Chem 1212l Borax Experiment

Mathematically and scientifically, using Albert Einstein’s most famous equation, E = mc2, states anything which has a mass has the equal amount of kinetic energy proving they can be changed into each other and therefore if heat is added to corn syrup the mass would change since the heat is the energy. At the end of the experiment once the procedure was followed and complete, the results which were found was there were no experimental errors which had occurred, however, there could have been something that went the way it was not supposed to. Some of the experimental errors that could have affected the results could have been the stopwatch being started late giving inaccurate information, which further on impacts when finding the average, it could have been remarkably smaller or larger than what it should have been. Also, a misconception could be that the substance was placed longer than it should have been in either the cold or hot water bath impacting the water particles and creating a difference when determining the flow rate as it could have been faster than what was

There are several sources of error to this experiment due to random and systematic errors. The only source of random error was the measurement that we took through the graduated cylinder which was only accurate to the nearest 1%. We took the largest error from this one percent, which was +/- 3. The largest relative error this yielded was only 3%, so this did not affect how precise this experiment was too much. We can still make this more precise by making the masses of the water larger. For example if we started the masses at 300mL and went up by 50mL, the largest error this would yield would be 2% due to the largest error being +/- 5. This would cause smaller errors in the amount of water.

A few sources of potential error are as follows: loss of product on glassware throughout the experiment, inadequate measuring of chemicals, "impure" chemicals being worked with, and loss of final product during crystallization processes.

When the final mass was measured the excess water in the potato cube might have not been completely removed, thus it adds to the final mass of the potato cubes. This acts as a major error because it gives an inaccurate representation of the actual percentage change in mass of the potato cubes, also while measuring the mass of each cube of potato; the value fluctuated and was not consistent.

The materials needed for this experiment included test tubes, a test tube holder, the unknown compound #202, 35mL beakers, gloves, safety goggles, ethanol (to clean equipment), stirrer (to mix solutions), the 15 possible compounds that are provided, pH strips, distilled water, wooden splints, spatula to get out unknown compound #202, waste bucket, Bunsen burner, graduated cylinder, 500mL beaker for the waste, plastic dishes to measure out compound and the scale.

The experimental error in this lab included the question whether the digital scale was as precise as it could be, how the cooling time affected the water in the hydrates, and any miscalculations that could have occurred. The digital scale could have been more precise since they are more precise scales that could deliver more accurate masses in this lab.

These different mistakes during the lab caused the results to change during the

The first error that could have occurred and potentially altered the results of the lab is air bubbles in the buret. When the MnO4- was added to the buret some bubbles could have been trapped. Even though the stopcock was opened to try and get rid of some of the bubbles it could not be determined if all the bubbles were completely gone after. Also some barely noticeable bubbles could have been stuck to the sides of the buret. If there was indeed some bubbles in the buret the data would have certaintely been altered.

With this experiment, I felt there were a number of possible scenarios of error. The first part I notice that could have caused an error in my overall sample was at the start of the experiment I heated my unknown and the flask in a beaker of water that was not boiling yet for several minutes. Once I noticed my mistake I heated the water until boiling temperature recorded the degrees and continued on with my experiment. The next part of my experiment that may have caused error to my overall sample was while I was lowering my sample into the beaker of boiling water the utility clamp was not working properly and forced my sample to touch the walls of the beaker. This could have effect my overall result.

Because of the time constraint, measurements were taken very quickly and in not the exact same spot every single time. This could cause an inaccurate temperature readings. The light bulb used for the heat source was almost never turned off during the first section of this experiment, the sensor was simply removed from its proximity. An increase of temperature to the heat source over time could also cause inconsistent data.

This inaccuracy can be contributed to the lack of time that was provided to complete the experiment and carry out a sufficient number of trials. Because of this inaccuracy, these trials were repeated on day 2, however with a different pressure probe and Erlenmeyer flask to ensure that this wasn’t the problem for our inaccurate data.

Set up support stand with support ring and wire gauze for the purpose of heating water. Fill 400 mL beaker half way with tap water. Place it on the wire gauze over the burner. While it heats, weigh your dry test tube with a cor to 0.01g and record. Fill the test tube and metal in the beaker of water and it it boil. The Cork is used

At some unknown point during our trial we decided to leave the beaker over the bunsen burner and measure it over the flame instead. This may lead to error because when taking the beaker off it is no longer being charged with heat and if left on it continues to have warmth exerted towards it. In all, lacking consistency in procedure which may lead to an inconsistency in data. Another example of fault showcased in our trials is leaving the thermometer in the beaker at different rates of time. This may affect the data negatively because this aspect is meant to remain constant and if not it is not portraying an accurate array of data. Allowing the temperature more or less time to drop, altering a cohesive collection of information. One other possible blunder in or lab was our wire gauze had a ceramic circle positioned in the middle, where others experiments did not have this clay base. This could lead to different data because the clay may halt the beaker from receiving as much heat because some of that energy emitting from the flame is being absorbed by the clay circle. In conclusion, less heat transferred to the beaker. Leading our

As a boiling water bath was prepared, a boiling chip was added to an Erlenmeyer flask, which was then capped with aluminum foil with a small hole in the center. The flask was wiped clean of dust and fingerprints, then weighed to be 98.197 grams. About 8 mL of the unknown solution was poured into the flask, then resealed with the foil cap. The flask was placed in the water bath at an angle while making sure that no water got under the cap. Once the liquid in the flask evaporated, the flask was removed, cooled under cold running tap water, dried with a towel, and weighed again (98.562g). The temperature of the water bath was measured at this time (99.0oC). Another two trials was performed by adding more 5mL of solution to the flask and repeating

Our in-class experiment was to create crystals with borax, below are the steps we used. First, heat up 200 ml of water to 100 degrees Celsius (heat all liquids to the same temperature). Add borax, until it stops dissolving at the bottom of the beaker, to the heated liquid (saturated the water with borax). Take a pipe cleaner and make a small circle. Take the other end of pipe cleaner and wrap it around another stick. Then, Place the pipe cleaner inside the borax water and leave it till next class(about 48 Hours). Once they sat till next class, then we measured the largest crystals on the three different pipe cleaner and we found that the one that was in the cooler, had significantly smaller crystals vs the one in the incubator. The one in the