IDS RESEARCH PAPER GRADE SHEET (Get Half Your Lost Percentage Back With

Corrections)

Student Names _______________________________Date___________Title of

Paper___________________________________

___4___ TITLE PAGE (4 pts)

a) appropriate title
b) names, school, class, section, teachers, date

___10___ INTRODUCTION (10 pts)

a) clear, concise, appropriate length

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title/citations

c) sentences are not wordy

d) purpose of experiment, intentions as a scientist, brief description of methods

___10___ REVIEW OF LITERATURE (10 pts)

a) clear and concise

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title/citations

c) sentences are not wordy

d) referenced techniques for measuring properties, published values, importance in design

e) history, collection, extraction reaction, uses in industry/products, properties, electronic structure

__4____ PROBLEM STATEMENT (4 pts)

a) clear and concise

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting

c) problem, hypothesis with stated percentages, data measured

___12___ EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (12 pts)

a) clear, concise, well designed to minimize error

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title/titles for materials, procedure, diagrams/appendix for

constructed items

c) sentences are not wordy

d) materials, procedure, photos/diagram of setup

__10____ DATA AND OBSERVATIONS (10 pts)

a) clear and concise paragraph that summarizes the overall observations regarding the setup and
equipment

b) tables that show raw data, the manipulated data, and an observation for each trial with correct sig figs

c) include any relevant photos of the sample with comments

d) include an appendix showing a sample calculation for each property

___12___ DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION (12 pts)

a) clear and concise

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title

c) sentences are not wordy

d) completely labeled box plots with published. value labeled, also compute a percent error

e) flow chart showing how you made a decision on your element

f) discussion on weaknesses in the experiment and sources of error

___10___ CONCLUSION (10 pts)

a) clear and concise

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title

c) sentences are not wordy

d) recap prob/hypoth. and state any support or denial, problems encountered, suggestions on how to
make your experiment better

___10___ APPLICATION (10 pts) (each member of the group must design a product)

a) clear and concise paragraph that summarizes an interesting product you design and how it is useful (8
pts)

b) a 3-D view of each group members product

c) brief description of your product, the mass of your product, cost of your product (with reference)

___8___ BIBLIOGRAPHY (8 pts)

a) spelling/formatting/alphabetized/title
b) at least ten cited sources and three books/journals
c) Correct in text citing

___100___ Total Score 100 (90 + 10 on time)

Using Specific Heat to Determine Whether Two Metals are the Same or Different
Greg Fehmer, Richard Johnson, Emily Solecki
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
10B
Jamie Hilliard, Mark Supal, Christine Dewey
24 May 2016
 Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………......1

Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………………....3

Problem Statement/Hypothesis/Data Measured..………..…………………………………6

Experimental Design……………………………………………………………………...……7

Data and Observations……..……………………………………………………………….…9

Data Analysis and Interpretation……………..………………………………………………15

Conclusion……………….……………………………………………………………………...24

Application……….…………………..………………………………………………………….27

Acknowledgements..………………..………………………………………………………….29

Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction…………..….……………………………………….30

Appendix B: Randomization of Trials…...……..…………………………………………….33

Appendix C: Formulas and Sample Calculations…....………………………………….….34

Works Cited……………………………………………….…………………………………….37
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 1

Introduction

Since the industrial era, metals have been manufactured for day-to-day use in

numerous ways: from cars, to medical instruments, and even in the electronic gadgets

used every day. These applications may seem very obvious, but these metals differ in

many intrinsic properties, including one called “specific heat capacity.” Specific heat

refers to how much energy it takes to raise one gram of a substance by one degree

Celsius. The importance of specific heat is prominent in many industries, but mainly in

the automotive industry. Specific heat can apply to a car’s carburetor (a component of a

car that mixes a coolant and fuel) because the coolant must have a high specific heat,

so that it can absorb a large amount of heat. This is due to the fact that every substance

in existence has an individual value of specific heat, which is an intensive property.

Because of this, a substance can be identified by comparing it to another known specific

heat.

The primary objective for the following research is to use the known metal

tantalum’s specific heat to determine if an unknown metal is the same or different.

Tantalum is element number 73 on the periodic table and is a transition metal, which is

generally classified as a dense and gray substance. In addition, tantalum is a nontoxic

metal, making it one of the main metals used to create medical instruments; such as

hearing aids and pacemakers.

To briefly go over how the research was done, four metal rods (two tantalum and

two unknown) were heated in a bath of boiling water and placed in calorimeters filled

with water. By keeping track of the temperature, the temperature changes of the metals

were found. Using this and the mass of the rods, the specific heat could be calculated.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 2

By comparing the specific heats with a significance test, it can be determined whether

the metals are the same or different.

With the specific heat of tantalum known, it is easy to compare it to the calculated

specific heat of another unknown metal. This principle is necessary because if the

metals are compared using just physical or extensive characteristics, a mistake could

be made since many metals look very similar.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 3

Review of Literature

All substances in the universe have distinct properties that can help it be

identified when it is unknown. Many researchers have used melting points and heat

capacity to help make conclusions on what substance they may be testing. However,

there are many principles at play behind these tests, which go beyond simply measuring

the temperature of a substance.

In order to understand this experiment, the element that is being tested must be

understood. The element being investigated is tantalum, which has an atomic number of

73 and is a transition metal. According to the book The Periodic Table: A Visual Guide

to the Elements by Paul Parsons and Gail Dixon. It is described as a “soft, silvery, shiny

metal in its pure form” (Dixon and Parsons 168). In addition, tantalum is a non-corrosive

metal making it very useful for coating other metals. Because of this, it is used in

making a multitude of gadgets and devices in the form of small electronic components.

