Physics / Latent Heat of Fusion of Ice
FREE TO EXPLORE
EXPERIMENT 28 · PHYSICS LABORATORY

Latent Heat of Fusion of Ice lab report

A worked latent heat of fusion of ice lab report with simulated observation tables, graph, calculations, uncertainty and results.

WORKED EXAMPLE · SIMULATED OBSERVATIONS

A complete example report.

Simulated demonstration data.

This report shows the method and arithmetic. It is not evidence of a physical experiment. Replace its observations with your own measurements when preparing a real lab report.

Student: __________________Student ID: __________________Course: __________________Date: __________________Partner: __________________Instructor: __________________

1. Title and aim

Determination of the Latent Heat of Fusion of Ice by the Method of Mixtures. Determine the specific latent heat of fusion of ice (L_f) using the calorimetric method of mixtures, observing the temperature depression resulting from the melting of dried ice chips in warm water inside a calibrated copper calorimeter, and evaluating the thermal energy conservation balance with Rumford radiation compensation.

2. Abstract

Five observations were generated from the ideal teaching model over the settings listed below. A straight-line fit gave an estimate of Latent heat of fusion L_f of 334.13 kJ kg⁻¹, differing by 0.040% from the model value. The reported scatter comes from scale rounding and any stated model approximation, not measured laboratory noise.

3. Apparatus and fixed settings

4. Theory and graph choice

The solid-liquid phase transformation of water at 0 °C is a prototypical first-order thermodynamic transition characterized by a massive latent enthalpy absorption unaccompanied by any temperature variation. In hexagonal ice (ice Ih), water molecules are locked into an open, tetrahedral hydrogen-bonded crystal framework with a low packing density (ρ_ice ≈ 917 kg m⁻³). To break down this rigid lattice into the denser, mobile arrangement of liquid water (ρ_water ≈ 1,000 kg m⁻³), approximately 334 kilojoules of thermal energy must be absorbed per kilogram of ice melted: the specific latent heat of fusion L_f. In quantitative mixture calorimetry, ice chips at their equilibrium melting point (0.00 °C) are introduced into a known mass of warm water held within a calibrated copper calorimeter. As the ice melts, it absorbs latent heat Q_latent = m_i L_f to undergo isothermal phase change, while the resulting meltwater absorbs additional sensible heat Q_melt = m_i c_w (T_f − 0) to warm to the final mixture temperature T_f. Simultaneously, the warm water and calorimeter vessel cool from their initial temperature T_0 to T_f, releasing sensible heat Q_lost = C_sys (T_0 − T_f). Equating thermal loss to thermal gain yields the net latent heat relationship: Q_net = C_sys (T_0 − T_f) − m_i c_w T_f = m_i L_f. By varying the mass of ice added across serial runs and meticulously blotting each ice chip dry with filter paper immediately prior to immersion, ordinary least-squares regression of Q_net against m_i provides an exceptionally clean determination of L_f, while starting the warm water as far above room temperature as the final mixture drops below it eliminates net environmental radiation errors through Rumford compensation.

Q_net = C_sys (T_0 − T_f) − m_i c_w T_f = m_i L_f ⇔ Y = L_f · X ⇔ L_f = S

The calculation fits y = mx + b in SI units. The graph may display scaled axes for readability; those display factors are removed before calculating the physical result. The gradient has units J kg⁻¹.

5. Method

  1. Weigh the clean, dry copper calorimeter vessel together with its brass loop stirrer to ±0.01 g on an analytical balance. Add exactly 200.00 g of distilled water warmed to approximately 32 °C. Place the calorimeter inside the protective air jacket and seat the wooden lid firmly.
  2. Crush clean, clear ice into small fragments (approximately pea to hazelnut size). Place the ice in a funnel or watch glass and allow it to drain until melting commences freely, establishing a true equilibrium ice-water mixture at 0.00 °C. Spread several dry filter paper sheets nearby.
  3. Insert the precision thermometer into the calorimeter water through the lid aperture. Agitate the bath with gentle vertical strokes of the stirrer until the temperature stabilizes. Record the steady initial warm temperature T_0 = 30.00 °C.
  4. Take an ice chip with clean tongs, press it firmly between dry filter paper sheets to remove all adhering liquid water film, and drop it immediately into the calorimeter without splashing. Repeat swiftly until the target ice mass (e.g., 15.0 g) has been introduced, closing the lid immediately between additions.
  5. Stir the water bath continuously and smoothly with the helical stirrer, watching the thermometer meniscus through an optical magnifier. Track the temperature depression as the ice chips dissolve. Record the lowest stationary temperature attained before environmental re-warming begins as the equilibrium temperature T_f.
  6. Remove the calorimeter vessel and reweigh it to ±0.01 g. Determine the exact mass of ice added m_i = m_final − m_initial. Repeat the measurement across five distinct ice charges (15.0 g, 20.0 g, 25.0 g, 30.0 g, and 35.0 g). For each run, compute Q_net = C_sys (T_0 − T_f) − m_i c_w T_f in joules. Plot Q_net against m_i (kg) and evaluate L_f from the slope of the regression line.

