Lab 8: Latent Heat vs.

Sensible Heat

A Lab Report

Submitted By

Neel Nadpara

ME 3264 Applied Measurements Laboratory

Section 004L

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Connecticut

Lab Preformed On:

March 23, 2015

1|Page
Summary:
In this latent heat vs. sensible heat lab our goal was to understand the latent heat and sensible
heat specifically latent heat as it can be used to enhance heat transfer as seen in our heat pipe lab.
Latent heat is the amount of energy absorbed or released by a substance during a phase change
process such as from solid to liquid or from liquid to vapor, without a change in temperature.
Sensible heat is the exchange of heat from one body to another resulting in only temperature
change. In this lab in order to understand the difference between latent heat and sensible heat we
used three systems of varying compositions consisting of 3 test tubes filled with just wax (system
A), just water (system B), and aluminum foam and wax (system C). Using thermocouple probes
placed within each test tube and thermocouples within the water bath that each test tube was
placed into, a temperature profile was measured for system A, B, and C, plotted and then
compared. Based on the observed data, it was determined that latent heat was higher than
sensible heat and that the predicted observation of no temperature change during phase changes
was seen in the test tubes that experienced phase changes based on the temperature plots. Also, it
was seen that wax stored the highest amount of heat while the aluminum foam and wax was able
to transfer heat the fastest. Based on the data, with the inclusion of the aluminum foam in the test
tube, we concluded that the aluminum enhances heat transfer to the wax due to its higher
conductivity, resulting in shorter time duration for solidification compared to the time it took for
the wax to solidify without the aluminum.

Experimental Procedure:

In order to perform this lab, special materials and equipment as well as specific instrumentation
were required. For materials, water, wax (paraffin wax of n-octadecane), and aluminum foam
were needed. As for equipment, the following were utilized: a plate heater, beakers, test tubes,
stoppers, K-type beaded wire thermocouples, K-type thermocouple probes, syringes, and foam
insulation. The instrumentation used was a combination of thermocouple probes and
thermocouples that were connected to a data acquisition system which was setup up to measure
and record data via a computer with LabVIEW installed. In order to start the lab the first thing to
we did was to melt 20 grams of n-octadecane wax inside a 100 ml beaker on a hot plate set to
medium to melt it but not boil it. As the wax was melting, we filled a 1000ml beaker with warm
tap water (just slightly over room temperature roughly 30C) by mixing hot and cold water until
the desired temperature was reached. The 1000ml beaker was then placed on the table and a
Styrofoam disk with thee test tube slots was placed on the top. Once the 20 grams of wax was
melted, 5 grams of wax was placed into test tube A (using a syringe) and a rubber stopper within
an attached thermocouple probe was placed inside the test tube. Next, 5 grams of melted wax
was placed in test tube C, which also had 1.4 grams of aluminum foam, and covered with a
rubber stopper. In test tube B, 5 grams of water at was added and covered with a rubber stopper.

2|Page
With all test tubes prepped, test tubes A, B, and C were placed into the 1000ml beaker until the
temperature of all three test tubes fell within 0.5C of each other in order to set the initial value
temperature as equal for all three. In order to obtain a constant temperature in the 200ml beakers
placed inside boxes A, B, and C, a 1000ml beakers was filled with water at the same temperature
(cool water at roughly 18C) and 200 mL (grams) of water was poured into the three beakers and
placed into the respective insulated boxes. In order to measure the temperature fluctuations
across the three systems the LabView program was set to run and record the temperature of the
systems at 1 second intervals for the three test tubes and three beakers in system A, B, and C.
Once all systems were at the proper temperatures, test tubes A, B, and C were moved from the
1000ml beaker to their respective boxes within their respective beakers. The temperatures of the
three systems were recorded until each system reached an equilibrium temperature that was
determined by a 1C difference between the test tube and beaker pair. Once all three systems
reached a final temperature, the data recording was stopped, and all three test tubes were
removed, and the test tubes containing wax cleaned. Using the temperature measurements from
LabView the temperature profiles of the test tubes and beaker pairs were plotted on the same
graph.

