Pisarski-Schultz Chemistry Research Paper

Pisarski-Schultz 1
Introduction
A bridge is in the process of being designed to cross a river. This bridge is
subject to the elements: wind, rain, heat and cold. That bridge will expand or
contract depending on the temperature. Engineers need to know the thermal
expansion of the metal; in some cases steel that is galvanized with zinc is used.
Engineers must compensate for the expansion and contraction of the bridge. They
use thermal expansion to calculate this. Also, engineers must know the thermal
capacities of various metals and water when designing car parts. Heat fluctuations in
the engine cause parts to expand or contract (World Context of Specific Heat
Capacity). Engineers must pick metals with similar heat capacities so they do not
expand at different rates.
The experiment used the properties of linear thermal expansion and specific
heat to determine if two unknown metal rods are the same as two known metal rods.
The known metal rod was identified as zinc. Experiments were conducted to
determine the chemical properties of zinc. These results were used to compare to
the unknown metal. If these results were deemed credible evidence by the
researchers that the metal was the same, then they claimed the unknown metals
were the same.
Zinc, the 30th element on the periodic table has a myriad of diverse and
distinct purposes. Zinc has the lowest melting point of all the transition metals and
because of this it has many uses. A common use for zinc is in everyday currency.
For instance, American penny is composed of approximately 97.5% zinc and that is
plated with copper (The United States Mint). Also, zinc is used to make the alloy
Pisarski-Schultz 2
brass. Brass is composed of 20-45% zinc and is easy to work with and a good
electrical conductor. (Winter) Brass is used as a cheaper substitute to copper.
Finally, zinc is used to galvanize metals like iron to prevent corrosion (Winter). This
is where the base metal is dipped in molten zinc for a short time. Without
galvanization, metals would rust much quicker, shortening the lifespans of everything
from bridges to pipes.
The goal in the experiment was to correctly identify whether an unknown
metal was the same or different as zinc. This was accomplished by performing
specific heat and linear thermal expansion experiments. To correctly identify this, low
percent errors must be achieved. The procedure of the experiment was modified in
order to lower the percent errors in specific heat and linear thermal expansion. To
determine the specific heat of the metals, calorimeters were constructed and used in
the experiment. These calorimeters insulated and trapped in the heat released from
the very hot metal. In the linear thermal expansion experiment, jigs were used that
measure the minor changes in the length of the contracting metal. The results from
these experiments, coupled with statistical analysis by performing a t-test, and
physical observations, are all factors in determining whether the unknown metal is
zinc.
Pisarski-Schultz 3
Specific Heat Review of Literature
The purpose of this research experiment was to determine whether a
previously determined metal sample was identical to a second sample by measuring
material properties. The specific heat and the linear thermal expansion of the
unknown metal were calculated.
Heat can be absorbed by many different substances; this was why
temperature changed, from heat energy absorbed and released from substances.
Heat is also known as thermal energy. Specific heat was used to identify metals in
the experiment. Specific heat is how much energy needs to be absorbed to raise the
temperature of one gram of a substance by one degree Celsius (J/gC). Specific
heat was being used because it is an intensive property, meaning that it did not
matter the quantity of the metal, specific heat was always around the same value
(Intensive/Extensive Properties). Specific heat was efficient to identify metals
because every metal has their own specific heat value that wont change. This is
because specific heat is an intensive property and does not change according to the
amount of the substance.
There are many real world applications of specific heat. Car engines heat up
rapidly, so heat must be distributed correctly. Also, water has a high specific heat
and acts as a cooling agent in car engines because it is so high that it can absorb
more heat. Engine parts constantly expand and contract due to heat fluctuations
within the engine, this is why metals with similar specific heat capacities must be
paired together (World Context of Specific Heat Capacity). If two connected metals
Pisarski-Schultz 4
heat up at different rates, then one would expand faster than the other, and this may
cause severe and possibly fatal complications to the engine.
On an atomic level, as more energy was added, atoms moved faster,
therefore the hitting and rubbing against one another became more frequent. This
contact caused an increase of heat within the atoms. Specific heat is the amount of
energy absorbed to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by one degree
Celsius (Specific Heat of an Unknown Metal).
As a model experiment, a hot metal rod was placed into cold water. The water
was in a calorimeter and a thermometer was placed in the water for temperature
readings (Specific Heat). Similarities from this experiment that were applied to the
experiment were, a hot metal was be placed in water and temperature will be taken
from the water. In another experiment (Heat Capacity), two metal blocks were
heated then placed in a calorimeter with water, temperature readings were taken
and cooling corrections were supplemented. This experiment was also a good model
because it used a calorimeter and provided a detailed set of procedures that can be
used to model the experimental design. Both of these experiments provided
fundamental details that were used to improve the experimental design.
The most common equation for specific heat is
sm T =sm T
The s represents specific heat, the m represents mass, and the
(R. Nave).
represents
the change in temperature (final initial). This formula can be used to find the values
of any of the variables above. The units used for specific heat were in
J
gC
. The
Pisarski-Schultz 5
specific heat of Zinc was 0.388 J/gC (Engineering Toolbox).This is a low specific
heat, meaning that it cannot absorb as much heat as substances with high specific
heats; therefore, it will heat up much quicker. The specific heat of zinc was less than
water which has a specific heat of 4.184 J/gC. This is a very high specific heat,
meaning that it can absorb a lot of heat, which explains why water is used as a
cooling agent. Water will heat up slower than substances with lower specific heats
because of the amount of heat it can absorb.
Figure 1. Simple Calorimeter

Figure 1 (Drew, Kyle, Taylor) showed a simple calorimeter that was an
apparatus that determined the amount of heat involved in a chemical reaction with
an unknown element. (Calorimetry Lab) It was formed up of an outer vessel and an
inner vessel. There was a cavity inside the inner vessel that contained water and the
unknown metal. The inner and outer layers were insulated to keep heat loss at a
minimum. This reduced the amount of heat energy that was lost during the reaction.
Pisarski-Schultz 6
Linear Thermal Expansion Review of Literature

