𝐶𝐶

Physics Department
Thermodynamics Laboratory

Laboratory Students who performed this Control stamp

group experiment
Date of this
session

Turn-in deadline

HEAT OF FUSION OF WATER

Note:  Include units and errors in all measurements and calculations.
 On all graphs: label the axes with their units and draw the experimental
points with their error bars.
 Least-squares line fits will be drawn on the same graph as the
experimental data points.

1. Determination of the heat capacity of the water-calorimeter

system

1.1. Voltage provided by the power supply

V= 6.3 ± 0.1 ( V )

1.2. Current provided by the power supply

I= 1.98 ± 0.01 ( A )

1.3. Measurements of temperature (T) versus time (t)

T t T t
(±0.1K) (±0.01s) (±0.1K) (±0.01s)

294.2 0.00 309.9 1440.00

296.5 120.00 311.1 1560.00

298.3 240.00 312.2 1680.00

299.4 360.00 313.4 1800.00

300.6 480.00 314.5 1920.00

301.7 600.00 315.7 2040.00

1
 T t T t
(±0.1K) (±0.01s) ((±0.1K) (±0.01s)

302.9 720.00 316,9 2160.00

304.0 840.00 318.0 2280.00

305.2 960.00

306.4 1080.00

307.6 1200.00

308.7 1320.00

In the graphical representation, the errors bars can be barely

1.4. Graph of T versus t discerned although they have indeed been included.

1.5. Least-squares line fit of y = T versus x = t

x i 
y i 
x y i i 
x 2
i 
n 
 

2
 Fit results:

- Slope:

m= (0.009699 K·s-1)

m = (0.000032 K·s-1)

m= 0.00970±0.00003 (K·s-1)

- b constant (y-intercept):

b= (296,776886 K)

b = (0,043095 K)

b= 296.78± 0.04 (K)

1.6. Tasks

 From equation [11] in the experiment script, obtain an expression for a line such that
y = T and x = t.
The elements determined above (m, b) through the least-square method as well as the graphic
bdrafted display a linear relation between the variables y (T) and x(t), which obeys the following linear
hequation: y=mx+b.
According to equation [11]:𝐼 · 𝑉 · 𝑡 = 𝐶𝐶 · (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑜 ),where V is voltage (V); I, current (A) ;
Cc, water-calorimeter heat capacity and T0 and T,
the initial temperature and that that the system
reaches,respectively.
𝑛 𝐼·𝑉
Modifying the equation: 𝐼 · 𝑉 · 𝑡 + 𝐶𝑐 · 𝑇0 = 𝐶𝐶 · 𝑇 ⇒ 𝑇 = 𝑡 + 𝑇0
𝐶𝐶

Consequently, the slope of the graph, m, and the y-axis intercept,b, can be identified with the
𝐼·𝑉
hfollowing : 𝑚 = 𝐶 ; 𝑏 = 𝑇0
𝐶

 From the least-squares fit from section 1.5 and the equation obtained for T versus t, obtain
an expression for CC.
𝐼·𝑉 𝑛 𝐼·𝑉 1.98 𝐴 · 6.3𝑉 𝐶 · 𝑠 −1 · 𝐽 · 𝐶 −1
𝑚= ⇒ 𝐶𝐶 = = = 1285.97938 = 1285.97938 𝐽 · 𝐾 −1
𝐶𝐶 𝑚 0.00970 𝐾 · 𝑠 −1 𝐾 · 𝑠 −1

From the former expression, calculate by error propagation the error in CC.

𝜕 𝐶𝐶 𝜕 𝐶𝐶 𝜕 𝐶𝐶 𝑉 𝐼 𝐼·𝑉 6.3 1.98 1.98·6.3

CC =| | · ∆𝐼 + | | · ∆𝑉 + | | · ∆𝑚 = ∆𝐼 + ∆𝑉 + 2 ∆𝑚 = · 0.01 + · 0.01 + · 0.00003 =
𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝑉 𝜕𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 0.0097 0.0097 0.00972

∆𝐶𝐶 = 30.88447 𝐽 · 𝐾−1

Numerical value:

CC = 1290± 30 (J·K-1)

3
2. Determination of the latent heat of fusion of ice.

