Determining if Unknown Metal Rods are Iron Using the Intensive Properties of

Specific Heat and Linear Thermal Expansion

Kaitlyn Lumpkins and Madison Werthmann
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Chemistry 10A
Mrs. Hilliard, Mrs. Kincaid Dewey, Mr. Supal
May 20, 2014

Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Review of Literature 3
Problem Statement 8
Experimental Design: Specific Heat

Experimental Design: Linear Thermal Expansion

Data and Observations

12

14

Data Analysis and Interpretation 23

Conclusion

33

Appendix A: Sample Calculations 37

Appendix B: Building the Homemade Calorimeters
Appendix C: Application of Iron
Works Cited 45

43

41

Lumpkins Werthmann
Introduction
Iron is often called the metal of Mars. This is because it is estimated that
about fifteen percent of the planet's surface soil consists of iron in a highly
oxidized or rusted state, which gives the planet its red color. This fifteen
percent is about three times the average amount found in Earth's surface soil
(Kollerstrom). While iron may not be as common on Earth's surface as it is on
that of Mars, it is still one of the most common metals in everyday life. Due to its
malleability, durability, and cheapness, iron has become one of the most
important metals for construction and industrial purposes (Calvert).
It has been estimated that there are about 880 billion tons of iron ore
resources around the world, of which there are assumed to be about 230 billion
tons of pure iron. Approximately 98 percent of iron ore found worldwide is used to
make steel by alloying the iron with various other metals to enhance its strength.
This steel is then used in many everyday items, such as automobiles, trains, and
high rising structures like skyscrapers ("Iron").
As iron is one of the most commonly used materials for making things that
are exposed to heat, such as parts of cars and factory machinery, it is important
to know the specific heat and coefficient of thermal expansion of this metal.
Specific heat capacity is a measurement of the amount of heat required to raise
the temperature of an element by one degree Celsius, which is important to know
to ensure that a piece of machinery will not overheat when exposed to excessive
amounts of heat (Bauck).
The coefficient of thermal expansion of an object measures the average
change in length of a substance when the temperature of that substance is
1

Lumpkins Werthmann
raised by one degree Celsius ("Linear Coefficient of Thermal Expansion"). This
measurement is important to ensure that machinery pieces still fit together
properly when they expand and contract as the temperature of the metals
fluctuates. Specific heat and linear thermal expansion are intensive properties,
meaning that they can be used to identify an element. These properties were
used to determine if two unknown metal rods were made of iron or a different
metal, which was the purpose of this experiment.
To determine the specific heat of the metal rods in J/gC, homemade
calorimeters were used to measure the change in temperature as a heated metal
rod was cooled. To determine the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal
rods in C-1, a linear thermal expansion apparatus was used to measure the
change in length when a heated metal rod was allowed to cool.
The average specific heats of the unknown metal rods were compared to
the known value of the specific heat of iron, and the average coefficients of
thermal expansion of the unknown metal rods were compared to the known value
of the coefficient of thermal expansion of iron. These comparisons were used to
determine if the unknown metal rods were actually made of iron.

Lumpkins Werthmann
Review of Literature
Specific heat capacity and linear thermal expansion are both intensive
properties, which means that they are characteristics of an element that do not
change based on the quantity of the element (Senese). These two properties are
also unique to each element, which means that they can be used to identify an
element in the same way a fingerprint could be used to identify a person. It is for
this reason that finding the specific heat and linear thermal expansion of an
unknown metal rod were used to help determine whether or not the unknown
metal rods were the same type of metal as the previously known metal iron.
Specific heat capacity is a measurement of the quantity of heat in Joules required
to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by one degree Celsius at a
constant pressure. To determine the heat in Joules, q, required to raise the
temperature of the element, the specific heat in J/gC, s, the mass in grams, m,
the initial temperature in degrees Celsius, ti, and the final temperature in degrees
Celsius, tf, of the sample had to have been known prior (Gammon). The equation
below shows the calculation of heat in Joules, which was set equivalent to the
equation for calculating the change in heat of the water surrounding the metal rod
to calculate the specific heat of the metal.
q=sm(t f t i)
Different amounts of heat energy are required to raise the temperature of
a substance based on the element it is made of. According to the kinetic
molecular theory (KMT), temperature is an effect of the movements of the
molecules within a sample when the molecules move faster, the temperature
3

Lumpkins Werthmann
rises and the distance between molecules expands. To move faster the
molecules must have an energy source (De Leon). There are two types of energy
heat and work. When heat is added to a system the portion of an experiment
that is being observed from the surroundings or everything else the
molecules within the system begin to move faster, thereby raising the overall
temperature of the system. The First Law of Thermodynamics theorizes that
energy is never created nor destroyed, but only transferred, so the amount being
exchanged between the system and the surroundings is always the same, and
the transfer of energy into the surroundings can thereby be used to determine the
change in energy (heat) in the system. The equations for calculating the change
in heat from the metal rods and water can therefore be set equal to each other
because the amount of heat lost from the metal rod is equal to the amount of
heat gained by the water. The amount of heat energy required to change the
temperature of an element is an intensive property, meaning it is different for
each element on the periodic table.
As stated before, the specific heat of an object can help identify the
element that the object consists of. To determine the specific heat of an object,
one of the most important materials is the calorimeter an isolated system used
to determine measuring the heat of chemical or physical reactions and heat
capacity (Brucat). A calorimeter is insulated and designed to keep heat from
escaping into the surroundings or from the surroundings.
Another use of specific heat besides identifying a material is in industry
and production. For example, when car engines are designed, the material is

