Kibria Vang 1 Introduction: Ones everyday nickel coin is not made of nickel (anymore, anyway).

. In fact, the common nickel coin in U.S. currency is mostly made of zinc. Nickel itself is a silvery-white lustrous metal with a slight golden hue and also is a transition metal that is hard and ductile. It is also one of the three metals on the periodic table that is magnetic, although it is very similar to some metals as well. It is used in many alloys to create a corrosion resistant metal making it very useful for construction purposes. An experiment was conducted to test whether or not unknown metal rods are the same as the given known nickel rods. The experiment included determining the values of the intensive properties: specific heat and linear thermal expansion coefficient. Through research, the known specific heat value and linear thermal expansion coefficient of nickel were found. To find the unknown metal rods values, the researchers had learned how to calculate the specific heat value and linear thermal expansion coefficient of an element by using equations. The data obtained from the experiment provided the necessary variables for using the equations. Once the calculations are done after receiving the data from the experiment, the researchers can determine if the metal rods are the same if the specific heat value and linear thermal expansion coefficient are the same. As a result of the research conducted, a two-sample t-test was used to aid the researchers in the quest of determining whether the metals were the same or

Kibria Vang 2 not. The results of the statistical test can give the researchers an idea of how significant the data was, if the data was significant at all. The data was collected by many different methods. Finding the specific heat value required finding the necessary variable numbers to be able to use the equation for finding the specific heat of the metal rod. This includes the mass of the water and rod and the change in temperature of the water and rod. (The specific heat of water is given, and the specific heat of the rod is what is being found.) Finding the linear thermal expansion coefficient required that alike the former, but it needed some different. It required the change in length of the rod and the change in temperature of the rod. Experimentation on the metals to calculate the values of specific heat and the linear thermal expansion coefficient will help the researchers determine whether or not the metals are the same.

Kibria Vang 3 Background: Nickel was discovered by a Swedish chemist named Axel Fredrik Cronstedt in 1751. He discovered nickel in the metal niccolite with which he was performing experiments with. After confirming the elemental property of what he discovered with in the niccolite, he named it Nickel. Nickel is collected from ores of two general types; nickel-iron sulfides and hydrous nickel silicate. Only about 1-3% of nickel is actually found within the ores.

50C 230C Ni + 4CO Ni(CO)4 Ni + 4CO. (impure) (pure)

Figure 1. Nickel Extraction This equation is used for the extraction of pure nickel from nickel ores. This extraction process turns nickel oxides into pure nickel.

Nickel-containing materials are found in food, mobile phones, medical equipment, transport, buildings, power generation, and even more. As stated before, they are selected because they offer better corrosion resistance, but are also known for its toughness and strength at high and low temperatures. It is chiefly used while alloyed with other metals because of nickels corrosionresistant characteristic. It is also used for nickel plating; the process in which nickel is used to cover and provide a protective coating over other metals. Nickel is used in almost all the stainless steel items and other non-corrosive alloys. Creating these alloys make a tough and sturdy metal for many uses.

Kibria Vang 4 Nickels atomic number is 28 and has an atomic mass of approximately 59 (atomic mass units). Nickels melting point is at 2651F, which is extremely difficult to melt. Because its melting point is very high, its linear thermal expansion coefficient and specific heat value is large when compared to other metals such as aluminum. This also means that metals with similar properties to nickel have similar values. For instance, nickel is closely related to iron; they are both magnetic, have similar melting points (iron has a melting point of about 2800F), and are in the same period of transition metals in the periodic table. Iron has an atomic number of 26 and an atomic mass of about 56 atomic mass units. Iron has a specific heat value and linear thermal expansion coefficient close to nickel, too.

[Ar] 4s2 3d8

Figure 2. Electron Configuration of Nickel The electron configuration is the arrangement of electrons in an atom. The configuration of nickel tells researchers of the shell in which nickel is found. The electronic configuration of nickel is shown in figure 2 and it describes to researchers about the energy level of the electrons. Using the electron configuration, it can be found that nickel is in the d-block and its highest energy level is 4. Since the number of protons is 28, the number of electrons is equal.

Kibria Vang 5 Review of Literature Specific Heat: The specific heat an object is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 g of that object by one degree Celsius or one Kelvin; Kelvin and Celsius are used interchangeably because they are translated units. This, however, is independent of the samples size and is therefore an intensive property. Specific heat is usually measured in J/g-K or J/g-C. An experiment that allows the researchers to find the specific heat of an unknown metal calls for the creation of a change in temperature using different temperatures of water. The experimenters place a metal into a bath of boiling water in which the temperature of that water is known. This is because the surrounding water will bring that metal to the temperature that of the water. Next, the experiments quickly remove the metal into a new bath of cooler water where the temperature is known as well. There is indeed a transfer of heat between when the metal is moved from the boiling bath into the cooler bath. Masses of the rods were found as well. Calculations using the equation to find the specific heat value are shown in Appendix IV. Constant-pressure calorimetry is another experiment that allows one to calculate the specific heat of an object, but it requires the creation of a calorimeter. Construction of the calorimeter used in this experiment is shown in Appendix VII. The heat transfer from a system to its surroundings is the enthalpy. A calorimeter is a good insulator and keeps pressure at a constant. It minimizes the heat loss of the experiment.

Kibria Vang 6 The reason why the researchers are able to calculate the specific heat is because of the transfer of heat energy from the rod to the surroundings. This displays the first law of thermodynamics in which energy from the system is not lost nor gained but instead transferred.

