We believe that our two substances are quartz and copper. We believe the metallic material to be copper because it has qualitative metallic properties. It conducts electricity, is fairly heavy, when pounded out to a sheet it is malleable, and it has the distinctive color of copper. Even though our calculated density of the metallic material was not close to copper, we still believe the material to be copper because of the remainder of the properties closely align it with the properties of copper. believe that the mineral material to be quartz because it has the qualitative properties of not being water soluble, does not melt, is very hard, a has a relatively close density to the quantitative number on the chart.
From our research, we have concluded that our metal is tin. Due to human error our results did not match the density of tin, according to the chart. If we used a larger beaker, with a piece of tin containing more mass, our literature density would have been more precise. However, judging off of strict physical appearance of color, shape texture, and malleability, we formed a hypothesis. When discovering that our metal was capable of melting, we were able to conclude that tin was the metal. The mineral we were given was fluorite. In order to come to this conclusion, we analyzed various characteristics of the mineral. The first being it's texture. We matched it with texture number 4. For us to further our hypothesis, we had to test the mineral in water to see if it was soluble. The mineral was slightly soluble, but not completely. By process of elimination of comparison of characteristics, we were able to conclude that our mineral was Fluorite.
In our attempt at identifying the mineral, we first looked at the physical appearance of the material which took the color of a cloudy white. We noticed that it had a crystalline structure and had a hardness level of 7. When taking all of these characteristics into account, we concluded that the mineral was quartz. The sample’s density was 1.614 g/mL. When examining the metal, we first tested the conductivity of the sample. Next we tested if the sample would melt. Our tests resulted in us observing that the metal was conductive and did not melt. We had difficulties finding the density, due to imprecise water displacement measurements. However, through deductive reasoning, we concluded that our sample metal was Molybdenum.
Group 1: The quantitative measures we used to determine what our mineral and metal were included hardness and density. When we tested for the density of the mineral, which we later determined to be barite, it became apparent that our measurement for density was off. What we believe happened was our piece of barite was not large enough to displace a full milliliter of water and made it almost impossible to measure accurately. With a larger piece of the mineral our measurement would have been more accurate. The hardness was also difficult to test for as it was hard to determine whether we had scratched the test rock or the test rock had scratched our mineral sample. The qualitative measures we used to determine what our mineral and metal were included conduction, lustrous appearance, malleability, crystal structure, melting, and water solubility. These were much more helpful in determining what our metal and mineral were because we could clearly see which mineral or metal matched up with ours. As we went through these different tests we began to chip away at possible metals and minerals. For example, when we attempted to melt the metal, which we later determined to me aluminum, it didn’t melt. Therefore, it could not be tin or zinc, narrowing our choices. In a second test we observed whether or not our mineral could conduct electricity. When it failed to, we were able to narrow our choices even further, eliminating graphite. The other tests, malleability, crystal structure, lustrous appearance, and comparing our metal and mineral to the known samples helped to narrow our search to only one option. We determine our metal to be aluminum and our mineral to be barite.
We identified our unknown materials as Iron and Calcite. We observed that the metal did not melt, it conducted electricity and received a density of 3.25 grams. While attempting to identify the unknown Metal, we figured out that our density calculations were not accurate due to the inaccuracy of our measurement of displaced water. We observed that the mineral was not water soluble, that measured as seven on the hardness scale, and had a density of 2.33 grams. Our Hardness observation was difficult to measure because we did not understand how to conduct the test. The qualitative data was more useful than the quantitative data while conducting the experiment. Therefore it is important to consider all types of data.
We determined our mineral to be Gypsum and our metal to be Molybdenum. To identify the mineral we made the qualitative observations that it did not conduct electricity, it was not lustrous, and was not malleable. Along with this, we noted that the mineral was crystalline but did not melt and was not soluble. Next, we took a quantitative approach to determine that the mineral had a density of 1.94 g/mL. These observations allowed us to conclude the mineral was Gypsum. To identify the unknown metal, our qualitative observations included discovering that it conducted electricity, was lustrous, not soluble. We also noted that the metal was not malleable, and not soluble. Along with this, we made the quantitative discovery that the metal had a density of 4.024 g/mL. All other observations pointed towards the metal being Molybdenum except for the density. This was most likely the result of improper measurements. In the end we were able to compare the metal to some samples of Molybdenum and determine we were correct.
We determined our mineral to be Gypsum and our metal to be Molybdenum. To identify the mineral we made the qualitative observations that it did not conduct electricity, it was not lustrous, and was not malleable. Along with this, we noted that the mineral was crystalline but did not melt and was not soluble. Next, we took a quantitative approach to determine that the mineral had a density of 1.94 g/mL. These observations allowed us to conclude the mineral was Gypsum. To identify the unknown metal, our qualitative observations included discovering that it conducted electricity, was lustrous, not soluble. We also noted that the metal was not malleable, and not soluble. Along with this, we made the quantitative discovery that the metal had a density of 4.024 g/mL. All other observations pointed towards the metal being Molybdenum except for the density. This was most likely the result of improper measurements. In the end we were able to compare the metal to some samples of Molybdenum and determine we were correct.
