Lab Experiment:Calculating Molar Enthelpy of Fusion of Water

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a lab experiment aimed at calculating the molar enthalpy of fusion of water using a calorimeter. Participants share their experimental results and calculations, focusing on the correct treatment of temperature changes in the context of energy transfer between ice and water.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents their experimental data and asks whether to use a change in temperature of +5 or -5 degrees Celsius for water, noting that using -5 yields results closer to accepted values.
  • Another participant argues that the negative sign should be used to indicate energy loss from water, emphasizing the physical meaning of the sign rather than a mathematical one.
  • A different participant suggests that using absolute values for temperature changes can obscure the understanding of energy transfer, advocating for the use of negative values when energy is lost.
  • One participant provides a detailed derivation of the equations involved, asserting that the change in temperature should be +5 based on the conservation of energy principle.
  • Another participant challenges the correctness of the approach used by one of the contributors, stating that their method is not appropriate for calculating the enthalpy of fusion.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of using absolute values and how they relate to the signs in energy calculations, with some participants questioning the consistency of this approach.
  • One participant reflects on their understanding of the energy involved in temperature changes versus the energy involved in the fusion process, indicating a potential shift in their conceptual grasp of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate treatment of temperature changes in calculations, with no consensus reached on the correct approach. Some advocate for using negative values to indicate energy loss, while others argue for using absolute values. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best method for calculating the molar enthalpy of fusion.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various calculations and results, but there are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions made in their approaches and the potential impact of experimental conditions on their findings.

nobb
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Hey.
I am doing a lab experiment in school to find the molar enthalpy of fusion of water. Ice and water are mixed in a calorimeter and the temperatures are recorded. Here are my results. Mass of ice cube: 6.61g. Mass of water: 100g. Initial ice temperature: 0 degrees celsius. Initial water temperature: 21 degrees celsius. Final Temperature of ice and water: 16 degrees celsius.

To calculate the molar enthaply I used mcT(ice)+nH = mcT(water)
now I substitute in my values. 6.61(4.19)(16)+(6.61/18.02)H=100(4.19)(5)
My question is about the change in temperature value for water(T). Should it be 5, or -5? Would it be 5 since heat is being lost? I've calculated using both values and it seems like using -5 will get an answer that is closer to the accepted value of molar enthalpy of fusion of water. Can someone please tell me the correct way to do this? Thanks.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
In your binary ice-water mixture, ice is the one that receives energy, and water is the one that gives energy. So energy is lost from water, indicating a minus sign before. The minus has a physical meaning, not a mathematical one.
 
And that means I don't use it?
 
nobb, you use the negative sign in your calculation because it indicates a physical temperature decrease.

if you were to use the absolute value all of the time it would be hard to determine whether there was a loss of energy or gain.

also why did you choose to use that formula. I received a value of -6906 j.

finding the change in enthalpy of water(q=mct)then dividing it by the # of moles of ice (6.61g/18.02g/mol) gives me a value of -5691 J. This value from your data is closer to the molar enthalpy of fusion of ice.
 
nobb said:
Hey.
I am doing a lab experiment in school to find the molar enthalpy of fusion of water. Ice and water are mixed in a calorimeter and the temperatures are recorded. Here are my results. Mass of ice cube: 6.61g. Mass of water: 100g. Initial ice temperature: 0 degrees celsius. Initial water temperature: 21 degrees celsius. Final Temperature of ice and water: 16 degrees celsius.

To calculate the molar enthaply I used mcT(ice)+nH = mcT(water)
now I substitute in my values. 6.61(4.19)(16)+(6.61/18.02)H=100(4.19)(5)
My question is about the change in temperature value for water(T). Should it be 5, or -5? Would it be 5 since heat is being lost? I've calculated using both values and it seems like using -5 will get an answer that is closer to the accepted value of molar enthalpy of fusion of water. Can someone please tell me the correct way to do this? Thanks.

Nobb. You must use change in T = absolute value of change = +5. Here's the reason :

[tex]Q_f = Q _i[/tex]

[tex]Q_f(water) + Q_f(water from ice) = Q _i(water) + Q_i(ice)[/tex]

[tex]Set~Q(ice~at~0C) = 0[/tex]

Now :
[tex]Q_f(water) = m(water)*C*T_f + n(water)H[/tex]

[tex]Q_f(water from ice) = m(water~from~ice)*C*T_f + n(water~from~ice)H[/tex]

[tex]Q_i(water) = m(water)*C*T_i + n(water)H[/tex]

[tex]Q_i(ice) = 0[/tex]

Plugging in these values into the second equation gives:

[tex]m(water)*C*T_f + n(water)H + m(water~from~ice)*C*T_f + n(water~from~ice)H = m(water)*C*T_i + n(water)H + 0[/tex]

Collecting terms, this becomes :

[tex]m(water)*C*(T_f-T_i) + m(water~from~ice)*C*T_f + n(water~from~ice)H = 0[/tex]
Which, upon rearranging, becomes :

[tex]m(water)*C*(T_i-T_f) = m(water~from~ice)*C*T_f + n(water~from~ice)H[/tex]

Look at the LHS and you will see that it contains T(i) - T(f) = 21 - 16 = +5, not -5.

A shorter, but less rigorous explanation of why you use +5 is in looking at the the conservation statement that says "heat lost = heat gained". Now if one side of this equation is negative, and the other side is positive, the two sides can never be equal to each other. So, stated this way, the equation only talks about absolute values of heat lost or gained.

You will end up with a number like 4.5 KJ/mol, which appears to be lower than the expected 6 KJ/mol. This is because of heat leaking in from the surroundings, raising the final temperature. A more carefully controlled experiment would have resulted in a lower final temperature.
 
Last edited:
gerald said:
nobb, you use the negative sign in your calculation because it indicates a physical temperature decrease.

if you were to use the absolute value all of the time it would be hard to determine whether there was a loss of energy or gain.
No gerald, that's not correct.

also why did you choose to use that formula. I received a value of -6906 j.

finding the change in enthalpy of water(q=mct)then dividing it by the # of moles of ice (6.61g/18.02g/mol) gives me a value of -5691 J. This value from your data is closer to the molar enthalpy of fusion of ice.

gerald, this is not the correct way to find the enthalpy of fusion. Nodd has used the correct approach. The number you get may be closer to the expected number, but that is not because your approach is correct.
 
hmm, so we always use an absolute value for temperature readings ? do we then determine a negative sign for molar enthalpy by looking at whether energy was lost or gained.

what was wrong with my approach?
 
Last edited:
if we always use an absolute value why is it denoted as delta t which is = t(final) - t(initial)
 
alright, i think i understand what was wrong with my approach. the energy involved in decreasing the temperature of water isn't necessarily the amount of energy involved in the fusion of ice right. am i on the right track?

i'm going to read over my textbook more thoroughly again and do some more problems.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K