In the results it is evident that the solution containing higher amounts of either salt, heat up at a faster rate. This can be seen in graph one and two; the gradient of the trendline shows how many degrees the solution …show more content…
This would allow for more accurate results and elimination of anomalies. However, the data showed trends that can be supported with theory and the errors made weren’t major so the data can is validated reasonably reliable.
It was also observed that the boiling points of the solutions raised more than what was expected, this can be seen in table 1. When excluding the anomaly, there was a difference of 1.55°C between the predicted elevation and the observed. This was for the concentration containing 15% MgCl2. This difference could signify an error, because the calculated elevations were higher but there was already extra salt in the solution due to fact that it was tap water. This could have …show more content…
This means that energy would have been created or gained from other sources. Both of these theories are impossible or incorrect. First of all, this calculation is inaccurate as there were actually two layers in the heating process. The heat from the hot plate was first transferred to the beaker and only then to the water. In the calculation it was assumed that the energy from the hot plate was directly heating the water. This would cause the rate of heating to decrease as the thickness of the layers would be greater. However, this does not explain why it was higher. It was concluded that the formula used to find the rate of heat flow is very theoretical and ignores many variables. It ignores variables such as the time it took for the water to heat up to the maximum temperature or the amount of energy supplied. It was concluded that the rate of heat flow is the maximum amount of energy that could be transferred per second not the actual