Density of a Gas

Claim: The mass of gas is significantly less than that of the density of solids and liquids.

Evidence: The density of gas is far less than the density's of a solid or a liquid. In a particle model of gas the particles are fewer and more spread out. Compared to the particle model of a liquid which would have a few more particles that would be closer together. The particle model of a solid is the most dense and as the most amount of particles in it. It has more particles because these particles are a lot closer together than that of a gas or a liquid. Each state of matter has different particles which are not the same at all.



Reasoning: Looking at the particle models it is clear to see the different density's between the different states of matter. The average density for copper is 8.25. The average density of water is 1.00. The average density that we got for Carbon Dioxide was .00112903(g/cm³). The density is the mass divided by the volume. The mass is the amount of matter in an object. The volume is the amount of space that an object takes up.

Solid                                                

Liquid

Gas

Claim: the shapes can hold almost the same amount of water as the outside volume is

Reasoning: because the shell of the shape is only a little bit more that the inside

evidence: the volume units data

Density of a Gas

Claim: The density of a gas is less than the one of liquid and solid.

Evidence: The density of the gas is far less than that of a liquid or a solid. The density of a gas on a particle model is spaced out and has very few particles that are close to each other. The density of a liquid has more particles than that of a gas but has fewer particles than that of a solid. On the particle model of a liquid is has more particles than the gas. The particles are still spaced out but not as far as the ones in the gas particle model. The particle model of a solid is the biggest out of the three elements. On a particle model the particles of a solid are very close together. All three elements have different particles they aren't the same at all.

            

 

Reasoning: By the particle models you can clear see that the density of a gas is                                           so much less than liquid or solid. The average density for copper is 8.25. The average density of water is 1.00. The average density for carbon dioxide is 0.038. The real carbon dioxide level is 0.04 percent (440 ppm) as of 2014. Which "ppm" means parts-per notation. 

Gas Particle Model 

Liquid Particle Model

Solid Particle Model

Volume Units Lab

Claim- The claim was that the the water measurements and the ruler measurements would be the same because a 1 cm^3 is the exact same as a 1 ml.



Evidence:
























The graph shows that they were close to each other the whole time, I think that they weren't perfect with each other because there might have been little errors. Such as we might have been part of a cm off when we used the ruler or when we were measuring in ml we could have been off a bit. The equation was W=(0.9212mL/cm^3)r+0mL.The slope is 0.9212mL/cm^3. The y int is 5.630 mL.

Reasoning: The slope stays consistent the whole way so i know that 1cm^3 is the same as 1 ml. So that means that the means that the outcome of the slope should be the same but there was a little error.

station #3  claim: when you mix both chemicals together the mass would be the same

 Reasoning: nothing nothing left the system.

Evidence: mass lab stations class data

Mass Lab Station 1

In lab 1 we were suppose to measure the fiber then pull it all apart and measure it again. My prediction was  that the mass would stay the same as long as everyone put back all the fiber that they pulled apart. For the most part everyone had the same mass before and after they pulled the fiber apart. My evidence that supports this is the histogram and it said there was just a slight change but not much. The change was very small and could have been from the scale miss reading the fiber. There was no way that the mass could have changed if we put all the fiber back into the beaker because nothing was being added or taken away from the fiber. I know that my claim is correct and its telling that there was no real loss or gain in this lab station.    

Mass Lab Station #6

This lab activity was to figure out if the mass of water would change after putting an alka seltzer tablet in there and letting it dissolve.
Claim: I believe that the mass would change. I believe this because you are adding another object into the water. The alka seltzer has mass on it own so it will just add that to the water when it is placed in there.
Evidence: After measuring the mass of the water in the container by itself, then adding the tablet and letting it dissolve we discovered there is change. There was a change because you are adding another object into the water.
Reasoning:The reasoning for why the mass changes almost explains itself. If you add another object to something else that has its own mass, then it will add mass to the other object.

Volume UnIts blog post

Claim: I think that volume should be the same, 1 (cm^3) should equal 1 (mL) when you are measuring volume using math or using water.

Evidence:

Our graph shows that the slope remains the same the whole entire time, with very little error. I think that the errors could have been measuring errors or we might not have gotten enough water. We also might have put to much water in the graduated cylinder. There might have been some water in the graduated cylinder from the last test. The equation was W=(1.001mL/cm^3) + 0mL. The slope was 1.001mL/cm^3 the y intercept was 0.

Reasoning: Since the slope stayed the same the whole time it told me that 1 mL = 1 cm^3.
Matter should behave the same way no matter what state solid or liquid. The measurements should always be the same. Rain, snow, and ice should behave the same way and the measurements should be the same.

Volume Units Lab

Claim- Our claim was that the volume of the shape measured with a ruler should be exactly the same as when it is measured by water because 1 cm^3 = 1 mL. 

Evidence- (Board Meeting)

Our graph was pretty steady. I think that the mistakes on the graph come from air bubbles in the shape when we measured with water or human error spilling water or misreading the ruler or graduated cylinder. Our equation was W=(0.8144mL/cm^3)+11.93mL.. our slope was 0.8144.. and our y-int was 11.93.

Reasoning: Our slope was somewhat consistent on our graph, but our y-intercept was kind of weird and didn't seem right. Because of the 5% rule, our y-int stayed at 11.93. After our board meeting, I made the claim that volume in cm^3 and mL should be exactly the same

Volume Units Lab

My claim was that 1cm^3 is equal to 1mL.

W(mL)=1.104(mL/cm^3)M(cm^3)-6.765

Slope: 1.104(mL/cm^3)

Y-int.: -6.765

The slope of the line in my graph is .1 off of being exactly 1. If it was 1 that would mean that that for every 10mL. there are 10cm^3, meaning that the ratio is 1:1. but this would only work if we had less error in our experiment. The Y-int. or error is about 7% witch means that there was to much error to think of it as a irrelevant part of the graph. So if I were to redo the experiment with much less error and still got the same slope I could confidently say that there is a 1:1 between mL and cm^3. I also chose behave as a label on this post because this experiment tested how matter behaves in correlation with mass and volume.

Mass Lab Stations: Station 2

I chose station 2 to do my blog on. This is the experiment where you took a chunk of ice and measured its mass, then after it melted you measured again to see if there was any change in mass.

My claim for the experiment at station 2 is that when ice changes form from ice to water the mass will not change.

