Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A

Introduction
The element zirconiums nomenclature is Zr, its the 40th element in the periodic
table of elements, and has an atomic weight of 91.224 amu, atomic mass unit
(Gagnon). Zirconium is a solid metal that is 6.52 g/cm 3. Zirconium in its pure form is
difficult to obtain as it is usually bonded with other elements in minerals when initially
mined. It is used in the production of high-performance valves and pumps used in
transporting water due to its corrosion resistance; it is also used in jewelry when bonded
with SiO4 to form zircon, which is a clear gem that can be made to look like diamond
(Gagnon). These experiments were designed to determine whether or not two metal
rods of an unknown metal were made from zirconium like the two metal rods known to
be of zirconium. The decision of what the unknown metal rods were made out of was
determined through statistics drawn from the data of two experiments. These
experiments were designed to aid in finding the specific heat and linear thermal
expansion of all the rods.
Specific heat, an intensive property, is the amount of energy required to raise the
temperature of a substance by a single Kelvin or degree Celsius. Specific heat is
measured in Joules over grams multiplied by degrees Celsius or Kelvin. This can be
used to determine if the unknown metals are in fact made from zirconium because
different substances have unique specific heats. Thus if the unknown metal rods are
found to have a different specific heat then the zirconium rods, it is highly likely that the
unknown metal rods are not of zirconium metal. The specific heat was found and was
tested through using calorimeters to measure the loss of heat over a period of five

Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A
minutes for all of the metal rods. This is similar to another intensive property dubbed
linear thermal expansion.
Linear thermal expansion is an intensive property like specific heat, but this
property is the divergence of the molecules based on the absorption of heat or energy.
Linear thermal expansion, commonly referred to as the alpha coefficient, is measured in
millimeters for this experiment. The property can be used to the advantage of the
researchers since linear thermal expansion works similarly to specific heat, such as
metals dont possess the same alpha coefficient as other metals. The alpha coefficient
can be found with the assistance of the linear thermal expansion jigs that measures the
change in rods length to the nearest hundredth millimeter while the rod cools.

Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A
Review of Literature
The experiment testing linear thermal expansion is purposeful in the sense that it
determines designated temperatures at which materials expand or contrast. Linear
Thermal expansion is rather important in industrial design and mechanisms. Today,
Linear Thermal Expansion is taken into account when building or designing a structure,
be it a side walk, a bridge, or even a house. If linear thermal expansion was not taken
into account when building these structures, during hot summers some of the parts
could expand, and during cold winters parts of these structures could contract,
damaging its parts and wearing them down, making them a danger to the occupants.
Linear Thermal Expansion is calculated in (C), using the equation:
L= L0 T

In this equation, L, represents the change in Linear Thermal Expansion in

Celsius(C). This variable or value is set equal to alpha, , times the initial linear length
of the object in centimeters (mm), L0, multiplied by the change in temperature in
Celsius(C), T, or the final temperature minus the initial temperature. The value
achieved through this equation aids in the development of a new material or separate
parts to assist or replace the existing material and strengthen a build.
This expansion and contraction occurs on an atomic level when heat is added or
removed from the material physically. For example a cold winter wind causes a metal
rod to lose heat and in doing so, the atoms of the metal begin to move closer and
slower. The metal may become less pliable and shrink slightly. The opposite happens
3

Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A
on a hot day when a metal rod gains heat, causing its atoms to move more quickly and
spread out. This causes the metal rod to become more pliable and expand slightly.
These expansions and contractions may be small and go unnoticed; over time the
constant bombardment of conditions will damage the metal or other material causing it
to become weak and brittle (223 Clemson University. Physics Lab: Linear Thermal
Expansion).
Two experiments were found for comprehension and ideal comparison to the
experiment to be conducted with Linear Thermal Expansion. The first experiment,
written by Donald E. Simanek, describes a design in which steam is used to heat a
metal rod. The procedure is incased in an insulated sleeve, and has a thermometer
measuring the temperature of the rod as it rises. An electrical sensor measures the
length of the expansion of the rod. Relating this to our experiment in the fact that he
uses a gaseous form of water, or H2O, to transfer heat to the metal rod, both measuring
the temperature change and change in length of the rod to calculate the Linear Thermal
expansion of the metal.
In another experiment, Tong Wa Chao tests the Thermal Expansion of printed
wiring board components. As in this experiment he also uses an insulated environment
to measure the heat transfer of the gaseous form of H2O to the rod and electronic
sensors to determine the increase in the length of the components. Although he is not
testing specifically for a metal rod he is using a similar set up to that of Simaneks
experiment and measuring the same values to solve for Thermal expansion.

Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A
Part of the purpose for this experiment is to find the specific heat of known and
unknown metal rods. Specific heat is used in engineering; an excellent example of
specific heat being used in engineering is the creation of cooking equipment such as
pots and pans. In the design and construction of cooking equipment, specific heat is
very important to consider, since the material of a pan or pot must conduct heat in a
precise and timely fashion. If a pot gathers to much heat to quickly, the food will burn,
but if said pot doesnt heat up quick enough, the food wont cook properly. This is why
specific heat is an important property to observe and find in any material.
Specific heat is the energy required to heat a specific substance by a certain
temperature. The temperature that is used most commonly is one degree Celsius or
Kelvin. There are several variables needed first to find the specific heat. These variables
are: the heat added to the substance (Q), the initial temperature of the substance (t i),
the final temperature of the substance (tf), and the mass of the substance (m). The
formula below finds the specific heat (c) of the substance in the unit Joules/
(grams*Kelvin).
Q
=c
m ( t f t i )

The units for the other variables are Joules for the heat, Kelvin or Degrees
Celsius for temperature, and grams for mass.
Specific heat is an intensive extensive property, meaning that the specific heat of
a substance doesnt depend on how much there is of that substance. It is a property
that measures how much energy it takes to have a group of molecules or atoms
5

Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A
increase their temperature. What is happening is the energy is causing the atoms or
molecules to vibrate steadily and transfer that energy into heat, which changes the
temperature of the substance that those atoms or molecules are composed of.
Two experiments were discovered to be working with specific heat such as the
experiment soon to be conducted. The first experiment was performed by J.H. Young
and T.B. Whitaker. Their experiment involved finding the specific heat of peanuts. The
procedure involved them drying out peanuts and then finding the heat gained to a
certain amount of peanuts from about 5 Kelvin change. This could be useful as to help
us find the heat gained from a metal rod in a 5 Kelvin range.
The other experiment was conducted by K. Muthamizhi, P. Kalaichelvi, A.
Arunagiri, and A. Rudhra. Their experiment was to find the specific heat of Xanthan gum
for food production and biological materials. In their experiment they mainly used a
Joules calorimeter to find the specific heat. Their diagram of the Joules calorimeter
could be used as a basis when designing an excellent calorimeter.

Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A
Problem Statement
Problem:
The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the metal of a given rod was
Zirconium by using and comparing the intensive properties of specific heat and linear
thermal expansion for both metals.
Hypothesis:
If the value of specific heat is within 4.6 percent error of the actual value of
zirconium and linear thermal expansion is within 3.5 percent error of the actual value of
zirconium then the metal will be correctly determined as Zirconium.
Data Measured:
To find the linear thermal expansion, a calorimeter was used to measure the
expansion, change in length, of the metal rod in millimeters when heat was added to its
internal environment. The change in temperature was measured in degrees Celsius, C,
based on the transfer of heat from source to source. The coefficient of linear thermal
expansion, , can be measured in 1/C or C-1 and compared to the value obtained for
the other rod. To find the specific heat of the unknown metal, the specific heat of water,
4.184 J/g C, and specific heat of the unknown metal in joules per gram Celsius, J/g C,
were used along with the mass of the water in milliliters, ml, and the by change in
temperature of the water. A Correction factor was not multiplied into the obtained value
because it had no effect on the data. The value of the unknown metal rod in grams, g,
was used to determine if the metal was Zirconium based on comparison with the actual
value of the known zirconium rod.

Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A
Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design
Materials:
Thermometer (0.1oC)
Ohaus GA200 Digital Scale (0.0001g)
Lab Quest
50ml Graduated Cylinder
(2) Linear Thermal Expansion Jig
(0.01mm)
Fan

(2) Tongs
(2) Zirconium Rods
(2) Unknown Metal Rods
Temperature Probe (0.1oC)
Loaf Pan
Hot Plate
Ti-Nspire Calculator
Caliper (0.01mm)
Procedure:

Uphold Safety Precautions: Wear goggles, gloves, and the appropriate attire.
1. Randomize 15 trials using the Ti-Nspire for the unknown metal rod and 15 trials
for the Zirconium rods to eliminate biased and ensure quality data.
2. Fill a loaf pan with 500ml of water and heat it on setting 10 of the hot plate until it
reaches boiling point, 100 oC.
3. Measure out the initial length of the metal rod in mm using the caliper and record
in the data table.
4. Once the loaf pan water is at a boil (100 oC), carefully place the metal rod into the
water and wait 5 minutes for the rod to reach equilibrium in temperature before
recording the temperature in degrees Celsius for the initial temperature.
5. Place the Metal rod on the thermal expansion jig and mark the scale where the
dial sits. Record the mark in mm for the initial length. Be careful to not move the
scale as it is very sensitive.
6. Fan the metal rod in the thermal expansion jig for 5 minutes before recording the
number of tick marks the jig moved from the initial mark for the change in length
in mm.
7. Calculate the Change in length of the metal rod (L) and then the Alpha
Coefficient based on the data collected.
8. Compare the obtained Alpha Coefficient to the true value of linear thermal
expansion for Zirconium to calculate a percent error.
9. Repeat Steps 2 through 10 for the remaining rods (two trials can be run at once
when the procedure becomes routine)

Diagram:
8

Andrzejewski-Maletski 10A

Hot

Loaf Pan

Fan

Known and Unknown Rods

Tongs

Thermal expansion Jigs

(0.01mm)

Temperature probe (0.1oC)

Caliper (0.01mm)

Figure 1. Diagram of Linear Thermal Expansion Materials

Figure 1 shows the materials for the linear thermal expansion experiment. Shown
above are two thermal expansion jigs, a fan, two known and two unknown metal rods,
two pairs of tongs, a temperature probe, a caliper, a hot plate, and loaf pan.

Specific Heat Experimental Design

Materials:
(2) Tongs
(2) Zirconium Rods
(2) Unknown Metal Rods
(4) Calorimeters
Temperature Probe (0.1oC)
(4) Thermometer Attachment (0.1oC)
Loaf Pan

Hot Plate
Ti-Nspire Calculator
Thermometer (0.1oC)
Ohaus GA200 Digital Scale (0.0001g)
Lab Quest
50ml Graduated Cylinder

Procedures:
Uphold Safety Precautions: Wear goggles, gloves and the appropriate attire.
1. Randomize trials using the Ti-Nspire Calculator to ensure quality data, assigning
15 trials for the two Zirconium rods and 15 trials for two Unknown metal rods.
2. Set the Lab Quest to time based mode and set the duration to 300 seconds
recording data every second.
3. Mass the rod being tested.
4. Heat up the loaf pan with 500 ml of water on hot plate. (As necessary, add water
when it becomes low.)
5. Wait for the water to reach 100 Co and then place the unknown metal rod in the
water for 5 minutes.
6. Fill the calorimeter with 25 ml of room temperature water and begin the Lab
Quest with thermometer attachment to record its temperature, while waiting for
the metal rod to heat up.
7. Place the hot metal rod into the calorimeter with the tongs. Be sure to
continuously stir the calorimeter.
8. After the Lab Quest has finished running the trials assume the metal rod and
water have reached the same temperature and record the final temperature as
the equilibrium temperature in degrees Celsius.
9. Compute the specific heat of the rod in J/gCo based on the data recorded during
the experiment.
10. Compare the specific heat values obtained in the experiment to the actual
specific heat values of zirconium to find a percent error.
11. Repeat steps 2 through 11 for the remaining metal rods, rotating the calorimeters
amongst the tested rods. (Multiple rods may be tested as the procedure becomes
routine.)

Diagram:

Loaf
Pan

Calorimeters

Hot Plate
50 ml Graduated Cylinder

Known and Unknown Rods

Thermometer Attachment (0.1 Co)

Tongs
Lab Quest
Temperature Probe (0.1 Co)
Figure 1. Materials of Specific Heat Experiment
Figure 1 shows the materials for the specific heat experiment. Shown above are
two known and two unknown metal rods, a set of tongs, a hot plate, a 50 ml graduated
cylinder, Lab Quest with thermometer attachment, temperature probe, four calorimeters,
and a loaf pan.