Lumpkins Werthmann
taken into heavy consideration based on how the heat is distributed through the
system. This is important to ensure that the engine will not overheat based on the
amount of energy it receives (Pearce). The same idea applies to factory
machinery and other mechanical devices.
There are various experiments about determining specific heat. One such
experiment had an objective to determine specific heat of an unknown metal.
This experiment had a detailed procedures section, which was the basis of the
experimental design of this experiment. (Bauck). Another experiment used a
calorimeter as well as LabWorks equipment to record data whilst the experiment
was running. A similar tool the LabQuest was used throughout the
experiment. The LabQuest, like the LabWorks, recorded temperature
continuously during a trial (Calorimeter).
Another intensive property that can be used to identify an unknown metal
is linear thermal expansion (LTE). LTE is the change in size of an element based
on the amount of heat that is added. As stated before, when heat is added to a
system the molecules within the system begin to move faster. In this case, the
system was a solid, meaning that the molecules were packed close together.
When they gained heat energy they began to vibrate in place. This increased the
separation between the atoms as they jostled each other apart, thus causing the
element to expand or increase in volume (Linear Coefficient of Thermal
Expansion).
Linear thermal expansion is extremely important in industry and
production, as well. It is necessary to know how much a machine or other object

Lumpkins Werthmann
may expand depending on the change in the temperature of its environment.
This is necessary for placements of machinery in factories as well as to ensure
that all necessary components continue to fit and work together properly.
The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), , is a variable measured in
C-1 that describes how much the observed material will expand depending on
the original length of the material in millimeters, L, the change in temperature in
degrees Celsius, T, and the change in length in millimeters, L (Tarr). The
equation for solving the CTE is shown below (Thermal Expansion Linear).
Note that finding the change in a measurement is equivalent to subtracting the
final measurement from the initial measurement.
=

L
LT

There are many experiments that have been conducted on linear thermal
expansion. One such experiment measured the LTE of bituminous concrete.
Published in a journal in 1964, this experiment was conducted to calculate the
coefficients of linear and volumetric thermal expansion of concrete. The lab
report went into detail about procedures and tools required for completing a
similar experiment, such as a calorimeter and how it should be used to determine
specific heat (Hooks). Another experiment calculated the coefficient of linear
thermal expansion of various metals and compared them to their theoretical or
ideal results. The experiment used an apparatus similar to the one being used
in this experiment, so the procedures were essentially the same (Bookhardt).
The objective of this experiment was to compare an unknown metal
sample to a sample of a known metal iron and to determine if they were the
6

Lumpkins Werthmann
same metals based on whether or not they shared intensive qualities such as
specific heat and linear thermal expansion. The specific heat of iron is much
lower than that of water; while water has a specific heat capacity of 4.184 J/gC,
the specific heat capacity of iron is 0.449 J/gC (Cooper). This means that it
takes less heat energy to raise one gram of iron one degree Celsius than to raise
one gram of water one degree Celsius. The linear thermal expansion of the
known metal of iron is 12 x 10-6 C-1. When compared to an element such as
aluminum, which expands greatly when heated and has a CTE of 24 x 10 -6 C-1,
iron does not expand much when heated, and therefore has a smaller CTE
(Vawter). Due to not having a high CTE, the values expected to be recorded for
the change in length during the LTE experiment were miniscule, which may have
presented a problem in calculating the data.
In summary, the objective of this experiment was to determine whether or
not the unknown metal was the same element as the previously known metal
iron. Specific heat and linear thermal expansion are two intensive properties that
are unique to each element, and were used to identify the given metal.

Lumpkins Werthmann
Problem Statement
Problem:
The objective of this experiment is to determine whether an unknown
metal rod is iron based on the intensive properties of specific heat and linear
thermal expansion.
Hypothesis:
To correctly determine if the specific heat of the unknown metal rod is the
same as the specific heat of iron, it must be within 0.6% error. Similarly, to
correctly determine if the linear thermal expansion of the unknown metal rod is
the same as the linear thermal expansion of iron, it must be within 12% error.
Data Measured:
To calculate the specific heat of the unknown metal sample in J/gC, the
mass of the metal rod will be found in grams and the change in temperature of
the rod will be found in degrees Celsius (C), which means that the final
temperature and the initial temperature of the sample must be determined. The
mass of the water will be found in grams, and the change in temperature is
calculated in C. The specific heat of water is already known to be 4.184 J/gC.
To determine the coefficient of linear thermal expansion in C -1, the change in the
length of the metal rod will be found in millimeters, and the change in the
temperature will be found in C. This requires that the initial and final values are
determined for both temperature and length of the metal rod. The means of these
experiments will then be compared to the known values of iron using a TwoSample t Test, which compares the means of samples from two distinct
populations.
8