Linear thermal expansion is a small but not insignificant effect. When a
material was exposed to an increase in temperature, it expanded. The opposite was
also true for when a material was exposed to a decrease in temperature, it
contracted. This was important in determining if a material will expand or contract
when in use. Thermal expansion is an intensive property. An intensive property is a
property of matter that does not depend on the amount of matter (Boundless). This
allowed a minor quantity of metal to be used rather than an oversized amount. This
cost less and was simpler for the researchers. Linear thermal expansion was used to
identify a metal because the size of the metal was independent to the results.
Linear thermal expansion is important to civil engineers and architects alike.
They build bridges and roads that are subject to a myriad of elements. The sun
beaming down on a bridge makes it expand; if this was not accounted for during the
design phase, life-threatening problems could ensue. Another example of thermal
expansion in the design of products, is the production of drinking glasses. A glass
compound must be chosen that can withstand the pouring of scalding hot and
freezing cold liquids without breaking. Thermal expansion testing is done extensively
in industry for the design of many different products.
Linear thermal expansion may seem like a large complex term that is
incomprehensible, however it is quite the contrary. Simply put, it is the expansion of
a metal when heated. At the atomic level, thermal expansion means there is an
Pisarski-Schultz 7
increase in the spacing between atoms (Khachan). The spacing originated when
molecules were heated up and become more excited. This caused the atoms to be
spaced further from one another, which expanded the overall size of the object. A
reverse result occurs with a loss of heat and is called contraction (Expansion).
In an experiment, differential scanning calorimeter to analyze the expansion
of Uranium-Gadolinium after the addition of heat. The calorimeter used was a very
sophisticated calorimeter, but tips were still taken from this that were used in a
smaller scale calorimeter. They calculated the thermal expansion of UraniumGadolinium and these same formulas were used to calculate the linear thermal
expansion in this research experiment (Heat Capacity and Thermal Expansion of
Uranium-Gadolinium Mixed Oxides). The second experiment by Harrison
investigated the thermal expansion of two metal rods. A calorimeter was constructed
to find the specific heat and thermal expansion of the metal. The explanation for the
results were Newtons Law of Cooling that said the rate of loss of heat to the
surroundings is directly proportional to the temperature in the surroundings
(Harrison). This experiment also provided an example correction factor that the
calorimeter was calibrated to (Textbook of Heat).
Linear thermal expansion was calculated using the formula dl = L0 (t1 - t0)
where dl was the change in length, L0 was the he initial length, a was the linear
expansion coefficient, t0 was the initial temperature and t1 was the final temperature
(Engineering Toolbox). The unit that this formula calculated was a length and for this
experiment was mm. A published value of Zincs linear thermal expansion was
Pisarski-Schultz 8
29.7mm. (Engineering Toolbox) If the found linear thermal expansion of the unknown
metal was
29.7mm then the unknown metal was Zinc.
Problem Statement
Problem:
To determine the element of two metal rods and compare them to previously
identified metal rods using the intensive properties of specific heat and linear thermal
expansion.
Hypothesis:
The unknown metal is Zinc if the specific heat and linear thermal expansion
percent error values are within 5% of zincs specific heat and linear thermal
expansion known values and the t-test says the metals are not significantly different.
Data Measured:
The first experiment performed was specific heat. In this, the mass of the
metal, the final and initial temperature and the heat given off from the metal were
recorded to find the specific heat. The mass of the unknown metal was measured in
g. The change of temperature which was composed of final temperature and the
initial temperature, were measured in K. The heat that was released was measured
in J. Specific heat produced a unit that was J/gK.
The second experiment measured linear thermal expansion. For this, the
initial length, the final length and the linear expansion coefficient (used to calibrate
the calorimeter) were recorded to find the linear thermal expansion. The change of
Pisarski-Schultz 9
temperature was composed of the final and initial temperatures were measured in K.
The linear calibration coefficient was already given before the experiment began.
The original length ( l o ) was in mm. Linear thermal expansion ( l ) was
measured in mm/K.
Experimental Design
Materials:
(2) Zinc Rods
(2) Unknown Metal Rods
OHAUS Balance (0.0001g precision)
Metal Tongs
Ti-nSpire Calculator
50 mL Graduated Cylinder
50 mL of Water
(4) Calorimeter
Variable Setting Hot Plate
LabQuest Handheld Device
Loaf Pan
Thermometer (0.1 C)
Temperature Probe (0.1C)
Pisarski Schultz 1
Procedure:
Follow all safety precautions, wear gloves, goggles and appropriate attire
1.
Using the TI-NSpire calculator, randomize 15 trials for both the zinc rods and the
unknown rods, also randomize the calorimeter used for each of the rods. Refer to
Appendix B for how to randomize.
2.
Take the mass of a zinc/unknown rod using a 0.0001 precision scale; record this
number in the data table.
3.
Fill a loaf pan with (200 mL) water, turn a hot plate on to the HIGH setting, and
place the loaf pan on the hot plate.
4.
Place the thermometer in the loaf pan.
5.
When the thermometer reads approximately 100.00C +/2 2C, use the tongs to
place the metal rod in the boiling water.
6.
Wait 3 minutes, then take the temperature of the boiling water and record it in the
data table, this is the initial temperature of the metal assuming that it is the same
temperature of the water.
7.
Before taking any trials, calibrate the calorimeter in use. Refer to Appendix A.
8.
Turn the LabQuest on and prepare it to read temperature by setting the

samples/second to 1 and the number of seconds 180.
9.
While the rod is in the boiling water, prepare the calorimeter as in Appendix A by
measuring 40 mL of water and pouring it into the calorimeter; be careful not to
spill any.
10.
Place the temperature probe in the calorimeter water, and start data collection.
Record this initial temperature of the water.
11.
After 30 seconds have passed, use the tongs to take the metal rod out of the loaf
pan and transfer the metal into the calorimeter. Turn the hot plate off.
12.
Close the lid to the calorimeter.
13.
When the data collection reaches equilibrium stop the LabQuest and record the
temperature at this point. This is the final temperature for both the metal and
water assuming that the metal is the same temperature of the water.
Pisarski Schultz 1
14.
Open the calorimeter, and using the tongs take the metal out of the calorimeter
and dispose of the water inside. Let the calorimeter cool down and dry before
using it again.
15.
Repeat steps 2-14 for each trial of the zinc and unknown metal rods.
16.
Once 30 trials have been done and all data has been collected, calculate the
specific heat of the metal refer to Appendix C.
Diagram:
Figure 2. Specific Heat Materials

The materials used to perform the specific heat experiment are pictured above in
Figure 2.
Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design
Materials:
(2) Zinc Rods
(2) Unknown Metal Rods
Metal Tongs
Ti-nSpire Calculator
40 mL Water
Variable Setting Hot Plate
Procedure:
Loaf Pan
Thermometer (0.1 C)
Caliper (0.01 mm)
Linear Thermal Expansion Jig (0.01
mm)
Pisarski Schultz 1
Be sure to follow all safety precautions, wear goggles, gloves, and a lab coat!
1. Using the TI-NSpire calculator, randomize 15 trials for both the zinc rods and the
unknown rods. Refer to Appendix A for how to randomize.
2. Fill the loaf pan with water, turn the hot plate to the HIGH setting, and place the pan
on the hot plate.
3. While waiting for the water to boil, use the caliper to measure the initial length of the
metal rod. Record this in the data table.
4. While the water is boiling, use the thermometer to take the temperature of the room.
It is assumed the metals initial temperature is room temperature.
5. Measure the temperature of the boiling water. It is assumed the final temperature is
that of the boiling water.
6. Use the tongs to transfer the metal rod into the boiling water.
7. Let the metal absorb the heat of the boiling water for 4 minutes.
8. Use the tongs to transfer the metal rod from the loaf pan to the LTE jig, turn the hot
plate off.
9. Immediately measure and record the initial point on the LTE jig gauge.
10. After metal is cooled or stopped contracting, record the change in temperature on
the LTE gauge.
11. The final temperature can be found by subtracting the initial temperature from the
final temperature.
12. Make sure the metal has been cooled down and dried completely before using it
again.
13. Repeat steps 2 12 for each of the unknown metal and zinc rods.
Diagram:
Pisarski Schultz 1
Figure 3. Linear Thermal Expansion Materials

