What are the possible systematic errors and random errors that could affect the results when all other factors that could affect the rate of reaction are kept constant except for the concentration...
What are the possible systematic errors and random errors that could affect the results when all other factors that could affect the rate of reaction are kept constant except for the concentration of sulfuric acid?
I'm doing an experiment of the rate of reaction between powdered marble chips(calcium carbonate) and dilute sulfuric acid solution.The aim is to determine the effect of different concentrations of sulfuric acid on the rate of reaction of powdered marble chips (calcium carbonate) with sulfuric acid.
Random errors are going to result in data being slightly different each trial even though nothing in the experimental set up has been changed. These kinds of errors typically result if the experimenter is not uber careful in taking measurements. It's also possible that the measuring devices are not accurate enough. If you are using a balance instead of a digital gram scale to measure sample size of marble chips, you are very likely to not have exactly the same amount of chips. You'll be close, but not exact. The same could occur with the measuring cylinders for your results and/or the initial concentration measurements. If you are using a huge 500 mL cylinder when a 100 mL would work, you will not be able to accurately measure results. That would lead to random errors.
Systematic errors will be errors that are likely caused by your measuring tools being skewed a single way. If you are using a digital gram scale, not correctly using the tare function would cause this kind of error. All of your measurements might be .05 g too high. A mislabeled graduated cylinder might be an issue too. Unlikely, but a possibility. In the picture, there is tubing connecting the acid to the measuring cylinder. If that tubing in any way is plugged enough to limit gas flow, that will make it appear that your rate of reaction is slower than it really is.
Systematic errors can be difficult to track down and identify. Random errors' effects can be minimized through multiple trials and averaging.