Scribd
Upload
82 views4 pages

Density Post Lab

The document describes an experiment to determine the density of brass beads through water displacement. It was found that the experimental density of 5.4 g/mL had a 36.47% percent error from the actual density of 8.5 g/mL, due to using too few beads which led to an overestimation of the measured volume. The mass percent of copper in the bead was then calculated to be 78.77% using the densities of copper, zinc, and the bead.

Uploaded by

dad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views4 pages

Density Post Lab

The document describes an experiment to determine the density of brass beads through water displacement. It was found that the experimental density of 5.4 g/mL had a 36.47% percent error from the actual density of 8.5 g/mL, due to using too few beads which led to an overestimation of the measured volume. The mass percent of copper in the bead was then calculated to be 78.77% using the densities of copper, zinc, and the bead.

Uploaded by

dad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Kenneth Trinh

Dealing With Density

Please fill in the indicated information below and append this worksheet at the end of your
report.

Determination of the density of a brass bead:


Describe the method used to determine the density of the bead (this should be written in the
passive voice, in complete sentences):

Five brass beads were massed on the beam balance scale, which read 2.419 grams. The 20 mL
graduate cylinder was filled with 14.5 mL of water. After the beads were submerged, the
volume increased to 15.0 mL; therefore, the water displacement/change in volume was 0.5 mL.
Repeating this process in a separate trial resulted in another mass of 2.419 grams for 5 beads, and
a change from 14.6 mL to 15.0 mL (a net change of 0.4 mL). We used 2.419 grams as the mass
and took the average of the net water displacement (0.45 mL).

mass(¿ grams)
Since Density (ρ) = , our experimental density was determined to be
volume (¿ mL)
2.419 grams
ρbead = =5.4 g /mL
0.45 mL

The actual density of the brass beads is 8.5 g/mL. Calculate the percent error for the bead density
and comment on sources of error in your experimental design:
experimental value−theoretical value
% error = | theoretical value |
x 100

Note: when discussing sources of error, “maybe something was measured incorrectly” is
mundane and shows no depth of knowledge. An explanation that includes the direction of the
error (high or low) and the eventual effect on the calculated density demonstrates understanding
and is worthy of credit. For example, if your calculated density is low and you suspect your
volume measurement was the cause of your error, you should state whether the measured volume
was too high or too low. Sometimes, you will be able to identify a procedural step that lead to
incorrect results; subsequently, you will be able to suggest an improvement to the procedure.

% error = |5.4 g/mL−8.5


8.5 g/mL
g/mL
| x 100 = 36.47%
The balance beam scale consistently delivered a mass of 2.419 grams, which eliminates the scale
as a potential source of error. However, the main source of error was failing to use enough
beads. Due to the fact that the graduated cylinder was only accurate to two decimal places, a
greater amount of beads would have ensured a more precise measurement of net water
displacement. Five beads were simply not substantial enough relative to the volume of water and

2090 – © Cornell University (2019)


Dealing With Density

measurement capabilities of the graduated cylinder. Overall, the calculated density was too low
since the measured volume was too high. Utilizing more beads would have increased the overall
mass when keeping the volume around 0.45mL.

Show your calculation for the mass percent copper in the bead.

Copper Density: 8.96 g/mL

Zinc Density: 7.14 g/mL.

1 1 1
ρbead
=( 1−%Cu by mass ) ( )
ρ Zn
+ ( %Cu by mass ) ( )
ρCu

1 1 %Cuby mass %Cu by mass


ρbead (
=
ρ Zn
−
ρZn
+ )(
ρCu )
1 1 −%Cu by mass %Cu by mass
ρbead
−
ρZn (
=
ρZn
+ )( ρCu )
1 1 1 1
ρbead
−
ρZn
=%Cu by mass( −
ρCu ρ Zn )
1
1
−
ρ ρZn
%Cu by mass= bead
1 1
−
ρCu ρZn

Actual:

11 1 1
− −
ρbead ρZn 8.5 g /mL 7.14 g /mL
%Cu by mass= = = 0.7877 = 78.77%
1 1 1 1
− −
ρCu ρZn 8.96 g /mL 7.14 g /mL

Experimental:

2090 – © Cornell University (2019)


Dealing With Density

1 1 1 1
− −
ρbead ρZn 5.4 g /mL 7.14 g /mL
%Cu by mass= = = -1.58  N/A in context to lab
1 1 1 1
− −
ρCu ρZn 8.96 g /mL 7.14 g /mL

Thermometry:

Create a table of your thermometry data. Tables need titles and should be neatly and logically
organized.

Table 1: Measured volumes and temperatures with respective changes from 0°C and 0.655mL

Temperature Volume (mL) ∆Temperature ∆Volume (mL)


(°C) (°C)

1 0 0.655 N/A N/A

2 5 0.640 5 -0.015

3 10 0.710 10 0.055

4 16 0.755 16 0.1

5 21 0.829 21 0.174

6 29 0.909 29 0.254

2) Plot T vs V (change in temperature vs change in volume) for your data and include a best-
fit line.

2090 – © Cornell University (2019)


Dealing With Density

Fig. 1: Graph of ∆Volume (mL) vs. ∆Temperature (°C)

∆Volume (mL) vs ∆Temperature (°C) of


water
35
30
∆Temperature (°C)

25 f(x) = 89.47 x + 6.04


20
15
10
5
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
∆Volume (mL)

2090 – © Cornell University (2019)

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy