In order for a liquid substance to alter its form from liquid to solid, the substance must hit the freezing threshold of 32 degrees F. Conversely, to reverse this alteration in the matter’s state the temperature must rise above this same freezing point. The factor shared by–and most pertinent to–this alteration is the release of energy that drives this process. To demonstrate the inherent importance of energy, we will evaluate the cooling and warming behavior of water. To do this, in this experiment we will measure the temperature during the freezing and melting of water and subsequently graph the data provided. This will determine its energy-releasing capabilities and its importance in the debate for sustainability.

 

Hypothesis and Theory

We assert that once the temperature reaches the freezing point (32o F) in less than five minutes, the water will solidify continually as it drops below this point. Inversely, once the water is heated, this increase above the freezing point will then convert the water back from a solid state to a liquid state within a minute due to the glass’s excellent heat transfer potential. If you’d like a little more background on the principles surrounding the melting and freezing of water, check out Purdue University’s explanation.

Setup

 

You already have our material requirements listed in our experiment handout, so if you need a reminder feel free to check it out again or take a look at this video. The well-regarded Vernier Software and Technology company has provided their own walkthrough of our experiment, utilizing the same apparatus as ours:

 

 

Now to our own setup and walkthrough:

 

Freezing Phase

1. Fill a 400 mL beaker 1/3 full with ice, then add 100 mL of water as a water bath.
2. Put 50mL of water into a graduated cylinder and place it in the water bath.
3. Connect the probe to the computer interface. Prepare the computer for data collection by opening the Temperature measurement program.
4. When the computer is ready for measurement, click to begin data collection and then lower the graduated cylinder with probe into the ice-water bath.
5. Soon after lowering the test tube, add some salt to the beaker and stir with a stirring rod. Continue to stir the ice-water bath for ten minutes.When ten minutes have gone by, stop moving the probe and allow it to freeze into the ice. Add more ice cubes to the beaker as the original ice cubes get smaller. Run the measurement for twenty minutes.

Melting Phase

6. Dispose the cold water and the ice and fill a beaker with hot water.
7. Place the graduated cylinder just slightly above the the hot water and begin measurement for ten minutes, after ten minutes, let the graduated cylinder be submerged but make sure that the hot water does not enter the graduated cylinder.

Results and Data Analysis

Graph 1: Freezing of Water

Graph 2: Melting of Water

 

As evident in our data, the behavior of the freezing and melting of water is determined once the water has reached 32 degrees F. From this point of determination, the temperature of the water drops or rises at a constant rate dependent on the change in temperature. As the temperature decreased, the water inside the graduated cylinder froze. Although it was not perfectly solid and required 481 seconds to freeze the water inside the cylinder (far longer than what we predicted in our hypothesis), it still validates our hypothesis that the water would freeze with a decrease in temperature. As a reverse validation of this hypothesis, through the heating phase of the experiment the ice melted in less than a minute- returning again to liquid form.

It is important to note that equipment limitations may have affected the general integrity of the experiment and must be considered when interpreting results. First, we used a graduated cylinder instead of a test tube because it was unavailable to us in the lab. The use of a graduated cylinder may have caused saltwater to enter the cylinder and therefore leaves the possibility for slight contamination of the water.  We also had a spike in temperature due to transferring the apparatus from Raymond’s hands into Andrew’s. We did not measure the salt ultimately placed into the water which may have caused uneven dissolution. Lastly, the temperature was not properly recorded due to unavailability of a thermometer; the temperature probe was not properly calibrated before use. Because we did not have suitable clamps, Andrew had to hold the graduated cylinder in the apparatus as we conducted the melting phase of the experiment. Therefore, human errors may have played a factor in results of the melting phase of the experiment.

Further Conclusions, Final Remarks

 

The team aspect of this experiment certainly wasn’t forgotten. Each member-Sebastien, Isaac, Raymond, David, and AJ-contributed to their fullest capacity. I enjoyed serving as team leader because of the great work we were able to do as a result of everyone’s motivation and commitment to the project. Team chemistry can’t be overrated, especially with so many people involved in our experiment, so well rounded contributions certainly made this project what it is.

Now, if only our presentation of the experiment were as successful as our group’s test run! It was very difficult to allow the test tube to sit isolated within the beaker because we did not want anyone holding it manually. Removing our hands from the experiment would eliminate room for human error and artificially manipulating the change in temperature. We used our hands to complete the experiment initially, but it was found to skew the data so we forwent it on Wednesday April 29 for its final showing. If only we could run the experiment one more time–they same third time’s the charm, after all.

Its a good thing professor Shatz saw our experiment through previously or it would have looked quite disorienting! It reminded me of John Poindexter’s quote, “you accept failure as possible outcome of some of the experiments. If you don’t get failures, you’re not pushing hard enough on the objectives.” Although not directly relative to our experiment since it was not a failure but more of a discombobulated demonstration, it is a good reminder of the need to actualize the potential of each experiment, whether for a final project or not.

 

The other group’s project we viewed was quite insightful. They determined increases in energy from varying wattage in light bulbs to determine what type of wattage/bulb produces the most heat. Strangely enough, their experiment had its own major drawback: the bulb itself burned out. We first used a 43 watt bulb with no problem, but the 150 watt bulb proved too strong and make a loud snap noise as it imploded, much to our surprise of course. Because of this we were then resigned to a smaller sample size with this experiment as well, but it certainly was interesting to have a detour here too. A third group also lost its play-dough to mold just to top it all of in a funny turn of events.

All in all, though, we feel confident in our assertion that the freezing and melting of water holds great potential for sustainability. Its energy releasing characteristics can be streamlined as shown in our experiment for practical uses across all facets of contemporary society.

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch14/melting.php

The Caliper Archive

http://www.vernier.com/

Experiment Handout 2

 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uZYcwy9q2WH-XXK0aBCLZDgzyhi8xp9YON_4KBIzjaw/edit?usp=sharing

FREEZING AND MELTING OF WATER

Raymond, Isaac, Sebastien, David, Andrew, Josh

Purpose of the Experiment

In order for a liquid substance to alter its form from liquid to solid, the substance must hit the freezing threshold of 32o F. Conversely, to reverse this alteration in the matter’s state the temperature must rise above this same freezing point. The factor shared by–and most pertinent to–this alteration is the release of energy that drives this process. To demonstrate the inherent importance of energy, we will evaluate the cooling and warming behavior of water. To do this, in this experiment we will measure the temperature during the freezing and melting of water and subsequently graph the data provided. This will determine its energy-releasing capabilities and its importance in the debate for sustainability.

Background Information

Freezing and melting temperatures are characteristic physical properties. Through this experiment, these elements for water will be determined and analyzed. This experiment will measure the time needed to freeze, and to melt water in particular.

Hypothesis

We assert that once the temperature reaches the freezing point (32o F) in less than five minutes, the water will solidify continually as it drops below this point. Inversely, once the water is heated, this increase above the freezing point will then convert the water back from a solid state to a liquid state within a minute due to the glass’s excellent heat transfer potential.

Materials Needed

• Measuring Apparatus:
  • Computer with LabView installed
  • NXT Console Interface
  • Vernier Temperature probe
  • Temperature Measurement Program

• Ring Stand
• Clamp
• Two 400mL sized beaker
• 10mL graduated cylinder
• water
• ice cubes
• salt
• spoon / stirring instrument

Experiment Procedure

Freezing Phase

1. Fill a 400 mL beaker 1/3 full with ice, then add 100 mL of water as a water bath.
2. Put 5 mL of water into a graduated cylinder and place it in the water bath.
3. Connect the probe to the computer interface. Prepare the computer for data collection by opening the Temperature measurement programme.
4. When the computer is ready for measurement, click to begin data collection and then lower the graduated cylinder with probe into the ice-water bath.
5. Soon after lowering the test tube, add some salt to the beaker and stir with a stirring rod. Continue to stir the ice-water bath for ten minutes.When ten minutes have gone by, stop moving the probe and allow it to freeze into the ice. Add more ice cubes to the beaker as the original ice cubes get smaller. Run the measurement for twenty minutes.