Kibria Vang 7 Review of Literature Linear Thermal Expansion: Linear thermal expansion is an intensive property of metals and can be defined as the change in length by a proportional amount due to heating and cooling. This is usually measured in meters. On the atomic level, linear thermal expansion is the size in spacing between molecules. The kinetic molecular theory states that the systems get hotter when the molecules are moving at a faster speed. Likewise, when the molecules move slower, the system is cooler. The heating of a substance gives energy to the particles of that substance and that creates more space between them. Remember the three basic forms of matter: gasses have the highest amount of energy and the molecules are the most spread apart, solids have the least amount of energy and the molecules are the most tightly packed, while liquids fall in between. Finding the linear thermal expansion of an unknown metal can be done in a number of ways. One way to determine the specific heat of a metal is to make a change in temperature. Experiments that can be conducted to find the linear thermal expansion of a metal object would be putting the object in cool water. After the metal rod has been warmed the linear thermal expansion apparatus measures the change in expansion length. Also, what can be done is placing the metal rod in a tube that is placed on an expansion base. Then a steam generator will pass through the tube and warm up the rod. This will cause an expansion and the expansion base will measure the data of the change. Linear thermal expansion can be explained on an atomic level. The expansion occurs because of the interaction between the atoms within the metal

Kibria Vang 8 object. As temperature rises, the amplitude of the atoms vibrations increases. When the temperature is increased, the potential energy of the system fills and the atoms inside start to move faster which causes the spacing to grow between atoms. Hence, the metal object expands of the metal object to account for the fast interactions of the atoms. Thermal expansion plays an important role in the industry and the building of products. One example would be the construction of bridges or buildings from metals. Since the metal goes through thermal expansion, people have to account for the expansion that occurs under warm weathers. This is extremely important because if the metal is too tight, when thermal expansion of the metal occurs, the whole structure could collapse. To find the linear thermal expansion of an object, an equation can be used.
dl = L0 (t1 - t0)

Using this equation, the change in length of a certain metal under specific temperatures can be found. The dl is the change in length, and L0 is the initial length. The alpha coefficient is the linear expansion. The t0 and t1 are the initial and final temperature in C. By multiplying the initial length by the thermal expansion coefficient, then multiplying all that by the change in temperature, the researcher gets the change in length. This is another experiment that can be conducted to find linear thermal expansion.

Kibria Vang 9 Problem Statements: To identify the metal rods using the elements intensive properties such as density, specific heat, and linear thermal expansion to determine if the two metals are the same or different. Hypothesis: The known and unknown metal rods will be found to be the same by measuring the needed values to calculate the specific heat and linear thermal expansion coefficient of the rods. Data Measured: The data that is being measured are the specific heat and linear thermal expansion. The unknown metal rod will be experimented to measure change in length, change in temp, initial temp, mass and length. All these data measurements are needed to calculate specific heat because SMT = SMT. The specific heat of the metal rod will be measured in kilojoules per mole (kJ/mol). The linear thermal expansion of the rod will be the change in length in meters (mm).

Kibria Vang 10 Experimental Design: Materials: Scout Pro Scale (0.001g) 2 Unknown Metal Rod 2 Nickel Rod Thermometer (0.1C) Hot Plate Graduated Cylinder Calorimeter Lab Quest TemperatureProbe Metal Loaf Pan TI-Nspire CX Tongs

Kibria Vang 10A Procedure: 1. Use the random integer function on the calculator to execute a simple random sample of the data (see Appendix I). Record this in the respective cell in the data table. 2. Fill up the loaf pan with distilled water enough to have the metal rod submerged in it completely. 3. Bring the water to 100C by placing the loaf pan onto the hotplate. 4. Using the graduated cylinder, fill the calorimeter with 30 ml of distilled water at room temperature. 5. Record the temperature of the water in the calorimeter with the Lab Quest (Appendix II) to find initial temperature. 6. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the water. Record this in the respective data table. 7. Place the selected metal rod inside the loaf pan for about 3 minutes. 8. After 2 minutes of letting the rod sit in the boiling water, allow the Lab Quest Probe to sit in the calorimeter to obtain an accurate temperature 9. At 3 minutes use the tongs to remove the metal rod and place in the calorimeter. 10. Make sure to keep Lab Quest on so that the data can be collected. 11. Wait to see an equilibrium temperature on the Lab Quest and then stop data collection. 12. Record the temperature at the end of equilibrium.

Kibria Vang 10A 13. Subtract the final temperature at equilibrium from the initial temperature of the calorimeter water to find the change in temperature. 14. Repeat steps 113 until there are 15 trials for the unknown and nickel rod. Diagram:

Figure 3.This is a diagram of the experimental setup to calculate specific heat of the unknown metal rods. Figure 3 above shows the materials that will be used in conduction the specific heat experiment. The calorimeter is one of the important materials that will be measured in C to find the equilibrium temperature of the metal rod. Also, the beaker will be used and measure to 100C as an initial starting temperature for the metal rods.