Another major concept that is essential to this research is specific heat capacity.

Specific heat is the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of one gram

of a substance by one degree Celsius. Every known element on Earth has the intensive

property of specific heat no matter how much of the element is present, which makes it

an intensive property. Because each substance has its own specific heat, it can be used

to determine what substance is being tested based solely on the energy transferred

from the system (the metal) to its surroundings (everything around it). When specific

heat is known it can be used with the following formula to find the opposite side’s

specific heat value.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 4

-sm△t = +sm△t

In this formula, s is specific heat in J / g °C, m is the mass in grams, and △t is change in

temperature in degrees Celsius, which is found by subtracting the final temperature

from the initial. This formula coincides with the First Law of Thermodynamics which is

mentioned in the article Heat by Neil Schlager, which states: “The physical law known

as conservation of energy shows that within a system isolated from all outside factors,

the total amount of energy remains the same… because the amount of energy in a

system remains constant, it is impossible to perform work that results in an energy

output greater than the energy input” (Schlager 1). To put it simply, the First Law says

that the energy in a system is always constant no matter what work is done within it.

Another topic that coincides with specific heat and the First Law of

Thermodynamics is calorimetry. Calorimetry is best described as the study of heat

released of something. In the book Differential Scanning Calorimetry, the topic of

calorimetry is defined as “the measurement of heat.” The book also mentions that in

order to measure heat, there must be a transfer of heat. A device that measures this

heat transfer is a calorimeter. According to Chemistry, a textbook written by Raymond

Chang, a calorimeter is an isolated system used to determine the heat changes for non-

combustion reactions. The First Law of Thermodynamics applies to calorimeters

because most are isolated systems (as the following figure illustrates) and that means

the heat energy within it will be constant no matter what.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 5

Figure 1. Calorimeter

The above figure represents a calorimeter that is similar to the one that will be

used in the current experiment. A PVC pipe will be modified to be the insulating jacket

and create an isolated system where almost no heat energy can escape. In addition, a

thermometer will be used to measure the temperature as the water reaches equilibrium.

An experiment designed to teach the concept of heat is titled Experiment 6:

Coffee-cup Calorimetry, it states that “Reactions that give off energy as heat are called

exothermic—[where] heat “exits” the system, while reactions that absorb heat from their

surroundings as they occur are called endothermic—[where] heat goes “into” the

reaction system.” This experiment’s objective is to examine the heat released in is in an

acid base neutralization reaction. Even though the current experiment being run does

not pertain to a neutralization reaction, it is measuring the heat released from a system

into its surroundings. Once again, this relates to the First Law of Thermodynamics

because it does not matter whether an exothermic or endothermic heat exchange takes

place, the energy within the system will remain constant.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 6

Problem Statement/Hypothesis/Data Measured

Problem Statement:

To determine if the unknown metal is significantly similar or different to the known

metal, tantalum, by comparing the intensive property of specific heat.

Hypothesis:

The two metals are the same if the specific heat of the unidentified metal

matches the specific heat of tantalum to an alpha level of 0.1 for a two sample t-test and

to a percent error of 3.9%.

Data Measured:

The data will be analyzed using a two-sample t test. This statistical test

compares variables of two populations to determine if they are the same or different. In

this case, the two specific heats of each metal are being compared. Using the following

formula the variables that need to be found can be identified.

The specific heat value (identified by “s”) is the specific heat in J/g °C (Joules per

grams Celsius). Every material has its own specific heat. This variable is what is being

calculated. For water, specific heat is 4.184 J/g °C and for tantalum the specific heat is

what will be calculated. The mass (identified with the letter “m”) is the mass of the

substance in grams, which can be found by weighing it on a scale. The change in

temperature (Δt) is the final temperature subtracted by the initial temperature. This is

found using a calorimeter.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 7

Experimental Design

Materials:

(2) PVC Calorimeters (see appendix A TI-Nspire calculator

for construction Process) (2) Tantalum rods
Hot plate (2) Unknown metal rods
(2) Tongs Vernier Lab Quest
Thermometer (0.1 °C precision) (2) Vernier temperature probes (0.1 °C
Loaf pan precision)
Scale (0.0001 g precision) Hot mitt
Timer 50 mL graduated cylinder

Procedures:

Randomizing

1. Use the Ti-Nspire calculator to randomly select trial numbers. Create 15 for each
metal rod. (See Appendix B for further information about randomizing).

Conducting the Experiment

2. Record the mass of each rod.

3. Set up the Lab Quest with two Vernier temperature probes setting the time for
each trial to 120 seconds.

4. Fill the loaf pans with water and set them on the hot plate on setting 10 until the
water is between 98°C and 100°C.

5. Fill each calorimeter with 50 mL of water using the graduated cylinder (Note: the
researchers in this experiment used two graduated cylinders for convenience, but
two are not necessary).

6. Fill the beaker up with tap water and set it on the secondary hot plate to boil
while trials are being run. This water will be used when the water in the loaf pan
has evaporated.

7. Once the water in the loaf pan is boiling, place one metal rod into the hot bath
and start the timer for one minute.

8. Twenty seconds before the time is up, make sure the cap with the temperature
probe is sitting on the top of the calorimeter and begin the trial so the Lab Quest
can record the initial temperature of the water.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 8

9. After the time is up, use the tongs to remove the metal rod and place it into the
calorimeter while having another researcher record the temperature of the water
in the loaf pan, which will be the initial temperature of the metal.

