In the scientific world, everything needs to be closely evaluated and scrutinised.

This is because
the interpretations of experimental data lead to theories and predictions which can lead to
further experiments and advances in science. In some cases, the results obtained from one set of
experiments conflict with those obtained from related experiments performed by other scientists.
In these cases there is insufficient experimental evidence for a firm theory to be made and
research continues. Evaluation is a key part of scientific experiments.
In this experiment, all the variables need to be carefully monitored to make sure that the data is
accurate and that also the data corresponds correctly to the subsequent calculations. These
variables include pressure, temperature of the room, the ratio between the moles of CuSO4 and
moles of Zn and the concentration of the CuSO4 solution. For example, chemists often use flasks
that are open to the atmosphere to measure heat changes. The reaction is then carried out at
atmospheric pressure. This varies only very slightly from day to day and therefore leads to a very
small source of systematic error. If the pressure or the temperature of the room was not constant,
and fluctuated throughout the experiment, then the results would not be accurate. To eliminate
the possibility of this happening, the experiment should be taken in a lab where the conditions
are carefully monitored to ensure the standard conditions for the reaction are kept to.
Calculations also need to be correct. If an incorrect mass for Zinc is calculated and too little mass
of Zinc is reacted with the solution, then there will not be a complete reaction and will result in
incorrect results. An excess of Zinc needs to be added; in this experiment, the Zinc had to be
greater than 1.308g, so I added 1.5g to make sure there was excess Zinc available for a complete
reaction. Also, the full equation needs to be balanced correctly in order to calculate the correct
mole to mole ratio. Any discrepancies there will make every other calculation that stems from it
completely wrong, including mass of zinc and heat energy change.
Furthermore, measurements need to be taken to the correct precision, with as greater accuracy
as possible, along with the minimum possible amount of errors. For example, there is the
possibility that there may be systematic error; an error perhaps with the thermometer. If this is
the case, then either a working thermometer needs to be used in its place, or the error needs to
be taken into account when reading results. However, to ensure consistency throughout the
readings and confidence with the instruments, all instruments need to be checked and approved
of before the experiment. Also, when adding the solution to the beaker, upmost care needs to be
taken with the pipette. In my experiment this was already done by the laboratory technicians, but
if I was to have done this, I would have taken measurements of the solution from the meniscus;
the small curve at the tip of the solution. This is where the measurements should be taken;
otherwise it may lead to incorrect results.
Although the polystyrene cup is a good insulator, some heat will always be lost. I explained
earlier in my conclusion, how I tried to counter this by extrapolating my results. However,
evaluating this, the extrapolation gives a close estimate as to what the true (theoretical) change
of temperature in the solution is; but is only based upon results that are physically taken from the
experiment. This consequently still leaves an element of uncertainty with the results. If I were to
carry out this experiment again, I would use thicker insulation for the beaker and also use a lid to
retain the heat energy within the solution and so it can measured.
Finally, repetitions of this experiment should be taken by myself and others to increase the
reliability of the results, to perhaps raise questions on its validity and also to determine the
effectiveness of the experiment as a whole.