Picture above are the materials for the linear thermal expansion experiment.
Data and Observations
Pisarski Schultz 1
Table 1
Zinc Specific Heat Tables
Trial
Rod
Initial Temp
(C)
Water
Meta
l
Final
Temp.
(C)
Change in
Temp.
(C)
Water
Metal
Mass
(g)
Water
Specific
Heat
(J/gC)
Metal
23.4
99.0
27.1
3.7
71.9
40
28.287
5
21.7
98.2
25.2
3.5
73.0
40
27.980
0
0.287
0.387
0.304
21.7
99.1
26.4
4.7
72.7
40
27.939
0
20.6
99.0
25.2
4.6
73.8
40
27.989
2
0.373
20.2
98.9
24.5
4.3
74.4
40
283090
0.342
0.325
20.9
98.6
24.9
4.0
73.7
40
27.938
2
18.6
99.3
23.0
4.4
76.3
40
27.928
9
0.346
0.365
18.3
99.3
23.0
4.7
76.3
40
28.268
2
18.1
99.8
22.1
4.0
77.7
40
27.937
7
0.308
0.347
10
18.5
99.6
23.0
4.5
76.6
40
28.309
4
11
17.8
99.1
22.3
4.5
76.8
40
27.937
1
0.351
0.375
12
16.7
98.8
21.6
4.9
77.2
40
28.308
6
13
17.9
99.6
23.0
5.1
76.6
40
27.937
7
0.399
14
18.0
99.7
23.2
5.2
76.5
40
28.3112
0.402
40
27.914
0
0.404
15
22.5
98.6
27.3
4.8
71.3
Pisarski Schultz 1
Average
19.7
99.1
24.1
4.5
75.0
40
28.086
4
0.351
Table 1 shows the specific heat tables of the known metals. The average of the 15
known metal specific heat trials was 0.351 J/g C, this is lower than the actual specific heat of
zinc which is 0.390 J/g C. Trial 2 with metal A had the lowest specific heat 0.287 J/g C, while
the highest was Trial 15 with metal A 0.404 J/g C. As more trials we performed, the specific
heat increased.
Table 2
Zinc Specific Heat Observations
Tri Ro
al
d
1
2
B
A
5
6
7
8
B
A
A
B
10
11
12
A
B
Observations
Researcher A massed the metal, Researcher B set up calorimeter 2 and

boiled water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Some water spilled
when filling calorimeter. Water was added into loaf pan.
Researcher A massed the metal, Researcher B set calorimeter 1 and boiled
water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Some water spilled when
filling calorimeter.
boiled water. Researcher A placed data into tables.
boiled water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Metals left in water for
more time. Water was added into loaf pan.
boiled water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Metals were left in for
more time.
water. Researcher A placed data into tables.
boiled water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Water was added into
loaf pan.
boiled water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Water was added into
loaf pan.
Pisarski Schultz 1
13
14
15

Researcher A massed the metal, Researcher B set up calorimeter 1and
Table 2 shows the observations for specific heat of zinc. In trials 1 and 2, some water
spilled out of the graduated cylinder while being poured into the calorimeter. Also, in trials 1, 5, 8
and 11 water was added to the loaf pan because the previous water had evaporated.
Table 3
Unknown Metal Specific Heat Trials
Initial Temp.
(C)
Trial
Rod
Water Metal
1
A
18.2
99.4
Change in
Final
(C)
Temp. Temp.
(C)
Water Metal
30.7
12.5
68.7
Mass
(g)
Water
Metal
40 72.8446
Specific
Heat
(J/gC)
0.418
17.4
99.4
29.5
12.1
69.9
40
72.9425
0.397
17.7
99.3
29.3
11.6
70.0
40
72.8448
0.381
18.2
99.7
31.3
13.1
68.4
40
72.9435
0.439
18.1
99.2
30.5
12.4
68.7
40
72.8436
0.415
16.1
99.6
28.9
12.8
70.7
40
72.9419
0.415
17.7
98.9
29.5
11.8
69.4
40
72.9419
0.390
16.9
99.7
29.4
12.5
70.3
40
72.8419
0.409
22.2
98.2
33.9
11.7
64.3
40
72.7845
0.418
10
21.5
98.1
34.0
12.5
64.1
40
72.8827
0.448
11
20.8
98.3
31.3
10.5
67.0
40
72.8447
0.360
12
20.8
98.5
32.4
11.6
66.1
40
72.9339
0.403
13
20.3
98.0
31.1
10.8
66.9
40
72.8437
0.371
14
20.3
98.1
32.1
11.8
66.0
40
72.8423
0.411
15
19.9
98.7
31.3
11.4
68.5
40
72.8449
0.389
19.1
98.9
31.0
12.0
67.9
40
72.9000
0.404
Average
Pisarski Schultz 1
Table 3 shows the results for the unknown metal in the specific heat trials. The average
of the 15 unknown trials was 0.404 J/g C. The lowest was trial 11, 0.360 J/g C and the highest
was in trial 10, 0.448 J/g C.
Table 4
Unknown Metal Specific Heat Observations
Tri Ro
Observations
al
d
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
Researcher A massed the metal, Researcher B set up calorimeter 1 and boiled

