Lab VIII: Mechanical Equivalent of Heat

George Wong
Jocelyn Schulz
Instructor: Patrick Cooper
Experiment Date: 6 December 2012
Due Date: 17 December 2012

Objective

The objective of this laboratory was to observe the transformation of work into heat; that
is, to examine the relationship between work and energy. Specifically, we were to do work on
an object, then measure the resulting change in tempreature, then find a correlation between
the two.

Theory

In the simplist of cases, work is given to be the dot product of a force vector and displacement
vector; that is, dW = F~ d~r. It is important to the concept of the relation between work and
force to note that only the force being applied in the direction of the motion contributes to
work.
In the case of our cylinder being spun N number of times with a mass of M being hung from
it and a radius of R, this gives the equation for work:
W = 2M gRN
Heat (which we will be equating to work) is related to temperature by mass and a quantity
we call specific heat (for that material). In the case where we wish to measure change in
hear, we use the formula:
Q = mc (Tf Ti )
where m is mass, c is specific heat (for aluminum 0.22 cal/g C, Tf is final temperature, and
Ti is initial temperature.
For our system, by the first law of thermodynamics, we assume that all work done on the
cylinder is transformed into heat. Put another way, we assume the total change in internal
energy is zero. Thus, we can perfectly equate Q = W .
To measure change in temperature, we chose to measure the resistance of the metal cylinder. As temperature increased, resistance increased; as temperature decreased, resistance
decreased. The exact nature of the relationship (while overall seeming to be indirect) is not
known; therefore, a chart of experimentally-obtained values was used.
There are an accepted 4.182 J / cal (according to the IUNS)

Set Up

For this diagram, we used a rotary pully whose resistance could be measured around which
was strung a nylon cord with a mass hanging at the end of it.

As the crank was turned, the nylon rope would be pulled slightly upwards (at which point it
would begin to slip and the mass hanging at the end of the string would pull it downwards,
thereby applying tension to the pulley. Each complete turn of the pulley, a counting device
was ticked, thereby providing an efficient way to count the number of cranks (and thus the
fully distance that the was turned.
The nylon string was coated with graphite (to act as a lubricant).

Figure 1: Pully + Mass System diagram, showing sketch of pulley and cord. Note that
the cord was wrapped around the pulley several times.

Procedure
1. The effective resistance of the pulley was measured at room temperature.
2. The cord was strung around the pulley four and a quarter times, then attached to a
hanging weight of known mass.
3. Using ice, the pulley was cooled until it had an effective resistance that equated to a
temperature of about 7 degrees below room temperature.
4. With the weight hanging, the pulley was cranked (making sure that the cord never
caught and the mass remained approximately the same height above the ground).
5. Cranking continued until the pulleys resistance measured was equivalent to a temperature of approximately 7 degrees above room temperature.
6. The change in heat was found and equated to work to analyze the relationship, and
others (such as the specific heat of the metal.

Data and Calculations

masses of objects

object
mass (g)
bucket
9674 10
cylinder 202.6 0.2

uncertainty in bucket estimated based on reported value

diameter of cylinder: 4.782 0.001 cm

resisances and corresponding temperatures of pulley

environment
room temp.
8 C below
8 C above

resistance (kQ)
115.3 0.1
175.2
77.5

corresponding temperature ( C)
22.0 0.5
14.0 0.5
31.0 0.5

uncertainties in temperature were chosen based on the fact that only per-degree resistances
were given
counter: 215 cranks
cord wound around cylinder/pulley: 4.25 times
given heat capacity for aluminum: 0.220 cal / (g C)

Calculated Values

diameter of pulley: 4.782 cm = 0.04782 0.00001 m

radius of pulley: 0.02391 m
mass of cylinder: 202.6 0.2 g = 0.2026 0.0002 kg
mass of bucket / weight: 9674 10 g = 9.674 0.010 kg
given heat capacity for aluminum: 0.220 cal / (g C) = 220.0 cal / (kg C)
W = 2M gRN
W = 2(9.674kg)9.81ms2 (0.02391 m)215 turns
W = 3064 3060 J
Q = mc(Tf Ti )
Q = 0.202 kg (220.0

cal
)(31.0 14.0 C)
kg C

Q = 755.48 755 cal

W/Q = 3060/755 = 4.05 J / cal

Error Analysis

7.1

Numerical analysis

W = 2M gRN
p
W = (2gRN M )2 + (2M gN R)2
W = 0.003 cal
Q =

q
p
(c(Tf Ti )M )2 + (mc( (Tf )2 + (Ti )2 ))2

Q = 30 J
W/Q =

(Q/Q)2 + (W/W )2 (W/Q)

