Atomic Mass of Candium

INTRODUCTION
We measured several different types of candy to find out the difference in their mass, percent abundance, relative abundance, relative mass, and average mass. It gave us a hands on activity to learn about the  calculations. 


HYPOTHESIS
We predict that the sixlets being smaller will have the smallest atomic mass, relative percentage, relative abundance, and relative mass. The gobstoppers which are the biggest will have the larger numbers of the atomic mass and so on.


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

• Gobstoppers
• Sixlets
• M & M's
• Skittles
• Triple-Beam Balance

PROCEDURE

1. Obtain the candy
2. Separate the candy into its 3 isotopes
3. Determine the total mass of each isotope
4. Count the numbers of each group of candy
5. Record data and calculations in the data table

The data table has the following:

1. Average mass of each isotope
2. Percent abundance of each isotope
3. Relative abundance of each isotope
4. Relative mass of each isotope
5. Average mass of all isotopes

DISCUSSION

1. We had different type of candy, and figured out the measurements, percents, and abundance.
2. Isotope: are nuclear configurations of atoms, with a specific number of neutrons and a specific elemental type.
3. The percent abundance is the percent of what the candy is depending on its relative and average mass. The relative abundance is how many or the quantity of candy there is in each of the 3 groups.
4. In rows 3 and 6 the average mass is way smaller than the relative mass by 2, 10, or even 14.

CONCLUSION

We have a better understanding of all the terms after the lab.  Our hypothesis was wrong.  The gobstoppers were the smallest.  The sixlets were the biggest.

Pennium Lab

Introduction

In this lab we weighed pennies from pre 1982 and post 1982.  We investigated the concept of atomic mass and how it was derived.

Hypothesis

We thought that the pre 1982 pennies would weigh more than the post 1982 pennies.  This is because as time as progresses they have thought and have come up with more complex and better things.

Materials

• Triple Beam Balance
• Pre 1982 pennies
• Post 1982 pennies
• 1 nickel
• 1 dime
• 1 quarter

Procedures

1. Obtain a packet of pennies
2. Sort the pennies into two groups:  pre 192 and 1892 and newer.
3. Measure the mass (in grams) of each stack of pennies.  Record the mass (in grams) of each penny stack in a data table.  Count the number of pennies in each stack.
4. Measure the mass in grams of a half dollar, quarter, nickel, and dime.  Record these values in a data table.

Discussion

We weighed the pre and post 1982 pennies on the triple beam balance.   We had 12 pre 1982 weighing 36.90 grams and 1 post 1982 penny weighing 2.46 grams.  Then we measured the quarter that weighed 5.59 grams.  Then we measured the nickel.  It weighed 5.02 grams.  The dime weighed 2.15 grams.

We found the CMU of all these measurements with the nickel.

Conclusion

Our hypothesis was correct.  The pre 1982 pennies weight more than the post 1982 pennies.  They are made out of a heavier substance then the post 1982 pennies. 

Introduction to the Chemical Laboratory

Purpose: 
To learn to make qualitative and quantitative observations.
To see the difference between physical and chemical changes during a chemical reaction.
Materials:

• beaker
• copper sulfate pentahydrate- CAUTION, toxic substance
• scoopula
• 100 ml graduated cylinder
• stirring rod
• thermometer
• small square of aluminum foil

Procedures/Observations:

1. Fill the beaker with 75-100 ml of water.
• We observed that there was 80 ml of water in our beaker at 22 degrees Celsius.  Our liquid was clear.
2. We added some copper sulfate pentahydrate.  The measurement is unimportant, but we added about 1/4 of the scoopula.
3. Then, we stirred the copper sulfate pentahydrate in the water until it dissolved completely.
• This turned the water a blue color.
4. We, then crumpled up a small square of aluminum foil into a loose ball.
• No reaction or anything happened to the blue water.
• This is an example of a Homogeneous solution because it looks like one mixture.
5. We added a good scoop of Sodium to the blue water with aluminum foil.
• This is when a chemical reaction occured. 
•  The water started to turn gray and cloudy.
• The temperature rose to 46.8 degrees Celsius.
• The aluminum foil fell apart and became brown and rusty in spots.  
• This is an example of a heterogeneous solution because you can see more than one mixture throughout the solution.

This is a side view of the chemical reaction (above)

This is over the top of the reaction (below)

 

Clean Up

1. After about 10 minutes take you beaker over to the large funnel and beaker and slowly pour your mixture into the beaker.
2. Then clean you beaker with soup and tap water.
3. Rinse with distilled water. 
4. Make sure your lab station is clean and all you materials are put away in their proper location.

Conclusion

When you have water and copper sulfate pentahydrate then you have a chemical change.  The color changes which is an indicator of a chemical change.  When you add aluminum foil to that then nothing happens but then when you add sodium a chemical reaction happens.  You can see the copper floating around and the aluminum foil breaks into small pieces.  This was interesting to watch.

The Bubble Lab

Introduction

In the bubble lab we were comparing the difference between the bubbles with sugar, salt, and just plain soup and water.  The main questions are  What will happen to the bubbles if you add sugar to the soup and water? If you add salt? Adding sugar to the soap water will increase the bubbly lather and bubbles.  The salt makes the mixture become harder over time and more syrupy. 

Hypothesis

Before we started the lab we made an educated guess.  We guessed that the salt mixed into the dish detergent and water would make a better bubble.  Then we decided that that sugar wouldn't even make a bubble.

Materials

• 3 Plastic Drinking Cups
• Liquid Dish Detergent
• Measuring Cup
• Spoons
• Water
• Table-Sugar
• Table-Salt
• Drinking Straw

Procedures
1-Label three drinking cups 1,2, and 3.  Measure and add one teaspoon of liquid detergent to each cup.  Use the measuring cup to add one two thirds of a cup water.  Then swirl the cups to form a clear mixture.  CATION wipe up any spills immediately so that no one will slip and fall.
2-Add a half teaspoon of table sugar to cup 2 and a half teaspoon of table salt to cup 3.  Swirl each cup for one minute.
3-Dip the drinking straw into cup 1, remove it, and blow gently into the straw to make the largest bubbles you can.  Practice making bubbles until you feel you have reasonable control over you bubble production.
4-Repeat step 3 with the mixtures in cups 2 and 3.
Data/Discussion
The salt mixed in with the soup and water did not make bubbles when you removed the straw and blew.  If you kept the straw in the mixture then it would make bubbles.

This picture shows the salt mixture when you keep the straw in the liquid.

The picture below shows the salt mixture when you take out the straw and blow.

This picture shows the sugar mixture's bubble.

The sugar mixed in with the soup and water made bubbles when you removes the straw and blew and also when you left it in the mixture. The sugar made the best bubbles and the salt made no bubbles :P. 
Conclusion
Our hypothesis was completely wrong.  We thought the opposite of what happened. It turns out that the sugar blows good bubbles and the salt didn't work.   After the experiment, we questioned why does sugar work so much better than salt? Also what would happen if you added salt and sugar to the same mixture.  
This was a fun lab and we learned how sugar and salt reacts to the liquid detergent when blowing bubbles.