Kibria Vang 10A Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design Materials: Caliper (0.001 mm) (2) Unknown Metal Rod (2) Nickel Rod Thermometer (0.1C) Hotplate Linear Thermal Expansion Jig (mm) Metal Loaf Pan (4 x 6 in) TI-Nspire CX Tongs Spray Bottle

Procedure: 1. Use the random integer function on the calculator to execute a simple random sample of the data (see Appendix I). Record this in the respective cell in the data table. 2. Fill up loaf pan with distilled water, enough to have one of the rods completely submerged. 3. Bring the water to 100C on the hotplate and use the thermometer to watch the temperature of the water. 4. Using the caliper, measure the length of the rod and record it in the corresponding cell in the table. 5. Place the selected metal rod inside the loaf pan for about 3 minutes. The researchers are assuming that the rod is the same temperature of the boiling water (100C) after it has been submerged in the water for 3 minutes. 6. Quickly remove the rod from the pan and place it onto the linear thermal expansion jig. When using the jig, pull back the spring to allow the rod to fit comfortably in the space designed for the rod, then release the spring.

Kibria Vang 10A 7. Mark where the jigs meter began when placing the rod in it. Spray the rod with the ice water to speed up the process. Record any observations made. Be careful not to bump the jig at any time because making even slight contact with it will move the measure. 8. When the jigs measure has stopped moving, record the change in length in the correct cell. 9. Repeat steps 18 until there are 15 trials for the unknown and nickel rod. Diagram:

Metal loaf pan

Spray bottle

Thermometer
Tongs Caliper Metal rod Linear thermal expansion jig Hotplate

Figure 4.This is a diagram of the experimental setup to calculate the linear thermal expansion coefficient of the unknown and known rod Figure 1 above shows the materials that will be used in this experiment. The jig is one of the important materials that will be measured in (unit undetermined) to find the change in length, which will lead to the calculation of the linear thermal expansion coefficient.

Kibria Vang 15 Data Observation: Table 1 Nickel Metal Rod Specific Heat Data
Initial Temp. (C) Trial Rod Water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average: B B A B A A B A A B A A B A B 23.9 29.3 27.9 29.8 31.4 28.6 28.5 27.4 28.2 28.1 27.1 30.4 27.8 24.1 24.3 27.787 Metal 99.4 98.8 99.1 98.6 98.1 97.5 99.7 100.6 99.5 98.4 99.1 98.1 98.3 97.6 99.9 98.847 32.1 36.9 35.7 36.9 38.1 35.8 36.5 35.4 36 35.9 34.5 37.4 34.9 31.6 32.5 35.347 T (C) Equil. Temp. (C) Water 8.2 7.6 8.1 6.9 6.7 7.2 8 8 7.8 7.8 8.1 7 7.1 8.5 8.2 7.560 Metal -67.3 -61.9 -63.4 -61.7 -60 -61.7 -63.2 -65.2 -63.5 -62.5 -64.9 -60.7 -63.4 -68.5 -67.4 63.500 Water 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 Metal 36.063 36.036 36.039 36.036 36.025 36.032 36.106 36.037 36.038 36.023 36.031 36.039 36.083 36.037 36.094 36.048 Mass (g)

Specific Heat (J/gC) 0.452 0.456 0.457 0.428 0.415 0.434 0.469 0.456 0.456 0.464 0.464 0.428 0.416 0.422 0.451 0.442

Table 1 shows the 15 trials conducted by the researchers. The rods used were the known metal rod: nickel. A few words were abbreviated to fit this page; temp being temperature and equil being equilibrium. T is the change in temperature. Averages of the values obtained from the trials are also shown. The researchers found the average specific heat of the known metal rods over 15 trials was approximately 0.442 J/gC. Masses of the rods were obtained from a previous lab that the researchers conducted, using the same metal rods that are in this experiment.

Kibria Vang 16 Table 2 Nickel Specific Heat Trial Observations

Trials

1 2 3

5 6 7 8 9 10

Observations Trial ran relatively smoothly. The researchers had some difficulty in pouring 32 ml into the calorimeter and that allowed the metal rod to sit in the boiling water for an extra 15 seconds. This did not affect the data significantly though. Trial ran smoothly. Noticing similar trends in the graphs displayed on the LabQuest Pro. The rod slipped from the tongs and fell onto the table. It took about an extra 5 seconds for it to get into the calorimeter. This trial was redone. Trial ran smoothly. The window was open in the lab because it was very warm in the lab. Trends on the LabQuest reveal that the average change in temperature shown was about 7, no matter what the initial temperature was. Rod stayed in the boiling water for 40 seconds longer than the other trials. This was due to the LabQuest Pros power chord falling out of the outlet and the researchers had to acquire a new one. This trial was redone. Trial ran smoothly. A window was opened in the lab by peers, decreasing the rooms temperature. More water was added to the pan because of the evaporating water. The rod sat in the bath until boiling point. The trial was redone. Trial ran smoothly. The metal rod was taken out early. This trial was redone.

Trial ran smoothly. The calorimeter was knocked over, which showed a very large change in 11 temperature giving a large percent error. This trial was redone. 12 13 Trial ran smoothly. The window was open, decreasing room temperature. Trial ran smoothly. Slight difficulty with removing the rod from the bath, but did not affect the 14 data. 15 Trial ran smoothly. The window was open, decreasing room temperature.

Observations for the 15 trials conducted on the known metal rods are shown in table 2. The five trials that were redone had percent errors larger than 10 or smaller than -10.