Lumpkins Werthmann
Specific Heat Experimental Design
Materials:
TI-nspire Calculator CX
(2) Unknown Metal Rods
(2) Iron Metal Rods
OHAUS Electronic Scale
(0.0001g precision)
Hot Plate
LabQuest
Temperature Probe (0.1C
precision)

(4) Calorimeter
Thermometer (0.1C
precision)
100 mL Graduated Cylinder
9 x 3 Loaf Pan
(4) 16 oz. Plastic Cups
Tongs
Timer (0.01s precision)

Lumpkins Werthmann
Procedures:
Be aware of safety precautions; wear appropriate attire and goggles.
Experiment Preparation
1. Put together four calorimeters using the instructions provided in Appendix B.
2. Randomize which calorimeter will be used and which rod will be measured for
each trial using the TI-nspire random integer function.
Experiment
1. Find the mass of the assigned metal rod using the electronic scale and record
in table.
2. Place loaf pan on hot plate and fill the loaf pan with 150 mL of water using the
graduated cylinder.
3. Set the hot plate to its high setting until the water is brought to a temperature
between 98 C and 100 C. Check using thermometer.
4. Using tongs, place metal rod in the boiling water on the hot plate for
approximately six minutes.
5. Fill the calorimeter with 50 mL of water using the graduated cylinder. (Due to
greater volume of the unknown metal rods and higher water displacement, 40
mL must be used during unknown metal trials).
6. Plug in the LabQuest and place the temperature probe in the calorimeter
through the hole in the cap. Set the LabQuest to record the temperature twice
per second for 6 minutes.
7. Once the water within the calorimeter reaches room temperature (as shown
by the temperature probe), record this as the initial temperature of the water.
8. After the metal rod has been in the boiling water for 6 minutes, use the
thermometer to take the temperature of the water and record as the initial
temperature of the metal.
9. Start the LabQuest before using tongs to remove the metal rod from the loaf
pan and immediately transferring it into previously assigned calorimeter.
10. Cover the calorimeter with the cap and place it upright in the cup with probe
inserted correctly into cap.

10

Lumpkins Werthmann
11. Gently spin the calorimeter as the LabQuest records the changing
temperature.
12. Once the LabQuest finishes recording data, record the temperature
equilibrium as final temperature of the water and the metal rod.
13. Repeat steps 4-12 for each trial whilst adding extra water to the loaf pan on
the hot plate between each of the trials.
14. Once all of the data is recorded, the specific heat equation will be used to
calculate the specific heat of the iron and the unknown metal by setting them
equal to the specific heat equation for water. See Appendix A for sample
equation.

Diagrams:

11

Lumpkins Werthmann
Calorimeters
Loaf pan

Temperature
probes

Hot plate

LabQuest

Tongs
Metal rods
Figure 1. Materials of the Specific Heat Experiment

Figure 1 depicts the various materials used throughout the specific heat
portion of the experiment. Of these materials, some of the more uncommon
materials included the calorimeters and their holders (plastic cups), the LabQuest
device and temperature probes, the loaf pan and the hot plate. Other materials
included the tongs and the metal rods, as well as a beaker and a graduated
cylinder. Not shown in this image were the OHAUS electronic scale and
thermometer.

12

Lumpkins Werthmann
Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design
Materials:
TI-nspire Calculator CX
(2) Unknown Metal Rods
(2) Iron Metal Rods
Hot Plate
TESR Caliper 00530085
(0.01mm precision)
Linear Thermal Expansion
Apparatus (0.01 mm
precision)

Thermometer (0.1C
precision)
100 mL Graduated Cylinder
9 x 3 Loaf Pan
Tongs
Timer (0.01s precision)
Fine-tip Expo Dry Erase
Marker
Electric Handheld Fan

13

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Procedures:
Be aware of safety precautions; wear appropriate attire and goggles.
Experiment Preparation
1. Randomize which rod will be measured with which apparatus for each trial.
Experiment
1. Put loaf pan on hot plate and use graduated cylinder to put 150 mL of water in
loaf pan. Set hot plate on high setting until water reaches a temperature
between 98 C and 100 C.
2. Use the caliper to measure the length of the rod at what is assumed to be
room temperature (which is to be recorded as the final temperature of the
rod). This length is the initial length of the metal rod.
3. Using the tongs, place metal rod in hot water bath for six minutes. At this
point, the rod is assumed to be the same temperature as the water.
4. Use the thermometer to determine the temperature of the water and record
this as the initial temperature of the metal.
5. Using the tongs, remove the metal rod from the hot water bath and
immediately place onto the linear thermal expansion apparatus.
6. Mark the dial where the arrow points at the current length of the rod while it is
at its initial temperature.
7. Use the electric handheld fan to cool metal rod for approximately ten minutes.
Wait until the dial stops moving and the rod has returned to what is assumed
to be room temperature before marking the final length on the dial. The
difference between these two marks on the dial is to be recorded as the
change in length.
8. Repeat steps 1-7 for each trial until experiment is complete, pouring more
water into the loaf pan on the hot plate between trials.
9. Once all of the data is recorded, the linear thermal expansion equation will be

used to calculate the coefficient of linear thermal expansion of the iron and
the unknown metal.
Diagrams:

