Measuring the Thermal Expansion of Three Metals

Patrick McAtee | Thermodynamics | 11 October 2010

Purpose

In this lab, the theory of thermal expansion of metal was tested. Before heat was even
developed as a concept, the thermal expansion of materials was observed by diligent natural
philosophers who were trying to figure out what heat was. As it turned out, early concepts of
heat involved an invisible, massless “fluid,” called Pholgiston which flowed into materials when
they were heated and then back out of them when combusted or cooled [1]. Now, it is thought
that as a substance is heated, the particles which make up the substance obtain a greater
average separation because they are becoming more energetic, thus the material expands.
Thermal expansivity for each substance is different and based on a constant unique to each
substance, usually denoted as . The equation relating the change in length to the temperature
is given by
L
=a T (1)
L

which works fine for near room temperature conditions. Otherwise, an integral must be taken.
Equation 1 can be manipulated to yield alpha directly:

L
=a
LT

Materials

 PASCO Model TD-8558A Thermal Expansion Apparatus

 Ruler
 Steam generator (with tubing)
 Small container to collect condensed water
 One steel rod, one copper rod, one aluminum rod
 Multimeter

Method

First, the PASCO Thermal Expansion Apparatus was laid on a table. A metal rod was laid in the
apparatus. The length of the metal rod was taken and recorded. A steam generator was hooked
up, via tubing, to one end of the metal rod. Under the side of the apparatus which was
connected to the steam generator a book was laid so that water condensing inside the metal
rod would leak out. A thermistor was attached to the thermistor lug. Then, the thermistor was
plugged into the multimeter via banana connectors. From here, the steam generator was filled
with water and turned on. Once the steam had heated up the tube and the multimeter showed
a near constant reading for the ohms, the value was recorded from the multimeter.
This procedure is followed for each metal rod.

Data

Steel

Ohms Change in Length Initial Length

115,700 Ohms (initial) 0 (initial) 745 Millimeters
6390 Ohms 0.35 Millimeters

Aluminum

Ohms Change in Length Initial Length

109,800 Ohms 0 (initial) 745 Millimeters
(initial)
6490 Ohms 0.79 Millimeters

Copper

Ohms Change in Length Initial Length

107,200 Ohms (initial) 0 (initial) 745 Millimeters
6400 Ohms 0.165 Millimeters

Results

First, the ohm readings must be converted in temperatures, based on the data given in a table
on Instruction Manual and Experiment Guide for the PASCO scientific Model TD – 8558A [2].

From the table:

Copper:
107,200 Ohms -> ~23.7 Celsius
6,400 Ohms -> ~95.6 Celsius

Aluminum:
109,800 Ohms -> ~23 Celsius
6,490 Ohms -> ~95.6 Celsius
Steel:
115,700 Ohms -> ~21.5 Celsius
6,390 Ohms -> ~95.8 Celsius

From here, the given and measured values can be plugged into equation (2) and solved. The
results are

Metal Experimental Result (10^-6/C) Actual (10^-6/C) [3]

Steel 6.32 11
Aluminum 14.6 24
Copper 3.08 17

Analysis

A quick glance at the table just above shows that the experimental results are off by a factor of
two for the steel and the aluminum, while for the copper, the value is nowhere near the
accepted value. For the steel and the aluminum, the error may be in the equipment used, as
there was little insulation. Not having the PASCO apparatus insulated well enough would lead to
dramatic loss of heat making the measurements vaguely similar to the actual at best, or
worthless at worst. However, since the same set-up was used for the copper as for the steel
and aluminum, it is more likely that the aluminum and steel were done right, while there was
some oversight in the set-up of the copper. Maybe the ohmmeter had not stabilized by the
time the reading for the copper was taken; however, this is unlikely because the observer
waited ten seconds at least to see if it changed at all before noting the reading.

One other factor is possible, and it involves an oversight in the physics. Since the thermistor
was located in the middle of the rod, it was showing the temperature at that point, which may
have merely been an average temperature of the entire rod. At the end open to the air, the
temperature would be colder, and nearer the steam generator it would be warmer. Thus, the
rod probably did not expand to the length it would under ideal conditions, accounting for at
least some, if not a good portion of error involved. However, it may be a good approximation to
assume that the temperature averages out over the length of the rod, thus it may be a good
enough approximation to the ideal state to not have it insulated fully.
Conclusion

After measuring the linear thermal expansivity of three metals, it can be concluded that unless
major error in the procedure was undertaken by the experimenter, much error can be
attributed to the set-up itself and thus it should be recommended to future experimenters to
come up with solutions to the problems presented in this paper to receive better results. To get
near the accepted result would take at least one major modification in the set-up most likely
involving insulation, though there may be other less obvious solutions.

[1] James Bryan Conant, ed. The Overthrow of Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of
1775–1789. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1950), 14.
[2] Available online at: ftp://ftp.pasco.com/Support/Documents/English/TD/TD-8558A/012-
04394C.pdf
[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/thexp.html#c1