10. Immediately place the cap with the temperature probe attached on the
calorimeter to retain heat within the system.

11. Wait for the timer to complete and then record the final equilibrium temperature
of the water.

12. After completing this process for one metal rod, tap on the file cabinet on the trial
page to create a new trial on the Lab Quest. Repeat steps 5-11 for each trial.

Diagram:

Figure 2. Materials Used in the Experiment

Figure 2, above exhibits the materials used in the experiment. It includes the

calorimeters built with the instructions found in Appendix A along with the wooden

holders for both the calorimeters and the metals.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 9

Data and Observations

Data:

Table 1
Tantalum Rod Specific Heat Data
Change in Specific
Initial Temp. Equilibrium Mass
Temp. Heat
Trial Rod (Cº Temp. (g)
(Cº) (J/g x
(C°)
Cº)
Water Metal Water Metal Metal Water
1 2 20.9 98.3 23.8 2.9 -74.5 67.9521 50 0.120
2 2 21.3 98.0 23.2 1.9 -74.8 67.9521 50 0.078
3 2 22.7 97.7 25.5 2.8 -72.2 67.8560 50 0.120
4 1 20.4 96.6 23.3 2.9 -73.3 67.8560 50 0.122
5 2 22.7 96.9 25.0 2.3 -71.9 67.9521 50 0.098
6 1 23.4 97.7 26.2 2.8 -71.5 67.9521 50 0.121
7 2 23.0 97.9 25.0 2.0 -72.9 67.8560 50 0.085
8 1 23.1 98.4 26.1 3.0 -72.3 67.8560 50 0.128
9 1 20.7 98.3 23.4 2.7 -74.9 67.8560 50 0.111
10 2 26.6 98.1 29.1 2.5 -69.0 67.8560 50 0.112
11 2 24.5 91.7 27.1 2.6 -64.6 67.8560 50 0.124
12 1 23.1 97.9 25.4 2.3 -72.5 67.9521 50 0.098
13 1 21.4 97.6 24.4 3.0 -73.2 67.9521 50 0.126
14 2 23.0 98.1 25.9 2.9 -72.2 67.8560 50 0.124
15 1 23.1 97.5 25.1 2.0 -72.4 67.9521 50 0.085
16 1 21.2 94.1 23.7 2.5 -70.4 67.8560 50 0.109
17 1 20.3 98.2 23.3 3.0 -74.9 67.8560 50 0.123
18 2 23.0 98.4 25.9 2.9 -72.5 67.8560 50 0.123
19 1 21.8 98.1 24.8 3.0 -73.3 67.9521 50 0.126
20 2 22.9 97.5 25.8 2.9 -71.7 67.8560 50 0.125
21 2 23.9 98.4 26.4 2.5 -72.0 67.9521 50 0.107
22 2 21.2 98.2 23.9 2.7 -74.3 67.9521 50 0.112
23 2 21.6 97.2 23.8 2.2 -73.4 67.8560 50 0.092
24 2 22.8 98.2 25.2 2.4 -73.0 67.8560 50 0.101
25 2 23.2 98.4 26.0 2.8 -72.4 67.9521 50 0.119
26 2 21.0 98.2 23.6 2.6 -74.6 67.9521 50 0.107
27 1 22.9 98.1 25.6 2.7 -72.5 67.9521 50 0.115
28 2 22.1 97.6 24.2 2.1 -73.4 67.9521 50 0.088
29 1 20.1 98.2 23.4 3.3 -74.8 67.8560 50 0.136
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 10

Change in Specific
Initial Temp. Equilibrium Mass
Temp. Heat
Trial Rod (Cº) Temp. (g)
(Cº) (J/g x
(C°)
Cº)
Water Metal Water Metal Metal Water
30 1 23.3 98.2 25.8 2.5 -72.4 67.9521 50 0.106
Average 22.4 97.6 25.0 2.6 -72.6 67.9041 50 0.111

Table 1 shows the data for the known tantalum rods when placed into the

calorimeter. The range of percent errors was found to be approximately -36.407, which

can be attributed to the rods being dropped onto the lab table on some occasions; these

instances can be found in the observations portion. This high range shows that some

trials went well and others not as well. This however, is only a comparison tool for the

next table, which is the unknown rod’s data values.

Table 2
Unknown Rod Specific Heat Data
Change in Specific
Initial Temp. Equilibrium Mass
Temp. Heat
Trial Rod (Cº) Temp. (g)
(Cº) (J/g x
(C°)
Cº)
Water Metal Water Metal Metal Water
1 2 22.1 96.1 25.0 2.9 -71.1 67.7734 50.0 0.126
2 1 22.9 97.8 25.5 2.6 -72.3 67.6195 50.0 0.111
3 2 26.5 98.5 29.3 2.8 -69.2 67.6195 50.0 0.125
4 2 31.4 98.0 33.0 1.6 -65.0 67.6195 50.0 0.076
5 1 21.0 98.2 23.8 2.8 -74.4 67.6195 50.0 0.116
6 2 21.3 94.1 23.9 2.6 -70.2 67.6195 50.0 0.115
7 1 25.9 92.3 27.9 2.0 -64.4 67.7734 50.0 0.096
8 2 23.3 99.0 25.8 2.5 -73.2 67.6195 50.0 0.106
9 1 21.4 93.0 22.9 1.5 -70.1 67.6195 50.0 0.066
10 2 21.4 97.0 24.1 2.7 -72.9 67.7734 50.0 0.114
11 1 20.3 96.8 23.3 3.0 -73.5 67.7734 50.0 0.126
12 1 20.7 94.1 23.5 2.8 -70.6 67.7734 50.0 0.122
13 1 25.4 95.1 27.7 2.3 -67.4 67.7734 50.0 0.105
14 2 21.1 97.0 23.3 2.2 -73.7 67.6195 50.0 0.092
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 11

