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

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 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.

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

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 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

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

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- 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

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.