1

APSC 182-VL2

Lab 2: Measurement of Heat Capacity and Thermal Conductivity

Presented by: Araujo Gorges Rafael, Yang Yuhan, Austen Wang

Student number: 87247540, 39033998, 74916693

Instructor: Prof. Vladan Prodanobvic

Data performed: Oct 11, 2023

 2

Abstract

The experiment is composed of two parts. In part 1, the main goal is to experimentally

distinguish the heat capacity of two metals, respectively aluminum (Al) and copper

(Cu). This part is done by using steam generator to heat up two different metal samples

then put into calorimeter to measure out the temperature of water (using a thermometer).

Meanwhile, the mass of the metal and the water in the cup are both measured (using a

balance). The experimental specific heat c values are aluminum, 16.496±1× 10−2

J/mol*K and copper, 20.100±2×10−2 J/mol*K. It’s evident that the arrangement of the

data is incorrect based on literature values. Moreover, the experimental data displayed

a significant divergence from the actual data. Proposing that errors in the data stemmed

from experimental measurements of temperature change.

In the second part, the primary goal is to determine the thermal conductivity among

plexiglass and plywood. This part is divided into using ambient temperature and

constant heating (using steam generator). The former process involves placing an ice

cube on top of the samples which secured on the steam chamber and the latter entails

adding steam to increase the temperature. In both stages, measurements were taken for

the thickness of the sample plates and the diameter of the ice cube. The experimental

values for thermal conductivity are as follows: plexiglass 0.2141±0.7×10−3 W/m*K

and plywood 0.142±5× 10−3 W/m*K. Consistent with established literature, the

thermal conductivity of plexiglass is slightly greater than plywood. Nonetheless, it is

noteworthy that the experimental values exhibited an inescapable deviation from the

expected actual values.

 3

Results and discussion

Part 1: Heat Capacity

In order to identify the heat capacity of aluminum and copper, a calorimeter was used

to measure the temperature of the water with the heated metals inside. A calorimeter is

a container that usually isolate the experiment from exchanging matter or energy with

the surroundings, using a thermometer to measure the temperature. This apparatus is

commonly used to calculate quantities related to temperature such as the exchange of

energy during chemical reactions, thermal capacities of materials, and the heating value

of a fuel [1].

Table 1 presents a comparison between the heat capacity of the aluminum and copper

calculated from the experiment with the coefficient of the two metals established by the

literature. As can be seen, while copper had a higher heat capacity, aluminum had a

lower heat capacity, using as a parameter the two metals tested on the experiment, which

means that copper is able to transfer more heat per mole to the system compared to

aluminum. However, it is also noticeable that the coefficients collected in the

experiment diverge with the coefficients presented on the literature, having a lower

result compared to what was expected.

Table 1: Coefficients of heat capacity, c (J/mol*K) for Aluminum and Copper compared

with the literature values

Literature values of c Experimental values of c
 4

(J/mol*K) [2] (J/mol*K)

Aluminum 24.6 16.496±1×10−2
Copper 24.8 20.100±2×10−2

The differences between what was presented during the experiment and the literature

may have multiple causes. Using the formula that calculates the amount of heat

necessary to change temperature, it is possible to rearranged it to calculate the heat

capacity of the materials.

𝑄
𝑐 = 𝑛∆𝑇

c = Heat capacity (J/mol*K)

Q = Heat necessary to change temperature

n = Number of moles

∆T = Change in temperature

There are 3 possible factors for the differences between the values from the experiment

and the values from the literature, The amount of heat necessary to change temperature,

the number of moles, and the change in temperature. Considering the measurement of

the materials mass, both Q and n are calculated using this information, meaning that a

not accurate value of the mass may cause a discrepancy during the calculation of the

heat capacity. The other error could be related to the ∆T, which was measure by a

thermometer that was not fixed to the calorimeter, may causing inaccurate values of the

temperature.

Some alternatives to obtain a more accurate result of the heat capacity during future
 5

experiments would be to use more accurate apparatus to measure the mass and

temperature. Related to the thermometer, using a different type of calorimeter or

something that could be able to leave the thermometer static in the correct position to

measure the temperature.