Kibria Vang 17 Table 3 Unknown Metal Rod Specific Heat Data

Initial Temp. (C) Trial Rod Water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average: A A B A B B B A B A A B B B A 24.5 25.2 31.6 25.0 23.5 25.4 26.0 26.1 26.2 29.3 24.9 34.8 24.9 28.1 29.2 26.980 Metal 99.1 98.2 97.0 99.1 98.7 98.7 98.2 99.4 97.9 97.5 98.0 98.0 98.7 97.4 98.9 98.320

Equil. Temp. (C) 31.4 32.6 38.4 32.1 31.8 32.8 33.3 33.7 33.4 35.9 32.5 41.1 32.9 35.2 36.3 34.227

T (C) Water 6.9 7.4 6.8 7.1 8.3 7.4 7.3 7.6 7.2 6.6 7.6 6.3 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.247 Metal -67.7 -65.6 -58.6 -67.0 -66.9 -65.9 -64.9 -65.7 -64.5 -61.6 -65.5 -56.9 -65.8 -62.2 -62.6 64.093

Mass (g) Water 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 Metal 32.967 32.967 33.744 32.967 33.743 33.810 33.744 32.967 33.739 32.966 32.967 33.763 33.744 33.746 32.966 33.387

Specific Heat (J/gC) 0.414 0.458 0.460 0.430 0.492 0.445 0.446 0.470 0.443 0.435 0.471 0.439 0.482 0.453 0.461 0.453

Table 3 displays the results of the 15 trials conducted on the unknown metal rods. Masses of the rods were found with a scale, since the researchers have not massed these rods before. The average specific heat of the unknown metal rods was approximately 0.453. This is somewhat close to the specific heat of nickel, 0.44.

Kibria Vang 18 Table 4 Unknown Metal Specific Heat Observations Trials Observations The metal rod sat in the bath for about 30 seconds longer. The rod was also dropped onto the table. This trial was redone due to a large percent error. Trial ran smoothly. Calorimeter fell over and the temperature was greatly affected. This trial was redone. Trial ran smoothly. LabQuest Pro graphs show a relative same trend as that of the known rods (about 7 degrees in a change in temperature of water). Trial ran smoothly. Rod sat in water for about 15 seconds longer. The data was not heavily affected. There was much difficulty in removing the rod from the bath. As a result, the rod was dropped twice. This trial was redone. Trial ran smoothly. Trial ran smoothly. The calorimeter fell over. This trial was redone due to receiving a 16 percent error. Trial ran smoothly. Trial ran smoothly. The rod was taken out about 15 seconds early. This did not heavily affect the data though. Trial ran smoothly. The metal rod sat in the bath for about 30 seconds longer. This was due to having difficulty in pouring water into the calorimeter. This trial was redone.

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15

This observation table records any activities involving the unknown metals specific heat. Errors occurred during these trials; however, the researchers did the trials over again to minimize those errors.

Kibria Vang 19 Table 5 Nickel Rod Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Initial Length (mm) 129.19 129.2 129.18 129.19 129.21 129.11 129.13 129.22 129.19 129.21 129.24 129.12 129.19 129.23 129.2 129.187 Initial Temp. (C) 99.4 99.8 99.2 101.1 99.8 99.5 97.8 99.2 100.2 99.6 100.1 99.3 98.7 92.4 99.5 99.04 Final Temp. (C) 24.4 25.2 25.5 26.4 27.5 25.3 25.2 25.5 25.7 24.7 25.2 25.1 23.4 25.8 27 25.46 Alpha Coefficient (mm) 1.311E-05 1.239E-05 1.227E-05 1.263E-05 1.224E-05 1.220E-05 1.219E-05 1.360E-05 1.320E-05 1.339E-05 1.286E-05 1.299E-05 1.358E-05 1.239E-05 1.356E-05 1.284E-05

Trial

Rod

L (mm)

T (C)

1 A 2 B 3 A 4 A 5 B 6 B 7 B 8 B 9 A 10 B 11 A 12 A 13 B 14 A 15 A Average:

0.127 0.11938 0.11684 0.12192 0.1143 0.11684 0.1143 0.12954 0.127 0.12954 0.12446 0.12446 0.13208 0.10668 0.127 0.12209

75 74.6 73.7 74.7 72.3 74.2 72.6 73.7 74.5 74.9 74.9 74.2 75.3 66.6 72.5 73.58

Table 5 shows the 15 trials conducted on the nickel rod to find its linear thermal expansion coefficient. L is the change in length. The average linear thermal expansion coefficient of these 15 trials is 12.84E-06. This is very close to the known alpha coefficient of nickel, 13.0E-06.

Kibria Vang 20

Table 6 Nickel Linear Thermal Expansion Observations

Trials 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15

Observations The jig was bumped by the tongs and the rod was dropped before it was placed in the jig. This trial was redone. Trial ran smoothly. The dial was not turned to 0 when the rod was placed in the jig. This trial was redone to avoid error. Trial ran smoothly. A window was opened in the lab, blowing steam near the rods in the jigs. This possibly could have affected the data but showed no significant change. Trial ran smoothly. More water was sprayed onto the rods than normal. This showed no significant effect on the data. Rod was taken out 15 seconds early. This showed no significant effect on the data. Trial ran smoothly. No water was sprayed onto the metal. This trial was redone. Trial ran smoothly. A window was opened in the lab, blowing steam near the rods in the jigs. This possibly could have affected the data but showed no significant change. Trial ran smoothly. Trial ran smoothly. No water was sprayed onto the metal. This trial was redone.

Observations of the 15 linear thermal expansion trials on the nickel rods are recorded in table 6. Note that some trials were redone to minimize error in the data.