14

Lumpkins - Werthmann

Loaf pan

Dry erase marker

Linear thermal
expansion
apparatuses

Hot plate

Thermometer

Tongs

Metal rods

Caliper

Figure 2. Materials for Linear Thermal Expansion

Figure 2 above displays the materials used for the linear thermal
expansion portion of the experiment. Some of the more unique materials
included the linear thermal expansion apparatuses and the caliper, as well as the
loaf pan and hot plate. Other materials included a dry erase marker, the
graduated cylinder, a beaker, tongs, and the metal rods. Not depicted was the
handheld electric fan used for cooling the metal rods.

15

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Data and Observations
Table 1.
Data from Iron Rods from the Specific Heat Experiment
Trial

Rod

Cal.

Initial Temp.
(C)
Metal
98.7
98.7

Final
Temp.
(C)

Change in
Temp.
(C)

Specific
Heat
(J/gC)

Mass
(g)

1
2

A
A

1
2

Water
22.9
22.0

26.2
25.6

Water
3.3
3.6

Metal
-72.5
-73.1

Metal
31.6814
31.6821

Water
50
50

0.301
0.325

23.4

98.2

27.9

4.5

-70.3

31.6877

50

0.423

23.1

98.7

26.4

3.3

-72.3

31.6815

50

0.301

23.0

98.8

26.9

3.9

-71.9

31.6823

50

0.358

23.2

98.8

27.3

4.1

-71.5

31.7050

50

0.378

24.6

99.1

28.3

3.7

-70.8

31.6822

50

0.345

24.3

99.1

27.7

3.4

-71.4

31.7051

50

0.314

24.3

98.4

28.3

4.0

-70.1

31.6832

50

0.377

10

24.6

98.4

28.6

4.0

-69.8

31.7052

50

0.378

11

23.9

98.7

27.8

3.9

-70.9

31.6813

50

0.363

12

24.2

98.7

28.0

3.8

-70.7

31.7015

50

0.355

13

24.1

98.7

28.1

4.0

-70.6

31.6874

50

0.374

14

23.5

98.7

27.2

3.7

-71.5

31.7014

50

0.341

15

24.1

100.4

27.7

3.6

-72.7

31.7056

50

0.327

16

24.2

100.4

28.2

4.0

-72.2

31.7029

50

0.366

17

25.0

99.1

28.4

3.4

-70.7

31.7021

50

0.317

18

24.4

99.1

27.8

3.4

-71.3

31.7034

50

0.315

Average

Table 1 shows the data that was collected after conducting the specific
heat experiment on the two known metal (iron) rods. There were three extra trials
for this portion of the experiment due to excess time to conduct these trials. The
first three columns indicate the trial number, the rod measured, and the
calorimeter used, respectively. To calculate the specific heat of the metal, the
initial temperatures of the water and metal, the equilibrium temperature, and the
masses of the water and the metal were recorded. The final column displays the

16

0.348

Lumpkins - Werthmann
specific heat calculated for each trial, the average of which was found to be
0.348 J/gC. A sample calculation can be found in Appendix A.
Table 2.
Data from Unknown Metal Rods from the Specific Heat Experiment
Trial

Rod

Cal.

Initial Temp.
(C)
Metal
98.8

Final
Temp.
(C)

Change in
Temp.
(C)

Specific
Heat
(J/gC)

Mass
(g)

Water
23.1

30.1

Water
7.0

Metal
-68.7

Metal
46.4797

Water
40

0.367

24.2

98.8

30.4

6.2

-68.4

46.5534

40

0.326

24.7

99.1

30.8

6.1

-68.3

46.4794

40

0.322

25.8

99.1

31.1

5.3

-68.0

46.5532

40

0.280

24.5

98.4

30.6

6.1

-67.8

46.5541

40

0.323

24.4

98.4

31.0

6.6

-67.4

46.4791

40

0.353

25.0

98.7

31.7

6.7

-67.0

46.5537

40

0.359

25.3

98.7

33.0

7.7

-65.7

46.4796

40

0.422

25.2

98.7

33.7

8.5

-65.0

46.5511

40

0.473

10

25.9

98.7

31.8

5.9

-66.9

46.4913

40

0.317

11

24.1

100.4

30.0

5.9

-70.4

46.5147

40

0.302

12

25.7

100.4

32.7

7.0

-67.7

46.5566

40

0.372

13

24.5

99.1

32.1

7.6

-67.0

46.5149

40

0.408

14

24.9

99.1

30.4

5.5

-68.7

46.5555

40

0.288

15

24.5

98.9

31.3

6.8

-67.6

46.5556
Average

40

0.362
0.352

Table 2 displays the data recorded after conducting the specific heat
experiment on the unknown metal rods. Similarly to Table 1, the first three
columns dictate the trial number, the rod measured, and the calorimeter used,
respectively, and the values that were recorded in the table were the initial
temperatures of water and metal, equilibrium temperature, and masses of the
water and the metal. The specific heats calculated for each trial were found to
have an average of 0.352 J/gC.
Table 3.
17

