The temperature of the acid Essay Example for Free

The temperature of the acid EssayMy conclusion fully supports my previous hypothesis and predictions that as the temperature increases, the calculated ordain of reaction increases. This is shown in my final table of results and chart. However, it does non support my predicted results exactly, as the pattern of the represent is not as I had expected. This can be explained if necessary by inaccuracy of equipment, mistake in timing or simply human reaction times and judgement and therefore is less important than the accuracy of the predicted occurrence that the temperature and the roll of reaction are proportional. From my earlier notes I can see that this is because as the temperature increases there is to a greater extent heat energy. This can be converted into kinetic energy, which makes the particles move around faster, and therefore get down more than chance of colliding with individually former(a). Also, larger volumes of heat and energy means more effective collis ions are created. I therefore conclude that the relationship between temperature and rate of reaction is indirectly proportional, in that as the temperature increases, the rate of the reactions taking place increases similarly. EvaluationI feel that both my order and equipment were fairly reliable, as my results equal fairly closely with how I imagined they would. I put on taken fair to middling results and repeats, and these are close enough to my prediction to create and support a firm conclusion. However, a few of my results were slightly anomalous, and the graph did not end up in the exact shape I had predicted, and therefore there must be shipway to make my examine more accurate. There are several things I have spy which could have adversely affected any results I got, and I have tried to think of ways in which I could alter them if I was to re-do the experiments now.It is important to remember that the line of best fit on my graph is a straight line, showing only a bas ic upward thin, not a graph which accelerates as I predicted. When, towards the end of the given time for practicals, I was looking to re-do any points, I only looked at my first graph of time taken against temperature (see page 10), not at the graph of rate against temperature. Therefore, instead of trying to repeat points which fall a little away from my best-fit line, such as that at 24i C or that at 50iC, I added another point at an important pointedness in my original graph, at 18i C. This seemed a valuable point, but looking at my rate graph it lies exactly on my best-fit line. So while it does serve to highlight the accuracy of my results and best-fit line, it would probably have been more valuable to repeat the points at 24 and 50i C. Because of reasons stated (on page 8), the point at 50i C didnt have a repeat to begin with, and therefore ought to be looked at as less valid than the other points anyway.Most of the potential inaccuracies in my experiment were ca utilize by my equipment, rather than the method, as I felt that my method was reliable. I especially desired my system for heating, as it almost invariably kept the acid and tablets at a constant temperature and it produced accurate results. There are a few reasons that I can order why the rate may have been above my best-fit line (such as at 24i C). If this is the case, it means that the mathematical carrefour of 50cmi carbon dioxide was produced within a shorter time than expected.This could be due to the temperature being higher than I had believed (for instance if it rose during the reaction), or the gas syringe not being back to exactly zero forrader starting the experiment (sometimes I found it got knocked so it was already at approximately superstar or two cmi ). Therefore, in theory, checking and making sure of both these things before the start of each experiment could have improved my method, and if I was to repeat the experiment I would ensure I was doing these things. There are also reasons why the rate may have been below my best-fit line (such as at 50iC).This means that the product (50cmi of carbon dioxide) as wellk a longer time to be produced than expected, or that it took a longer time than fair(a) to show in the gas syringe. This could be due to the temperature being lower than I thought (for practice having dropped during the reaction). In future, this should be checked before the experiment is started. It could also be due to faulty equipment, like the gas syringe getting stuck or the rubber joining the tube not being on properly, or being on different amounts so that the gas took longer to travel up the tube.If the experiment was repeated, the gas syringe should be chosen carefully as one which is not either too loose or too stiff, and the joining tube should be put on properly, so that no gas is allowed to escape when the pressure builds up inside the conical flask. Also, a certain degree of error must be allowed for in that a second pers on is necessary when starting an experiment. This is because you need one turn over to add the tablets, one hand to put the bung in and a third hand to start the stopclock. This increases the chances of the experiment being inaccurate, as two different people are very tall(a) to be completely synchronised.Therefore the gas has time to escape unnoticed at the start of each reaction before the bung is put in. I can see little which could be through about this in future experiments. In both cases (above or below the best-fit line) the experiment would have benefited from a greater number of results being taken at smaller intervals. This would probably have further support my conclusion and may also have more accurately displayed a less obvious trend such as the one I originally predicted.Taking results in a wider range, (for example from 5i C to 70iC) with repeats to verify accuracy, would have strengthened my evidence. It would only have done this if, as I imagine, a go along trend showed in the extra results. In all of the experiments, a degree of error in tenaciousness must be taken into account. It is extremely unlikely that the tablets all had the selfsame(prenominal) mass, or that there was the same volume of hydrochloric acid down to the last drop. I tried to make this as accurate as possible, using a burette instead of a measuring cylinder, and only getting the tablets out at the last minute so that they were as whole and un-tampered-with as they could be.If the experiment was to be repeated on a larger timescale, I could measure the mass of the tablets to increase accuracy. It is also impossible to swirl the beaker at exactly the same vigorousness every time, although I tried to keep it as constant as I could. If I was looking to test these results on a much wider scale, I could use other putting surface antacid tablets with similar active ingredients, keeping the type and volume of acid constant. This would prove that the tablets that I used were regular, and didnt just coincidentally produce typical results.