Beast Yeast Lab

Hypothesis: The yeast will make have the most gas pressure when it is added to the mixture of the acid. This is because of its corrosive nature and the potential of hydrogen levels.

Results: Acid (Diet Coke®)
This is our first test, since we needed it as a comparison for our hypothesis. Also, brown is a cool color. When the hydrogen peroxide collided with the soda, there wasn't much of a physical change, just bubbles from the carbonated soda. The solution was still dark brown. Now, the yeast was added with two eyedrops right into the middle of the solution. Still no physical reactions. But, when we began to record the data, we noticed a noderate crawl upward in pressure. The yeast and the hydrogen peroxide and the hydrogen in the cola were doing well working together. The test ended with a finished result at 104.7 pHa.

The acid is the red line on the graph

Results: Neutral (Milk)

The neutral test was supportive to our hypothesis, since acid was our fave to have the most pressure to it. This reaction of the milk was somewhat different though. When the hydrogen peroxide was added to the milk, there were wtill no physical properties, besides a clearer color. When the yeast was added however, there was a noticable property, a layer of little foam floating at the top of the solution. Of course, we couldn't see if the foam was supportive or a hinderence to the milk's display of gas pressure. This layer seemed to be more of a hinderence, since the neutral sort of crawled forward instead of rose. The highest it got to was 99.72 pHa.

The blue line (neutral) compared to the acid's results

Results: Base (Antacid)

The antacid was the most similar to the neutral, boasting a lower score than acid and more similar properties to the neutral as well. The H2O2 was added and there still wasn't much of a change physical besides the lighter color. And, when the yeast was added and mixed, another larger layer of foam appeared. This may have something to do with the results, since the base was not high enough in pressure to brak the acid's score. The highest it went to was 101.79 pHa.

The green line (base) compared to the other tests

Type                                      Starting Point                                 Highest Pressure

Acid                                      96.88                                              104.7

Neutral                                  96.88                                               99.72

Base                                     96.88                                              101.79

Conclusion: The win streak has moved up to a nice number of four! Four labs correct in a row! That's pretty cool. But, for this lab it might have been from an unknown variable. Our lab results differed from other lab groups. It became obvious when Nandu was saying that the base was the highest, the nuetral being middlemost, and the acid being the least reactive. Now, this is curious, considering that in our test, the acid was the most reactive, being at the max of 104.7 pHa. Our base was the second most reactive, and the neutral being the least reactive. Taking away Nandu's comment, I believe that the reason for the experiment was because of the lack of hydrogen in the neutral, and the hydrogen in the acids and bases. Now, there are many acids and bases, but both catergories have a pontential of Hydrogen, the acids having negatively charged atoms, and the bases positively charged. The mor away from the neutral, the more nydrogen in the negaitve/positive charge there is. Now, the yeast's reaction isn't purely based on the Hydrogen Peroxide. The hydrigen and oxygen cause a massive amount of gas to be realsed if a good amount of yeast is added, since oxygen is added into the hydrogen peroxide and this will make a lot of the H2O2 create bubbles. Now, there is also another element that can generate a good amount of gases: Carbon. Our acid was Diet Coke® and it can generate a lot of carbon when shaken because of the ingredients added. It's not a pure element, and the carbon could have added a lot of gas pressure when poured into the test tube. It is a possibility. If we used another acid besides Diet Coke® the result may have been diferent.

Pop Rock and Soda Lab

Hypothesis: The Vinegar an Baking Soda Test will be more sporatic than the Pop Rocks and Soda because of the more chemical reaction generated by the Vinegar meeting the Baking Soda.

Results: Our results were matching to the hypothesis again. The experiment was very straightfoward: Put pop rocks in ballon, place balloon on top of bottle, dump pop rocks, watch automatic infaltion machine work. What was idfferent that the balloon was not filled up with helium like it would be normally, but Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour. These two parts are very different from helium, but are very common and take up a lot of space. The Carbon Dioxide released from the pop rocks reaches the surface of the cola in air tight bubbles. When the bubbles pop, then the gas released into the balloon, inflating it.

