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.
Regarding the densities of Coke and Diet Coke, I believed that the density of coke would be greater than the density of Diet Coke. Because the content of Coke contains more sugar than Diet Coke, it would contain more mass and since density is mass dependent, Coke would be denser than Diet Coke. From the results of the experiment, there was a slight difference between the densities of Coke and Diet Coke. The measurements obtained from the pipette and the graduated cylinder demonstrated that Coke is denser than Diet Coke while Diet Coke was shown to be denser than Coke using the burette. With the pipette, the average density of Coke is 1.02 and the average density of Diet Coke is 0.99. With the graduated cylinder, the average density is 0.976968 and the average density of Diet Coke is 0.95. With the burette, the average density of Coke is 0.99 and the average density of Diet Coke is 1.0. Among the three instruments, the most precise was the graduated cylinder and the most accurate was the volumetric pipette. Since density is defined as mass/volume, changing the volume of Coke or Diet Coke would have changed.
the replicate shows the same trend as the first experiment. I used a measuring cylinder and a beaker to measure out the amounts of water; however these did not seem to affect the quality of my results. To increase the accuracy of my results I could have perhaps used a burette. Even though I did the best I could to keep the experiment accurate, I did. some places there were mistakes that unintentionally occurred.
...e been beneficial to the experiment. An error may have occurred due to the fact that measurements were taken by different individuals, so the calculations could have been inconsistent.
Discussion: The percent of errors is 59.62%. Several errors could have happened during the experiment. Weak techniques may occur.
In the analysis, the hypothesis was that pennies made before 1982 were made out of a different substance than the pennies made after 1982. The hypothesis turned out to be true. The pre 1982 pennies were made out of copper which has a density of 8.6 g/mL and the post 1982 pennies are made out of zinc which has a density of 7.14 g/mL. So it can concur that mass for pennies made before 1982 are higher than pennies made after 1982. Some errors were when calculating. The densities for the pennies and making the graphs. When making the graphs, it can be suspected that each graph is wrong could be wrong due to not adding enough data points or misplaced points. For the data tables , it can also be suspected that the density for each data table could
The data of all three unknown solutions resulted in measurements that were all off by at least 7% of the theoretical percentages. For example, the 1st unknown solution was supposed to consist of about 30% Ethanol and around 70% N-Propanol, though the actual data we received put Ethanol at 20% and N-Propanol at around 80%. This 10% margin of error could have been caused by a multitude of mistakes including the liquid evaporating before it was injected, cross-contamination, bubbles within the needle, and students not clicking the button simultaneously as they injected the alcohol. Our teacher warned us about how quickly the alcohols evaporated from the needle and told us to keep our hands at the back of the syringe to prevent as much evaporation
A random error is caused by any factor which randomly affects the amount of scatter in the data. An increase in sample size allows averages to be calculated which reduces the effects of these random errors. By removing outliers in the data, the effect of random errors can be further minimised. A large amount of scatter in results indicated low precision and a large number of random errors. Some possible random errors in this experiment may have arisen when measuring the 12mL of milk solution for each test tube; some may have had slightly more and others slightly less than 12mL. Another random error could have occurred when adding 4 drops of methylene blue, some drops may have contained more liquid than others, meaning some test tubes may have contained less methylene blue indicator than
Random errors reflect a low precision through high scatter. Increasing the sample size of the number of tablets used will produce more data that can be graphed, and from which a more reliable and representative line of best fit could be produced, ultimately minimising random errors. Additionally, increasing the number of trials for each number of reacting Alka Seltzer tablets would minimise random errors by helping to produce a more precise average change in mass. Modifying the method can also help minimise the effect of random errors, by obtaining more reliable results. For example, instead of cutting the Alka Seltzer tablets in half, whole Alka Seltzer tablets could have been used, and the amount of reacting HCl could have been increased to account for the increase in the number of tablets used for each ample. In doing this, the mass of the reacting Alka Seltzer tablets will be more consistent for each trial, and the state of subdivision of the tablets could be truly kept
...ore reliable if it were possible to do more trials to make sure that the data that was found was correct. This experiment could’ve been more reliable if some mistakes weren’t made like, the inaccuracy of weighing and measuring the potatoes. This could have affected the results by throwing off all the data and giving numbers that were nowhere near accurate. Another mistake that could’ve been made was the amount of solution put into each test tube. Some of the test tubes may have had to little or not enough of its solution. Some ways to fix both of these problems would be to weigh and measure each potato core more than once which is not what was done. A way to fix the inaccuracy of the amount of salt water put into each test tube would be to measure the solutions into a different container to make sure it’s an accurate measurement, then pouring it into the test tube.
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.
Some errors that have affected the validity of our method are the sugar could have pilt while mixing the mixture with the spatula, the thermometer could have been read wrong, the weight of the sugar could have no been fully dissolved before adding more which could make the next amount of sugar more than usual and the weight might have been rounded instead of getting it on exactly 50.0 grams.
The density was measured by using an electronic densitometer. This apparatus operate by using the Archimedes Principle, which states the apparent loss in weight of a body immersed in fluid, is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced (Orr et a.l, 2003).
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.
Part A of the experiment, we were measuring the density of water. In this part, we measured by difference by measuring the mass of the empty graduated cylinder which was 46.35 grams and then added 25.0 milliliters of water to it. When subtracting by difference, our mass of the water was 25.85 grams. This was close to the measurements of the water added to the graduated cylinder. The density of the water was 1.0 grams/milliliters.
regional bloc. These brands include Azam energy drink and Lavita soft drink from Uganda which are taking up the market share traditionally controlled by Coca cola company products. Further, Coca cola bottling companies in Uganda and Tanzania enjoy lower taxes in their countries making their products more affordable unlike their counterparts in Kenya, and this has led to transshipments from those countries leading to intra bottler’s competition. Another factor contributing to the proliferation of brands within the local market is the influx of cheap imports from countries in the Asian continent. This has introduced even more brands in an already overcrowded market. Therefore, this means that the soft drink industry is one of the sectors of the