Data and Observations

Table 1. Specific Heat Table for the Known Rods

Table 1 shows the data collected during the specific heat experiment for the
known zirconium rods. The variables gathered were the initial temperature of both the
rod and water of the calorimeter, equilibrium temperature in the calorimeter after putting
the rod in it, the change in temperature experienced by the known rod and water, the
mass of the known rod and water, then the calculated specific heat of the material of
that known zirconium rod. These variables were recorded for both zirconium rods A and
B, over multiple trials.

Table 2. Specific Heat Table for the Unknown Rods

Table 2 contains the data gathered from the specific heat trials done on the
unknown metal rods. Variables used in the collection of the data include: the initial
temperatures of the unknown metal rod and water, the equilibrium temperature reached
at the end of the trial, the degrees the temperature of the unknown metal rod and water
changed, the mass of the unknown metal rod and of the water inside the calorimeter,
then finally the specific heat of the unknown metal rod calculated from the previous
variables. These variables were collected in each of the trials involving the unknown
metal rods.

Table 3. Linear Thermal Expansion Table for the Known Rods

Table 3 displays the data collected during the linear thermal expansion
experiment for the known zirconium rods. The variables recorded were the change in
length of the rod, the initial length of the rod, the initial temperature of the rod, the final
temperature of the rod, and the alpha coefficient of the rod calculated with the previous
variables.

Table 4. Linear Thermal Expansion Table for the Unknown Rods

Table 4 shows data gathered during the trials for the linear thermal expansion in
regards to the unknown metal rods. The change in length of the unknown metal rods,
the measured initial length for the unknown metal rods, and the initial and final
temperature of the unknown metal rods were all variables documented. The alpha
coefficient of the unknown metal rod is calculated utilizing the listed variables.

Table 9. Specific Heat Experiment Observation Table for the Known Rods

Table 9 displays the notes the researchers recorded when the trials for the known
zirconium rods of the specific heat experiment were being completed.

Table 10. Specific Heat Experiment Observation Table for the Unknown Rods

Table 10 above lists the various observations noted by the researchers during the
completing of the unknown metal rod trials of the specific heat experiment.

Table 11. Linear Thermal Expansion Observation Table for the Known Rods

Table 11 bears the notes the researchers recorded whilst conducting the linear
thermal expansion experiment for the known zirconium rods.

Table 12. Linear Thermal Expansion Observation Table for the Unknown Rods

Table 12 shows the notes taken by researchers during the trials for the unknown
metal rods of the linear thermal expansion experiment.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

In the specific heat experiment, trials were conducted using four calorimeters to
obtain the value for specific heat of an unknown metal compared to a known metal and
actual value. The rods were tested in groups of four, two known and two unknown, and
the mass, temperature change, and equilibrium temperature were collected then used
to find specific heat according to the modified Q=SMT equation (Displayed in Appendix
X).
The meaning of the p value in this experiment is equal to that of the percent
chance of obtaining the values collected by pure chance alone under the null
hypothesis.
Null Hypothesis:

1 = 2

Alternate Hypothesis:
1 2
The null hypothesis states that the known and unknown metal rods are of the
same metal, whilst the alternative hypothesis states that the known and unknown metal
rods are not of the same metal.

Q1=0.1676

Q3=0.2449

0.1025

0.3415

M=0.1983

Q1=0.2255
0.0465

Q3=0.3427

0.1527

0.4874

M=0.3293

Figure 1. Box Plots of Specific Heat Trials

J/gCo
In Figure 1, the box plot of the specific heat values shows the visual difference
between the known and unknown metal rods along with the upper and lower quartile

ranges. There is one outlier on the unknown metal rod box plot lying at 0.0465 J/g oC.
The range of values for the known metal rods is much shorter than the unknown,
spreading from 0.1025 to 0.3415 J/goC, and the known values are concentrated more
within range of the true value of 0.270 J/g oC. The unknown metal values however,
although they are very spread, have a median value much closer to the true value.

Figure 2. Normal Probability Plot for the Known Metal Rods for Specific Heat
In Figure 2, the data collected for the known metal rods has been plotted to test
its normality. Based on the observation of the position of the points in relativity to the
plotted line, it can be seen that the data appears to be slightly irregular, however it
appears more normal then the data collected for the unknown metal rods.

