Investigating the effect of concentration on the rate of reaction between marble chips and Hydrochloric acid Essay Example

Investigating the effect of concentration on the rate of reaction between marble chips and Hydrochloric acid Essay In this experiment I will be investigating the reaction between different concentrations of acid and marble chips. I will be measuring the speed and rate of which gas is given off. I know that the gas given off will be carbon dioxide and that the reaction will be as follows:Calcium Carbonate + Hydrochloric Acid Calcium Chloride + Water + Carbon DioxideOrCaCO3 + 2HCl CaCl2 + H2O + CO2On the left are the reactants. These are the chemicals that I will start off with. On the right are the products. These are what will be produced at the end of the experiment. Reactants and products are very rarely the same, as they react with one another to form other things. There will always be the same number of atoms in the products as there are in the reactants though, as none can be dragged in, or left out.VariablesIn this experiment I am going to change the concentration of Hydrochloric acid. I will use 2M Hydrochloric acid as 100% concentration. Here is a table to show all of the concentrations I am planning on using, and how much acid and water to put into the conical flask. It also states how strong the acid is in M.Concentration (%)MolarHydrochloric acid (ml)Water (cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½)1002.0200901.8182801.6164701.4146601.2128501.01010I will then investigate the difference in speed of which the gas is given off, over a two minute period. I will take measurements every 10 seconds.Preliminary WorkBefore this experiment, I decided which size of marble chips to use from the sizes available. The different sizes of marbles chips had an average diameter of: large-1.5cm, medium-1cm, or small-0.5cm. After a short experiment which included putting 3 of each size, in turn, into a conical flask, with hydrochloric acid in. I then measured the amount of gas that came off using the same technique as I used in the final experiment. I then noticed that the small marble chips produced gas so slowly that it would have been hard to accurately measure the amount of carbon dioxide given off. The large marble chips, however, gave off carbon dioxide too fast. Therefore I decided to use the medium sized marble chips. This is because 3 large marble chips have a greater area than 3 small marble chips, so more hydrochloric acid can get to the large marble chips, so more particles collide, resulting in more gas being produced faster.PredictionI predict that the higher the concentration of acid, the faster gas will be given off.I also predict that the gas will be given off twice as fast with 100% concentration than it will with 50% concentration, because their would be twice as many hydrochloric acid molecules to hit each other, so the molecules will collide twice as often.ApparatusIn this investigation I will use:A conical flaskA gas delivery tubeA margarine tubA measuring cylinderA clampA stopwatchMarble chipsHydrochloric acidWaterDiagramMethod- First, I will gather all of the equipment listed on the previous page.- I will then make up my concentration of acid and put it into the conical flask.- Next, I will fill the margarine tub between 1/2 and 3/4 full.- I will then fill the measuring cylinder full of water, and tip it upside down in the margarine tub, ensuring that as little air as possible gets in.- The measuring cylinder will then be secured upright using the clamp.- Then, I will put 5 marble chips, of roughly equal surface area, into the acid.- I will then put the bung of the gas delivery tube into the water in the margarine tub.- When the gas begins to bubble out of the end of the tube, I will place it under the measuring cylinder to collect the gas.- At the same time as the previous step, I will set the stopwatch going.- I will then, note the amount of gas collected every 10 seconds.- I will then repeat the experiment as many times as need be, using different concentrations of acid.Measurements to be TakenIn this investigation I will be measuring the amount and rate that carbon dioxide is produced, when marble chips (calcium carbonate) are put into hydrochloric acid of varying strengths. I am going to test each concentration 3 times to make sure that the investigation is fair, and will then work out averages, rates of production, gradients etc.I will measure the amount of carbon dioxide in cubic centimetres, and will take measurements every 10 seconds. I will be collecting the gas using a measuring cylinder that has been upturned in a margarine tub between 1/2 and 3/4 full of water.Fair TestsTo make this investigation fair, I will be using the same amount of marble chips, and will ensure that they have roughly the same surface area. I will do this because if I used marble chips which had different surface areas then more acid would be able to reach the marble so more gas would be given off in less time.I will also take measurements as soon as possible after the gas starts to comeout of the tube. This is because as the marble chips dissolve into the acid their surface area gets smaller, resulting in gas being given off slower. I also tried to keep the temperature about the same throughout the experiment. This is because with more heat energy the particles will gain more energy, and therefore move faster. If the particles move faster, there will be more collisions and therefore the reaction will take place faster.I also kept the time between measurements the same. If I had waited 12 seconds instead of 10 for one of the measurements, the amount of gas measured would not be a true measurement. Therefore, I used a stopwatch to measure time.SafetyTo help make this experiment safe I will wear goggles at all times during the experiment or whilst others are doing the experiment near me. This is so that if for any reason acid gets splashed at me, it will not go in my eyes. If acid did get in my eyes it could damage them.I will also stand up whilst doing the experiment because if acid gets spilled, I will be able to get out of the way quickly so that it doesnt get on me or my clothes. If I was sitting down it would be harder for me to stop the acid from getting onto me.If I spill any acid onto me I will rinse the area under the tap, to get the acid off. I would need to do this because hydrochloric acid is corrosive and therefore would hurt or even damage me.I will not run or mess about in the laboratory in case I spill acid, which would cause a safety hazard for the same reason as above.The concentrations of acid I am using in this experiment are so weak that it doesnt really matter too much if I do come into contact with it. I will still carry out the safety precautions however, so that there is no possible danger.Section 2: ObtainingResults TableMy results tables are at the end.Section 3: AnalysisAnalysisFrom my results I can see that generally as the acid that I used got weaker, the less gas was produced. This is shown by the fact that with 100% concentration of acid I measured an average of 69.67cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ of carbon dioxide, the average gradually decreases apart from at 70% where it i ncreases, but from then onwards goes steadily down.In the 100% concentration test, where I used 2M Hydrochloric acid, the volume of gas had increased by about 6, 10 seconds after the last measurement. With the 90% concentration test, I have decided to ignore the first set of measurements because I feel that they are not accurate. Therefore I have remade the table as follows:A table of results for 100% concentration of hydrochloric acid, excluding the first repetetionTime (s)Repetition 2 (cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½)Repetition 3 (cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½)Average amount of gas measured (cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½)0000.0010375.0020798.0030101211.0040151716.0050182119.5060212523.0070252927.0080283431.0090313834.50100344238.00110384541.50120414945.00I can see from this that the amount of gas measured goes up by about 4 cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ every 10 seconds.During the 80% test the gas produced increases by about 3cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ every 10 seconds.In the 70% concentration test the gas produced increases by about 4cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ eve ry 10 seconds, this is strange because, logically it should increase by less than the 80% concentration test. By surveying the other results and the patterns that have emerged from them I would estimate that it should have increased by 2cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ every 10 seconds instead of by 4cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½. I think that this has happened because the marble chips were probably larger. This is explained in more detail under the section entitled Anomalous ResultsIn the rest of the tests the rate that carbon dioxide is given off, seems to level off at about 3-4cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ every 10 seconds.ConclusionFrom this investigation I have learned that if an acid is concentrated it is more reactive. Being more reactive means that for instance, in this experiment, more carbon dioxide is produced and at a faster rate. If the acid were less reactive the reaction would take place slower, therefore less carbon dioxide would be produced overall, and at a slower rate.Proving the PredictionOn the whole, my pred iction was more or less right. As the acid got weaker, the amount of gas produced, decreased, apart from at the 70% concentration, where it instantaneously increased. This was probably caused by using marble chips that had a larger surface area to the ones I had been using before. This was due to the fact that I had to slightly adjust the size of the marble chips I was using, as there were no more marble chips that were the same size as the ones that I had been using previously. To get avoid this problem I could have used specially prepared marble chips, that had a fixed surface area, such as 1cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ cubes. This would have increased accuracy, but would also have increased the cost of the investigation by quite a lot.I also predicted though that there would twice as much gas produced with 100% concentration than there would have been with 50% concentration. This was nearly right as the average volume of gas produced with 100% concentration was 69.67cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and the volu me of gas produced with 50% concentration was only 29.33cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½. Rounded up to the nearest whole number these work out at about 2.5 times more gas produced. I think that this is near enough to my prediction.Section 4: EvaluationEvaluation of EvidenceI do not think that all of my results are reliable. There seems to be major differences between some of the results, for instance the first repetition of the 90% concentration test, produced carbon dioxide at higher rate than that of the 100% concentration test. It also has a higher overall volume than the 100% concentration test and is double that of the other repetitions.I also do not think that the 70% and 60% results are reliable because they both have a larger overall volume of gas produced than the 80% test.Anomalous ResultsDuring this investigation I did get some strange results. In the first version of the 90% concentration, overall