As spaghetti is a food consisting of mostly carbohydrates, I would expect it to burn quite quickly, thus producing a very small amount of energy.
I would predict that the peanut would be the best source of energy for the expedition, because its high fat content produces slow burning/long lasting energy. The peanuts nutritional qualities will undoubtedly be of benefit to the explorers, as they will need to keep energy levels high and for a long period of time.
Equipment list
- Bunsen burner
- Stand and clamp
- Heat resistant mat
- Thermometer
- Test tube
- Mounted needle
- Tweezers
- Spaghetti
- Peanut
- Water
- Protective goggles
Health and safety issues
As with all laboratory-based experiments, the area in which the experiment will take place must remain safe at all times. Bags should be stored away from walkways, unused chairs placed under desks, flammable materials must be placed out of the vicinity of Bunsen burners, and safety goggles must be worn at all times.
Variables
Each food type will undergo three separate tests in an effort to obtain accurate results. To ensure each test is carried out fairly, the following variables have been identified and where possible will be remain constant:
- Distance between the flame and the test tube
- Amount of water to be heated (will always be 20ml)
- Thickness of the test tube glass (the same tube will be used for each experiment)
- Mass of each food type (will remain the same in each set of experiments)
Method
- Put on safety goggles
- Set up the equipment in a manner that will allow a safe and successful experiment (see fig 1)
- Measure the weight of 1 peanut and then 1 piece of spaghetti. (break off/shorten the length of the spaghetti until it's weight is the same as that of the peanut) Record the findings
- Carefully measure 20ml of water and pour into a test tube
- Insert thermometer into the test tube and record the temperature of the water
- Attach test tube to clamp
- Ignite the Bunsen burner, and if conducting experiment with a peanut, briefly hold the mounted needle above the flame (this will make it easier to skewer the peanut)
- Pick up the food and place it into the Bunsen flame. When it starts to burn, immediately place it under the test tube
If experimenting with a peanut, ensure it is carefully fixed on the mounted needle
If experimenting with spaghetti, use the tweezers to hold the food
- Whilst under the test tube, try to keep the peanut at an unchanged distance
- When the food stops burning check and make sure the peanut will not re-light
- Stir the water using the thermometer and record the temperature
- Conduct a total of three identical experiments per food type and record your results in a table
Tests are to be conducted in pairs in order to gain the specific values relating to foods with the same mass.
Results
I observed that although the peanut took several seconds to catch fire, when it did, it created a constant flame which burned rather strongly and for quite some time. The spaghetti however, seemed to burn like a taper. It caught fire almost immediately and the flame ran up the length of the food and extinguished as soon as it reached the end.
Table 1 shows the results of the first experiment:
Table 1
Table 2
(Results of 2nd experiment)
Table 3
(Results of 3rd experiment)
Table 4
(Overall results)
From the results recorded in tables 1, 2 and 3, it is clear to see that the greater the foods mass, the greater the amount of energy the food will produce*
The energy content of each product is obtained through the following calculation:
X X =
To take into account the unavoidable variable issues, such as the product mass and the differing start temperatures, each food type underwent a total of three separate tests. The results seen above in Table 4 are based on an average reading.
* Note inconsistency between results in test 2 and test 3 (spaghetti). See test evaluation for explanation
Analysis
Conclusion I
During the experiment it was evident that the spaghetti burned quicker and brighter than the peanut. As spaghetti is made up of mostly carbohydrates, this supports what I understand about the nutrient being a source that can be broken down and used to give immediate energy.
From the results of the experiment, it is clear that the peanut will provide a greater amount of energy and for a longer period. The peanut took several seconds to successfully ignite however, when it did, the flame burned for a long time and at a steady rate. As fat is one of the main nutritional attributes relating to the peanuts make-up (see Nutritional information table), the findings support what I understand about fat being a good source of slow burning/stored energy.
As the explorers will venture into extremely cold conditions, the peanuts fat content will also prove beneficial where body insulation is concerned.
Conclusion II
In addition to my findings, I feel we must also explore the practicalities relating to the different food types and the impact they could have on the expedition.
To ease the explorer's burden where luggage is concerned, we will assume that ice can be melted down and used as drinking/cooking water. The water obtained from the ice will need to be boiled to rid it from impurities prior to consumption. This will require additional fuel, cooking equipment and time; therefore extra time will have to be added to the expedition to allow for food preparation.
Peanuts however would pose as a far more convenient source of nutrition. The mass of the peanut, compared to that of spaghetti, is by far smaller when look at the nutrients needed for the expedition. For example:
If an explorer requires 53g of fat to be used as slow burning energy to travel 1km, then he would need to consume 100g of peanuts. However, should he require the same amount of slow burning energy from spaghetti, approximately 2800g will need to be consumed.
Test Evaluation
Based on the equipment that was made available, I feel that the results of the experiment where fair, but only as I was experimenting with two separate sources of energy, which allowed me to make comparisons. However if there was a requirement to conduct a similar test, where accurate results were needed from a specific food type, conditions would have to be different.
Possible changes:
- The test was conducted in a lab that had windows open to outside elements. This created a breeze that effected the consistency of the flame as well as its overall life span.
If we look at the results of experiment 2 and 3 (spaghetti) possible proof can be found in relation to the above point:
(Example of Inconsistency)
- Energy was also lost during the time it took to transfer the food from the Bunsen to the test tube. Had the experiment been conducted in a sealed unit the food could have been ignited in a position directly under the water thus reducing the amount of lost energy.
- The test tube should have been insulated so heat could not escape through its walls and so the room temperature could not effect the temperature of the water.
- The top of the test tube was too large, which again allows for heat loss in the air and exposes the water to outside elements.
If I were conducting the experiment again, I would use a glass container with a thin walled flat base in preference to the test tube. This would allow the flame to burn evenly across the base, thus reducing the amount of energy lost in the air. The food would also be held in a secure position with the use of an additional clamp and stand. This will prevent the movement of the flame throughout the experiment and will ensure it remains the same distance from the cylinder.
The human body gives better output when supplied with a good balance of nutrients. In an ideal world both food sources would be made available to the explorers to allow them to take benefit from each of the foods attributes.
To extend this experiment I would look into the suitability of a wider variety of food types. This would involve conducting the same tests in an effort to determine what other foods offer equal or better qualities for an expedition of this kind.