water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Water was added into loaf pan.
water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Metals were left in for more time.
water. Researcher A placed data into tables. Metal was not submerged all the
way. Water was added into loaf pan.
Table 4 shows the observations for the specific heat of the unknown metal. In trial
11, the metal was not submerged under the water fully.
Pisarski Schultz 1
Table 5
Zinc Linear Thermal Expansion
Trial
Ro
d
Initial
Lengt
h
(mm)
Chang
e of
Length
(mm)
Initial
Temp
(C)
Final
Temp
(C)
129.1
8
129.3
5
129.1
4
0.160
99.0
23.2
129.2
9
0.270
98.9
23.2
129.2
1
0.195
99.1
23.1
129.3
7
0.185
98.9
23.1
129.1
7
0.180
99.2
23.2
129.3
6
0.185
99.0
23.2
129.1
5
10
129.3
7
11
12
129.2
3
129.3
6
Chan
ge of
Temp
.
(C)
Alpha
Coefficien
t (C-1)
76.6
0.230
99.2
22.6
0.175
99.2
22.6
2.324E-05
76.6
0.190
98.5
98.8
23.5
0.185
98.8
23.5
98.2
75.8
1.635E-05
75.7
2.759E-05
76.0
1.986E-05
75.8
1.887E-05
76.0
1.834E-05
75.8
1.887E-05
75.3
1.954E-05
75.3
1.950E-05
75.3
1.901E-05
74.8
1.705E-05
23.2
0.190
0.165
1.766E-05
23.4
Pisarski Schultz 1
13
129.11
14
129.3
4
0.180
98.5
23.3
15
129.1
9
0.175
98.3
23.3
Averag
e
129.2
5
0.185
98.2
23.4
74.8
1.916E-05
75.2
1.851E-05
75.2
1.806E-05
75.6
0.190
98.8
23.2
1.944E-05
Table 5 shows the linear thermal expansion values for the known metal. The average of
the known metal was 1.944E-05
05
. The highest alpha coefficient was trial 4 with 2.759E-
C1 and the lowest was trial 3 with 1.635E-05 C1 .
Table 6
Zinc Linear Thermal Expansion Observations
Trial Rod
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
Observations
Researcher B set up Linear Thermal Expansion jigs and boiled water. Researcher
A recorded results from jig and placed into data tables. Two millimeter jigs were
used.
used.
used.
used. More water was added into loaf pan.
used.
used. Soap got into the boiling water while metal was submerged
Pisarski Schultz 1
used.
used. Water was added to the loaf pan.
used.
used.
used. Metal not submerged fully in boiling water
used. Water was added into the loaf pan.
used.
used.
Trial
Rod
Observations
15
used.
10
11
12
13
14
Table 6 shows the observations for the known metal in linear thermal expansion. In trial
6, soap became mixed in with the boiling water in the loaf pan. In trial 11, the metal was not
submerged fully. In trials 4, 8, and 12 water was added to the loaf pan.
Table 7
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion
Trial
Rod
Initial
Change
Initial
Length
of
Temp
(mm)
Length
(C)
(mm)
1
A
132.05
0.09
98.7
2
132.30
0.075
97.9
Final
Temp
(C)
Change
of Temp.
(C)
Alpha
Coefficient
(C-1)
23.6
75.1
9.075E-06
23.6
74.3
7.630E-06
Pisarski Schultz 1
3
132.03
0.09
98.8
23.6
75.2
9.065E-06
132.26
0.095
98.6
23.6
75.0
9.577E-06
132.06
0.055
99.2
23.6
75.6
5.509E-06
132.17
0.070
98.8
23.6
75.2
7.043E-06
131.91
0.070
99.2
23.2
76.0
6.982E-06
132.27
0.070
99.0
23.2
75.8
6.982E-06
132.00
0.055
98.9
23.5
75.4
5.526E-06
10
132.10
0.060
98.5
23.4
75.0
6.056E-06
11
131.88
0.075
98.7
23.4
75.3
7.552E-06
12
132.22
0.070
98.9
23.4
75.5
7.012E-06
13
132.02
0.070
99.1
23.4
75.7
7.004E-06
Rod
Initial
Length
(mm)
14
15
Average
Trial
132.25
Change
of
Length
(mm)
0.060
Initial
Temp
(C)
98.4
132.01
132.10
0.065
0.070
98.5
98.7
23.4
Change
of
Temperat
ure (C)
75.0
23.4
23.5
75.1
75.3
Final
Temp
(C)
Alpha
Coefficient
(C-1)
6.049E-06
6.556E-06
7.175E-06
Table 7 shows the unknown metal linear thermal expansion values for the unknown
metals. The average of the trials was 7.175E-06
6.049E-06
C1 . The lowest value was trial 14 with
C1 and highest was 9.577E-06 C1 .
Table 8
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Observations
Trial Rod
Observations
1
2
A
B
used.
Pisarski Schultz 1
used. The metal was not fully submerged into the boiling water.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Trial
10
11
12
13
14
15
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
Rod
B
A
B
A
B
A
used.
used. More water was added into loaf pan.
used.
used.
Observations
used.
used.
used. Water was added into the loaf pan.
used.
used. Metal was not submerged fully in boiling water.
used.
Table 8 shows the observations for the linear thermal expansion of the unknown metal.
In trials 5, 6, 8 and 12 water was added to the loaf pan. In trial 13, the metal was not submerged
fully in the boiling water.
Pisarski Schultz 1
Data Analysis and Interpretation

The data analyzed in this section came from specific heat and linear thermal
expansion trials of the metal Zinc and an unknown metal rod. The zinc specific heat and
linear thermal expansion coefficient are compared against the unknown metal rod to
determine if the unknown rod is the zinc. Data was collected by running fifteen trials
according to the each tests procedure.
During the specific heat data collection the data measured was the initial
temperature of the water and initial temperature of the metal in C. Also the final
temperature of the water/metal (when equilibrium was reached) was measured in C.
From the change in temperature of the water and metal were calculated. The mass of
the water and metal was measured in grams, g. From this, the specific heat was
calculated in J/g C.
Pisarski Schultz 1
The data can be evaluated by performing a SRS or simple random sample. The
type of statistical sampling allows researchers to use statistical methods to analyze
sample results. Criteria must be met to use an SRS: the population consists of n
objects, the sample consists of n objects and all possible samples of n objects are
equally likely to occur. In this experiment, the population was all metals, the sample was
zinc and the unknown metal and the trials were randomized to provide for them to
equally occur.
To determine if the data was valid, the percent error of each trial was calculated.
The observed value was the value that was calculated from the results in the lab. The
value 0.39 was substituted in for the accepted value because it was the specific heat of
zinc. This was then multiplied by 100 to find the percent error. (Refer to Appendix A)
Table 9
Zinc Specific Heat Percent Error
Ro Cal Percent
Trials
d
.
Error
1
B
2 -21.933%
2
A
1 -26.467%
3
B
2 -0.702%
4
A
1 -4.435%
5
B
1 -12.389%
6
A
2 -16.636%
7
A
1 -11.394%
8
B
2 -6.489%
9
A
2 -20.926%
10
B
1 -10.949%
11
A
1 -9.997%
12
B
2 -3.784%
13
A
2
2.268%
14
B
1
3.032%
15
A
1
3.494%
Average
:
-9.154%
Pisarski Schultz 1
Table 9 above shows percent error of the data collected during fifteen trials of
Zinc. These values were calculated according to Appendix E. Trials 1 and 2 had high
percent errors. These were the first trials done of the research and a proper routine
hadnt been established which is the reason for the inconsistent trials in the beginning.
The highest percent error was trial 2 with -26.467% and the lowest was trial 3 with
-0.702%. The average was -9.154% which meant that the specific heat of Zinc
calculated in the lab was 9.154% less than the published value. The range of percent
errors was 27.169%.
Table 10
Unknown Metal Specific Heat Percent Error
Percent
Trials
Rod Cal.
Error
1
A
1 7.187%
2
B
2 1.839%
3
A
2 -2.378%
4
B
1 12.672%
5
A
1 6.331%
6
B
2 6.512%
7
A
2 0.031%
8
B
1 4.752%
9
A
1 7.281%
10
B
2 14.819%
11
A
2 -7.678%
12
B
1 3.256%
13
A
1 -4.897%
14
B
2 5.327%
15
A
2 -0.360%
Average:
3.646%
Percent error of the data collected during fifteen trials of the unknown metal is
shown in Table 10 above. These values were calculated according to Appendix E. A
Pisarski Schultz 1
trend was that 11/15 trials percent error values that were positive. This means that the
unknown metal trials had a specific heat that was greater than the published value for
Zinc. Trial 10 had the highest percent error with 14.819% and the lowest was trial 7 with
-0.031%. The average was 3.646% which meant that the specific heat of the unknown
metal calculated in the lab was 3.646% greater than the published value of zinc. The
range of percent errors was 14.85%.
A statistical test that was performed was a two sample t test. The two sample t
test was the best fit to analyze the data because the means of two different treatments
are being compared from two independent samples. As with just about any statistical
test, there are assumptions that must be met before running the test. Two simple
random samples (SRS) are taken from two independent populations. All trials were
randomized using the random calculator feature (Refer to Appendix B). The samples
are independent from one another, as one trial is not effected by the previous trial. The
specific heat values are normally distributed (As seen below). Finally, the population
mean
and the population standard deviation
are unknown.
Pisarski Schultz 1
Figure 4. Normal Probability Plot of Zincs Specific Heat