Figure 3. Normal Probability Plot for the Unknown Metal Rods for Specific Heat
In Figure 3, the data collected for the unknown metal rods has been plotted to
test its normality. As the points are not positioned close to the plotted line and very few
touch the line, it can be seen that the data appears to be irregular.

Figure 4. Two-Sample t Test for Specific Heat

In Figure 4, with the collected data for the known and unknown rods, a statistical
analysis was acquired through a two-sample t test. A t test was used as the data was
slightly normal in most cases and 15 trials were collected for each type of rod, known

and unknown. Although the data was not entirely normal, there were a total of 30 trials
and in order to accurately test the values a two-sample t test had to be used.

Figure 5. Standard Deviation Plot of Two-Sample t Test for Specific Heat Trials
In Figure 5, in the plot of the p-value, the p value was found to be 0.0092 and as
this is less than the alpha value of .1, the data in this experiment has been deemed as
not statistically significant.
Reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. There is
evidence to suggest this based on the fact that the p value of 0.0492 is less than the
alpha level of 0.1. Given the null hypothesis is true there is a 0.92% chance of getting
results this extreme by chance alone.

Table 1. Percent Error Tables for Specific Heat

In Table 1, based on
the percent error
averages of the
known and unknown
metal rods, it can be
inferred that because
the value for the
percent error of the
unknown metal rod is
approximately 33.5% away from the known percent error that these metals do not have
the same intensive properties for specific heat. The values in the table fluctuate as there

was flaw in procedural methods and data collection along with the implication and
calculation of small values.
In the linear thermal expansion experiment, trials were conducted using two
thermal expansion jigs to test the change in length of an unknown metal to a known
metal and an actual value. Data was collected based on the number of tick marks the jig
moved after the heated rod had contracted in it. The initial length, change in length,
initial and final temperatures were collected and plugged into the alpha equation
(Displayed in Appendix X) to be compared to the known metal rods and actual value.
The purpose of the p-value in the experiment is equivalent to the chance of
obtaining the values that had been collected by pure chance alone in percentage form.
Null Hypothesis:
1 = 2
Alternate Hypothesis:
1 2
The null hypothesis says that the unknown and known rods are the same metal,
while the alternative hypothesis states the exact opposite and says the known and
unknown rods are not made of the same metal.

Q1=4.619 x 10-6

Q3=5.212 x 10-6

4.17 x 10-6

7.042 x 10-6

5.78 x 10-6

M=4.854 x 10-6

Q1=5.239 x 10-6
4.267 x 10-6

Q3=6.296 x 10-6
6.693 x 10-6

M=5.364 x 10-6

Figure 6. Box Plots of Linear Thermal Expansion Trials

In Figure 6, the box plot of the linear thermal expansion data displays the
difference in the data between the unknown and known rods in a visual presentation.

There is a single outlier in the known rod box plot at 7.042 x 10 -6. The range of values
for the unknown boxplot is much larger than that of the known box plot which has values
more concentrated to the true value of 5.5 x 10 -6. The unknown metal values however,
although they are very spread, have a median value extremely close to the true value.

Figure 7. Normal Probability Plot for the Known Metal Rods for Linear Thermal
Expansion
In Figure 7, the data collected for the known metal rods has been plotted to put
its normality to the test. Based on the observation of the position of the points in
relativity to the plotted line, it can be seen that the data appears to be irregular. However
the data appears to be more normal then the data collected from the trials on the
unknown metal rods.

Figure 8. Normal Probability Plot for the Unknown Metal Rods for Linear Thermal
Expansion
In Figure 8, the data collected for the unknown metal rods has been plotted to
test its normality. As the points are not positioned relatively close to the plotted line, it
can be seen the data seems to be irregular.

Figure 9. Two-Sample t Test for Linear Thermal Expansion

In Figure 9, the data gathered from the unknown and known rods was used to
create a statistical analysis through a two-sample t test. A t test was chosen since there
are 15 for both the known and unknown rods, making the data collected above 30 trials.

Although the data was not normal a two-sample t test was used because there were a
total of 30 trials, which is too large to be tested accurately with a two-sample z test.