In our system we used a small 100mL. beaker and a small chunk of ice. We first zeroed out the scale with the beaker on it so that we would only get the mass of the ice that we placed into the beaker. Our measurement was 34.79g. before the ice melted. We then took the beaker with the ice in it and set it in our hand to get the ice to melt faster. Once we were positive that all the ice had melted into water we placed the beaker with the now melted ice back on the scale to measure its mass again. The measurement was again 34.79g.

We all agreed, in class, that water and ice have the same particles no matter what form they're in. weather it's water or ice it is still the same substance. So we decided that if ice melts there is still going to be the same amount of water as there was ice, it is just simply in a different form.

Mass Lab Stations: Station 1

Claim: There is no change in mass if there is no change in the system.

Evidence:
            System: Beaker and fiber
            Mass Before: 167.82g
            Mass After: 167.82g
            Change in Mass: 0g
The only thing that had happened in this lab was that we pulled the fiber apart. There was no change in the system.

Reasoning: When measuring mass, if there is no change in the system, the mass will remain the same. The only way the mass will be different is if there is something added or taken out of the system.

Volume Units Lab

Our claim was that all the points were directly related and were similar to each other. they all follow the increase of the slope other than the fifth object. My reasoning for this claim is because if you look at he graph all of the points are following the slope except for the one outlier. The equation that we used is .9108 ml/cm^3, causing the slope to be 0.9108 also. our y intercept was 0 becasue of the 5% rule.In this matter behaves similar to volume. you can see this in our data because all of the numbers are similar.

Volume lab

Claim: Volume in mL is the same as the volume is cm^3.

Evidence: As you can see in the graph below, the slope is 1.08 mL/cm^3. When you round the slope, it shows that the slope will then become 1.

Reasoning: The reasoning behind this is because you are measure in volume. When you measure volume in cm^3, you are measure how much space it there. Then when you measure volume in mL, you measuring how much water is able to fit into that space.

Volume Units Lab

The original questions was: How are volume in cm3 related to volume in mL?

Claim: Are directly related. 1cm3 = 1mL.

Evidence:
Equation= R=0.95(mL/cm3)W=0(mL)
Slope=0.95
Y-int=0

Reasoning: My graph shows this because the x and the y are directly related. So if you follow a number all the way to the line from the x axis and follow it back to the y it will be the same number. That is because my slope was almost 1, in a perfect would it would be exactly one but we can't get that close because we can't measure that precisely. Also the y-int isn't significant because in a perfect world it would be zero but again we can't get that precise with our measuring. I choose matter because this whole unit is about Matter and Properties.

Volume Units Lab

My claim is that there is one mL per cubic cm. The evidence I have for this claim is that my data shows that the relationship between cubic cm and mL is 1:1.

My reasoning for this claim is that our data isn't perfect and the slope is about 1 so I just assumed that it would be one.

Volume lab

My claim this that 1 cm3 is equal to 1 ml. This would have worked if we had a perfect experiment but we didn't. We think this happened because we couldn't get all the water out of the container or the beaker.This made our mass go up one every time we tried measuring an object. Our slope was 1.005 and if we would have rounded it to the nearest tenth it would have been one.

Volume Units Lab

Evidence: Our slope was 16.17 but because errors could have happened, that could be wrong. Due to the 5 percent rule though it shows that's correct.
Volume in cm^3 is DIRECTLY related to volume in mL. The average of all slopes in our class is .899324166 and when you round the 1's place the average turns to 1. So the average is 1 mL/cm^3 meaning for every cm^3 the is a mL to equal it.

Reasoning: After discussing in class it was obvious that we made some error. 3 numbers are very close on the left except the last one which was an error on our group's part. That's why it's is okay to say that for every cm^3 there is 1 mL also.

Our equation was v=0.6535(mL/cm^3)V+16.17
Claim: 1mL=1cm^3

Volume Unit Lab

My claim is that all but one of the points (point 4) are similar in values and follow the line of regression but point 4 is an out liar. My reasoning for that is if you look at the graph all points other then point 4 are in a nearly straight line and then there is point 4 out lying that line. The equation I used was V=8.592(v)+0. Having my slope be 8.592 and my y-intercept be 0 because of the 5% rule.

Volume Units blog post

In our class discussion we decided that ML and CM3 are directly related because there is little change from the line of regression and the line is linear. My reasoning is in our graph, Ml and Cm3 are on the same line of regression on the graph so they are directly related. Our slope is 1.1 Ml/Cm3 and our Y intercept is 0 Ml/Cm3 so that is only one point away from each other. Our evidence supports the claim because everyone in the group talk showed that there was little change in there graph of regression and we all agreed that ML and CM3 are directly related. We viewed matter on the scale in grams and we viewed it through a cylinder by doing the water displacement.  

Volume Units

Our group had decided that the mass and volume would've been equivalent, had we not had an imperfect experiment. There was still water left in our containers, and we had no way to measure that. This made our volume above our mass by 1 unit each time we measured, which makes us think there's about 1 ml of water left in the beaker each time that doesn't get dumped out. This is why our claim is that it would've been even, had the water not been left there, and that water's mass is equal to the water's volume. Our graph also showed that the slope was very close to one (1.005) and if it had been rounded to the nearest tenth, it would've been one.

Volume Units

Claim: The volume, when measured in cm^3, is directly related with the volume when it is measured in mL.

Evidence: The evidence that supports this is that the volume in both cm^3 and in mL are quite similar. In the three trials that we did with each shape using each type of measurement, the difference between them was very small.

Reasoning: The data that we got from the various trials of measurement directly supports our claim of the correlation between volume when it's measured in cm^3 and when it's measured in mL. There was very little difference between the measurements, regardless of the units used.


Slope: 0.8970ml/cm^3
Y-int: 6.350 ml
Equation: R=0.8970(ml/cm^3)W+0(ml)

Volume Units Lab

Our original question was: What is the relationship between volume in cm^3 and volume in mL?

Claim: 1 cm^3=1 mL.

Evidence: https://docs.google.com/a/union.k12.ia.us/document/d/1BhjD3-OS5iz2pxIXn58_xx7xPnpZLepJCXkPPx6Kl3E/edit

Reasoning: We know this because all of our cm^3 measurements and mL measurements were the same. I chose "behave" because when one of the units was high, so was the other. It was the same way with when one of the units was lower, so was the other. Also, the graph shows that both of the units were equal to each other or they were very close due to human error. For the most part though, the cm^3 measurements was the same as the mL measurements.

