One of the other things that we concluded through this experiment is that any molecule that is structured in a circle (cyclo) is destined to be non-polar. The reasoning is obvious to say the least because when we look at the Lewis structure of any cyclo (ex. Cyclohexane C6H12) we clearly see that it is identically symmetrical on both sides and thus does not have a + or – pole.
Adding, non-polar molecules poles never attract, and so when the liquid from the pipette streamed down it should have hypotheticcly been unaffected by the rod`s polarity. But, sinse there is no poles causing an attraction, the liquid will be changed ever so slightly and will be pulled to the pole but only be a miniscule amount as the opposite pole will reduce it attraction
Some odd occurances have also occurred in which although ethanol and methanol share the same structure and the same source of polarity, that they should in fact have the same polarity. Our brief studies of the chemical theory should lead us to believe that CH3OH (methanol) and C2H5OH (ethanol) should have the same charge. Unfortunately though, our results changed and our group beleaives it largely has to do with gravity. To explain, understand that methanol has less mass by nature than ethanol because of one less carbo and 3 less hydrogen’s and when there is a increase in mass there is also an increase in the strength of grvity upon that object and when there is more weight and more gravity it becomes suffiecently harder to displace that object. So, simply put; because maethanol is has smaller gravitational pull et ass than ethanol, it is thus displaced much easier by the polarity of the pole than the latter.
Evaluation:
To start, our group did most things correctly but merely in a different way. For example when our group measured the degree of deflection caused by the ostivily charged rod, we measured it close to the exit stream of the pepitte for each of the compounds instead of further down on the beaker. This was not nesserally incorrect procedure considering that we had used the same location of measurement for all tested compound, but, it did make it slightly harder for our group to judge what the precise degree of delectation was. This could be simply changed for the next test by recording our results from lower down the stream.
One of the largest mistakes our group did though was that we did not retest our degree of deflection tests numerous times. We only would record the degrees once and then leave it alone. We had only one test and one result for each compound tested. Our method could have allowed some very false results to be recorded. To improve the accura cy of our results for next would be to retest each compound`s degree of deflection test 3 to 5 times in order to average it in the end.
A small mishap that our group acciendentqally did was that we did not properly clean our flasks and pipette after each test and so some traces of the past compounds could have been left behind and might have affected our results to a small degree. Also, when we filled the pipette with our compounds, we didn`t pour the substances properally and thus we spilled a fairly large amount of what was planed to be poured. Now, while this occurance does`t affect our expiroment too much it is our attempt at stopping it that caused a problem. Our group would constinlly wipe off the bottom of the pipette and in the making, caused the pepite to tilt more and more to the point where, by the start of the tests to the end, the pepitte shifted a whole 10-15 degrees. When measuring the degrees shifted in a substance it is important to have the source of the stream to be at a 90o angle. We could have avoided this problem by simply measuring One way we could have avoided this problem would have been to use a glass funnel, to control the amount of liquid we poured in, a glass funnel would have made a cleaner process and would have caused less problems down the road. However it would have been one more thing to wash.
Another problem with our experiment was that we had an inconsistent amount of moles in the liquid with each experiment. Seeing as the experiment is dependent on the polarity of the chemicals, it would seem logical to make sure the same number of moles is in the same volume of liquid. Thus, if the morality of the liquids were all consistent, the results would be more accurate because the amount of particles flowing through the pipette would be the same regardless of the element, hence meaning the charged ruler will be able to pull on the same amount of particles between each experiment.
In regards to the charged ruler, here existed another flaw in the results. The biggest problem with the ruler is that there was no way to tell how charged the ruler was. To charge the ruler we would remove electrons by rubbing the ruler with a woolen cloth. The obvious problem was that we did not have a controlled time set to charge the stick. So when testing the polarity of set substances some tests were using a less polarized rod, which could have if it occurred greatly, changed the results. For next time our group should set a controlled time of 45 seconds so it’s enough to fully polarize the rod but, also short enough so that we can repeat the tests for each substance without any time concerns.
And yet another flaw occurs when we measured the deflection of the substances with a protractor, which was held at random distances away from the stream. Although it doesn’t in any way affect our degree of deflection it did though, make it harder for me the degree reader to read the correct degrees. To add on to this problem we also did not hold our protractor straight and we often recorded the degrees of deflection with a shaky hand. What we could have done is lock the protractor in clamps and put it in a certain location throughout the entirety of the experiment.