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Data from Iron Rods from the Linear Thermal Expansion Experiment
Trial

Rod

L
(mm)

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

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

0.0762
0.0762
0.0749
0.0965
0.0965
0.0700
0.0700
0.0750
0.0980
0.0800
0.1200
0.0889
0.0910
0.0650
0.0920

Initial
Length
(mm)
129.32
129.36
129.38
129.32
129.35
129.27
129.34
129.22
129.39
129.30
129.36
129.29
129.38
129.34
129.36

Initial
Temp.
(C)

Final
Temp.
(C)

LTE
Coefficient
(x10-6 C-1)

24.5
99.8
23.7
100.0
23.4
99.8
25.2
99.8
23.0
99.3
23.1
99.8
24.1
99.9
23.8
99.8
22.8
99.3
22.3
99.4
23.1
99.6
23.0
99.3
23.7
99.2
23.7
99.3
23.9
99.5
Average

7.825
7.720
7.580
10.005
9.780
7.060
7.140
7.637
9.901
8.025
12.126
9.012
9.316
6.648
9.407
8.612

Table 3 shows the data collected during the conduction of the linear
thermal expansion experiment on the known metal. The first two columns show
the trial number and the rod measured, respectively. The change in length was
recorded, as well as the initial length, the initial temperature of the metal rod, and
the final temperature of the metal rod. The average coefficient of thermal
expansion for the iron rods was calculated to be 8.612 x 10 -6 C-1.

Table 4.
18

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Data from Unknown Metal Rods from the Linear Thermal Expansion Experiment
Trial

Rod

L
(mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D

0.0889
0.0940
0.0965
0.0940
0.0635
0.0686
0.0610
0.0584
0.0635
0.0737
0.0813
0.0584
0.0914
0.0737
0.0813
0.0889
0.0787

Initial
Length
(mm)
121.37
121.35
121.42
121.25
121.43
121.25
121.41
121.25
121.41
121.32
121.46
121.26
121.16
121.45
121.23
121.56
121.43

Initial
Temp.
(C)

Final
Temp.
(C)

LTE
Coefficient
(x10-6 C-1)

22.8
99.1
22.8
99.1
22.3
99.1
22.3
99.1
24.4
99.8
24.4
99.8
25.0
99.1
25.0
99.1
21.4
98.5
23.3
98.1
23.9
88.2
23.9
98.2
23.9
98.2
23.9
98.2
23.6
98.1
23.6
98.1
23.3
98.1
Average

9.600
10.150
10.351
10.092
6.935
7.501
6.776
6.502
6.784
8.117
10.407
6.484
10.158
8.163
8.999
9.816
8.669
8.559

Table 4 displays the data recorded after the linear thermal expansion
experiment was conducted with the unknown metal rods. As with Table 3, the first
two columns express the trial number and the rod measured, respectively. The
data recorded included the change in length, initial length, initial temperature of
the metal rod, and final temperature of the metal rod. The average of the trials
coefficients of linear thermal expansion was calculated to be 8.559 x 10 -6 C-1.

Observations:
19

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Table 5.
Specific Heat Iron Rod Trial Observations
Trial

2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Observations

The known metals were used to test each of the four calorimeters with one
trial running at a time. Slight delay between taking the metal rod from the
boiling water and putting it into the calorimeter. Calorimeter 4 was closest
to the hot plate and had a slightly higher inner temperature.
LabQuest 10 used to record data. Metal heated for five minutes in boiling
water.
Metal heated for five minutes.
Metal heated for five minutes.
The metal was heated for six minutes from trial 5 to trial 18. The metal rod
was massed after the trial was conducted and the rod was given time to
cool.
There was a slight delay between taking the metal rod from the boiling
water and placing it into the calorimeter. The metal rod was massed after
the trial was conducted.
Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
The metal rod was dropped to the table during the transfer from the boiling
water to the calorimeter, causing a long delay between taking it from the
boiling water and putting it in the calorimeter.
Immediate transfer with no delay from boiling water to calorimeter.
Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
Immediate transfer with no delay from boiling water to calorimeter.
Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
LabQuest 1 was used for trials 13 through 18.
Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
Immediate transfer with no delay from boiling water to calorimeter.
Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
Table 5 shows the various observations that were made while conducting

the specific heat experiment with the known metal rod (iron). The trials were
conducted simultaneously with the unknown metal trials, with two known metals
and two unknown metals being tested at the same time. The types of
observations made referred to the equipment being used for which trials, and
how long the processes of heating or transferring the metals may have took, as

