Identifying an Unknown Metal as Being the Same or Different from a Known

Metal, Copper, Primarily Using the Intensive Properties of Specific Heat and
Linear Thermal Expansion
Bailey Abney and Teresa Satawa
Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center
Chemistry 1 10B
Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. Supal, Mrs. Dewey
May 20, 2014

Table of Contents
Introduction1
Review of Literature 4
Problem Statement...9
Specific Heat Experimental Design.10
Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design..13
Data and Observations..15
Data Analysis and Interpretation..23
Conclusion...36
Application...41
Acknowledgements43
Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction44
Appendix B: Sample Calculations47
Works Cited.52

Abney Satawa 1
Introduction
The unique, reddish-brown metal known as copper is more common in
everyday life than what may be expected. The metal was discovered several
thousand years ago and was especially popular during the reign of the Roman
Empire. The Romans primarily mined their copper from the island of Cyprus. In
fact, the word copper originated from the word cuprum which means from the
land of Cyprus (Copper). Since its discovery, copper has continuously played a
major role in industrial development.
Today, copper is used in several different types of industry, two of the
most common being electrical wiring and plumbing. Copper is ductile, meaning
that it can be drawn into wire, and, as a result, the metal is commonly used in
electrical wiring. The use of this metal in wiring is also due to its ability to conduct
both heat and electricity very easily. This wiring is essential for appliances,
machinery, heating and cooling systems, etc. As for plumbing, copper is an ideal
material for piping because of its durability. The metal is also appropriate for use
in plumbing due to its resistance to weather, corrosion, and bacteria (Copper:
Characteristics).
In addition, copper is used in the making of jewelry, decorative detailing on
buildings, and statues. Perhaps the most well-known use of copper is the
production of the Statue of Liberty which is composed of a steel framework
covered in copper sheeting. Furthermore, because copper is resistant to
corrosion from the air as well as moisture, it is also commonly used in the
production of coins. At one time, American pennies were made nearly entirely out

Abney Satawa 2
of copper but today are primarily made of zinc that has been given a copper
coating. This is simply because making the coins primarily of zinc greatly
decreases the production cost of the coins. Presently, nearly all coins are made
of some form of copper alloy. Copper alloys are formed primarily in order to
strengthen the naturally soft metal. Often, copper is combined with zinc to form
brass or zinc to form bronze (The Element Copper).
The purpose of this research was to conclude whether or not an unknown
metal had the same identity as the known metal in the experiment, copper.
Specific heat, measured in joules per gram degree Celsius, and linear thermal
expansion, measured in length per degree Celsius, were used to determine if the
two metals shared the same identity. Specific heat and the alpha coefficient of
linear thermal expansion were useful in the identification of the unknown metal
because both are intensive properties, meaning that the properties are
independent of sample size. Physical properties and observations were also
examined in addition to these two properties.
In order to conduct the specific heat experiment, the known and unknown
metal rods were heated in boiling water for a set amount of time. The appropriate
rod, depending on the randomization of the trials, was then transferred to a
calorimeter. A temperature probe was used to record the temperature change of
the water within the calorimeter as the rod cooled down. The collected data was
then used to calculate the specific heat of the metal, either known or unknown.
In comparison, at the start of the linear thermal expansion experiment, the
length of the rods was measured using a caliper. The rods were then heated

Abney Satawa 3
using boiling water, and the appropriate rod was transferred to the linear thermal
expansion jig. The change in length shown by the jig, the initial and final
temperature of the rod, and the initial length of the rod were then used to
calculate the alpha coefficient of linear thermal expansion for the metal.
The data collected for the known and unknown metal rods was then
compared using descriptive statistics and statistical tests. Descriptive statistics
included box plots, normal probability plots, and percent error tables. In addition,
a 2 Sample t-Test was used to compare the data by comparing the means, or
averages, of the known and unknown metal data for each type of experiment to
each other. Along with these analytical tools, physical properties were also taken
into account when determining whether the identity of the unknown metal was
the same or different from that of the known metal, copper.

Abney Satawa 4
Review of Literature
For this research experiment, intensive properties were used to determine
whether an unknown metal had the same identity as that of the known metal,
copper. First, density was used to identify the first unknown metal as copper.
After, the specific heat and coefficient of linear thermal expansion of a second
unknown metal were found. These values were then compared to the known
values of copper to conclude whether or not the second set of metal rods was
also composed of copper.
When a metal rod is heated, its length changes by an amount that is
proportional to both the temperature change and the original length of the rod
(Boston University). This is referred to as linear thermal expansion, which is often
abbreviated as LTE. When heat is added to the material, the atoms that the
material is composed of begin to vibrate more rapidly. This increased vibration
causes the distance between the atoms, known as equilibrium distance, to
increase, which results in expansion (Cranford and Oliver).
LTE is an intensive property. This simply means that it is a property that is
independent of sample size. LTE is calculated using the formula shown below
where the change in length, , is equal to the linear expansion coeffiecient, ,
multiplied by the initial length, , multiplied by the temperature change,
(Clemson University).
=
This formula can be manipulated to isolate and solve for different
variables. For LTE, temperature is typically measured in Celsius, length is

Abney Satawa 5
measured in appropriate metric units, and the coefficient alpha is measured in
length per degree Celsius (C-1). The coefficient of linear expansion expresses the
change in length that will occur when a rod that measures one meter initially is
heated one degree Celsius. This value is unique to each individual substance
(Pluta and Tadeusz). Because of this, LTE is a useful property for identifying an
unknown substance as was done in this experiment. In this experiment, the
coefficient of linear thermal expansion was found and compared to the LTE
coefficient for the known metal, copper. The LTE coefficient of copper is
17.0x10-6 C-1. Common metals with similar coefficients include iron/steel at
12x10-6 C-1 and brass at 19.0x10-6 C-1 (Western Washington University).
In an experimental design published by Santa Monica College, the
coefficient of LTE was found for aluminum, brass, and steel rods. A linear
expansion apparatus, a hot plate, a boiler, and tubing were used to heat hollow
metal rods. The rods were heated by passing steam generated by boiling water
through the center of the metal rods. Each rod was heated to 100 degrees
Celsius and observed until expansion ceased (Santa Monica College). A second
experimental design published by St. Louis Community College utilized similar
materials including a linear expansion apparatus, but the apparatus used in their
experiment was designed for solid metal rods. Again, steam was used and the
rods were heated to about 100 C, but a time restriction of five minutes was
applied. (St. Louis Community College). By comparing these two experimental
designs the researchers were able to use the articles as a basis for their own
experimental design.

Abney Satawa 6
LTE is important in industry because structural designs must take into
consideration the coefficient of LTE. Parts that have low tolerances must be
made of specific materials that will not expand or contract too greatly. Designs for
structures such as airplanes, buildings, and bridges must accommodate for
thermal expansion of the materials used for their construction (Linear
Coefficient).
Specific heat is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a
substance by one degree Celsius, whether it is an element, a compound, or a
substance (Specific Heat Capacity). Since energy cannot be created or
destroyed, as stated by the First Law of Thermodynamics, this heat is acquired
during a transfer of energy between a system and its surroundings. Like LTE,
specific heat is an intensive property. (Specific Heat). Being an intensive
property, different masses or volumes of a substance will not change its specific
heat (Specific Heat). For example, the specific heat of one gram of pure iron is
equal to the specific heat of 100 grams of pure iron. Specific heat is a property
that is unique to each element; that is, no element has the same specific heat as
another. (Specific Heat Capacity). This makes specific heat a useful property in
the identification of unknown materials and is calculated using the following
formula.
=
In the formula, Q represents the heat change; m is mass in grams; c is
specific heat in Joules per gram degree Celsius, J/g*C. Joules is represented by
J. Also, represents the change in temperature.