Volume Units Blog Post

Claim: In this lab we were to try and figure out the relations between cubic cm and ml, because of this lab, I believe that for every one cubic cm that goes up so does one ml.

Reasoning: For my conclusion, I believe that for every one cubic cm that goes up so does one ml because if the volume goes up in one it has to go up in the other. My graph does show some error in measuring, but from board meetings and one on one help I have come to learn and know that this statement is true. This lab also shows how matter behaves in different forms.

Evidence:

So even though my evidence shows some error you can still see that cubic cm and ml are supposed to be the same and if not the exact then very close. It is hard to do a lab without any errors, therefore in mine i know that it isn't exact, but i know what went wrong was the measuring and the significant figures. Also, my  claim was proven right with at the board meeting and from others with in the chemistry class. 

Equation: V= 0.7778(ml/cm3)w+9.746(ml)

Slope:0.7778

Y int: 9.746

Graph:

Our equation was v=0.6535(mL/cm^3)V+16.17
Claim: 1mL=1cm^3
Evidence: Our slope is 16.17. To me that seems wrong, I believe there was some measuring errors, but the 5% rule showed that that is, in fact what our slope should be. The class average would have been rounded to 1, which indicates that for every cm^3, there should be a mL of water equal to it.

Reasoning: After looking at our graph and discussing others in class, it was obvious that we had made some sort of measuring error. Our graph shows that the rise and the run of each point are about the same each time, and in our data on the left the numbers are only within 2 or 3 numbers of each other, except for the last one, which was our mistake. That is why I think it is safe to say that 1mL=1cm^3.

Volume Units Lab

Claim- I think that ml and cm3 are the same thing.

Evidence-

Our equation- 

Our slope-

Our Y intercept- 0

Reasoning- It makes sense that ml and cm3 would be the same thing because as much as a point is over on the graph, the point is up. In other words it rises how much it runs. It also makes sense that the y intercept is 0 because you can't have 1ml of water fit into a 0cm3 cube. 

 

Volume Units Lab:

Claim: Every mL is equal to one cm^3.

Evidence:  Our equation is V=1.09mL/cm^3(V)+0mL. The reason for the our data not being completely correct is because there was a bit of error with our measuring. We could have gotten some extra water into the graduated cylinder while measuring or measured incorrectly. Our slope is 1.09 and the Y intercept is 0 because of the 5% rule.

Reasoning: Our graph does not exactly show our claim, which is that 1mL=1cm^3. This is because of the error in measuring the data. This lab proves that if the matter is a solid or a liquid the volume will be the same because the measuring unit of mL and cm^3 are equal.

Volume Units Lab

Claim: I think that when you are measuring volume with either a ruler or with water, it should be  exactly the same thing because 1 cm^3 is the same as 1 ml. 

Evidence: 

Our graph shows that the slope stays at about the same rate the whole time. I think the reason that there were errors, was because when we were measuring with water there were sometimes air bubbles that could not be filled with water. Also there may have been human error with reading the ruler or graduated cylinder we used. The equation was W=(0.9212mL/cm^3)r+0mL. The slope was 0.9212mL/cm^3.  The y int was 5.630 mL.

Reasoning:  The slope stays very consistent which helps me know that 1 cm^3 = 1 mL. Matter behaves in the same way, weather it is measured as a solid or a liquid. The outcome of the measurements should be the same. 

Volume Units Blog Post

I claim that 1 ml is equal to 1 cubic centimeter. My evidence is that the average slope for the class rounds to 1. This indicates that for every one ml of water there is one cubic centimeter of volume. The graph should have a Y intercept of 0. Ours did not because we had more than a 5% margin of error, although it was only 5.9%. The equation for the graph should be V(ml)=1 ml/cm^3 + 0 ml. This straight line equation proves that 1 ml is equal to 1 cubic centimeter.

Volume Units Lab

Claim: I think that when cm. goes up so does the ml., because if the volume goes up both would have to increase.

Evidence:

Reasoning: My evidence supports my claim because they both rise and the line increases. With out our major error you would continue to see this.

I think the slope of our graph would have been a very unusual number because he had a few major human errors. Our Y intercept wasn't 0 like most other groups once again because of human errors.  Most other groups had a much straighter line and had a Y-intersept of 0 or close to it.

Volume Units Lab

Our original question was: What is the relationship between volume in cm^3 and volume in mL?

Claim: 1 cm^3=1 mL.

Evidence: https://docs.google.com/a/union.k12.ia.us/document/d/1BhjD3-OS5iz2pxIXn58_xx7xPnpZLepJCXkPPx6Kl3E/edit

Reasoning: We know this because all of our cm^3 measurements and mL measurements were the same. I chose "behave" because they both are the same thing.

Volume Units Lab

Claim; My claim is that 1cm^3 and 1mL are the exact same thing.

Evidence:
Equation= V=0.98(mL/cm^3)v+0mL
Y-int= 0
Slope= 0.98
The slope is not exactly 1 because their was human error during our experiment. Also the reason our y-int was 0 because of the 5% rule. So this graph show that mL and cm^3 are almost the exact thing.

Reasoning: My conclusion is that 1mL=1cm^3. Our graph shows that they are very close together which shows measurement error. This experiment shows that even if it is a liquid,solid, that is will always have the exact same volume every time unless there is an error during the trials. I believe that this experiment shows how matter behaves in different forms.

Volume Units Lab

Claim: The point of this lab was to figure out what the relationship between cm^3 and mL was. We figured out that 1mL=1cm^3. 

Evidence: The reason that our slope was not exactly 1 is because of error. Error occurred when there was an air bubble in the shape or we did not get all the water out of it. Also measuring errors could have taken place. Our equation was V=0.98(mL/cm^3)v+0mL. The reason b is 0 is because of the 5% rule. That rule showed that b was not significant so it turned out to be 0. Our slope=0.98. This number means that cm^3 and mL were very close to being the same thing. 

Reasoning: In conclusion 1mL=1cm^3. The reason the graph does not show that is because of error. Measuring these two units proves to us how matter behaves itself. Whether matter is in a liquid state or a solid state, the volume of it will be the same. Quite amazing if you ask me. I think that answers how matter behaves.

