Question about a bunsen burner lab?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chemishard93
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lab
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a lab write-up focused on determining the temperature of a bunsen burner flame by heating copper and measuring temperature changes in water. A key challenge is incorporating the energy required to evaporate water into the calculations, specifically using the equation provided. The evaporative energy is quantified at 2.26 kilojoules per gram of water. Suggestions include weighing the copper and water before and after the experiment to account for the mass of evaporated water. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in calculations to accurately reflect the energy changes involved.
chemishard93
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Okay, I have a lab write-up due tomorrow and I am completely stumped on one of my conclusion questions.

The lab was an attempt to figure out the temperature of a bunsen burner flame. We did this by using a bunsen burner to heat copper and then immersing the copper into a cup of water and recording the temperature change. The question is asking us to take into account the small mass of water neglected in the equation that was evaporated into hot steam when the copper was immersed.

The equation was: -(mass copper)(Cp copper)(T3-T1)=(mass water)(Cp water)(T3-T2)

T1=burner temperature
T2=intial water temperature
T3=final water temperature

Okay...THE QUESTION I CAN'T FIGURE OUT IS: It takes about 2.26 kilojoules of energy to evaporate each gram of water. Suggest a way to include the evaporated water in your calculation.

I have tried to come up with solutions. However, none of them seem to make much sense...

PLEASE HELP! NEED HELP WITHOUT 3-4 HOURS!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well... if you were to weigh the copper strip and the water in the calorimeter before heating and immersing the heated strip, you might have a good start on it.
 
We did that, actually. Haha - sorry! Forgot to mention that.
 
And, did you weigh it afterwards?
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top