Abney Satawa 7
The specific heat of copper, the known metal in the experiment, is 0.385
J/g*C (Specific Heat Capacity). In other words, it takes 0.385 J/g*C to raise
the temperature of a sample of copper by 1 C. An example of another
substances specific heat is water, which has a specific heat value of 4.184 J/gC
(Experiment 14: Calorimetry). Since the specific heat of water is greater than
that of copper, it takes more energy to raise the temperature of water by 1C than
it does for copper.
One experiment in Experiment 14: Calorimetry, is finding the specific
heat of an unknown metal in order to determine its atomic mass. The experiment
uses two Styrofoam cups, one inside the other to form an open system
calorimeter, as well as a thermometer, a stirring rod, and so on. This experiment
was useful for the researchers to reference due to the great similarities to the
executed experiment seeing that it too used specific heat to find the identity of an
unknown metal. Another experiment performed an experiment that is similar to
the first one referenced above, Specific Heat, only it calculated the specific heat
of an unknown metal (Specific Heat). This experiment also used double
Styrofoam cups as a calorimeter. This experiment relates to the executed
because, again, they are both measuring and calculating specific heats of
unknown metals. The researchers were able to use the calorimeter designs
described by these articles as a basis for their own calorimeter design; however,
the design that was actually used for this experiment was that of an isolated
system to achieve more precise results.

Abney Satawa 8
In industry, the use of specific heat is important and relevant for deciding
what materials to make products out of. If a product is made using a metal with a
greater specific heat, it would be more ideal for, say, a product meant to undergo
a greater amount of heat than one with a lower specific heat.

Abney Satawa 9
Problem Statement
Problem:
To utilize the intensive properties specific heat and the coefficient of linear
thermal expansion to determine whether a sample of an unknown metal has the
same identify as that of the known metal, copper.
Hypothesis:
The unknown metal will be correctly identified as being composed of the
same metal as that of the known metal, copper, if the percent errors lie within
plus or minus 0.08 percent for specific heat and within a plus or minus 1.00
percent for linear thermal expansion.
Data Measured:
In order to calculate the specific heat, measured in Joules per gram
degree Celsius, of the unknown metal, several measurements must be taken
during the experiment. The initial and final temperatures of the metal and the
water in the calorimeter must be measured in degrees Celsius. The mass of the
metal and the water must be measured in grams. The specific heat of water is
also used in the calculation and is known to be 4.184 J/g*C. For the calculation
of the coefficient of linear thermal expansion, the initial and final length of the
metal rod must be measured in millimeters and the initial and final temperature
must be measured in degrees Celsius. The coefficient, alpha, is measured in
length per degree Celsius, C-1.

Abney Satawa 10
Specific Heat Experimental Design
Materials:
(2) Calorimeter
(2) Known Metal Rod
(2) Unknown Metal Rod
Lab Quest
Thermometer Probe (0.1 C
precision)

Scout Pro Electronic Scale (0.0001 g

precision)
Hot Plate
Loaf Pan
100 ml Graduated Cylinder
Test Tube Tongs
Thermometer (0.1 C precision)

Specific Heat Procedures:

Be aware of safety protocols. Always wear protective eye wear. Be cautious
when handling hot metal or dealing with boiling water.
1.

Construct and calibrate the calorimeter as described in Appendix A.

2.

Randomize the trials using the random integer function on the Ti-Nspire
graphing calculator. There should be 15 trials for the unknown metal and
15 trials for the known metal. Each rod, A or B, should be tested at least 7
times.

3.

Find the mass of the selected rod in grams to the nearest ten thousandth.
Record in the appropriate column.

4.

After connecting the temperature probe to the Lab Quest, select the Meter
screen and tap Rate. Change the data collection length to 240 seconds
(four minutes) and set the data collection rate to 0.5 samples/second.
(Two temperature probes may be used to so that multiple trials can be run
at one time.)

5.

Using a graduate cylinder again, fill a loaf pan with 200 ml of water. Place
the loaf pan on the hot plate and allow the water to reach 100 C (boiling).

6.

Using the test tube tongs, place the appropriate metal rod into the water.
Let the rod sit in the boiling water for 5 minutes.

7.

Use the thermometer to measure the temperature of the water in the loaf
pan. Do not allow the thermometer to touch the pan or the rod. Record this
as the initial temperature of the rod in the appropriate column. Assume

Abney Satawa 11
that the temperature of the water and the temperature of the rod have
reached equilibrium
8.

For known metal trials, use a graduated cylinder to measure 45 ml of

water and add the water to the calorimeter. For unknown metal trials,
decrease this water volume to 25 ml.

9.

Place the temperature probe into the calorimeter. Begin data collection by
tapping Start on the Lab Quest screen. Allow approximately 20 seconds to
elapse before placing the metal rod into the calorimeter.

10.

Use the test tube tongs to remove the rod from the boiling water after five
minutes has elapsed and place it into the calorimeter. Ensure that the rod
and the thermometer do not touch.

11.

Once data collection has ceased, use the test tube tongs to remove the
rod from the calorimeter.

12.

Record the final temperature of the water in the calorimeter in the

appropriate column of the data table. Assume the temperature of the rod
and the temperature of the water are the same. Empty the calorimeter.

13.

Repeat steps 3 through 12 for the remaining trials.

14.

Use the appropriate formula to calculate the specific heat of the metal.
See Data and Observations for a sample calculation.

Abney Satawa 12
Diagram:

Figure 1. Specific Heat Materials

Figure 1 includes a complete set of materials required for the specific heat
experiment with labels.

Abney Satawa 13
Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design
Materials:

(2) Known Metal Rod

(2) Unknown Metal Rod
Linear Thermal Expansion Jig (0.001
in precision)
TESR Caliper 00530085 (0.01 mm
precision)

Hot Plate
Loaf Pan
100 ml Graduated Cylinder
Thermometer (0.1 C precision)
Test Tube Tongs
Dry Erase Marker

LTE Procedures:
Be aware of safety protocols. Always wear protective eye wear. Be cautious
when handling hot metal and/or dealing with boiling water.
1.

Randomize the trials using the random integer function on the Ti-Nspire
graphing calculator. There should be 15 trials for the unknown metal and
15 trials for the known metal. Each rod, A or B, should be tested at least 7
times.

2.

Use the caliper to measure the initial length of the rod to the nearest mm.
Record this length in the appropriate column.

3.

Record the air temperature of the room in degrees Celsius as the initial
temperature of the rod in the appropriate column. Assume that the rod and
the air in the room are the same temperature.

4.

Using a graduate cylinder, fill a loaf pan with 200 ml of water. Place the
loaf pan on the hot plate and allow the water to reach 100 C (boiling).

5.

Using the test tube tongs, place the appropriate metal rod into the water.
Let the rod sit in the boiling water for 5 minutes.

6.

Use the thermometer to measure the temperature of the water (this should
be approximately 100 C). Do not allow the thermometer to touch the pan
or the rod. Record this temperature as the final temperature of the rod.
Assume that the temperature of the rod and the temperature of the water
have reached equilibrium.

7.

Use the test tube tongs to remove the rod from the boiling water and
quickly place it into the groove/indentation on the surface of the linear
thermal expansion jig.

Abney Satawa 14
8.

Use a dry erase marker to quickly mark the initial position of the needle on
the meter of the jig.

9.

When the metal rod ceases to contract, or after 5 minutes has elapsed
use the dry erase marker to mark the final position of the needle on the
meter. Record the change in length in inches as indicated by the meter in
the appropriate column. Be sure to convert this value from inches to
millimeters.

10.

Repeat steps 2 through 9 for the remaining trials.

11.

Use the following formula to calculate the coefficient of linear thermal

expansion, . See Data and Observations for a sample calculation.

Diagram:

Figure 2. Linear Thermal Expansion Materials

The above diagram pictures a labeled set of materials needed to complete
the linear thermal expansion experiment.

