We Got A Sweet lab Deal!

INTRODUCTION:
In this lab you will investigate the concept of atomic mass and how it was derived. You will develop your own unit of measure, the CMU, and use it to measure the relative masses of other coins. At the conclusion of this lab you will be able o explain how scientists developed the system for AMU's (atomic mass units) and how it is applied to determine the relative masses of other atoms of other elements.

Background Information: Early chemists knew that atoms were very small but had no way of actually finding their mass. They realized, however, that it was possible to express the relative mass of any two atoms. The logic was as follows: suppose we know that one atom of hydrogen combines with one atom of oxygen in a chemical reaction. It is easy enough to find the actual masses of hydrogen and oxygen that combine in such a reaction. Research shows that 8 grams of oxygen combine with 1 gram of hydrogen. It follows, then, that each atom of oxygen has a mass eight times that of a hydrogen atom.
This reasoning led to the first table of atomic masses, published by John Dalton (1766–1844) in 1808. Dalton chose hydrogen to be the standard for his table of atomic masses and gave the hydrogen atom a mass of 1. Of course, he could have chosen any other element and any other value for its atomic mass. But hydrogen was the lightest of the elements and 1 is the easiest number for making comparisons.
HYPOTHESIS:
We thought that out of the two ages of pennies the pre would weigh more.
We thought the skittles would weigh more
MATERIALS:
tripple beam balance,
Pre-1982 pennies, Post 1982 pennies

PROCEDURES: (part I)
1) Obtain a packet of pennies.
2)Sort the pennies into two groups: pre 1982 and 1982 and newer
3)Measure the mass (in grams) of each stack of pennies. Record the mass (in grams) of each pennystack in a data table.
4)measure the mass in grams of a half dollar , quarter, nickel, and dime. Record these values in a data table.

Coin	Penny Post 1982	Penny Pre 1982	Quarter	Dime	Nickel
Mass	20.29g	28.3g	5.42g	2.13g	4.97g
Average Mass	2.54g	3.14g
%	47%	53%

Questions (part 1 )

1) Does  each penny have the same mass?No
2)Can you identify two "penny isotopes" based on masses of the pennies? No because you can't break it down, and each penny has a different mass.
3)What does your data tell you about the relationship between mass of a penny and date of a penny. Make a generalization. The pre 1982 pennies were heavier than post 1982 pennies so we thought that they must have been made out of more copper, or pure copper.

Part II

1)Determine the average mass  of pre-1982 pennies. (record average)
2)Determine the average mass of post-1982 pennies.(record average)
3)Determine the percentage of your pennies that is pre-1982 and the percentage that is post 1982. These percents should add up to 100%.  What you have calculated is the percent abundance of each group of pennies (penny isotope).
4)Choose one of the coins to make a CMU.
5)Determine the average mass of Pennium in CMU's using the percent abundance of each pennium isotope (pre-82 and post-82) and the mass of each pennium isotope in CMU's

Nicentium
Penny Post 1982	.245g
Penny Pre 1982	.176g
Quarter	.917g
Dime	2.33g

QUESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:
1) Make a statement about the average penny mass of pre-82 pennies in the packet. The pre 1982 pennies had a higher average mass than the post 1982 pennies.
2) Explain how you dreived the unit "CMU". Nicentium
3)Using the idea in #2 how did scients obtain the AMU to measure the mass of atoms of different elements? See background information.
4) Because these pennies represented atoms, our process in finding the average atomic mass of the pennnies was very close to that of the process scientists use to find the Atomic Mass' of elements.

Conclustion: our hypothesis was correct. The Post pennies did have a greater mass than those of the pre pennies. However we were surprised at the difference in all of the coins.



Candy Lab

INTRODUCTION:

Purpose: to use a Candium model to explain the concept of atomic mass.

                 to analyze the isotopes of Candium and calculate its atomic mass.

Materials:

• skittles
• Gob stoppers
• M&Ms
• Sixlets  
• Triple beam balance scale          

 Background Information:
skittle- is a brand of fruit-flavoured sweets, currently produced and marketed by the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, a division of Mars, Inc.. They have hard sugar shells which carry the letter S. The inside is mainly sugar and hydrogenated vegetable oil along with fruit juice, citric acid and natural and artificial flavours.

Gobstoppers- known as jawbreakers in Canada and the United States, are a type of hard confectionery. They are usually round, usually range from about 1 cm across to 3 cm across (though much bigger gobstoppers can sometimes be found in Canadian/US candy stores, up to 8 cm in diameter)      

M&M-The candy shells, each of which has the letter "m" printed in lower case on one side, surround a variety of fillings,

Sixlets- are small, round candy-coated chocolate-flavored candy made by Oak Leaf Confections, a SweetWorks Company in Toronto, Canada. The chocolate centers are made from a mixture of cocoa and carob, giving them an allegedly "malted" taste.
Hypothesis: We predicted that the gob stoppers would have the greatest mass.
Procedure:
1) Separate the sample of Candium into its 3 isotopes (the 4 different types of candy)
2)Determine the total mass of each isotope.
3) Count the numbers of each isotope.
4) Record the data and caluclations in the data table...

