Peter Zawycky, Stephen Ching, Melissa Gallo

12 September, 2017
Niladri Sengupta
Elementary Classical Physics II: Section 043

Heat Capacity
Introduction
In this lab, an unknown metal was heated in metal beaker of hot water and then dropped into a plastic
container of cool water. By heating the unknown metal and then placing it into cooler water, the cool
water changed temperature by become a bit warmer. The change in temperature of the cool water
allowed our lab group to figure out how much heat was transferred from the metal to the water. The
change in temperature and amount of heat transferred allowed our group to determine the type of metal
of the sample and that sample’s heat capacity.

Procedure

In this experiment we used the apparatus shown below.

Ring Stand

Graduated Cylinder

1000 mL Metal Breaker

Styrofoam Cups with holes poked in

bottom
Hotplate

Calorimeter Cup

Thermometer Probes

One of two unknown metal samples

Part 1 items: Two temperature probes, a 1000 mL beaker, a hotplate, a ring stand, a calorimeter cup, and
two unknown metal samples.

Part 2 items: Everything listed for part 1, plus two Styrofoam cups with holes in the bottom of them, ice,
and a graduated cylinder.
Part 1

In part 1, our group first made sure we had all the required items for our apparatus and carefully
read the lab manual. Next we weighed and recorded the masses of the two unknown metals. After that
we filled the plastic cup of water with 200mL of room-temperature water and measured the temperature
of that water with a temperature probe and left the probe in that cup for when we would have to place
the hot sample into the room temperature water. Then we filled the metal beaker with enough water for
the metal sample to be fully submerged in it. We next started to heat the water in the metal beaker with
the hotplate so that the water could reach boiling point. Next we set up the ring stand so that the metal
could hang from the ring stand and rest fully submerged while the water in the metal beaker was heating
and, eventually, boiling. Once the water in the metal beaker started to heat up, we put the thermometer
probe into it to track the temperature until boiling point. Once the hot water reached boiling point, we
quickly took the metal sample out of the hot water and submerged it into the room temperature water in
the calorimeter cup. Next, we observed the new temperature of the cooler temperature due to the hot
sample. Once the temperature stopped rising we recorded the temperature, which was the equilibrium
temperature between the water and the metal sample. We went through this process with both metal
samples. Using the measured change in temperature, masses of samples, known specific heat of water,
we calculated the specific heat of the metal.

Part 2

In part 2, we got out two Styrofoam cups, stacked them on each other and then stuck those two
cups at the mouth of the graduated cylinder. These cups stop the ice from falling into the graduated
cylinder while the ice changes the temperature of the water being poured through the ice. Next we filled
the Styrofoam cups with a known amount of ice. Not long after that, we poured about 250mL of roughly
80oC water through the ice filled cup. Next, we recorded the volume of the water and melted ice in the
graduated cylinder and used that data to calculate the latent heat of fusion of water.

Precautions and Sources of Error

Our lab group’s first precaution is to always make sure that we have all of the necessary materials
for the lab and to make sure we have a plan for the lab. A more specific precaution that we took in part 1
was to make sure to get the heated sample from the hot metal beaker to the calorimeter with room
temperature water as quickly as possible so that not as much heat could escape from the sample. An
addition, for part 2 we made sure to pour the 80oC water into the cup willed with ice slowly. If we poured
too fast, the ice may not have all melted, which would have skewed the results in our calculation of the
latent heat of fusion of water.

An unavoidable source of error that we encountered was the fact that when we took the metal
sample out of the metal beaker, the sample was going to lose some heat no matter how fast we got it
into the calorimeter filled with room temperature water. The fact that some heat escaped meant that the
calculations for specific heat of the sample was not going to be totally accurate. In addition, one of our
thermometer probes was not working properly for the entire lab. When we had a probe in the boiling
water, the probe read about 80oC even though we could see the water boiling. The thermometer probe
may have skewed our data a bit.
 Data and Calculations