Abney Satawa 15
Data and Observations
Table 1
Specific Heat: Unknown Metal Data
Initial Temp.
(C)

Trial

Water

Metal

Equilibrium
Temp.
(C)

Change in
Temp.
(C)
Water

Mass
(g)

Metal Water

Metal

Specific
Heat
with
Correction
Correction
Factor
Factor
(J/gC)

26.2

98.5

42.8

16.6

-55.7

30 106.8754

0.085

0.435

26.3

98.5

43.1

16.8

-55.4

30 106.8778

0.085

0.441

29.1

98.6

44.3

15.2

-54.3

26 106.8778

0.085

0.370

31.3

98.5

45.7

14.4

-52.8

25 106.8759

0.085

0.352

28.9

98.8

43.9

15.0

-54.9

26 106.8791

0.085

0.363

28.5

98.5

44.6

16.1

-53.9

25 106.8784

0.085

0.377

30.9

98.9

46.0

15.1

-52.9

26

106.875

0.085

0.376

29.8

99.0

44.1

14.3

-54.9

27

106.876

0.085

0.360

28.0

98.6

43.9

15.9

-54.7

26

106.879

0.085

0.381

10

24.3

98.3

42.3

18.0

-56.0

25

111.259

0.085

0.387

11

30.3

98.8

45.7

15.4

-53.1

26

106.876

0.085

0.380

12

27.1

98.5

45.0

17.9

-53.5

25

106.873

0.085

0.412

13

27.4

98.8

43.1

15.7

-55.7

26

111.263

0.085

0.361

14

28.7

98.2

44.7

16.0

-53.5

25

111.264

0.085

0.366

15

30.3

98.0

44.6

14.3

-53.4

25

106.872

0.085

0.347

Average:

28.5

98.6

44.3

15.8

-54.3

26

107.753

0.085

0.381

Table 1 shows the data gathered from the unknown metal specific heat
experiment as well as the calculated specific heat value. The bottom row
includes an averages row for each column. It can be seen from the table had a
fairly low range and average 0.381 J/gC. A correction factor of 0.085 was also
incorporated.

Abney Satawa 16
Table 2
Specific Heat: Unknown Metal Observations
Trial
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Observation
Trial type A. Soapy water in loaf pan. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 2. Water splashed when
rod was added to Calorimeter. Slow rod transfer.
Trial type B. Non-soapy water in pan. Rod boiled longer than 5 min. Rod added more quickly than
previous trial. Calorimeter was close to the hot plate.
Trial type A. Soapy water in loaf pan. Rod massed by Bailey. Non soapy pan. Less water in
Calorimeter. Rod transferred fairly quickly but added later than usual (about 40 seconds into data
collection). Calorimeter 2.
Trial type B. Calorimeter. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter kept closer to hot plate than other
Calorimeter. Trial run at same time as trial 3. Small splash during rod transfer. Low water level in loaf
pan.
Trial type B. Water added to loaf pan. Rod massed by Bailey. Trial run at same time as 7. Forgot to
start timer right away when boiling rod. Calorimeter 1. Rod transferred fairly quickly.
Trial type B. Water added to loaf pan. Rod massed by Bailey. Trial run at same time as 8.
Calorimeter. No water was spilled and the rod was transferred fairly quickly.
Trial type A. Soapy water in loaf pan. Water added to loaf pan. Rod massed by Teresa. Trial run at
same time as 5. Forgot to start timer right away when boiling water. Calorimeter. Water splashed out
of calorimeter during rod transfer.
Trial type A. Soapy water in loaf pan. Water added to loaf pan. Rod massed by Teresa. Trial run at
same time as 6. Calorimeter 2. Small splash during Transfer. Rod transferred quickly.
Trial type B. Rod massed by Bailey. Water added to loaf pan. Trial run at same time as trial 11.
Forgot to start timer right away when boiling rod. There was very little water lost during transfer. Rod
transferred quickly.
Trial type B. Different rod B (same metal, different length and mass). Rod massed by Teresa.
Calorimeter. Quick transfer and no water spilled.
Trial type A. Rod massed by Teresa. Water added to loaf pan. Trial run at same time as trial 9. Forgot
to start timer right away when boiling rod. Transferred fairly quickly with a small water loss.
Trial type A. Rod massed by Teresa. Trial run at same time as 13. Calorimeter 1. Some water spilled
during the rod transfer. Rod was quickly transferred.
Trial type B. Rod massed by Teresa Trial run at same time as 12. Calorimeter. No water spilled, fairly
quick transfer.
Trial type B. Rod massed by Teresa. Trial run at same time as 15. Calorimeter 2. Rod was quickly
transferred but some water spilled.
Trial type A. Rod massed by Teresa. Trial run at same time as 14. No splash and quick transfer.

Table 2 shows the observations recorded during the specific heat

experiment for the unknown metal. Observations include which experimenter did
what jobs, the trial type, etc.

Abney Satawa 17
Table 3
Specific Heat Known: Metal Data

Trial

Initial Temp.
Change in
Mass
Equilibrium
(C)
Temp. (C)
(g)
Temp.
(C)
Water Metal
Water Metal Water Metal

Metal
Correction Specific
Factor
Heat
(J/g C)

23.2

99.0

27.0

3.8

-72.0

45 28.3728

0.085

0.435

25.3

99.2

29.0

3.7

-70.2

45 28.3727

0.085

0.435

23.2

99.2

26.5

3.3

-72.7

44 28.4895

0.085

0.378

24.3

99.3

28.2

3.9

-71.1

44 28.3743

0.085

0.441

23.7

99.1

27.4

3.7

-71.7

43 28.4890

0.085

0.411

24.6

99.1

28.2

3.6

-70.9

45 28.3724

0.085

0.422

25.2

99.0

28.4

3.2

-70.6

45

28.49

0.085

0.385

25.4

99.1

28.9

3.5

-70.2

43

28.49

0.085

0.400

26.4

99.1

29.7

3.3

-69.4

43

28.373

0.085

0.387

23.7

94.9

27.5

3.8

-67.4

45 28.3736

0.085

0.459

11

24.2

97.8

28.5

4.3

-69.3

42 28.4940

0.085

0.468

12

24.6

99.4

28.9

4.3

-70.5

44 28.3766

0.085

0.481

13

24.8

99.5

28.6

3.8

-70.9

44 28.4884

0.085

0.431

14

25.6

99.8

29.1

3.5

-70.7

45

28.372

0.085

0.414

15

22.3

99.0

26.6

4.3

-72.4

44

28.372

0.085

0.470

24.4

98.8

28.2

3.7

-70.7

44 28.4200

0.085

0.428

Average:

Table 3 shows the data collected as well as an average for each piece of
information recorded in the table for specific heat of the known metal. The
calculated specific heat values are also included in the table. The table shows
that this data set average 0.428 J/gC, which is higher than the average of the
unknown metal data set.

Abney Satawa 18
Table 4
Specific Heat: Known Metal Observations
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

Observation
Trial type B. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 2. 200 ml of water added to loaf pan. Data
collection started 20 seconds before adding metal to calorimeter. Rod transferred fairly quickly.
Trial type B. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 1. Water in calorimeter warmer initially than
previous trial. Rod transferred quickly.
Trial type A. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 2. Rod boiled longer than 5 minutes. Rod
transferred after more than 20 seconds of data collection.
Trial type B. Water added to loaf pan. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 2. Calorimeter close to
hot plate for part of trial. Rod transferred after more than 15 seconds of data collection. Rod
transferred quickly. Cap of calorimeter removed before end of trial and then replaced by mistake.
Trial type A. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 1. Rod transferred quickly but after more than 20
seconds of data collection.
Trial type B. Calorimeter 2. Rod massed by Teresa. Water added to loaf pan. Rod transferred on time
and very quickly.
Trial type A. Calorimeter 1. Rod massed by Teresa. Some water spilled when being poured into
calorimeter. Water level low in loaf pan.
Trial type A. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 1. Water low in loaf pan. Rod transferred quickly.
Trial type B. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 2. Water added to loaf pan. Rod transferred late but
quickly.
Trial type A. Rod was massed by Teresa. Rod was not completely submerged in the water and the
water temp. was not exactly 100 C. Rod submerged in boiling water more than five minutes, waited
20 seconds to add rod to calorimeter.
Trial type B. Water in loaf pan was low but none was added. Rod was massed by Teresa. Rod boiled
slightly longer than 5 minutes
Trial type B. Rod was massed by Teresa. Water was added to the loaf pan before the rod was added.
Data was collected by the Lab Quest for 30 seconds before the rod was added rather than 20
seconds by mistake.
Trial type A. Rod was massed by Bailey. Water was added to the loaf pan. Initial temp. of the water in
the calorimeter was higher than in previous trials. Rod was transferred to the calorimeter very quickly.
Trial type A. Rod massed by Teresa. Calorimeter 2. Water level in loaf pan low. Rod transferred
quickly. No water spilled.
Trial type A. Rod massed by Teresa. Water added to loaf pan. Initial temp of rod by Teresa. Rod
transferred quickly and no water spilled.