Balloon 

Representation of Pop Rock/Cola Bottle

We then moved on towards our vinegar and baking soda test. There was varely any vinegar compared to the cola, only 50 mL, barely forming a complete shape at the bottom. The amount of baking soda was also quite minimal: 1/2 a teaspoon. There was some doubt that the experiemnt would carry out as we had planned it to. But, when the baking soda was dropped in, there were bubbles forming almost instantly around the entire bottle. Hundreds of trapped CO2 molecules that are bursting, filling u pthe balloon very rapidly. The vinegar bottle's balloon almost doubled the size of the cola balloon by the end of the reaction. We were correct on our hypothesis.

Balloon

Representation of Vinegar/ Baking Soda Bottle

Conclusion: What happened during this test made our winning streak for our hypothesis score up to 3. Vinegar did have a better reaction than the Pop Rocks because of the more chemical reaction. When we were about to put in the pop rocks, we realized that the carbon dioxide in the candy wasn't chemical, but physical. Chemical reactions usually have a more energetic or crazy reaction than those with physical. Changing atoms can be very dangerous, but affective. This was confirmed when the ballon from the vinegar bottle almost doubled the size of the Coca-Cola bottle. As well as this, vinegar seems to be more sporatic when paired up with baking soda specifically. This goes the same with cola and pop rocks, but the candy isn't the one with the most contained CO2. That catergory belong more to Mentos than anything. Since there was only 50 mL of vinegar inside the 20 fl Oz bottle, there was a huge difference in the amount of liquid in the container. I can't even imagine if we filled the entire bottle up with vinegar, what that will be like.

Alka-Selzer Temperature Lab

Hypothesis: If there are three different temperature of water for the alka-selzer dissovele test, then the hot water will be the fastest to dissolve since it has more energy.

Results: The Results matched my hypothesis. I predicted that the added energy for the heated water would make the tablet disintegrate quicker. This prediction seemed to show. The hot test was set up. It took about ten minutes for the hot plate to warm up to the needed 50 degrees Celsius. During this time. The beaker had oxygen bubbles starting to appear at about 40 degrees Celsius. When finished, we were not given the tongs in time, and the temperature rose to 56 degrees Celsius. We took the beaker off the hot plate, and then recieved the tongs. Waiting for the temperature to decrease, we noticed that the temperature showed by the probe seemed to increase and decrease, sort of like a mountain with little hills on it. When the temperature was matched, the tablet was dropped into the beaker.

Diagram of the Hot Test (first 150 secs)

The tablet fell into the water, and almost immediately dissolved. It made an extremely rapid fizzing noise and shrank in size relatively quick.

Time for disentergration: 22.4 secs

Temperature of Tablet's Drop: 48.9 Celsius (-1.1 C)

The room temperature water was relatively simple to set up. Get water, put in probe, drop tabley. We predicted this would take a slightly sloer time since there wasn't as much energy as the hot water. After measuring the water and entering the probe, we waited until it hit a relatively even 25.5 degrees Celsius. The tablet was dropped in and there was a familiar fizzing noise. This time, the tablet did take longer, but not by much difference.

Diagram of Room Temperature (Reaction)

Time for Disentergration: 36 secs

Temperature for Tablet's Drop: 24.9 Celsius (-0.6 C)

Cold Test

Now, the cold test was to half the water, but include ice cubes. We added quite a few ice cubes to the water and started to stir for 60 seconds. The ice didn't seem to melt through this process and it made the water extremely cold. After stirring, we measured the temperature: exactly 1 degree Celsius. That's very cold. So, the tablet was dropped into the beaker, and a slow reaction started to occur. The reaction was easily the slowest, slowing at one fourth of the pace the room temperature test went. The bubbles released did not seem to evaporate, but stay underneath the ice still present and the surface.

Diagram of Cold Water Test. Through entire procedure.

Time for disentergration: 2 minutes, 8 seconds

Temperature of Tablet's Drop: 1.6 Celsius (+.6 C)

Conclusion: The results for this lab were fairly predictable. The intention to find the quickest way to dissolve was to use warm water. I remember that warmth induces energy. Just how gases have their atoms more free flowing than both liquid and solid. This is because the gas in states of matter is needed to be warmer to get that extra energy. Now, the oxygen in the tablets are in luttle air pocket bubbles. Bubbles are a common sight in water nearing or at boiling temperature. The reason for this is that the oxygen is seperated from the hydrogen, and leaves the liquid. Also known as evaporation, it is not common to find in colder water. In the warmer test, the bubbles that were released from the Alka-Selzer tablet immediately reached the surface, due to their mass, popped and disappeared. Now, when it came to the other tests, there was little or no evaporation that ocurred. The room temperature had a little of the bubbles evaporate, while the cold water had all the bubbles stick together on the surface of the water, or underneath the ice cubes, trying to squeeze their way through. The oxygen needed to escape, and the heat will seperate the oxygen and hydrogen. Therefore, it dissovles faster, and it shows in the experiment.

