Calorimetry, the Physics way!

So this is the last experiment we had to do: Calorimetry. It was quite simple.

We had two cups made of styrofoam, which were weighed using a digital balance. Then, one cup was 1/3 full of hot water and the other was 1/3 full of cold water. The mass of each cup was measured again. The temperatures of each cup was recorded as Thot and Tcold. Immediately after making measurements, contents of one cup was poured unto the other and Tfinal and Mfinal (mass) was determined. Three trials were done, with masses and temperatures varied.

Using the equations: ΔHhot = (MH2O, hot)(ΔThot)(1cal/g°C), and

                               ΔHcold = (MH2O, cold)(ΔTcold)(1cal/g°C),

we were able to calculate the amount of heat energy transferred in the setup.

The temperature was observed to reach equilibrium, showing that the warmer system transferred heat to the cooler one and that energy is conserved throughout the process.

This experiment was quite straightforward in the procedure and calculations.

Resonance... Resonance... RESONAAAAANCE!

In this lab activity, we had to determine the speed of sound and frequency experimentally. Using a resonance tube setup comprised of a long, glass tube, a water reservoir, and a speaker with adjustable frequency, we were able to measure the lengths at which resonance occurs.

Frequencies at 400, 600, and 800 Hz were sounded via speaker unto the resonance tube. By lowering the water reservoir, the water level also lowers; making the length of the tube (air) longer. At some points on the tube, a loud sound could be heard: this is called resonance. Resonance occurs when there is constructive interference that results to rapid increase in the amplitude of the vibrating body. The points were measured from the tip of the tube and were recorded as Ln. Differences between consecutive lengths were taken to obtain ΔL. These were then averaged and noted as Laverage.

To get the value for the speed of sound, the wavelength should be known, since the frequency is already given. Using the relationship ΔL = (1/2)λ, the average wavelength was obtained for each frequency. Hence, the speed of sound was calculated using the equation Vs=λ/f. Averaging the experimental values and comparing it with the actual value (which is temperature dependent), we obtained a 2.06% error.

In determining the unknown frequency, it was hard listening to the tuning fork because the amplitude of the sound seemed to be lower at longer distances. Instead, we set the speaker at random and did the same procedures as above. Using the speed of sound from the first experiment, we calculated a frequency of 514.8 ± 5.2 Hz.

This experiment tested our patience. Well, we had to go out of the lab because our apparatus was leaking. We did our activity with occasional mopping of the floor (which I quite enjoyed doing :)). It was also hard to listen to the sound especially when outside the class (in this case, steel balls were hurling towards wooden planks -- projectile experiment of another class), so we made about two to three trials for each frequency. However, it was thrilling to calculate and see that our measurements made sense :D

Everything about Geometric Optics

The most fun experiment ever!

We had our ray box experiment, but what is a ray box first? It is a box (obviously) that has a light source inside it (with what we were using, it was an incandescent light bulb) and slits that when adjusted, produces little light rays. When turned over, it has another slits but with colors (specifically red, green and blue respectively). With this amazing (yes, I'm too amazed) device, we observed and studied lenses and mirrors and their properties.

We started out with adding the primary colors and observing the secondary colors they produce. With this experiment, we were able to explain the nature of colors to produce white light (RGB) and the color produced when red, green, and blue paints are mixed (black)

I'm not sure if these rays can produce white light if reflected into a focus... hmmm....

Second, we created rainbows using the acrylic rhombus prism by placing it correctly in line with a ray of light from the raybox. It was observed that the rays of visible light seen follows Snell's Law by computing it with the given information on red light and violet light. Violet light was the most refracted whereas the red light was the least refracted, which can be seen on the picture below:

Primary Rainbow on the left, and secondary rainbow on the left

The secondary rainbow was produced because of the two paths taken by the light. I forgot the exact value but I think the primary one is 42 degrees and the secondary is 57 degrees refracted from the normal. However, when the primary colors are shone into the prism, it produces parallel rays.

Notice that the secondary "rainbow" is a mirror image of the ray passed through it.

We deduced that the rays passes through the same path taken by the white light, but the primary colors cannot disperse because the are already monochromatic. 

The nature of spherical mirrors were also observed by shining five light rays into the mirrors and sketching/tracing them on the paper and measuring the focus to see if it follows the relationship between focus and radius of curvature for mirrors.

There were two more "mini-experiments": These were the the Total Internal Reflection and the Apparent Depth Method.

Total Internal Reflection is observed when no transmittance of light exists. This happens when the light passes through the prism or object with the critical angle. We drew the path of light and noticed that the critical is half the angle b/w incident and reflected rays.

With the Apparent Depth Method, we had to find the index of refraction n of the material (acrylic) but putting a biconcave lens in front of two light rays which are a bit far away and focused by the lens. When the Rhombus is placed on top of the part of the paper where the focus is, the focus shifts. We measured the difference of these foci and the thickness of the rhombus, leading us to the index of refraction of the object.

This experiment was really, really fun, but took quite a long time. It was relatively easy to do and understand, but the length of work and paper and analyzing and drawings makes it hard to do, and to finish :)) But the best thing is, we enjoyed doing it and it was my favorite so far.

How Intense is Light?

Not exactly how it looks like, but this shows how the experiment was done.