This plot shows the data collected from the specific heat trials on zinc. The points
generally follow the line of normal distribution. If the lines perfectly followed the line,
then the data would be proven to be normally distributed. No outliers are shown, and no
Pisarski Schultz 1
patterns were present.
Figure 5. Normal Probability Plot of the Unknown Metals Specific Heat

This plot shows the results from specific heat trials of the unknown metal. The
points are along the line of normal distribution. Although a couple outliers are present,
the data is still relatively normal.
Pisarski Schultz 1
Figure 6. Specific Heat of Zinc and the Unknown Metals

Figure 6 shows the box plots from the data collected in testing of specific heat.
This box plot shows that the results of the top 50% of the known data overlap the
bottom 50% of the unknown data. This hints that the metals are somewhat similar in
specific heat. The known metal is zinc and has a specific heat of 0.390J/gC. As
observed in the box plots, the data collected for zinc was skewed to the left from
0.390J/gC. The data ranges from 0.287J/gC to 0.404J/gC. The true specific heat was
found in the fourth quartile, but that is also where the data was most tightly compacted.
This figure also shows the specific heat of the data collected for the unknown metal
rods. The specific heat collected from trials for the unknown metal was much more
consistent than the skewed data from zinc trials. The data ranges from 0.360J/gC to
0.448J/gC, with fifty percent of the data lying between 0.389J/gC and 0.418J/gC.
Since these metals appear close to each other when plotted together, a 2-sample t-test
has been executed to determine whether there is significant evidence of them being the
same metal.
Pisarski Schultz 1
The
H o (null hypothesis) of the experiment was that
(alternative hypothesis) was that

represents
1= 2 . The
Ha
1 2 . The mean of the specific heat of zinc
1 and the mean of the specific heat of the unknown metal represents
2 . The null hypothesis states that zinc and the unknown metal are equal, meaning
that the unknown metal is zinc. The alternative hypothesis states that the two metals are
not equal, so the unknown metal would not be zinc. To run a two sample t-test, the
mean of both samples are subtracted and divided by the square roots of both the
standard deviations squared divided by the number of samples and added together.
(Refer to Appendix F)
H o : 1=2
H a : 1=2
This equation found the t-value of the results. The p-value is found by using the tvalue and the degrees of freedom chart.
Figure 7. Specific Heat Density Curve
Pisarski Schultz 1
Figure 7 shows the density curve of the trials. The p-value was determined to be
0.0002, a very small p-value to be compared to the alpha level of 0.1
Figure 8. Calculator Page Results for Specific Heat T-Test

This figure shows the result screen of the two sample t test on the specific heat
trials. This data includes the t and p values and confirm what the density curve shows.
The t-value represents the number of standard deviations away from the mean. The pvalue represents the significance of the null hypothesis.
The p-value of the specific heat trials was found to be 0.000189 using the
calculator program, as shown in the previous figures. The null hypothesis that
1= 2 was rejected because the p-value of 0.000189 was less than the alpha level
of 0.1. The p-value has shown significant evidence that the means of the zinc and
unknown metals specific heats were not equal and significantly different. Assuming that
the null was true, there would have been a 0.0189% chance of getting the same data by
chance alone.
Pisarski Schultz 1
Data measured during the linear thermal expansion was the initial and final
length of the metal in millimeters, mm was measured. From this the change in length of
the metal was calculated in mm. The initial temperature of the metal and the final
temperature of the metal (room temperature) were measured in C. These were used to
calculate the change in temperature in C. This data was used to calculate the linear
thermal expansion alpha coefficient in
Table 11
Zinc Linear Thermal Expansion Percent Error
Percent
Trials
Rods
Error
1
A
-19.850%
2
B
-39.096%
3
A
-43.637%
4
B
-4.873%
5
A
-31.526%
6
B
-34.946%
7
A
-36.773%
8
B
-34.941%
9
A
-32.630%
10
B
-32.745%
11
A
-34.444%
Pisarski Schultz 1
12
13
14
15
Average:
B
A
B
A
-41.199%
-33.944%
-36.185%
-37.720%
-32.967%
Table 11 above shows percent error of the data collected during fifteen trials of
Zinc. These values were calculated according to Appendix E. All trials except 1 and 4
had high percent errors in the -30%s. The highest percent error was trial 3 with
-43.637% and the lowest was trial 4 with -4.873%. The average was -32.967% which
meant that the linear thermal expansion coefficient of Zinc calculated in the lab was
32.967% less than the published value. The range of percent error was 38.764.
Table 12
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Percent Error
Percent
Trials
Rods
Error
1
A
-68.706%
2
B
-73.690%
3
A
-68.743%
4
B
-66.976%
5
A
-81.004%
6
B
-75.714%
7
A
-75.923%
8
B
-75.925%
9
A
-80.945%
10
B
-79.117%
11
A
-73.957%
12
B
-75.820%
13
A
-75.847%
14
B
-79.141%
Pisarski Schultz 1
15
Average:
-77.392%
-75.260%
Percent error of the data collected during fifteen trials of the unknown metal for
linear thermal expansion is shown in Table 12 above. These values were calculated
according to Appendix E. A trend was that all trials had percent error values that were in
a low range. The range was only 14.028%, this means the trials were consistent. Trial 5
had the highest percent error with -81.004% and the lowest was trial 4 with 66.976%.
The average was -75.260% which meant that the linear thermal expansion coefficient of
the unknown metal calculated in the lab was 75.260% less than the published value of
zinc. The mean percent error was 14.028.
Figure 9. Normal Probability Plot of Zincs LTE

