By errors exist in experiments and this experiment

By now it is quite clear that this investigation could have given more promising results becuase the extent of Percent Error does signify and question the reliability of the data collected during thisexperiment. But, nonetheless, the reasons to why these errors came to be is explained in the followingThere was extensive loss of heat in this experiment, and clearly was the major flaw in this investigation. Nearly, 85% of the heat from the lamp failed to come in the vicinity of the bottom of the stand itself.  This was a major loophole and led to a reduced temperature rise in the water. If it wasn’t for this error, the data collected wouldn’t have had such a magnitude of variation with the literature values. As can be seen from the images, the wooden lid didn’t completely cover the calorimeter, there was a gap for the placement of the thermometer. This also contributed towards the loss of heat during this investigation. It cannot be said that there was no loss of water as there were possibilities where evaporation could have taken place, this inevitabely reduces the mass of the water, thus questioning the control variable of maintinaing a consistent mass of water. It was mentioned in the qualitative observations that the flame was a bluish yellow, thus indicating that there wasn’t a sufficient supply of Oxygen. This creates the consequence of Carbon monoxide production instead of solely Carbon dioxide.  This further results in a reduced value for the standard enthalpy of combustion becuase the reaction has not been completed.There was heat absorbance from the beaker of copper, this heat absorbed by the beaker should have been goimg towards the change in temperature of the water. This should’ve been kept into consideration in the calculations as the specific heat capacity of copper. There was a lack of calibertaion towards this.??Random and Systematic errors exist in experiments and this experiment too has its own set. Random errors can be reduced but those which are systematic are more difficult to control. Needless to say, systematic errors did exist in this investigation. This would further enhance this evaluation