9-25-18

Chem 141

Post-lab E-305 Analysis

1. Refer to graphs attached

2. (a) For trial one using aluminum, the heat capacity of the apparatus is 20.824

J/celcius.

For trial two using aluminum, the heat capacity of the apparatus is 38.142 J/celcius.

(b) The average of these two trials using aluminum is 29.481 J/celcius.

3. (a) For the trial one using copper, the specific heat of the metal calculated was 0.5117

J/celcius.

For the trial two using copper, the specific heat of the metal calculated was

0.48198 J/g Celcius.

(b) The average of these two trials using copper is 0.49684 J/g Celcius.

(c) The percent error is 29%

Conclusions:

In this experiment, the main thing I learned was to calculate the heat capacity of the

calorimeter. This process was very lengthy. It required to do the full experiment correctly and

then using the data, calculate the specific heat. I learned that by doing this experiment, it gave

me the necessary needs for future experiments. Although the calorimeter that I calculated

from my data wasn’t close, I learned the basics of how to determine the heat capacity of the

calorimeter. I learned that I must work in a fast pace in order to get the right data like the

seconds to temperature to complete this experiment.

In this experiment, there was two metals to determine the calorimeter for. One of

them was aluminium and the second was copper. The equation q=M x C x delta T was used

to calculate the products. Also using qAl+qH2O+qapp=0 was helpful to calculate. Then this

equation was modified to qapp=-(qAl+ qH2O).Using the data recorded, the calorimeter for

aluminum for the first trial was about 20.824 J/g C. For the second trial, the calorimeter was

about 38.142 J/g C. The average was determined by adding the two trials and dividing by two

which ended up being 29.481 J/g C. For the first trial of copper the calorimeter was about

0.5117 J/g C. For the second trial of copper, the calorimeter was about 0.48198 J/g C. The

average was calculated by adding the two trials, and dividing by two, which ended up being

0.497 J/g C. The percent error was calculated by subtracting the experimental value by true

value and dividing it by the true value and multiplying by 100. The experimental average

value was 0.497 and the true value was 0.385 so the percent error ended up being 29%.

Three experimental errors that could happen are not taking the mass of the metals that

did not get into the foam cups, not having the water at boiling point, and not working fast

enough and having the data be recorded correctly. By not taking the mass of the metals that

did not get into the cups when pouring them over, this can change the temperature of the
water which will interfere with the heat capacity of the calorimeter. This means the

temperature of the water won’t be as hot compared to having all the metal in the cup. The

second error I mentioned was not having the water at boiling point, this would interfere with

the calculations because the metal won’t be hot enough to take the temperature of the

calorimeter. The third error I mentioned was not working fast enough, this experiment had to

be done in a fast pace because the aluminum had to be transferred to the cup and had to take

the temperature of the water every 15 seconds right away. This can interfere with the

calculations as well because recording the data right away was very important in this

experiment.
Post-lab E-306 Analysis

1. Refer to graphs attached.

2. (a) For the trial one, the enthalpy of fusion of ice is 471 J/g.

For the trial two, the enthalpy of fusion of ice is 480 J/g.

(b) The average of these two trials is 475.5 J/g.

(c) When converted to kJ/mol, the value changes to 8.57 kJ/mol.

(d) The percent error of the molar enthalpy of fusion of the ice is 42.6%.

3. (a) If some ice were already melted when it was added to the cup, this would affect the

final temperature to a higher value. The ice that turned into water would affect the mass of

the ice when used for the experiment.

(b) This error would result in a lower value of the enthalpy of fusion because there is less

energy when the ice is being melted because the mass is decreasing. When the ice is melting,

the temperature of it wouldn’t be as high as well.

Conclusions:

In this experiment, I learned how to calculate the enthalpy of fusion ice in order to

melt the ice using the calorimeter. I learned that I needed to work in a fast pace fashion in

order to get the right data like seconds and temperature for the calculations. I learned that ice

melts really fast so, I had to weigh the wet paper and the beaker in order to get the specific

and perfect mass of the ice that was transfered into the calorimeter.

In this experiment I did three trials to get a better average but all three were done the

same repeating all steps explained in the procedure. For the following calculations,

qapp+qH2O+qfusion+qwarming=0 was used. For trial 1, the enthalpy of fusion ice is 471 J/g.

For trial 2, the enthalpy of fusion ice is, 480 J/g. The average of these two is 475.5 J/g, adding

the two trials together and dividing by two. The conversion to kJ/mol was done by taking the

average, dividing by 1000 kJ and multiplying by 18.016g and that came out to 8.57kJ/mol,

this came out to 8.57kJ/mol. The percent error was calculated by taking that number and

subtracting it by the given true value which was 6.01, dividing by 6.01 and multiplying by

100 which came out to 42.6%.

Three experimental errors that could have happened are not taking the mass of the wet

paper with the beaker, forcing more ice into the beaker, and not working in a fast pace during

the experiment. By not taking the mass of the wet paper with the beaker, the mass transferred

into the water and into the cup recorded would be wrong because some of the ice was melted

into the paper so the difference had to be calculated. This can affect with the calculations for

the enthalpy of fusion of the ice. The second error I mentioned was forcing more ice into the

beaker, this would be wrong because the ice is breaking into smaller chunks which makes the

ice melt faster. This would make the data wrong because you have more ice than expected.

The correct way to do this experiment is to lightly shovel the ice into the beaker. The third
experimental error is not working in a fast pace fashion. This can affect the data because ice

melts very fast and the seconds per temperature has a very important role in this experiment.
 Experiment E-305 Calorimetry:
Specific Heat Capacity of a Metal
&
Experiment E-306 Enthalpy of
Fusion Ice
Jewel Jamou
Chemistry 141
Fall 2018