Temperature (Magnesium) 25oC ±0.5 = 0.5/25 x 100= 2% Δ Temperature: (Tf – Ti) 0.5/98.82 x 100 = 0.5% 55.7 – 25 = 73.8 2% + 0.5% = 2.5% (of 73.8) = ±3.38oC Similarly evaluate other uncertainties By plugging in these values in the formula we can find energy released by the reaction: Q Magnesium= (25g) x (4.18) x (73.8) = 7714.2 Joules (J) = 7.714 Kilojoules (kJ) Absolute Uncertainty: Volume: 0.3/25 x 100 = 1.2% Energy uncertainty = 1.2% + 2.5% = 3.7% (of 7.71 kJ) = ±0.29 kJ Using the average mass of every metal used, we can find the number of mols through the formula n=
Experimental Viscosities in cP of 65 wt% Sucrose and 30 wt% Sucrose Solutions at Tested Temperatures in ˚C Compared to Literature Values of Viscosity in cP with Percent Error Concentration of Sucrose (% weight) Temperature of Solution (˚C) Average Viscosity of Sucrose Solutions Calculated (cP) Literature Value of Viscosity of Sucrose Solutions (cP) % error 65 20.7 138.67 147.2 5.79 65 40 42.88 44.36 3.34 65 60 18.31 17.9 2.29 30 20.7 2.9376 3.187 7.83 30 40 1.999 1.833 9.06 30 60 1.239 1.2 3.25 The graph of the viscosities at the tested temperatures for the 30 wt% sucrose solution can be seen in Figure 1. The graph of the viscosities at the tested temperatures for the 65 wt% sucrose solution can be seen in Figure 2. In both graphs error bars are included, but due to scale an the small amount of error, they cannot be seen. The viscosities collected by the class at each temperature versus concentration are graphed in Figure 3. The complete set of data from the class can be found in Appendix B.
The third value calculated was the moles of iron used, using the formula of grams of iron used, multiplied by 1 mole of iron over the gram atomic weight of iron. With values inputed, the formula was 2.4075*1 mole/55.85 grams, equaling .0431 moles of iron. The next value calculated was the moles of copper produced, figured out with the formula of moles of iron used multiplied by moles of copper over moles of iron used. With values inputed, the formula was .0431 moles of iron*1 mole of Cu/1 mole of iron = .0431 moles of copper. The fifth formula used for the purpose of calculating the grams of copper produced was moles of Cu multiplied by the gram atomic weight of copper over moles of copper.
The analysis was carried on C18 shim- pack GIST (150mmx 4.6mm 5µ) column used as stationary phase. A freshly prepared mobile phase consisting of methanol: potassium dihydrogen phosphate buffer in ratio of (30:70 v/v), PH-3 adjusted using ortho phosphoric acid (OPA) these were filtered by 0.45µM Whatmann filter paper and sonicated before use. The flow rate of mobile phase was 1ml/min. The detection was carried out at 220 nm and run time was around 10 minutes. Selection of wavelength A UV spectrum of drotaverine hydrochloride, ethamsylate, tranexamic acid in water was noted by scanning the solution in the range of 200-400nm.
The theoretical yield for Zinc Sulfide is 0.49 grams but the actual yield is 0.38 grams. So if 0.38 is divided by 0.49 and multiplied by 100 then the percent yield for Zinc Sulfide would be 77.6%. When it comes to Sodium Chloride, the theoretical yield is 0.58 grams and the actual yield is 0.45 grams. So when 0.45 grams is divided by 0.58 grams and multiplied by 100, the percent yield would be 77.5% of Sodium chloride. The actual yield is directly taken from the mass of the products in the experiment while the theoretical yield is determined by using stoichiometric calculations.
The solution was stirred at room temperature for 8h. The solvent was blown out with nitrogen. The residue was added to 1 ml of water containing 0.1% TFA and purified on RP-HPLC. Massspec of the final product clearly indicates presence of RB modified on PEI by series of peaks matching different polymer compositions (see Fig. 6).
The final volume was recorded. A pH probe connected through Microlab was calibrated using buffer solutions of pH 4.00, 7.00, and 10.00. The calibrated pH probe was used in order to measure the pH of the titrated solution of the unknown weak acid. These same steps were repeated except 2 mL of the strong base were titrated into the weak acid solution instead of 4 mL. This process was repeated 10 times.
The temperature at which wax is first precipitated from the solution can be measured by the cloud point test. The pour point of oil is an indication of the lowest temperature at which the fuel can be pumped. Pour points often occurs 8F to 10F below the cloud point. Pour point increases with molecular weight, but they are strongly influenced by molecular shape. Procedure The sample was brought to a temperature at least 14°C above the expected cloud point.
This solution reaction is exothermic; because temperature was increased meaning heat was released. In the last part of the experiment, neutralization reaction was investigated. NaOH(aq) + HCl(aq) NaCl(aq) + H2O(l) Enthalpy change for neutralization reaction between HCl and NaOH were calculated to be -51kJ. For reactions involving strong acids and alkalis, like HCl and NaOH, the values are always very closely similar, with values between -57 and -58 kJ.2 The actual value of enthalpy change of neutralization reaction is equal to -57.9 kJ.2 The reason for dissimilarity of results could be loss of heat during the transferring of the NaOH to the HCl. Since, temperature was increased, the reaction is exothermic, heat was