Density+Pop+Can+Lab

Charissa Ford's Density Pop Can Lab:

[[file:Density Pop Can Lab.odt]]
**Conclusion/Summary:** The essential question that we were asked to answer was “Why does the can of Diet Coke float, and the can of Cherry Coke sink?”. We came up with a reasonable answer to this question using the results from our experiment**.** By dissecting the separate components that contribute to the density of the can, we were able to determine how much each component impacted the density of each can. In the end, we determined the carbon dioxide contributed by measuring the density of the cans before opening and after, in which the majority of the carbon dioxide escaped. By taking these measurements, we were able to determine that the can of Cherry Coke had 23.64g of carbon dioxide compared to the Diet Coke, which had 1.01g. This extra amount of carbonation in the Cherry Coke is the reason why it had more mass than the Diet Coke. The unopened can of Cherry Coke had more mass than the unopened can of Diet Coke in very similar volumes, thus giving it a higher density. According to previous research, the density of water is 1g/mL. The density of Diet Coke is 0.9520g/mL and the density of Cherry Coke is 1.04g/mL according to the calculations from our experiment. Knowing that the density of the cans are more than 1, we can conclude that the matter inside of the can is what makes it float. The reason why the Diet Coke can floated vs. the Cherry Coke, is because the matter inside of the Diet Coke can is less dense than water and the matter inside of the Cherry Coke can is more dense than water.

Brandon Michaels Density Pop Can Lab
 * Conclusion/Summary **

Our group failed to answer the essential question: Why does the Cherry Coke can sink and the Diet Coke can float in water? This is because we did not come up with a complete answer. Our hypothesis was that density was determining whether or not the cans would float or sink. We tested our hypothesis by calculating density of both the unopened cans with the liquid inside and density of each liquid alone. Our conclusion was that both the unopened can of Cherry Coke and its contents alone were denser than water, therefore it sinks. The density of both the unopened can of Diet Coke and its contents alone were less dense than water, therefore it floats. However, our conclusion is invalid because we never calculated the density of water itself. Instead we assumed that the water’s density was 1.00 g/mL. Also, we cannot say for sure that one can being less dense than the other is caused only by the density differences of the liquids inside them. When we opened the cans, all of the carbon dioxide contained within them escaped and could no longer be measured. Finally, we could not say for sure that our answer is complete because we were not able to test the differences in ingredients between the two Cokes. For instance, we knew that the Cherry Coke had high fructose corn syrup and the Diet Coke contained aspartame for sweeteners, but we did not have the means of measuring the densities of them as they were mixed in with the rest of the drink. This means that we did not truly measure all of the contents of each can, and therefore we cannot completely answer the essential question.


 * Reflection **

If I had a chance to repeat this experiment I would do many things differently. First of all, I would try to do a better job of eliminating error. In our experiment, we decided to measure water displacement of the Diet Coke by pushing it down with a ruler so that the two centimeter mark was in line with the water level. To calculate water displacement of just the Diet Coke we subtracted the water displacement of two centimeters of the ruler from the displacement of the ruler and the Coke can together. After our group discussion I realized that there are better methods to measure the Diet Coke’s water displacement more accurately. A better method was to place a weight on top of the can to make it sink. I would use this method if I were to do the experiment again. There were other sources of error in our experiment such as the ability of the electronic balance compared to the triple beam balances. It would have been better to use a triple beam balance because they are much more precise than the electronic balance. Another source of error was the splash from dropping the cans into the 2,000 mL graduated cylinder. This caused us to lose some of the water which made our measurements lower than they should have been. I would try to be more careful about placing the cans in the water if repeating this experiment. I think that we could have made our experiment better by taking an approach that would completely answer the essential question. We measured density of the liquids with cans and the liquids alone, but that wasn’t enough to completely answer the question. We could not say for sure that one can being less dense than the other is caused only by the density differences of the liquids inside them. If I were to do this experiment again, I would attempt to measure the cans and all of the contents within them, including carbon dioxide. A good method to measure the carbon dioxide is to subtract volume of the liquid alone from the volume of the unopened can with the liquid. I learned a lot from this experiment and obtained many ideas from other groups that would have improved it.


 * Summary of Experiment**
 * Lessons Learned: ** Our lesson learned is to really think through steps of the procedure before actually starting the experiment. Starting with research would be best, if there is necessary time available. Also It is important to keep everything neat and organized. We learned that taking our time instead of rushing actually makes the experiment go faster.


 * Major Sources of Error:** The major source of error most likely occurred while calculating the amount of volume each soda can had. We also should have measured the mass of the soda can when it just opened, so then it would have the liquid inside of the can. Another major source of error was the electronic balance. We should have used the triple beam balance because it is much more precise. Also there was a lot of splash from dropping the cans into the graduated cylinder too quickly, which created more error in our experiment.


 * Different Approaches of the Different People and Groups:** One of our groups used a ruler to force down the Diet Coke while the other didn't have that as part of their procedure. Another difference is that one group measured water displacement with the unopened cans, while the other group opened the cans then refilled them with water to find volumes of the cans alone. After our group discussion we realized that there are better methods to measure the Diet Coke’s water displacement more accurately. A better method was to place a weight on top of the can to make it sink. We would use this method if I were to do the experiment again.


 * Best Procedure:** The best procedure for this lab would yield valid results and completely answer the essential question. To answer the essential question the procedure would have to investigate each of the cans and all of their contents. This would include the cans alone, the carbon dioxide contained within them, and the liquids they contained. Investigating only part of the cans and their contents does not yield valid results and does not completely answer the essential question.