Volume Units Lab

            We did this experiment to find out if cm^3 and mL are the same thing. Our evidence showed that the volume in cm^3 and mL are very similar. After comparing and talking it over with the class, I think that 1 cm^3= 1 mL even though our evidence doesn't show this exactly.

            For the experiment we had to measure the volume of 6 different shapes using cm^3 and mL. My partner and I's equation was  Y=0.8965(mL/cm^3)V+ 0.


I think we had some errors and that is why our slope isn't exactly 1. We could have spilled some water or been a little off on our ruler measurements, when experimenting it's impossible to be correct. Our y-intercept is 0 which means that if one variable is 0, the others variable have to be 0 also. If our equation was Y=1(mL/cm^3)V+ 0 (we are very close) this would create the best-fit line on our graph. In conclusion,  I think volume in cm^3 and volume in mL have the same value.  

Volume Units Lab

Claim: My partner and I thought that the outcome of the two (cm^3 and mL) would be different.  We thought that measuring the volumes with water in mL would have a slightly lower volume due to not being able to get every last bit of water out of the container.

Evidence: After measuring all three of our own shapes, we traded with a different group and go the information for their 3 shapes.  In the end we had measurements of 6 different shapes.  Our evidence is that for each of the shapes the measurements were very similar and close, but the the same volumes.  The volumes that were measured with water are slightly less than the volumes measured in cm^3.  Our equation that was used in our graph was W= 0.8965(mL/cm^3)V+2.551.  We did not get the answer to come out that 1cm^3= 1mL, but it did come close.

Reasoning:  We are saying our graph shows that they are similar but not exactly the same.  This is not because the shape changed with in the time that we measured them, but we are saying that the measurements can't be 100% the exact same because of the water left behind.

Volume Units Lab

Claim:

I believe that volume measured in mL is the exact same as volume measured in cm^3.  

Evidence: Slope = 0.8144

                 Y-intercept = 0

                 Equation: Y = 0.8144x + 0

Reasoning: Our evidence supports our claim that volume in mL and cm^3 are the same because our line, for the most part, is right around the line of best fit.  True, it looks like there are some ups and downs, but we believe that those bumps are because of errors that we made during measuring.  With the water, it would be very easy to accidentally spill or lose volume in a similar way.  And, like Mrs. Gates said in class, it is impossible to be exactly correct when using experimental data.  If we were 100% correct in our measuring, the line would be exactly the same as the line of best fit, showing quite clearly that when the volume in mL goes up, the volume in cm^3 increases by the exact same amount. A slope for that 100% perfect data's change in mL over the change in cm^3 would be 1/1, or just 1.  The slope of our non-perfect data is 0.8144, which is actually getting pretty close to 1.  Also, our Y-intercept is 0, which means that when one variable is 0, the other has to be 0 as well. So, in conclusion, mL and cm^3 move on our graph as one unit, only with different names and as different ways of measuring matter.

I labeled this as 'Matter' because it doesn't describe the properties of matter like 'Behave' does, nor the energy in matter like 'energy' does. It simply is about the way we measure matter.  How matter takes up space, to be exact.

Reasoning:

Mass Lab Station # 1

Claim: Mass did not change when the wool was pulled apart.

Evidence: We measured the wool before we pulled it apart. Recorded the mass in grams which was 167.99 grams. Then pulled the wool apart recorded the mass again which was 167.99. It was the same. The entire class had no change in mass. The wool particles didn't change because nothing had been added or subtracted. It was pulled apart but all of it was still weighed.
Reasoning: The prediction was the mass would not change and that was the result. Even though the wool was pulled apart the mass did not change, either did the particles. The scale proved the nothing changed.

Volume Units

Claim: Volume is the same weather its in cm3 or mL.
Evidence: https://docs.google.com/a/union.k12.ia.us/document/d/1_aMYfllWEllo4L9Qpyw3Umq6F4d-E5v0kPWGgcyysm4/edit This graph shows that cm3 and ml are related. They are just different ways of measuring matter. The slope is .9212 which is very close to 1.




Reasoning: The slope is change in Y over change in X. The graph shows that volume in cm3 and ml is the same. Since mL and cm3 is the same it helps us predict what one would be without having the other. Theyre directly proportional.

Volume Units Lab

Claim- My partner and I believe that the volume in cm^3 and the volume in mL is similar in value. They may not be the same type of measurement, but when measuring the same object, there no more or less mass no matter what the measuring device.

Evidence- For our experiment we measured six different shapes' volumes in cm^3 and mL. We think that 1 cm^3= 1 mL. With a y-int less than 5% we used the correct rule and it rounded down to 0. Since the y-int was 0, we now have 0 cm^3=0 mL. For the graph, we used the equation v=1.1(ml/cm^3)*(v)+0. The 0 represents the y-int that was less than 5%. 1.1(mL/cm^3) represents our slope of the graph. In class we explained how we think mL and cm^3 are the same thing, just different equations and ways to get answers.

Reasoning- We are saying that cm^3 and mL are the same, even though our graph line and line of regression are only similar. This may be cause by things like spilling water, or not measuring the correct length of something. Almost all of the class agreed on cm^3 and mL being the same thing. The slope, 1.1(mL/cm^3), means that for every mL, there will be 1.1 cm^3, which is causing the graph to increase. The y-int, 0, represents that you don't add anything after finding the correct number. If it's at 0, it means that the mL and the cm^3 are directly related, because there is nothing else to add or measure.

Volume units lab

    During this lab we were testing whether or not that cm^3 and ml were the same when we measured them. When we tested it they did not come out to be the same, but they didn't because of errors. Some of the errors were not being able to get all the water out of the container shapes, or not measuring right. They should be the same and i will prove it in the graph.
    In this lab we had to measure the volume of each of the shapes we did. We did three shapes and another group did another three shapes, then we shared our results. So when we shared our data the measurements were not the same. We thought they were different because of error. 1 ml should equal 1 cm^3. So this means that the y-int has to be zero when you do the equation. It also makes thing easier. We had someone in the class have a y-int of 11 something. That is saying that you have 11 of something in nothing which is impossible. The equation we can use V(ml) = (1 ml/cm^3)V(cm^3) + 0(ml). They should be exactly the same. 1 cm^3 = 1 ml.
    So in conclusion the measurements should be exactly the same. Even though the data showed that were similar , they weren't exactly the same because of error. I think this is part of how does matter behave. I think that it is part of it because we get to see how measuring cm^3 and ml were the same. So we got to see how they compare and contrast.

