Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 39

Identifying an Unknown Metal Matthew Desantis-Austin Morales Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center 10A Section # 12 Mrs.

Hilliard / Mr.Supal / Mrs. Dewey May 20th, 2013

Table of Contents
Introduction.1 Background and Review of Literature2 Problem Statement...4 Experimental Design5 Data and Observations.10 Data Analysis and Interpretation..18 Conclusion28 Acknowledgments31 Appendix..32 Bibliography.37

Introduction Everything on this planet is made of elements. From planets to people, all matter on this planet is composed of this building block of the universe. Many of these elements have special properties such as flammability and explosive tendencies. These special properties are what make these elements essential to the world we live in today. The following experiment will be used to confirm the identity of choice elements using the unique properties of specific heat and linear thermal expansion. This experiment was designed to test the knowledge of students in the elements; making them learn the essential differences between these special elements. This will be done using tests of specific heat and linear thermal expansion. The true test; however, will be to see if the researchers can differentiate two known metals from two unknown metals. The goal for this experiment is to get valid data that supports that either the two metals have a statistically significant amount of data that matches with the other two metals, or that there is enough evidence to prove that the data between the known and unknown metals do not match and therefore, are not the same metals. The students intend to set up a way to test the values of specific heat using calorimetry and linear thermal expansion using alpha coefficients. If the test values for the unknown metals end up matching with the test values for the known metals, then the researches can indeed conclude that they accept their null hypothesis and their hypothesis is correct. The strategy that will be used is to first find the data for the known metals, so that during the experimentation of

the unknown metal trials, the researches will have something to continuously try and connect evidence and match values to come to a conclusion. This strategy follows up with the order of experimentation, from first to last: known specific heat, known linear thermal expansion, unknown specific heat, and unknown linear thermal expansion. It is anticipated that through this strategy, the researchers can more easily find trends or patterns within the data to prove that either the metals are the same or different. Review of Literature Cobalt was discovered by George Brandt in 1739. He was trying to prove that the minerals blue tint of glass was not from bismuth, but from Cobalt. Its name is based on the German word kobald, or goblins that replaced precious silver with this ore. It is also based on the Greek word cobalos, for mines. Cobalt (Co) is a common transition metal, and is very common on Earth. It has an atomic number of 27, an atomic mass of 58.93g, and a density of 8.85 g/cm3. It also has a specific heat of 0.456 kJ/mol and an alpha coefficient of 12 mm/mmC. Cobalts melting point is 1,495 degrees Celsius. It boils at 2,927 degrees Celsius. Cobalt is a solid at room temperature and it has 27 protons, 27 electrons, and 32 neutrons in its most common isotope. Its oxidation states are +3 and +2 and it gives off its first ionization energy of 760.4 kJ mol-1. Cobalt has four energy levels and it has the following electron configuration: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d7 Figure 1. Cobalt Electron Configuration

Cobalt can be extracted from metals in many ways, and it is usually recovered as a byproduct of mining iron (Fe), lead (Pb), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), and nickel (Ni). Atomically, specific heat is the amount of heat, in kilojoules, needed to raise one mole of a substance by one degree Celsius or one degree Kelvin. Each element on the periodic table has a different value for specific heat. This is because different complex molecules (or different elements) can store heat energy more efficiently than other simple atoms. Simple atoms have more freedom to vibrate, thus creating heat or increasing the substances temperature. Because the specific heat of an element does not depend on the amount of the element available, that property is said to be intensive. Other intensive properties that can be used to identify an unknown metal are its boiling point, density and permeability; for example, Cobalt is about 2/3 more permeable than Iron. The amount of heat needed to raise one mole of the unknown metal by one degree Celsius or one Kelvin can be found by dividing the enthalpy, (which can be equal to heat because its under constant pressure) of the reaction by the change in temperature (degrees Celsius or Kelvin), divided by the unknown metals mass in grams. s=Q/T/m

Problem Statement Problem: Can an unknown metal be distinguished from another metal previously identified in an experiment using linear thermal expansion and specific heat? Hypothesis: If a metal rod is analyzed using linear thermal expansion and specific heat, then it will be identified correctly within 20 J/Kg K for specific heat and within 0.1 m/mK for linear thermal expansion. Data Measured: The experiment will have measure final and initial temperature of both the metal rods and the water (C), as well as mass (g) to calculate Specific Heat in Joules per Gram Celsius ( for the specific heat, and the linear thermal expansion will be measured in meters per meter Celsius, or (m/m C).

Specific Heat Experimental Design Materials: (2) Cobalt Metal Rods (2) Unknown Metal Rods Hot plate Tongs Calorimeter (Appendix A) Scale (0.01 g) Loaf Pan (7.5 by 3.5 by 2.75) Temperature Probe (0.01C) Logger Pro Thermometer (0.1C) TI-Nspire Cx Calculator 100 mL Graduated Cylinder Procedures: 1. Randomize trials through the TI-Nspire Cx Calculators randomization function. 2. Fill the loaf pan with enough tap water to heat the metal in. 3. Set filled loaf pan on hot plate and heat to 100 C. Use thermometer to track the temperature. 4. Mass the metal rod using the 0.01g scale.

5. Use the graduated cylinder to pour 120 mL of tap water into the calorimeter. 6. Connect the temperature probe to the logger pro and open a new graph/table. 7. Use the temperature probe and logger pro to record the initial temperature of the water in the calorimeter. 8. Once the H2O in the loaf pan has been heated to 100 C, place the metal rod into the boiling water for three minutes. Assume that the temperature of the rod is equal to the temperature of the H2O. 9. Use the tongs to place the metal rod into the Calorimeter. 10. Once equilibrium has been reached, or after five minutes, record the temperature of the water inside the calorimeter using the temperature probe and logger pro and repeat for 29 more trials.

Diagram:

Figure 2. Specific Heat Experiment Setup

Experimental Design of Linear Thermal Expansion Materials: Caliper (0.01 mm) Jig Setup (0.01) Scale (0.01 g) (2) Cobalt Rods (2) Unknown Metal Rods Hot Plate Small Loaf Pan (7.5 by 3.5 by 2.75) Room Temp. Water in Spray Bottle 100 mL Graduated Cylinder Tongs (2) 200 mL Glass Beaker Thermometer (0.1C) TI-Nspire CX Calculator

Procedures: 1. Randomize trials through the Ti-Nspire CX Calculators number randomizer function. 2. Zero out the caliper to verify that the length will be accurate when measuring. 3. Fill the loaf pan with enough tap water to heat the metal in. 4. Place the loaf pan on the hot plate and heat to 100 C.

5. Measure the initial length of the chosen metal rod using the calipers. 6. Take the temperature of the surroundings using the thermometer to calculate the initial temperature. 7. Place the metal rod into the loaf pan. 8. After three minutes in the loaf pan, measure the temperature of the water. 9. After that, quickly remove the metal rod from the loaf pan and carefully place it on the jig for a maximum of five minutes. 10. Use the jig to measure the change in length of the metal rod. The rod may be sprayed with cold water to increase the cooling rate. 11. Record results in the data table, and repeat for 29 more trials

10

Data and Observations Data: Table 1 Specific Heat Data for Cobalt Metal Rods Initial Temperature Temperature Equilibrium Mass (g) Change (C) Trial Rod Temperature (C) (C) Water Metal Water Metal Water Metal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average B B A A A B A A B A B A A B B 18.20 22.40 21.20 19.60 21.30 23.30 22.00 22.50 24.10 15.40 24.50 17.20 22.00 21.00 22.40 21.14 96.00 97.90 96.00 97.90 95.80 95.80 96.70 95.00 96.70 98.20 95.00 97.40 95.00 98.20 97.40 96.60 20.70 24.50 23.40 22.50 23.30 25.40 24.20 24.50 26.40 18.00 26.80 19.40 24.00 23.60 24.70 23.43 2.50 2.10 2.20 2.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.00 2.30 2.60 2.30 2.20 2.00 2.60 2.30 2.29 75.30 73.40 72.60 75.40 72.50 70.40 72.50 70.50 70.30 80.20 68.20 78.00 71.00 74.60 72.70 73.17 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 35.6 35.6 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.6 35.5 35.5 35.6 35.5 35.6 35.5 35.5 35.6 35.6 35.5