Part 2: Thermal Conductivity

Thermal conduction is the process where heat moves within an object or between

touching objects without any actual movement of the objects themselves. It is the direct

microscopic exchange of kinetic energy of particles through the boundary between two

systems. Heat transfer by conduction is dependent upon the driving “force” of

temperature difference and the thermal conductivity (or the resistance to heat transfer).

The thermal conductivity is dependent upon the nature and dimensions of the heat

transfer medium. Microscopically this heat movement is due to tiny particles bumping

into each other or free electrons moving from one place to another. [3]

The experimentally determined values for thermal conductivity of plywood and

plexiglass are compared with the values for thermal conductivity found in the literature

in Table 1 below. It can be found that the thermal conductivity of plexiglass is higher

than the plywood. The experimental values for plexiglass have a deviation that is 2.68%

lower than the literature values. Similarly, for plywood, the deviation is 9.23% higher.
 6

Table 1: Comparison of literature and experimental values for thermal conductivity k

for plexiglass and plywood.

Literature values Experimental Deviation of
of k values of k experimental value
(𝑤/(𝑚 × 𝑘)) (𝑤/(𝑚 × 𝑘)) from literature
(𝑤/(𝑚 × 𝑘)) value
（%)
Plexiglass 0.22 0.2141±0.7×10−3 2.68
plywood 0.13 0.1420±5×10−3 9.23

There are numerous factors contributing to the inaccuracy of experimental k. This can

be seen by the formula of k:

𝑞∆𝑥
𝑘=
𝐴∆𝑇

k = Thermal conductivity (W/m*K)

q = rate of energy transfer (W)

x = thickness of material

A = area of thermal conductivity

∆ T = Change in temperature

Given this equation, inaccurate values of k might be attributed to plenty of

combination of the following aspects: imprecisely value of the thickness of the solid;

inaccurately value of the diameter of the ice cube, and incorrectly value of temperature

changes. Owing to the thickness of the solid is standard (respectively 5.5 mm and 5.2

mm for plexiglass and plywood), ∆x probably had a limited impact on the deviation

between actual and observed k values. Moreover, the ice cube is not exactly a circle, so
 7

the diameter may differ at each angle. But the data exhibits only a minor margin of error,

A value won’t be the major factor of deviation. These also cleared that T has the highest

chance of error. Incorrect temperature measurements might have arisen due to the

duration of the cooling time is insufficient, and the time for melting ice collection is

inadequate in the experimental procedure. Insufficient cooling time could lead to the

initial temperature isn’t ambient temperature, this will result in measurements error of

∆T. Besides, limited experimental duration could significantly reduce the volume of

gathered water, which increase the degree of error. This can be seen from the data of

both samples.

In future experiments, this can be improving by waiting for the temperature to return to

the ambient temperature to make sure the initial temperature is identical. Furthermore,

for each experimental procedure, it’s essential to maintain a consistent duration of at

least 10 minutes.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The aim of this experiment was to, in part 1, determine the values of the heat capacity

of aluminum and copper, and in part 2, determine the thermal conductivity of plexiglass

and plywood.

In part 1, the results presented that the heat capacity of the copper is higher than the

aluminum. In the same part, the coefficients calculated from the experiment had a result

different compared to the literature, indicating that probably had an inaccuracy during

the measurements. Some possible solutions for that would be to use more accurate

apparatus to measure the mass and the temperature, also it would be better for future
 8

experiments to use something that could stabilize the thermometer on the calorimeter.

In part 2, the results presented that the thermal conductivity of plexiglass is higher than

the plywood. During this experiment, the coefficient calculated diverge from what was

presented on literature. A possible solution for that would be to wait for the temperature

to return for the ambient temperature, also, it would probably be better for future

experiments to maintain during the experiments the duration of 10 minutes.

 9

Reference
[1] T. Atkins and M. Escudier, Oxford Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2013.

[2] H. D. Young and R. A. Freedman, Sears and Zemansky’s university physics: with

modern physics, 15th ed. San Francisco: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2019.

[3] Nick, C. (2019, May 22). What is Thermal Conduction – Heat Conduction –

Definition. Retrieved from https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-thermal-

conduction-heat-conduction-definition/

[4] My Engineering Tools. (2023, April 19). Thermal conductivity of 300+ common

materials. Retrieved from

https://www.myengineeringtools.com/Data_Diagrams/Chemical_Compound_Thermal

_Conductivity.html