20

Lumpkins - Werthmann
well as possible errors made while conducting the trial. No visible observations
could be made due to the nature of the calorimeters, which were isolated
systems with no way to see the inside of during the conduction of the experiment.
Table 6.
Specific Heat Unknown Metal Rods Trial Observations
Trial
Observations
The metal rod was massed after the trial was conducted and the rod was
1
given time to cool.
There was a slight delay between taking the metal rod from the boiling
2
water and placing it into the calorimeter. The metal rod was massed after
the trial was conducted.
Short delay between placing metal rod in calorimeter and replacing the
3
cap with the temperature probe onto it.
4
Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
After metal rod was placed into the calorimeter and the cap was replaced,
5
the temperature probe slipped from the calorimeter momentarily.
6
Immediate transfer with no delay from boiling water to calorimeter.
7
Short pause during transfer while removing the cap of the calorimeter.
8
Immediate transfer with no delay from boiling water to calorimeter.
Immediate transfer from boiling water to hot plate. After inner temperature
9
of water in the calorimeter reached assumed equilibrium with the metal,
the temperature began rapidly decreasing.
10 Slow transfer from the loaf pan to the calorimeter.
11 Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
12 Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
Metal rod spent an extra 30 seconds in the boiling water in relation to the
13
other metal rods.
14 Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
15 Trial was conducted according to procedure. No notable observations.
Table 6 displays the observations made while conducting the specific heat
experiment with the unknown metal rods. The type of information recorded
included changes in timing or equipment by trial, as well as possible errors made
while conducting the trial. Also, a general observation was made that because of
the greater size of the unknown metal rod as compared to the known metal rod,
the amount of water being displaced within the calorimeter increased; therefore,
21

Lumpkins - Werthmann
less water was placed in the calorimeters at the beginning of each trial. Further
physical observations could not be made.
Table 7.
Linear Thermal Expansion Iron Rod Trial Observations
Trial
Observations
Jig 5 was used to conduct this trial. Metal heated for three minutes in
1
boiling water.
Jig 3 was used to conduct this trial. Metal heated for three minutes in
2
boiling water.
Jig 5 was used to conduct this trial. Metal heated for three minutes in
3
boiling water.
Jig 3 was used to conduct this trial. Metal heated for three minutes in
4
boiling water.
Jig 8 and caliper 2 were used. The jig was jarred while waiting for the
5
metal rod to come to room temperature. Metal was heated for five
minutes in boiling water.
Jig 6 and caliper 2 were used. The jig was close to the hot plate
(approximately half a foot away). However the hot plate was turned off
6
but still letting off heat. Paper fans were used to cool the metal while it
was in the jig.
Jig 8 was used to conduct this trial. Metal was heated for six minutes in
7
boiling water.
8
Jig 6 was used to conduct this trial.
The rod was placed in the boiling water for 6 minutes and was allowed
10 minutes to cool. Jig 3 and caliper 11 were used. The water almost
9
boiled out while the metal rod was boiling. The metal rod was fanned
with a handheld electric fan. A drop of water remained on the rod when
the metal rod was placed in the jig.
The rod was placed in the boiling water for 6 minutes and was allowed
10
10 minutes to cool. Jig 2 and caliper 11 were used. The fan was shared
with the next trial for the last few minutes.
The fan was shared with the previous trial. The rod was jostled while it
11
was in the jig.
Jig 7 was used and there was a slight delay with the transfer of the
12
metal rod to the jig.
The rod was placed in the boiling water for 6 minutes and was allowed
13
10 minutes to cool with the fan.
Jig 3 was used and the rod was placed in the boiling water for 6
14
minutes and was allowed 10 minutes to cool with the fan.
15
Jig 7 was used to conduct this trial.
22

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Table 7 shows the observations made during the linear thermal expansion
trials on the known metal rods. The trials were conducted over a course of two
days, skipping a day between the two data collection days. Each observation
recorded included which linear thermal expansion apparatus (referred to as jig)
was used and the consistent positioning of the two apparatuses throughout the
day. Any notable observations were also recorded, including possible errors or
good trials, which were referred to when good or bad data was received
throughout the experiment.
Table 8.
Linear Thermal Expansion Unknown Metal Rods Trial Observations
Trial
Observations
Caliper 2 and jig 8 were used. Of the two jigs simultaneously being
1
used, jig 8 was the closest to the hot plate.
2
Jig 7 was used to conduct this trial.
3
Jig 7 was used to conduct this trial.
4
Jig 8 was used to conduct this trial.
5
Jig 7 was used to conduct this trial.
6
Jig 8 was used to conduct this trial.
7
Jig 8 was used to conduct this trial.
Jig 7 was used and the metal rod was immediately transferred from the
8
boiling water to the jig with no error or delay.
Jig 9 and caliper 4 were used. There was a delay in the transfer from
9
the boiling water to the jig. Jig 9 was further from the hot plate when
compared to jig 8.
Jig 8 was used to conduct this trial. Damp paper towel placed on rod to
cool, but brought the rod below room temperature. Paper towel was
10
removed and rod was left to sit until brought back to room temperature
or close to it.
11
Jig 8 was used to conduct this trial.
12
Jig 9 was used to conduct this trial.
Jig 8 was used to conduct this trial. There was a delay in the transfer
13
from the boiling water to the jig.
Jig 9 was used. The metal rod was immediately transferred from the
14
boiling water to the jig with no error. The water temperature was cooler.
15
Jig 9 was used to conduct this trial.
16
Jig 8 was used to conduct this trial.
23

Lumpkins - Werthmann
17

Jig 9 was used to conduct this trial.