Specific Heat (J/g x C) 0.468 0.404 0.429 0.544 0.390 0.421 0.429 0.401 0.462 0.459 0.476 0.399 0.399 0.492 0.446 0.441

The table above shows the data and averages for specific heat of two Cobalt (Co) metal rods. Specific heat is in Joules per gram times degree Celsius (J/g*C) (Appendix B).

11

Table 2 Specific Heat Data for Unknown Metal Rods Initial Temperature (C) Water Metal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average
B A A A A B A B B A A A B B B

Trial

Rod

Final Temperature (C)

Temperature Change (C) Water Metal

Mass (g) Water 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00

Specific Heat (J/g x C) Metal 51.43 51.55 51.55 51.55 51.56 51.44 51.55 51.44 51.44 55.57 55.57 55.56 55.43 55.44 55.44 53.10 0.440 0.373 0.348 0.447 0.312 0.375 0.315 0.508 0.395 0.325 0.319 0.323 0.415 0.506 0.439 0.389

21.90 22.90 25.50 23.60 24.40 25.10 22.00 21.40 25.80 22.10 23.00 22.30 22.40 22.30 22.00 23.11

96.10 96.10 98.00 94.20 95.20 98.00 95.40 94.20 95.20 94.10 93.30 94.80 95.40 94.10 93.30 95.16

25.10 25.60 28.00 26.70 26.60 27.80 24.30 25.00 28.50 24.60 25.40 24.80 25.60 26.10 25.30 25.96

3.20 2.70 2.50 3.10 2.20 2.70 2.30 3.60 2.70 2.50 2.40 2.50 3.20 3.80 3.30 2.85

-71.00 -70.50 -70.00 -67.50 -68.60 -70.20 -71.10 -69.20 -66.70 -69.50 -67.90 -70.00 -69.80 -68.00 -68.00

-69.20 120.00

The table above displays the data and averages for specific heat of two unknown metal rods. Specific heat is in Joules per gram times degree Celsius (J/g*C) (Appendix B).

12

Table 3 Linear Thermal Expansion Data for Cobalt Metal Rods Initial Length (mm) 128.01 127.90 127.98 127.96 127.94 127.92 127.99 127.96 127.95 127.97 127.93 127.98 127.91 127.95 127.92 127.95 L (mm) Initial Final Temperature Temperature (C) (C) 95.10 95.20 95.20 94.90 94.20 95.10 94.20 94.00 94.20 94.00 95.00 95.00 91.70 91.70 94.90 94.29 22.90 23.80 23.70 23.60 22.40 23.60 20.00 24.50 20.00 24.50 23.90 23.90 22.90 22.90 24.80 23.16 Alpha Coefficient (mm x 10-6) 5.496 4.927 5.273 5.370 8.848 4.582 4.738 5.397 4.815 4.283 8.098 4.286 5.681 10.223 7.806 5.988

Trial

Rod

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

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

0.050 0.045 0.048 0.049 0.081 0.041 0.045 0.048 0.045 0.038 0.073 0.039 0.050 0.090 0.070 0.054

The table above shows the Thermal Expansion data for the Cobalt metal rods. The alpha coefficient is in millimeters times ten to the negative sixth (mm x 10-6) (Appendix C).

