You are on page 1of 11

# MEE20001 THERMODYNAMICS-1

LAB 1
Introduction
This Experiment has been conducted in order to tabulate and study the saturation temperatures of
water at different pressures. By heating the water in a container and causing it to boil and
subsequently causing an increase in the amount of pressure, we can observe and tabulate the
pressure and the temperature variations.
Measuring the average energy of particles of a substance is the temperature. Once particles on
liquid gain sufficient amounts of energy, they can escape the forces of the liquid and escape thus
turning into vapour. This process is commonly known as evaporation. In open containers, once the
evaporation process has begun, the liquid is expected to fully turn into vapour eventually.
The vapour pressure has a direct relationship with that of the pressure applied. The boiling point of a
liquid is influenced directly be the amount of vapour pressure. An example of this is that the boiling
point of water at higher altitudes such as on mountains or hills, is higher than that of sea level due to
the difference in pressure. The significance of this pressure affecting the boiling point is used in
various applications ranging from aerospace engineering, to food processing and even in carpentry
tools.

Objective
The objective of this experiment is to study and analyse the saturation temperature and vapour of
water. The relationship between the two properties of water is to be determined using the ClausiusClapeyron equation, by using the data that shall be obtained in the experiment. The hypothesis in
the experiment is that there is to be a trend in increase between the two, which means that as one
increases, so will the other.

Theory
Coinciding with a temperature increase, will be the phenomenon that the particles will have
increased energy and thus they will leave the liquid surface and turn into gas and thus will cause an
increase in the amount of pressure in the container.
According to Le Chateliers principle, stating that Any change in status quo prompts an opposing
reaction in the responding system.., an increase in the temperature in a system will inherently
increase the amount of water vapour produced and therefore will cause an increase in the amount
of pressure in the system. The equation that relates the temperature to the saturation vapour, the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation is:

= 611

)[(

1
1
)( )]
273.15

Where:

## exp is the base of natural logarithms

The graph of saturated vapour vs Pressure is not a expected to be linear but rather, is expected to be
curved. This is because the amount of vapour pressure increases at a larger rate than the
temperature increase. The graph below demonstrates this. We can therefore conclude that the
natural log graph of the Saturation vapour pressure against the temperature, will be a linear line.

## Saturation Vapor Pressure Over a Liquid Surface

Saturation Vapor Pressure (Pa)

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

10

20

30

40

## Temperature (Degrees Celsius)

Figure 1. Graph of Saturation Vapour Pressure (Pa) vs Temperature (Degrees Celsius)

50

Experimental Apparatus
1. SOLTEQ Saturation vapour pressure measurement apparatus.

The throttling calorimeter is a way in which we can measure the pressure in the system apart from
using the control panel
The control panel is the place on which all the readings are taken for the pressure and the
temperature.
The sight glass allows for you to view the process of evaporation within the boiler, safely.
The boiler is the section in which the water is heated and comes to boil while the pressure is
increasing.
The container contains liquid water so that once the valve is opened the vapour can condense in the
liquid water.

Experimental Procedure
1. Ensure the main switch on the front panel is switched off.
2. Afterwards, check that the drain valve, V4 is fully closed.

## 3. Close the calorimeter isolating valve, V2

4. Open the filler valve, V1 on the top of the apparatus.
5. Slowly fill the system with pure water (preferably deionised or demineralised) until the level
reaches of the way up the sight glass in the side of the boiler.
6. Turn the main switch on and heater switch on. Allow the water to boil. When steam escapes
from the filling point (all air removed) close the filler valve, V1 taking care to avoid scalding
steam.
7. At intervals of two minutes, record the thermometer output and the reading from the
electronic pressure sensor. The thermometer must reach the same temperature as the fluid
before it will provide an accurate reading.
8. When the pressure reaches maximum working pressure (5Bar), turn off the heater and
partially open the calorimeter valve, V2.
9. At intervals of 2 minutes, record the thermometer output and the reading from the
electronic pressure sensor.
10. Continue recording until the readings stabilize or for as long as possible if the readings have
not stabilized within the available time.

Pressure
Absolute
(kPa)

Theoretical
Saturation
Pressure at
recorded
temperatur
e(kPa)

percentage
error(theoreti
cal pressure
vs
experimental
pressure)

30

131.325

123.435

6.39%

0.5

50

151.325

148.259

2.07%

116.2

0.8

80

181.325

175.904

3.08%

121.4

1.1

110

211.325

206.635

2.27%

10

126.4

1.5

150

251.325

242.405

3.68%

12

131.2

1.9

190

291.325

280.101

4.01%

14

135.8

2.3

230

331.325

320.557

3.36%

16

140

2.7

270

371.325

361.501

2.72%

18

144

3.2

320

421.325

404.318

4.21%

20

148

3.6

360

461.325

451.122

2.26%

Temperatu
re
T1(degrees
Celsius)