Change in Specific
Initial Temp. Equilibrium Mass
Temp. Heat
Trial Rod (Cº) Temp. (g)
(Cº) (J/g x
(C°)
Water Metal Water Metal Metal Water Cº)
15 1 24.7 97.7 27.4 2.7 -70.3 67.7734 50.0 0.119
16 2 21.0 98.1 23.5 2.5 -74.6 67.6195 50.0 0.104
17 1 23.8 97.8 26.6 2.8 -71.2 67.7734 50.0 0.121
18 2 26.1 98.4 28.5 2.4 -69.9 67.6195 50.0 0.106
19 2 23.1 97.8 26.1 3.0 -71.7 67.6195 50.0 0.129
20 2 28.2 97.3 30.7 2.5 -66.6 67.6195 50.0 0.116
21 2 21.7 98.0 24.9 3.2 -73.1 67.6195 50.0 0.135
22 1 22.9 97.3 25.7 2.8 -71.6 67.7734 50.0 0.121
23 2 21.5 98.2 24.7 3.2 -73.5 67.7734 50.0 0.134
24 1 21.4 97.5 24.4 3.0 -73.1 67.7734 50.0 0.127
25 1 26.5 98.7 29.2 2.7 -69.5 67.7734 50.0 0.120
26 1 21.9 98.2 25.0 3.1 -73.2 67.6195 50.0 0.131
27 1 20.7 98.1 23.4 2.7 -74.7 67.7734 50.0 0.112
28 1 20.0 98.1 23.0 3.0 -75.1 67.7734 50.0 0.123
29 2 23.0 97.3 25.5 2.5 -71.8 67.6195 50.0 0.108
30 2 20.2 98.2 23.2 3.0 -75.0 67.7734 50.0 0.123
Average 12.3 51.4 13.7 1.3 -37.8 67.6965 26.7 0.057

Table 2 exhibits the data for the unknown rod. The range of the percent errors

was found to be approximately -49.451, which again can be attributed to errors in

running the experiment. In addition, it is also clear that the mass of both the tantalum

rods and the unknown rods is very similar while also yielding similar results.

Observations:

Table 3
Tantalum Rod Specific Heat Observations
Trial Rod Calorimeter Observations
1 2 1 Researcher A, 2 seconds to enter cal.
2 2 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 12

Trial Rod Calorimeter Observations

3 2 1 Researcher A, 2 seconds to enter cal.
4 1 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
5 2 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
6 1 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
7 2 1 Researcher A, 4 seconds to enter cal, rod dropped.
8 1 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
9 1 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
10 2 1 Researcher A, 2 seconds to enter cal.
11 2 1 Researcher B, 8 seconds to enter cal, rod dropped twice.
12 1 2 Researcher B, 4 seconds to enter cal, rod dropped.
13 1 1 Researcher A, 7 seconds to enter cal, rod dropped.
14 2 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
15 1 2 Researcher B, 5 seconds to enter cal.
16 1 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
17 1 1 Researcher A, 2 seconds to enter cal.
18 2 1 Researcher A, 4 seconds to enter cal.
19 1 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
20 2 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
21 2 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
22 2 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
23 2 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
24 2 1 Researcher A, 2 seconds to enter cal, probe touched rod.
25 2 1 Researcher B, 4 seconds to enter cal.
26 2 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
27 1 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
28 2 2 Researcher B, 7 seconds to enter cal, rod dropped.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 13

Trial Rod Calorimeter Observations

29 1 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
30 1 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.

Table 3 shows the observations for each trial of the Tantalum rods. Each row

tells which researcher performed the trial and how long it took for the metal rod to go

from the loaf pan to the calorimeter. Any mistakes such as the rod being dropped before

being placed in the calorimeter are also shown, along with any odd occurrences. In

trials 7, 11, 12, 13, and 28 the rod was dropped before it was placed in the calorimeter.

Trial 24 should also be noted, as the temperature probe touched the rod while it was

inside the calorimeter, which may have affected the equilibrium temperature for that

trial.

Table 4
Unknown Rod Specific Heat Observations
Trial Rod Calorimeter Observations
1 2 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
2 1 1 Researcher A, 4 seconds to enter cal.
3 2 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
4 2 1 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal, initial water temp high.
5 1 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
6 2 1 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
7 1 2 Researcher B, 5 seconds to enter cal.
8 2 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
9 1 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
10 2 1 Researcher A, 2 seconds to enter cal.
11 1 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
12 1 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
13 1 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
14 2 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
15 1 1 Researcher A, 5 seconds to enter cal.
16 2 1 Researcher A, 4 seconds to enter cal, rod dropped.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 14

Trial Rod Calorimeter Observations

17 1 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
18 2 1 Researcher A, 4 seconds to enter cal.
19 2 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal, rod dropped.
20 2 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
21 2 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
22 1 1 Researcher A, 4 seconds to enter cal.
23 2 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
24 1 1 Researcher A, 4 seconds to enter cal.
25 1 2 Researcher B, 2 seconds to enter cal.
26 1 2 Researcher B, 3 seconds to enter cal.
27 1 1 Researcher A, 5 seconds to enter cal.
28 1 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
29 2 1 Researcher A, 3 seconds to enter cal.
30 2 1 Researcher A, 4 seconds to enter cal.