Part 1

Sample Sample Mass of Initial Temp of Initial Temp of Equilibrium Specific Heat of
Mass (kg) water (kg) Sample (℃) Water (℃) Temp (℃) water (J/kg*K)

Aluminum 0.037 0.200 100.3 24.5 25.3 4148 J/kg*K

Copper 0.558 0.200 100.3 26.8 27.2 4148 J/kg*K

Sample 1 (Aluminum)

Qlost+Qgained=0, Q=mc∆T
M1C1∆T1 + mwCw∆Tw=0

(.037kg)(CAl)(100oC-24.5oC) + (.200kg)(4148 J/kg*K)(25.3oC-24.5oC)=0

CAl=239 J/kg*K

Sample 2 (Copper)

Qlost + Qgained=0, Q=mc∆T

M2C2∆T2+mwCw∆Tw=0

(.037kg)(CCu)(100oC-24.5oC) +( .200kg)(4148 J/kg*K)(25.3oC-24.5oC)=0

C2=81.3 J/kg*K

Part 2

(C) mL
hot water temp 84 250 (mw)

runoff 17.7 420 (m

Ice 0
Specific heat of water:
4.184 kJ/kg*K
vol of ice that melted 170(mice)
change in temp (hot 66.3
water – runoff temp)

Qlost+Qgained+Qfusion=0, Q=mc∆T, Qf=mLf

mwCw∆Tw+ mrunoffCw∆Tw +miceLfice=0

(.25kg)(4.148kJ/Kg*K)( 17.7oC-84oC) + (.170kg)(4.148kJ/Kg*K)( 17.7oC-0oC) + (.170kg)(Lfice)=0

Lf=331,010 J/kg*K

Aluminum (J/Kg*k) Copper (J/Kg*k)

Actual Specific Heat 897 385
Experimental Specific 239 81.3
Heat
Percent Error 73.4% 78.9%

|𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙| |239−897|
% error = 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
x 100%  897
𝑥 100% = 73.4%
|81.3−385|
385
𝑥 100% = 78.9%

Ice (J/kg)
Actual Lf of Ice 334,000
Experimental Lff of Ice 331,010
Percent Error 0.9%
|331,010−334,000|
334,000
𝑥 100% = 0.9%

Results and Discussion

For part 1 of our experiment, we first found out the equilibrium temperature for sample 1 to be 25.3oC
and the equilibrium temperature of sample 2 to be 27.2oC. Next we figured out that we had samples of
aluminum and copper; however our specific heat measurements for those metals were very off. The
percent error for our specific heat of Aluminum was 73.4%, and it was nearly 79% for our measurement
for specific heat of copper. The extreme inaccuracy of our specific heats was most likely due to the
faulty thermometer probe that we used.

In part 2 of our experiment, we found the Latent heat of fusion of ice to me 331,010 J/Kg, which is very
close to the actual heat of fusion for ice, which is 334,000 J/Kg. Our percent error was only 0.9% for this
part.

Questions

1. We made two assumptions in deriving our mathematical model. 1) That our system was isolated
from its surroundings and 2) that the cup would not affect our results. Describe how each of these
assumptions would affect your result using mathematical reasoning to support your answer (i.e. will
 making the assumption cause your result to be larger, smaller, or randomly different from the actual
value?).

mwCw∆Tw + mrunoffCw∆Tw + miceLfice=0

If the system was not isolated from its surroundings, we would have to take another
temperature into account. This new temperature was cause the equilibrium temperature to
decrease, because heat is being lost to a non isolated environment. If the cup had effected ourt
results, we would have to incorporate the temperature of the cup, the mass of the cup, and the
specific heat of the cup, which would cause other values to decrease. Since all the variables are
equal to 0, adding a few more variables will cause the other variable to decrease in order to still
equal 0.

2. Assuming that no heat is lost or gained in this system so that all the heat lost by the hot
water goes in to melting the ice and warming up the melted water, derive an expression for
the latent heat of fusion of water.

0= mw LfW +miceciceΔT+ mrunoffcw ΔT

- LfW = ( miceciceΔT+ mrunoffcw ΔT)/mw