This plot shows the data collected from the linear thermal expansion trials for
zinc. The plot shows that there are some outliers, which shows that the data may have
been less reliable.
Pisarski Schultz 1
Figure 10. Normal Probability Plot of the Unknown Metals LTE

This plot shows the data collected from the linear thermal expansion trials for the
unknown metals. The data generally followed the line of normal distribution and
although there is a gap present between 0.0000075 and 0.000009 of the data. This is
reasonable because the change in length of the metal was so minuscule and the jig was
only so precise.
Figure 11. Linear Thermal Expansion of Zinc and the Unknown Metal
Pisarski Schultz 1
Figure 16 shows the data collected from the linear thermal expansion trials in box
plots. The known value for zinc is
2.90105 C1 . When data was collected, it was
observed that none of the trials had an expansion on
2.9010 C
. The zinc had an
expansion coefficient higher than the unknown metal, but still did not meet its expected
value. Both plots are very different from each other. Zinc was left skewed with the tail
of the data to the left of the median. The unknown metal was right skewed with the tail
being right of the median. Even though these numbers are very small and are not that
much different, it makes a huge difference for linear thermal expansion properties. The
box plots have a great distance between each other when plotted together. Also there
was not much skew in the plots, signifying that the trials were able to be replicated
consecutively with little deviation. The linear thermal expansion of the zinc and the
unknown metal are different according to the plots, but the following 2-sample t-test will
determine if its significant enough.
The
H o (null hypothesis) of the experiment was that
(alternative hypothesis) of the experiment was that

thermal expansion of zinc represents
1= 2 . The
Ha
1 2. The mean of the linear
1 and the mean of the linear thermal
expansion of the unknown metal represents
2 . The null hypothesis states that zinc
and the unknown metal are of the same composition, meaning that the unknown metal
is zinc. The alternative hypothesis states that the two metals are not of the same
composition, so the unknown metal would not be zinc. To find the p-value of the results,
Pisarski Schultz 1
the same equation that was used to calculate the specific heat p-value was used again
for linear thermal expansion (Refer to Appendix G).
H o : 1=2
H a : 1=2
Figure 12. Linear Thermal Expansion Density Curve

This figure shows the curve of the linear thermal expansion trials. The p-value
was shown to be zero in the density curve. The p-value was not actually zero, but just
very small, implying that the metals are very significantly different.
Figure 13. Calculator Page Results for LTE T-Test
Pisarski Schultz 1
This figure shows the result screen of the two sample t test on the linear thermal
expansion trials. This data shows that the actual p-value was 3.29E-12, and that the tvalue was 15.3262, meaning that the data was that many standard deviations from the
mean. The data from the calculator page confirms what is shown on the density curve.
The p-value of the linear thermal expansion results was found to be 3.29E-12
using the calculator program, as shown in the previous figures. The null hypothesis that
1= 2
was rejected because the linear thermal expansion p-value of 3.29E-12 was
less than the alpha level of 0.1. There is evidence that the unknown metal mean was
significantly different from the zinc mean. If the null was true, there was a
3.291010
% of these circumstances happening by chance alone.

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the composition of an unknown metal
was the same as a previously identified sample of zinc. It was predicted that if the percent errors
for specific heat and linear thermal expansion were within 5%, and the t-tests from both
experiments showed that the metals were not significantly different, the unknown metal was
composed of zinc. This hypothesis was rejected; the percent errors were substantially different,
the t-test results suggested differences, and physical properties were different between the
metals.
The percent errors, t-test and physical properties differed from what was predicted in the
hypothesis, therefore the hypothesis was rejected. The percent error values were high, with a
-9.154% error mean for specific heat known and 3.646% error mean for specific heat unknown,
resulting in a range of over 12%. The linear thermal expansion percent errors were not any
closer with the range being over 40%. This was a piece of evidence that suggested the metals
Pisarski Schultz 1
were not of the same composition. Second, the t-tests of specific heat and linear thermal
expansion both showed p-values that were less than the alpha value 0.1. The p-value for
specific heat was
1.8910
and for linear thermal expansion was
12
3.2910
. This also
suggested that the metals were of a different composition. Finally, physical properties of the
metals were observed. Zinc was non-magnetic while the unknown metal was magnetic;
therefore, this also suggested that the metals were of different composition.
Problems arose throughout the experiment that caused difficultly through data collection.
First, the metals did not consistently heat up to the desired temperature of 98-100C. The water
level in the loaf pan was dynamically changing throughout the experiment as water evaporated.
This, at times left the metal not being fully submerged. Not heating the particles up enough
would cause them to not be excited enough, and therefore not expanding to their fullest
potential. This would result in an inaccurate linear thermal expansion value. Also, the water was
hottest at the bottom where the metal was in contact with the loaf pan. This caused the metal to
gain more thermal energy on the bottom, unevenly distributing the heat. Third, a few times the
tongs did not grip the metal sufficiently, and the metal fell out of the tongs. This happened during
the transfer between the loaf pan and the calorimeter/jig. This caused the metal to
exothermically lose its heat to the surroundings, which could have obscured data. Finally, the
calorimeters and metals did not always have enough time to cool down completely to room
temperature. This made the change in temperature imprecise, altering the specific heat and
thermal expansion values.
This experiment, along with any, was not perfect; there are changes that can be made to
improve the experiment. First, constructing higher quality calorimeters would improve the results
of the specific heat trials. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system the
heat lost from the system is absorbed into the surroundings. The improved calorimeters would
trap more heat in the vessel, thus creating a more isolated system and therefore a more precise
Pisarski Schultz 1
specific heat. To construct a calorimeter like this, more insulation would be used along with
smaller diameter tubing that would trap more heat in. Second, more calorimeters would be
constructed to allow the calorimeters to cool down between trials. This experiment used only
two calorimeters therefore they did not have much time to cool down because of time
constraints. A conservative estimate would be having four calorimeters constructed. This allows
for a longer cool down time, along with more randomization in the experiment. Finally, the
thermal expansion values were so minor that the percent errors varied greatly for only a small
change. This could be alleviated by using a larger sized metal. A larger metal means further
expansion, which means the values will be higher, and lower variance in percent errors.
However, jigs would have to be bought/made that will be compatible with the size of the metal.
Further research of comparing properties of the metals could be carried out to prove that
the metals were different by comparing intensive properties. First, the melting point of the metal
could be tested. The technology of the experimenters lab was not advanced enough to conduct
an experiment of melting the metals. Tools and machines would be needed to melt the metal,
which for zinc has a melting point of approximately 410C (Gagnon). Also, the boiling point of
the actual metal would be used to compare against the unknown metal. This would also require
machines because zinc has a boiling point of over 900C (Gagnon). A final way to determine if
two metals are the same would be testing electrical conductivity. Different metals are better
conductors than others and tests could be performed to determine zinc and the unknown
metals electrical conductivity. These would all be beneficial ways to further research the metals
and determine if they were of the same composition.
Pisarski Schultz 1
Application
Zinc is a very valuable element. It is used for many things seen every day. If it
wasnt for zinc, then metal appliances would be rusted and ruined after being exposed
to the elements. Zinc is used to galvanize metals like steel to avert corrosion. Zinc has
corrosion resistance so that is why it is a very proficient metal to use for galvanizing.
Zinc also has very low price, which makes galvanization cheap and very efficient. Zinc
is also used to make one of the most common things used today, pennies. Zinc is the
main component used to compose pennies because it is so inexpensive. The object that
was constructed of zinc was a zinc dry-cell battery. Zinc is used as an electrode in the
batteries, as it is a great conductor and stores types of energy especially electricity.
Pisarski Schultz 1
Figure 14. Zinc Isometric View

