Why is specific heat capacity less?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the observed discrepancy in specific heat capacity measurements obtained using a calorimeter. Participants explore the reasons why the calculated specific heat capacity appears to be less than expected, considering factors such as heat loss through the calorimeter and measurement errors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that their specific heat capacity measurement is less than the expected value and questions why this occurs, suggesting that heat loss through the calorimeter should increase the required heat energy and thus the specific heat capacity.
  • Another participant questions the quality of the calorimeter, implying that a better calorimeter should compensate for its own heat loss.
  • A participant mentions that the calorimeter used is an old manual type, which may not effectively account for heat loss.
  • Some participants suggest that investigating measurement errors could clarify the discrepancy and fit the results within acceptable error margins.
  • One participant emphasizes that the textbooks indicate that specific heat capacity will be less due to heat loss, but expresses confusion about the underlying reasons for this assertion.
  • Another participant discusses the calculation of specific heat capacity, explaining that neglecting heat lost to the environment in the calculations can lead to an underestimation of the specific heat capacity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the reasons for the lower specific heat capacity measurements, with some attributing it to calorimeter inefficiencies and others focusing on measurement errors. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact cause of the discrepancy.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential errors in measuring energy transfer, assumptions about heat loss, and the dependence on the calorimeter's design and accuracy. The discussion does not resolve these uncertainties.

donkeycopter
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I just did a specific heat capacity test using a calorimeter, and the specific heat capacity I found (using heat gained = heat lost) is less than the real value.

The problem is, I expected it to be more.

I mean heat will be lost through the calorimeter, meaning that a greater amount of heat energy will be required than ideally yes? So if the mass and the temperature are the same as in the ideal scenario in the equation:

Q = mc [tex]\Delta[/tex] TThen doesn't that mean heat energy required is directly proportional to c? So if heat energy required goes up (as heat is lost) doesn't that mean the specific heat will go up?I can't figure it out!

Thanks!
 
Science news on Phys.org
How good is your calorimeter?

It should know, and compensate for, it's own heat loss
 
Oh, it's an old manual calorimeter in which you just stick a thermometer in the whole in the lid.
 
Then that's probably your reason! :D

A bit of investigation into the errors might explain it, and put the expected result within your error bars.

How far out were you? Did you repeat it and get the same thing?
 
But that's not the point.

The textbooks says the specific heat capacity will be LESS, because heat is lost through the calorimeter, but I don't understand WHY.
 
You screwed up in measuring energy transfer IN, or the mass of the stuff you were testing.

Or your thermometer sucks.

No cause for alarm.
 
You calculate c as
c=Q/(m*delta T), right?
The problem is to find Q.
You assume that all the heat lost by the object you are measuring is absorbed by the water and calorimeter, Q = Qw+Qc
If some heat is lost to the environment too, then Q= Qw+Qc+Qe
If you have all these three terms and add them together, then plug into first formula, you'll get the right value for c. If you neglect Qe (you cannot measure it), then you'll use Q'=Qw+Qc which is less than Q and it will give a smaller value for c.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K