Figure 1: Schematic of experiment (Faghri)

3|Page
Results and Discussion:

Test Tubes and Beakers (All Systems) vs Time

40

35
Temperature (°C)

30

25

20

15
120 320 520 720 920 1120 1320 1520
Time (s)

Test Tube A Beaker A Test Tube B Beaker B Test Tube C Beaker C

Test Tube A and Beaker A (System A) vs Time

40
Sensible Latent
Heat Heat
Section Section Sensible Heat Section
35
Temperature (°C)

30

25

20

15
120 320 520 720 920 1120 1320 1520
Time (s)

Test Tube A Beaker A

4|Page
 Test Tube B and Beaker B (System B) vs Time
40

35
Temperature (°C)

30

25

20

15
190 390 590 790 990 1190 1390 1590

Time (s)
Test Tube B Beaker B

Test Tube C and Beaker C (System C) vs Time

40
Latent Heat Section

35
Temperature (°C)

30 Sensible Heat Section

Sensible Heat Section

25

20

15
230 430 630 830 1030 1230 1430 1630
Time (s)

Test Tube C Beaker C

5|Page
 Properties of Materials Used
Wax (n-octadecane) Water Aluminum
Phase Solid Liquid Liquid Solid
Density (kg/m3) 814 774 996.02 2702
Thermal Conductivity (W/m*k) 0.358 0.152 0.616 237
Specific Heat (kJ/kg*k) 2.15 2.18 4.1805 0.903
Latent Heat, hsl (kJ/kg) 244 334

Measured Initial and Final Temperature for each System

Initial Temp (°C) Final Temp (°C)
Test Tube A 39.5 19.9
Beaker A 17.6 20.3
Test Tube B 39.8 18.8
Beaker B 18.2 19.6
Test Tube C 39.7 19.6
Beaker C 17.4 19.1

Discussion:

The goal of this lab was to better comprehend the concepts of latent and sensible heat by
watching the temperature profiles for three different systems (A, B, and C) over a certain period
of time and looking at the regions in these profiles that indicate where latent and sensible heat
were present. Once the lab was completed, the data calculated and tabulated by LabView showed
a long list of temperature readings for each of the systems which were graphed to form
temperature profiles. These temperature profiles allowed us to understand how each of the
materials behaved and to show the places where latent heat was generated vs. the places of
sensible heat as seen in the graphs above.

System A:

System A consisted of 5g of paraffin wax of n-octadecane at roughly 30°C within a test tube
inside of a beaker of cool water with foam insulation. From the temperature profile seen above
for system A it can be seen that there is a sensible heat section as well as a latent heat section.
From the initial portion of the curve (from initial time to 340 seconds), it may be seen that there
is a large drop in the temperature of the wax. This represents the sensible heat loss of the liquid
wax. The temperature change was assumed at a constant specific heat. The second segment
begins at roughly 27.6°C and ends at 27.4°C. Here there is little to no temperature change,
nevertheless there is a phase change in which the wax goes from being a liquid to a solid which
is what should have occurred. Also, the slight change in temperature is likely due to the
temperature differential in the wax during solidification which is a result of the poor thermal
conductivity of the wax (leads to certain parts of the wax solidifying quicker or slower than
others ( latent heat is released from the solidifying wax while sensible heat is released by liquid

6|Page
portions)). Then equilibrium is reached at roughly 1220 seconds (due to the wax’s low thermal
conductivity) and the final temperature is less than 20°C.

System B:

System B consisted of 5g of water at roughly 30°C within a test tube inside of a beaker of cool
water with foam insulation. From the temperature profile seen above for system B it can be seen
that there is only a sensible heat section as the water does not undergo a phase change. Also
equilibrium is reached much quicker at around 370 seconds which just shows how much better
the thermal conductivity of water is compared to the wax.