Pressure
P1(bar)

Pressu
re in
kPa

105.6

0.3

111

Time
elapsed(
min)

Observational
fluid
appearance

Large Bubbles
with Vigorous
boiling

## Intermediate point between heating and cooling

2

140.5

2.7

270

371.325

366.644

1.28%

135.6

2.2

220

321.325

318.705

0.82%

131.3

1.8

180

281.325

280.935

0.14%

127.2

1.5

150

251.325

248.383

1.18%

10

123.5

1.2

120

221.325

221.705

-0.17%

12

120

100

201.325

198.665

1.34%

14

116.5

0.8

80

181.325

177.619

2.09%

16

113.2

0.6

60

161.325

159.483

1.15%

18

110

0.5

50

151.325

143.376

5.54%

20

107.5

0.4

40

141.325

131.745

7.27%

Smaller sized
bubbles with
less vigorous
boiling

Slightly larger
bubbles with
least intensity
on boiling

Table 2.0

Time
elapsed(
min)

Temperatu
re
T1(degrees
celcius)

Pressure Pressure
P1(bar)
in kpa

Pressure
Absolute
(kPa)

Theoretical
Temperature
at recorded
pressure(Celci
us)

percentage
error(theor
etical
Temperatu
re vs
experiment
al
Temperatu
re)

Observati
onal fluid
appearan
ce

0
2

105.6

0.3

30

131.325

107.46

-1.73%

111

0.5

50

151.325

111.614

-0.55%

116.2

0.8

80

181.325

117.14

-0.80%

121.4

1.1

110

211.325

121.962

-0.46%

10

126.4

1.5

150

251.325

127.588

-0.93%

12

131.2

1.9

190

291.325

132.527

-1.00%

14

135.8

2.3

230

331.325

136.945

-0.84%

16

140

2.7

270

371.325

140.95

-0.67%

18

144

3.2

320

421.325

145.495

-1.03%

20

148

3.6

360

461.325

148.827

-0.56%

Large
Bubbles
with
Vigorous
boiling

## Intermediate point between heating and cooling

2

140.5

2.7

270

371.325

140.95

-0.32%

135.6

2.2

220

321.325

135.883

-0.21%

Smaller
sized

131.3

1.8

180

281.325

131.347

-0.04%

127.2

1.5

150

251.325

127.588

-0.30%

10

123.5

1.2

120

221.325

123.445

0.04%

12

120

100

201.325

120.42

-0.35%

14

116.5

0.8

80

181.325

117.14

-0.55%

16

113.2

0.6

60

161.325

113.549

-0.31%

18

110

0.5

50

151.325

111.614

-1.45%

20

107.5

0.4

40

141.325

109.572

-1.89%

bubbles
with less
vigorous
boiling
Slightly
larger
bubbles
with least
intensity
on boiling

Table 3.0
The value for the latent heat of vaporization of water is 2.5x106 J/kg
The value of the gas constant of water vapour is 461 J/kg/K

The table above (Table 2.0) of results and calculations was done using Microsoft excel using the
aforementioned formula. The graph of results is shown in the table below

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
100

110

120

130

140

150

160

400
350

300
250
200
150
100
100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

## Figure 2.0: Graph of Pressure VS Temperature during cooling

ln of Saturation temperature

## Graph of ln saturation pressure vs

Temperature(Heating)
6.5
6
5.5
5

4.5
4
100

110

120

130

140

## Figure 3.0: Graph of ln Pressure VS Temperature during heating

150

160

ln of Saturation TEmperature

## Graph of ln saturation pressure vs

Temperature(Cooling)
6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
100

110

120

130

140

150

## Figure 4.0: Graph of ln Pressure VS Temperature during cooling

Absolute Pressure = Recorded Pressure + 101.325
Theoretical pressure at 111 0C:
112 113.5 153.28 Theoretical pressure @ 111 Celsius
=
110 115
153.28 169.18
Therefore the theoretical pressure at 113.5 = 161.066
Percentage error =

## Calculated or Experimental Theoretical

100%
Theoretical

Percentage error =

131.2 123.435
100% = 6.39%
123.435

Discussion
1. David Tionge Ngambi
The percentage errors in the experiment are not particularly large in some circumstances yet still can
be improved. The experimental and theoretical errors found in the experiment had an average of
5% across the experiment. It was discovered that during the cooling process the error had reduced
as compared to during the heating process. This may be a result of heat escaping during the heating
process due to pressure build up and inadequate insulation. While during the cooling process, the
heat escape was somewhat required to lower the temperature.
Some sources of error include
Sensitivity of various equipment, giving values of slight inaccuracy. This includes lag time which is the
time the devices may need in order to reach a for of equilibrium.
Zero Check of instruments is another source of error. In the experiment we did not check to make
sure that conditions such as the temperature of water during boiling at atmospheric temperature
matches the assumptions we are using to validate and calculate in our experiment.