more carbon dioxide was produced than in any of the 100% concentrations. This should not ha ve happened because the acid was weaker so the reaction should have taken longer. The reaction took longer in all of the other repetitions, so why did it take longer in this case?There are several reasons why this could have happened. These are: That the acid could have been stronger; or the surface area of the marble chips could have been bigger. The first of these is hard to justify, but could have happened if by accident more acid than was supposed to be put in was put in. This could have happened but it is impossible that the acid was more than 100% concentration, which it would have needed to be in order to produce more gas than the 100% concentration experiment. This only leaves the second explanation: That the surface area of the chips was larger.This could have been for any reason, such as: The marble chips were larger than in the other tests; more marble chips than should have been put in, were put in; or maybe that one of the marble chips had a crack in. I would guess that more marble chips were put in, although it could have been because of any of the other reasons. From the fact that almost twice as much gas was collected in the first repetition, I would say that either 2 lots of marble chips were put in by accident, or the marble chips from the last test (the 3rd repetition of the 100% concentration test) were still in the conical flask.To stop this happening again, if I did another investigation, would be to always check that the experiment has been set up correctly with the right quantities and concentrations of everything.Also the average volumes of gas with the 70%, and 60% concentrations of acid, are higher than that of the 80% concentration test. This should not have happened because the acid should have been weaker. This was probably caused by using marble chips that had a larger surface area to the ones I had been using before. This meant that there was more marble for the acid to react with, and therefore produced more gas.In order to sto p this happening, if I did the experiment again I could use marble chips which all have exactly the same surface area. This would increase accuracy but unfortunately make the investigation to expensive to carry out, as the marble chips would probably have to be specially prepared.Evaluation of MethodI think that my method worked quite well, although next time I would use marble chips with a set surface area. This would improve the accuracy of the investigation. Also I would check to make sure that the experiment was set up properly with the right amounts of the chemicals and substances that I was using. I would do this to ensure my results were accurate.Is the Conclusion Valid?I think that my conclusion is valid because my colleagues all had pretty much the same sort of results.ResultsAll of the units in the following tables are in cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½, apart from the units in the Time columns which are in seconds

Value of Wild Animal Fur Sociology Essay

Value of Wild Animal Fur Sociology Essay Value of Wild Animal Fur Sociology Essay Example Value of Wild Animal Fur Sociology Essay Example Several million years ago, when the primitive people lived, primordial humans killed animals to survive and warm with the help of their skins. Then, it was justified by a wild way of life and severe climate in which they could have died. In todays world, the use of leather and the fur production cause a negative reaction among environmentalists. Wild Animal Fur Should Not Be Valued In many aspects, they are right. The huge demand for natural beautiful fur leads to disappearance of many species of animals. That is why artificial fur is increasingly gaining popularity. Moreover, the production of fur clothing contributes to extensive poaching as rare and endangered species of animals are killed because of their skins and fur for sale and profit. In addition, animals are slain with special cruelty. Tragically, some of the animals are killed with the use of poisons and electricity in order not to damage the fur. It is also absolutely immoral to practice stripping of skins from live animals. Buying fur products, people often do not think about torments of animals shedding their blood for the sake of fashion. Despite the high value of animal fur as a symbol of beauty, warmness, and wealth, it should not be valued as its use reduces the wild animal species and contributes to the cruelty and violence toward the latter. History of Fur Use Fur is perhaps the oldest clothes in the history of mankind. Animal skins were worn by primitive people living on the European continent thousands years ago. In Ancient Greece and Rome, fur had no popularity. On the territory of these countries, it first came into use only after the conquest of Europe by the barbarians. In the Middle Ages, fur was worn only by the nobles and the rich people. The most expensive was minever and marten. The start of common fur fashion was in the 16th century. It was the time of trade, which made fur one of the most precious materials, along with spices and gold. However, it was worn by men only. In the 19th century, fur became an indicator not only of social status but also of age. It was meticulously chosen and worn on special occasions only. In the 20th century, fur became the object of interest in design. In the early 1900s, Jeanne Paquin and Paul Poiret began to include fur outer clothing in their collection. Fur boom was caused by the development of production of the first car. In these machines, the top was open, and warm clothing was necessary for the movement. The popularity of fur did not disappear until the Great Depression. Movement against Fur In 1980, the first organization in the history