Table 4 shows the recorded observations for the specific heat experiment
conducted using the known metal. Observations include the calorimeter number,
the trial type, and events that occurred during each trial.

Abney Satawa 19
Table 5
LTE Unknown: Metal Data Table
Initial Length Initial Temp. Final Temp.
Trial
(mm)
(C)
(C)

L
(mm)

Alpha
Coefficient

118.54

99.3

22.8

0.08

8.403E-06

118.49

99.5

24.2

0.08

8.540E-06

123.41

99.5

24.2

0.05

5.381E-06

118.44

99.4

24.1

0.05

5.696E-06

118.59

99.5

23.1

0.05

5.607E-06

118.41

98.6

23.4

0.08

8.558E-06

118.40

98.8

24.7

0.08

8.685E-06

123.46

99.2

23.6

0.05

5.357E-06

118.50

98.9

25.3

0.08

8.737E-06

10

123.48

99.5

24.1

0.04

4.296E-06

11

123.50

99.8

23.1

0.05

5.278E-06

12

118.47

98.4

23.2

0.08

8.553E-06

13

123.31

98.6

23.4

0.04

4.314E-06

14

123.31

98.9

24.7

0.04

4.372E-06

15

123.27

98.9

25.3

0.04

4.409E-06

120.77

99.1

23.9

0.06

6.412E-06

Average:

In Table 5, the data gathered for linear thermal expansion of the unknown
metal is shown. At the bottom of the table, there is a row of averages for each
column. The calculated alpha coefficient for each trial is found in the far right
column of the table. This table shows that the average alpha coefficient was
6.412x10-6 and that the data had a fairly large range which could mean the data
is not reliable.

Abney Satawa 20
Table 6
LTE Unknown: Metal Observations
Trial
1
2

5
6
7
8
9

10

11
12
13
14
15

Observation
Trial type A. Jig 12. Length measured by Bailey as well as air temperature. Initial rod temperature
measured by Teresa. Rod boiled for almost 7 minutes. Rod was quickly transferred. Jig gauge
marked
Trial
typebyA.Teresa.
Jig 12. Trial run at same time as trial 3. Length measured by Bailey as well as air
temperature. Initial rod temp measured by Bailey. Quick rod transfer. Rod was not all the way back in
jig. Jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type B. Jig 5. Trial run at same time as trial 2. Length measured by Bailey. Air temperature and
initial rod temperature measured by Bailey. Jig gauge marked by Teresa. New rod B. Change in
length measured in mm due to lack of jigs.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Length measured by Teresa. Air temp and initial rod temp measured by Bailey.
Trial run at same time as trial 10. Timer started late. Gauge marked by Teresa. Rod run under cool
water before trial. Rod transferred fairly slowly. Smaller change in length.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Trial run at same time as trial 11. Length measured by Teresa. Initial rod
temperature and air temperature measured by Bailey. Slower rod transfer. Jig gauge marked by
Teresa. Rod was run under cool water before being boiled.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Trial run at same time as trial 13. Length measured by Teresa. Air temp and initial
rod temperature measured by Bailey. Rod transferred fairly quickly.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Trial run at same time as trial 14. Length measured by Teresa. Rod was run under
cool water before being boiled. Air temperature and initial rod temperature measured by Teresa. Rod
transferred quickly.
Trial type B. New rod B. Jig 5. Length measured by Bailey. Air temperature and initial rod temperature
measured by Teresa. Timer started late after transfer. Jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Rod was run under cool water before being boiled. Trial run at same time as trial
15. Length measured by Teresa. Air temperature and initial rod temperature measured by Teresa.
Water level low in loaf pan. Quick rod transfer.
Trial type B. New rod B. Jig 5. Trial run at same time as trial 4. Air temperature and initial rod temp
measured by Bailey. Length measured by Teresa. Jig gauge marked by Teresa. Rod was run under
cool water before trial was started. Slower transfer. Gauge needle didnt move as much as previous
trials. Rod still very warm after trial.
Trial type B. New rod B. Jig 5. Trial run at same time as trial 5. Length measured by Teresa. Initial rod
temperature and air temperature measured by Bailey. Jig gauge marked by Teresa. Rod was run
under cool water before starting trial.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Air temp, initial rod temp, and length measured by Teresa. Water added to loaf
pan. Timer started late. Fairly quick transfer.
Trial type B. New rod B. Jig 5. Trial run at same time as trial 6. Air temp and initial rod temp measured
by Bailey. Length measured by Teresa. Quick rod transfer.
Trial type B. New rod B. Jig 5. Trial run at same time as trial 7. Length measured by Teresa. Rod was
run under cool water before beginning trial. Air and initial rod temperatures measured by Teresa.
Quick rod transfer.
Trial type B. New rod B. Jig 5. Water added to loaf pan. Trial run at same time as trial 9. Length
measured by Teresa as well as air and initial rod temperatures. Quick rod transfer.

Table 6 shows the observations recorded for the LTE unknown metal
experiment such as jig number, trial type, and jobs performed by the
experimenters.

Abney Satawa 21
Table 7
LTE: Known Metal
Initial
Length
(mm)

Trial

Initial Temp. Final Temp.

(C)
(C)

L
(mm)

Alpha Coefficient

129.45

97.5

24.6

0.1016

1.077E-05

129.14

97.4

24.6

0.0762

8.105E-06

129.13

98.3

23.8

0.0762

7.921E-06

129.48

98.3

23.8

0.1143

1.185E-05

129.44

97.1

24.5

0.1143

1.216E-05

129.47

98.0

24.4

0.1016

1.066E-05

129.13

97.5

24.5

0.1016

1.078E-05

129.14

97.9

24.4

0.1016

1.070E-05

129.13

97.5

24.5

0.1016

1.078E-05

10

129.15

97.9

24.0

0.1016

1.065E-05

11

129.47

98.1

24.5

0.0762

7.997E-06

12

129.44

98.4

25.2

0.102

1.072E-05

13

129.43

99.1

25.5

0.076

7.999E-06

14

129.46

97.9

24.0

0.0889

9.292E-06

15

129.13

99.1

24.5

0.076

7.910E-06

129.31

98.0

24.5

0.094

9.886E-06

Average:

Table 7 shows the data gathered from the known metal linear
thermal expansion experiment. A row of averages is included at the bottom of the
table. The far right column shows the calculated alpha coefficient for each trial. It
can be seen from the table that the average alpha coefficient for this data set,
9.886x10-6 is greater than that of the unknown metal data set. The large range of
the data could also suggest that the data is unreliable.