Isotopes	Skittles	Gob Stoppers	M&Ms	Sickuts
% Abundance	12 30%	10 24%	9 22%	10 24%
Total Mass	13.37g	16.51g	7.65g	8.21g
Average Mass	1.11g	1.65g	.85g	.82g
Relative Abundance	111.49%	165%	85%	82.1%
Average Mass of All	1.12g

SUMMARY: We found out the mass of the total amount of each type of candy and recorded it. Once we had the total mass we could calculate the relative abundance, percent abundance, and the average mass of all.
Isotope:  one of two or more atoms with the same atomic number but with different numbers of neutrons.
Improvement: we need to work on understanding the information better. I think that because we had to do two labs we fealt rushed and only recieved a mediocre amount of knowledge from each.
-Comment on how the activity is a model for calculating atomic mass of real elements. Because these candies represented atoms, our process in finding the average atomic mass of the candies was very close to that of the process scientists use to find the Atomic Mass' of elements.

CONCLUSION: Our hypothesis was correct, the Gob stoppers did have the highest total mass, average mass and percent abundance.

                                                                     QUARTER!

They Gobstobbers would not stay on the dang scale!

Stupid money is stuck!

Ba hahaha! "MnM"!

Everything! Hey... is that my pencil?

Dude! Our stacking skills are legit!

Post- Pennies

O Dear, we've made a mess haven't we?!

Pre-Pennies

Six-letts!

Mixn' it Up With Aluminum

! Goodness Gracious Great (Aluminum) Balls of Fire!
Introduction: We experienced a lab where  aluminum turned a rusty color caused from burning 
we used Copper Pentahydrate and aluminum foil

Purpose: to become familiar with the laboratory and to make qualitative and quantitative observations about physical and chemical changes during a chemical reaction.

Hypothesis: we hypothesized that the aluminum foil and copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate would have a reaction that would cause bubble like foaming.

Background Info: 

Aluminum is soft, durable, lightweight, it is a member of the boron family and its symbol is Al. It is silver and it is water soluble in only some forms, it is nonmagnetic and non-sparking.

 Copper Pentahydrate A chemical compound whose formula is CuSO4. This is a salt that has compounds that have different degees of hydration anhydrous form is pale green or grey/white powder. The pentahydrate is the salt and is bright blue

Materials:
-Beaker (150 or 250 ml)
-copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate-caution, toxic substance
-scoopula
-100ml graduated cylinder
-stirring rod
-thermometer
-small square of aluminum foil
-Sodium ChlorideProcedures:
1.) Form a lab group of two or three people, first when entering the lab grab an apron and goggles.
2.) Go to the appropriate source and add some water in your beaker. (The exact amount is not important, although it should be between 75 and 100ml.
**It is important throughout the experiment to take note of quantitative and qualitative observations of the physical and chemical properties.
3.) Now using the scoopula, obtain some of the copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate. (Again the exact amount is not important, but your scoopula should be about 1/4 filled with the solid)
4.) Place the CuSO4 5H20 in the beaker, and stir with the stirring rod until all the solid has dissolved.
5.) Obtain the aluminum foil sample in front of you and crumple it into a loose ball.
6.) Place the aluminum ball into the copper (II) sulfate solution, and stir gently for about 15 sec.
**write down detailed observations of everything you see.
7.) Make sure your scoopula is clean (rinse with tap water and dry with a paper towel if not) and obtain a large scoop of sodium chloride (salt) from the labeled container.
8.) Add the NaC1 to the beaker containing the copper (H) sulfate- aluminum mixture.
9.) Stir until all of the sodium chloride is dissolved.

Clean Up
1.) After about 10 min, take your beaker over the large funnel and beaker and slowly pour your mixture into the beaker.
2.) Then clean your beaker thoroughly with soap and tap water, and then a final rinse with distilled water.
3.) Make sure your lab station is clean; return all safety equipment to its proper location.