Figure 10. Standard Deviation Plot of Two-Sample t Test for Linear Thermal Expansion
Trials
In Figure 10, using the normal probability plot the p-value was discovered to be
0.028041. The data is considered to be not statistically significant due to the p-value
being less than the alpha value of 0.1.
Reject the null hypothesis for the alternative hypothesis. Theres evidence to
suggest this based on the fact that the p-value of 0.028 is less than the alpha value of
0.1. Given the null hypothesis is true there is a 2.8% chance of getting results this
extreme by chance alone.

Table 2. Percent Error Tables for Linear Thermal Expansion Data

In Table 2, utilizing the averages of the unknown and known metal rods, it is
possible to infer that because the value for the percent error of the unknown metal rod is
approximately 9.72% away from the known metal rods percent error the rods have
similar heat conductive properties, however this could also be caused by the size ratio
of the rods. There was flaw in the procedural conduction and design. Small numbers

could have influenced the data drastically and the slightest error in calculation or record
could have affected the datas consistency.
A few weaknesses in design include calorimeter calibration, as a correction factor
was not included because it had little impact on the values of the known and unknown
specific heats. The fragility of the jigs played an important role as the slightest
movement could have a large impact on the data. Also the consistency of the data
collection had an impact as the room temperature was not always constant and the
speed at which the rods heated and cooled was constantly under change by natural
occurrences. Working with small numbers could also be considered a weakness as the
data collected to the smallest decimal value could change an average or percent error
by more than double its tested value.

Conclusion
The problem statement is to determine a given rod was made of zirconium by
utilizing and comparing the intensive properties of specific heat and linear thermal
expansion for both metals. The hypothesis for this problem statement, by measuring the
specific heat and linear thermal expansion of the metals if the value of specific heat is
within 4.6 percent error of the actual value and linear thermal expansion is within 3.5
percent error of the actual value the metal will be correctly determined as zirconium,

was rejected. It was rejected with the aid of statistical t tests, examination and
properties of the rods themselves, as well as the ranges of data between the known
zirconium rods and unknown metal rods. The data supports the rejection of the
hypothesis due to the difference in the specific heat value between the known zirconium
and unknown metal rods, meaning the unknown metal rods required more heat than
known zirconium rods for their molecules to increase the movement speed of the
molecule by a Kelvin or Degree Celsius worth. This is similar to the linear thermal
expansion as the molecules of the unknown metal rod move farther apart with a specific
amount of energy than the known zirconium rods. The values are extremely small and
are easily swayed when issues arise.
Both of the experiments were significantly flawed in various ways. In the
experiment, a linear thermal expansion jig was used to measure change in length of the
pairs of rods in millimeters, the jig itself was constructed of wood and the reading could
be quite easily swayed by the slightest movement. This is an issue since the numbers
calculated were very minute, thus this inaccurate reading could lead to radically altered
results in the calculation process. The calorimeters suffered a flaw as well, as they were
not completely isolated systems, affecting the data recorded in the same way the jig had
affected the data. Another issue with the experiment was the difference in the size of the
rods. The known zirconium rods were much smaller in size to that of the unknown metal
rods. This led to the issue that the known zirconium rods could heat up quicker or
become hotter than the unknown metal rods in the loaf pan. This could give the known
zirconium rods a higher temperature, because the metal rods themselves were never
measured, only the water. It was an assumption that the water and metal rods were at

an equal temperature in the loaf pan. The correction factor was removed as it had little
to no substantial effect on the collected data. There were a range of issues with the
experiment that could be fixed in a number of ways.
There are always multiple ways to make the experiment better and with less
error. The equipment used in the experiment, such as the jig and calorimeters, could be
replaced by more dependable equipment. The calorimeters could also be made to suit
the metal rods much more than the calorimeters used in the experiment. Another
possible way to alleviate error is by measuring only the temperature of the metal rod
instead of the water. This would lead to more accurate data as it would not be the
assumed temperature of the metal. These improvements could lead to a more efficient
experiment, especially if another property was tested along with specific heat and linear
thermal expansion.
Additional methods of testing include measuring density, malleability, reactivity,
conduct, and tensile strength. Density could never be tested due to this property being
too easy. Malleability was not a viable property to test as only a single trial could be
completed as the sample could not be tested again and replicated. Reactivity was also
not an option since this could lead to the sample being corrupted into a non-pure state
by the other chemical. Conductivity was probably the best property to easily collect data
without ruining the sample; it was not attempted due to a lack of time. Tensile strength
could not be tested as well due to the possibility of the sample being destroyed.