2.1. Mass of ice used in the experiment

mi = 46.89 ± 0.01 (g)

2.2. Initial temperature of the mass of ice

Ti = 263 (K)

This temperature will be considered to have zero experimental error.

2.3. Initial temperature of the water in the calorimeter (before adding ice)

Tw = 318.0 ± 0.01 (K)

2.4. Measurements of temperature (T) versus time (t) after adding ice into the
calorimeter

T t T t
(±0.1K) (±0.01s) (±0.1K) (±0.01s)

318.0 0.00 293.5 280.00

311.9 20.00 293.6 300.00

306.1 40.00 293.7 340.00

299.7 60.00 293.9 360.00

297.9 80.00 294.1 480.00

296.3 100.00 294.3 580.00

294.6 120.00 294.4 780.00

294.4 140.00 294.6 980.00

294.0 160.00

293.5 180.00

293.5 200.00

293.3 220.00

293.4 240.00

293.5 260.00

4
 2.5. Graph of T versus t

In the graphical representation, the errors bars can be barely discerned although they have indeed been
included.

2.6. Equilibrium temperature reached by the system

Teq = 294.6±0.1 (K)

2.7. Tasks

 Taking into account the equations [2] to [7] in the script, obtain an expression for Lf.
According to equation [2]: 𝑄𝑎𝑏𝑠 = 𝑄𝐴 + 𝑄𝐵 + 𝑄𝐶
Hence, substituting values we reach the following expression:
𝐶𝐶 · (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑒𝑞 ) = 𝑚𝑖 · 𝑐𝑖 · (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇0 ) +· 𝐿𝑓 + 𝑚𝑖 · 𝑐𝑤 · (𝑇𝑒𝑞 − 𝑇𝑓 )
, where Cc is the heat capacity of the water-calorimeter system; cw, the specific heat of water; ci,
gspecific heat of ice; mi,the mass of ice; Lf, the latent heat of fusion of ice; Tw, T0 and Teq, the final
temperature of water after the heating process, its initial temperature, and the equilibrium
htemperature.

𝐶𝐶
𝐿𝑓 = 𝑚𝑖
· (𝑇𝑊 − 𝑇𝑒𝑞 ) − (𝑐𝑖 · (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇0 ) +· 𝐿𝑓 + 𝑐𝑤 · (𝑇𝑒𝑞 − 𝑇𝑓 )) =

1290 𝐽·𝐾 −1
𝐿𝑓 = · (318.0 𝐾 − 294.6 𝐾) − (2.092 𝐽 · 𝐾 −1 · 𝑔−1 · (273.2 𝐾 − 263.2 𝐾) + 4.184 𝐽 · 𝐾 −1 · 𝑔−1 · (294.6 𝐾 − 273.2 𝐾)) =
46.89 𝑔
𝐿𝑓 = 533.303496 𝐽 · 𝑔−1 = 127.352875 𝑐𝑎𝑙 · 𝑔−1

From the former expression, calculate by error propagation the Assuming, Patm=1 atm.
error in Lf. We consider Tf=273.2 K
𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿 (water´s melting point )
∆𝐿𝑓 =|𝜕𝐶𝑓 | · ∆𝐶𝐶 + |𝜕𝑚𝑓 | · ∆𝑚𝑖 + |𝜕𝑇 𝑓 | · ∆𝑇𝑊 + |𝜕𝑇 𝑓 | · ∆𝑇𝑒𝑞 + |𝜕𝑇𝑓 | · ∆𝑇𝑓 = as a theoretical value:
𝐶
(𝑇𝑊 −𝑇𝑒𝑞 )
𝑖
𝐶
𝑊 𝑒𝑞
𝐶
𝑓
𝐶
Tf=0k.
∆𝐿𝑓 = 𝑚𝑖
· ∆𝐶𝐶 + 𝑚𝐶2 · (𝑇𝑊 − 𝑇𝑒𝑞 ) · ∆𝑚𝑖 + (𝑚𝐶 ) · ∆𝑇𝑊 + (𝑐𝑤 + 𝑚𝐶 ) · ∆𝑇𝑒𝑞 =
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖

