Introduction/Objective:
In this report, two unknown metals are given and using the materials required for this experiment, the unknown metals must be identified. The two metals are labeled as unknown metal A and B. The procedure informed the audience that one metal is Tin and the other is Aluminium. Knowing the physical properties of a metal, it came to a hypothesis that unknown metal A was Tin and unknown metal B was Aluminium. The reason to the hypothesis is unknown metal B had a shiny luster to it and had the same color as aluminum foil used for food. Therefore, unknown metal B is aluminum making unknown metal A tin.
In order to distinguish the two unknown metals, the calculation of the density must be found for each metal. To find the
…show more content…
The reason why this specific amount was chosen is because it was an easy amount to measure and does not take a lot of space when it is poured into the graduated cylinder. Using five grams was too low of an amount to measure and twenty grams seemed too much. Also, using ten grams for each metal made the procedure quick and simple to complete. The volume was picked out to 50 mL because this amount of volume was much easier to measure than a really low volume like 10 mL. Since the graduated cylinder is numbered by a factor of 10 mL, it was easier to read a 50 mL as opposed to a 73 mL. The calculated density for the unknown metal A seemed to be aluminium since it was approximately close to the constant density of aluminium. The density that was calculated during this experiment for unknown metal A was 2.248 g/mL and the constant density for aluminium is 2.7 g/mL. However, the calculated density for unknown metal B was a little off for it to be a density of tin. The result of the average density for unknown metal B is 5.11 g/mL and the constant density for tin is 7.31 …show more content…
It was probably either not functioning right or had not been adjusted correctly. If another balance scale was used for the procedure maybe the data could have been more accurate. To continue, another mistake that could have lead to poor data was when pouring the unknown metals into the graduated cylinder to measure the volume, some metals had fell to the ground and only the seen metals was picked up. Some of the metals could have been left on floor after measuring. This loss of metal may have resulted in losing a few grams of the unknown metal. This could have been avoided if the procedures were taken more carefully and slowly whereas no mistakes could've happened. Just like in any experiment, there are errors just like there was in this experiment. The lesson is to learn and improve from the errors on the previous experiments. To improve from the errors, is to use a modern balance scale to recieve a more accurate results. Most objects disfunction as time goes by. Also, the measurements could have been more precise. A more precise measurement could lead to a more accurate calculation. When having a time frame for a procedure, knowing how to manage your time and not rushing through the steps could help the experiment be a success. In every experiment there will be errors that will carry on and remember to not repeat the mistakes
The purpose of the Unknown White Compound Lab was to identify the unknown compound by performing several experiments. Conducting a solubility test, flame test, pH paper test, ion test, pH probe test, conductivity probe test, and synthesizing the compound will accurately identified the unknown compound. In order to narrow down the possible compounds, the solubility test was used to determine that the compound was soluble in water. Next, the flame test was used to compare the unknown compound to other known compounds such as potassium chloride, sodium chloride, and calcium carbonate. The flame test concluded that the cation in the unknown compound was potassium. Following, pH paper was used to determine the compound to be neutral and slightly
Hypothesis: If the mystery powder is compared with the five known compounds, the mystery powder should match the one with the same physical and chemical properties. Also their reaction with water, universal indicator, vinegar and Iodine solution should match if an accurate experiment is conducted.
Afterwards, we conducted crystallization to evaporate the liquid in an attempt to detect the presence of a salt. Before stating which of the potential
I did accomplish the purpose of the lab. First, I determined the percentage of water in alum hydrate, and the percentage of water in an unknown hydrate. The results are reasonable because they are close to the example results. Second, I calculated the water of crystallization of an unknown hydrate. Furthermore, I developed the laboratory skills for analyzing a hydrate.
Planning Firstly here is a list of equipment I used. Boiling tubes Weighing scales Knife Paper towels 100% solution 0% solution (distilled water) measuring beakers potato chips Cork borer. We planned to start our experiment by doing some preliminary work. We planned to set up our experiment in the following way.
In this experiment, there were several objectives. First, this lab was designed to determine the difference, if any, between the densities of Coke and Diet Coke. It was designed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of several lab equipment measurements. This lab was also designed to be an introduction to the LabQuest Data and the Logger Pro data analysis database. Random, systematic, and gross errors are errors made during experiments that can have significant effects to the results. Random errors do not really have a specific cause, but still causes a few of the measurements to either be a little high or a little low. Systematic errors occur when there are limitations or mistakes on lab equipment or lab procedures. These kinds of errors cause measurements to be either be always high or always low. The last kind of error is gross errors. Gross errors occur when machines or equipment fail completely. However, gross errors usually occur due to a personal mistake. For this experiment, the number of significant figures is very important and depends on the equipment being used. When using the volumetric pipette and burette, the measurements are rounded to the hundredth place while in a graduated cylinder, it is rounded to the tenth place.
The goal of the first exercise in this experiment was to build a morphological cladogram for five-mammalian species. The five-mammalian species were the Domestic dog, Virginia opossum, Domestic horse, Domestic cat and White-tailed deer. The cladogram was constructed based on the species morphological features of their skulls as well as other characteristics. The outgroup was the lizard and the five-mammalian species were the ingroups. At the beginning of the experiment, each student needed to examine all the skulls for the five-mammalian species and collect data to construct a character matrix.
Solid A was identified to be sodium chloride, solid B was identified to be sucrose, and Solid C was identified to be corn starch. Within the Information Chart – Mystery White Solid Lab there are results that distinguishes itself from the other 4 experimental results within each test. Such as: the high conductivity and high melting point of sodium chloride, and the iodine reaction of corn starch. Solid A is an ionic compound due to its high melting point and high electrical conductivity (7), within the Information Chart – Mystery White Solid Lab there is only one ionic compound which is sodium chloride, with the test results of Solid A, it can be concluded that is a sodium chloride. Solid B was identified as sucrose due to its low electrical
Possible errors include leaving in the test strips for too long, draining too much water into the aquatic chamber (overfilling/watering), and inverting the tubes for a shorter amount of time than required. Although there are many possible human errors that could be committed in this lab, it is important to note that the tools used for water testing could be expired and could therefore not work as well at detecting the proper levels for dissolved oxygen, pH, and nitrate.
The experimental setup in this experiment included the preparation of two equal sized sheets of aluminum which will act as parallel plate ca...
One possible source of experimental error could be not having a solid measurement of magnesium hydroxide nor citric acid. This is because we were told to measure out between 5.6g-5.8g for magnesium hydroxide and 14g-21g for citric acid. If accuracy measures how closely a measured value is to the accepted value and or true value, then accuracy may not have been an aspect that was achieved in this lab. Therefore, not having a solid precise measurement and accurate measurement was another source of experimental error.
3.) Divide your 30g of white substance into the 4 test tubes evenly. You should put 7.5g into each test tube along with the water.
By doing this experiment, I can know the physical and chemical properties of these samples. After I get my results about the physical and chemical properties of these samples, I can compare my results with the information given by the past student and identify the 5 unknown samples, finding out which sample is which substance. Hypothesis = ==
There is also the potential of human error within this experiment for example finding the meniscus is important to get an accurate amount using the graduated pipettes and burettes. There is a possibility that at one point in the experiment a chemical was measured inaccurately affecting the results. To resolve this, the experiment should have been repeated three times.
Possible sources of error in this experiment include the inaccuracy of measurements, as correct measurements are vital for the experiment.