13

Table 4 Linear Thermal Expansion Data for Unknown Metal Rods Trial Alpha Initial Initial Final L Coefficient Rod Length Temperature Temperature (mm x 10(mm) (mm) (C) (C) 6 ) B B A B A B A A B A B B A A A 134.00 0.065 134.18 0.055 134.24 0.045 134.07 0.074 134.31 0.114 133.97 0.091 134.38 0.076 134.25 0.071 134.07 0.079 134.11 0.064 134.26 0.074 134.29 0.076 134.16 0.064 134.20 0.070 134.22 0.075 134.18 0.073 96.60 93.40 96.60 97.60 97.60 94.40 94.40 93.30 93.30 91.70 91.70 95.50 95.50 93.00 94.00 94.57 25.10 22.70 25.10 20.30 20.30 21.30 21.30 22.40 22.40 23.60 23.60 22.50 22.50 23.00 23.50 22.64 6.784 5.798 4.688 7.108 11.009 9.337 7.757 7.472 8.284 6.953 8.056 7.773 6.484 7.452 7.926 7.525

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

The table above exhibits the Thermal Expansion data for the unknown metal rods. The alpha coefficient is in millimeters times ten to the negative sixth (mm x 10-6) (Appendix C).

14

Observations: Table 5 Specific Heat Observations for Cobalt Metal Rods Observations
1 Tongs malfunctioned 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Water leak Did not get top on fast enough Good trial Previously used calorimeter for A began leaking. Began using backup calorimeter Water spilled from calorimeter B calorimeters base removed itself and backup A leaked New Calorimeter Used Rod heated too long in water Good trial Took too long to travel from pan to calorimeter Good trial Hit calorimeter with rod Good trial Good trial

Shown above are the observations for the specific heat experiment for the known Cobalt metal rods. There are five good trials with no significant errors.

15

Table 6 Specific Heat Observations for Cobalt Metal Rods Observations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

New Hot Plate Good trial Forgot to put thermometer in loaf pan, recorded initial temperature after metals were removed Hit side of calorimeter with rod Dropped rod Good trial Fiberglass in water Rod heated too long in water Good trial

10 Bumped calorimeter while recording temperature change 11 Delayed recording of temperature change 12 Insulation got wet 13 Took too long to put top on

14 Good trial 15 Dropped rod on table

Displayed above are the observations for the specific heat experiment for the unknown metal rods. There are four good trials with no significant errors.

16

Table 7 Linear Thermal Expansion Observations for Cobalt Metal Rods Observations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Metal rod dropped on paper Started spraying in this trial Good trial Good trial Left rods in loaf pan for an extended period Good trial Too much spray Went overtime due to heating after addition of new water Bumped dial Too long of time lapse before putting into jig Good trial Good trial Rods rested in middle rather than near sides of loaf pan, good trial Nudged to put in proper position Sprayed dial

Shown above are the observations for the thermal expansion experiment for the Cobalt metal rods. There are six good trials with no significant errors.

17

Table 8 Linear Thermal Expansion Observations for Unknown Metal Rods Observations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Rod dropped once before being placed on jig Sprayer clogged Took more time to place rod into jig Good trial Good trial Tongs malfunctioned Hot plate at wrong temperature at start Hit dial with tongs Bumped table Good trial Good trial Too much time to put rods in Bumped table Good trial Good trial

Shown above are the observations for the thermal expansion experiment for the unknown metal rods. There are six good trials with no significant errors.

18

Data Analysis This Data Analysis and Interpretation will be used to distinguish a significant difference between the specific heats of two Cobalt (Co) metal rods and two unknown metal rods. The Specific heat capacity of the metals is what will be measured using a two sample t-test. This section will also discuss the reliability of the data and if there are any noticeable trends. Finally, the conclusion will discuss if there is a significant difference between the two metals, measuring their possible significance. The two sample t-test is a statistical test designed to compare two independent means while the standard deviation is unknown. Because the researchers are comparing the means of data from two separate populations and the population standard deviation is unknown, the twosample T-test seems to be a perfect fit for the experiment. But first, assumptions must be checked for the data. The assumptions for conducting a two-sample T-test are: First, there must be two separate populations for comparison in the experiment, second, the standard deviation should be unknown, or otherwise a two-sample Z-test should be used. Third, the rods should be randomized for the order of testing to ensure that bias is not present. Lastly, the number of data points should be greater than 30, or otherwise the data should be from a normal distribution. Although the number of data points in the experiment is less than 30, the graph is relatively normal in distribution and all other assumptions have been met.