Kibria Vang 21 Table 7 Unknown Metal Rod Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Trial

Rod

L (mm)

Initial Length (mm) 129.54 129.22 129.2 129.53 129.51 129.53 129.21 129.17 129.53 129.2 129.22 129.55 129.22 129.5 129.23 129.357

Initial Temp. (C) 99.4 99.2 98.9 98.3 100.1 99.5 98.7 98.8 100.5 98.3 98.4 97.9 99.9 100.3 100.4 99.24

Final Temp. (C) 26.7 26.9 26.5 23.3 27.4 27 26.8 26.9 26.7 23.6 25.1 24.9 24.3 24.7 24.8 25.7067

T (C)

Alpha Coefficient (mm) 1.376E-05 1.332E-05 1.303E-05 1.333E-05 1.349E-05 1.379E-05 1.340E-05 1.367E-05 1.329E-05 1.290E-05 1.274E-05 1.289E-05 1.352E-05 1.323E-05 1.326E-05 1.331E-05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average:

B A A B B B A A B A A B A B A

0.12954 0.12446 0.12192 0.12954 0.127 0.12954 0.12446 0.127 0.127 0.12446 0.12065 0.12192 0.13208 0.12954 0.12954 0.12658

72.7 72.3 72.4 75 72.7 72.5 71.9 71.9 73.8 74.7 73.3 73 75.6 75.6 75.6 73.5333

Above is the resulting data of the 15 conducted trials on the unknown metal rods to find the linear thermal expansion coefficient. The averages are shown at the bottom, with an average alpha coefficient of 13.31E-06. This is relatively close to the known alpha coefficient of nickel, 13.0E-06.

Kibria Vang 22 Table 8 Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Observations Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Observations The rod was dropped before being placed inside the jig. This resulted in a large percent error and the trial was redone. The spray bottle was note filled with warmer water than usual. This did not affect the data significantly. Trial ran smoothly. More water was sprayed onto the rod than usual. The jig was flooded. This trial was redone due to receiving a large percent error. There was no water sprayed onto the rod. Trial was redone. A paper fan was used to help cool down the rods. This did not show any significant effect on the data. Trial ran smoothly. Trial ran smoothly. Trial ran smoothly. The jig was bumped harshly, so the trial was redone. Windows were open in the lab. This affected the room temperature. Windows were open in the lab. This affected the room temperature. Trial ran smoothly. Tongs were dropped onto the jig by accident This trial was redone. Trial ran smoothly.

Above are the observations of the 15 trials conducted on the unknown metal rods to find the linear thermal expansion coefficient of them. The researchers redid the trials that with error showing a significant effect on data.

Kibria Vang 23 Data Analysis and Interpretation: The type of data collected is quantitative, since the researchers obtained data by using a means of an instrument to measure what was going on in the trials. They were collected by uses of thermometers, calipers, scales, and linear thermal expansion measurement instruments. A method of analyzing the validity of each individual trial is the use of percent error. The true values of every element are already known, and will be used. Using this knowledge, a percent error table was created that tells the researcher how far off the data collected actually is from the true value. By calculating the percent error while the experimental trials were being conducted, it tells whether or not the trial is valid or not, or if it is close to the actual expected true value of the metal. A very high percent error would suggest that something is wrong with the experiment and that the trial have to be redone. Likewise, a very low percent error would say that the data collected is very close to that of the specific heat and linear thermal expansion coefficient of nickel. This would help researchers to find out if the metal being tested on is in fact nickel or a different element.

Kibria Vang 24 Specific Heat: Table 9 Known Specific Heat Percent Error True Percent Experimental Value Value Error 0.4523 0.44 2.81% 0.4562 0.44 3.67% 0.4746 0.44 7.87% 0.4155 0.44 -5.57% 0.4150 0.44 -5.68% 0.4336 0.44 -1.45% 0.4694 0.44 6.68% 0.4559 0.44 3.61% 0.4564 0.44 3.72% 0.4638 0.44 5.42% 0.4638 0.44 5.40% 0.4284 0.44 -2.63% 0.4155 0.44 -5.56% 0.4610 0.44 4.78% 0.4513 0.44 2.57% 0.4475 0.44 1.71%

Table 9 above shows the percent errors of the known specific heat trials. The bolded numbers show the average percent error of the 15 trials conducted. A 1.71% average error means that on average, the data collected is 1.71% off from the true specific heat of nickel at 0.44 J/g-C. Having a 1.71% error is good because that means that the known metals data is very close to the true value suggesting the experiment was run accurately and that the metal is nickel according to the specific heat. Although, in some trials there were errors that were over 5% meaning that there were a few altercations such as dropping the rod or not using the Lab Quest correctly that may have affected the data. A

Kibria Vang 25 sample calculation of percent error is shown in appendix 2.

