Chem P51 How was it?.

[earthling]

i got 0.088

I got the same!!!

 

[Otaiba13]

For reliabi.ity i wrote that since most of points near line or on line data reliable and for nxt question bout confirming equation a wrote yes as we got a straight line showing direct proportionality!!! For last part i drew a line above the given line

 

[larina]

For reliabi.ity i wrote that since most of points near line or on line data reliable and for nxt question bout confirming equation a wrote yes as we got a straight line showing direct proportionality!!! For last part i drew a line above the given line

no it wasnt a direct proportionality as it wasnot passing through origin!!
and for the last part i also drew line above that one, and parallel to it

 

[Otaiba13]

My graph didnt start fro origin :/

 

[larina]

My graph didnt start fro origin :/

neither did mine, it started from 250 K
and if we extrapolate it, it wouldnt pass through the origin! so it did not confirm...

 

[Otaiba13]

In that case we were supposed to calculate y intercept if it was close to zero then it was approximately directly proportional ,.....

 

[larina]

In that case we were supposed to calculate y intercept if it was close to zero then it was approximately directly proportional ,.....

did u do that??
it couldnt pass through origin...

 

[Otaiba13]

Once again something i may hav done if i had the time!!!

 

[Otaiba13]

did u do that??
it couldnt pass through origin...

No :/

 

[sweetyrox]

Wat was the controlled variable and the dependent variable?

 

[Otaiba13]

dependent was mass/moles of cu(oh)2 and controlled was i think vol of cuso4 or temperature not sure!!

 

[larina]

Wat was the controlled variable and the dependent variable?

dependent was mass of Cu(OH)2 and for control i wrote volume of NaOH and temp

 

[earthling]

no it wasnt a direct proportionality as it wasnot passing through origin!!
and for the last part i also drew line above that one, and parallel to it

But the relation was V=kT ...and while k will be the gradient, when compared to y=mx+c, the y-intercept is zero!!!
So if u did extrapolate it, it would have to pass through the origin!!

 

[larina]

But the relation was V=kT ...and while k will be the gradient, when compared to y=mx+c, the y-intercept is zero!!!
So if u did extrapolate it, it would have to pass through the origin!!

i lost 2 marks here
and for the last question, it was line above the first one and parallel to it right??
and what did u write the reason for anomalies?

 

[ExoticPlayer09]

I drew a line parallel to original one and my y-intercept was like very close to 0....

 

[earthling]

i lost 2 marks here
and for the last question, it was line above the first one and parallel to it right??
and what did u write the reason for anomalies?

I didn't draw a parallel line...it had to be more slanted..? So the gradient is higher???
For the anomalies ..I wrote gas escaped the syringe, which I agree is kinda silly.

 

[azambezi]

in the 1st question how was the graph suppose to be?

 

[sweetyrox]

in the 1st question how was the graph suppose to be?

A staright increasing line until 1.39 nd den the line levels off (curve kinda thing :/)

 

[pspwxpfan]

Guys! The space given for question one was adequate! They didnt want a whole story, they just wanted the four parts to be answered, to the point.

 

[azambezi]

Guys! The space given for question one was adequate! They didnt want a whole story, they just wanted the four parts to be answered, to the point.

Wasnt it three parts?