Melting Phase

6. Dispose the cold water and the ice and fill a beaker with hot water.

7. Place the graduated cylinder just slightly above the the hot water and begin measurement for ten minutes, after ten minutes, let the graduated cylinder be submerged but make sure that the hot water does not enter the graduated cylinder.

 

Data Entry

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zx4LdUNsZu3nDBKXp0wDHKE-A-yumV6xaWAk_syGo1Q/edit?usp=sharing

 

Analysis

 

The results conform to our theory. Decrease in temperature leads to increase of solidified state, while increase in temperature leads to dissolution of solid state.

 

It did, however, take longer than we predicted to freeze. We anticipated a 90 second freezing cycle but took 481 seconds due to unstable testing conditions. Heat transfer and its subsequent dissolution still in effect for each stage of the experiment, though.

 

Throughout much of President Obama’s terms, the Keystone Pipeline has served as a component of national gridlock. The difficulty reaching consensus on the proposed 875 mile crude oil transportation unit goes beyond party lines, however, because its controversy lies along both economic and environmental fronts.* Economically, Coral Davenport of the New York Times reports that while it may contribute thousands more jobs and $3.4 billion to the economy, environmentalists stress the damage such production methods will have on the immediate surroundings. Overall, these pros and cons are quite thorough and apparent amongst debaters:

 

If you are pro-Keystone, you probably value economic benefits most prominently. Its construction would produce approximately 42,000 jobs through the two year project through labor and “indirect support jobs,” as Davenport refers to them. The pipeline would also serve as a fundamental shift of sorts for the United States’ petroleum trade policies. Since it runs between the US and Canada, this would present both literal and figurative relations with the friendly ally that Canada is. As said by Senator Joe Hoeven of North Dakota, “Working with Canada we can achieve true North American energy security and also help our allies.” A more regionally-insulated trade agreement could help shield the United States from the political volatility of the Middle East’s primary oil-exporting nations.

 

Those who value the con’s of the Keystone pipeline, however, view these priorities systemically in reverse. Even economically, where most of the pros lie, its true worth is shaky. While, yes, thousands of jobs can be created, a large majority of them would be temporary and single-serving. These worker would then become unemployed again around the same timeframe and further distort unemployment rates. This harsh reality is shown best by Bernie Sanders’ contentions at a Senate hearing in November 2014, wherein he states that “[suggesting] this is some kind of big jobs program is nothing more than a cruel hoax and a misleading hoax to workers in this country who need decent-paying jobs.” Furthermore, the pipeline would require earth-brutalizing processes to operate the pipeline. With its potentially disastrous effects on the environment and climate, Keystone would be a proverbial slap in the face to all scientists forewarning its dangers. So uncertain are its safety practices relative to the environment that President Obama has suggested this consideration to be central to his decision to veto the proposed legislation. While this does not ultimately end the debate and stop the Keystone pipeline, it certainly gives more time to study and educate its true implications toward the environment’s sustainability and society’s inherent effects on this.

 

 

*The video below also offers a condensed synopsis of the Keystone debate:

http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Global-Warming/KXL_Myths_vs_Facts.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/24/obama-keystone-veto/23879735/

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001628

This past Wednesday, my groups began setting the foundation for the final project. The first, most important task was theoretically simple: choose an experiment. What we quickly found out, though, is that picking just one experiment on sustainability is not as simple in practice. We first sifted through the many examples and sources provided by professor Shatz, making note of concepts particularly interesting to each of us. We hopped across a range of topics from heat fusion to solar energy to even creating a potato battery. As we continued, however, we realized that our process was so divergent that it was bordering on counterintuitive to actually formulating a good experiment on sustainability. Because of this realization, we took a metaphorical step back and found an experiment we could all agree on: the freezing and melting of water and its relation to energy creation.