Data:
Through the entire experiment we measured the temperature of the mixture at each stage.
          -The tap water was 23.2 degrees Celsius
          - Copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate took a long time to dissolve into the water and become      a                  homogenous mixture but once it did, the solution never separated or settled.
          -We also measured the solution's temperature at this stage and it had risen to 27.4 degrees Celsius.
          - After we added the aluminum foil ball the mixture had bubbles appear when we stirred it; however we were unsure if it was from the foreign object creating a disturbance or a reaction.
          - We again measured the mixture at this stage and were surprised to find out the temperature had dropped to 26.2 degrees Celsius.
          - As soon as we added the sodium chloride (salt) we immediately saw a change, the sodium chloride that had sunk to the bottom began to turn yellow as we stirred it and then little pieces of the aluminum foil ball began to break off and sink to the bottom. It looked like little rusted pieces but we decided it was simply the copper attaching itself to the aluminum which caused it to flake off from the original ball.
          - We also realized that the solution was now putting off an odor that smelled a lot like copper as well as a vapor that resulted from the temperature rising. The temperature rose so quickly that there was a difference in temperature of the glass, the solution got surprisingly warm, and it reached 37.9 degrees Celsius.
          - By the end of the experiment the aluminum ball was almost completely broken apart and its pieces had sunk to the bottom of the beaker with the copper attached to them.

Discussion:
This was a very interesting experiment in the sense that it started off slow, with little or no reactions, but once we added the sodium chloride (salt) the entire mixture changed and began to react. The temperature went from the lowest 23.2 degrees Celsius to the highest 37.9 degrees Celsius, and because there was no heat added we can say that this was a complete chemical reaction. The reaction was big enough to cause the aluminum foil ball to flake off and ultimately just become little pieces.

Conclusion:
We reject our hypothesis, because there was no visible bubbling even though the heat did rise very quickly there was little or no actually bubbling. However, if we had more time we would have like to see what more sodium chloride or more aluminum foil would do, if it would actually create foaming bubbles.


FUN FUN FUN!

                 Quote of the day, "I can't stir fast enough with this thing! I am NOT a tea drinker!!!"

                                             Hmmm.... Nothing is happening... how depressing!

               Woe now!!!!! That's Nasty! The copper attached it's self to the foil and broke it down!

         That's appetizing..... NOT gag me with a spoon! Just kidding! the foil totally disintegrated!!!!!

 The chemical reaction actually created enough heat that smoke or vapor was comming off of it and beaker was hot to the touch.

Just Poke At The Yellow!!!!

Just keep stirring, just keep stirring, just keep stirring, stirring, stirring... what do we do we stir, stir, stir!

Chemistry is Bubbling Over With Fun

Chemistry is “Bubbling” Over With Fun

Question: Make a prediction of which solution makes better bubbles.

Background Info: We know that soap solution mixed with water creates bubbles. Remember when you were little and you were helping mom with the dishes and the only reason you offered to help in the first place was to be able to play with bubbles. We also previously learned that salt acts as a buffer between the soap and the water. 

Hypothesis: We thought that the sugar would make better bubbles than the salty because it would make the solution thicker and more syrup like.

Materials: a 3 plastic drinking cups

                   a    Liquid dish detergent

                   a    Measuring cup and spoons

                   a    Water

                   a  Table sugar

                   a  Table salt

                   a  Drinking straw

Procedure:

1.   Label 3 drinking cups 1,2,3. Measure and add 1 teaspoon of liquid dish detergent to each cup.  Use measuring cup of water to each drinking cup.  Then swirl the cups to form a clear mixture.

2.   Add ½ teaspoon of table sugar to cup 2 and ½ teaspoon of table salt to cup 3. Swirl each for 1 minute.

3.   Dip straw into cup 1, remove it and blow gently.

4.   Repeat step 3 on cup 2 and 3.

Data

As we mixed the solutions cup 2 was the thickest, coming in second was cup 1 and third place was cup 3.

Once we finished stirring for one minute. Cup 2 with the sugar had more bubbles that had formed during the stirring.

Discussion

 -As we tried to blow bubbles with our straws we came to find that the cup 2 blew bubbles the best, cup 1 the second best, and cup three with the salt didn't blow any bubbles.

 -When we decided we would try to blow bubbles on the surface of the lab counter, once again cup 2 made the strongest bubble.

Apply to Real Life: don't put bath salts in with your bubble bath, because you won't have bubbles.

We learned that salt does not make bubbles you can blow, but it can still make bubbles when agitated.

Some errors that could have occured...

        -We could have had different amount of soap in each cup considering we were using a spoon instead of an exact measuring device.

         -There were different people blowing into the straws trying to create bubbles so that could effect each differently.

Conclusion: we accept our our hypothesis because we were right, salt did affect the solution negatively. We also learned that everything can be investigated deeper so we can learn what causes certain things, like bubbles to reacting differently with salt than with sugar.

Going Further: This could help the productivity of bubble bath and dish soap. Other additional experiment could include testing soap with other common items like dishwasher detergent to see how the soap was affected.