Alex cabrera spencer allen ryan miller
Download
1 / 7

Alex Cabrera Spencer Allen Ryan Miller - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 142 Views
  • Uploaded on

Reaction Car. Alex Cabrera Spencer Allen Ryan Miller . Reaction Chemistry. NaHCO 3 (s) + HCl(aq )  NaCl(aq ) + H 2 O(l) + CO 2 (g) n =(PV)/(RT)=[(5atm)(.7 L)]/[(.0821 L-A/mol-K)(293 K)] n = .14 mol Thus, we want roughly .14 mol of each reactant

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Alex Cabrera Spencer Allen Ryan Miller ' - edmund


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Alex cabrera spencer allen ryan miller

Reaction Car

Alex CabreraSpencer AllenRyan Miller


Reaction chemistry
Reaction Chemistry

NaHCO3(s) + HCl(aq)NaCl(aq) + H2O(l) + CO2(g)

n=(PV)/(RT)=[(5atm)(.7 L)]/[(.0821 L-A/mol-K)(293 K)]n= .14 molThus, we want roughly .14 mol of each reactant

NaHCO3(s) + HCl(aq) (+20mL H2O)~.14 mol 12.1M(84 g/mol) ~.14 mol~12 g ~12 mL

NaCl(aq) + H2O(l) + CO2(g) ~.14 mol


Car design
Car Design

Original Design:


Car design1
Car Design

Second design (significantly expanded back axel):


Testing results
Testing Results

Initially we wanted to go the distance without spewing, but it became apparent that our car was not going to do that very easily. After three tries of it going 2-4 ft, we decided to turn it around and let it spew. This made a significant difference, as can be seen on the next slide. We then, however, encountered a problem with it tipping. We compensated for this by expanding the back axel. This stopped it from tipping and we were able to achieve acceptable results. There was very little variation from our measurements, as it seemed to be the design of the car that largely affected the overall outcome.



Conclusion
Conclusion

Our redesigned back axel that saved us on the first day was not enough for the finals. The axel had become slightly more bent, and instead of going straight, the car regularly veered off to the left. If we could have (or would have) replaced the back axel with less bent pieces, I feel that the car would have come much closer to the desired distance. As it was, the car was inconsistent and very hard to predict.


ad