Volume Units Lab

Claim- Volume in mL and cm^3 are similar in value. The line of volume in the graph has very little difference than the line of regression.
Evidence-
Equation- v=1.083(mL/cm^3)*(v) +0
Y- Intercept- 0 mL
Slope- 1.083 mL/cm^3


Reasoning- I believe they are similar in value because of what my evidence showed. On my graph, it showed that there was very little difference between cm^3 and mL with the line of regression. My graph points between the x- axis and y- axis only had a few tenths away difference up to ten away.  We used our own measurements and a few from different groups and we both had very little difference between cm^3 and mL. It may even be the same because we may have spilled water to make the difference or we may have measured inaccurately. In our discussion, the class agreed that cm^3 and mL were similar in value, but there wasn't an exact difference between the cm^3 and mL. In conclusion, I believe that there is very little difference between cm^3 and mL. I believe this helps answer the question, how do we view matter, because it's trying to help us decide if there is an exact difference between cm^3 and mL and it shows us how close the volumes are.

Volume Units lab

      Are the measurements cm^3 and mL the same thing. This project was proving rather cm^3 and mL are the same thing, or they are totally different from each other. I think that these two measurements are the same even though they show it in a different way.
      What this experiment consisted of was measuring the volume of six different shapes using cm^3 and mL. For cm^3 and mL to be the same thing one cm^3 had to equal on mL. The y-intercept had to equal zero, so this would be saying that 0 cm^3 =  0 mL. Which would make these two measurements the same. My group thought that cm^3 and mL were the same, but our data showed something different. Our linear equation said w=0.8142(mL/cm^3)m+11.93, but to show that the two measurements are the same the y-int. (11.93) had to be 0 because it would be saying that there is a shape that has measurement of 0 cm^3 and about 12 mL. Which this does not exist, so we might have had an error with calculating some of the numbers or somethings else may have happened. All the groups made graphs to show that the shapes showed that all the shapes were located around the fitted line. Showing that the two measurements are equal. As we talked as a class all the groups agreed that cm^3 and mL are the same thing. They're just written and calculated in different ways.
      Even thought our linear equation didn't fit the other groups; all the groups agreed that cm^3 and mL are the same. We are saying that cm^3 and mL are the same, but the data shows that they are similar. This is relevant because error plays a big part in collecting data. Which was probably one of the biggest reasons why they weren't exactly the same. Looking at everything that was talked about cm^3 and mL are the same thing even though they are measured in different ways. I think that this fits in with "How we view matter" and "How does matter behave" because we viewed why this experiment happened the way it did, but also how the experiment behaved with by the way that volume affected the two measurements.

Volume Units Lab

My partner and I believe that the volume in cm³ and the volume in mL has the same value. All of our evidence showed that their was very little difference between volume in cm³ and volume in mL, but the difference could be from spilling water or not measuring the right thing accurately. Our graph also showed us that these volume units were the same because the slope was one; not higher or lower than one. Our graph line is directly related to the best fit line because it follows it. The y-int shows that we do not add anything extra to the experiment. It shows that if the y-int is as zero that the voulme in cm³ and the volume in mL is at zero, there is nothing to it. We did three different measurements and got three from different groups, so we had enough data to support our claim.  In conclusion, my class agreed that the volume in cm³ and the volume in mL will be the same in any object. We view matter the same in the volume of cm³ and mL because cm³ and mL are the same in value.

Volume Units Lab

n

Volume Units Lab

Claim: My claim is that milliliters(mL) and cm^3 are the same value.

Evidence:
Slope= 0.91 (mL/cm^3)
Y-Int= 0 (mL)
Equation = 0.91(mL/cm^3)+ 0 (mL)

Reasoning: The reason in which my Y-Int. is zero is because of the 5% rule. The 5% rule states that if the Y-Int. doesn't reach 5% of the highest Y value then it is not significant enough to worry about it. That being said the Y-Int. is zero. To find the slope you need to find the linear fit line, which is the line that fits the plotted points the best. With our slope being close to one, you can say that the relationship between mL and cm^3 is that they aren't the same but are real close. I choose how we view matter as my label because it is describing the relationship between two units.

Volume Units Lab

Sevannah Weisenberger
Chemistry
Mrs. Gates
9/22/14



     In this lab that we worked on for the past few days we worked with water, rulers and hollow shapes, We then filled them up with water to find out the volume of the water in mL and measured them with the rulers by using centimeters.
     The relationship between ML and cm^3 is when one goes up or down the other increases and decreases along with it- meaning they are almost the same thing, because they are both measuring volume. Our evidence wasn't much, we didn't calculate an equation but we did figure out the slope= 1.953. Everyone's Y-int is 0 because to have an intercept that would mean something with 0 cm^3 would have to be able to hold water which isn't possible.
     My claim is supported by the smaller objects having smaller volume and the bigger objects having a bigger volume, thus it follows the hypothesis of everyone going along with thinking that ML and CM^3 are the same thing, or close to the same thing with room for error. Scientific rules that can explain why this is, is because you can't have something with small volume in centimeters and large volume in millimeters, it won't work.. it's just not possible. It helps answer our "big question" about how the two relate because the changes in volume coincide/interact similarly and show the same thing happening.

     By the end of this lab, we figured out that ML and CM^3 are similar but are different also, because one is using water and the other is using centimeters but by sharing data with other students in the the classroom we found that our opinions matched theirs about what happened, and what the similarities are.

Volume Units Lab

One cm^3 is equivalent to one mL.

My evidence behind this is my data and graph, while none of them exactly match up, we know that there is error involved in these trials. 

My reasoning of why I think that 1 cm^3=1 mL is because while the values don't exactly add up, they are very close and my slope, along with many others', was right around one.  Also, using the 5% rule, we classified the y intercept as insignificant, making it 0. 

Volume Units Lab

Claim: That volume in mL is the same as volume in cm3.

Evidence:

Reasoning: The data shows that both of the volumes are similar. They are slightly off because we weren't accurate enough with our measurements. 

Volume Units Lab

Claim: mL is the same as cm^3

Evidence:



Reasoning: Our data shows that it is close to the same, but our accuracy isn't a 100% because we don't have the right tools to be 100% right.

