Lab 4 Analysis Worksheet

1. Include a photo of your raw data, including your TA’s signature. Failure to include
this data will result in a grade of zero for the entire lab report.
2. Include a table of your time and temperature data.

3. Include a plot of your temperature versus time data and identify on the plot the
region where the ice is melting.
4. Include a small table of the four cells of the LINEST calculation of the slope and
intercept of the temperature-time data in the appropriate regime. Use these results
to calculate the rate of heat gain by the water, along with its uncertainty.

𝑑𝑇
= 0.098 ± 0.001 𝐾𝑠 −1
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑇
𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑚𝑐 − 𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠
𝑑𝑡

As heat loss is very small when the water is close to room temperature, so:

𝑑𝑇
𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝐻𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 𝑚𝑐
𝑑𝑡

𝐻𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 = ((846.5 ± 0.1)𝑔 − (410.1 ± 0.1)𝑔)(4.186 𝐽𝑔−1 )(0.098 ± 0.001 𝐾𝑠 −1 )

= (436.4 ± 0.2)(4.186 𝐽𝑔−1 )(0.098 ± 0.001 𝐾𝑠 −1 ) = 179.023 𝐽

0.2 0.001
𝛿𝐻𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 = (( )+( )) (179.023) = 1.9 𝑊
436.4 0.098

𝑯𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 = (𝟏𝟕𝟗 ± 𝟐)𝑾 … in (180 ± 2) s

𝑑𝐻𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 179 2 2
= 180 ± ((179) + (180)) (0.9944) = (0.99 ± 0.02 )𝑊𝑠 −1 (to verify)
𝑑𝑡
 5. Show the derivation of how you can calculate the latent heat of fusion of water from
the rate of heat gain, and use the formula to calculate the latent heat of fusion of
water, along with its uncertainty.

The ice melts between 0 and 800 seconds. This is indicated on the graph. During this time,
all of the energy that is given out by the hot plate goes into melting the ice. This means that:

𝑄 = 𝑡𝐻𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 = (800 ± 1 𝑠)(179 ± 2 𝑊 )

1 2
𝑄 = 143200 ± ( + ) (143200)𝐽 = 143000 ± 1000 𝐽
800 179

The mass of the ice =mass of beaker with ice and water – mass of beaker with water

𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑒 = 864.5 ± 0.1 𝑔 − 579.4 ± 0.1 𝑔 = 285.0 ± 0.2 𝑔

𝐿 = 𝑄/𝑚

143000 ± 1000 𝐽 1000 0.2

𝐿= = 501.75 ± ( + ) (501.75) = 𝟓𝟎𝟐 ± 𝟒 𝑱𝒈−𝟏
285.0 ± 0.2 𝑔 143000 285.0

6. Perform a statistical comparison between your determined value of L versus the

accepted value of L.

The accepted value of L = 334 Jg-1

502.75 − 334
𝑡= = 42.1875 ≫ 2
4

Results do NOT agree.

7. Include a table of the temperature, log of temperature, central-difference slope of

temperature, instantaneous net heat gain, the rate of heat loss, and the log of the
rate of heat loss in the rhegion where T > 50◦C. You do not need uncertainties for
these columns.

Note: Negative values of Hloss were neglected. The table is found on the following page.
 8. Include a plot of your log(Hloss) vs log(T) data and identify regions that are
approximately linear.

The region 2.55060 < log(T) < 2.56144 is approximately linear.

9. Use the LINEST function on the data in the regions that are approximately linear,
and use this data to determine the power of the temperature dependence in each
region along with the coefficient of heat loss in the model Hloss = ATn. Include a table
of the LINEST data for each region you calculate a slope, and clearly identify the data
you are using in your analysis.

The gradient is 21.0 ± 0.7 Ws-1K-1

The y intercept is -52 ± 2 Ws-1

If the rate of heat loss is 𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 𝐴𝑇 𝑛 , then the linearization will be

log(𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 ) = log(𝐴) + 𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑇), which takes the form of y=mx+c, where n is the
gradient and log(A) is the y intercept.
 Log(A) = -52 ± 2 Ws-1

n = 21.0 ± 0.7 Ws-1K-1

A = 1.0 x10-52 ± 0.5 x10-52

10. Respond to the following questions/instructions:

(a) For many groups, the temperature where the ice is melting will not be zero.
Regardless of what your temperatures were as the ice was melting, what are
some possible reasons why this might be the case, and why does it not have an
impact on the analysis in this lab activity?

The thermometer was measuring the temperature of the water in which the ice was in, not
the temperature of the ice itself. this does not affect the analysis because it focuses on the
rate of change of temperature, so the initial temperature does not matter. Also, this lab
focuses on calculating heat gain, which is done so from the rate of change in temperature.

(b) What are some aspects of the experimental design that may explain why your
value of L may differ from the accepted value?

Firstly, a lot of energy was being lost to the atmosphere via conduction, which means that
more energy was required to heat up the water per unit mass, so the calculated latent heat
would be somewhat greater than the accepted value. Secondly, the stirring, as will be
discussed soon, causes the water to have greater surface area, and hence loose more heat
to the atmosphere though conduction. This also means that the estimate for L is calculated
to be greater than the accepted value, for the same reasons as before.
 (c) What forms of heat loss did you find dominated the heat loss at high
temperatures? Justify your answer. If you cannot clearly identify any particular
form of heat loss, explain why this might be.

Evaporative heat loss was the most impactful form of heat loss, though not the only
significant one. As the water approached its boiling point, it began to evaporate at a much
higher rate. This means that, near the boiling point, the rate of heat loss is much greater in
total (because of evaporative heat loss), and his can be seen in the graph of time vs.
temperature where the curve’s gradient decreases as it approaches boiling.

Likewise, heat loss to the air through conduction was also significant. This kind of heat loss
occurs through the surface of the water and having the stirring on increases the surface are
of the water that is in contact with the air, so the effect of this heat loss is increased the
faster the stirring.

At the end of the experiment, once the temperature stabilized, the stirring was turned
down, and the temperature began to rise again. This explains this phenomenon, as the
surface area of the water in contact with the air decreased, so the rate of loss due to
convection decreased, allowing the temperature to rise to a stable temperature where the
rate of loss of energy is the same as the rate of gain of energy. This may be observed in the
plot of the graph.

(d) Explain why using a least squares approach applied to Hloss vs T data would not
provide useful results.

Firstly, the graph of Hloss vs T is non-linear, so any kind of graphical analysis that relies on
this would become useless. Likewise, the end goal was to calculate the power of the
temperature dependence, as well as the coefficient of heat loss, which would be difficult to
do without a logarithmic linearization of the graph.