water you could pore into the barrel to fill up the spaces between the marbles. Now imagine filling up the same barrel with items of all different shapes and sizes (poorly sorted). You could imagine that it could hole more water than the marble-filled barrel, UNLESS, PERHAPSyou happened to pore in lots of sand or other fine particles in with your big items. \nSandstone can be well-sorted (think of nearly pure quartz sand in sand dunes), or poorly sorted (think of sand in a river bottom).\nBecause rose quartz and calcite are minerals,  they could be components of well sorted or poorly sorted sands. BUT, calcite is softer than quartz, so...it would be much less common in well-sorted sands--which tend to be, but not always, quartz- rich. Beach sand, for instance, can be moderately well-sorted and composed mainly of quartz sand but with  tiny calcite shell fragments.
1033464
Whenever you make \na measurement, you have some error. How much the error is depends on \nthe equipment you are using to make the measurement and how you use \nthe equipment. If you are measuring the water in the beaker by looking \nat the volume markings, the accuracy of your measurement of the volume \nof water depends first on how you look at the water. That is, are you \nmeasuring at the top or the bottom of the meniscus? (The meniscus is \nthe curved shape of the water's surface caused by its surface tension \nand interaction with it's container. If you aren't sure what this \nmeans, go get yourself an ordinary glass of water and look at how the \nwater curves up where its surface touches the glass.) The second is \nhow accurately measuring lines are painted on the beaker. The third is \nhow thick the measuring lines are: i.e., is it the top, middle, or \nbottom of the measuring line that is the correct measurement?\n\nFor measurements you make in numerous steps that you add together, \neach additional step introduces more error. Let's look at the water in \nthe beaker again. If you have a 500ml (milliliter) beaker, but need 10 \nliters of water in a bucket, you will have to fill the beaker 20 times \nand empty into a bucket. If you consistently put in only 499ml, you \nwould end up 20ml short of water in your bucket. \n\nNow, let's look at measuring distances. If you measure your room with \na professional measuring tape, you will be more accurate than if you \ntry to measure it by laying meter sticks end-to-end. However, if you \nare measuring a real room, you also have to decide where you are going \nto measure it. Most people might measure it on the floor along one \nwall. But is the opposite wall exactly the same length? If you measure \nit at the ceiling, is that exactly that same length? Is the wall \ncurved? (Put your head against a wall and look down a hallway - you \nwill probably see waves and curves in the wall.)\n\nIn short, the term "greatest possible error" has no meaning unless the \nmeasurement method is specified, the error of the measurement method \nwhen done by properly trained people is known, and the people who are \ndoing the measurement have been trained properly.\n\nMy discussion has been based on the assumption that the room is \nreally seven meters long. But what if you are going to build a room \ndesigned to be seven meters long, then measure it. The room is built \nbase on a lot of measurements, so it may or may not be seven meters \nlong before you measure it. You now have more sources of error.\n\nMy discussion is also based on the the assumption that you were \ntalking about measurement error. On thing you have to know \nabout dimensions (e.g., length, diameter, radius, angle, etc.) when \nyou design something is that the dimension always has a tolerance \nstated or implied. That is, if you get a blueprint that says a \ndimension on a machine part is 37.2 millimeters (mm), some place on \nthat blueprint it will say something like "Tolerance for xx.x is \n+/- 0.03." (The "+/-" is read as "plus or minus.") That means that for \na dimension like 37.2 millimeters, you can actually build it so that \nit is anywhere between 36.9 and 37.5 millimeters. Alternately, it will \nbe stated with the dimension as 37.2 +/- 0.03. This means, once again, \nit can have the dimension between 36.9 and 37.5 millimeters.\n\nIf the question really has to do with tolerance, it may depend on how \nyour seven meters is written (i.e, 7m, 7.0m, 7.00m, or even as 700cm). \nIn these cases, you you might reasonably assume that the tolerance is \none-half the last digit. That is, for 7.0 meters, it is +/- 0.05m, for \n7.00 meters, it is +/- 0.005m, for 700cm it is +/- 0.5cm. This \nreasoning implies that 7 meters would have a tolerance of +/- 0.5m, \nbut you have to ask yourself if a tolerance of half a meter in seven \nmeters (about 7 centimeters in a meter) is
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!
325473
Measure the weight of 1 cup of sand and figure it from there.\n\n :-)
739157
Direct measurement will be correct.\nPeople can be mistaken, or lie.\n\n;-D Where did you not learn to spell? Wow.
881707
Determining the mass is trivial: just weigh the block.  For the density, you will need to know the volume, which will require some measuring with a ruler.  Then divide the mass by the volume for your answer.
457346
dghose is right.  \n\nYou may have to place the rocks on either side of the balance to determine the weight, but you can do it.\n\nFor example, to weigh one pound of wheat, put the one pound rock on the other side of the balance.  To measure two pounds, put the three pound weight on one side, the one pound on the other, and add wheat to the one pound side until it balances.  Three pounds, easy enough.  Four pounds,  put the one and three pound rocks on one side.  Etc., Etc., Etc.
536041
In Imperial (British) weights and measures a stone is 14 pounds which is composed of 16 ounces. \n\nIt equates to approximately 6.3 Kgs
831122
Use the smallest mechanical pipette for the purpose, i.e., if you need to pipette 150 microliters, then use a 200 microliter pipette with tips to match. (I think these are correct scales; it has been awhile since I used the mechanical pipettes). I find a greater accuracy than trying to use a 1 ml pipette to aliquot 50 microliters of solution. I used a multiple mechanical pipette for ELISA plates; however, they often have one or more channel that does not fill properly on the first try. Therefore, I suggest, taking up, releasing and retaking the solution in the pipette until you visually verify the liquid levels in all tips are approximately equal. \n\nOn the whole, I have found that the retaking up of solution (take up aliquot, release, then refill the tip 1-3 times) makes for the most accurate takeup of the proper measured amount on the mechanical pipette.
60733
simply use a hydrometer.