System C:

System C consisted of 5g of paraffin wax of n-octadecane as well as 1.4g of aluminum foam at

roughly 30°C within a test tube inside of a beaker of cool water with foam insulation. From the
temperature profile seen above for system C it can be seen that there is a sensible heat section as
well as a latent heat section. Looking at the temperature profile, for the first 330 seconds the
sensible heat can be seen then the curve flattens out indicating the latent heat section where the
wax begins to solidify. The adding of a material with a high thermal conductivity such as the
aluminum foam signifies that the heat transfer coefficient should increase. Thus in turn would
mean that the system should have a shorter sensible and latent heat section and converge much
faster than system A which it does. The aluminum foam also helps the wax to solidify more
evenly than system A considering that the wax has such a poor thermal conductivity and the
addition of the aluminum foam would increase the effective thermal conductivity significantly.

Discussion Questions:

1. For system A, as time passes in test tube A the temperature shows an initial decrease in
temperature and then is followed by a constant temperature region and then a subsequent
decrease in temperature while the temperature in beaker A, temperature increases
throughout time and quickly levels off with a very slight upward slope. The constant
temperature portion on the graph goes from 380 seconds to 900 seconds, and is result of
the phase change of the wax from liquid to solid. This means that during this time, there
is a change from sensible heat to latent heat in the system. For system B there is a large
decrease in temperature in the test tube and this quickly levels off while there is a slight
increase in temperature of the water in the beaker and this also levels off. The
temperature profiles converge at roughly 300 seconds and there is no latent heat released
by the water in the test tube as the water does not change phases (no temperature
evidence that says that there was a constant temperature portion in the test tube signifying
a change in the material, meaning that only sensible heat energy transfer occurred).
Similar to system A, system C has a portion of the graph from 330 seconds to 630
seconds where the sensible heat section turns into the latent heat section. Initially there is
a sharp decrease in temperature of the wax in the test tube then there is a flat section in
which solidification of the wax takes place. At this time there is also an increase in the

7|Page
 temperature of the water in the beaker. Afterwards there is a drop in temperature and both
curves flatten to come out to equilibrium.
2. In the energy table below, the calculated sensible energy, latent energy, and total energy
for systems A, B, C are shown.

Energy Table

Latent Energy
System Sensible Energy (kJ) Total Energy (kJ)
(kJ)

A 0.81 1.22 2.03

B 0.721 0 0.721
C -0.049 1.22 1.171

Test Tube A:

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 1)𝐸𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝐴,𝑠 = 𝑚ℎ𝑠𝑙 + (𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇)𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 + (𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇)𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑

𝑬𝒕𝒖𝒃𝒆𝑨,𝒔 = −𝟏. 𝟒𝟑 𝒌𝑱

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 2) 𝐸𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝐴,𝑙 = 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ℎ𝑠𝑙

𝑬𝒕𝒖𝒃𝒆𝑨,𝒍 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝟐 𝒌𝑱

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 3) 𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟𝐴 = 𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇

𝑬𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒓𝑨 = 𝟐. 𝟐𝟒 𝒌𝑱

Since energy is transferred from a heat source to a cold sink, the heat is transferred from
the wax in the test tube to the water in the beaker. Therefore, according to the first law of
thermodynamics the energy from both parts of the system ought to be equivalent in value,
but opposite in direction (negative). Furthermore, the system was well insulated to be
able to allow the assumption of a closed system. However, while there was no heat
generation, there was a large difference between the two energy totals leading one to
believe that there must have been an outside source heating the water in the beaker or that
the thermocouple had some error or was not positioned correctly. The greatest energy in
the test tube was derived from latent heat and was roughly 5.8 times greater than the
value of the sensible heat.

Test Tube B:

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 4) 𝐸𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝐵,𝑠 = 𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇

𝑬𝒕𝒖𝒃𝒆𝑩,𝒔 = −𝟎. 𝟒𝟑𝟗 𝒌𝑱

8|Page
 𝑬𝒕𝒖𝒃𝒆𝑩,𝒍 = 𝟎 𝒌𝑱

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 5) 𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟𝐵,𝑠 = 𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇

𝑬𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒓𝑩,𝒔 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟔 𝒌𝑱

Again, according to the First Law the values for the energy should be equal but in
opposite directions. However, since they are not there was likely an external heat source
or an issue with thermocouple placement and or calibration. Additionally, water would
not undergo a phase change from liquid to solid under these conditions, thus there the
system only had sensible heat.

