From the results we can see that ethanol was much more efficient that methanol. Buring the experiment the amount of fuel burnt while heating 50ml of water in a beaker was almost double that of the fuel burnt while heating the same amount of water in copper. As we know copper is a metal, so it conducts heat better then glass.
Looking at the following calculations
∆h=mc∆t
Copper Calorimeter
(50x4.18x12)+61.41x0.387x12=2739
Glass Beaker
(50x4.18x12)+190x0.86x12=4423
In both those example it is assumed that both vessels change in temperature is the same as the temperature as the water contained in them. This can be said for copper because of its high thermal conductivity, however glass has a very low thermal conductivity hence we cannot say that the temperature of the beaker increased by 12 degrees, because the thermal conductivity of glass is so low we can say that the heat absorbed by the beaker is so little that it becomes negligible.
Having said that we now recalculate the our ∆h
Copper Calorimeter
(50x4.18x12)+61.41x0.387x12=2739
Glass Beaker
(50x4.18x12)= 2508
Specifically the copper vessel absorbed 285 of energy wheras the glass absorbed so little that it became negligible.
Now we can see that the glass beaker absorbed close to zero heat energy from both fuels , hence we can see why almost double the amount of each type of fuel was required to heat the same amount of water to the same temperature. Because the glass beaker absorbed less heat more heat enrgy was absorbed by other items e.g the metal clamps.
Thats my response to my question. Does that make sense is good?
Looking at the following calculations
∆h=mc∆t
Copper Calorimeter
(50x4.18x12)+61.41x0.387x12=2739
Glass Beaker
(50x4.18x12)+190x0.86x12=4423
In both those example it is assumed that both vessels change in temperature is the same as the temperature as the water contained in them. This can be said for copper because of its high thermal conductivity, however glass has a very low thermal conductivity hence we cannot say that the temperature of the beaker increased by 12 degrees, because the thermal conductivity of glass is so low we can say that the heat absorbed by the beaker is so little that it becomes negligible.
Having said that we now recalculate the our ∆h
Copper Calorimeter
(50x4.18x12)+61.41x0.387x12=2739
Glass Beaker
(50x4.18x12)= 2508
Specifically the copper vessel absorbed 285 of energy wheras the glass absorbed so little that it became negligible.
Now we can see that the glass beaker absorbed close to zero heat energy from both fuels , hence we can see why almost double the amount of each type of fuel was required to heat the same amount of water to the same temperature. Because the glass beaker absorbed less heat more heat enrgy was absorbed by other items e.g the metal clamps.
Thats my response to my question. Does that make sense is good?
