domingo, 6 de diciembre de 2015

Session 4 - Calculating the gas constant, R

Session 4 - Calculating the gas constant, R
Mg+2HCl -> MgCl2+H2

Ideal Gas law: PV=nRT

Table 1: Showing the results obtained during the experiment






Table 2: Showing the lab conditions

Table 3: Showing useful information needed for the calculations

  • Calculations Explanation

We had to convert all our data so that it came out with the corresponding SI unit. We did this because in order to calculate R (gas constant), we needed to use the Ideal Gas law, in which pressure is measured in atm, volume in L, temperature in K, the gas constant in atm*L/K mol and the number particles in moles.

First of all, we measured the pressure in atm as it is the SI unit for pressure. We knew that the pressure of the room was 767.0 mmHg. We also knew that 1 atm= 760 mmHg. So we transformed it by dividing 767.0/ 760 multiplied by 1. The result was 1.009210526. When we divide, we must maintain the smallest number of significant figures, in this case 4. So, the final result was 1.009 atm.

Secondly, we measured the volume in L as it is the SI unit for pressure. We had it in mL, therefore we’ve got to convert it into L by dividing it by 1000, as 1 L is equal to 1000 mL.
So, as we had 11.1 mL, if we divide it by 1000, it comes out as 0.0111 L. This is because when we are dividing, we must maintain the smallest number of significant figures which in this case is 3.

Then, we measured the water temperature, which SI unit is K (kelvins). The thermometer gave us the temperature in celsius (ºC) so we had to convert it by adding 273: 273+22.2=295.2K. (When adding we must maintain the smallest number of decimal places, in this case 1)



Furthermore, we measured the number of moles of magnesium with the equation: moles= mass(g)/molecular mass(g/mol). We know that we have 0.0100 g of the substance and its molecular mass is of 24.31 g/mol. With this information, we can replace the values we know to find out the number of moles of magnesium like this: 0.0100/24.31= 0.0004113533525 moles. As we know that when we are dividing data from the lab, the result comes out with the less number of significant figures, which in this case is 3, therefore our result will be: 0.000411 moles of magnesium.

Moreover, as we know from studying stoichiometry last year, Mr Canning has given us the reaction equation, and both H2 and Mg have the same coefficient, so we know that they both have the same amount of moles, so therefore there will be 0.000411 moles.

Finally, we replace all of the results we’ve got from the calculations in the Ideal Gas Equation, now that we’ve got all of them with the right measurements (SI units), so that we can calculate our gas constant and compare it to the one it would actually be and calculate the percentage error to deduce some conclusions.

PV=nRT // 1.009·0.0111=0.000411·R·295.2 // 0.0112=0.121·R // R=0.0112/0.121 // R= 0.0923 atm l /K mol. Throughout all the operations we considered the number of significant figures, so finally, as we know that we dividing or multiplying we must maintain the least number of significant figures, which in this case is 3, so it will finally come out as:

R=0.0923 atml/Kmol


  • Conclusion

Considering the Literature value of R is 0.082 the one we obtained ,  0.0923 , is really close to it, although it is slightly bigger than the Literature one and this could have  been originated  by some mistakes we will mention in the Evaluation.
Now, we will calculate the percentage error to see the accuracy of our results:

% error = Experimental Value of R- Literature Value of R
             _______________________________________ *100
                       Literature Value of R                                       


% error = 0.0929- 0.082                % error=  0.0109                
                 ____________  *100//                 _______ *100//  % error=  0.1329268292682927*100//
  
                        0.082                                           0.082                             
       
% error= 13.29268292682927 This will eventually come out as 13%. The percentage error we obtained is low, so this means we didn’t  make lots of mistakes when doing the experiment. Although, Mr. Canning told us the percentage error must be under 10 to consider the experiment totally precise.Even though the results we obtained weren’t perfect, they were clear and precise enough for us to see what  happens during the experiment.

Image showing the reaction between Magnesium and Hydrochloric acid.





 Image showing pieces of Magnesium used during the experiment.