Applications
The product constructed is a set of fuel pipes for nuclear reactors. These pipes
are made of zirconium due to zirconiums neutron indifference that makes it a great
metal to be inside a nuclear reactor. The mass of the designed tube is 885.93 grams
and zirconium costs around $31.91 per kilo gram, meaning these tubes cost a total of
$28.27. However, there would many of these tubes in the nuclear facility, as these are
meant to move fuel around the facility.

Figure 1. A System of Pipes in a Nuclear Reactor

The mass of the system of pipes displayed is 885.93 grams. As the cost of a kg
of zirconium is near $31.91, the cost of the modeled segmented system would cost
about $28.27.

Acknowledgements
Thank you to Mr. Supal for constructing the Thermal Expansion Jigs and helping
us to construct a program to aid in the computing of the specific heats and alpha
coefficients of the assigned rods.
Thank you to Mrs. Hilliard for supporting and guiding this project/paper in an
applicable and expectable direction.
Thank you to Mrs. Dewey for checking the math behind the tests, allowing for a
correct conclusion to be made about the rods.

Appendix A: Sample Calculations

To calculate the alpha coefficient for linear thermal expansion of the known and
unknown metal rods, R, in this experiment the following equation was used in which
the change in length of the rod in mm, L, was divided by the rods initial length in mm,
Li, times its initial temp in Co, Ti, minus its final temperature in Co, Tf.

R=

L
Li( TiTf )

Shown in Figure 1, below is a sample calculation using the data from the first trial of the
linear thermal expansion trials.

R=

L
Li( TiTf )

0.055 mm
127.29 mm( 97 o C24.1o C )

5.927 x 106
Figure 1. Alpha Coefficient sample calculation

Above is a sample calculation taken from the first trial of the linear thermal
expansion trials with the unknown metal rod.
To calculate the specific heat of the known and unknown metal rods in this
experiment the following equation was used in which the specific heat of water in J/gC o,
Sw, is multiplied to the mass of the water in g, Mw, times the change in temperature of
the water in Co , Tw, plus the change in temperature of the water in C o, Tw, divided by
the mass of the metal rod in g, Mr, times the change in temperature of the metal rod in
Co, Tr.

SP=

( SwMw Tw ) + Tw
Mr T r

Shown in Figure 2, below is a sample calculation using the data from the first trial of the
specific heat trials.

SP=

( SwMw Tw ) + Tw
Mr T r

( 4.184 J / g Co30 g6.1 o C ) +6.1o C

42.9031 g59.4o C

0.3028 J /gC

Figure 2. Specific Heat sample calculation

Above is a sample calculation taken from the first trial of the specific heat trials
using the unknown metal rod.

To calculate the percent error between the experimental and actual values of the
metals the following equation was used in which the experimental value, ExValue, was
subtracted by the actual value, TrueVal, divided by the actual value, TrueVal.

%error=

ExValueTrueVal
100
TrueVal

Shown in figure 3, below is a sample calculation for the percent error using the data
from the first trial for specific heat.

%error=

ExValueTrueVal
100
TrueVal

0.30280.270
100
0.270

12.16
Figure 3. Percent error sample calculation
Above is a sample calculation taken from the first trial of the specific heat trials
using the unknown metal rod. When formatted into a percent using the Microsoft Excel
format cell feature it is unnecessary to multiply this equation by 100 to obtain a percent.
The converted percent form of the value obtained is 8.39%.
To calculate the t-value for the experimental values a statistical 2-sample t-test
was used. The equation reads that the t-value is equal to the mean of data set 1,

1,

plus the mean of data set 2, 2, divided by the square root of sample set 1 squared, s1,
over the total number of trials, n1, plus sample set 2 squared, s2, over the total number
of trials, n2.
s1
( 2/n 1)+( s 22 /n 2)
12
tvalue=

Shown in figure 4, below is a sample calculation for the 2-sample t test for the table of
specific heat trials.
s1
( 2/n 1)+( s 22 /n 2)
12
tvalue=

0.20220.2927

12
12
+
15
15

)( )

0.2478

Figure 4. 2-sample t test sample calculation

Above is a sample calculation taken from the known and unknown averages
calculated from the entirety of the specific heat trials conducted. When the t-value is
plugged into a t-value table the p-value of 0.0092 is found and compared with the
degrees of freedom and sample size of the statistical analysis to induce a conclusion of
rejection or failed rejection of the null hypothesis.

