beatriz Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Hey there! so there are maany 'theories' about the number of significant figures and/or decimal places that all the data needs to have. Some say that all the values have to have the same sig. fig. Some say that all the values need to have the same decimal places. Some say that the experimental data should have the same sig fig between them, but not compared to uncertainties. Other say that the uncertainties should have the same amount of decimal places, but not when comparing it to experimental data. Whaat?? So I attach one of the tables (in form of plain text) - it is a minor one, to show what I've done with the values (rounding them up) - I am totally unsure if this is right. (It doesn't show proper calculations or anything - & I'm sure I messed it up with the concentration, it is only to show my understanding of sig. figs). Thanks a lot.IMSOSCREWED so it is like parameter. unit. error. value. mass of ascorbic acid (solute). g. ±0.001. 0.250volume of water (solution). ml ±0.100. 250volume of solution used in titration. ml±0.100. 25.0 moles of ascorbic acid. mol ±0.001. 1.44concentration of ascorbic. mass/volume percent (%). ±0.200. 0.100 agh it's hard to understand without table Edited March 25, 2015 by beatriz Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Hey there! so there are maany 'theories' about the number of significant figures and/or decimal places that all the data needs to have. Some say that all the values have to have the same sig. fig. Some say that all the values need to have the same decimal places. Some say that the experimental data should have the same sig fig between them, but not compared to uncertainties. Other say that the uncertainties should have the same amount of decimal places, but not when comparing it to experimental data. Whaat?? So I attach one of the tables (in form of plain text) - it is a minor one, to show what I've done with the values (rounding them up) - I am totally unsure if this is right. (It doesn't show proper calculations or anything - & I'm sure I messed it up with the concentration, it is only to show my understanding of sig. figs). Thanks a lot.IMSOSCREWED so it is like parameter. unit. error. value. mass of ascorbic acid (solute). g. ±0.001. 0.250volume of water (solution). ml ±0.100. 250volume of solution used in titration. ml±0.100. 25.0 moles of ascorbic acid. mol ±0.001. 1.44concentration of ascorbic. mass/volume percent (%). ±0.200. 0.100 agh it's hard to understand without tableThe number of decimals in the uncertainty and the values have to be the same. For the moles of ascorbic acid. mol ±0.001. 1.44 , you need to have three decimal number in the value, therefore it should be 1.440. You do not need to write 0.100, (0.1) will be fine. 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jhope Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 The majority of your decimal places look good. The only one that stuck out to me was commented on the above reply. Additionally, you added two extra decimal points than necessary in regards to your concentration. Other than that you're fine, so don't stress out about it. 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IB_taking_over Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 The uncertainty for the volume of water doesn't match the data. You have +/- .1 and .250 . The decimal places should match up. 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.