Figure 14 shows the 3D or isometric view of the application object which is a zinc
dry-battery. The mass of the battery is approximately 53 grams.
Figure 15. Battery Drawing

Figure 15 shows the drawing for the zinc battery. All dimensions are in
centimeters (cm).
Pisarski Schultz 1
As mentioned in Figure 14, the mass of the battery was 53 grams. This included
the outside layer which was made of aluminum. However because the aluminum
coating was so insignificant when calculating the total mass, the aluminum was not
factored in. As of the time of writing this, the cost per 100g of zinc was $5.30 (Zinc
Element Facts). This battery used 53 grams of zinc, so the cost of the battery was
$2.81. Now this was only the cost of the raw materials to make the battery.
Manufacturing costs must be taken into account which would further inflate the cost of a
battery.
Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction

Materials:
(4) 3/4" PVC Caps
24 x 3/4" PVC Pipe
(2) 3/4" PVC Base
3/4" Pipe Insulator
(2) 5.68 oz Pringles Can
Cotton Balls
Scissors
Power Drill
Power Saw
Pisarski Schultz 44
Procedure:
1. Using the power drill, cut the PVC pipe into 6 pieces.
2. Place a cap on one end of the PVC pipe and make sure it is very secure and
tight.
3. Place the cap and pipe into one of the PVC bases.
4. Using scissors, cut the pipe insulator and push it onto the PVC pipe, make
sure there is enough room to put another cap on.
5. Cut about three inches off of the Pringles can using scissors.
6. Center the PVC pipe with its base inside of the Pringles can. Make sure it is
centered!
7. Pack cotton balls into the can. Pack them very tightly and make sure they
reach to the bottom of the can.
8. Using the power drill, drill a small hole into another cap, this is for the
temperature probe.
9. Place the cap with the hole in it on the PVC pipe in the Pringles can and the
calorimeter is complete.
Appendix B: Randomizing Using the TI-Nspire CX

To make sure that data collection is effective, the order in which trials are
conducted must be randomized. The order in which the rods are used must also
be randomized. There are 15 trials and two rods in this experiment, each rod will
Pisarski Schultz 45
not be tested the same amount of times as there was an odd number of trials.
For this purpose the TI-Nspire CX random integer function is needed.
Procedure:
1) Turn on calculator.
2) Create a new calculator page from the home screen.
3) Press the menu key on the TI-Nspire Cx.
4) Choose probability, random, seed.
5) Enter any number into the calculator and press enter.
6) Repeat step 3 and choose probability, random, integer.
7) Enter 1,2 into the function.
8) Because two rods are being tested at a time each rod will be assigned a
variable name. The first rod will be rod A and the second, rod B. When the
number one occurs, rod A will be used. When two occurs, rod B will be used.
9) Repeat steps 3 6 for the randomization of the next pair of rods.
10) Repeat step 4 and enter 1,15,8 into the function. The number that is
received will be the trial number that the rod will be used in. Other trial
numbers will be performed on the other rod.
11) Repeat step 4 and enter 1,15,15 into the function. This gives the order the
trials will be performed.
Appendix C: Sample Calculations for Specific Heat

To determine the specific heat of the metal the following equation was
used, where
s w was the specific heat of water, mw
was the mass of the
Pisarski Schultz 46
water, and t w
was the change in temperature of water. s m was being
solved for and is the specific heat of the metal,
mw was the mass of the metal,
and t m was the change in temperature of the metal.

s wm w t w =smmm t m Shown in Figure 16, is a sample calculation using the
equation to find the specific heat of the metal.
s m=
mm t m
sw mwt w
s m=
28.2875 g71.9 C
4.184 j/ g C40 g3.7 C
s m=
619.232 j
C
2033.871 g
s m=0.304
j
C
g
Figure 16. Sample Calculation for Specific Heat

Sample calculation for the first trial of the known metal in specific heat. This
equation was used to calculate the specific heat of the metals.
Appendix D: Sample Calculation for Linear Thermal Expansion
Pisarski Schultz 47
The following equation was used when calculating the linear thermal
expansion coefficient. In this,
was the change in length of the metal,
is the linear thermal expansion coefficient and what was being solved for,
was the original length of the metal and
lo
was the change in temperature of
the metal.
l=l ot
In Figure 17, the sample calculation used the equation to find the linear thermal
expansion of the metal.
=
l o t
l
l
l o t
0.23 mm
129.18 mm76.6 C
0.23 mm
9895.188
=2.324E-05 C1
Figure 17. Sample calculation for Linear Thermal Expansion
In Figure 17, the sample calculation using the equation found the linear
thermal expansion coefficient of the known metal.
Pisarski Schultz 48
Appendix E: Percent Error Sample Calculations

The following equation was used when calculating the percent error. In this,
observed value was the value that was calculated in the lab, and the accepted
value was the value that is the known for that element.
error =
observed valueaccepted value

100
accepted value
In Figure 18 a sample calculation for using the percent error equation for the
known metal, trial 1.
error =
0.00002324 C10.000029 C1
100
0.00002324 C1
error =0.1986C1100
error =19.862 C1
Figure 18.
Sample Calculation of Percent Error for Known Metal
In Figure 18, the percent error was calculated for trial 1 linear thermal
expansion of the known metal. The percent error was negative, which means that
the observed value was less than the actual, accepted value.
Pisarski Schultz 49
Appendix F: Specific Heat Two Sample T-test