Abney Satawa 22
Table 8
LTE: Known Metal Observations
Trial
1

10

11
12
13
14
15

Observation
Trial B. Jig 9. Length measured by Bailey. Initial rod temperatureerature and air temperature
measured by Teresa. Rod boiled for 5 minutes. Timer started after second rod was put into jig. Jig
gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Length measured by Teresa. Initial rod temperature and air temperature
measured by Teresa. Rod boiled for five minutes. Timer started after second rod put in jig. Trial run at
same time as trial 1. Jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Water added to loaf pan. Length measured by Teresa. Initial temperature of rod
and air measured by Bailey. Rod was transferred very quickly. Timer was started late. Trial run at
same time as trial 4.
Trial type B. Jig 9. Water added to loaf pan. Length measured by Teresa. Initial temperature of rod
and air by Bailey. Timer started late. Rod transferred fairly quickly and trial was run at same time as
trial 3.
Trial type B. Jig 9. Rod length measured by Bailey. Trial run at same time as trial 7. Water added to
loaf pan. Experimenters had some trouble transferring the rod to the jig. Air temperature measured by
Bailey. Rod temperature initial measured by Teresa. Timer started after second rod was transferred.
Jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type B. Jig 9. water added to loaf pan. Trial run at same time as trial 8. Length and initial
temperature of rod measure by Teresa. Air temperature measured by Bailey. Rod transferred quickly.
Jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Length measured by Bailey. Trial run at same time as trial 5. Water added to loaf
pan. Air temperature measured by Bailey. Rod temperature initial measured by Teresa. Rod
transferred quickly. Timer was started after second rod was transferred. Jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Water added to loaf pan. Trial run at same time as trial 6. Length measured by
Teresa. Air temperature measured by Bailey. Initial rod temperature measured by Teresa. Rod
transferred quickly and jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Length measured by Teresa. Water added to loaf pan. Trial run at same time as
trial 11. Initial rod and air temperatures measured by Teresa. Jig gauge marked by Teresa. Jig gauge
needle was stuck temporarily.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Trial run at same time as trial 14. Jig gauge marked by Teresa. Water added to
loaf pan. Length measured by Bailey. Initial air and rod temperature measured by Teresa. Rod
transferred fairly quickly.
Trial B. Jig 9. Length measured by Teresa. Water added to loaf pan. Trial run at same time as trial 9.
Rod was quickly transferred. Jig gauge Teresa. Air and initial rod temperature measured by Teresa.
Water added to loaf pan. Jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type A. Jig 12. Rod length measured by Bailey. Experimenters had a hard time fitting the rod into
the jig. Gauge reading marked by Teresa.
Trial Type A. Jig 12. Rod length measured by Bailey. Rod was only submerged in boiling water for
time purposes. Rod was transferred to the jig quickly. Gauge reading marked by Teresa.
Trial type B. Jig 9. Trial run at same time as trial 10. Jig gauge marked by Teresa. Water added to
loaf pan. Length measured by Bailey. Air and initial rod temperature measured by Teresa. Rod was
transferred very quickly. Jig gauge marked by Teresa.
Trial type B. Jig 9. Rod length measured by Bailey. Water level in loaf pan very low. Rod was
transferred to the jig much more quickly than previous trial. Gauge reading marked by Teresa.

Table 8 shows the observations that were recorded by the experimenters

during the LTE experiment with the known metal rods.

Abney Satawa 23
Data Analysis and Interpretation
For this research, two experiments were run using a set of two metal rods
known to be composed of copper and a second set of two metal rods composed
of an unknown metal. These experiments included specific heat and linear
thermal expansion. For specific heat, the rods were boiled for five minutes before
being transferred to a calorimeter. The mass of the rod and the change in
temperature were then used to calculate the specific heat value for each trial as
well as an overall average. The average specific heat value was used to find a
correction factor that was then applied to the specific heat value of each trial. For
linear thermal expansion, commonly referred to as LTE, the rods were boiled for
five minutes before being transferred to a linear thermal expansion jig and
allowed to cool for five minutes. The length of the rod, the change in temperature,
and the change in length recorded by the jig were then used to compute the
alpha coefficient of LTE for each trial as well as an average for the combined
trials.
In order to determine the identity of the unknown metal as being the same
or different from that of the known metal, copper, the researchers took two main
factors into account. These factors include the physical properties of the rods,
such as coloring and magnetism, and the numerical data collected. The results of
the statistical tests that were run on the data were used with caution because the
data collected may not have been entirely reliable. Skews were present in some
of the data sets and not all of the assumptions of the statistical test were met,
both of which could have affected the validity of the data. The following section

Abney Satawa 24
will discuss the descriptive statistics and the statistical tests used to analyze the
collected data. Sample calculations for all formulas used can be found in
Appendix B.

Descriptive Analysis:
Descriptive analysis was used to determine the spread of the data and
whether or not it was likely that the data was reliable for use in drawing
conclusions. This analysis was also used as a method of comparison for the
known and unknown metal data sets. Box plots and normal probability plots were
used as a part of this descriptive analysis as well as percent error. This analysis
is described in the following figures and tables.

Figure 3. Box Plots for Known Metal and Unknown Metal Specific Heat Data
Figure 3 shows box plots comparing the data gathered from the known
metal, copper, and unknown metal specific heat experiments performed. The top
box plot illustrates the known metal data and the bottom box plot illustrates the

Abney Satawa 25
unknown metal data. The five number summary of each plot has been labeled in
the figure. Both experiments box plots are evenly spread and relatively normal.
The unknown specific heat experiment had two trials that resulted in outliers, but
they did not appear to affect the median much. These two outliers suggest that
errors may have occurred during the unknown metal trials. For the known metal
specific heat data, the smallest specific heat collected was 0.378 J/gC, and the
greatest was 0.481 J/gC, indicating a range of 0.103 J/g C. The two box plots
overlap each other, meaning that the experiments produced some similar data.
This also suggests that the two metals might have the same identity.

(J/gC)

Figure 4. Normal Probability Plot for Known Metal Specific Heat Data
A normal probability plot for the known metal specific heat experiment is
seen in Figure 4. The data points on the plot follow a linear trend, and all lie close
to the line. This means that the data gathered from the known metal specific heat
experiment is normally distributed and is reliable to use for the 2-Sample t-Test.

Abney Satawa 26

(J/gC)

Figure 5. Normal Probability Plot for Unknown Metal Specific Heat Data
Figure 5 shows the normal probability plot for the data gathered from the
unknown metal specific heat experiment. The data seems to be slightly rightskewed. A distinct linear trend can be seen through the points which are, for the
most part, evenly spread. Being evenly spread on the plot, it can be determined
that the unknown metal specific heat experiments data is somewhat normally
distributed.

Abney Satawa 27

Q1: 7.999*106

Q3: 1.0778*105

Min: 7.910*106

Q2: 1.0662*105
Max: 1.2163*105
Median: 5.607*106

Min: 4.296*106

Q3:8.553*106

Max:
8.737*106

Q1: 4.409*106

(C-1)

Figure 6. Box Plots for Known Metal and Unknown Metal LTE Data
Figure 6 shows box plots of the data collected from both the known metal
and unknown metal linear thermal expansion experiments, also known as LTE. In
the figure, the known metal data is illustrated by the upper box plot while the
lower box plot illustrates the unknown metal data. The five number summary of
each plot has been included in the figure. The plots do overlap but only slightly,
which shows that the two experiments produced fairly different data. In can be
seen from the figure that the data from the known metal LTE experiment was
strongly left skewed and contained no outliers. The unknown metal LTE data has
a right-skew, but no outliers. The presence of these skews suggests that the data
may not be valid for use in the 2-Sample t-Test and it is likely that the data is not
reliable for identifying the unknown metal in the experiment.

Abney Satawa 28

(C-1)

Figure 7. Normal Probability Plot for Known Metal LTE Data

The normal probability plot is seen in Figure 7 for the known metal LTE, or
linear thermal expansion, experiment. The data roughly follows a linear trend,
although all of the points are strongly skewed. All of the data points lie on the
right-hand side of the plot and the plot shows that the data does not have a
normal distribution. Due to the lack of normal distribution, the data is likely
unreliable.

(C-1)

Figure 8. Normal Probability Plot for Unknown Metal LTE Data

Figure 8 is a normal probability plot for the data gathered from the
unknown metal linear thermal expansion experiment, abbreviated LTE. The data

Abney Satawa 29
is widely spread, but follows a somewhat linear trend. However, the distribution
of the data points suggests that the data set is not normally distributed, and the
data may not be reliable.

