METHOD: The following procedure was taken from the 2017 Millsaps College lab manual.1 The experiment was split into two parts, part A and part B. Part A was to find the heat capacity while part B determined the specific heat of an unknown metal. This was the final goal of the lab. To start, a temperature probe had to be connected to a LabQuest2 data collection device. 100.0 mL of deionized had to be added into a Styrofoam cup. The temperature probe was kept in the calorimeter until the temperature had been stabilized and was calibrated. A beaker was placed on a hot plate with dial turned between three and four. Another 100.00 ml of deionized water was added while the beaker is heating up. Using the temperature probe, the beaker was measured …show more content…
The temperature probe was then quickly cooled to room temperature. When this was achieved, the hot water was immediately transferred into the calorimeter. This method of keeping the temperature probe cooled before measuring a new temperature was repeated throughout the entire experiment. Temperature data was collected for 180 s while swirling the temperature inside the calorimeter. The calorimeter still contained the warm water. After the water temperature began to stabilize, the highest constant temperature was recorded. This data was used to calculate the calorimeter constant. This enter procedure was repeated to calculate another calorimeter constant in order to find the average of both answers. After that value was calculated, a 600 mL beaker was filled with 300 mL of water and heated till it started boiling. An unknown metal located on the instructor's bench was obtained and the mass was calculated. For two minutes, the metal was suspended in the boiling water. During the two minutes, a Styrofoam cup was filled with 100 mL of room temperature water. The initial temperature of the metal was equal to the temperature of the boiling water. In order to probably calculate the temperature of the metal, the steps were repeated and another temperature was …show more content…
The specific heat of three elements were tested zinc, copper, and lead. The experiments ran from Monday to Thursday and allowed a precise amount of heat to be determined. The experiment had multiple errors which were caused by random errors not systematically errors. In order to combat this, certain items were kept same. This was called a control. This experiment had water and the amount as a control as well as the size of the metal were also kept same. the This was why the experiment was repeated multiple times on different days. A standard deviation was found for each element when calorimeter constant and specific heat were calculated. Tuesday was the day with the least amount of deviation which meant it was the day with the most precise when calorimeter constants were compared (Table 1). The weekly average was not precise due to the values on Tuesday and Thursday being so much higher proportionally compared to Monday and Wednesday (Graph 1 ). Specific heat was also a value which varied based on the accuracy of the execution of the experiment. Different days lead to different amounts of precision and this was due to the random errors. Random errors were mistakes caused by the experimenter. Tuesday had the lowest standard deviation for all the metals (Table 1). Overall, copper had the best precision and this again was known by examining the standard deviation. A t-test
A hot plate was placed under the ring stand. 50 mL of 3.0 M NaOH in a 250 mL beaker and a stir bar was placed in the beaker. The beaker with NaOH was placed on the hot plate and 3.75 grams of NaAlO2*5H2O was placed in the beaker. The temperature probe was placed in the beaker with the solution, not touching the bottom of the beaker. The solution was heated and stirred till the solution dissolved.
2) The glass beaker was placed in the freezer. 3) The temperature of the heavy whipping cream was checked with the thermometer every few minutes until its temperature reached 3˚C. 4) The heavy whipping cream, which was then at 3˚C, was transferred from the beaker to the container.
One of the issues was pouring the water in the different test tubes at the same time, as only one member of the group poured in the water into the test tube at separate times. This is an issue as it makes the initial temperature for each of the test tubes lower than the recorded initial temperature (43 degrees Celsius) because the room temperature can cool down the water when the timer isn’t activated. It also affects the data as the temperature change for the first 3 minutes can’t be observed, so I can not know if the temperature for each of the test tubes decreased fast or slow from 0 to 3 minutes. This effect has great significance to making the data inaccurate, because the calculated temperature drop most likely is incorrect, meaning the evaluation of the hypothesis - that is based on the temperature drop - could be also wrong. Additionally, I can not observe an accurate reliable pattern between the different tests, because of the altered data.