Table 4 shows the observations noted when running trials pertaining to the

unknown rods. Some noteworthy trials are trials 7, 15, and 27, where it took five

seconds for the metal to enter the calorimeter as for the usual two or three seconds.

Another set of noteworthy trials are 16 and 19, where one of the metals was dropped

onto the lab table before being picked up and dropped into the calorimeter. Finally, trial

4 began with a slightly higher initial temperature due to it being close to the hot plate.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 15

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The purpose of this experiment is to determine if two possibly different metals

can be identified as the same or different using their calculated specific heats (identified

by the variable s). Specific heat refers to the energy needed to heat one gram of a

substance one degree Celsius. In order to find the values necessary, the researchers

built calorimeters and filled them with water. The temperature of the water was taken,

and the metal rods were heated up. The temperatures of the heated rods were taken

and they were placed in the calorimeters. This resulted in a temperature change for the

water and metals (ΔT) that was measured in degrees Celsius. The metal rods and the

water also had their masses measured (m) in grams. With these variables, the specific

heat of the metals can be calculated.

Throughout the experiment several measures were taken to ensure the data was

reliable. Calorimeters are isolated systems, meaning that matter and energy cannot

escape. This controlled that none of the heat from the metal rod escaped and all heat

was accounted for. The calorimeters were also kept away from the hot plate, so that it

would not influence the interior temperature. In addition, each of the trials was

randomized to keep out any possible bias. Because each trial was randomly done, it

was important to repeat each trial as exactly the same as possible, so the chance of

bias is low.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 16

Table 5
Tantalum Rod Specific Heat Percent Values
Specific Percent
Heat Percent Error
Trial
(J/g x Error (Correction
Cº) Factor)

1 0.120 -14.400 6.036

2 0.078 -44.142 -23.706
3 0.120 -14.598 5.838
4 0.122 -12.876 7.560
5 0.098 -29.656 -9.220
6 0.121 -13.884 6.552
7 0.085 -39.585 -19.149
8 0.128 -8.625 11.811
9 0.111 -20.617 -0.181
10 0.112 -20.212 0.224
11 0.124 -11.369 9.067
12 0.098 -30.238 -9.802
13 0.126 -9.876 10.560
14 0.124 -11.548 8.888
15 0.085 -39.253 -18.817
16 0.109 -21.799 -1.363
17 0.123 -11.797 8.639
18 0.123 -11.914 8.522
19 0.126 -9.999 10.437
20 0.125 -10.931 9.505
21 0.107 -23.645 -3.209
22 0.112 -20.089 0.347
23 0.092 -33.996 -13.560
24 0.101 -27.601 -7.165
25 0.119 -14.955 5.481
26 0.107 -23.358 -2.922
27 0.115 -18.105 2.331
28 0.088 -37.085 -16.649
29 0.136 -2.847 17.589
30 0.106 -24.067 -3.631
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 17

Specific Percent
Heat Percent Error
Trial
(J/g x Error (Correction
Cº) Factor)
Average 0.111 -20.436 0.013

Table 5 above, shows each specific heat value for the tantalum rod’s trials. A

correction factor of -20.436 was subtracted from each individual percent error. This was

formed by subtracting the average percent error from each trial. The range of percent

errors is 41.295. The results of each trial varied, meaning the data collected was not as

accurate as it could have been.

Table 6
Unknown Rod Specific Heat Percent Values
Specific Percent
Heat Percent Error
Trial (J/g x Error (Correction
Cº) Factor)

1 0.126 -10.070 8.328

2 0.111 -20.531 -2.133
3 0.125 -10.584 7.814
4 0.076 -45.604 -27.206
5 0.116 -16.834 1.564
6 0.115 -18.154 0.244
7 0.096 -31.527 -13.129
8 0.106 -24.527 -6.129
9 0.066 -52.714 -34.316
10 0.114 -18.340 0.058
11 0.126 -10.007 8.391
12 0.122 -12.556 5.842
13 0.105 -24.761 -6.363
14 0.092 -34.034 -15.636
15 0.119 -15.320 3.078
16 0.104 -25.944 -7.546
17 0.121 -13.293 5.105
18 0.106 -24.126 -5.728
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 18

Specific Percent
Heat Percent Error
Trial (J/g x Error (Correction
Cº) Factor)
19 0.129 -7.538 10.860
20 0.116 -17.048 1.350
21 0.135 -3.263 15.135
22 0.121 -13.778 4.620
23 0.134 -4.008 14.390
24 0.127 -9.515 8.883
25 0.120 -14.345 4.053
26 0.131 -6.414 11.984
27 0.112 -20.307 -1.909
28 0.123 -11.924 6.474
29 0.108 -23.056 -4.658
30 0.123 -11.807 6.591
Average 0.114 -18.398 0.012

Table 6 above shows each specific heat value for the unknown rod’s trials. This

table also has a correction factor of -18.398 and was calculated in the same manner as

previously mentioned in table six’s anchor. The range of percent errors is 49.451. The

results of each trial varied, meaning the data collected was not as accurate as it should

have been.