19

Figure 3. Normal probability plot for Cobalt rods

Shown above is the normal probability plot for the specific heat of the known Cobalt (Co) rods.

Figure 4. Normal probability plot for specific heat of unknown metal rods

Shown above is the normal probability plot for the specific heat of the unknown metal rods.

20

Figure 5. Box plot comparing the Cobalt Rods specific heat (Top) and the Unknown metals (Bottom) specific heat

The Box plots shown above displays the box plot data for the comparison of the two rods specific heat.

Figure 3 shows the normal probability plot of the specific heat known metal data. The data fits the line rather closely above the expected value, yet it does not compare below the expected value. It also has a very even difference in the location of plot points, unlike the unknown metals probability plot. The unknown metals probability plot (Figure 4) shows slightly less standard error, but has a larger spread with two points above zero that seem to be potential outliers.

21

Figure 6. Normal probability plot for Cobalt rods

Above shows the normal probability plot for the alpha coefficients of the known Cobalt rods. Figure 7. Normal probability plot for unknown metal rods

Above shows the normal probability plot for the alpha coefficients of the unknown metal rods.

22

As shown in Figure 6, the alpha coefficients gradually increase at an abnormal rate, and then jump back down below the expected Z line. This could mean that the jig used in the experiment loosened as time went on, and the meter turned faster as a result. In Figure 5, the alpha coefficients increase at a steady rate, but the alpha values start below the expected Z line, and end above the expected Z line. This could mean the same as in Figure 5, since a different jig was used (the experiments were done on separate days). As for comparing the actual values for the alpha coefficients, Figure 8 below shows a box plot of the Cobalt metal rod alpha coefficients. Most of the values can be found between the median and the third quartile (5.370 to 7.806). Figure 9 shows a box plot of the unknown metal rod alpha coefficients. The box plot seems to be quite symmetrical, with a median and a third quartile of 7.472 and 8.056 respectively. The box plot shows two outliers on either side of the graph.

Figure 8. Box plot for Cobalt metal rod alpha coefficients

Above displays the box plot data for the alpha coefficients of the Cobalt metal rods.

23

Figure 9. Box plot for unknown metal rod alpha coefficients

The box plot above displays data for the alpha coefficients of the unknown metal rods.
Ho : Known _ Metal Experiment al _ Metal Ha : Known _ Metal Experimental _ Metal

Shown above are two hypotheses for this statistical test: Ho, which states that the two metal rods are statistically the same, and Ha, which states that the two metals are not the same.

24

Table 9 Statistical Test Data of Specific Heat of metals.

The table shown above contains the P-value and other test statistics (Appendix E), which shows that the P-value is 0.0192, or significantly less than the set alpha level of 0.1.

25

Table 10 Alpha Coefficient Statistical Test Data

The table shown above is the table containing the statistical data for linear thermal expansion. The table also shows that the P-value is less than the set alpha level of 0.1 with a Pvalue of 0.169.

26

Table 11 Percent Error Table of Specific Heat metals Percent Error of Known Metal Percent Error of Unknown Metal -38.39 -3.51 -53.65 -18.20 -5.96 -23.72 -21.82 -1.91 -14.39 -31.52 -51.66 -17.67 -5.86 -30.91 -11.96 11.35 -42.77 -13.35 -38.12 -28.73 -41.01 -29.96 -52.26 -29.22 -12.61 -8.93 -30.88 10.98 -42.37 -3.62 Table 12 Percent Error of Thermal Expansion for known and unknown metals Known Metal Percent Error Unknown Metal Percent Error 54.19621462 -43.4645 58.93588084 -51.6859 56.0500967 -60.93 55.24401983 -40.7703 26.26534403 -8.25611 61.81507673 -22.191 60.51325607 -35.357 55.02191557 -37.7341 59.86892623 -30.9702 64.30143531 -42.0592 32.5148111 -32.8638 64.28327299 -35.225 52.65263427 -45.9686 14.80138499 -37.9036 34.94804914 -33.9499