The probe was let to soak in the liquid for thirty seconds. The date analysis was started after thirty seconds and the probe was left in the liquid for five seconds to establish a baseline. After the baseline was established, the probe was pulled out and taped to the table with the end of the probe facing out of the table. The data collection should continue until the graph reaches a absolute minimum. Using the statistics option in the LabQuest probe, a change in temperature will be calculated for each trial.
While transferring the mystery metal there were a lot of droplets of water that would be extra mass of water placed in the calorimeter that wasn't accounted for. This would effects our results when carrying out calculations to determine specific heat capacity. To overcome this error, we would have to quickly dry the metal but ensuring that the temperature cooling is small that has negligible effects. Biggest source of error in calorimetry experiments is that heat dissipates to the surrounding area, this could be while transferring the hot metal or during the actual transfer of heat energy from the metal to the
The beaker was placed on the heating element on high heat and was left undisturbed until it began to boil. When the solution reached a rolling boil, the temperature of the water was tested and recorded utilising the same method as the first trial. Two more trials of the 0.5 M mixture were conducted. The experiment was repeated three times more with 11.688 grams of salt to create a 1 M mixture. The experiment was repeated three times more with 17.532 grams of salt to create a 1.5 M mixture.
Leaves change colors because of chlorophyll. 2. Animals are affected due to seasonal weather changes. Some animals migrate to warmer places while others hibernate until it is warmer. 3.
This temperature made the soup that was used to boil. The soup used is a vegetable soup that was not that watery. Vegetable soup was chosen because it is easy to make and it was available during the experiment being performed. The reason why the temperature of the
The average K for the lab was found to be 4.71E4 and the standard deviation was 8.302E3. The range then that all experimental values of K must fall under is 3.05E4 to 6.37E4. All experimental values of K for this trial fell within the range. Therefore, K can be determined a true constant.
These two lines of all three trials were used to find the freezing temperature that led to ultimately calculating the molar mass of the
In this experiment, the amount of water lost in the 0.99 gram sample of hydrated salt was 0.35 grams, meaning that 35.4% of the salt’s mass was water. The unknown salt’s percent water is closest to that of Copper (II) Sulfate Pentahydrate, or CuSO4 ⋅ 5H2O. The percent error from the accepted percent water in CuSO4 ⋅ 5H2O is 1.67%, since the calculated value came out to be 0.6 less than the accepted value of 36.0%.This lab may have had some issues or sources of error, including the possibility of insufficient heating, meaning that some water may not have evaporated, that the scale was uncalibrated, or that the evaporating dish was still hot while being measured. This would have resulted in convection currents pushing up on the plate and making it seem lighter by lifting it up
The most interesting part about this experiment was that even though the boiled water froze faster, it also melted faster, not retaining the cold for as long as the
PROCESSING DATA PART I The effect of a Plastic Cover Beaker 1 Temperature (°C) Beaker 2 Temperature (°C)
The purpose of the experiment was to figure out which means of measurement was more accurate in reaching the proposed weight, the graduated cylinder or the pipette. Two new terms that were mentioned and crucial to the project were standard deviation and reproducibility. Standard deviation was a new term for me in the case that I had never used it in science before only in math classes, I did not understand why the difference between the data collected and the mean was important but now I see it is to see how different the tests were from one another and if the measurement is accurate in the sense that it is constant. The reason that reproducibility was different was because I was stuck on the fact that the experiment had to be repeated by us, and not asking the question , if others did the same thing as us would they be able to get similar data, it was an important reminder, ( Kinnes and Eddington).
Statement of Problem: Using a thermometer with graduations above 40ºC covered, construct an experiment to find the temperature of the water found in a coffee pot which simulates a water heater that can be heated to 55ºC. Hypothesis: If the temperature of 50mL of tap water is found and then mixed with 25mL of hot water, then the temperature of the hot water can be determined because by finding the final(mixture of hot/tap water) and initial(tap water) temperatures, the experimenter can discover the original temperature the hot water was before it was mixed with the tap water. Experiment: Procedure: Fill a graduated cylinder with 60mL of tap water Pour the measured 60mL of tap water into one styrofoam cup and let it sit for two minutes