Mass Lab Station 1

My claim for Lab 1 is that there will is no change as all the particles remain apart of the before and after mass even with separating the fiber in to pieces. The evidence I have to support this is my before and after masses. My before mass was 1.89 and my after mass was 1.89 so there was no change in mass. My reasoning is that even though you are separating the particles from each other you are still keeping all the particles in the system there for no change in mass will occur. Our class analysis is that there is no change in before and after masses.

Volume Units Lab

Claim: My claim is that for one milliliters per cm^3. So for that being said the volume of cm^3 and volume milliliters are close enough together to call them similar in value.

Evidence: 
Equation: 0.9129(mL/cm^3)+ 0 (mL)
Slope: 0.912 (mL/cm^3)
Y-intercept: 0 (mL)


Reasoning: My claim is supported by potted points on the graph. One way to figure out the slope is you take the (y-int divided by the highest y value) times 100 to find what the percent the y-int is.The y-int. is 0 because of the 5% rule. Which in detail says any number less than 5% the y-int. will be 0 and the y-int would be not significant. But if the number is greater than 5% the y-int equal the given value and it is significant. For the slope you have to find the linear fit line which is the black straight on the graph to the left. A linear fit line tell you the slope which if it is close to 1 that means that your graph is almost a similar. I think that this blog falls under matter because volume is a part of matter is so many ways. The way matter was represented was by volume in milliliters and in volume cm^3. The matter of volume in milliliters was how much water would fit inside of a green shape that was already given in class for us. To find the volume cm^3 you have to measure the distance from one point to another using a ruler. After measure you had to use correct significant figure rules.

Mass Lab Station 1
We observed that pulling apart the fibers of the wool, did not change the mass. The data explains that when we measured the mass of the wool before it was pulled apart, it weighed 0.92 grams. After pulling it apart and weighing it for a second time it was the same weight. We did not change the system so our experiment was accurate. My claim is that you have to change the system to change the mass of an object

Lab Station #1

Claim: Pulling apart the wool fibers did not change the mass. Pulling something apart does not change the mass because nothing is added or taken away.

My evidence is due to the histogram we made and when comparing the data we saw that all of the results were relatively close to 0 which means there was little to no change at all. My reasoning is that nothing was added to or taken away from the particles of the wool and because pulling something apart does not change the mass because nothing is added or taken away. That is why the mass stayed the same.

Mass Lab Station #1

The point of this lab activity was to figure out whether or not the mass of a ball of fiber would change after being pulled apart from a once condensed position.

Claim: I believe that the mass would not change after being pulled apart, due to the fact that nothing is being added or removed from the system. The only thing that is changing is the amount of space that the fiber occupies.

Evidence: After measuring the mass of the fiber before and after we pulled it apart, we discovered that the mass did not change. There was nothing being added or removed from the system, so this conclusion seems to be valid.

Reasoning: The reason that the mass stayed the same after being pulled apart is fairly simple. The fiber itself was not being changed or having anything added or removed from it, so there is no real reason for it to change on its own.

Lab Station 1

Lab Station 1

 Claim: When pulling apart fiber it shouldn't get smaller nor bigger because you aren't gaining anything or losing anything you're just pulling it apart and putting it back into the beaker.

Evidence: My evidence shows me this is correct because our histogram all the number had little to no change. All the numbers were really close. It was all either .02 or .002 off to what everybody else got when you just put the fiber in the beaker at the beginning.

Mass Lab Station #1

At station one, we were supposed to measure the mass on fiber before and after you pulled it apart. I predicted that the mass would stay the same after you pulled it apart because you aren't changing anything. My prediction was correct, my mass stayed at 166.18 even after i pulled the fiber apart. This is because we aren't doing anything to change the particles, we are just essentially changing the shape and how big it is. We kept the same amount of fiber, we didn't take any out or put anymore back in, so it should stay the same. If we would have heated it up, burned it, got it wet, or made it cold the particles would've change, therefore causing the mass to change, but since we didn't do any of that they stayed the same. In conclusion, after discussing with the class, we believe that the mass and the particles stay the same.

Mass Lab Stations Blog

In lab station one, there were only 4 different variations of results that were found on our data. These four were -.1, 0, .1, and .2. Because these results are so close, we believe that the scale could have easily been off by .1 or .2 occasionally and that is the reason for any variation. The only thing that we did was stretch out the wool, which is no different than moving the wool apart. We all decided that the particles of the wool were just more spread out, but stayed the same. We claim that the measurements should have all been 0, and that the slight variation was because the scale was too inconsistent for our results. We think that the scales were not very inaccurate, but with such small amounts, it makes a difference. We think this because most people had 0, and only some had variations of .1 or .2.

Mass lab station #1

My claim: the fiber in station 3 had the same mass before and after pulling it apart because pulling something into two pieces doesn't change the mass of it.

Evidence/ reasoning: I found the mass of the fiber before pulling it apart and it was .99 grams, then I pulled the fiber into two pieces and found the mass of both of them together again and it was still .99 grams. I think it's pretty much common sense that when you take one thing and break it into parts, you can still add them up to get the same amount you had before. Like money for example, if you have a dollar and you break it up into dimes, you still have a dollar, just a dollar in smaller pieces. That's why I think that breaking something into pieces doesn't change the mass of it.

Mass Lab Station # 4

        Mass Lab station 4 involved steel wool, and what would happen to the particles if we burned the steel wool. In preforming this lab we answered the question: Does the steel wool increase, decrease, or stay the same after being burned? We found out that the steel wool's mass increases.

         To start the lab we recorded the mass of the steel wool alone. Then we burned it for a dew moments. After that we weighed the steel wool again. The data retrieved showed that there was an increase in mass. In class we made histograms with our groups displaying the group's data from the station. This helped us discover the increase of mass in lab station #4. 
          
          In Mass Lab Station #4 there was an increase in mass. My class found out that there were particles added to the original model. I think there were particles added because the mass increased. And the steel wool was burned and when that happened particles from the outside were added to the beginning particle model. During this lab the system of steel wool, evaporation dish, and the Bunsen Burner stayed constant, so this could not have contributed to the increase in mass. 