The person recording the values has to write readings while they are still changing while also reading
a stop watch to know whether or not to get a reading which inevitably means the wrong values may
be recorded. Errors in judgement may also be factored into this.
The insulation of the tank and apparatus may not be sufficient enough to provide accurate readings
at such high temperature and pressure
The experiment is subjected to readings at different altitudes and pressure. If equipment is not
calibrated sufficiently to adapt to these conditions, the values recorded will differ from those used to
compare to such as those that we used to get the saturation pressures and temperatures.
Some theoretical errors include the assumption that the environment will not directly affect the
reading. For this experiment this may not be the case and thus introduces a source of error.
Finally the time it took to open the valve once the water had begun to cool, since it was done
manually meant that the time varied in which the vapour was removed and thus may have affected
readings at that moment. In addition to this, the valve had to be opened by a trained instructor at a
slow pace because of the unpredictability of the amount of vapour released as well as the dangers
that could result from improper opening of the valve.
Improvements that can be made include:
Having equipment that not only times the experiment, but can also print put values of readings,
would make the experiment more reliable by removing the inadequacy of readings cause by human
error. In addition to this, in order to minimize the amount of heat being released, the tank should be
better insulated.
The valve that releases the gas should be replaced with one that can serve the same function in a
safer and faster way which is preferably electronically, thus eliminating the time taken, increasing
the consistency and reliability of the results and also increasing the safety of the system.
Having a zero reading value would also be important to insure that the equipment is calibrated to
the conditions that we assume. If it is not, we can then adjust the values and calculations to math
those that are given to us by the equipment, or we could factor it into our explanation of what
occurs in the experiment.
2-Muhammad Afwan Irfan
It can be seen that the percentage error varies within decent range, however it can be improved and
was mainly due to human related errors. By having a look at table 3.0 we can deduce that the
experimental error was less compared to table 2.0. This could be due to the apparatuses lack of
proper insulation, since in cooling process we required the temperature to go down and it did not
affect the readings but in the heat up process the heat loss gave somewhat inaccurate readings.
A couple of reasons which led to errors include, human error. A person had to keep an eye on the
stopwatch and alert another person every 2 minutes interval to record the readings, accurate
information couldnt be collected due to reaction time and the person recording might have
rounded off the values with no way to confirm since the readings were not constant. Another reason
discussed above that the apparatus might not have adequate insulation of the tank to give accurate
readings at such high pressures and temperatures. The surroundings properties of the apparatus
were not taken into consideration, hence leading to slightly inaccurate result. Lastly a valve had to
be opened manually once the water began to cool, since it was done manually the time it took to
open varied and thus maybe affecting the values.

Some of the improvements that can be done to the apparatus to allow the users get accurate
readings include having the apparatus set up to a computer which is programmed to record the
values at a time interval set by the user so that the human factor can be eliminated. The manual
valve to be replaced by an electronic valve which releases pressure when the need arrives and the
tank to be better insulated so that it can be immune to heat loss. Additionally a way to calibrate the
experimental readings on the apparatus with the theoretical readings, so we can assume the
apparatus is working perfectly and is in ideal condition.

Conclusion
1-David Tionge Ngambi
The goal of this experiment was to observe and study the relationship of waters saturation
temperature at varying temperatures and vice versa. In accordance with le chateliers principle, it
was theorized that the relationship between the two, once tabulated on a graph would give us an
exponential graph which proved to be the case and was confirmed by the straight line obtained by
the ln saturated vapor graph. The second part of the experiment requiring the checking and
comparison between the saturation pressure and temperature we found in the experiment against
the theoretical values of the same, was also successful. It yielded results with errors that were within
a median range of 5% can be considered low and thus showing the success of the experiment.
2-Muhammad Afwan Irfan
In this experiment, we completed the task of studying and observing how water reacted at varying
temperature. We proved La Chateliers principle by getting a straight line on exponential graph when
the relationship of waters saturation temperature at varying temperature was tabulated accordingly
on the graph. The theoretical and experimental values of saturation pressure and temperature did
not have much vast difference, with an average error percentage of 5% we can conclude this
experiment to be successful.

References
Trisha Kelley et al, Water Vapor and Humidity in the Atmosphere.
www.alcaweb.org/archfs/alca/v3/tsacket/d/5EK9pxyLo9.ppt [Accessed 14 May 15].
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-temperature.html[Accessed 14 May 15].
Yaws Handbook of Vapor Pressure: Antoine Coefficients. Carl L. Yaws. 2007. [Accessed
13 May 15].
Jim Clark. 2004. AN INTRODUCTION TO SATURATED VAPOUR PRESSURE.
[ONLINE] Available
at:http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/vapourpress.html. [Accessed 13 May 15].