Test Tube C:

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 6) 𝐸𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝐶,𝑠 = 𝑚ℎ𝑠𝑙 + (𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇)𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 + (𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇)𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 + (𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇)𝐴𝑙

𝑬𝒕𝒖𝒃𝒆𝑪,𝒔 = −𝟏. 𝟒𝟔 𝒌𝑱

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 7) 𝐸𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝐶,𝑙 = 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ℎ𝑠𝑙

𝑬𝒕𝒖𝒃𝒆𝑪,𝒍 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝟐 𝒌𝑱

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 8) 𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟𝐶,𝑠 = 𝑚𝑐𝑝𝛥𝑇

𝑬𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒓𝑪,𝒔 = 𝟏. 𝟒𝟏𝟏 𝒌𝑱

System C in regards to the First Law seemed to preform much better than Systems A and
B as the values for energy were close to equal in value but opposite in direction. This
means that there were fewer errors. Since the wax in this system solidified there was
energy attributed to latent heat. Also, the latent contribution was more than the sensible
heat (there was about 5.06 times more latent energy than sensible heat). Overall, from
these calculations, latent heat in Systems A and C are significantly higher than the
sensible heat of the system. Latent heat tends to be higher due to the phase change that
occurs within the material. Phase changes requires a large amount of energy, which in
this case changes the wax from a liquid to a solid and results in a large amount of energy
released from the system. During a phase change a large amount of energy is required in
order to create or break bonds due reorganization of the molecular structure of the
material. Sensible heat only refers to the temperature change of the material without
phase change. The increase of temperature results from the increase of internal kinetic
energy of the molecules, which requires significantly less energy input or output.
𝑐𝑝 (𝑇𝑖 −𝑇𝑚 )
3. The Stefan number is calculated by 𝑆𝑡𝑒 = . The theoretical Stefan number was
ℎ𝑠𝑙
calculated to be 0.0520. The significance of the Stefan number is that it represents the
ratio of sensible heat to latent heat. The ratio indicates two things about that the material
9|Page
 used, the temperature change of the material and heat capacity of the material. A higher
Stefan number would indicate that the temperature change or heat capacity of the
material was high and a lower number indicating that the temperature change was small.
4. For System A, the time duration for solidification occurred between 350 and 880 seconds
while the time duration for System C was between 330 and 630 seconds. Based on this,
System C solidification occurred much earlier than System A and lasted significantly
shorter than System A. System C’s solidification time was shorter because of the
aluminum foam contained within, which increased the heat transfer from the test tube to
the 200ml beaker of water. This is due to the high thermal conductivity of the aluminum
which even when coupled with the low thermal conductivity of the wax increases the
effective thermal conductivity of the wax significantly.
5. The final experimental temperature for System A was 19.9C, while the final
experimental temperature for System B was 18.8C. The reason for the increased
temperature in System A over System B can be contributed to the latent heat from the
phase change of the wax in System A, while System B only had sensible heat from
temperature change of the water. This means that System A had higher storage energy
than System B.
6. The final temperatures for each of the three systems using the first law of
thermodynamics can be seen in the temperature table below. Assuming that the system
was isolated and that the material had constant thermodynamic properties we were able to
calculate values for final temperatures using the equation procedure outlined below.

