More Snow?

S now Problem
Delaney, Jackson and Naomi

Abstract
In this project, the question we were investigating was, between compacted snow and compacted
snow with punctured holes, which one would melt faster? Our reasoning for investigating this question
was because it is a very important due to surviving in the wilderness and because it was related to the
topic of which we were studying. The methods for this project was melting compacted snow in an
aluminum pot on a hot plate at 405 degrees celsius. The amount of snow we were putting into the pot was
500 ml of water. We then timed the melting process. The compacted snow with no holes melted in nine
minutes and fifty seconds, while the other compacted snow with ten holes poked, melted in ten minutes
and thirty-seven seconds. The compacted snow gave 500 ml of water while the altered snow gave 550 ml
of water.
Though our hypothesis was that the snow with the holes would melt faster, it appeared that the
unaltered compacted snow had a faster melting rate. This could be because of the density or less surface
area in the altered compacted snow. Yes, it took longer for the snow to melt only by about forty-seven
seconds, but it also gave 50 ml more than what the unaltered compacted snow gave.

Introduction
The inspiration of why we are relating this to snow, in the process of melting snow to water is
because this project is relating to winter survival methods. It is very important that someone trying to
survive in the wilderness to have a good source of finding water and this project is a good experiment for
this. Why we are doing this is because it would be a good survival skill in surviving in the wilderness and
knowing the timing how much time it takes to take boil water. Also how you need to alter the snow
incase there is a faster way of melting the snow in different forms like puncturing the holes in snow. Or if
you should leave it as is and just melt it as is. We are trying to which one would melt faster, compacted
snow or compacted snow with punctured holes in it. Why we are doing this is because in a survival
situation where you have no water, but are surrounded in a snowy environment, you are not able to drink
or eat snow as it is because it will cause dehydration. Because of this we are testing to see how long it
would take to boil snow and have it be drinkable. The most important piece of this experiment is the
structure of the snow and how much energy it takes to melt is the difference between heat and
temperature. Heat is the absorption of the heating source, where as temperature is the degree of heat
present in an object or substance. Another thing that is essential to know in this project is the water
molecule. A water is molecule is hydrogen and oxygen atoms combined to form a water molecule. When
the water is a liquid the atoms are very tight and together whereas if it is a solid then the molecules are
slowly drifting apart, then if it is a gas, the molecules are drifting apart in their own space and not as tight.
 Questions and Hypothesis
Our question for this project was: between compacted snow and compacted snow with punctured
holes, which one would melt faster? Our hypothesis was if the compacted snow affects the melting rate to
make it faster because of the change in surface area, than the compacted snow with the punctured snow
will melt faster. The practicality for this experiment is how it could save someones life in a survival
situation.

Methods and Materials

The idea of this experiment will be to melt snow. We did this by taking a pot, and setting it aside,
and then taking a large cup that holds 550 ml of water, and filling it to the 100 mark. Next we will go
outside, and fill the cup to the brim with snow. We will need to collect two and a half of these cups, about
1200 ml is what you will need. And then compacting it in the pot so it is just about an half an inch below
the pots lip. We will then heat up a hot plate to 405o degrees celsius. We will be doing a similar tactic for
the snow with holes in it except of course we will be putting ten holes in it, and finding the result.
 Results
After our experiment it was clear to see
that our hypothesis was incorrect. The snow will
not melt faster if you puncture it, it actually melts
slower. As our data states the punctured snow took
10 minutes and 37 seconds to melt completely.
The punctured snow did however give us 50 more
milileters then the compacted snow, this may be
because of incorrect measurement on our part. But
if you are in a life threatening instant and you need
water as fast as possible then don't puncture the
snow and just leave it alone and start melting. The
time it took to melt the compacted snow was 9
minutes and 50 seconds, and gives you 500
milliliters.

Discussion
The fact that the snow with holes in it took longer was unexpected, and was quite the shocker but
but in a way helpful, it was interesting to see how the water with holes in it took more time, contrary to
our hypothesis. This results are significant to our hypothesis because we were proven wrong, but got
results we agreed with, as well as when looking back over it, it made sense, because with more surface
area for the heat to cover and go to, less of it boiled off. We wanted to do this experiment because we
wanted to learn about how not to die of dehydration in the wilderness, and what not to do, I think we
learned this with our results, like the snow with holes in it took longer, but gave us a little bit more water.
With this new knowledge we can help people around us and even ourselves incase, we get stuck in the
wilderness. But that is just theoretical. Since we were measuring and snow is difficult to make perfect we
would have had a very small percentage of error, just around 5%, because of the different density of the
snow in some areas, as well as the change in temperature in the snow and water, as well as the fect that
we cannot get the perfect amount of water and snow. this is because the snow was different in different
areas.