27

As shown in the tables above, the percent error (Appendix D) for the known metal is generally larger, but has a larger spread. There seem to be large outliers on both sides however. The high percent error may point to a potential problem in the recording of the data.

The null hypothesis was rejected due to the p-value of 0.017 being lower than the alpha coefficient of 0.1. There is evidence that suggests that the two metal rods are indeed different metals. There is also only a 1.9% chance of obtaining these results by chance alone when the null hypothesis is true.

28

Conclusion So, in conclusion, the hypothesis was accepted because of the experimenters ability to determine the difference in the identity of the two pairs of metal rods. The two unknown metal rods were also identified as a different metal than the cobalt metal rods. The problem statement was if the experimenters could identify a difference between the two pairs of metal rods, while the hypothesis was that the experimenters could identify the difference between the metals, and that there was one. The hypothesis was proven to be correct, as the P-values found in the Data Analysis were less than the given Alpha level of 0.1. The data found in the experiment supported the hypothesis, as the data supported the thesis that the metals identity would be correctly proven within 20 J/Kg K for specific heat and within 0.1 m/mK for linear thermal expansion. This was proven to be true, as the nearest linear thermal expansion coefficient to cobalts 13 would be Nickels 13.4, which is believed to be the unknown metal in this experiment. The closest specific heat to cobalts 421 J/Kg K was again Nickel with 445 J/Kg K. The two metal rods were proven to be different by these two intensive properties and to a lesser extent by a different overall appearance. While the cobalt rods are smooth, silver and lustrous; the experimental metal rods were a dull gray, pitted and weathered by oxidization. The experiment was well designed in theory, yet failed to be bias and error free. Many factors led to large amounts of error in the experiment. While the experiment was successful and the experimenters determined the identity of the unknown metal, the experiment was still very

29

flawed. One of the main errors was the delay in transportation between the loaf pan of boiling water and the calorimeter or jig for specific heat and thermal expansion respectively. Due to the quickly escaping heat from the metal rod and the difficulty in the manipulation of the tongs required to lift the metal rods, there was most likely an inconsistency in the temperatures of the rods at the start of the trial. Another issue to be discussed would be the inaccuracies in the measuring of the rods themselves. The jig used to measure the changes in length of the rods was unwieldy and difficult to use, and would prove to not be completely accurate due to the sensitivity of the device. The jigs also appeared to show different measurements due to the angle observed from and the curve of the glass surrounding the dial. Lastly, some of the jigs used in the experiment measured in metric units, while others measured using the Imperial system. This may have created inaccuracies in the conversion of units. The final error encountered over the course of the experiment involved the water in the calorimeter. This is because overtime, the water inside the calorimeter would slowly heat up due to the addition of a heated metal rod. This is a large error because the temperature of the metal rod would gradually raise the temperature of the water less, due to the amount of energy needed to raise waters temperature slowly increasing during the experiment. Another error involving the calorimeter would be the stirring of the water inside the calorimeter. While stirring the water would decrease the time taken to reach equilibrium inside the calorimeter, it also caused the temperature probe to collide with the heated rod, causing spikes in temperature. This likely led to

30

a lower average temperature change than the normal average, as many impactions onto the probe would cause a graph similar to a sine wave, with a slowly increasing system of highs and lows. This experiment could be improved if the materials used were more accurate. While the materials used were helpful, the measuring devices could be more beneficial if they computed to another decimal place, used a similar system of units or used a digital display instead of a dial. Other materials also suffered from inaccuracies as well. The calorimeters were to be constructed by the experimenters themselves and were generally mediocre as insulators. The tongs used to grasp the metal were also clumsy to wield, as they were not the greatest for picking up the thin and slick metal rod out of the water. Another issue to be improved would be the designation of instructions for the experimenters to follow. While the general instructions were easy to follow, many lurking variables may have occurred due to the inexperience of the experimenters at certain tasks in the lab and the slight variations of method available.