Theoretical Final Temperature for each System

Final Temperature (°C)

System A 19.3

System B 18.7

System C 19.2

Using the measurements, energy for latent heat was calculated using the equation:
(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 9) 𝐸𝑙 = 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ℎ𝑠𝑙
and the energy for sensible heat was calculated using the equations:

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 10) 𝐸𝑠,𝑤𝑎𝑥 = 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 ∗ (𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 ) + 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 ∗ (𝑇𝑓,𝐴 − 𝑇𝑚 )

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 11) 𝐸𝑠,𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 = 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑝 ∆𝑇

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 12) 𝐸𝑠,𝐴𝑙 = 𝑚𝐴𝑙 𝐶𝑝 ∆𝑇

From these equations the total energy equation was determined as the combination of the
general previous equations as:

10 | P a g e
 (𝐸𝑞𝑢. 13) 𝐸𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝐸𝑙 + ∑ 𝐸𝑠

Using the first law of thermodynamics we can relate the total energy of the test tube to be
equal to the total energy of the beaker because of the conservation of energy. Using this
relationship, the theoretical final temperature of the system in equilibrium can be
calculated for systems A, B and C.

For System A:

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 14) 𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗ (𝑇𝑓,𝐴 − 𝑇𝐵,𝑖 )

= 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 ∗ (𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 ) + 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 ∗ (𝑇𝑓,𝐴 − 𝑇𝑚 ) + 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ ℎ𝑠,𝑙

𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 ∗ (𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 ) + 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ ℎ𝑠,𝑙 + 𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗ 𝑇𝐵,𝑖 − 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑠 ∗ 𝑇𝑚
(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 15) 𝑇𝑓,𝐴 =
𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 − 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑠

For System B:

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 16) 𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗ (𝑇𝑓,𝐵 − 𝑇𝐵,𝑖 ) = 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 (𝑇𝑓,𝐴 − 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 )

𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 𝑇𝐵,𝑖 −𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗ 𝑇𝑇,𝑖

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 16) 𝑇𝑓,𝐵 =
𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 −𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝

For System C:

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 17) 𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 (𝑇𝑓,𝐴 − 𝑇𝐵,𝑖 ) =

𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 (𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 ) + 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 (𝑇𝑓,𝐶 − 𝑇𝑚 ) + 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ ℎ𝑠,𝑙 + 𝑚𝐴𝑙 ∗ 𝐶𝑝.𝐴𝑙 (𝑇𝑓,𝐶
− 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 )

𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 (𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 ) + 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ ℎ𝑠,𝑙 + 𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗ 𝑇𝐵,𝑖 − 𝑚𝐴𝑙 ∗ 𝐶𝑝.𝐴𝑙 ∗ 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 − 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑠 ∗ 𝑇𝑚
(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 18) 𝑇𝑓,𝐶 =
𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 − 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑝,𝑠 − 𝑚𝐴𝑙 ∗ 𝐶𝑝.𝐴𝑙

Where 𝑇𝑓,𝐴 , 𝑇𝑓,𝐵 , and 𝑇𝑓,𝐶 are the theoretical temperatures of their respective systems;
𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑥 , 𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 , 𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 , and 𝑚𝐴𝑙 are the masses of wax and water in the 200mL beaker,
water in the test tube, and aluminum foam; 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 , 𝐶𝑝,𝑠 , 𝐶𝑝.𝐴𝑙 , and 𝐶𝑝 are the specific heat of
the liquid wax, solid wax, the aluminum foam, and water respectively; 𝑇𝑚 , 𝑇𝑇,𝑖 , and 𝑇𝐵,𝑖
are the melting temperature of the wax, initial temperature of the test tube, and initial
temperature of the 200mL beaker.

7. The differences between theoretical and experimental final temperatures were calculated
to be 1C, 0.9C, and -0.1C respectively between systems A, B, and C. For system A the