(318.0−294.6) 1290 1290 1290

Lf = 46.89
· 30 +
46.892
· (318.0 − 294.6) · 0.01 + (
46.89
) · 0.1 + (4.184 +
46.89
) · 0.1 =
∆𝐿𝑓 =21.0291405 𝐽 · 𝑔 −1
= 5.02175874 𝑐𝑎𝑙 · 𝑔 −1

5
Numerical value:

Lf = 127 ± 5 (cal ·g-1)

Compare the experimental value to the theoretical value for the latent heat of fusion of
ice (Lf = 80 cal/g). If there is a discrepancy between the two, what can it be due to?

Given that Lf.theoretical is a theoretical value, the percent error formula will be applied to determine
the precision of the experiment:
|𝐿𝑓.𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 𝐿𝑓.𝑡ℎ𝑒 | 127 − 80
𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = · 100 = · 100 = 58.75 %
|𝐿𝑓.𝑡ℎ𝑒 | 80

The percent error calculated revolves around 60%. This indicates a significant difference among
the experimental and theoretical values, which must have raised from a series of errors in the
measurement procedure.

Although, certain random errors could have contributed to the result found (human reaction time
when measuring temperature and time intervals, or non-uniform stirring), the error found is too
high to be attributed solely to them, considering that, in fact, numerous measurements were
taken along the course of the water heating process what should have reduced the variation
margin. Therefore, it is ineluctable to ascribe this lack of accuracy to systematic errors which
would call for a refinement of the measurement techniques.

One of the he principal systematic errors that could be identified is the temperature change that
the ice could have suffered in the displacement from the refrigerator to the calorimeter, leading
to the melting of ice in its surface. This liquid mass would be at a temperature of approximately
273 K and would not gain heat in the same amount as ice once in the recipient. Hence, the ice
should be dried before introducing it in the calorimeter. Additionally, to reduce the time
difference, the calorimeter could be placed next to the refrigerator and the mass of ice could be
measured beforehand.
Secondly, the heat leak experienced by the water-calorimeter system when inserting the ice
would have lower the absolute temperature.
As for the instruments utilized, it is assumed that the calorimeter is a perfect insulator.
Consequently, an experimental error for this apparatus should be considered for
the neglected heat loss. Lastly, the metallic stirring bar and the tongs (used to displace the ice)
could be substituted by plastic counterparts, characterized by a lower thermal conductivity.

3. Discussion of the results of the experiment

Since the procedure comprised solely two experimental measurements with the aim of being
compared to a theoretical value, only the relative error can be discussed for the heat capacity
of the water-calorimeter system (CC) and the accuracy of the latent heat of fusion (Lf) can be
discussed :
∆𝐶𝐶 30
ε𝐶𝐶 = = = 0.02325 ⇒ ε𝐶𝐶 (%) = 2.325 %
𝐶𝐶 1290 𝑑

As for Lf:

∆𝐿𝑓 5
ε𝐿𝑓 = = = 0.03937 ⇒ ε𝐿𝑓 (%) = 3.937 %
𝐿𝑓 127 𝑑

These relative errors, although not substantially low, reflect that the experimental procedure was
moderately precise owing to the small uncertainty (in comparison to the values measured)
considered for the instruments. However, as stated in the previous section, its inaccuracy is
extremely high. This apparent contradiction, displaying the experiment a high precision and a low
accuracy, indicates the existence of a built-in (systematic) error that has not been yet identified(the
different factors that could have played a role have already been analyzed above). Although, the
experimental value of CC could not be collated due to the lack of a theoretical value, the main
sources of inaccuracy stem probably from the second phase of the procedure, where more variables
could have been neglected.