Table 8 shows the observations made during the conduction of the linear

thermal expansion experiment on the unknown metal rods. The trials were
conducted over the course of two days, with a day in between trial days. The
types of observations made included the linear thermal expansion apparatuses
and calipers used during the trials, as well as the placement of the apparatuses
each day in relation to each other and the hot plate. Also, errors made or minor
changes of procedure were recorded for reference throughout the experiment
depending on whether the trial had relatively good or bad data.

24

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Data Analysis and Interpretation
In the experiment, multiple precautions were taken to assure accurate
data collection. Prior to conducting each trial of the specific heat portion of the
experiment, the metal rod measured and the calorimeter used were randomized
to eliminate bias. The specific heat of the metal was calculated using the change
in temperature recorded by the temperature probe in the calorimeters in degrees
Celsius (0.1 C precision) and the initial temperature recorded by the
thermometer (0.1 C precision). Prior to carrying out the linear thermal expansion
(LTE) portion of the experiment, the metal rod measured and the linear thermal
expansion apparatus used were randomized for each trial to eliminate bias. The
coefficient of thermal expansion was calculated using the change in length
recorded by the apparatus in millimeters (0.01 mm precision) and the initial
length recorded by the caliper in millimeters (0.1 precision). Randomization
helped to secure accurate results because it eliminated bias by ensuring that
each metal was used with each piece of equipment, which helped to check the
consistency of the data and possible lurking variables. Another precaution taken
to ensure consistency of data was to conduct multiple trials of each experiment.
To enforce consistency and accuracy, all trials were conducted according to
specific sets of common procedures and conditions. By keeping the procedures
and conditions the same throughout the experiments, the chances of lurking
variables outlying factors not applied to the experiment purposefully by the
researchers affecting the data were minimized.

25

Lumpkins - Werthmann

Q1:

Med: 0.35Q3:

Min:

Max:

True value:
0.317
0.28

0.353 0.372
0.422

0.473

Figure 3. Specific Heat Data from Iron Rods and Unknown Samples
Aside from the outlier of 0.473 J/gC from the unknown metal sample
data, both boxplots in Figure 3 exhibit fairly normal data. It should be noted that
the known and unknown boxplots have medians very similar to each other (0.35
J/gC and 0.353 J/gC, respectively) and resemble each other in shape, as well
as overlap, suggesting that the two metals received extremely similar data from
this particular portion of the experiment. A look at the normal probability plots of
the two sets of data also further shows normality in the data, as shown in Figure
4 below.

Figure 4. Normal Probability Plots from Specific Heat Samples

26

Lumpkins - Werthmann
The normal probability plots plot the points of data on a line that displays
normality. The plot on the left shows the data from the known metal samples,
which fall fairly close to the line, while the data points from the unknown metal
samples plotted on the right are a bit more haphazard, but still fairly normal.
Q1: 7,58Med:

Q3: 9.78

Min:

Max:
12.126
True value:

6.8595

8.669

10.121

6.484

10.407

Figure 5. Linear Thermal Expansion Data from Iron Rods and Unknown Samples
Unlike the specific heat trials, the trials from the linear thermal expansion
all produced data without outliers. Shown in the boxplots in Figure 5 are the
coefficients of thermal expansion in C-1 that were calculated for each trial of
known and unknown metals. It should be noted that the data collected from the
known metal samples was much more right-skewed than that of the unknown
metal samples. Also, it is important to note that the known and unknown boxplots
are different in shape and medians (8.025 C -1 and 8.669 C-1, respectively),
although they still overlap, suggesting that the results from this experiment still
show similar data from the two metals.

27

Lumpkins - Werthmann

Figure 6. Normal Probability Plots from Linear Thermal Expansion Samples

Although there are no outliers in the data, Figure 6 showing the normal
probability plots shows that there was more variation in the data from the linear
thermal expansion experiment than there was in the specific heat experiment.
This was exhibited not only by the normal probability plots, but by the standard
deviations of both sets of data. Between the known and unknown metal samples,
the average standard deviation of the linear thermal expansion portion of the
experiment was 1.4908, as opposed to the average standard deviation of
0.04275 from the specific heat experiment. Due to this relatively high standard
deviation, it should be considered that the data may be less reliable from the
linear thermal expansion portion of the experiment.
Aside from normality, another method used for determining the validity of
the data was a calculation of percent error for each trial throughout the
experiment. Means of the percent errors of the known and unknown samples for
the linear thermal expansion and specific heat portions of the experiment were
compared to the appropriate true values or the coefficient of thermal expansion
and specific heat of iron (12.0 x 10-6 C-1 and 0.449 J/gC, respectively). This