Polymer Mab Group Investigation

The experiment that we had originally planned to create a polymer out of milk, vinegar, lemon juice, and water. Unfortunately, due to some grouchy cafeteria workers, this experiment could not be run without whole milk that was not given to us. As a group, we just decided to alter the polymer labe last Tuesday, with glue and borax. With the glue acting as the subject, and borax acting as the solute. Our objective was to see if halving the borax, or doubling the borax would make the difference for a different type of polymer.
New Hypothesis
1/2 Borax: If the borax is halved for the experiment, then the polymer will become more liquidy and harder to grasp.

Double Borax: If the borax is doubled for the experiment, then the polymer will be much more firm and hard to mold.

Results of the Experiment:
1/2 Borax: After adding one teaspoon into the water, it almost immediately dissovled, easily having enough space for the powder. The solution was added to the glue, and what happened was somewhat disgusting. The glue started sticking to the rod and would not let go. It was very liquidy, and there was water left over from the solution. It was very uncertain whether or not the 1/2 borax was enough to make the glue polymer solid enough to bounce for the test. After about five minutes of stirring constantly, the glue seemed hard enough to create into a ball. The characteristics varied much from the other polymer
Characteristics (physical):
REALLY sticky
Gooey
Loose
Unlayered
Squishy
Modable
The bounciness test was under way. We would dro pthe ball from a height of 30 cm and see how high it bounces. This is repeated for five total tests. The 1/2 borax ball wasn't the hardest thing in the world, so it wasn't expected to bounce that high. I didn't even expect it to bounce, just to splat. But, the test showed that I was wrong. It did bounce, but not anything phenominal.
Bounciness Test
1: 7 cm
2: 7 cm
3: 6 cm
4: 7 cm
5: 8 cm
Average: 7 cm

A pitiful 7 centimeters. The polymer seemed to get harder over time as well, but not by a significant degree. The polymer was very sticky, and left residue glue on my hands. I am picking at it as I type this. The polymer was not my favorite of the two, for the double borax was a bit more freindly to the hands, and much cooler.

Double Borax Results: We stuck with the original water and just added three more teaspoons of borax to make the control 2 cm doubled up to a total of four cm (with the extra one cm from the other test earlier). Adding it to a new supply of glue, the water was sucked in by the glue, but not all of it. The residue solution was present again, and the glue polymer was sticking to the stirring rod, similar to the 1/2 borax test. Originally, I thought that the characteristics shared by the two polymers would disprove my double borax hypothesis. But, the substance hardened after a few minutes, and becoming a firmer type of polymer, sort of. It was surronded by a layer of liquid glue, with the firmer layer inside. You could even see the water moving as you held it.
Characteristics
Layered
Somewhat Moldable
Not Squishy
Somewhat Sticky
Hard
Stuck together well

We tried the bounciness test for this polymer as well
Bounciness Test
1: 9 cm
2: 11 cm
3: 13 cm
4: 12 cm
5: 13 cm
Average: 11.6 cm

Conclusion: Overall, my hypothesis was correct on both accounts. The polymers in the lab were a close match to what I described them ass, 1/2 borax being liquidy and drippy, and double borax being frimer, but still moldable. The 1/2 borax did have an interesting trait that I had not predicted, which was its superior stickiness. It seemed to act as glue for, sticking to a surface for a prolonged period of time. Since there wasn't enough borax, it didn't make the polymer have different characteristics than glue. Meawhile, overdosing the borax seemed to create something that wasn't the opposite of glue, although it would be a good hypothesis. The doubled borax wasn't absorbed fully, since water can only abosrb a certain amount of powder. So, the polymer still showed stickiness (though not as powerful as the half borax), somewhat squishy, and filled with liquid. But, in the end, my hypothesis was correct.

