For this weeks lab in chemistry class, I need to describe a way to find the density of an irregular piece of wood. How could I do this?
Density of an object that floats.
For this weeks lab in chemistry class, I need to describe a way to find the density of an irregular piece of wood. How could I do this?
Measure the displacement it causes when dropped in water (the volume of water displaced). Then measure the mass of the wood.
Divide the mass of the wood by the volume and voila, you have density.
"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." - Barack Obama.
clicky clicky clicky
but not all of the wood displaces water.
Density is mass over volume, as you should know.
You should have the mass as given, or calculated (probably a balance). As for volume, measure the amount of water displaced, and multiply that with the percentage of the object submerged in water. If your density is > 1.00 g/cm<sup>3</sup> (or mL), then you know you've done it wrong. Alternatively, you could just check what your friends have. One of them is bound to be right.
Although, if I were you, I would just figure out the chemical composition of the wood, and do a bunch of stochiometry. But that approach isn't for everyone, since I doubt that you've had AP Chem.
What do you mean?Originally Posted by qwertyxsora
Just dunk one hundred percent of it under water. Measure the displaced volume of water. Then divide the mass of the wood by that volume. Its really not that hard.
(The water absorbed by wood should be negligible - If you want, you can cover it with something and work out the volume displaced by the cover and then minus that from the total displaced volume. But thats only if you have to be very accurate)
"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." - Barack Obama.
clicky clicky clicky
Thank you, I think I will use Tavrobels meathod though, since Vivisteiner's meathod has too many sources for error.
If its an irregular object, I doubt there's any easy way to estimate the submerged percentage, that method would be easiest with something displaying some kind of symmetry.
You could just poke it down with a pin or something. As long as the volume of the poky thing is negligible compared to the volume of the chunk of wood, it should have very little impact, plus it would give something to discuss in a conclusion.
Alternatively, weigh it down with weights of a known volume, then subtract the volume of the weights from the volume of displaced water and there you go. I would prefer that method to poking or estimating.
@Qwerty: Lol, my method is exactly the same as Tavrobel's except I didnt go into detail.
Unless if you mean you're going to do the stochiometry.
What I was just saying is to make the percentage Tavrobel mentioned as 100% otherwise it just complicates the matter pointlessly. Just get a lot of water and submerge it all in that or do LB's method. Obviously youve gotta measure stuff accurately using mass balances and perhaps a burette or measuring cylinder type thing.
"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." - Barack Obama.
clicky clicky clicky
The water thing wouldnt work if there was an empty chamber inside the object with no entrance
Kefka's coming, look intimidating!
Have a nice day!!
^Yes it would, wouldnt it?
Why wouldnt it work?
"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." - Barack Obama.
clicky clicky clicky
You'd have a sealed air cavity inside that water would'nt flow into. Therefore more water would be displaced than there should be, which gives an oversized volume measurement, and would result in an underestimate of the density.
^Yeah, but the density of the overall thing would still be accurate.
But I see what you mean - If you want to find out the density of that type of wood and not just the density of the object, then it wouldnt work. Its like a steel boat. The steel is more dense than water, but the overall density of the boat is less dense than water.
Last edited by Vivisteiner; 09-17-2007 at 10:49 PM.
"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." - Barack Obama.
clicky clicky clicky
Yup. I guess it depends on the aims of qwertyxsora's experiment then, but I'd imagine it'll probably be assumed to be a solid lump of wood with a uniform mass distribution inside.
I was referring to the stochiometry in Tavrobels awnser, sorry if I confused you a little. It's a lab that is supposed to connect the chemistry and botany classes. But I don't take Botany so I don't get to do the Botany half of the lab. The Chem half of the lab is determining several properties of different wood samples. My friend who takes Botany says that they then take those findings and determine why those properties were favored for natural selection.
You know there's like, 3000 different types of wood, right? Unless your friend has the type as a given.
No euphemism intended.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
