Error Analysis
In such a big lab, so many errors can occur and even one little one can ruin everything. One could have missed a procedure or done a procedure incorrectly.
Another could have been using the incorrect amount of liquid or sludge. Someone could have lost a test-tube or labeled it wrong causing the results to be mixed.
Using too much water in the solubility tests or not getting all measurements almost exactly accurate could be two sources of error. One big mistake could be creating a vacuum in the fractional Distillation part of the lab. One careless mistake could have been doing the calculations incorrectly.
Conclusion
The sludge lab is a long and complicated lab. So much can go wrong so easily. So we had to be very careful when doing this lab. It was basically a recap of all our previous labs done this year. First we used the Fractional Distillation.
Then we used the Solubility lab and the density labs. Only new part was identifying the metal, but that wasn't very hard. So it was good that we reviewed our lab reports. This way we knew what procedures to take and what mistakes not to make. So it seems like we did everything right because the results make sense.
To get and identify Fraction I, we had to do a lot. First we filtered the sludge. Then we took 25cm3 of the sludge and separated it into three parts. So we took the first fraction and experimented on it. We purified it and determined its boiling point, density and solubility. We also had to see if it had an odor and whether it was flammable or not. After doing all this we realized that this Fraction was Isopropanol Alcohol. We came to this conclusion by looking at our data for the solubility, density, odor, boiling point, and flammability.
To get and identify Fraction III, we had to continue from Fraction I. After getting the first fraction we had to change tubes and et 2 more fractions. We threw away the 2nd because it was just a leftover mix. We took the third fraction and experimented on it. We purified it and determined its boiling point, density and solubility. We also had to see if it had an odor and whether it was flammable or not. After doing all this we realized that this Fraction was Water. We came to this conclusion by looking at our data for the solubility, density, odor, boiling point, and flammability.
Determining the soluble solid was hard and a rigorous procedure.
There were minimal risks in this section of the practical as glucose is a sugar and is not harmful; however we still wore lab coats and goggles to protect our clothing and eyes from any accidental splashing. We also had to take care when using the pipettes so not to stab ourselves or anyone with them so we had to make sure that we had full concentration on the task and that no one was in too close proximity of you so that they are in danger of getting injured. We also had be careful not to smash any of the glass equipment as this could cause someone to get cut so to prevent this we tried hard not to smash any of the equipment and any breakages are cleared up following laboratory procedures and practices.
There were no significant error factors that may have affected the arrangement of the lab experiment. Everything went smoothly with relative ease.
The procedure of the lab on day one was to get a ring stand and clamp, then put the substance in the test tube. Then put the test tube in the clamp and then get a Bunsen burner. After that put the Bunsen burner underneath the test tube to heat it. The procedure of the lab for day two was almost exactly the same, except the substances that were used were different. The
In the short story, “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allan Poe, Poe uses two types of irony, dramatic and verbal. Dramatic irony is when the reader perceives something that a character in the story does not. Poe uses this type of irony in the character Fortunato. Verbal irony is when the character says one thing and means something else. This type of irony can be recognized in the statements that the characters, Fortunato and Montresor, say to one another.
The experiment was built in order to test our abilities to efficiently and correctly execute a separation of mixtures through deep brainstorming and teamwork.
The types of irony I choose were situational irony and dramatic irony.The reason I choose these 2 was because ,I think these are the easiest to do.Irony is the gaiety of reflection and the joy of wisdom.
To make sure it is a fair test; the procedure is repeated a couple of
The mixture was poured through a weight filter paper and Sucrose washed with a 5ml of dichloromethane. The resulting solid was left in a breaker to dry for one week, to be measured. Left it in the drawer to dry out for a week and weighted it to find the sucrose amount recovered amount.
There are three different types of irony. There is dramatic irony, which is where the reader knows more the character actually does. For example horror films, when you the scary monster is under the bed but the character does not know. Verbal irony, which is when you say something and actions show otherwise. For example relationships, when your husband tells you he loves you and then has an affair with another women. Situational irony, which is where expecting something to happen in a certain situation and it, ends up being the complete opposite of what you thought would have happened. For examples cops, when cops get tickets for getting pulled over for speeding. Irony is a huge part of story telling. It’s the suspense that irony
Irony is, among many other reasons, problematic in the sense that it is both hard to define as well as sometimes hard to understand. Even the most critical and experienced of readers have missed instances of irony at times, and even more so ordinary readers.
A condenser and heat reflux was used to prevent reagents from escaping. Then the solid product was vacuum filtered. The product was recrystallized to purify it and the unknown
There is also the potential of human error within this experiment for example finding the meniscus is important to get an accurate amount using the graduated pipettes and burettes. There is a possibility that at one point in the experiment a chemical was measured inaccurately affecting the results. To resolve this, the experiment should have been repeated three times.
The samples that are taken from the autopsy have to be placed in a container that is contamination proof. Majors that have to be weighed should be placed in refrigerated storage.
First we placed the slide under the simple microscope and observed it at ten times magnification level. We each took turns looking. We then copied them as drawings into our Cornell notebooks. After that we changed the magnification to fifty times and observed the slide. We each took turns looking. We then copied what we saw into our Cornell notebooks. After that we changed the magnification level to sixty times and we each took turns looking at the slide. We then copied what we saw into our Cornell notebooks and sat down together. When we were all done drawing we spoke about what we seen and gave each other ideas on how to write our Lab Reports.
We separated into groups of two each, making sure that we had the following materials for the lab: graduated cylinder, plastic sandwich bag, starch solution, twist tie, 500-mL beaker, iodine solution, and a pair of goggles and an apron (for the person handling the iodine solution).