  • Evaluation:


We used an accurate method to collect the data for this experiment. Although, there could have been several errors that could have spoiled the experiment. Magnesium was exposed to air  so it could have started to react a little bit and could have vary the results. Also, when we weighed it probably it wasn’t pure Magnesium but maybe Magnesium Oxide due to the air. This could have affected the final value of R and made it more inaccurate.This is a random error. We took turns to fill the beaker: The first time it was Ainhoa who filled the beaker and the second time I filled it. This could have maybe originated a mistake because not all humans have the same view, so this is a random error. Maybe, Ainhoa filled it a bit more than I did or vice versa. This could be improved next time by establishing an exact quantity of water to fill the beaker with and making sure the beaker is filled by the same person always. While doing the experiment we assumed that the pressure of the room was equal to the pressure of the tube and this was probably incorrect. This can have caused the value of R we obtained to be incorrect and can be considered a random error. This can be improved by using a small pressure sensor and putting it inside the tube to control the pressure.Probably the temperature of the gas wasn’t the same as the temperature of the water.This is also considered a random error and could be improved by putting a thermometer inside the test tube to control the temperature. An error that could have caused variations in our results was the incorrect calibration of the balance, which is a systematic error. We had to weigh the magnesium several times because we obtained  different weights each time. This could be improved by making sure the balance is well calibrated and by weighing several times the substance used to make sure the weight the balance shows is correct.  Other very common mistake in experiments like this is the incorrect reading of the thermometer or the meniscus. This is called a Systematic Parralax Error. This could be improved by placing  your eye at the level of the appropriate measurement marking when measuring the level of a liquid in a graduated cylinder. Read the lower part of the curved surface of the liquid (the meniscus) to obtain an accurate measurement and avoid parallax errors. It’s also really important to deep the piece of Magnesium in a bit amount of acid for a short period of time to clean and purify it. We didn’t take into consideration that maybe the pieces of Magnesium weren’t the same size and so this could have made our results imprecise, so next time we have to make sure all the pieces of magnesium have the same size. Maybe, we didn’t close well the top of the test tube so a bit of gas escaped while the reaction occurred, next time we should make sure it’s well closed. Another mistake that could have altered our results is that maybe we didn’t pour the distilled water as slowly as we should have done and this could have caused the mix and spread of Hydrochloric Acid. A A thing that is crucial for the results of  an experiment to be reliable is to use new equipment or clean it and dry to avoid substances to mix and vary results. Also, we could have done more tests to get more precise and reliable results as this reduces random errors, but we didn’t have time to do it.
As we can see above, there are lots of things that can be improved for the next time we repeat this experiment and make it more precise.  

domingo, 1 de noviembre de 2015

jueves, 8 de octubre de 2015

The properties of substances and their bonding


Table to show the results obtained in the experiment:




The type of bonding present in each substance:

  • In the first substance there’s an ionic bond. Ionic bonds form hard crystal lattices. They normally have high melting and boiling points and they conduct electricity when they are dissolved in water.
  • The second and third ones are covalent bond. However, the second one is simple and the third one is giant.
  • Simple covalent compounds contain only a few atoms held together by strong covalent bonds.They normally have low melting and boiling points and they don’t conduct electricity.
  • Giant covalent structures contain a lot of non-metal atoms, each joined to nearby atoms by covalent bonds. They have high melting and boiling points and a variable conductivity.
  • The fourth one there’s a metallic bond. Metallic bonds have high boiling and melting points and they are good conductors.



 Table to show the expected results


Conclusion
As we can see in both tables, our results were fairly accurate. If we compare the first and second table we can se that the column of melting points had a few mistakes, as we said that Zinc had a medium melting point and after researching we found ou that it had a high melting point. Also, we said that Magnesium Chloride (Hexahydrate) wasn't soluble in acetone, however, it is fairly soluble. Finally, we also stated that Magnesium Chloride (Hexahydrate) didn't conduct enough electricity when dissolved because tha bulb didn't light up.  After researching some information we discovered that yes, it conducts electricity.
We can see in question 2 that the expectation's table is correct as they match.


