Research question: What is the energy density of natural gas (methane)?

Variables Control variables o Flow of gas o Volume of water o Original temperature of water o Time of heating

Mathematical model(s) D=Em-1 PV=nRT Q=mc(Tf Ti)

Hypothesis: The known value for the energy density of natural gas is 53.6MJkg-1 Apparatus and materials 1000mL graduated cylinder 100mL graduated cylinder Bunsen burner Water tub Metal stand Aluminum foil Lighter and starter sticks Aluminum can Thermometer Barometer timer

Procedure Diagram

Method for collecting data  Mass of gas 1. Assume gas is at room temperature (22.3oC) 2. Measure air pressure with barometer 3. Fill 1000mL cylinder to the brim with water (actually about 1163mL) 4. Fill tub halfway with water 5. Put Bunsen burner in tub 6. Invert cylinder over Bunsen burner without allowing water to spill out of the cylinder 7. Turn on gas and start timer simultaneously 8. Time for 10s 9. Record volume of water displaced (Vf - Vi) a. This is the volume of gas released 10. Convert volume to mass using PV=nRT 11. Repeat 3 times  Energy released 1. Cut aluminum can in half a. Punch hole in the base of the bottom half b. Insert Bunsen burner into hole to create a heat cone 2. Fold a sheet of aluminum foil to create a 4 layered sheet a. Bend sheet to create a bowl b. Place on stand over Bunsen burner 3. Fill 100mL cylinder with water a. Record initial volume b. Pour approximately 35mL into bowl c. Record final volume d. Calculate actual volume in bowl (Vf Vi) 4. Record initial temperature of water 5. Light Bunsen burner and start timer simultaneously 6. Time for 10s 7. Record final temperature of water 8. Calculate change in temperature (Tf Ti) 9. Calculate energy gained by water using Q=mc(Tf Ti) a. This is equal to amount of energy released 10. Repeat for 10 trials Method for controlling variables  Timer to ensure same time for each trial  Open gas valve to same position each trial to ensure a constant flow of gas  Record starting temperature of water and use new water for each trial to ensure that initial temperature is constant

Record all volume data in one day to ensure constant air pressure

Data collection and processing Uncertainties Sample calculations o Mass of gas (PV=nRT):  699.6mmHg/760= .921atm  (.921atm)(.350L)= n(.0821Latm/molK)(295.3K)  n= .0133mol  Molar mass of CH4= 12.011+4(1.00794)= 16.04276g/mol  (16.04276g/mol)(.0133mol)= .2133g  .2133g/10.2s= .02099gs-1  Average gs-1: y (.02099+.01988+.02212)/3= .02174gs-1 o Mass of water:  40.5mL= 40.5g= .0405kg  Uncertainty: y (.0408-.0402)/2= +/- .0003kg o Change in temp:  33.7-28.6= 5.1oC  Uncertainty: y Max= 33.9-28.4= 5.5oC y Min= 33.5-28.8= 4.7oC y (5.5-4.7)/2= +/- .4oC o Energy gain in water/energy released by gas (Q=mc(Tf Ti)):  Q= (.0405kg)(4190J/kg-1oC-1)(5.1oC)= 865.4J~ 870J  Uncertainty: y Max= (.0408kg)(4190J/kg-1oC-1)(5.5oC)= 940.236 y Min= (.0402kg)(4190J/kg-1oC-1)(4.7oC)= 791.6586 y (940.2-791.7)/2= 74.3~ +/- 70J o Energy density (D=Em-1):  D= 865.4J/.00002174kg/106= 39.76MJkg-1  Uncertainty: y Max= 935.4/.00002170/106= 43.11~ 43 y Min= 795.4/.00002178/106= 36.52~ 37 y (43-47)/2= +/- 3MJkg-1

Conclusion The purpose of this investigation was to determine the energy density of natural gas. Because D=Em , we had to obtain both the energy released and the mass of the gas consumed. To determine this, the mass of the gas was measured by observing how much water was displaced by the gas released through an unlit Bunsen burner in 10 seconds. This allowed us to observe the volume of the gas, and because we also knew the pressure and temperature of the gas, we were able to use PV=nRT to determine the molar mass, and from that the mass in kg released per second. To determine the energy released, we placed an aluminum bowl of water over the Bunsen burner, lit the burner for 10s, and recorded the change in temperature of the water, which enabled us to determine the energy released using Q=mc(Tf Ti). Through this investigation, we determined that the average energy density of natural gas (mostly CH4; for the purposes of the lab assume 100%) is 34 +/- 3MJkg-1. Although this does not match the known value of 53.6MJkg-1, the equipment available to us does not allow for extremely precise measurements, which allows us to conclude that 34 +/- 3MJkg-1 is a reasonable approximation of the energy density of natural gas.
-1

Evaluation With our data ending up with the average energy density at 34 +/- 3MJkg-1 compared to the known value of 53.6MJkg-1, it is fair to say that there were a few things that happened during the testing that threw off the value. First off, there is no way to possibly get all of the energy from the Bunsen burner transferred to the water, especially with the equipment that we used. When the burner is lit and placed under the aluminum cone, without a 100% efficient heat shield, some of the energy is going to be lost to the surroundings causing a major difference in results. Also, when the burner is lit, the bowl that we made out of the aluminum foil is going to absorb some of the heat. Like mentioned above, there is no way to transfer all of the energy from the flame to the water. Even with a 100% efficient heat shield, some of the heat will be absorbed into this foil causing a small difference in the data. The last minor problem that we faced in the collection of data was that the thermometer we used was not able to be fully submerged into the water. Although we were able to submerge about a centimeter of the end of the thermometer, there was still plenty of surface area subject to the surrounding room temperature air. This allows for the room temperature air to throw off the measurement a little bit, giving it a slightly lower reading. Improvement With the materials used, there is no possible way to get perfect data, but based upon the problems mentioned above there are a few things we could have changed that would have allowed for better, more accurate results. First of all, we could have used a bigger heat shield. A bigger heat shield would have allowed the heat to be better funneled towards the aluminum bowl, allowing more energy to be transferred to the water rather than to the surroundings. This would have caused the water to heat up at a higher, more accurate rate which would have allowed for a much higher gain in temperature causing the final energy density to be closer to the known value. Also, there is a possibility

that the thermometer was not able to keep up with the rising temperature of the water. By allowing the thermometer to sit in the water for maybe a second after the flame was shut off would have allowed for it to catch up and get a more accurate reading of the actual temperature of the water. Last of all, simply using more water would have made an impact on our results. By using a higher volume of water, there would have been more room for the thermometer to be submerged allowing for a more accurate reading of the final temperature. Also by using more water, there would have been a lesser effect on the raise in temperature, making it easier to take accurate measurements. This is because there wouldn t be huge jumps in temperature which would allow the thermometer to keep up with the rapidly increasing temperature. There are many things that could have been done to give us more accurate results, but with the materials we used and the methods we used to collect the data, I would say that the 34MJkg-1 was a very reasonable approximation of the energy density of the natural gas.