So here's the very first experiment my groupmates and I did for the year 2012! :)

It was very simple. We connected a light sensor to LabQuest and then measured the light intensity in lux of the  light from a source with respect to the sensor's distance from it. At first the readings were the same (~1cm to 14cm) until at 15cm, the light intensity reading dropped, and so on until it became constant. This constant reading is said to come from the environment and must have been set to zero.

We had many questions for this experiment: Why did the light intensity became constant? Was the light sensor's minimum reading supposed to be not zero? Did we note a wrong set of data?

Somehow, these questions made sense as we discussed how to write this paper. For the previous technical reports we did, we always cut the parts of the report to each member and then compile them on the end of Sunday. This lead to my incomprehension of the previous experiment we did (the one with PV diagrams). It was nice to do this change, and it was never too late.

Going back to the experiment, we analyzed the data by plotting the points and taking an exponential trendline. We had a nice graph, however we obtained a 10% deviation from the accepted value.

There were some trivial things I learned in this experiment.
1) W/cm^2 is a unit for irradiance and lux is a unit for illuminance (http://www.vernier.com/til/413/)
2) The light sensor we used is optimized for visible light only, much like our eyes.
3) Illuminance is different from light intensity, as well as luminous flux.

Heaaaaaaaat Engine!

This time we had a relatively very fast experiment. We used the heat engine apparatus, a 100-g weight, hot and cold water bath, and gas pressure and thermo sensor. We connected all of these like the one below:

Apparently, upon making our technical report on this experiment, I found it hard to do. At first I was amused by the going up and down of the heat engine's piston. However, when I read the manual, there were many steps we had to do to interpret the data we had. The experiment itself was easy and fast. We have to first put the metal cylinder into the cold reservoir, note measurements, add weight, note measurements, put into hot reservoir, note measurements, remove weight, note measurements, put into cold reservoir, note measurements, and then the cycle is done!

Though we did it about twice or thrice because we have to read the temperature, pressure and volume simultaneously at each part of the cycle. Once the measurement suddenly deviates, we have to do it all over again. It was fun though!

Well, going back to writing the paper, it was sort of a long process -- maybe because of the guide questions we had to answer that made it hard.

Water, Ice, Water

Soooo, we did the the freezing and melting experiment on the 4th meeting of our Physics 103.1 lab class. It was quite a easy-to-do and fast experiment compared to our previous activities. On the other hand, I was extremely late that day... *sigh* I woke up 9AM whereas our lab class starts at the same time. Good thing I was still able to manage and take a bath and run all the way to NIP and end up 30 minutes late.

The Experiment

Going back to the experiment, we started with freezing water. We first took a test tube with around 5ml water and placed it on an ice bath using a iron stand just like the figure below:

this is the exact diagram of what we did in the lab!

Using awesome LabQuest, we measured the temperature of the water inside the test tube with the Thermo Sensor dipped on it. When the ice cubes on the beaker started melting, we added salt to further lower the temperature and continuously added more ice. We did this for 15 minutes. After that, we end up with a constant temperature of 0 degrees Celsius.

When set run 2 and this time, we removed the ice bath and let the ice formed inside the test tube melt. After 12 minutes, we submerged the test tube to a warm water bath. When the run automatically stopped, we were then set to analyze the data.

We then took the average of the flat parts of the two temperature vs. time graphs (which means they're constant). We came up with 0.12 degrees Celsius as the freezing point and 0 degrees Celsius as the melting point. Which is just close enough to the theoretical value.

Personal Insights
It was really, really simple. This experiment was quite straightforward, however, it was really hard to freeze the water... to actually make it solid ice. So we had to do it thrice (I think). Anyway it was literally cool to freeze water. Even though I came late, our group was still able to finish first, which is also a first. :))

Heat transfer!

Our second experiment was about investigating the heat transfer of water in an unpainted and painted (black) aluminum cans. We did two activities: one for cooling and another one for heating. The latter part was supposed to be an additional experiment, but we still had enough time to do it. :)

I. Heat Transfer for Cooling

We heated water until it temperature almost reach its boiling point. Then, we measured them to 200mL using graduated cylinders and transferred the water onto each can. Using Thermo Sensors and LabQuest, we recorded the temperature in the water inside both cans as they cool down in room temperature.

The graph we got was curved. After further analysis, we concluded that the rate of cooling is directly proportional to the temperature difference inside and outside the can. It was also observed from their polynomial trendlines of degree 2, that the unpainted can cools faster.


II. Heat Transfer for Heating

Each can was then replaced with tap water of the same volume. We then placed them in front of an incandescent lamp. Using the same device, we plot the temperature of each can for 20 minutes. The result came out with a linear a graph, which means that the rate of change in temperature in both cans is constant. By looking at the last temperature recorded, it was obvious that the aluminum can painted in black became hotter than the unpainted one. Computing for the slope of the graphs using trendlines, we also saw that the black can heats faster.

III. Personal Insights
For this experiment, it was sort of a test of patience - waiting for 20 minutes for two cans heated by a lamp. T'was kinda funny how we spent our time while waiting for them:

yeap, we're bored :p

However, putting the almost-boiling-water-it-hurts-when-it-touches you was a challenge, especially when the pot holders are kinda tearing off. :)) Over-all, we had good results and fun lab class by trying to capture people's faces (haha!)