Sodium Silicate Polymer

The experiment was about combining a sodium-silicate solution with ethyl (alchohol) to create a polymer (Sodium Silicate Polymer). Relatively easay to make, I originally predicted that it would be similar to the glue polymer that we created on Tuesday, ribbery, but slightly harder in touch. After following the procedures to create this polymer, it turns out I was wrong, again. Sodium Silicate is a very thick liquid and does not travel as freely as water or juice. Instead, it slowly crawls on. When ethyl and the sodium silicon was mixed, they immediately clumped together, sort of like this:

Sodium Silicon Polymer stuck together

Physical Characteristics included these:
Clumpy                              Sticky
Very rough                        Drippy
Fragile                               Tough
Gooey                               Uncompact
Full of alchohol                 Sticky
Smelly

Although it was to crumble several times through the process of making the polymer, there was no breaking up of the parts. With all the physical characteristics measure, we moved on to the bounciness test. Taken from the top of a ruler, the polymer (now in a spherical ball type of form) is dropped and measured to see how high it bounces. This is repeated for a total of five tests.

Sodium Silicate Polymer Bouciness Test

1: 19 cm

2: 20 cm

3: 21 cm

4: 17 cm

5: 19 cm

Average: 19.2 cm

Now this was to be repeated except cooled for 10 minutes inside of a refridgerator. While waiting, our teacher interrupted us for an announcement. This extended the cooling the time from 10, to 15 minutes. I do not believe it modified the polymer in any specific way though.

Sodium Silicate Polymer Bounciness Test (Cooled)

1: 16 cm

2: 16 cm

3: 18 cm

4: 19 cm

5: 19 cm

Average: 17.6 cm

Comparing the two tests, it was similar to the glue turnout. Cooling the ball made the ball seem to bounce lower by about 2 cm. Not very significant, but still noticable. In my personal opinion, the liquid contained inside the ball became less energetic, thus making the water more heavy and thick. Coolness makes energy less free and more compact. Less energy means lower action potential, such as bouncing the polymer. At least, this is what I think. I could be wrong, but I do not know at this time. This also is shown to bounce much higher than the glue polymer, a healthy 10 cm, which is higher than the glue polymer even bounced. But, even in the glue polymer, the cold test took a toll on its bounciness.

Conclusion: My hypothesis predicted the ball to be similar to the glue polymer, rubbery and smooth. In the end, it was the exact opposite of what I expected: rough and crumbly. It seemed to be hard to roll into a ball form, where as the glue polymer was fairly easy. The last thing the silicon polymer would be was rubbery. It took other tables several tried to even have the ball stick toghether, where we got lucky and had one attempt to go. It clumps together when scooped up with the stirring rod and seems to leave some residue behind. These applications are not what I expected and it makes my hypothesis incorrect.

Questions:
What characteristics are similar to the two polymers? Different?
The glue polymer I found to be more of a rubbery substance, that was squishy and very smooth. The silicon polymer was more rough and clustered together.

Similarities:
White
Polymers
Same sized
Squishy
Filled with liquid in some way

Differences:
Rough/ Smooth
Crumbly/ Forms Together
Falls Apart/ Strecthy
Drippy/ Contained liquid

Most commercial polymers are carbon based. What properties are shared between carbon and silicon that may inhibit their ability to polymerize?

They are chemical analogs, although Silicon is less reactive. This means that their characteristics are almost identical. Which means, their ability to become polymers are also shared.

Plastics are made of organic carbon polymers. What similarities does the carbon polymer share with the silicon polymer?

Some properties that they share are that they can be rough when in liquid/solid form. Although they share hardness, silicon is easily outclassed by carbon. It is much more efficient at keeping things sturdy and unbreakable, while Silicon is just sturdy. Carbon Polymer is very much similar to fiberglass, and is one of the hardest substances known to man. Not much in common between the two besides their hardness.

How did you know that a chemical reaction had happened when the solution and ethyl were mixed?

The substances immediately started to clump together and two being two different layers right when the mixture was stirred. Since both of these condoments were liquids when they started, it became known that something chenical had happened since the solution's properties began to change.
How could the liquid pressed out of the be found out?
Well, the only liquid that was inside the polymer was the added ethyl (alchohol). There couldn't be any pure liquid in the sodium silicon mix or else it would have blown up (sodium is an alkali metal). Therefore it leads to the conclusion that the ethyl is the only liquid in it.

Compare the ball to other members of the class. Measure properties.
Compared with Table 7 in front of us
It is larger in diameter than ours
Warmer
More chunky
Lumpy
Ours bounces a little higher than there's (when facing each other)
Ours is more translucent