Lab Station #1

At our lab station, we used the fiber for measurement. We recorded the data from when the wool was pulled apart and when we put it all back together.
My claim is that when we pulled apart the wool, it was the same weight as the wool when it wasn't pulled apart. The mass stayed the same.
The evidence I have is the comparison with all of the other groups. Almost every other group had little or no change at all to their mass that were recorded. When there was a group that had a mass change, it was close to almost nothing. I learned that the little errors in the others lab groups could have been caused by the scale. The scales we use are sometimes off by just 0.1 grams, causing errors in the data.
My reasoning is that no matter what you do to the wool fiber, the mass will stay the same. The only way the mass would have changed is if we added wool or taken away wool from the system. Also, almost everyone in the class agreed with the outcome, also showing that the mass stays the same.

Lab Station #1

My claim is that when we pulled apart the fibers  of the wool the fibers split it half but then they re-closed themselves. I think the mass would weigh the same whether it was pulled apart or clumped together.
My evidence is the histogram of this lab station, which showed me that all results were close to zero which would mean little or no change. Also we need to remember that there is a 0.2 margin of error on the scale so that has to be worked in there too.
My reasoning is that  we did not add or subtract anything to the particles. That is why they stayed the same as when they were together and clumped. Also that is why the mass stayed the same.

Mass Lab Station #1

Station #1 included taking wool fiber and recording the mass when it was compacted and when it was pulled apart.

Claim: The mass didn't increase or decrease, it stayed the same.

Evidence: Compared to all the other groups, they all had similar results. The majority had no change in mass, and no one had a mass that increased. Only a couple groups had a negative outcome, and even then it was only by .02 to .01 which one could assume was just an error in the scale.

Reasoning: My reasoning is that even if you did pull the fiber apart, you aren't changing the particles, you're just spreading them out. You didn't add anything to the system or take anything out of the system, everything was the same so there shouldn't be a change in mass.

Mass Lab Station #1

The question was how much the mass would change, and when weighing the fiber all together then pulling it apart and weighing it again, the mass stayed the same.

We measured the fiber in the beaker before and the scale read 2.76, after pulling the fiber into smaller pieces and putting it back in the beaker, the scale still read 2.76.  Many other groups got close to or no change, also.  The close groups had somehow made a small error.

If all the groups got that there was no change in mass, and nothing new was added to the system, the mass has to stay constant.  When your system is closed, meaning not letting anything enter or leave it, no matter if the matter changes state, the mass stays the same.  This idea is also known as the Law of Conservation of Mass.

Mass Lab Station #2

          I chose lab number two with the ice and water. My system was a test tube, ice cube, and a scale. The question was, would the mass change, and if so why, and are the particles the same? My answer to the first question is no the mass does not change. My answer to the second question is yes the particles are the same. Here's why, nothing in my system changed except that the ice melted, but since the amount of water and the amount of ice were the same, nothing changed. The mass is the same because if nothing in your system changes then the mass will be the same. The particles are the same because water and ice are the same thing only one is frozen, but they are both made out of H20 therefore the same particles. Nothing is added; nothing is subtracted. The mass just stayed at 2.37 and there was zero change.
          My ideas are supported by all of the others in class, which was proven at our board meeting. I at first predicted that it would be the same mass and particles due to the reasons above and I believe it even more after looking at all of the data from all of my classmates and others that are taking chemistry now. We all agreed that if there was any change it was due to others spilling some of the water. We also agreed that the reason why all our numbers don't add up exactly is due to some getting a larger piece or smaller piece of ice. There wasn't much of a control on that. Which helps explain the conversation of matter. Conversation of matter means that the mass will stay the same if the system stays the same. If the system changes then so will the mass.
             My histogram shows that almost everyone had no change in their experiment and that we got the same answer. Those who did not weren't off by much, they either had human error or they had a bigger piece of ice then most.
             In real life you can use this as away to understand the world around you better and be able to solve other problems that may come your way. It could also help in some job areas and in math.

Mass Lab Station #1

For this station, we had to measure a piece of fiber in a glass beaker. After recording that data, we pulled the fiber apart and measured the mass again. I claimed that the mass would not change because nothing should have left the system. The evidence I have to support this is the graph that everyone's data is on; they are all relatively close to each other and most mass' are the same after being pulled apart. The reasoning I have is that the histogram proves that the mass didn't change and in the cases where the mass did change, human error and/or scale error are factors in this. Mass doesn't change, so if nothing was put in or taken out of the system, the mass should be the same as it was when you started.

Mass Lab Station #1

I predicted that the mass and the particles would stay the same. In lab station 1, our mass before was 166.18. Once we pulled apart the fiber and put it back into the beaker, it was still 166.18. Therefore the change in mass was 0. A reason for that was we didn't gain or lose any fiber. We used the exact same amount of fiber, just pulled apart. We didn't change our system at all so it gave the exact same mass like we expected. A reason the particles stayed the same was that we didn't do anything to change the fiber like for example burn it. Pulling apart the fiber didn't change the particles because we didn't change the temperature or get it wet to change the mass. In class, we discussed mass lab station #1 and everyone agreed that as long as you use the same amount of fiber and you use the same beaker, it will have the same mass. Everyone agreed that when they did the lab station, they got the same result that the mass stayed the same. In conclusion, I believe that the mass and particles stay the same.

#1 Sean Blunt

My claim is that when you pull fibers apart it should weigh the exact same as it did before as  it was clumped.
My evidence is that when the fiber is clumped up the particles were clumped up. when you pulled apart the fibers the particles got farther apart. We did add anything or take anything. All we did was pull the fiber apart. Therefore it should weigh the same. When we did our histogram all of the average numbers were close to zero, so it showed no change.

Lab Station #4

Lab Station # 4

My claim is that the ball of steal wool would be greater in mass after it has been burnt.  My evidence is that most of the results said that most of them had a greater mass or about the same.  my reasoning is that  there were few out-liars, Or steal wool changes 0.06 in mass and many other peoples did also.

Mass Lab Station #1

In this lab station we were supposed to put some fiber into a beaker and weigh it. My claim to the question is I didn't think there would be a mass change because your no taking anything out of the system so the mass should remain the same. My evidence to my claim was the graph that was presented because there were few people who had a change in mas but the majority of the people had no change. My reasoning for my evidence is statistics because few people had a change in mass so the numbers cant lie. Another reason to support my evidence is if nothing is being added to the system then the mass shouldn't change but if something is added to the system then the mass should change.  

Station 1-Fiber

Claim- The mass of the fiber does not change if you pull it apart, it stays the exact same.