11 | P a g e
 measured temperature was 20.3C which calculates out to a 1C difference between the
actual and theoretical. For system B the results were slightly more accurate at .9C of a
difference. Then for system C there was a -0.1C difference. This difference between
experimental and theoretical could have had a hand in changing our assumptions that
each of the systems was completely isolated. Some causes of this error could have come
from the thermocouple themselves and their equipment error of ±0.1C in measurement
or their placement within the test tube and beaker not being on the surface of contact
where equilibrium temperature was taking place. Also, there could have been heat
entering the system from the surroundings. However, judging from system C where the
actual final temperature was lower than that of the theoretical the system did not reach
equilibrium. Also, for the calculations we assumed constant specific heat and other
properties which is inaccurate as specific heat not a constant value (but can typically be
assumed to be at least for a specific phase (it is generally approximated more accurately
by an equation with specific constants that relate to temperature)).
8. A) Without the aluminum foam the time duration for the phase change during melting
would be faster than the time duration for phase change during solidification. The reason
for this decrease in time would be due to the thermal conductivity of the solid wax, which
is 0.358 W/m*K and significantly higher than the 0.152 W/m*K of liquid wax leading to
a faster time for melting rather than solidification.
B) With the aluminum foam the time duration for melting would be the same as the time
duration for solidification because of the aluminum foam’s thermal conductivity of 237
W/m*K. Due to this significantly higher rate of thermal conductivity as compared to the
liquid and solid wax, the heat rate due to the wax will be negligible.
9. The reason why we cannot take advantage of the latent heat of vaporization for water in
this experiment is primarily due to the difficulty in maintaining the temperature of the
water at 100C. This high temperature would lead to also lead to dangerous lab
conditions because it would mean working with boiling water. The high temperature
would also increase the amount of error in the lab by introducing more error into the lab
primarily through mass transfer of vapor particles into the air. The hot water would also
be difficult to store in the test tubes because the vapor pressure build up would cause the
rubber stoppers to unseal each test tube during the course of the experiment.

Data and Error Analysis:

The primary focus on this lab was to determine the latent and sensible heat in each of the three
systems using measured values for temperatures. However, in order to see how reliable our
resulting data is, error analysis must be performed. The experiment relied greatly on
measurements taken for various things such as mass, volume, and temperature. Whenever
something is measured there is inevitably a certain quantity of uncertainty which in turn leads to
the generation of error within the experiment. One such example of this is the measuring
uncertainty that is derived from measuring temperature using the thermocouple or measuring the
mass of molten wax or water using the volume markings on a syringe. The uncertainty of most of
these measurements is relatively low, however as these values are combined and used to preform
calculations this error has the ability to propagate and become much larger. In this lab the
uncertainties include the thermocouples probes/thermocouples which have an uncertainty of

12 | P a g e
𝛿𝑇 = ± 0.1℃, the mass measurements were assumed to have an uncertainty of 𝛿𝑚1 =
± 0.0001 𝑘𝑔. However, one must keep in mind that these mass measurements were conducted
by way of volume using the relationship between mass, density, and volume. Thus, mass was
measured by a syringe that measures volume. Additionally, beakers were employed to measure
the mass of water in each of the systems and since there were even less precise measuring
instruments the uncertainty was assumed to be 𝛿𝑚2 = ± 0.05 𝑘𝑔. The equation of the total
uncertainty of energy for system A is listed below (the uncertainty of each of these values in the
equation are tabulated below).

(𝐸𝑞𝑢. 19) 𝛿𝐸 = 𝛿𝐸𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 + 𝛿𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 𝛿𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟

Uncertainty of Sensible Heat of Wax in System A

𝟐 𝟐
𝜹𝑬𝒔 𝜹𝑬𝒔 𝜹𝑬𝒔 𝟐
𝜹𝑬𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 = √(𝜹𝑻 ∗ ( )) + (𝜹𝑻 ∗ ( )) + (𝜹𝒎 ∗ ( ))
𝜹∆𝑻𝒍𝒊𝒒 𝜹∆𝑻𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒅 𝜹𝒎

Partial
Partial Equation Partial Calculation
Terms
𝜹𝑬𝒔
𝑚𝑐𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑞 + 𝑚𝑐𝑝𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 ∆𝑇𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 .0926
𝜹∆𝑻𝒍𝒊𝒒
𝜹𝑬𝒔
𝑚𝑐𝑝𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 + 𝑚𝑐𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 ∆𝑇𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 .1383
𝜹∆𝑻𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒅
𝜹𝑬𝒔
𝑐𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑞 ∆𝑇𝑙𝑖𝑞 + 𝑐𝑝𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 ∆𝑇𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 41.94
𝜹𝒎