Table 10 Unknown Specific Heat Percent Error Experimental Value True Value Percent Error 0.413925944 0.44 -5.93% 0.458131450 0.44 4.12% 0.460422341 0.44 4.64% 0.430373748 0.44 -2.19% 0.492277444 0.44 11.88% 0.444675077 0.44 1.06% 0.446296268 0.44 1.43% 0.469797227 0.44 6.77% 0.442978073 0.44 0.68% 0.435149635 0.44 -1.10% 0.471231722 0.44 7.10% 0.439065091 0.44 -0.21% 0.482402095 0.44 9.64% 0.452884353 0.44 2.93% 0.460637632 0.44 4.69% 0.453349873 0.44 3.03%

The unknown specific heat data is shown above in table 10. The average of the unkown metals error is 3.03%. This percent error is higher than that of the known metals. This can be expected because of the simple fact that it is the unkown metal. It may or may not be the same as the known metal. The unknown metal can be of a different element than that of nickel. Although it can be expected to be a different element it is still hard to believe because of the fact that the average still shows a low 3.03% of error. The average had a low percent error but trial 5 had a huge 11.88% error. This tells researchers that there was a flaw in the experiment for this trial. The specific heat of trial 5 would be an outlier

Kibria Vang 26 on any plots of data, but can be explained using the percent error by stating that an experimental flaw occured. Percent errors can be used to justify a graph having such a huge outlier. To even conduct the two-sample t-test, assumptions and condition must be met. What is known is that the samples have been randomly and independently selected from two different populations. Also, another assumption that must be met is that the sample size is greater than 30. Since this condition is not met, a normal probability plot must be shown to evaluate if the sample is in fact a normal distribution. The probability plots for both the unknown and known metal rods are shown below in figure 5.

Figure 5. Known and Unknown Rods Normal Probability Plot The normal probability plots shown above show the reliability of the data samples that are being experimented on. The known metals data seems less normal than the unknown metals data. The known metals data is not completely on the line but by observing the graph in can be assumed that data is reliable because the data points are relatively close to the line. The unknown metals are even more reassuring because of the fact that most the data points sit nicely on

Kibria Vang 27 the line. Using these plots, it can be assumed that these data sets are normal and reliable. Looking at the data points it can be noted for the knowns that as the specific heat increases, the data points get more and more linear.

Figure 6. Specific Heat Box Plots of Known and Unknown Metals. The data received from the trials are plotted in figure 6. The upper box plot is the unknown metal rod specific heat data and the lower is the known nickel rod specific heat data. Notice that the medians are very close to each other. The data appears to be normally spread, but the spread of the unknown metal rod box plot is larger than that of the known nickel rod box plot.

Kibria Vang 28 The null hypothesis states that the known metal rods and the unknown metal rods have the same specific heat value. The alternative hypothesis states that the known and unknown metals that they have different specific heat values. The results of the two sample t-test will be calculated against an alpha level of 0.10. If the p-value is less than that of the alpha level, it means is that there is a very low possibility of getting the same outcome that was obtained by chance alone.

Figure 7. Two Sample T-Test and Distribution Chart After calculating the t-statistic it shows that the probability, assuming H0 is true, would take a value as extreme or more as that observed by chance alone is a 0.2714. Since the p-value of the specific heat experiment is higher than the alpha level of 0.1, the researchers fail to reject the null hypothesis. According to this analysis, it means that the two metals can be equal when only looking at their specific heat. A sample calculation is shown in appendix 3. In conclusion the researchers failed to reject null hypothesis because the p-value of 0.2714 is higher than the alpha level of 0.1. There is a 27.14% chance of getting the same results of having similar specific heat of the two rods as did

Kibria Vang 29 by chance alone, if H0 is true. The validity of stating that the two metals are the same cannot be based solely on the specific heat value. All this tells the researchers is that the two metal rods have similar specific heat.

Linear Thermal Expansion: Table 11 Nickel Rod Linear Thermal Expansion Percent Error Table
Experimental Value True Value Percent Error 1.311E-05 1.300E-05 0.825% 1.239E-05 1.300E-05 -4.723% 1.227E-05 1.300E-05 -5.597% 1.263E-05 1.300E-05 -2.819% 1.224E-05 1.300E-05 -5.883% 1.220E-05 1.300E-05 -6.182% 1.219E-05 1.300E-05 -6.214% 1.360E-05 1.300E-05 4.632% 1.320E-05 1.300E-05 1.502% 1.339E-05 1.300E-05 2.963% 1.286E-05 1.300E-05 -1.097% 1.299E-05 1.300E-05 -0.072% 1.358E-05 1.300E-05 4.441% 1.239E-05 1.300E-05 -4.654% 1.356E-05 1.300E-05 4.294% 1.284E-05 1.300E-05 -1.239%

The percent error for each trial of the linear thermal expansion is shown in table 3. The sixteenth percent error calculation is the average of all of the trials, which is -1.239%. This means that the researchers were, on average, 1.239% lesser than the true value 1.3E-05. Experimental values are the values calculated from the data obtained in the experiment. 1.284E-05 was the average linear thermal expansion coefficient found over 15 trials.

Kibria Vang 30 Table 12 Unknown Metal Rod Linear thermal Expansion Percent Error Table
Experimental Value True Value % Error 1.376E-05 1.300E-05 5.8089% 1.332E-05 1.300E-05 2.4751% 1.303E-05 1.300E-05 0.2607% 1.333E-05 1.300E-05 2.5720% 1.349E-05 1.300E-05 3.7583% 1.379E-05 1.300E-05 6.1090% 1.340E-05 1.300E-05 3.0532% 1.367E-05 1.300E-05 5.1889% 1.329E-05 1.300E-05 2.1959% 1.290E-05 1.300E-05 -0.8019% 1.274E-05 1.300E-05 -2.0171% 1.289E-05 1.300E-05 -0.8321% 1.352E-05 1.300E-05 4.0021% 1.323E-05 1.300E-05 1.7815% 1.326E-05 1.300E-05 1.9942% 1.331E-05 1.300E-05 2.3611%

The average percent error of the 15 unknown metal rod linear thermal expansion trials is 2.3611%, which is shown in row 16 of table 4.This means on average, the researchers were 2.3611% above the true value 1.3E-05. Row 16 also displays the average experimental value: 1.331E-05.