The findings of this test are displayed as box plots, normal probability plots, and

the final t-distribution graph. The use of boxplots is necessary to understanding the data

because it highlights crucial data points that are not usually displayed on a regular bar

graph or scatter plot. It displays the maximum, minimum, and median value for the data

set. In addition, it also displays the first and third quartile values, which is one fourth of

the data and three fourths of the data displayed; anything within the first and third

quartiles are shown as a box.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 19

Figure 3. Box Plot of Tantalum Specific Heat and Unknown Specific Heat

Figure 3 above, shows the box plots of the known and unknown metal’s specific

heat values. Both box plots are skewed left, which can be seen from there being more

data present on the right half of the graph. This can also be seen by comparing the

position of the medians and experimental means. Because both medians are to the right

of their experimental means, they are skewed left. In addition to the skewness, the

overall range of the first graph is approximately 0.058. However, the interquartile range

(quartile 1 subtracted from quartile 3) is approximately 0.022, which only concerns the

box portion of the graph. These small ranges show that there is not much variance in

the results acquired, especially within the box where the majority of the data is present.

In the second graph, there are two major outliers of 0.066 and 0.076. The overall range

is approximately 0.069 and the interquartile range is about 0.019. The outliers

drastically increase the overall range and are most likely present because of some

mistake a researcher did during the experiment.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 20

In addition to box plots, normal probability plots are necessary to determining

whether the given data is reliable. Each data point is plotted on a graph alongside a

straight line. The main idea is that each data point is to lie on that line exactly and the

closer they are to the line the more normal they are; any departures from this straight

line indicates a lack of normality.

Figure 4. Normal Probability Plot of Tantalum Specific Heat

Figure 4 above is a normal probability plot, which will help determine whether the

data is normal or irregular. The data displayed above has a pattern of short tails, which

means that it represents an “s” pattern and the first values depart from the line, then are

close to it, and once again depart from the line. Because of the irregular pattern of this

chart, it can be inferred that the normal distribution does not provide an adequate fit to

the data above. The graph does show some skewness to the left, also shown in the box

plot in Figure 3.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 21

Figure 5. Normal Probability Plot of Unknown Metal’s Specific Heat

Figure 5 shown above, displays each specific heat value on the normal

probability plot for the unknown metal. By using the same logic displayed in the previous

graph, this graph also has a pattern of short tails, but it is not as extreme as the

previous example. Even though these points form an “s” shape, they are still close to

the line and therefore more reminiscent of a normal distribution. The two points at the

bottom are far from the line, representing the outliers from the boxplot in Figure 3.

For this data, a special statistical analysis tool will be used: it is a two sample t-

test. This is a test that determines whether or not the data between two populations is

significant or not. In this case, the two populations are the specific heats of the known

tantalum rod and the unknown rod. Significance is determined by comparing the

population means of both data sets (identified with μ), which must be found.

Before carrying out a two sample t-test, several conditions must be met. The first

is that the data must have been collected through a simple random sample (SRS). Each

trial was randomized, eliminating as much bias as possible. The second condition is that

the data must be normal or have a sample size of 30 or more. Exactly 30 trials were
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 22

done for tantalum and the unknown. The final condition is that the two samples are

independent, or one doesn’t affect the probability of the other. The specific heat of one

material doesn’t affect the specific heat of another, so the samples are independent.

Every two sample t-test needs a null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypothesis as to

what the results will be. The null hypothesis states that the population means (μ) of

each sample will equal each other. The alternative hypothesis states the first population

mean is greater than, less than, or not equal to the second population mean.

𝐻0 : 𝜇1= 𝜇2

𝐻𝑎 : 𝜇1≠ 𝜇2

Figure 6. Null and Alternative Hypotheses

Figure 6 shows the null and alternative hypotheses comparing the specific heats

for tantalum and the unknown metal. The null states that the specific heats of tantalum

and the unknown equal each other, so the unknown is tantalum. The alternative states

that the specific heats of the metals are different, so the unknown is not tantalum.

Figure 7. Two-Sample t Test

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 23

Figure 7 on the previous page shows the two-sample t test comparing the

specific heats of tantalum and the unknown metal. The t-value is -0.7052, meaning the

average data point is about 0.7 standard deviations away from the mean. The null

hypothesis fails to be rejected because the p-value of 0.4835 is more than the alpha

level of 0.1. This is evidence that the specific heat of tantalum matches the specific heat

of the unknown metal. If H0 is true, there is a 48% chance of getting a difference in

means like this. Since this is so likely to happen, the null hypothesis is accepted.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 24

Conclusion

The primary objective of this study was to determine if tantalum and an unknown

metal were the same or different, by calculating their specific heats and comparing them

using a statistical test. It was hypothesized that the two metals were the same if the

calculated specific heat of the unidentified metal complied with the alpha level of 0.1

when a two sample t-test was run with a percent error of 3.9%. The result of the two

sample t-test showed that the p-value of 0.4835 was greater than the alpha level of

0.1. After these calculations, the hypothesis that the two metals were the same was

accepted.

Many factors supported the acceptance of the hypothesis; for example, the

physical characteristics of the metals were very similar (dark gray and similar masses).

Another factor was the percent error of the found specific heats for each metal. The

percent error of the unknown (with a correction factor applied) was 0.012%, well below

the maximum allowed percent error of 3.9%. With these pieces of data, the most

important evidence, the t-test, was conducted.

However, this data could not be acquired without a sound experimental design.

The steps and processes were tested several times to ensure that the data acquired

was as accurate as possible. Even though several precautions were taken to get

accurate data, there were some instances where errors occurred. For example, if the

rod was dropped on the table some of the heat could escape into the table or the

surrounding air instead of the water in the calorimeter. Because some of the heat

escaped before it entered the calorimeter, the equilibrium temperature of the system

would be lower than that of other trials resulting in a higher percent error, and this did
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 25

occur on some occasions (see Tables 3 and 4). Another error that occurred was when

the temperature probe would touch the metal rod in the calorimeter. This would cause

the temperature read out on the Lab Quest to be much higher than it truly was. This was

only noted for one trial (See Table 3), but the impact is noticeable when examining the

data for the trial. A final, yet not as significant factor that may have impacted the results

were the tongs used. The tongs used were metallic, so they could have absorbed a

small amount of heat before the rod was deposited into the calorimeter. Although this

was a very subtle inaccuracy, it could have affected the results.