𝟐 𝟐
𝑹𝑴𝑺 = √(. 𝟏(. 𝟎𝟗𝟐𝟔)) + (. 𝟏(. 𝟏𝟑𝟖𝟑)) + (. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏(𝟒𝟏. 𝟗𝟒))𝟐 = ± 0.0172

Uncertainty of Latent Heat of Wax in System A

𝟐
𝜹𝑬
𝜹𝑬𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕 = √(𝜹𝒎 ∗ ( ))
𝜹𝒎

Partial Terms Partial Equation Partial Calculation

𝜹𝑬
ℎ𝑠𝑙 244
𝜹𝒎
𝟐
𝑹𝑴𝑺 √(. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏(𝟐𝟒𝟒 )) = ± 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟒𝟒

13 | P a g e
 Uncertainty of Sensible Heat of Beaker in System A
𝟐 𝟐
𝜹𝑬 𝜹𝑬
𝜹𝑬𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒓 = √(𝜹𝒎 ∗ ( )) + (𝜹𝑻 ∗ ( ))
𝜹𝒎 𝜹∆𝑻

Partial Terms Partial Equation Partial Calculation

𝜹𝑬 𝑐𝑝𝐻2𝑂 ∆𝑇𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟
11.29
𝜹𝒎
𝜹𝑬 𝑚𝑐𝑝𝐻2𝑂
.8362
𝜹∆𝑻
𝟐 𝟐
𝑹𝑴𝑺 = √(𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏(𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟗)) + (𝟎. 𝟏(. 𝟖𝟑𝟔𝟐)) = ±𝟎. 𝟎𝟖𝟑𝟔

Therefore, the total RMS error is ±0.1252 which is relatively low. The greatest source of error is
derived from the beaker values that the calculations are sown for above. This is likely attributed
to the fact that this was by far the least precise measuring instrument and the greater the
uncertainty of the measurement, the greater the uncertainty of the overall RMS. This is also an
error in the lab as a beaker is a poor instrument to make accurate measurements, and in a lab
such as this where the temperature difference is relatively small it can provide a massive source
of error. This could have been improved upon by using a scale or by using a graduated cylinder
or some other more precise volume measurement tool. Additionally, a large source of error is
derived from the surroundings acting as a means for heat to enter the system. The system despite
the insulation measures taken, was not adiabatic, this cannot really be fixed unless one is
working within a specifically climate controlled environment. However, it could be improved
upon by placing the thermocouple wires though the insulation that way the lids can be closed
properly. Another source of error was the placement of the thermocouple probes as they can lend
to the error since if they are touching the test tube the results could be varied. Moreover, we used
the same syringe for measuring water as well as wax therefore; there could be the addition of
impurities to the water or the wax which would in turn affect the thermal conductivity of the
materials in each test tube. This could be alleviated by using separate syringes. The experiment
could also be improved by testing different materials instead. This would require more
specialized equipment, however testing something such as iron or titanium which have multiple
solid phases would be interesting to see as it would prove the different phases exist by looking at
the flattened curves (more meaningful in real world applications).

Conclusion:

From this lab we can conclude with better understandings of the difference between latent and
sensible heat. Latent heat is the energy required to change the phase of a material and can be
determined by looking at the temperature profile of a material when the temperature remains
constants over a period of time. Sensible heat only results in a temperature change due to the

14 | P a g e
exchange of energy and can be seen in a temperature profile change. Looking at Systems A and
C we can conclude that latent heat is higher than sensible heat because it requires the breaking or
creation of bond in the molecules level instead of just molecular excitation. Switching over to
System C and the addition of aluminum foam into test tube C we can see an increase in the heat
rate and a shorter time for solidification compared to System A. Looking at all three systems we
can see that since System A and C go through a phase change they have a higher storage energy
while System B does not have a storage energy as high, leading to Systems A and B having
higher equilibrium temperatures than System B.

15 | P a g e