- #26
- 14
- 0
No there was not, I simply held the tube with my hand and marked the depth and total height with a marker.
No there was not, I simply held the tube with my hand and marked the depth and total height with a marker.How would you have known? Was there a microscope in the set up?
So you would not have been able to judge the contact angle. But I doubt that was a problem.No there was not, I simply held the tube with my hand and marked the depth and total height with a marker.
No there were two marks on the capillary tube itself, one for the depth (roughly 2.7cm) and one for total height (4.6, cm on average). The difference between these values should be the h values in the capillary equation.So you would not have been able to judge the contact angle. But I doubt that was a problem.
Holding the tube in your hand sounds like more of a risk. You really should have had it clamped.
Where were you making the marks? On the cup?
So you were making these marks by hand, at some depth within the surrounding cup maybe?, holding the tube with the other hand, while looking down into the cup from above... All sounds a bit awkward.No there were two marks on the capillary tube itself, one for the depth (roughly 2.7cm) and one for total height (4.6, cm on average). The difference between these values should be the h values in the capillary equation.
I was making these markings by hand, although I used a short cup so I could look at it and mark it from the side. But yes it was a bit awkward but I did get mostly consistent results in the experimentSo you were making these marks by hand, at some depth within the surrounding cup maybe?, holding the tube with the other hand, while looking down into the cup from above... All sounds a bit awkward.
Presumably the base of the tube was resting on the base of the cup. I don't think that should affect the result, but it does not sound ideal.