Hot Corn Syrup Lab Report

Maria’s hypothesis for this experiment is that the cold water will freeze faster, she thinks this is correct because the hot water molecules move faster than the cold water molecules, causing the hot water to take longer to freeze.

The aim of the experiment was to find out how changing the mass effects the rise of the temperature of water.

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.

Paragraph 1 - How the Law of Conservation of Matter is supported by the experimental demonstrations: In the law of conservation particles and materials are neither created nor destroyed . It was similar towards the experimental demonstrations because nothing changed or destroyed in the processes .Kinetic and potential energy was used in the experiments.

One of our flaws was that the temperature of the water was not exactly the same when we did the different trials. The temperatures were slightly off from our recorded value during the experiments. The change in temperature would affect the time it took for the Alka-Seltzer tablet to dissolve in the water. If there was a direct relationship between water temperature and dissolve time, we would not be able to see it because the temperatures are off and the dissolve times are not associated with the correct temperature. Another flaw is that we did not use the same amount of water throughout the experiment. We used a beaker to measure the water, which did not result in accurate measurements. The difference in amount of water could result in a difference in reaction time. The third flaw in the experiment was that during the reaction of the warm water, the water in the cup overflowed and spilled, bringing some of the Alka-Seltzer tablet with it. There were different amounts of tablet in different areas of the water, which means a different amount of Alka-Seltzer remained inside of the cup in each trial. This difference would mean that data for the warm water would fluctuate and we would not have accurate

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.

However, the results are completely different. The results shown in the table, the water and cornstarch solution is most suitable liquid to use in the snow globes due to its thick viscosity compared to other solutions. Hence, the marble traveled slower as it created more drag onto the marble. Nevertheless, the water itself had low viscosity compared to other solutions because the marble reached the base faster of the measuring cylinder. As a result, it created less drag onto the marble compared to water and cornstarch solution. Therefore, the thicker the solution, the longer it takes for the marble to reach the base of the measuring cylinder. However, if the solution has low viscosity (such as water itself), the faster it the time it takes for the marble to reach the

The evidence that was collected in the experiment refuted the day one hypothesis because after the egg soaked in vinegar for 72 hours, the mass of the egg was not the same, it was greater than before. The day two hypothesis was also refuted because after the egg soaked in maple syrup for 48 hours, the mass of the egg was not greater, it was less than before. The evidence collected accepted the day three hypothesis because after soaking in deionized water for 24 hours, the mass of the egg became greater than

The difference was in how long it took for the bubbles to come to the surface and the solution to become clear. Also, when doing the lab, once the correct temperature for the water was reached, the experimenter pulled the beakers out one by one completing all 5 trials. This may have caused slight fluctuations in data because by the time the 4 trials were finished, the temperature of the beaker may have increased by a few degrees. As for the act of measuring, there was a slight error because the experimenters did not take the beakers off the hot plate at exactly 30.00 degrees, or whatever the temperature may be. In order to provide more accurate results, the experimenter could do all

By the end of the experiment, it was predicted that the egg would be swollen when left in water and shriveled when left in corn syrup. Based on the data given from the table above, the prediction is, more or less, right. The egg did, in fact, shrivel up and the weight of the egg did go down as well. Compared to the beginning of the experiment where the egg had an initial mass of 81.50 grams, but by the end of the water aspect of the research the egg ended up weighing 93.74 grams, therefore, there was an increase of 12.24 grams. Using the data table the weight from the start the syrup aspect of the experiment was 93.74 grams, after being left in syrup the egg weighed a total of 57.32 grams, thus, the egg decreased in weight by 36.42 grams.

The cup with the second greatest change in mass of the rock was number 2. Cup 2 had the solution of 10% vinegar and resulted in the change of -0.3g. Lastly, Cup 3 with distilled water had the lowest change in the mass of the rock, of 0g. It was hypothesized at the beginning that Cup 3 with distilled water would have the least amount of change, if any. This hypothesis was correct. Water is not acidic, so there would be no reason for the rock to change. When the hypothesis was conducted, it was based on the pH level. Instead, the actual solution should have been taken into consideration. The fact that the soda water would eventually lose its carbonation and become flat within a few days. Therefore, taking the acidity away. The experiment was done correctly, and there did not need to be any changes. Just the hypothesis could have been more thoroughly

The group first measured the masses of the four bouncy balls and then measured how high the ball bounced, being dropped at 20 inches, in room temperature and recorded the data. Then heated up water in a 250mL beaker using a hot plate to about 85-90 degrees Celsius, put the bouncy ball in a smaller beaker and held it in the water for five minutes, making sure not to get the ball wet, repeat this procedure for all four bouncy balls. After the five minutes were up, the masses of the balls were measured and then tested the ball to see if when the ball was heated, it might affect the height of the bounce. The results were recorded. Next, a 250mL beaker was filled up with water about half way and then put ice in the water to make it cool down to 5-10 degrees Celsius. A bouncy ball was then put in a smaller beaker and held the small beaker with the ball inside the ice water for five minutes, doing this for all four bouncy balls. After the time was up, the group again measured the mass and tested the height of the bounce and recorded the results. When dropping the ball to measure the height of the bounce, the ball was dropped from 20 inches for each trial in all three

Then with a pipet, place slowly with hydrochloric acid, 10 ml, into the sodium hydrogen carbonate until the bubbles stop. Then with the product, heat until it seems as if all the water in the dish is evaporated. Originally the product was supposed to be 2.09g of hydrochloric acid, however there was a miscalculation of the mass of the sodium hydrogen carbonate, and that mass turned out to be 3.07g. The final mass for the product was supposed to be 2.14g as a mass of the product. After all the procedures were completed, the mass that was received from the lab calculations was 2.45g. This was a 114.55 percent error to the lab. The large error could have lead to many different things. One of the things that the error could have been caused was miss calculating the mass. While measuring the sodium hydrogen carbonate, the mass of the evaporating dish mass, 46.50g, had altered when it was zeroed and put the 3.00g of the sodium hydrogen carbonate. Then it was massed again together and it was 49.57g. Another possible way that the mass was altered the way it was, it that all the water wasn’t evaporated. There was also a little splatter outside the dish. That helped lessening the mass that was already too big. Finally an important error that happened was not letting the evaporating dish cool after it was heated. Those are some ways that the lab error could

To prepare and purify an ester: 1-pentyl ethanoate, using pent-1-ol and ethanoic acid. An annotated reaction showing this reaction is shown below:

This happens because the room temperature syrup has more energy, causing the molecules to spread apart. For the team hot average, the average was 7.15 cm/second. The range of data for averages was 1.7 cm/second to 15.79 cm/second. There are clearly some big differences between the former and the latter. This happened because they are outliers. That data may have been messed up because the syrup was taken off of the crockpot too early, cooling down the syrup making it have more viscosity and a smaller velocity. Another way that these trials could have been messed up is if someone threw the syrup at the plate when they were pouring it, and the speed of the pouring caused a very high velocity. The hot syrup flowed faster than room and cold syrup because it had a lower viscosity. The hot syrup had a lower viscosity because it had the highest energy out of the three temperatures, causing the molecules to be more spread out. Gas, water, and silica also have an effect on the viscosity of lava. Water makes the viscosity of the lava lower because it thins out the lava. Gas makes the pressure increase in high viscosity magmas, while when the gas escapes the viscosity