The following is an example of the equations used in the two sample t-test
for specific heat of the metals.
t=
t=
( x1 x2 )
s1 s2
+
n n
(0.354 j/ g C0.404 j /g C)
0.037 j/ g C 2 0.024 j /g C2
+
15
15
t=4.40826
Figure 19. Two Sample t-test Calculations of Specific Heat
Figure 19 shows the solving of a two sample t-test for specific heat. x 1 is
the mean of the known metal rod and
x 2 is the mean of the unknown metal
rod. s 1 is the standard deviation of zinc.
unknown metal rod.

value.
s2
is the standard deviation of the
is the number of trails. The result after solving is the t-
Pisarski Schultz 50
Appendix G: Linear Thermal Expansion Two Sample T-test

The following is an example of the equations used in the two sample t-test
for linear thermal expansion of the metals.
t=
t=
( x1 x2 )
s1 s2
+
n n
(0.0000200.000007)
0.0000032 0.0000012
+
15
15
t=15.3262
Figure 20. Two Sample t-test Calculations of Specific Heat
Figure 20 shows the solving of a two sample t-test for linear thermal
expansion. x 1 is the mean of the known metal rod and
unknown metal rod.
s 1 is the standard deviation of zinc.
x 2 is the mean of the

s2
is the standard
Pisarski Schultz 51
deviation of the unknown metal rod.
is the number of trails. The result after
solving is the t-value.
Works Cited
"Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion." Coefficients of Linear Thermal
Expansion. Engineering Toolbox, 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficientsd_95.html>.
"Expansion." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 26 Mar.
2014. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/physicsterms/expansion-info.htm>.
Gagnon, Steve. "The Element Zinc." It's Elemental -. Jefferson Lab. Web. 18 May
2014. <http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele030.html>.
Harrison, David M. "Heat Capacity." Textbook of Heat (2001): n. pag. Web. 26
Mar. 2014. <http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/IYearLab/Exp2.pdf>.
Pisarski Schultz 52
Helmenstine, Ann Marie. "Zinc Facts." About.com Chemistry. About.com, 2014.

Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
<http://chemistry.about.com/od/elementfacts/a/zinc.htm>.
"Intensive Property." Definition of. Creative Commons, 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/definition/intensive-property/>.
Krishnan, Venkata, G. Panneerselvam, P. Manikandan, M.P. Antony, and K.
Nagarajan. "Heat Capacity and Thermal Expansion of UraniumGadolinium Mixed Oxides."Journal of Nuclear and Radiochemical
Sciences 10.1 (2009): 19-26. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.radiochem.org/paper/JN101/jn10105.pdf>.
"Lecture Notes." Lecture Notes. Structure and Properties of Metals, 17 Apr. 2001.
Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/joe/jkthermal.htm>.
Pearce, Mitchell. "Real World Context of Specific Heat Capacity." Scribd. Scribd
Inc., 30 Apr. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/139539080/real-world-context-of-specificheat-capacity>.
"Specific Heat." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www2.ohlone.edu/people/jklent/labs/101A_labs/SpecificHeat.pdf>.
"Specific Heat of an Unknown Metal." N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.pasco.com/resources/labdownloads/pdfs/glx/physics/31%20S
pecific%20heat%20SV.pdf>.
Pisarski Schultz 53
"Thermal Expansion - Linear." Thermal Expansion - Linear. Engineering Toolbox,

7 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansiond_1379.html>.
"The United States Mint About The Mint." The United States Mint About The
Mint. United States Mint. Web. 19 May 2014.
<http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/?action=fun_facts2>.
Twitchell, Drew, Kyle Davis, and Taylor Brown. "Calorimetry Lab." Hartford
Physics. Tangient LLC, 14 Oct. 2009. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <https%3A%2F
%2Fhartfordphysics.wikispaces.com%2Fdrew%2Bkyle%2Btaylor
%2Bcalorimetry%2Blab>.
Winter, Mark. "Zinc." WebElements Periodic Table of the Elements. Web
Elements, 2012. Web. 19 May 2014.
<http://www.webelements.com/zinc/>.
"Zinc Element Facts." Zinc. Chemicool. Web. 19 May 2014.
<http://www.chemicool.com/elements/zinc.html>.

Pisarski-Schultz Chemistry Research Paper

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pisarski-Schultz Chemistry Research Paper

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pisarski-Schultz 1

The s represents specific heat, the m represents mass, and the

Figure 1. Simple Calorimeter

Linear Thermal Expansion Review of Literature

29.7mm then the unknown metal was Zinc.

Place the thermometer in the loaf pan.

Turn the LabQuest on and prepare it to read temperature by setting the

Close the lid to the calorimeter.

Figure 2. Specific Heat Materials

Figure 3. Linear Thermal Expansion Materials

Data and Observations

Researcher A massed the metal, Researcher B set up calorimeter 2 and

Researcher A massed the metal, Researcher B set up calorimeter 2 and

Researcher A massed the metal, Researcher B set up calorimeter 1 and boiled

the known metal was 1.944E-05

. The highest alpha coefficient was trial 4 with 2.759E-

C1 and the lowest was trial 3 with 1.635E-05 C1 .

metals. The average of the trials was 7.175E-06

C1 . The lowest value was trial 14 with

C1 and highest was 9.577E-06 C1 .

Data Analysis and Interpretation

and the population standard deviation

Figure 4. Normal Probability Plot of Zincs Specific Heat

Figure 5. Normal Probability Plot of the Unknown Metals Specific Heat

Figure 6. Specific Heat of Zinc and the Unknown Metals

H o (null hypothesis) of the experiment was that

(alternative hypothesis) was that

1 2 . The mean of the specific heat of zinc

Figure 7. Specific Heat Density Curve

Figure 8. Calculator Page Results for Specific Heat T-Test

Figure 9. Normal Probability Plot of Zincs LTE

Figure 10. Normal Probability Plot of the Unknown Metals LTE

2.90105 C1 . When data was collected, it was

observed that none of the trials had an expansion on

. The zinc had an

H o (null hypothesis) of the experiment was that

(alternative hypothesis) of the experiment was that

1 2. The mean of the linear

1 and the mean of the linear thermal

expansion of the unknown metal represents

2 . The null hypothesis states that zinc

Figure 12. Linear Thermal Expansion Density Curve

Figure 13. Calculator Page Results for LTE T-Test

% of these circumstances happening by chance alone.

specific heat was

and for linear thermal expansion was

Figure 14. Zinc Isometric View

Figure 15. Battery Drawing

Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction

Appendix B: Randomizing Using the TI-Nspire CX

Appendix C: Sample Calculations for Specific Heat

s w was the specific heat of water, mw

was the mass of the

was the change in temperature of water. s m was being

solved for and is the specific heat of the metal,

mw was the mass of the metal,

and t m was the change in temperature of the metal.

Figure 16. Sample Calculation for Specific Heat

Appendix D: Sample Calculation for Linear Thermal Expansion

was the change in length of the metal,

was the original length of the metal and

was the change in temperature of