Metal Lab Essay

Data abbreviation1. What was the temperature change for the body of water in the calorimeter (Twater)? 3C2. What was the temperature change for the coat exemplar (T surface)? Assume the intial temperature of the metallic element was the same as the temperature of the water it was turn in. 70C3. What was the specific hop up of water in J/gC?4.186 J/gC4. Using the next equation, your answers to questions 1-3, and your data table, sic the specific warmth of the metal sample you tested.5. aim you metal using the list of specific lovingness determine provided. The metal that was identified was Zinc.6. Calculate the percent error in the specific catch fire value that you determined experiment onlyy.ConclusionThe purpose of this experiment was to determine the identity element of a conundrum metal by finding the specific heat of the metal and comparing it to a list of specific heat values for different metals. Before beginning the lab and during the lab, the mass of the metal sample and water sample was taken. This information was later riding habitd to help determine the specific heat of the brain-teaser metal. The temperature of the boiling water, the temperature of the water in the calorimeter without the metal, and the temperature of the water and metal in the calorimeter were also collected to help determine the mystery metal. After this, the temperature changes for the water in the calorimeter and the metal sample were collected. After all the data was gathered, an equation was used to find the specific heat of the mystery metal and determine its true identity. The calculated specific heat of the metal was 0.231 J/gC. Even though this was close to the specific heat of Cadmium, the actual metal was Zinc, which had a specific heat of 0.390 J/gC. The purpose of the lab was met, but not very well. There was a percent error of 40%, which is ridiculously high.Many things couldve deceased do by in the lab such as reading the thermometer wrong, miscal culating the specific heat of the mystery metal, or not following the affair. One thing that couldve gone wrong is the possibility of reading the thermometer wrong. Reading the thermometer wrong couldve resulted in the ill luck of the faultless lab. Another possible error was miscalculating the specific heat. This is very arguable and easy to achieve. It is no surprise if it happened during the lab. One final error couldve been not following the procedure. Not following the procedure couldve easily messed up the entire lab. Following directions is a very crucial part of any lab. disrespect these errors, there are ways to fix them. One declaration is to use a digital thermometer instead. This would eliminate the possibility of reading the thermometer wrong. Another solution is to explain the equation more set downly. Making the equation as clear as possible to anyone who may use it could definitely almost all told erase the misunderstanding of an equation. One last solution is to read the procedure thoroughly multiple times before starting the lab. This would ensure that no direction has been skipped or skimmed, and the lab will run smoothly.