Results The temperatures for heating and cooling the wood and resin blocks were plotted against

time, as shown in the two figures below. In the two procedures, the time it takes for the materials to reach steady-state is inconclusive about their conductivity and diffusivity. In the heating procedure, the resin reaches steady-state much faster than that of the wood block. In the cooling procedure, however, the wooden block reached steady state a little faster compared to the resin block. The experimenters stopped taking-in temperature readings if no temperature change was observed after 20 data points. That is, if there were no temperature changes after 100 seconds. The cooling process took much more time compared to the heating process, despite the two graphs looking quite similar to each other.
65 60 55 Temperature (C) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 0 500 1000 Time(s) 1500 Resin Heating Wood Heating

Figure 1a. Temperature versus time plot for heating.

35 30 Temperature (C) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1000 2000 Time (s) 3000 Resin Cooling Wood Cooling

Figure 1b. Temperature versus time plot for cooling.

Table 1. Final Values for Heating and Cooling proccesses Heating medium 60C Time, s Resin 1280 Wood 1555 final temp, C 60 58.5 Cooling medium Resin Wood 1.1 C Time, s 3485 3345 final temp, C 2.2 2.6

The final values of temperature and time after steady-state has been achieved have been tabulated above. Thermal equilibrium has been achieved in the heating of the blocks, with both surface and probe temperatures reaching 60C. Meanwhile, thermal equilibrium for the cooling of the blocks has not been achieved; or rather, steady-state has not been achieved at all. The temperature decrease rate might have been very-very small such that a long time is required to actually reach thermal equilibrium. For the cooling of the cubes, a possible source of error was that the cube was not totally immersed in the cooling medium, which was ice. Since the medium was of different small solids, the ice bath or chamber had voids it. These voids were filled with air, which was not in thermal equilibrium with the ice. The surfaces of the cubes were then in contact with two media, which were of different temperatures. Different temperature gradients are therefore present, from the center of the cube to its surfaces. The expected temperature of the cube will be different from that of the temperature of the ice blocks. In contact with air

In contact with ice Figure 2. The cube surface which is in contact with two media. In the calculations for thermal diffusivity, it was assumed that conduction was the dominant form of heat transfer. It should be noted that convection also takes place, because of the presence of hot water and cool air as media. Convection has been neglected in the calculation procedures and will contribute to error, as the calculated thermal diffusivities will be different from that of literature values. Convection has been neglected for ease of calculation. Calculations for thermal diffusivities will not directly use the temperature versus time plots, but two dimensionless quantities, Y, and the Fourier Number or dimensionless time. The quantities are defined in the equations below:

(1)

(2)

The actual lengths of the cubes were converted to a characteristic length, which is the ratio of the volume to the surface area. Plotting the logarithm of Y versus the dimensionless number will give a linear plot, and will be compared to a similar plot, called the Williamson-Adams Chart to solve for the diffusivity, .

Figure 3. The Williamson-Adams Chart. The graphs below show the linearized plots Y versus Fo.

Resin Heating
0.5 0 -0.5 log Y -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 Fo y = -0.00000008x - 0.06456236 R = 0.93285362 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000

Figure 4a. Y versus Fo plot for resin heating.

Resin Cooling
0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 log Y -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 y = -0.00000002x - 0.07156368 R = 0.99870383 Fo 0 20000000 40000000 60000000 80000000

Figure 4b. Y versus Fo plot for resin cooling

Wood Heating
0 -0.2 0 -0.4 -0.6 log Y -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 Fo 10000000 20000000 30000000 40000000

y = -0.00000005x - 0.01001831 R = 0.98428994

Figure 4c. Y versus Fo plot for wood heating.

Wood Cooling
0 -0.2 -0.4 log Y -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 Fo 0 20000000 40000000 60000000 80000000

y = -0.00000002x - 0.01678701 R = 0.99826706

Figure 4d. Y versus Fo plot for wood cooling. Since the two plots are similar to each other, a ratio of their respective slopes will give the thermal diffusivities of each material.

From the Williamson-Adams Chart: ( Using the experimental data: ( Dividing the two equations: ) )

The solution requires a graphical method, since no digital version with values for the Williamson-Adams chart is available. The slope, which is rise-over-run is taken from the semi-logarithmic chart; and was found to be -3.537. Using a graphical method presents a significant amount of error since it does not only involve the uncertainties of the graphing instruments, but also the experimenters judgment.

W-A slope resin wood

Table 2. Calculated Diffusivities based from slopes of graphs -3.537 Heating slope -1.13216E-07 -4.88115E-08 , m2/s 3.201E-08 1.38E-08 Cooling slope -2.93638E-08 -1.99121E-08 , m2/s 5.6296E-09 5.63E-09

Table 3. Experimental and Theoretical Values of Diffusivities heating , m2/s cooling , m2/s resin wood exptl theo %error exptl theo %error 3.2E-08 1.07E-08 199.1506049 5.62964E-09 1.07E-08 47.3865 1.38E-08 1.42E-07 90.28150966 5.63E-09 1.42E-07 96.03546

Conclusion Based from the theoretical values given by the project proponents, the calculated diffusivities are very far from those of the expected values. The %errors ranges from 47% to as much as 200%. These very large errors may be attributed to calculation procedures, or the selection of theoretical values for the materials involved. The type of wood and resin was not specified in the experiment. While this method is probable way of determining diffusivities and conductivities, great caution must be taken in specifying crucial parameters. Given that the diffusivities has now been calculated, one can obtain the thermal conductivities of the materials. This is beyond the scope of the experiment, and the data lacks as well. The thermal conductivity is acquired by multiplying the diffusivity by the substances density and isobaric heat capacity. Such knowledge of the conductivity will allow experimenters to judge whether convection plays a major role in heat transfer. If the substance has high conductivity, then convection cannot be neglected. Recommendations Using computer-connected thermocouples will help produce a more accurate temperature versus time graph (ie., Vernier LabPro) and a much more efficient way of producing the said plots. It will be helpful to specify what type of wood and from what plant the resin came from since the data obtained here will be of no use if one is to compare to literature values without exactly knowing the type of wood and resin used. It will also be helpful to determine what type of adhesive was used in sealing the probe in the wood block. This may cause a certain degree of error since it was observed that majority of the top surface of the woodblock was covered with adhesive. The adhesive has different thermal properties from that of wood. The water used in the hot bath must be clean/distilled since impurities obstruct the sensor of the heating machine when scaling occurs. A different actual hot bath temperature may be involved. Adding cold water to the ice bath reduces the temperature gradient between the two media, thus allowing a more uniform temperature throughout the cooling medium. Liquid water has better thermal conductivity than air.

References
Foust, A., Wenzel, L., Clump, C., Maus, L., & Andersen, B. (1980). Principles of Unit Operations, 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Geankoplis, C. J. (2003). Principles of Transport Processes and Separation Processes, 4th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Maloney, J. (2008). Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 8th Ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.