Table 9
Percent Error for Known Metal Specific Heat Experiment
Trial

Experimental True
Value
Value

Percent
Error

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

0.435
0.435
0.378
0.441
0.411
0.422
0.385
0.400
0.387
0.459
0.468
0.481
0.431
0.414
0.470

0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385

13.047
12.924
-1.736
14.517
6.724
9.597
-0.120
3.857
0.394
19.253
21.472
24.856
12.039
7.409
22.177

Average:

0.428

0.385

11.094

In Table 9, the percent errors for each individual trial of the known metal
specific heat experiment are shown. An average percent error is also included.
The table shows that the percent errors for the experiment range from less than
one percent to almost 23 percent with an average percent error of 11.094
percent. Because most of the percent errors are positive, it is known that the
specific heat that was calculated for the majority of the trials was above that of
the known specific heat of copper, 0.385 J/gC. This range of percent errors and

Abney Satawa 30
the fact that some of them were fairly large shows that there were likely
experimental errors in both the writing of the procedures and the execution of the
procedures.

Table 10
Percent Error Table for Unknown Metal Specific Heat Experiment
Trial

Experimental True
Value
Value

Percent
Error

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

0.435
0.441
0.370
0.352
0.363
0.377
0.376
0.360
0.381
0.387
0.380
0.412
0.361
0.366
0.347

0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385
0.385

12.987
14.545
-3.896
-8.571
-5.714
-2.078
-2.338
-6.494
-1.039
0.519
-1.299
7.013
-6.234
-4.935
-9.870

Average:

0.381

0.385

-1.160

Table 10 shows the table for percent error found when the unknown metal
specific heat values were compared to the known specific heat of the known
metal, copper. The percent error for each individual trial is included along with an
average for the data set. Although the percent errors range from approximately
-9 percent to nearly 13 percent, the average is only -1.160 percent. This shows
that the average specific heat for the known metal was only slightly below the
true specific heat value of copper. This suggests that the unknown metal could

Abney Satawa 31
potentially be copper and that the experiment likely had very few errors in the
way that it was conducted. This is contradictory to the known metal percent
errors as they suggested that several errors had occurred.

Table 11
Percent Error Table for Known Metal LTE Experiment
Trial

Experimental
Value

True Value

Percent
Error

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

1.077E-05
8.105E-06
7.921E-06
1.185E-05
1.216E-05
1.066E-05
1.078E-05
1.070E-05
1.078E-05
1.065E-05
7.997E-06
1.072E-05
7.999E-06
9.292E-06
7.910E-06

1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05

-36.67
-52.32
-53.41
-30.30
-28.45
-37.28
-36.60
-37.04
-36.60
-37.38
-52.96
-36.92
-52.95
-45.34
-53.47

Average:

9.886E-06

1.70E-05

-41.85

The percent error table for the known metal LTE, also known as linear
thermal expansion, experiment is shown in Table 11. Included is the percent
error for each trial and a collective average. There was a fairly large range of
percent errors for the experiment and the average percent error was
considerably high at -41.85%, which could be due to experimental flaws in the
procedure or in the execution of the procedures. For example, if the gauge in the
linear thermal expansion jig were to have stuck during one or multiple trials, the

Abney Satawa 32
data could have been affected. This suggests that major errors occurred during
the experimental execution.

Table 12
Percent Error Table for Unknown Metal LTE Experiment
Trial

Experimental
Value

True Value

Percent
Error

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

8.403E-06
8.540E-06
5.381E-06
5.696E-06
5.607E-06
8.558E-06
8.685E-06
5.357E-06
8.737E-06
4.296E-06
5.278E-06
8.553E-06
4.314E-06
4.372E-06
4.409E-06

1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05

-50.57
-49.76
-68.35
-66.49
-67.02
-49.66
-48.91
-68.49
-48.61
-74.73
-68.95
-49.69
-74.63
-74.28
-74.07

Average:

6.412E-06

1.70E-05

-62.28

Table 12 shows the percent error table for the unknown metal linear
thermal expansion, or LTE, experiment, which includes both individual trials and
an average. As in the known metal LTE experiment, there was a large range of
calculated percent errors. Also, the average percent error was found to be
tremendously high at -62.28 percent. Similarly to the average percent error found
for the known metal LTE experiment, this could have been due to experimental
flaws in design and execution.

Abney Satawa 33
Statistical Analysis:
A 2-Sample t-Test was used to compare the known metal results to the
unknown metal results for each of the two experiments, the formula for which is
shown below, where the null and alternative hypotheses were defined as follows.

(1 2 )
2
( 2
(1 ) + 2)
1
2

: 1 = 2
: 1 2
In the above description of formula and hypotheses, the subscript one represents
the known metal data and the subscript two represents the unknown metal data.
The null hypothesis stated that the means of the data sets, known and unknown,
were equal to one another. The alternative hypothesis stated that the means
were not equal.
A 2-Sample t-Test was appropriate because two means were being
compared to one another and the population standard deviations were unknown.
Several other assumptions should also be met when using this type of statistical
test to ensure that the results of the test are reliable. An SRS was achieved
through the randomization of the trials utilizing the Ti-Nspire random integer
function. When generating the random integers, zeros represented trials that
would use rod A, and ones represented trials that would use rod B. At least
seven trials were used for each rod and each trial was independent of one
another. Since only 15 trials were run with each type of rod (known or unknown)

Abney Satawa 34
during the specific heat and LTE experiments, the results of the statistical test
must be used with caution. The results of the test may also be unreliable
because some of the boxplots contained skews of various degrees. Since not all
of the assumptions for this statistical test were met for either experiment, it is
possible that the data is not entirely valid.

Figure 9. P Value and P Graph for Specific Heat Data

The above calculator output screen and p value graph show that when the
null hypothesis is defined as 1 = 2 and the alternative hypothesis is defined as
1 2, where 1 signifies the mean of the known metal specific heat data and 2
signifies the mean of the unknown metal specific heat data, the resulting p value
is 0.000213. This suggests that the null hypothesis should be rejected. This
shows that, based on the collected data, there is a 0.0213% chance that these
results would be achieved by chance alone if the null hypothesis is true. This
suggests that there is significant evidence that the mean of the known metal data
set and the mean of the unknown metal data set are not the same due to the fact
that the p value is so far below the alpha level 0.10.

Abney Satawa 35

Figure 10. P Value and P Graph for Linear Thermal Expansion

The results of the 2-Sample t-Test as well as the subsequent p graph are
displayed in Figure 10 above. For this test, the null hypothesis was identified as
1 = 2 and the alternative hypothesis is defined as 1 2. In these hypotheses
1 was used to represent the mean of the known metal data while 2 was used to
represent the mean of the unknown metal data. From these results, it is
suggested that the null hypothesis should be rejected. The p value, 0.000007,
shows that there if the null hypothesis is true, there is a 0.0007% that the results
obtained would occur by chance alone. Because this p value is below the alpha
level 0.10, it is suggested that there is significant evidence that the known metal
and unknown metal means are not the same.

Abney Satawa 36
Conclusion
This research was conducted to determine the identity of a set of unknown
metal rods as being the same or different than a set of copper rods. The
hypothesis stated that the unknown rods would be correctly identified as copper if
the percent errors for the specific heat and the alpha coefficient of the unknown
metal were within plus or minus 0.08 percent and 1.00 percent, respectively. This
hypothesis was ultimately accepted; the metals were correctly determined to be
composed of different metals and the percent errors for the aforementioned
properties for the unknown metal exceeded the preset requirements.
After data for both experiments was collected, the known and unknown
metal data sets were compared to one another in order to draw a conclusion.
Nearly all of the data supported the conclusion that the metals were different.
The p values resulting from the 2 Sample t-Tests run for each experiment were
found to be extremely small: the p values were found to be 7.0 106 for the
specific heat experiments and 2.13 104 for the linear thermal expansion, or
LTE, experiments. These values were far below the alpha level 0.10, and as
result, the null hypothesis was rejected. While the results of the test made clear
suggestions as to whether the metals were the same or different, the results of
the tests had to be considered with caution. This is because not all the
assumptions for the test were met.
When the data was analyzed graphically, it was found that the box plots
for the alpha coefficient of LTE overlapped only slightly, showing that the two