of mankind was founded to fight for the rights of animals in the United States (All about PETA). It was called People for Ethical Treatment to Animals (PETA). Since its inception, PETA has been famous by its loud advertising campaign with nude stars and models under the slogan that it was better to go naked than wear fur. In 1980s, fur felt into disgrace, which had an enormous scale: the rejection of animal cruelty was promoted on television, radio, and in lectures at universities, books and films (All about PETA). More famous people were getting connected to the anti-fur movement. This situation significantly boosted the production of artificial fur. It began to reach the popularity level of natural fur. This trend against the human desire and for the conscious consumption, promoting the infliction of the least possible damage to nature, is continuing today. Arguments against the Use of Natural Fur One of the main reasons not to wear fur is animal suffering. Any animal is exposed to severe conditions and dreadful death. Buying products that are made of natural fur and leather contributes to the brutal killing of other animals that have the same right to life as people. In most areas of the planet, one can easily live without fur coats. There are many other warm materials, down clothing, woven or knitted woolen clothing. Leather jackets and coats are heavy and bad-smelling. Today, millions of animals are killed for their skins (Linzey, 2002). There is an ethical issue of using astrakhan and cramps. This is a generally abhorrent practice to interrupt the pregnancy of animals, and both the mother and the baby are killed in order to get baby’s fur that has not been completely formed. On fur farms, such animals as sables, foxes, raccoons, and even bobcats are grown. Their stay is associated with large implications to health. The cells are close; animals are deprived of the opportunity to exercise their instincts; and many go crazy from stress, pain, and disgusting food, beginning to chew their limbs (Linzey, 2002). Animals in captivity are characterized by particular neurotic behavior, including the throwing from side to side, circling, and self-mutilation (Broom Nimon, 2001, p.241). The animals are constantly beating on the cell walls, causing themselves physical pain. Foxes in cages often resort to cannibalism. Broom and Nimon (2001) found that foxes in fur farms were characterized by a high level of fear and suffered from problems with reproduction functions (242). Although some animals die from diseases, stress, and self-mutilation, a sufficient number survives for slaughter and subsequently brings huge profits to its owners. On fur farms, there are aquatic animals that have no access to water in the conditions of the farms. Mason et.al. (2008) studied the conditions of minks at fur farms. He emphasized that these animals released the stress hormone when they were prevented from swimming (36). Moreover, there is a horrible method of obtaining astrakhan and karakulcha. Karakul is a skin of newborn lambs (2-3 days after birth). Karakulcha is a skin of prematurely ‘born’ lamb. The breeders simply cut the pregnant sheep and take lambs out of it. To r eceive the fur of karakul, an incision is made at the head of the live lamb, and then it is shaken out from the skin. Apart from fur farms, a practice of placing traps is still used (Linzey, 2002). Having stuck in a trap, the animal suffers waiting for its killer (hunter). The beavers, muskrats, raccoons, opossums, skunks, foxes are the main targets for hunters. In many countries, hunters are also obliged to mark their traps with information about a specific hunter and recommend checking their traps every day, but even a short period of time will seem like an eternity for the animal due to unbearable pain. Some animals even bite off their own limbs in order to save lives. Several states in the United States and many other countries imposed ban on the traps, which are known for the cruelty. However, hunters can easily evade the ban by other no less barbaric types of traps. If a hunter finds a captured animal still alive, it is usually beaten to death. Shooting is not accepted as, in this case, the hunter would risk damaging the skin. Therefore, buying fur and leather products, people are sponsoring t he killing of animals, causing heavy damage to the outside world. Moreover, the prisoners of traps are often unintended victims: birds, porcupines, deer, cats, dogs, and other animals that become maimed or killed. It is a commonplace that animals that are listed in the list of endangered species are killed in these cruel traps. Also, there is a danger of children’s getting into the trap. A few years ago, Canadian fishermen killed hundreds of thousands of harp seal pups in front of their mothers. Therefore, the Canadian government reduced the number of seals that were permitted to be slaughtered, decreasing the quota to 400,000 heads in 2012 (Myth and facts about Canada’s seal slaughter, n.d.). The process of slaughtering turned into an annual show, which caused a massive hype and hostility on the part of animal rights organizations and the media, trying to document the carnage. The Canadian government and the sealers try to block access to the area where the massacre is performed in order to avoid publicity. In 1987, the Canadian government was forced to pass a law that authorized the killing of seals just over two weeks. They are considered adults, even though they are so small that they are not able to swim and cannot be saved. In 2001, veterinarians who inspected the skull of seals came to the conclusion that â€Å"more than 40% of the seals were still con scious and were alive when they were skinned† (Myth and facts about Canada’s seal slaughter, n.d.). Fur is not the only material for