Jeremy Lenington

April 26, 2011

Period Six

Dr. Zreda

Nat Levy

Heat of Fusion for Ice

Laboratory Report

Objectives

• Determine the energy (in Joules) required to belt one gram of ice

• Determine the molar heat of fusion for ice.

Materials

• Computer

• Vernier computer interface

• Logger Pro

• Temperate Probe

• Ice

• Calorimeter with stirring rod

• Warm water

• 100 mL Graduated cylinder

• Spoon

• Paper towels

• Electronic balance

1
Procedure

See lab manual.

Data:

Table 1. Measurement of the heat of fusion for ice.

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4

Initial temperature T1 in C 40.97 40.59 44.89 39.55
Final Temperature T2 in C 3.45 3.60 4.098 3.75
Mass of calorimeter (g) 29.95 29.98 29.95 29.95
Mass of water and calorimeter (g) 128.41 132.98 127.58 127.79
Mass of water, melted ice, and calorimeter (g) 179.70 186.65 182.77 176.27

Table 2. Calculations of the heat for fusion of ice

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4

Mass of water, (g) 98.46 103.00 97.63 97.84
Mass of ice melted, (g) 51.29 53.67 55.19 48.48
Change in water temperature, ∆T, (°C) -37.52 -36.99 -40.79 -35.80
Heat released by cooling water, (J) -15456.61 -15940.91 -16662.88 -14655.18
Heat absorbed by ice, (J) 15456.61 15940.91 16662.88 14655.18
Heat of fusion for ice, (J/g) 301.36 297.02 301.92 302.29
Molar heat of fusion, (J/mol) 5430.46 5352.25 5440.57 5447.33
Molar heat of fusion, (KJ/mol) 5.43 5.35 5.44 5.45
Percent error (%) 9.64% 10.94% 9.47% 9.36%
Average Molar heat of fusion 5.42
Percent error (%) 9.86%
Precision 0.05

Table 3. Class Averages

Group # Average Heat of Fusion (kJ/mol)

1 5.88
2 5.46
3 5.68
4 5.51
5 5.60
6 5.42
Average 5.59
Percent error in % 6.96%
Precision 0.23

2
Figure 1. Measurement of the heat of fusion for ice.

Examples of Calculations

• Mass of water is calculated using this formula

m water = m water and calorimeter – m calorimeter

In trial 1:

128.41 g – 29.95 g = 98.46 g

• Mass of ice melted is calculated using this formula

m ice melted = m water, melted ice, and calorimeter – m water and calorimeter

In trial 1:

179.70 g – 128.41 g = 51.29 g

• Change in water temperature is calculated using this formula

∆T = T final – T initial

In trial 1:

3.45 °C – 40.97 °C = -37.52 °C

• Heat released by cooling water is calculated using this formula

q water = (m water) (Cp) ( ∆T)

In trial 1:

3
98.46 g x 4.184 (J/g°C) x -37.52 °C = -15456.61 J

• Heat absorbed by ice is calculated using this formula

q system x (-1) = - q surroundings

In trial 1:

- 15456.61 J x (-1) = 15456.61 J

• Heat of fusion (J/g)for ice is calculated using this formula

∆H fusion = q ice / m ice

In trial 1:

15456.61 J x 51.29 g = 301.36 (J/g)

• Molar heat of fusion in (J/mol) l is calculated using this formula

(∆H fusion J/g) x (Molar mass/ mol) = (∆H fusion J/mol)

In trial 1:

301.36 (J/g) x 18.02 (g/mol) = 5430.46 (J/mol)

4
• Molar heat of fusion (KJ/mol) is calculated using this formula

(∆H fusion J/mol) x 1 kJ / 1000J = (∆H fusion KJ/mol)

In trial 1:

5430.46 (J/mol) x 1 KJ / 1000 J = 5.43046 (KJ/mol)

• Percent error is calculated using this formula

% error = [ ( | measured value – accepted value | ) / accepted value ] x 100

In trial 1:

[ ( | 5.43 – 6.01 | ) / 6.01 ] x 100 = .10

• Mean (Average) is calculated using this formula

Average = Sum of results / number of results

In Table 2:

5.43 (KJ/mol) + 5.35 (KJ/mol) + 5.44 (KJ/mol) + 5.45 (KJ/mol)] / 4 = 5.42 (KJ/mol)

• Precision is calculated using this formula

Precision = ( Max – Min ) / 2

In Table 2:

( 5.45 - 5.35 ) / 2 = 0.05

5
Conclusion

This lab, preformed by Jeremy Lenington and Nat Levy with the help of sixth period

chemistry, was preformed to the molar heat of fusion of water. It took around two and a half

hours for us to complete across April 21 and April 25, 2011. The actual purpose, since the

accepted value for molar heat of water was given to us before the experiment, was to learn how

to calculate molar mass.