6. Observations and calculation table

All observations use fixed model settings. Values are rounded only at the instrument reading stage; further calculations use full precision. Repeated physical trials are not claimed.

Table 1. Five simulated measurements; x and y are in SI units.
No.Mass of dry ice m_i (g)Equilibrium temperature T_f (°C)x (SI)y (SI)Fitted y (SI)Residual (SI)
115.022.580.015005008.515405009.93246-1.41706
220.020.320.020006682.464006680.601401.86260
325.018.160.025008353.943208351.270342.67286
430.016.100.0300010016.6740010021.93928-5.26528
535.014.110.0350011694.7551011692.608222.14688

Download the sample observations (CSV) ↓

7. Worked calculation for one observation

Dry ice mass m_i = 15.0 g = 0.0150 kg; observed final temperature T_f = 22.58 °C; heat lost by calorimeter and initial warm water Q_lost = 866.08 × (30.00 − 22.58) = 6426.31 J; sensible heat absorbed by meltwater warming from 0 °C to T_f: Q_melt = 0.0150 × 4186 × 22.58 = 1417.80 J; net latent heat of fusion Q_net = Q_lost − Q_melt = 5008.52 J. Single-reading estimate L_f = Q_net / m_i = 333901.0 J kg⁻¹ = 333.90 kJ kg⁻¹. Linear regression of Q_net against m_i across all ice charges yields the reported latent heat of fusion.

8. Graph, gradient and final calculation

4.3413.006.3519.008.3525.0010.3631.0012.3637.00Mass of dry ice m_i (kg)Net latent heat absorbed Q_net (J)

Dots show the sample observations. The line is the ordinary least-squares fit.

x̄ = 0.02500; ȳ = 8351.27034
Σ(x − x̄)² = 2.5000e-04
Σ(x − x̄)(y − ȳ) = 83.53345
m = Σ(x − x̄)(y − ȳ) / Σ(x − x̄)² = 334133.78800000
b = ȳ − mx̄ = -2.07436000
Slope S = 334133.79 J kg⁻¹; Latent heat of fusion L_f = S × 0.001 = 334.13 kJ kg⁻¹

9. Uncertainty and comparison

Percentage difference = |estimate − model value| / |model value| × 100 = 0.0401%. Percentage difference is not experimental uncertainty.

For n = 5 observations, Σresidual² = 44.95379; s² = Σresidual²/(n − 2). Gradient standard error = √[s²/Σ(x − x̄)²] = 244.82316. Intercept standard error = √[s²(1/n + x̄²/Σ(x − x̄)²)] = 6.36069.

Propagating only the relevant fit coefficient gives a fit-only standard error of 0.24482 kJ kg⁻¹. This is a one-standard-error quantity under the regression assumptions. Deterministic rounded model data do not supply a complete physical uncertainty budget.

Surface moisture adhering to ice chips (wet ice) introducing pre-melted water that releases zero latent heat, heat exchange with the ambient environment during ice melting and dissolution (~3–5 min), water splashing during ice addition, thermometer thermal lag and stem emergent column correction, spatial thermal stratification before complete agitation, and balance precision in weighing melting ice chips (±0.02 g) contribute experimental uncertainty. The OLS regression standard error reflects random scatter across sample mass settings, but does not capture unmodelled surface water film or residual convection exchanges.

10. Result and discussion

L_f = 334.13 kJ kg⁻¹
Model comparison value: 334.00 kJ kg⁻¹

The observations follow the stated model relationship. Check whether the intercept and residual pattern suggest a systematic offset or a missing approximation. Agreement with the model does not independently verify its input constants.

11. Precautions and limitations

The teaching simulation models the melting of pure ice under ideal thermal conditions with constant initial warm water temperature T_0 = 30.00 °C, ice temperature T_ice = 0.00 °C, and an invariant system heat capacity C_sys = 866.08 J K⁻¹. In physical experiments, residual surface water film adhering to ice chips can cause negative systematic errors, using freezer ice below 0 °C causes positive errors, water splashing during ice transfer reduces the effective mass, evaporation from the warm surface during dissolution introduces unmodelled cooling, and small departures from symmetric Rumford compensation leave residual radiation exchanges with the room. The simulation evaluates equilibrium temperatures using the exact thermodynamic conservation relation T_f = (C_sys T_0 − m_i L_f) / (C_sys + m_i c_w), where m_i is the dry ice mass in kilograms, L_f = 334,000 J kg⁻¹ (334.00 kJ kg⁻¹) is the reference latent heat of fusion of ice, c_w = 4,186 J kg⁻¹ K⁻¹ is the specific heat capacity of water, T_0 = 30.00 °C is the initial warm water temperature, and C_sys = 866.08 J K⁻¹ is the aggregate thermal capacity. Equilibrium temperatures are rounded to 0.01 °C to simulate precision calorimetric thermometry, and ordinary least-squares regression of Q_net against m_i yields the reported latent heat of fusion.

12. Conclusion

The worked example illustrates how to obtain Latent heat of fusion L_f from measurements, graph variables and a fitted coefficient. The estimate is 334.13 kJ kg⁻¹. A real experiment must additionally evaluate the apparatus-specific uncertainties and corrections described above.