Abney Satawa 37
data sets contained fairly different data. However, the data sets produced very
different averages: the known metal average for LTE was found to be
9.89 106 C-1 while the average for the unknown metal was 6.41 106 C-1.
This shows that the known metal showed a greater change in length per degree
Celsius than the unknown metal.
Continuing, the box plots for the known and unknown metals in relation to
the specific heat experiment also overlapped slightly. The averages calculated
for the known and unknown data sets were similar: the known metal data set
averaged 0.428 J/gC and the unknown metal set averaged 0.381 J/gC. The
difference between the averages shows that it took 0.047 J/gC more to raise the
temperature of the known metal one degree Celsius. This means that it took
more energy to excite the molecules that the known metal is composed of than it
took to excite the molecules of the unknown metal. This can be considered a
significant difference when it is taken into account that there are elements with
specific heats within 0.06 J/gC of coppers known specific heat, 0.385 J/gC
(Thermophysical Properties).
Furthermore, the percent errors for the unknown metals were taken into
account. The percent error for the unknown metal for the specific heat
experiment when compared to the known specific heat of copper averaged at
-1.15 percent. This shows that the average specific heat for the unknown metal
was lower, but still fairly close, to the known value of copper. For LTE, when the
average unknown metal alpha coefficient was compared to the known alpha
coefficient for copper, the percent error was calculated to be incredibly large at

Abney Satawa 38
-62.3 percent. This shows that the average alpha coefficient for the unknown
metal was much lower than the known alpha coefficient.
In addition to the collected data, physical properties and observations
were considered while determining whether the known and unknown metals were
the same or different. The metals were extremely similar in color, both being an
almost identical reddish-brown color. However, when a magnet was held to the
metals, the unknown metal was discovered to be magnetic while the known
metal was not. While the coloring of the metals may have suggested that they
could potentially both be copper, the difference in magnetism played a large role
in deeming that the metals had different identities.
Although different properties could have been used to identify the
unknown metal, specific heat and LTE are known to play a significant role in
industry. Industries that involve working with metals could use similar
experiments to find metals with certain specific heats needed to construct
products made to withstand greater heats, like a steel frying pan instead of a gold
one. Some products need certain LTE coefficients if the product is meant to
expand or contract. Airplanes and buildings, for example, both need materials
with specific LTE coefficients to be safe for those who would use them. It is also
important to find materials with similar specific heat values and LTE coefficients
when considering the cost of using different materials.
Several changes could have been made to improve this research.
Throughout the experiments, there were a series of issues encountered that
could have disrupted data collection and, possibly, the data itself. One major

Abney Satawa 39
problem occurred during both linear thermal expansion experiments regarding
the jigs. On multiple occasions, the needles inside of the gauges would stick and
then suddenly jump several tick marks, possibly giving incorrect data at the end
of the trial. The dry erase markers used to mark the gauges drew thick lines that
made it difficult to read the change in length on the gauge. This could have
played a major part in the extremely skewed and irregular data gathered from the
LTE experiments. Another error that could have been made was the transfer of
rod to either calorimeter or jig. Trials that included a slow transfer of the metal rod
from loaf pan could have resulted in unreliable data.
Problems or flaws in the experiment could have been present in the
procedure as well. Often, the metal rods were assumed to be the same
temperature as the air, water in the calorimeter, or the water in the loaf pan. In
the LTE experiment, if the rod had not completely cooled, the molecules in the
rod would not have slowed down to a normal speed and therefore the rod would
not have been finished contracting. Secondly, if the rod temperature was not
equal to the water in the calorimeter by the end of the trial, the data would have
been invalid because the T value would have been incorrect. Also, given the
different sizes of the rods and possible differences in conductivity, the rods may
not have reached or even exceeded the temperature of the water in the loaf pan.
Another possible error in the procedure was the insertion of the
temperature probe into the calorimeter. In a few of the trials, especially with the
larger unknown metal rods, the temperature probe may have made direct contact

Abney Satawa 40
with the still-hot metal rod. This would have caused the probe to record the
temperature of the rod instead of the water and result in inaccurate T values.
This research could also have been expanded in a number of ways. For
example, several different metals could have also been compared to the known
metal instead of only one. Other experiments could have also been designed
using intensive properties such as malleability, density, conductivity, etc. to
identify the unknown metal. This research could have also been improved by
conducting an increased number of trials for each experiment so that the data
collected would have been more normally distributed.
Despite the aforementioned errors and ways in which the research could
have been expanded or improved, the data and physical properties allowed the
researchers to correctly conclude that the metals were in fact different and
ultimately accept their hypothesis.

Abney Satawa 41
Application
Copper is commonly used in many different industries. Included are
electrical wiring, plumbing, art purposes, jewelry, and decorative accents for
buildings, along with several other areas of industry. Below in Figures 11 and 12,
an example of a copper pipe fitting is shown. A blue print of the copper plumbing
pipe is shown in the first figure. The same pipe is pictured in Figure 12 as an
isometric view in solid works. The particular pipe illustrated is a copper slip tee
fitting. This type of pipe is used for connecting several pipes at different angles.
Copper is used to make plumbing pipes due to its durability and resistance to
weather, corrosion, and bacteria. The above part weighs 0.01 pounds and has a
volume of 0.03 inches cubed. The cost of copper is $3.16 per pound. Using this
price information, the cost of the part shown in the following figures has been
calculated to cost approximately $0.03.

Figure 11. Copper Slip Tee Fitting Blue Print

Abney Satawa 42

Figure 12. Copper Slip Tee Fitting: Isometric View in Solid Works

Abney Satawa 43
Acknowledgements
The researchers wish to acknowledge several people who were of help
during the researching process. These people include Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. Supal,
Mrs. Dewey, and Mrs. Cybulski. Mrs. Hilliard helped to provide the experimenters
with the prior knowledge of chemistry that was needed to take on the task of
conducting this research. She was also present during the physical execution of
the experiment to provide her assistance as needed and aided in the editing and
development of various sections of the paper, particularly the experimental
designs. Mr. Supal also provided input on nearly all sections of the paper in
relation to both content and formatting. Additionally, the researchers would like to
acknowledge Mrs. Dewey for her help in the analytic aspects of research such as
the interpretation of the collected data. Finally, Mrs. Cybulski is noted for
teaching the researchers the necessary statistical skills required to process the
data collected during the various experiments. The researchers would like to
thank each of these individuals for his or her aid and guidance that allowed the
researchers to create, conduct, and complete their research.

Abney Satawa 44
Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction
Materials:
2 in Diameter PVC Pipe (minimum of 40 cm in length)
3/4 inch Diameter CPVC Pipe (minimum of 34 cm in length)
(2) Charlotte Pipe 2-in Dia-Degree PVC Test Fitting
(4) Genova 3/4-in Dia Cap CPVC Fitting
Window and Door Insulating Foam Sealant
Permanent Marker
Ruler
Radial-arm Saw
Drill
1/8 in drill bit
Calorimeter Construction Procedures:
1.

Use a ruler and a sharpie to mark off 17 cm and 20 cm on the 2 in PVC

pipe and 3/4 in CPVC pipe, respectively.

2.

Cut each pipe with a radial-arm saw where the mark has been made.

3.

Place the 2 in Charlotte test fitting (cap) on one end of the 2 in PVC
pipe, fit securely.

4.

Put a 3/4 in Genova CPVC fitting (cap) onto one end of the 3/4 in
CPVC pipe, fir securely.

5.

Apply a thin layer of the insulating foam sealant to the inside of the 2 in
PVC pipe on top of the fitting. Make sure to only apply enough foam
sealant to cover the bottom of the pipe, for the insulating foam sealant will
expand significantly.

6.

After applying the foam sealant, center the small pipe inside of the larger
one, gently setting it on the thin layer of insulator at the bottom.

7.

Hold the small pipe firmly in position until the foam sealant has dried
enough to support the small pipe on its own.

8.

Add additional foam sealant inside of the larger pipe, applying it around
the smaller pipe. Fill until the inside of the larger pipe is approximately
halfway full with foam sealant.

9.

As it expands, if some of the foam sealant runs over the rim of the 2 inch
PVC pipe, use a paper towel to gently wipe away the excess foam. If the

Abney Satawa 45
foam has finished expanding and the inside of the 2 inch PVC pipe is not
completely filled, add more foam as needed.
10.