We started the experiment by measuring the mass of the calorimeter when empty. Then,

using the graduated cylinder, we obtained around 100 mL of warm water. This water was

poured into the calorimeter before being weighed again. After weighing we place the

calorimeter inside of its casing, inserted the thermometer, and started collecting temperatures

with Logger Pro. We made sure that the temperature probe did not touch the bottom or sides of

the container so that it would measure the temperature of the water instead of the metal. Once the

temperature leveled out we used a spoon to start putting ice cubes, dried on a paper towel, into

the calorimeter while constantly stirring with the rod. Once the temperature reached 4°C we

quickly removed all ice left with a spoon, being careful to not take out any liquid water, and

placed the excess ice into the sink. After the temperature leveled and started to rise we stopped

the collection in Logger Pro, removed the calorimeter, and weighed it. After using the

“statistics” button on Logger Pro to obtain the minimum and maximum of he graph we finished

our first trial. We took our data and (through calculations shown above) discovered water’s

molar heat in Kg/mol. This was then repeated until our average error was below 10%

The results we got were that the average molar heat of fusion for water was 5.42. That

gave us a percent error of 9.86%, and an offset in precision of 0.05. Although the initial

temperature of the water varied greatly in our four successful trials (from 39.55°C to 44.89°C),

6
the final temperature remained fairly constant (from 3.45°C to 4.10°C). The mass of the empty

calorimeter was 29.95g every time, except for once when it was 29.98g, which we believe was

from built up moisture inside the container. The mass of the water stayed similar for three of the

trials (around 98g), but was significantly higher for trial two, with a weight of 103g. The mass

of the melted ice, on the other hand, was extremely imprecise with values from 48.48g all the

way to 55.19g. A combination of these two factors is probably the reason that the percent error

was between 9.36% and 9.64% for trials 1, 3, and 4; yet jumped up to 10.94% for trial two.

The offset in accuracy of 9.86% in our results probably came from many different

situations. The first and most prominent reason is probably that the calorimeter is not a

completely closed system. Although the two layers of metal with inch-thick Styrofoam between

works well from the side, there was nothing except a plastic lid (opened multiple times during

the experiment) to keep out the body heat and air conditioning. It does function much better at

keeping the system closed without foreign interference than a simple cup would, but it still isn’t

perfect. The addition of extra heat to the system would make the value of molar heat of fusion to

go down, whereas subtraction of heat (from something such as the A/C) would make the value

higher. This means that our results were skewed from addition of heat because our value was too

for fusion was too low. Another place of possible error is from the unwanted addition or

subtraction of excess water. Addition would be from putting in wet ice cubes. This would cause

the final mass to be too high, which in turn lowers the molar heat of fusion. The opposite would

happen for removing water from the system, which would happen when the ice cubes are being

removed. Being that our value was too low, we might have removed water when removing the

ice.

7
 There are many applications for the knowledge of how to obtain molar heat of fusion.

One such example is learning more about the kinetic theory of matter, by showing that the

molecules in the ice speed up upon entering the water, and the water molecules slow down.

Another time one might need to obtain molar heat of fusion is when he or she needs to know

how much is required to make a state change. If you want to blow glass you must provide

enough heat so that it stays in limbo between solid and liquid, a value which with an experiment

like this could obtain (with a better calorimeter, of course). An improvement on this experiment

would be to take cylinder-shaped piece of ice (with a diameter slightly smaller than the

calorimeter hole) directly out of the freezer and insert it through the screw cap of the calorimeter

lid. This ice would be perfectly dry, and putting it through the whole would eliminate opening

the lid therefore making the previously closed system open.