This idea has proved to be a great one thus far; it is simple, coherent, and allows us to use the NXT probe. This last component is especially useful because we have all become acclimated to this apparatus thanks to our Lego Mindstorm experiments throughout the spring. We have already gathered this and the other materials required. Furthermore, for maximized efficiency we have delegated responsibilities to each member of the group: two members are assembling our lab report, two others are creating the PowerPoint presentation, and I will be working on/editing our group’s final web page as the group leader. To be more specific, each member has a role in each of the three aspects of the project, but we have prioritized them according to each individual to ensure we put 100% effort across every front.

It is only too bad that its not warmer out, as we even thought we could take advantage of the Charles River and conduct the experiment in its waters! Regardless, we’re sure to have an excellent demonstration on sustainability and are already well on our way to it. This coming Monday, April 6, we will be running our first test of the experiment and look forward to preparing for a class presentation later this April.

Demand Response is a key condition of the sustainable-economical dichotomy. As explained by energy.gov, “Demand response provides an opportunity for consumers to play a significant role in the operation of the electric grid.” Needless to say, this allows the end-users of various electricity modes to play a significant role in its market value; consumers can alter their electricity usage based on several variables. For example, by reducing usage during peak periods, time-based rates, real-time pricing, and load control variables can serve as weights on wholesale market prices.

Beyond the economic benefits is, more importantly, the hand-in-hand potential for sustainability. Peak load sensors are able to interpret power usage levels and reduce or divert that usage in the most strategic method possible. This reduces the chance for inefficiency and overloading the power grid. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) best shows the well-rounded benefits with its study entitled A Framework For Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Demand Response:

 

Benefit	Participant	RIM	PAC	TRC	Societal
Avoided Capacity Costs	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Avoided Energy Costs	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Avoided Transmission & Distribution Costs	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Avoided Ancillary Service Costs	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Revenues from Wholesale DR Programs	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—
Market Price Suppression Effects	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—
Avoided Environmental Compliance Costs	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Avoided Environmental Externalities	—	—	—	—	Yes
Participant Bill Savings	Yes	—	—	—	—
Financial Incentive to Participant	Yes	—	—	—	—
Tax Credits	Yes	—	—	Yes	—
Other Benefits (e.g., market competitiveness, reduced price volatility, improved reliability)	depends	depends	depends	depends	depends

 

No wonder one state has beaten the rest of the country to this measure. California, well known for its collective, proactive political culture on social matters, has become the national leader on energy storage. Thanks in large part to the Self Generation Incentive Program, distributive energy processes are entering the normative business flow of the West Coast. “Because many commercial and industrial customers are subject to demand charges that cost them more during peak hours, many companies see an opportunity in using storage to reduce demand charge,” says Gavin Bade of utilitydive.com. It is all but certain such an initiative would have never become policy without the growing success of Demand Response in the journey toward efficient energy use. Even though it is indirectly related, it still certainly shows how valuable DR can be in full implementation.

Furthermore, as the reader can see, despite the significant number of positive attributes there is still room for improvement. Three out of four test groups found DR to hold market price suppression– an amazing feat, especially compared with its underwhelming alternatives. By targeting that last 1/4–the societal test group– it will only further increase the reduction of price volatility, mitigation of collective market power, and enhancement of sustainability. Demand Response will prove a vital cog for efficiency moving forward.

 

http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid/demand-response

http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/demand-response-california.pdf

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/whats-next-in-the-energy-storage-boom-and-what-utilities-need-to-know/382465/

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/demand-response/dr-potential/napdr-cost-effectiveness.pdf

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/DistGen/sgip/