Another method to determine whether these metals were the same is by using

linear thermal expansion (LTE). The main idea behind LTE is that when metals are

heated, their lengths increase due to the particles moving faster and shrink when the

metal is cooled; this can be found in the article “What is the Kinetic Molecular Theory of

Matter?” If LTE was used instead of specific heat for the same metals, then the

expansion of both metals would be found to be very similar and it would therefore be

concluded that the metals were the same.

Through heavy reflection of this research, the researchers agreed on a couple

improvements that would positively affect the efficiency and accuracy of the results if

the experiment had to be redone. To begin, the method that the metal rods were

dropped into the calorimeters was not as efficient as it could have been. Perhaps a

funnel-like device could have been developed to automatically drop the metal into the

calorimeter. Another improvement would be the position of the calorimeters in relation to

the hot plates being used. The researchers would keep the calorimeters as far away

from the hot plates because it was actually found that they were absorbing small
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 26

amounts of heat as the experiment progressed. Overall, these two things were the most

prominent changes that the researchers would implement.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 27

Application
Today, many metals have different purposes in the electronics industry. Many

components are meticulously manufactured so electronics can work efficiently for the

longest time possible. One of these things is a component called a capacitor, which is

used to temporarily store electricity. Tantalum is commonly used for this important

component, which is used in everything from disposable cameras to video game

controllers and cell phones people use every day.

Figure 8. Tantalum Capacitor 3d Model

Figure 8 above shows a 3d tantalum model of a capacitor for an electronic

device. These are used in almost all electronic devices but their size may vary

depending on how much electricity is being stored. Tantalum is commonly used in

smaller capacitors because of its great ability to store electricity. In addition, tantalum

capacitors have a longer lifespan and can withstand more critical weather conditions.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 28

The average tantalum capacitor (as shown above) can cost from 40 cents to over a

dollar depending on how much electricity it can store and its size.

Figure 9. Tantalum Capacitor 2d Drawing

Figure 9, shown above, is the 2d representation of the previously shown 3d

model. If a manufacturer were to build this particular part, this would be what they see. It

shows the top view, front view, and right side of the part. Each measurement is in

millimeters meaning the final product is quite small. However, with this model, any

manufacturer could program a machine to build it.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 29

Acknowledgements
Through the researching process, several people helped to make our research

and analysis much easier. To begin, we would like to thank each of our teachers. Mrs.

Hilliard directed us through pre-trials, and she helped us figure out how to make our

procedure run smoothly. She also showed us how to efficiently run two trials at the

same time. Similarly, we would like to Mrs. Dewey for helping us understand and

analyze the results of our experiment. She suggested a better way of showing our data

in the written paper, and she suggested a few minor tips to make our understanding of

the research complete. Likewise, we thank Mrs. Cybulski for teaching us how to

properly conduct and analyze a two sample t-test. Last but not least, the final teacher

we would like to thank is Mr. Supal. He helped us cut the PVC pipes to make the

calorimeters, and he helped us when constructing the calorimeters. As far as the

parents go, we would like to thank them for taking us to buy the supplies for the

calorimeters and being open when it came to the group working after school and

needing rides. We would not have been able to complete this research in the manner

we did without the help of these vital people.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 30

Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction

Materials:
(2) 1” diameter PVC pipe (at least 40 cm long)
(4) 1” diameter PVC pipe cap
Oatey regular clear PVC cement
Miter Saw

Materials:

(4) 1” diameter PVC

pipe caps

1” diameter PVC pipe

Oatey regular clear
(at least 40 cm long)
PVC cement
Figure 10. Materials for Calorimeter

Figure 10, above, shows the materials used to make the calorimeter that was

used in this experiment. Not pictured: the miter saw used to cut the PVC pipe to size.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 31

Procedure:

Building the Calorimeter

1. Measure 15 cm on the 1” diameter PVC pipe and mark using the sharpie.

2. Using the miter saw, cut along the line drawn in the previous step. Repeat this step

and the previous step once more so that two tubes are cut out.

3. Once both pipes are cut, on one end of the PVC pipe, spread the PVC cement along

the bottom of the pipe and inside of the cap.

4. Immediately push the cap onto the side with the cement and apply pressure for one

minute. After applying pressure, wipe off any excess cement.

5. Drill a 1 cm diameter hole into the unattached PVC cap. This is where the

temperature probe will be inserted to measure the water’s temperature.

Figure 11. Finished Calorimeter

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 32

Figure 11 on the previous page shows how the calorimeter should look after

following the previous steps. The top cap should be removable and have a hole in it to

allow the temperature probe to enter it. In addition, a stand should also be used to make

sure the calorimeters stay upright during the experiment, the one pictured is just a block

of wood.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 33

Appendix B: Randomization of Trials

Materials:

TI-Nspire Calculator

Procedure:

1. Open a calculator page and type the command “randint(1,1000)”. This will produce
a random integer between 1 and 1000 and will be the value used in the next step.

2. Use the previously acquired value and type the command “randseed” followed by
the value acquired in the previous step, the calculator is now properly seeded.

