Moyer+A



GRAPHING PERIODIC TRENDS 31/10/16 Adam Moyer worked independently. to





HOT TUB MURDER

Penelope's shoe size is indicative that she may have perpetrated the crime.

WAS LAVOISIER A LIAR? 30/9/2016

Engineer- B. McQuillen Runner- A. Wertman Photo- A. Stumpf Wiki- A. Moyer

Purpose: Lavoisier says matter is neither created nor destroyed. Our job is to prove or disprove Lavoisier's claim by finding the mass of two compounds before and after a reaction to see if the mass stays the same.

DATA AND CALCULATIONS:

Before reaction:
 * REACTANTS || MASS (g) ||
 * Mass of empty beaker A || 30.4852 ||
 * Mass of compound placed in beaker A || .7628 ||
 * Mass of empty beaker B || 28.3076 ||
 * Mass of compound placed in beaker B || 1.3973 ||
 * Total mass of compounds placed in beakers A and B || 2.1601 ||
 * Mass of clean filter paper || .9525 ||

After reaction:
 * PRODUCTS || MASS (g) ||
 * Mass of beaker A and filter with compound || 32.1924 ||
 * Mass of compound recovered in beaker A || 1.7072 ||
 * Mass of beaker B + compound || 30.3599 ||
 * Mass of recovered compound in beaker B || 2.0523 ||
 * Total mass of both A and B compounds || 3.7595 ||

Percent error: 3.7595 - 2.1601 / 2.1601 * 100 = 74.042%

CONCLUSION:

Our group's data was inconsistent with the purpose of the lab, as evidenced by the lofty percent error. The class average, 2.7g is a much better representation of the conservation of matter.

MENDELEEV: PREDICTING THE FUTURE? 27/10/16

Engineer- B. McQuillen Runner- A. Wertman Photo- A. Stumpf Wiki- A. Moyer

Purpose: Mendeleev was able to predict the density of undiscovered elements. We will predict the density of Germanium by determining the density of the other metals of that column.

Data and Calculations:

Silicon:

(2.40+2.46+2.33 g/mL) / 3 = 2.40 g/mL
 * Trial || Mass (g) || Volume Change (mL) || Density (g/mL) || Average Density (g/mL)* ||
 * 1 || 2.40g || 1 mL || 2.40 g/mL ||  ||
 * 2 || 4.91g || 2 mL || 2.46 g/mL || 2.40 g/mL ||
 * 3 || 6.98g || 3 mL || 2.33 mL ||  ||

Tin:

(4.01+4.55+9.95 g/mL) /3 = 4.52 g/mL
 * Trial || Mass (g) || Volume Change (mL) || Density (g/mL) || Average Density (g/mL)* ||
 * 1 || 4.01g || 1 mL || 4.01 g/mL ||  ||
 * 2 || 9.10g || 2 mL || 4.55 g/mL || 4.52 g/mL ||
 * 3 || 14.99g || 3 mL || 9.95 g/mL ||  ||

Lead:


 * Trial || Mass (g) || Volume Change (mL) || Density (g/mL) || Average Density (g/mL)* ||
 * 1 || 10.02g || 1 mL || 10.02 g/mL ||  ||
 * 2 || 20.05g || 2 mL || 10.03 g/mL || 10.0 g/mL ||
 * 3 || 29.85g || 3 mL || 9,95 g/mL ||  ||
 * Trial number column is irrelevant to average density column and is to be read as such.

Best fit equation: y = 2.3x - 5.2 Correlation= 0.82 Predicted Density of Germanium- 2.3*(4) - 5.2 = 4.00 g/mL

Theoretical Value for density of Germanium: 5.32 g/mL

Percent Error: 5.32 g/ml - 4.00 g/mL divided by 5.32 = 24.8%

Conclusion: Despite a modest percent error, our prediction landed within 1 g/mL of the theoretical value. We made our prediction by plugging germanium's period number into the best fit line equation.

DETERMINATION OF A HYDRATE 30/11/16

ENGINEER- T. Martin RUNNER- H. Bowers PHOTO- C. Hatter WIKI- A. Moyer

PURPOSE: We must determine a hygroscopic ionic compound's water of hydration. This can be accomplished by heating the compound, driving out the water and weighing the sample before and after heating.

Data and Calculations:
 * Compound Selected for Analysis || Copper (II) sulfate ||
 * Mass of crucible (g) || 22.34 g ||
 * Mass of crucible and wet sample (g) || 8.13 g ||
 * Mass of crucible and dry sample- 1st weighing (g) || 30.47 g ||
 * Mass of wet sample (g) || 2.91 g ||
 * Mass of crucible and dry sample- 2nd weighing (g) || 27.56 g ||
 * Mass of crucible and dry sample (g)- if needed || 27.48 g ||
 * Mass of dry sample (g) || 5.14 g ||
 * Mass of water evaporated (g) || 2.99 g ||

Moles of water: 2.99 g (mass water) / 18.0 g/mol = 0.1661 moles Moles of dehydrate: 5.14 g (mass dry) / 159.609 g/mol (moles of dry) = 0.0322 moles Moles of hydrate 0.1661 moles / 0.0322 moles = 5.16 moles

Conclusion: We confirmed that the compound was in fact Copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate. We were certain to properly heat the sample so as to provide an accurate result.

DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION KIT 5 January 2017

ENGINEER- T. Martin RUNNER- H. Bowers PHOTO- C. Hatter (NOT PRESENT) WIKI- A. Moyer

PURPOSE: To determine the activity levels of a series of metals through a gauntlet of single replacement reactions.

DATA:

Formula for reactions- Xsub1 + Xsub2Y ---> Xsub2 + Xsub1Y


 * Rank || Metal ||
 * 1 || Aluminum ||
 * 2 || Zinc ||
 * 3 || Iron ||
 * 4 || Lead ||
 * 5 || Copper ||

CONCLUSIONS:

Aluminum was found to be the most active metal. Copper was the least active.If the metal does not react in the aqueous solution, it is less active than a metal that would react.