Let the foam sealant dry for the time period specified on the can, typically
about eight hours.

11.

While the foam sealant dries, drill a hole in the top of the second 3/4 inch
Genova CPVC fitting with a 1/8 in drill bit. Ensure that the hole is
slightly off center so that the temperature probe will not touch the metal
rod during trials.

12.

Place the second Genova CPVC fitting onto the top of the 3/4 inch CPVC
pipe.

13.

Repeat steps 1-12 to construct a second calorimeter to so that multiple

trials may be run at the same time during the specific heat experiment.

Figure 13. Calorimeter Blue Print

The above figure shows a blue print made in solid works of the
calorimeter. All dimensions are included in inches.

Abney Satawa 46

Figure 14. Calorimeter

Figure 14 includes an illustration created in solid works of an isometric
view of the calorimeter.

Abney Satawa 47
Appendix B
For this research, multiple experiments and statistical tests were run. The
following pages will discuss and provide examples of the formulas that were used
to help draw the conclusion of whether or not the known and unknown metals
were composed of the same element. The first of these formulas is that of
percent error where the experimental value for each trial, either a specific heat
value or an alpha coefficient depending on the experiment, is compared to the
true value, either the known specific heat of copper or the known alpha
coefficient of linear thermal expansion of copper.
=

( )
100

A sample calculation for percent error can be viewed below in Figure 13.
( )
100

0.385
(4.35 )
=
100

0.385

= 13.0%
Figure 13. Percent Error Calculation
Figure 13 above shows the percent error calculation for the data collected
during the first specific heat trial for the known metal, copper.

Secondly, a correction factor was applied to the specific heat trials. This
was used to accommodate for the imperfections of the calorimeter. The
correction factor was found by subtracting the average specific heat for the 15

Abney Satawa 48
known metal trials, referenced in the equation as the experimental average, from
the known specific heat of copper as shown below.
=
The calculation of the correction factor is shown below in Figure 24.

=
= 0.385 / 0.296 /
= 0.089 /
Figure 14. Correction Factor Calculation
The data collected during the specific heat trials was used to calculate the
specific heat for each trial using the equation shown on the next page. In the
equation, s represents the specific heat value, m represents the mass, and T
represents the change in temperature.
=

In order to solve for the specific heat of the metal rod for each trial, the equation
for the specific heat of the water in the calorimeter was set equal to the specific
heat equation for the metal. As in the specific heat equation for the metal, in the
equation for the waters specific heat, m represents the mass, T represents the
change in temperature, and s represents the specific heat of water, known to be
4.184 J/gC. Also, the change in temperature of the metal was found by
subtracting the final temperature from the initial temperature instead of the final

Abney Satawa 49
minus initial to avoid negative specific heat values. This is shown in the sample
calculation in Figure 15.

=
=
4.184 / 45 (27.0 23.2 ) = 28.3728 (99.0 27.0 )
715.464 / = 2042.84
715.464 /
=
2042.84
0.350 / =
Figure 15. Sample Calculation for Specific Heat
The figure above utilizes the data collected during the first specific heat
trial for the known metal, copper, to illustrate how the specific heat of the metal
was calculated for each trial.

In the case of a linear thermal expansion trial, the information collected

during the experiment was used to compute the alpha coefficient of the metal
rod. In the equation used, shown below, the change in length, L, is set equal to
the product of the alpha coefficient, ; the initial length, Li; and the change in
temperature, T.
=
As in the case of specific heat, the change in temperature was found by
subtracting the finial temperature from the initial temperature of the rod to avoid

Abney Satawa 50
negative values. A sample calculation for the alpha coefficient of linear thermal
expansion is shown in Figure 16.

=
0.1016 = 129.45 (97.5 24.6 )
0.1016 = 9436.91
0.1016
=
9436.91
0.000011 1 =
Figure 16. Sample Calculation for the Alpha Coefficient of Linear Thermal
Expansion
Figure 16 above shows a sample calculation for computing the alpha
coefficient. The sample calculation utilizes the data from the first trial of linear
thermal expansion of the known metal, copper.

Finally, a 2-Sample t-Test was used to compare the data collected for the
known metal and the unknown metal using the formula shown below. A t test was
run for both the specific heat data and the linear thermal expansion data. In the
formula, symbolizes the mean of the data set, s represents the standard
deviation of the data set, and n represents the number of data points, or in this
case, the number of trials. This formula, along with the null and alternative
hypotheses, is shown on the following page. For the 2-Sample t-Tests, the null
hypothesis stated that the means of the known and unknown metal data sets

Abney Satawa 51
were equal to one another; conversely, the alternative hypothesis stated that the
means were not equal to one another.
=

(1 2 )
2
( 2
(1 ) + 2)
1
2

: 1 = 2
: 1 2
A sample calculation is shown below using this formula in Figure 17. In this
sample calculation all variables with a subscript of one signify the known metal
data set, and the variables with the subscript two signify the unknown metal data
set.
=

(1 2 )
2
( 2
(1 ) + 2)
1
2

(0.428 / 0.385 /)
2

(0.032) + (0.028)
15
15

= 3.903
= 0.000559
Figure 17. 2-Sample t-Test Test Example Calculations
Figure 17 above uses the data collected during the specific heat
experiment to demonstrate the statistical test utilized to compare the data sets in
relation to the known and unknown metal rods.

Abney Satawa 52
Works Cited
Coefficient of Thermal Linear Expansion. Ferguson: St. Louis Community
College, 6 June 2014. PDF.
"Copper: Characteristics, Uses And Problems." U.S. General Services
Administration. U.S. General Services Administration, 07 May 2014. Web.
07 May 2014. <http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/113058>.
"Copper." Elmhurst College. Elmhurst College, n.d. Web. 07 May 2014.
<http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/102copper.html>.
"Copper." Periodic Table. Royal Society of Chemistry, 07 May 2014. Web. 07
May 2014. <http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/29/copper>.
"Experiment 14: Calorimetry." N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
<http://faculty.lacitycollege.edu/boanta/LAB60/EXPT14R_1.pdf>.
Hryniewicz, Tadeusz, and Zdzisaw Pluta. "Thermal Expansions of
Solids." Journal of Modern Physics (2012): 793-802. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2012.38104>
"Linear Coefficient of Thermal Expansion." NDT Education Resource Center.
NDT Education Resource Center, 23 May 2008. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.ndted.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Physical_Chemi
cal/ThermalExpansion.htm>.
Oliver, Monica, and Steve Cranford. "Thermal Expansion." Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Laboratory of Atomistic and Molecular Mechanics,
29 Aug. 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.

Abney Satawa 53
<http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2Fmbuehler%2Fwww%2FSIMS%2FTher
mal%2520Expansion.html>.
"Specific Heat." Boundless. N.p., 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<https://www.boundless.com/physics/heat-and-heat-transfer/specificheat/specific-heat/>.
"Specific Heat." N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
<http://www2.ohlone.edu/people/jklent/labs/101A_labs/SpecificHeat.pdf>.
"Specific Heat Capacity." Specific Heat Capacity. N.p., 3 Sept. 2012. Web. 24
Mar. 2014.
"Specific Heat Capacity, C." N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.emsb.qc.ca/laurenhill/science/capacity.pdf>.
"Temperature and Thermal Expansion." Boston University. Boston University
Physics, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
<http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Temperature.html>.
"The Element Copper." It's Elemental. Jefferson Lab, 07 May 2014. Web. 07 May
2014. <http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele029.html>.
"Thermal Expansion." Santa Monica College. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
<www.smc.edu/projects/28/.../Phys_23_T1_Thermal_expansion.doc>.
"Thermal Expansion." Western Washington University. Western Washington
University, 14 Jan. 2009. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
<http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/ThermExpan.ht
ml>.

Abney Satawa 54
"223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal Expansion." Clemson University. Clemson
University, 27 Jan. 2006. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.clemson.edu/ces/phoenix/labs/223/expansion/#setup>