3. To randomize the trials, type in the command “randint(1,30,30)” This will generate a
list of 30 random numbers between 1 and 30. This will be done for both sets of rods
(30 trials for the known rods and 30 for the unknown rods).

4. Use the acquired values to create a list of thirty numbers in the order they appear in
on the calculator. If a number shows up more than once, skip it and record the next
number. Continue until a full list of random numbers is acquired.

Figure 12. Randomizing On Calculator

Figure 12 above shows the procedure to obtain a set of thirty random trials.

Since thirty unique random numbers were not able to be recorded the first set, another

was created by pressing the enter button on the calculator.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 34

Appendix C: Formulas and Sample Calculations

Because every substance on Earth has a unique specific heat, it is necessary to

know how to calculate it. To find the specific heat of each metal a formula can be set to

equal the known specific heat of the water (4.184 J/g), in conjunction with the final

temperature of the system, and the mass of the water in mL. The following equation

was used where the negative quantity of the specific heat, mass, and temperature

change of the water equals the quantity of the specific heat, mass, and temperature

change of the metal.

 (s w mw Tw )  s m m m Tm

Shown in figure 13 below is a sample calculation to find the specific heat of the metal.


(s
wm
wT)
ws
mm
mTm

 (4.184(J/g x º C) * 50 g * 2.9º C)  s m * 67.9521 g * - 74.5º C

40.120(J/g x º C)  s m

Figure 13. Specific Heat Sample Calculation

Figure 13 above displays the sample calculation for a trial solving for specific

heat. The variable “s” is the specific heat to be solved for, “m” is the mass of the rod or

the water (depending on the side of the equation it is on), and the temperature is -74.5.

To analyze the results from the experiment, a two-sample t test was used. This

specific statistical test is used when comparing two different samples from two

independent populations. Several assumptions or conditions need to be met to ensure

that this test can be performed accurately. As mentioned before, there need to be two
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 35

simple random samples from two independent populations, both populations need to be

normally distributed, and each population needs to have a sample size of at least 30

trials.

(x̄ 1 − x̄ 2 )
𝑇=
𝑠1 2 𝑠2 2
√
𝑛1 + 𝑛2

Shown below is the calculation of the t-test.

(x̄ 1 − x̄ 2 )
𝑇=
𝑠 2 𝑠 2
√ 1 + 2
𝑛1 𝑛2

(0.1114 (J/g x º C) − 0.1142 (J/g x º C) )

𝑇=
2 2
√0.0149 + 0.0158
30 30

𝑇 = −0.7052

Figure 14. Specific Heat Two-Sample T-Test Calculations

Figure 14, above, shows the calculations to find the p-value of the t-test. The “x̄”

variables in the equation stand for the means of each sample. The variable “s” stands

for the calculated standard deviation. The final variable is “n”, and it stands for the

number of trials; in this case thirty total trials were performed for the tantalum rod, and

thirty total trials were performed for the unknown metal rod.

The percent error shows how far a calculated specific heat is from the true

specific heat of 0.140 (J/g x ºC). The percent error is found by subtracting the true value

from the experimental value, dividing this difference by the true value, and multiplying

by 100.
 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 36

Experimental Value  True Value

% error   100
True Value

The figure below is a sample calculation of the percent error.

Experimental Value  True Value

% error   100
True Value

0.120  0.140
% error   100
0.140

% error  14.4000

Figure 15. Percent Error Sample Calculation

Figure 15 shows the percent error calculated for one trial. Again, this shows how

far the found specific heat was from the true specific heat.

Applying a correction factor is a way to fix the data if it doesn’t match up with the

value it should have due to some error. The correction factor is the average percent

error of the trials. The corrected percent error is calculated by subtracting the average of

all the trials from each trial.

𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 % 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠

The figure below shows how to calculate the correction factor for each trial.

𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 % 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠

𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 % 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = −14.400 − (−20.436)

𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 % 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 6.036

Figure 16. Correction Factor

Figure 16 shows how the correction factor is used to fix the data. This moves the

data closer to the expected percent error.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 37

Works Cited

Calorimetry. Digital image. Calorimetry. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<www.alpcentauri.info>.

Chang, Raymond. "Thermochemistry." Chemistry. Ninth ed. Boston: McGrawHill Higher

Education, 2007. 240+. Print.

Clausins, Rudolf Julius Emmanuel. The Mechanical Theory of Heat. London: J. Van

Voorst, 1867. Google Books. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.

<https://books.google.com/books?id=8LIEAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA275&dq=rankine's

%20real%20and%20observed%20specific%20heats&pg=PA276#v=onepage&q=

rankine's%20real%20and%20observed%20specific%20heats&f=false>.

"Experiment 6 Coffee Cup Calorimetry." Experiment 6 Coffee-cup Calorimetry (n.d.): n.

pag. University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/chemistry/nsf/103%20Expt6V-

Calorimetry.pdf>.

"Heat." Science of Everyday Things. Ed. Neil Schlager. Vol. 2: Real-Life Physics.

Detroit: Gale, 2002. 227-235. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3408600093&v=2.1&u=rilink&i

t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=b652115d6b0f7d97f967a04743d50dee>.

Parsons, Paul, and Gail Dixon. The Periodic Table: A Field Guide to the Elements.

London: Quercus Editions, 2013. Print.

 Fehmer—Johnson—Solecki 38

"What Is the Kinetic Molecular Theory of Matter? - Tellmewhyfacts."Tellmewhyfacts.

N.p., 12 June 2014. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

<http://tellmewhyfacts.com/2007/10/what-is-kinetic-molecular-theory-of.html>.