Appendix B: Calorimeter Construction and Use

Building:
The calorimeters, main equipment of the specific heat experiment, were made to
be an isolated system in which not matter or energy could escape. They were made
mainly of two standard PVC tubes, one tube with an inside diameter of 1.5 inches and
the other an inside diameter of .75 inches. Between these two tubes is a common
insulation sleeve used in plumbing to insult pipes that is commonly found in hardware
stores. At one end a cap for the larger of the pipes was placed and sealed in place with
a PVC adhesive. Then a smaller cap was placed on the smaller tube at the other end
without the PVC adhesive, since this was the entrance to the calorimeter. It is then
finished by drilling a hole into the smaller cap.
Use:

The calorimeters were used as an isolated system where heat and water vapor
cannot escape. The calorimeters were made to contain a single metal rod (known or
unknown) and up to 30 ml of water. These devices are also designed to hold in heat for
short periods of time as that is what was expected as all trials ran for five minutes each.

Appendix C: Calorimeter Calibration

Originally the calorimeters had been tested and a correction factor value had
been multiplied to the specific heat values to account for the difference in heat loss.
However, when this value was used it was found to have little impact on the data, so it
was removed. Below is a figure of the test data table for specific heat and the unneeded
correction factor.

Figure 1. Test and Check data with Correction factor

In Figure 1, A chart of was constructed of 8 pre-trial tests on the calorimeters.
The averages of this data were used to collect a correction factor of -0.6589 for the
calibration of the calorimeters. This value had little effect on the overall data of the
experiment and was removed. The Check was not included in the calibration of the
calorimeters but instead it was used to test that the equations in the charts functioned
properly on Excel.

Work Cited
"223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal Expansion." 223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal
Expansion. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.clemson.edu/ces/phoenix/labs/223/expansion/>
DETERMINING THE COEFFICIENT OF THERMAL EXPANSION OF PRINTED
WIRING BOARD COMPONENTS. The University of Texas at Austin/ Plan II
Honors Program. Tong Wa Chao. Journal. May. 1998.
<http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/~tongc/html/publications/THESIS.pdf>
Draw, J. E. Measurement of Specific Heat Capacity Using Differential Scanning
Calorimeter. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Idaho Falls: Idaho National Laboratory, 2008. Print.

Gagnon, Steve. "The Element Zirconium." It's Elemental. Jefferson Labs. Web. 14 May
2014. <http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele040.html>.
Griffith, R. L., M. R. Levi, and A. Okunyan. On The Properties of Linear Expansion. 1st
ed. Vol. 1. Los Angeles, 2005. Print.
"H-1 THERMAL EXPANSION OF METALS." Lock Haven University. N.p., n.d. Web. 25
Mar. 2014.<http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/labman1/expans.htm>
Muthamizhi, K., P. Kalaichelvi, A. Arunagiri, and A. Rudhra. MEASUREMENT AND
MODEL VALIDATION OF SPECIFIC HEAT OF XANTHAN GUM USING JOULES
CALORIMETER METHOD. 9th ed. Vol. 2. N.p.: International Journal of Research
in Engineering and Technology, n.d. Print.
Picard, Susanne, David T. Burns, and Roger Philippe. Determination of the Specific
Heat Capacity of a Graphite Sample Using Absolute and Differential Methods.
5th ed. Vol. 44. N.p.: Metrologia, 2007. Print.
"Thermal Expansion." Thermal Expansion. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thexp.html>
"Temperature and Thermal Expansion." Temperature and Thermal Expansion. N.p., n.d.
Web. 26 Mar. 2014.<http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Temperature.html>
Young, J. H., and T. B. Whitaker. Specific Heat of Peanuts by Differential Scanning
Calorimetry. 3rd ed. Vol. 16. St. Joseph: American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, 1973. Print.
"Zirconium." Metal Prices. Metal Prices. Web. 14 May 2014.
<http://www.metalprices.com/metal/zirconium>.