31

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all teachers at MMSTC who helped us in our time of need. Thanks to Alex Morales who helped with construction of the Calorimeters. Thanks to Sherry Jenkins whose electricity bill went up because of Research.

32

Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction

Figure 10. Calorimeter Materials

In order to construct a calorimeter, the materials above are necesary, listed: ABCDEFGA small square of insulator A seven inch cvc pipe with one inch diameter A spray paint cap Industrial gloves A plastic base Insulator to be wrapped in duct tape Calorimeter

CAUTION: Handling fiberglass insulation can result in skin irritation, use industrial gloves (D) for safety.

33

First, hot glue the bottom of the cvc pipe (B) to attach the plastic base so water does not leak. Then, drill a hole into the cap (C) to fit the temperature probe inside the Calorimeter. Poke a hole into the small piece of insulator (A) and duct tape it to the cap (C) to prevent heat escaping. The product should look like the finished Calorimeter (G)

Figure 11. Insulation Wrapping

Above is a figure on wrapping insulation around the cvc pipe. The wrapped insulation is to be wrapped and duct taped to the pipe itself.

34

Appendix B: Sample Calculation of Specific Heat In order to determine the possible difference between the two metal rods in this experiment, one must determine the specific heat of each metal rod. Specific heat, SH, is calculated by multiplying the specific heat of water, 4.184, by the mass of the water present in the calorimeter, mw, and the temperature change of the water, cw. This is then divided by the mass of the metal, mm, multiplied by the temperature change of the metal, cm.

Figure 10 below shows a sample calculation for the specific heat of a metal rod in a calorimeter.

Figure 12. Specific Heat Equation

35

Appendix C: Sample Calculations for Linear Thermal Expansion To differentiate the unknown metal rods from the known Cobalt rods using linear thermal expansion, an alpha coefficient calculation is necessary. The alpha coefficient, , is calculated by dividing the change in length of the metal rods, CL, by the quantity of their initial length, IL, times the change in temperature, T. The resulting quotient is in meters per meter times degrees Celsius.

Figure 13 below shows a sample calculation for the alpha coefficient of an unknown metal rod.

Figure 13. Alpha Coefficient Equation

36

Appendix D: Percent Error Calculation Percent error is used to determine the validity of data found during an experiment. Percent error is calculated by subtracting the experimental value of the metal rod obtained through research, by the known value of the metal rod. That is then divided by the known value, and then multiplied by 100.

Below in Figure 14 is a sample percent error calculation.

Figure 14. Sample Percent Error Calculation

37

Bibliography
Helmenstine, A.. N.p.. Web. 19 May 2013. <http://chemistry.about.com/od/elementfacts/a/cobalt.htm>. Lenntech, . N.p.. Web. 19 May 2013. <http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/co.htm>. Somika, . N.p.. Web. 19 May 2013. <http://www.somika.com/cobalt-properties-ores-mineralslubumbashi.php>. Taylor, J. C., and R. S. Young. 2012. 0. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/123274/cobaltprocessing>. . N.p.. Web. 19 May 2013. <http://www.thecdi.com/about-cobalt>. 0. <http://www.thecdi.com/cdi/images/documents/facts/COBALT_FACTSProperties_and_Main_Uses.pdf>. Chemicool.com, . N.p.. Web. 19 May 2013. <http://www.chemicool.com/elements/cobalt.html>. . N.p.. Web. 19 May 2013. <http://wanttoknowit.com/uses-of-cobalt/>. Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility - Office of Science Education, . The Element Cobalt. Web.

Вам также может понравиться