sewing warm clothing. Today, there are warm synthetic materials. The preparation of fur also contributes to the pollution of the environment. Many chemicals (paints based on cyanide, formaldehyde, and others) are used during the fur handling. This certainly makes it serve longer, preserving the color, lightness, softness, and luxurious curvy shape. However, it affects person not in the best way. Often, chromium, which can lead to allergies, is used for processing fur. Another argument against fur is energy which is transferred to the owner of fur. Often, animals die slowly and suffer before death. When the animals feel fear and suffer, they release adrenaline that enters the bloodstream and is absorbed into the skin; so, the information of fear can be transmitted to a man and manifested in excessive anxiety and even neurosis. Advantages of Artificial Fur Today, few people doubt the fact that the fur can be easily replaceable. There are plenty of alternative technologies. If a lot of fur clothes in the wardrobe are made of artificial fur, a man can wear them with a clear conscience. The products that are made of such fur are a relatively budgetary purchase, which many people can afford. Low price is based on the fact that the use of synthetic fibers is less expensive to manufacture. Consequently, the price of artificial fur is much cheaper than of the natural one. Today, the production of eco-fur reached a high level and is in no way inferior to the production technologies of things that are made of natural fur. Products retain the novelty for a long time, are beautiful and shiny, easy to clean, and do not require special storage conditions. Things of faux fur look great in any color and authentically like natural fur. Meanwhile, the colored natural fur loses a lot of quality, which has a negative impact on its appearance. Certainly, there are several disadvantages of artificial fur. It is made of acrylic and polyacrylic polymers, which contain petroleum, coal, and limestone. Certainly, faux fur has reduced frost resistance. However, today, designers and scientists are still working, trying to improve the quality of ‘ethical’ fur. Externally, natural and artificial fur is almost impossible to distinguish, but the natural one is softer and more pleasant to the touch. Nevertheless, the advantages of natural fur in comparison with the artificial one have no significance as its use has serious consequences to the environment. Therefore, it is important to provide essential reforms to change the attitude to animals. People should revalue the life of animals and the desire to wear fashionable clothes. There are many compelling reasons to not use fur. Its wearing really cannot be justified, unless a person lives in a country with an extremely cold climate and fur is the only thing that can keep warm. The fur industry is terribly cruel causing a lot of suffering. Its purpose is to satisfy human vanity. Fur has become a symbol of luxury rather than a means to protect against the cold. People use coats and faux fur coats to keep warm. These products are also characterized by beauty and elegance. As fur clothes are made due to animals’ suffering, violence, and cruelty, it is important to recognize the harm of its production to the environment as well as change the attitude and perception of its value. The use of fur in the 21st century, the century of nanotechnology, space flights, and other breakthroughs, is considered simply illegal. People of the 21st century should seek to humanity rather than the perverted sadism. People must move away from the murder of animals as a source of luxury and find more civilized and acceptable methods.

Disrupting Terror Group Finances to Exploit Weaknesses in Terrorist Research Paper

Disrupting Terror Group Finances to Exploit Weaknesses in Terrorist Organizations - Research Paper Example In most activities, finances or money are often needed. This is not an exception for terrorist organizations that need the financial support of supporters in order to carry out their goals. Based on known accounts, most of their finances come from donations from sympathizers and from their numerous economic enterprises. Since their members, including their donors, are mostly located in different parts of the world, their funds also have to be moved and have to change hands. Where interruptions to the smooth flow of these finances would be interrupted, the terrorist activities would also likely be interrupted. This is the basis of this discussion. It shall discuss the general flow of finances for terrorist organizations, and how disruptions in these finances would impact on the organization itself. It will also discuss whether or not such disruptions would be sufficient in exploiting the weaknesses of terrorist organizations. This paper is being carried out in order to provide readers more specific scenarios on how disruptions on finances impact on terrorist organizations. Terrorists, as in most businesses or other undertakings require funds to operate. These funds are usually allocated to finance payments for operatives, travel expenses, training, forging of documents, bribes, weapons, and suicide attacks (Financial Action Task Force, 2008). Funding for these activities may primarily be allocated for direct operational support and secondly for broader operational activities (FATF, 2008). Direct operational funding usually includes: direct costs of attacks, like bombs, vehicles, maps, and the like; salaries, communications; food and subsistence; training and travel; and logistics or communication (FATF, 2008). The broader allocations include funds allocated for the support of the organization. This may include the recruitment of members, support of complicit charitable organizations and other businesses, including mass media