CHM1011 - Chemistry I - S1 2025
Шукаєте відповіді та рішення тестів для CHM1011 - Chemistry I - S1 2025? Перегляньте нашу велику колекцію перевірених відповідей для CHM1011 - Chemistry I - S1 2025 в learning.monash.edu.
Отримайте миттєвий доступ до точних відповідей та детальних пояснень для питань вашого курсу. Наша платформа, створена спільнотою, допомагає студентам досягати успіху!
Match the name of the quantum number with its symbol.
Police often monitor traffic with K-band radar guns, which operate in the microwave region, for example at 29.389 GHz. (Note that 1GHz = 109Hz). Find the wavelength in of the radiation and report this in nm. (Note that 1nm = 10-9m).
Give your answer to 3 significant figures. Do not enter units!For large or small numbers, use scientific notation, for example 1.23E-4
Discussion
This is where you discuss and give meaning to the results. You should also detail any experimental errors and make any other relevant comments about the experiment. Include possible improvements. Ensure you are not re-stating the method.
Discussion points to consider: (Note: The points below are not intended as questions! They are here to give guidance on what to include in your discussion. Do not simply list answers - incorporate them into a full discussion.)
- Can you explain your observations based on the chemical reaction?
- After completing the calibration curves, was any additional data required in order to determine the composition? If so, what was that data, and why was it required?
- What composition of the baking powder would you suggest that Monash University produces to result in the best cake (if we were to assume that the more gas produced, the more the cake will rise)? Can you explain your answer using experimental results and the chemical equation?
- What factors may have affected the final result? What are some sources of error that may have been encountered, and how would they have impacted on the results?
Discussion marking rubric:
| 0 | 1 | 2 |
Relates results to aims. | Interpretation of results not related back to original experimental aims. | Results partially related back to original experimental aims. | Key results interpreted in relation to experimental aims. |
Discussion and interpretation of results. | No interpretation or comparison of results is made. No discussion points are addressed. | Some interpretation or comparison of results is made. Some discussion points are addressed. | Key findings are summarised. Results are interpreted. Results are compared to expected/predicted values. All discussion points are addressed. |
Actual data used to validate statements. | No experimental data used to justify scientific statements/claims. Multiple scientific errors are present. | Some experimental data used to justify scientific statements/claims. Some scientific errors are present. | Experimental data used to justify all scientific statements/claims. The science is correct. |
Factors affecting results discussed. | No errors were raised or were only non-scientific/experimental errors raised. | Only some errors raised or several non-scientific/experimental errors were raised. The impact of the errors was not discussed. | Multiple errors/factors are raised and are scientific/experimental in nature (i.e. NOT human error). The impact of the errors was discussed. |
Writing Style | Many grammatical/spelling/scientific writing errors were noted, and/or discussion was over 300 words in length. | Some grammatical/spelling/scientific writing errors were noted. | The discussion was free of grammatical and spelling errors, was written in the past tense, used full sentences and a passive voice, and was within 300 words. |
Word limit: 300 (± 10%) words.
For guidance on writing a meaningful discussion, please refer to the following resources:
- SoC: Undergraduate Student Handbook
- RLO: Writing a Science Lab Report
- RLO: Writing for Assignments
Results:
Monash University Baking Powder Calorimetry results - calibration curve
Based on your experimental procedure and calibration curve, fill in the blanks:
ΔT for Monash University Baking Powder: oC
pH of Monash University Baking powder dissolved in water:
Mass of citric acid: g
Mass of sodium bicarbonate:
Based on the chemical equation alone, what is the ideal baking powder composition Monash University should produce? We assume that the more gas produced, the more the cake will rise.
i.e. In a 2.00 g sample, what should be the mass of citric acid, and what should be the mass of sodium bicarbonate?
Citric acid:
Sodium bicarbonate:
Results
Note: If you performed 5-12 experiments, not 13, then just enter in values of zero for the remaining rows. Moodle will mark this as incorrect, but you will not lose marks for it. If you performed more than 13 experiments, enter the data for your first 13 experiments into the table.
Data Used for Calibration Curve
Citric Acid m (g) | Citric Acid n (mol) | Sodium Bicarbonate m (g) | Sodium Bicarbonate n (mol) | Total mass mTOT (g) | Total moles nTOT (mol) | Image failed to load: mass fraction | Image failed to load: molar fraction | ΔT (°C) | pH |
| 0.87 | 1.13 | 2.00 | |||||||
When writing an aim, it should be in the format of the Goal (what do you want to achieve) and the Means (how you plan to achieve it).
Read over the information for this exercise in your lab manual to assist you with completing the aim of this experiment.
Aim:
To determine the composition of Monash University's new by using and a curve of change in vs mixture composition.
Хочете миттєвий доступ до всіх перевірених відповідей на learning.monash.edu?
Отримайте необмежений доступ до відповідей на екзаменаційні питання - встановіть розширення Crowdly зараз!