Figure 8. Box Plots of Linear Thermal Expansion Trials The data of both the linear thermal expansion trials on the known (lower) and unknown (upper) rods are shown in box plots in figure 4 above. These are

Kibria Vang 31 necessary because the number of trials is not greater than thirty, and the researchers must meet the assumptions of a two-sample t-test in order to do a ttest. Both of the plots appear normal and there are no outliers. An observation to be made is that the spread of data of the known rod trials is much larger than the unknown. Also, the relative median of the unknown metal rod trials is higher than the median of the nickel rod trials. 75 percent of the data of the unknown metal rod trials is above the mean of the known nickel rod trials.

Figure 9. Linear Thermal Expansion Normal Probability Plots The left picture of figure 9 displays the normal probability plot of the data received from the trials of the known nickel rods. The right displays the normal probability plot of the data received from the trials of the unknown metal rods. Both appear to be normal and fall relatively close to the line.

Kibria Vang 32

Figure 11. Linear Thermal Expansion Two-Sample t-Test Figure 11 above shows the results from of the two-sample t-test ran. Below is the null and alternative hypothesis:

a
The null hypothesis states that the unknown metal rod and the nickel rod have the same linear thermal expansion coefficient. The alternative hypothesis states that the unknown metal rod and nickel rod have a different linear thermal expansion coefficient. The researchers received a p value of 0.008551 from the two-sample t-test. because the p value of 0.008551 is less than the alpha level of 0.1, the researchers reject the null hypothesis. There is a 0.86% chance of getting the same results of having similar linear thermal expansion coefficient. Of the two rods as did by chance alone, if H0 is true. This is very significant, and says that the odds of the two rods having different linear thermal expansion coefficients are very low.

Kibria Vang 33 Conclusion: Experiments were conducted on two types of metal rods to identify if they were the same metals. By calculating intensive properties such as specific heat and linear thermal expansion coefficient, the researchers were able to draw a conclusion on whether or not the rods are the same. The known metals specific heat and thermal expansion coefficient were compared to the unknown metals values. The original hypothesis which the researchers predicted the rods were the same was rejected. Although the p-value from the two-sample t-test conducted on the specific heat (0. proposed that the two metals had a high chance on being the same, the p-value received from the statistical test on the linear thermal expansion coefficient stated otherwise. Many metals have the same or very similar specific heat values, which may be the reason why the metals could have had the same specific heat value but different linear thermal expansion coefficients. To prove whether or not the pairs of metal rods were truly different, the researchers used the nickels property of magnetism. The results of using the magnets showed that the known rods were indeed nickel, but the unknown metal rods were not nickel. This, however, could mean that the unknown rods were a nickel-based alloy because the specific heat value was equal. Data from the specific heat trials did not support the original hypothesis because the found specific heat values were not alike. Data from the linear

Kibria Vang 34 thermal expansion trials did support it, though, because the coefficient values found were found to be similar otherwise. As mentioned in earlier in this paper, nickel is related to other metals, and is used in the construction of alloys. So, the similar linear thermal expansion values may be caused by the fact that the unknown metal rods are a nickel-based alloy, or something to that accord. The experimental design played an important role in contributing to how well the data was measured. Using equipment that was not professional may have caused issues in this experiment. Take for example the linear thermal expansion experimental design. Using a wooden jig to measure the change in length may not have been as accurate as predicted. Wood expands and contracts as well when heated and cooled. When spraying the metal rod while it sat in the jig, water also got on the jig and may have even seeped in the wood of the jig. This yielded results that led the researchers to rejecting the hypothesis, but there may be a chance that the outcome of the trials would have been different if the researchers used more accurate equipment. Furthermore, the constructed calorimeters were not as accurate as an actual calorimeter would be. Professional calorimeters are actually designed for calorimetry, rather than putting together pipes and Styrofoam. The rod sitting in the bath was another problem. The rods sat at the bottom of the pan. This resulted in it almost being directly touching the hotplate through the pan. The metal rods may have not been the same temperature of the water because of this, though the researchers assumed that the temperature of the rods were the same of that of the water of that particular trial.

Kibria Vang 35 Larger sample rods would have also changed the results of the data. Linear thermal expansion can be calculated more precisely when using a larger rod because there is more of a sample to be measuring (specific heat values as well). Not only this, but executing more trials for this experiment would have resulted in more accurate calculations from this experiment. More trials would give an average closer to the true experimental value. Timing was a minor issue in this experiment. As soon as the metal rods fell into the bath, they were required to sit inside for 3 minutes. Using the stopwatch it would sometimes not be started on time and an approximation deduction or addition of time would be needed. Something that would be forewarned to other researchers would be to allow the logger pro to run its course even after what the researchers believe to be equilibrium. This is to be done because sometimes the metal rod gives spikes or dips of temperature giving it the appearance of equilibrium when it truly is not. In terms of the reliability of the data drawn from the errors stated above, the conclusion the researchers reached may have been different if these errors were addressed effectively. To further the research that was in this experiment, more trials, larger sample sizes, and more professional equipment should be used. Also, exploring different metals rather than nickel would extend the validity of the research. Recall that magnets were needed in order to determine whether or not the metals were the same.