Evidence- When we did this experiment, we first measured the mass as it was, without pulling it apart. Then recorded the data. Next we ripped the fiber into several pieces and remeasured it. It had the exact same mass as before. When we made the histograms  some people's fiber had a very small change in mass, but you also have to remember that the scales have a little error sometimes. Even though the mass on the scale may look like it changed, it really didn't.

Reasoning-The mass of the fiber before and after should be the same, because nothing is really happening to it. It is still the same object as before, only in smaller pieces. It didn't have anything added or taken away from it either. There should still be the same amount of particles also, they are just spread farther away from each other.

Mass Lab Station 4

What happens to the mass of steel wool when heated?

       We conducted this experiment in lab station 4. The chunk of steel wool was torched over a Bunson burner, with only the mass of the steel wool in the system. To our surprise, the mass of the steel after being heated (3.39g) was quite a bit greater than that of the steel beforehand (3.46g)
 In fact, the steel lost a few pieces when sparks flew off of it. But nevertheless, we conclude from our evidence that when heated, steel wool does gain mass.

Why does the steel wool gain mass when heated?

After showing our results in our whiteboard meeting, some ideas were aroused on why the mass becomes greater. We KNOW that the wool gained mass. Since it was evident only the steel wool particles were in the system, something OUTSIDE of the system must have chemically bonded with our steel wool particles. We concluded that those particles must have come from the air. So, does that mean that there are always unknown air particles that should be in our system? It would appear that way. Though we don't know what kind of particles bonded with our steel wool, we are fairly confident in our claim that a chemical does bond with our steel wool particles.

What kind of particles are bonding with the steel wool particles?

If we are indeed correct in our theory of particles chemically bonding with our steel wool particles, we have a couple options on their origin.  We already know, from past experience, a few different types of element particles present in our air.  First, there's oxygen.  Anyone who knows anything about fire knows that oxygen needs to be present to have it. It seems to make sense that oxygen could be the culprit, seeing as how if there's enough oxygen to create fire, there might also be some attraction to the flaming steel. Next, there's carbon dioxide. Humans emit it in exchange for oxygen. And, of course, there were plenty of humans in the room. I was standing right next to the experiment, breathing out carbon dioxide, so there's a possibility it could be that. And lastly, nitrogen. As far as I know, nitrogen is generated through non-living and living things. For example, if nitrogen is low in your field, you put manure in the soil to restore nitrogen levels for your crops. Then your crops posses that nitrogen. Perhaps in some sort of exchange in the air, nitrogen was added to the steel wool. We can't be sure what particles exactly were added to the steel particles, but we have these ideas.

-Hallie Spore

Mass Lab Station # 1

                        What is happening to the mass?? 

This station was the station with the fibers that we had to pull apart.  It was asking what would happen to the mass when it is pulled apart.  

The claim for this station was that when the fiber was pulled apart, the mass was no different from when it wasn't pulled apart.  My evidence that I have is from the data that we took from everyone that did this experiment.  The range of people's masses that they recorded were from -.028 to .01.  all these number's though, stayed they same when they pulled apart the fibers.  When my partner and I did this station, we predicted that the mass would stay the same, the only thing that we knew was going to be different was how much space it took up.  My reasoning for the mass staying they same is that when you pulled the fibers apart you did not add anything or subtract anything from your system.  When you first started this experiment, there was a certain amount of particles in the fiber.  When you pulled they fiber apart, it just expanded and did not lose any particles, there was the same amount of particles when you pulled it apart as there was when you first started.  The only difference from the beginning to the end, is that the particles were closer together and more compacted, when you pulled them apart they were just more spread out from each other.  Like I said before, nothing was taken from the system, and nothing was added.  The only difference in this project was that the fiber was more spread out in the end.  

Mass Lab Station #1

Station #1: This lab included weighing the fiber before and after it was pulled apart.

Claim: The mass stayed the exact same.

Evidence: Comparing the data that was collected in the groups, the majority of the results proved that the mass had no change after the fiber had been pulled apart. There were a few other masses that were recorded, keeping in mind that there is a 0.2 margin of error on the scales.

Reasoning: My reasoning behind my claim is that we never did anything to the particles to make them change. We just pulled it apart so that it appeared larger, but we never added or subtracted any new fiber to the system so there should have been no change in mass.

Mass Lab Station 3

Claim: The claim is that the stuff in the test tube will be the same mass when they are mixed together.

Evidence: The evidence was that the stuff in the test tube mixed together and then weighed it didn't change.

Reasoning: The reasoning for these 2 things are that the it got new particles, which doesn't mean the mass will change. In this case the mass didn't change.

Mass Lab Station 1

Claim: The mass would not changed after we pulled it apart.

Evidence: When all the results were compared, my group found out that most groups did not change. A few of them were off but that could be from error of the scale.

Reasoning: The reasoning behind these two are that nothing changed. The particles were just pulled apart. Nothing left the system.

Mass Lab #6

This lab had the film canister with the water and the cap with the Alka Seltzer tablet which were massed separately and then the tablet was added to the water with the cap on and was massed again.

Claim: The mass decreased slightly.

Evidence: On the histogram with everyone's results the average change in mass after the tablet was added to the water was between -.43 and -.21. There was an outlier that changed between -3.03 and -2.31.

Reasoning: I think that the mass slightly decreased once the tablet was added to the water because of the chemical reaction happening on the inside of the canister. There was a lot of pressure which caused the cap to slightly pop off. Between the time that the cap slightly came off and we pushed it back on, I believe that is when some of the particles escaped. That is the reason the mass was slightly less after the two things were combined is because some of the particles that were part of the mass in the system before got out of the system by the time it was all massed the second time.

Mass Lab Stations

Sevannah Weisenberger
9/15/14
Chemistry A
Mrs. Gates

Lab 5. (Sugar+water)

**The question is, does the mass change when subjecting water to sugar. No, the mass had not changed when subjected to sugar because it had dissolved, unless the mass went down because some sugar was dropped and the rest had dissolved.
** My evidence to show is from a lab that I did with a partner, the mass before was 20.03g and after we had put the sugar in it weighed 20.01g, there was a loss of 0.02g. We think that we may have dropped some on the table so, when consulting with the class the whole class thought that it was no change.
** Again, we think that we may have dropped the sugar when dumping it into the water and also that it had dissolved into the water. I'm not saying that the particles became the same because they didn't, they just attached to each other. I am using this as evidence because I have actual numbers to go off of.