Unknown Density Lab Reflection

Blog entry title: Unknown Density Lab Reflection


Please answer EACH of the following questions using ONE paragraph per question.


This means you will have a total of TWO paragraphs- each paragraph must have a topic sentence, supporting details, and a conclusion sentence.


Your FORMATIVE grade for your lab report is dependent upon the quality of this reflection!
1.What are at least 5 specific reasons that the exemplar lab reports are strong? Cite the examples in this paragraph. You must use at least one example from each of the following sections: procedure, data tables, calculations, and conclusion.
■Example: In the data table, all of the measurements were estimated to the correct digit.
2. In YOUR lab report, what did you do well? What would you do in the future to improve your unknown density lab? Cite specific examples from your lab report.
■Example: One area that I can show growth is in the quality of my calculations. In the calculations section, I forgot to use the sig. fig rules in all of my calculations. I need to use sig. figs in the future so my data stays true to the precision of the device I used to measure my data.

In the conclusion, we did an exrta experiment to test what material it was. That experiment was seeing if the object "stuck" to Clifford's computer which would make it magnetic and that narrowed down the amount of materials it could be. In the procedure, it was very precise and straight forward to the point that a first grader could accomplish the lab fairly well. An example of this is, "Weigh the mass of the unknown solid using the electronic balance (make sure it is zeroed out before you measure.) (And write the mass in the data table.)" This is precise and straightforward because most people don't need specific instructions on where to measure the mass of something or a reminder to write the mass in the data table. In the table, all the data has the units to go along with it to make sure you don't get confused. In the calculations, I found the percent error for all the materials close to the one we decided on to show that it was the most plausable and correct one. Lastly, in the conclusion, I went into detail about the possible errors and how they would effect your data thus messing up the lab as a whole.

In my lab, I did well on being specific and explaining everything I did. This is good because if a lab isn't specific and doesn't explain how it got its data then you can't trust the data it collected. One place I can show growth in is makiin sure I read the whole explaination of the lab we are doing so I can be certain of what I am doing. This would be really helpful because this time around we didn't do that and we ended up being really pressed on time and making silly mistakes. An example of this is in the table: we were so rushed me ended up having a huge variation in our measurements for the diameter of the cylinder. That wouldn't have happened if we have been certain and clear on what we were supposed to be doing. In the future I need to make sure I fully understand all the expectations and what is supposed to be included so I can make sure I'm not pressed for time and making stupid mistakes.

Journal Prompt #1:

Journal Prompt #1:
Please answer EACH of the following questions. Write as much information as you need to explain your answer. Use evidence and examples from class to support your explanation. In addition to class examples, you may bring in prior knowledge into your discussion.

You should write about one paragraph (~5 sentences each) per bullet point.
 How has our understanding of the atom changed since Aristotle and Democritus's time?
 What sort of evidence did scientists collect to make their models of the atom? Discuss Rutherford and Thomson.
 Think back to the beginning of the school year… how was your construction of the Enigma Machine similar to what Rutherford and his colleagues did to infer the existence of the nucleus? How were the processes different?

Well, in the beginning, Aristotle and Democritus thought the atom was the lowest you could go. In other words, they thought that there was nothing smaller than an atom and you couldn't break it down any more. They also thought that an atom was a solid sphere whereas we know it to be an undefined shape. We also know that atoms can be broken down even farther into electrons, protons, and neutrons. This shows that since Aristotle and Democritus we have learned that there are even smaller things than atoms and in fact, they are inside atoms. Also, atoms are really an undefined shape because the electrons are bouncing all over the place making it impossible to determine the shape of an atom.

Scientists collected evidence that supported their theories. They collected evidence on the charge of an atom/ electron/ proton/ neutron. They did this by doing experiments such as shooting positively charged alpha particles and finding that some were reflected. This showed that there is a nucleus that is positively charged. Thomson used a Cathode Ray to prove that there are electrons in atoms. Scientist use solid evidence that can be proved through experiments.

Well, we saw the outside of the model but not the inside. That was a mystery to us like the atom's inside was a mystery to early scientists. As we made our models, we had to go through lots of different tests/ experiments. This is also what scientists did as they tried to figure out the inside of an atom. This is shown from Rutherford because he first found that protons were in the nucleus then he collected more data and came up with a second model of an atom. In the end, we used multiple experiments to come to our conclusions just like early scientists did when figuring out an atom.