6.03 Calorimetry Lab
In the first process of the lab, you measure the mass of water transferred from a buret to a beaker, to determine the experimental mass of the water, and the volume of the water collected. We measured the temperature of the water so we could calculate the density of the water, which enabled us to calculate the actual volume of water, by using the density and the measured volume of water. To determine the percent error, we had to subtract the actual volume of water by the experimental volume of water transferred from the buret to the beaker, and then divided it by the actual volume and multiplied it by 100. In the second process, you perform the same steps you did for the buret, but instead, you use a 5.00mL or 10.00mL pipet. You repeated each
…show more content…
Using the buret to read the volume of water is a source of random error because it is marked to the nearest 0.1mL. Therefore, our data could be above or below the actual volume of water in the buret because we took our reading to the nearest 0.01mL, which increases our uncertainty level. Along with taking our volume readings to the nearest 0.01mL, a random error also arose when we took the reading of the temperature of the water. The thermometer only read to the nearest tens places, therefore our readings went to only the tenths place which could have been measured inaccurately giving rise to more uncertainty and random error within the lab. We were able to limit our uncertainty level when taking the masses of the beaker with and without water, by using the analytical balances which read to the nearest ±0.0001g. The experiment indicates some systematic errors with some of the equipment we used. For example, if we used more accurate thermometers the densities of the water and overall temperature of the water would become more accurate to the true temperature of the water, and decrease the percent error of the data. In my experiment, human error was very relevant. A systematic error also occurred in some of the readings because the water was still cooling down as the experiment went on causing the temperature to change which changed the density of the water. When calculating the density of the water I used -0.0030 g/ °Ccm3 in my calculations instead of -0.00030 g/ °Ccm3. This caused all of my water densities to be wrong in my data, which impacted the actual volume of the water and the percent errors causing them to be inaccurate. This occurred in both the buret readings and the pipet readings. In the sample calculations the density of the water, the percent error, and the actual volume of the water shown are the correct numbers that should have been used in the data table. Using the
Using the buret to read the volume of water is a source of random error because it is marked to the nearest 0.1mL. Therefore, our data could be above or below the actual volume of water in the buret because we took our reading to the nearest 0.01mL, which increases our uncertainty level. Along with taking our volume readings to the nearest 0.01mL, a random error also arose when we took the reading of the temperature of the water. The thermometer only read to the nearest tens places, therefore our readings went to only the tenths place which could have been measured inaccurately giving rise to more uncertainty and random error within the lab. We were able to limit our uncertainty level when taking the masses of the beaker with and without water, by using the analytical balances which read to the nearest ±0.0001g. The experiment indicates some systematic errors with some of the equipment we used. For example, if we used more accurate thermometers the densities of the water and overall temperature of the water would become more accurate to the true temperature of the water, and decrease the percent error of the data. In my experiment, human error was very relevant. A systematic error also occurred in some of the readings because the water was still cooling down as the experiment went on causing the temperature to change which changed the density of the water. When calculating the density of the water I used -0.0030 g/ °Ccm3 in my calculations instead of -0.00030 g/ °Ccm3. This caused all of my water densities to be wrong in my data, which impacted the actual volume of the water and the percent errors causing them to be inaccurate. This occurred in both the buret readings and the pipet readings. In the sample calculations the density of the water, the percent error, and the actual volume of the water shown are the correct numbers that should have been used in the data table. Using the