Data Analysis:
1 . The thing that was the temperatures change for the water inside the calorimeter (ΔTwater)? 3°C
2 . The thing that was the temperature change pertaining to the metallic sample (ΔTmetal)? Assume the intial temperature of the metallic was the same as the temperature of the water it had been boiled in. 70°C
3. The thing that was the specific temperature of normal water in J/g°C?
four. 186 J/g°C
4. Using the following equation, your answers to queries 1-3, as well as your data stand, determine the precise heat in the metal sample you tested.
5. Identify you metal using the list of specific heat ideals provided. The metal that was discovered was Zinc.
6. Determine the percent error in the specific high temperature value that you just determined experimentally.
Conclusion:
The goal of this try things out was to decide the personality of a unknown metal simply by finding the certain heat of the metal and comparing it to a set of specific high temperature values for different metals. Before beginning the lab and during the lab, the mass in the metal sample and water sample was taken.
This information was later used to help identify the specific high temperature of the unknown metal. The temperature with the boiling water, the water temp in the calorimeter without the metal, and the temperatures of the water and material in the calorimeter were also collected to help identify the secret metal. Following this, the temp changes to get the water in the calorimeter and the metal test were collected. After all your data was obtained, an equation was used to get the specific warmth of the mystery metal and determine its true identity. The worked out specific heat of the steel was zero. 231 J/g°C. Even though it was close to the specific heat of Cadmium, some of the metal was Zinc, which in turn had a specific heat of 0. 390 J/g°C. The objective of the lab was met, but is not very well. There were a percent error of 40%, which is ridiculously substantial.
Many things could’ve gone wrong in the laboratory such as browsing the thermometer wrong, miscalculating the specific high temperature of the “mystery” metal, or perhaps not following the procedure. A very important factor that could’ve gone incorrect is the possibility of reading the thermometer wrong. Reading the thermometer incorrect could’ve ended in the failing of the complete lab. One other possible problem was miscalculating the specific temperature. This is very plausible and easy to achieve. It is not surprising if it took place during the laboratory. One final error could’ve been not really following the treatment. Not pursuing the procedure could’ve easily all smudged the entire research laboratory. Following directions is a very crucial part of virtually any lab.
Irrespective of these mistakes, there are ways to fix them. One remedy is to use an electronic digital thermometer rather. This would get rid of the possibility of studying the thermometer wrong. One more solution should be to explain the equation more clearly. Making the formula as crystal clear as possible to anyone who could use it could certainly almost completely erase the misunderstanding of your equation. 1 last option is to look at the procedure thoroughly multiple times prior to starting the lab. This may ensure that no direction has been skipped or skimmed, and the laboratory will run smoothly.
1