W/Q = 0.04 J/cal

7.2

Reasons / Causes

As is noted elsewhere, the system that was used was not by any means a closed system.
As such, it cannot truly be assumed that all of the work done on the cylinder contributed
to a measurable change in temperature. Some of the work became temperature that was
then dissipated by the atmosphere (or the atmosphere contributed some temperature to the
cylinder that was not accounted for).
There may have been some slippage in the string (or times when the string did not slip and
turning the crank actually pulled the weight upwards). Thus, a work that was not accounted
for would have been performed. This would disturb calculations of the values of interest.
The actual temperature of the pulley was not measurable either; it was only possible to know
its temperature to within one degree. Further, a chart relating resistance to temperature was
used, and while it was assumed that this chart was accurate, less of experimental verification,
there would be no way to know its accuracy.
Also, the radius of the cylinder was only measurable to within a hundredth of a millimeter.
This distance, however, was considered to be relatively quite small, so its effect on error
/ uncertainty was ignored. Similarly, the masses of the cylinder and buckets were only
measureable to within certain margins; however, the accuracy with which they could be
measured let it be taken as relatively zero.

Questions

1 When you turn the crank, what would be the problem with turning the crank too slowly?
4

If the crank were turned too slowly, there would be two problems. First, there might not be
enough friction between the pulley and the nylon cord to ensure that the full mass of the
hanging weight / bucket contributed to torquewhich would make it so there were no reliable
equation to find work done on the pulley. Second, much more of the heat that was imparted
to the pulley by the cranking motion would be lost to the environment (as compared to the
pulley being cranked at a faster speed).
2 What role does heat capacity and heat conductivity of the cord play in the accuracy of
this experiment?
The greater conductivity of the heat conductivity (and related heat capacity) of the cord,
the less the accuracy of the experiment. If heat were transfered to the cord from the heating
cylinder, then the measured temperature change of the cylinder would not be representative
of the true change in heat of the cylinder (as some of the heat would be lost to the cord). As
we were measuring change in heat / temperature of the cylinder, this could be disastrous.
3 Can you think of advantages and disadvantages of making the temperature interval larger
or smaller?
The greater the interval, the more precise our measurements would theoretically be; however,
this is misleading, because the greater the interval, the worse off we would be as far as heat
lost / interaction between the system and the surrounding environment.
4 Why are the lower and higher temperatures chosen to be symmetric about room temperature?
The lower and higher temperatures were chosen to be symmetric about room temperature
because this would effectively minimize the effect that the environment had on the temperature change. While the cylinder was chilled, the environment would contribute heat to it;
however, once it passed the room temperature mark, the environment would leech energy
away from it. It was hoped that this leeching and contributing would cancel out, thereby
rendering the effect of the environment on the cylinder minimal.
5 Any heat flow into or out of the cylinder will contribute to error. How is this error
minimized?
This error is minimized in two ways. First, the entire process is speed up as fast as possible
to minimize the amount of time heat has to flow into and/or out of the cylinder. Second,
the temperature change interval was centered around room temperature (the temperature of
the environment)see question 4 for more info.
6 What will be the effect on your results if there is moisture on the cylinder when you start
turning the crank for data?
If there were moisture on the cylinder, this would affect the data in several ways. First, it
5

would likely cause the cylinder to misrepresent the amount of heat change, as the changing
temperature of the water would necessarily account for some of the true heat change. Second,
it might decrease friction between the nylon cord and the pulley, which could end up affecting
the amount of work done on the pulley. Third, it might cause the nylon string to stick to
itself, in the process causing the turning of the pulley to pull the weight/bucket upwards.
This too would affect the work done on the cylinder by the string.

Conclusion

All in all, we found an experimental value for joules / calory that agreed rather well with
the accepted value. Our experiment showed that there were approximately 4.05 J/cal, with
an uncertainty of 0.04 J/cal. Compared to the accepted value of 4.186 J/cal, this is a 4%
deviation.
As noted before, the much of the error came from the fact that the system was not closed.
Because it was not closed, there was no way to ensure that heat did not escape or enter
the system in any unaccounted-for ways. Of course, from the final result, it seemed that
(assuming the scientifically-accepted value for J/cal is correct) there was very little of this
that happened regardless. A 4% deviation from accepted value is certainly acceptable for the
type of equipment used.
In addition to the required lab, we also intentionally wet the wheel and attempted to perform
the same experiment. First, we noted that there were a greater number of loops (number
of times to string the cord around the cylinder) required in order to keep the bucket off of
the ground. This is likely due to the fact that there was decreased friction-per-loop, so more
loops were required to maintain the same amount of torque. Also, we began the experiment;
however, we noticed that it was taking a significantly greater amount of time to incur the
same change in temperature. After some time of this, we halted the experiment, citing the
fact that much heat had already been lost to the environment; therefore, our data would
likely not be correct. Later, we determined this greater discrepency was likely due to the
fact that the water was absorbing much of the heat imparted to the cylinder.
In the future, if it were possible to measure the J/cal value using different materials, that
might enhance the experimental experience. Further, using different materials in place of the
nylon cord, and different mass weights might also provide for a more in-depth experiment.