Group 6
ReplyDeleteWe believe that our two substances are quartz and copper. We believe the metallic material to be copper because it has qualitative metallic properties. It conducts electricity, is fairly heavy, when pounded out to a sheet it is malleable, and it has the distinctive color of copper. Even though our calculated density of the metallic material was not close to copper, we still believe the material to be copper because of the remainder of the properties closely align it with the properties of copper. believe that the mineral material to be quartz because it has the qualitative properties of not being water soluble, does not melt, is very hard, a has a relatively close density to the quantitative number on the chart.
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup 3:
ReplyDeleteUnknown Metal: Tin
Unknown Mineral: Flourite
From our research, we have concluded that our metal is tin. Due to human error our results did not match the density of tin, according to the chart. If we used a larger beaker, with a piece of tin containing more mass, our literature density would have been more precise. However, judging off of strict physical appearance of color, shape texture, and malleability, we formed a hypothesis. When discovering that our metal was capable of melting, we were able to conclude that tin was the metal.
The mineral we were given was fluorite. In order to come to this conclusion, we analyzed various characteristics of the mineral. The first being it's texture. We matched it with texture number 4. For us to further our hypothesis, we had to test the mineral in water to see if it was soluble. The mineral was slightly soluble, but not completely. By process of elimination of comparison of characteristics, we were able to conclude that our mineral was Fluorite.
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup 5
ReplyDeleteIn our attempt at identifying the mineral, we first looked at the physical appearance of the material which took the color of a cloudy white. We noticed that it had a crystalline structure and had a hardness level of 7. When taking all of these characteristics into account, we concluded that the mineral was quartz. The sample’s density was 1.614 g/mL.
When examining the metal, we first tested the conductivity of the sample. Next we tested if the sample would melt. Our tests resulted in us observing that the metal was conductive and did not melt. We had difficulties finding the density, due to imprecise water displacement measurements. However, through deductive reasoning, we concluded that our sample metal was Molybdenum.
Group 1:
ReplyDeleteThe quantitative measures we used to determine what our mineral and metal were included hardness and density. When we tested for the density of the mineral, which we later determined to be barite, it became apparent that our measurement for density was off. What we believe happened was our piece of barite was not large enough to displace a full milliliter of water and made it almost impossible to measure accurately. With a larger piece of the mineral our measurement would have been more accurate. The hardness was also difficult to test for as it was hard to determine whether we had scratched the test rock or the test rock had scratched our mineral sample.
The qualitative measures we used to determine what our mineral and metal were included conduction, lustrous appearance, malleability, crystal structure, melting, and water solubility. These were much more helpful in determining what our metal and mineral were because we could clearly see which mineral or metal matched up with ours. As we went through these different tests we began to chip away at possible metals and minerals. For example, when we attempted to melt the metal, which we later determined to me aluminum, it didn’t melt. Therefore, it could not be tin or zinc, narrowing our choices. In a second test we observed whether or not our mineral could conduct electricity. When it failed to, we were able to narrow our choices even further, eliminating graphite. The other tests, malleability, crystal structure, lustrous appearance, and comparing our metal and mineral to the known samples helped to narrow our search to only one option. We determine our metal to be aluminum and our mineral to be barite.
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup #4
ReplyDeleteWe identified our unknown materials as Iron and Calcite. We observed that the metal did not melt, it conducted electricity and received a density of 3.25 grams. While attempting to identify the unknown Metal, we figured out that our density calculations were not accurate due to the inaccuracy of our measurement of displaced water.
We observed that the mineral was not water soluble, that measured as seven on the hardness scale, and had a density of 2.33 grams. Our Hardness observation was difficult to measure because we did not understand how to conduct the test.
The qualitative data was more useful than the quantitative data while conducting the experiment. Therefore it is important to consider all types of data.
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup #2
ReplyDeleteWe determined our mineral to be Gypsum and our metal to be Molybdenum. To identify the mineral we made the qualitative observations that it did not conduct electricity, it was not lustrous, and was not malleable. Along with this, we noted that the mineral was crystalline but did not melt and was not soluble. Next, we took a quantitative approach to determine that the mineral had a density of 1.94 g/mL. These observations allowed us to conclude the mineral was Gypsum. To identify the unknown metal, our qualitative observations included discovering that it conducted electricity, was lustrous, not soluble. We also noted that the metal was not malleable, and not soluble. Along with this, we made the quantitative discovery that the metal had a density of 4.024 g/mL. All other observations pointed towards the metal being Molybdenum except for the density. This was most likely the result of improper measurements. In the end we were able to compare the metal to some samples of Molybdenum and determine we were correct.
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup #2
ReplyDeleteWe determined our mineral to be Gypsum and our metal to be Molybdenum. To identify the mineral we made the qualitative observations that it did not conduct electricity, it was not lustrous, and was not malleable. Along with this, we noted that the mineral was crystalline but did not melt and was not soluble. Next, we took a quantitative approach to determine that the mineral had a density of 1.94 g/mL. These observations allowed us to conclude the mineral was Gypsum. To identify the unknown metal, our qualitative observations included discovering that it conducted electricity, was lustrous, not soluble. We also noted that the metal was not malleable, and not soluble. Along with this, we made the quantitative discovery that the metal had a density of 4.024 g/mL. All other observations pointed towards the metal being Molybdenum except for the density. This was most likely the result of improper measurements. In the end we were able to compare the metal to some samples of Molybdenum and determine we were correct.