Kibria Vang 36 Acknowledgments: The researchers would like to acknowledge Mr. Supal for his help in the construction of the calorimeters. He allowed us to use the tools in the shop and oversaw us when using the tools.

Kibria Vang 37 Appendix I: Randomization Function To minimize bias, the experimental trials randomization must be done. Randomizing trials eliminated human bias that could have occurred and was done using a feature on the TI-Nspire CX calculator. A simple random sample (SRS) is needed in order to use the statistical tests that were conducted in the analysis of this experiment. The steps are shown below: 1. Turn the calculator on and open either the scratchpad feature or a calculator page on a new document. 2. Press the menu key and then select the probability option. 3. Select Random and then Integer. 4. Input the desired range of numbers with commas in between selections. 5. Press enter to confirm. Example: randInt(1,2,4) Numbers 1-4 will be randomly selected two at a time every time the enter key is pressed consecutively.

Kibria Vang 38 Appendix II: Logger Pro To use the LabQuest the following procedures need to be followed. 1. Connect the Temperature Probe to LabQuest 2. Press the power button on Lab Quest to turn it on. Choose New from the File menu. 3. On the Meter screem tap Rate. Change the data-collection rate to 0.5 samples/second. 4. Place the LabQuest Probe into the calorimeter to measure initial temperature 5. Start data collection 6. After about 15 seconds, place your metal rod into the calorimeter and put the temperature probe back in. 7. Let the LabQuest collect data until equilibrium has been observed. 8. Measure initial temperature by clicking on the graph and recording 9. Measure the equilibrium temperature which is the highest temperature met and record it.

Kibria Vang 39 Appendix III: Percent Error = % error

The percent error is an important value to help keep the experiment on track. To calculate percent error, the experimental value and true values are needed.

= 2.81% Figure 2. Sample Calculation of Percent Error A sample calculation will be done above in figure 2, using the data from the first trial of the known specific heat experiment. The true value of the specific heat for the known metal rod is 0.44 J/g-C

Kibria Vang 40 Appendix IV: Specific Heat

On the left side of the equation is water while on the right stands for the metal. The s in this equation stands for the specific heat; the left side is for the water, so the specific heat is 4.184 J/gC. The m stands for the mass of the water or rod. The change in temperature is shown by heat of the rod, another equation is needed. . To isolate finding the specific

This equation is used to calculate the specific heat of the metal rods. Shown in the figure below are the data collected from the first trial of the known specific heat experiment.

Figure 3. Specific Heat Sample Calculations Figure 3 shows the sample calculations for the data. By isolation the equation, it is easier to calculate the specific heat of just the metal. The data from the first trial of the experiment was used for this calculation.

Kibria Vang 41 Appendix V: Linear Thermal Expansion

The linear thermal expansion coefficient is equal to the change in length over the initial length multiplied by the change in temperature. The change in length is the final length minus the initial.

= Figure 4. Linear Thermal Expansion Sample Calculation Figure 4 uses trial twos experimental data. The data equals to 0.000013 alpha, which is close to the true value of the alpha coefficient.

Kibria Vang 42 Appendix VI: Two-Sample T-Test

The t-statistic will help determine the p-value but to find the t-statistic, the variables of the equation must be found. The x1 and x2 are the observed means of the data. The SD1 and SD2 are the standard deviations of the sample. The n stands for the sample size.

Figure 1. Calculated t-statistic After calculating the t-statistic it shows that the probability, assuming H0 is true, that the test statistic would take a value as extreme or more as that observed by chance alone is 0.440737.

Kibria Vang 43 Appendix VII: Calorimeter Construction To build the calorimeter many items are needed. Two to three pipes are needed so a long pipe that can be cut into threes will be needed. Then a and inch pipe insulation will be used. Also, two 4-6 caps are needed to cover the pipes with glue. After gathering all the materials, the pipe should be cut into two or three pieces all 9 inches long. After wards, take 2 or 3 caps respectively and drill a hole through them so that the temperature probe can fit. Afterwards, the caps should be glued onto the pipes to prevent and water escaping. Finally put the pipe insulation to cover the pipe. Use the slightly bigger insulation to cover the cap so that it can be used as a stand for the calorimeter.

Kibria Vang 44 Works Cited Katya. "PriMetals." PriMetals. 2009. 24 Mar. 2013 <http://www.primetals.com/index.php?option=com_content>.

"ELEMENT: NICKEL." ELEMENT: NICKEL. 24 Mar. 2013 <http://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/28.html>.

Gagnon, Seteve. "The Element Nickel." It's Elemental -. 24 Mar. 2013 <http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele028.html>.

Bentor, Yinon. Chemical Element.com - Nickel. Mar. 24, 2013 <http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/ni.html>.

"Nickel." Chemistry Reference. 24 Mar. 2013 <http://www.chemistryreference.com/pdictable/q_elements.asp?Symbol=Ni>.

Mond, L.; Langer, K.; Quincke, F. (1890). "Action of carbon monoxide on nickel". Journal of the Chemical Society 57: 749753

John Trowbridge and Samuel Sheldon, Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 24, 181-184 (1889)

Housecroft, C. E.; Sharpe, A. G. (2008). Inorganic Chemistry (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. p. 729.

Kibria Vang 45

Weeks, Mary Elvira (1932). "The discovery of the elements: III. Some eighteenthcentury metals". Journal of Chemical Education 9: 22.

"The Extraction of Nickel from its Ores by the Mond Process".Nature 59 (1516): 63. 1898.