Evaluation
The method we used was fairly accurate, our results weren't perfect but they were good enough for us to see what it happens during the experiment. There are lots of things we can improve for the next time we do this experiment. Some of the most important are:
In the first place, the way we were meant to measure the amount of substance we needed (½ spatula)  isn’t accurate as  we can’t get exactly the same half a spatula of each substance as it will always be a bit less or a bit more each time. A solution to this, will be weighing (g) exactly the same amount of each substance, so that the experiment becomes more accurate.


Also, the results of the melting point aren’t accurate either, because we hadn’t heat all the substances for the same time, so this could have originated an error as the time we heated the substances was different every time. We removed the  substance from heat when we thought it had melted or when we saw that it wouldn’t melt. The only thing the instructions in the method said was to wait approximately for 2 minutes as the maximum time(this is for high melting point), but we didn’t know the exact time because we weren’t  using a watch or a stopwatch. We decided if it was medium, low or high by heating the substance and depending on the time it took (lots of time, some time or little time) to start melting, we then decided, but this isn’t accurate. So, as a solution, we could state beforehand a certain timing for each of the boiling points (low, medium or high), for example; low: from 0 to 50 seconds, medium from 51 to 100 seconds and high: from 101 to 150 seconds so that then, when we start heating up the substance, we can see by using a stopwatch the exact time it takes to start melting, and then classify it into one of the boiling points, depending on the time it took for it to start melting.


Furthermore, the way we tried to dissolve the substance in water wasn’t precise because we might have stir it with different forces each time and in different ways and sometimes stirring is not enough. As a solution we could use a machine which mixes the substance with the water, which is much more accurate than what  we did.


Moreover, the light bulb or other components of the circuit, might have been a bit broken or didn't work well enough, so maybe the substance was a conductor but because of this, we wouldn't be able to know. As a solution, we could make sure everything works okay with something we are 100% sure is a conductor before the experiment. There might have also been not enough amount of each substance to light the bulb up, because even though it is a conductor there might have not been  enough of  any of them to light it up, so we could get more of each substance so that there is enough to light a small bulb up.


Finally, each time we lit and turned off the bunsen burner because we wanted to melt something, there wasn’t the exact same amount of heat coming off of it, so this could have originated a problem because maybe some have a higher melting points than others, but because of this, we thought that they had a lowe point. So, this could be solved if you keep it lit up on a corner of the lab so that anyone gets burnt, but it still emits always the same amount of heat.


We could have done more tests to get more precise and reliable results but we didn’t have time to do it. To finish, there is also a thing that could be the cause of a mistake: In our group, we took turns to fill up  the test tube with 5 ml of stirred water or acetone. Maybe one of us, didn't  fill it with exactly 5 ml.  Another thing  that makes our experiment  imprecise is that we used the same volumetric pipet throughout the experiment, so if a bit of stirred water stayed there and mixed with acetone or vice versa it could have make our results to vary. A solution to this is to take a different volumetric pipet each time or if there are not enough, clean it and dry it before using it again.























Bibliography

  • Bbc.co.uk,. (2015). BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Covalent bonding - giant covalent structures. Retrieved 9 October 2015, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/atomic/differentsubrev3.shtml

  • Bbc.co.uk,. (2015). BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Metal properties and uses. Retrieved 9 October 2015, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/chemicals/metalpropertiesrev1.shtml

  • Deshpande, A. (2015). Properties of GraphiteBuzzle. Retrieved 9 October 2015, from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/graphite-properties.html

  • Npi.gov.au,. (2015). Zinc and compounds | National Pollutant Inventory. Retrieved 9 October 2015, from http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/zinc-and-compounds

  • Scbt.com,. (2015). Magnesium Chloride, Hexahydrate | CAS 7791-18-6 | Santa Cruz Biotech. Retrieved 9 October 2015, from http://www.scbt.com/datasheet-203126-magnesium-chloride-hexahydrate.html