28

Lumpkins - Werthmann
determined the validity of the results of the known metal (iron), and then
compared that with the results of the unknown metal.
Table 9.
Percent Errors of the Metal Rods from the Specific Heat Experiment
Percent Error
Trial
Iron
Unknown
1
-33.060
-18.288
2
-27.575
-27.425
3
-5.880
-28.377
4
-32.875
-37.595
5
-20.231
-27.964
6
-15.731
-21.471
7
-23.146
-19.933
8
-30.021
-6.013
9
-16.087
5.266
10
-15.785
-29.293
11
-19.103
-32.843
12
-21.005
-17.218
13
-16.693
-9.102
14
-23.944
-35.903
15
-27.231
-19.463
16
-18.578
17
-29.322
18
-29.919
Averag
-21.378
-21.708
e
Table 9 displays the percent errors calculated when the experimental
values of specific heat in J/gC from each trial of the known and unknown metals
were compared to the true specific heat value of iron (0.449 J/gC). The
averages of both the known and unknown metal percent errors are very close at
-21.378 percent and -21.708 percent, respectively. Both of the percent errors
were negative, meaning that the experimental values were lower than the value
that was expected under ideal conditions. The percent error values calculated
from the iron metal sample data remained fairly consistent, while there was a bit

29

Lumpkins - Werthmann
less consistency in the percent errors of the unknown metal sample there was
a wider range of values for percent error, including the outlier from trial 9, with a
percent error of 5.266 percent. A sample calculation of percent error can be
found in Appendix A.
It is important to note that the procedures for this experiment may have led
to faulty data too much water was used in the calorimeters, meaning it was
possible that the temperature had not risen as much as it was expected to,
thereby affecting the results for the specific heat data for the known metal rods. If
this were the case, the mean and the percent error of this data would have been
different than what was calculated.
Table 10.
Percent Errors of the Metal Rods from the Linear Thermal Expansion Experiment
Trial
Percent Error
Iron
Unknown
1
-34.790
-20.001
2
-35.665
-15.416
3
-36.830
-13.745
4
-16.626
-15.897
5
-18.502
-42.204
6
-41.167
-37.488
7
-40.500
-43.533
8
-36.359
-45.815
9
-17.495
-43.469
10
-33.126
-32.358
11
1.051
-13.272
12
-24.902
-45.965
13
-22.367
-15.354
14
-44.604
-31.976
15
-21.606
-25.004
16
-18.196
17
-27.759
Averag
-28.232
-28.674
e

30

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Table 10 shows the percent errors calculated from the experimental values
of the coefficients of thermal expansion from the known and unknown metals in
C-1 when they were compared to the ideal coefficients of thermal expansion of
the known metal iron (12.0 x 10-6 C-1). Similarly to the specific heat portion of
the experiment, the averages of the percent errors for the known and unknown
metal samples were very close in value (-28.232 percent and

-28.674

percent). Both of the percent errors were negative, meaning that the
experimental values were less than the values expected under ideal conditions.
The results of this experiment were not very consistent there was a large range
in values. This means there may have been a flaw in the design of the
experiment or the apparatus itself and these values should be considered
amongst other factors before being used to make conclusions.
This experiment was conducted to determine whether a rod of an
unknown metal was the same type of metal as that of a known metal in this
case, iron using the intensive properties of specific heat and linear thermal
expansion. To see if they were the same type of metal, the sample means taken
from the known and unknown metal rods had to be compared to each other twice
once for the results from linear thermal expansion and once for the results of
specific heat.
The statistical test that was used to analyze the data collected throughout
the course of these experiments was a Two-Sample t Test. A Two-Sample t
Test was appropriate because it compared the means of two independent
populations in this case, the specific heats of the known and unknown metals,

31

Lumpkins - Werthmann
and the coefficients of thermal expansion of the metals. To conduct a TwoSample t Test, four assumptions had to have been met. For both of these
experiments, at least three of the assumptions were met. The first was that the
samples were simple random samples (SRS), meaning that they were chosen at
random or randomized in some way to eliminate bias. The next assumption was
that the samples were independent, meaning the results of one sample would not
affect the results of the other. The last assumption met was that the standard
deviations of the populations, , were not known. Despite these assumptions
being met, the final assumption of normality was not met in the specific heat
experiment. An outlier was found to be in the data collected from a trial
conducted with an unknown metal rod; because of this, any values calculated
using the Two-Sample t Test in relation to specific heat may have been unreliable
and had to be considered carefully, along with other observations made
throughout the experiment before being used to draw any conclusions.
The two sample means of specific heat were compared to each other
using a Two-Sample t Test, which required two hypotheses to be tested against
each other. One of these hypotheses was the null hypothesis, Ho, which stated
that the difference between the means of the known sample, k, and the
unknown sample, u, was 0, or that there was no difference between the two
metals. The alternate hypothesis, H, stated that the two means of the samples
were not equal to each other, suggesting that the metals were not the same.
H o : k =u
H : k u

32

Lumpkins - Werthmann
The Two-Sample t Test was used to calculate a t-value, which then
produced a p-value. The p-value determined the probability of getting the results
that the experiment produced by chance alone. A sample calculation of a TwoSample t Test can be seen in Appendix A.
When the t-value of the specific heat experiment was calculated, there
was a p-value of approximately 0.804. Due to these results, the null hypothesis
failed to be rejected. The p-value of 0.804 means that there was an 80.4%
chance that the results that occurred would occur by chance alone if the null
were true. With a p-value of 0.804, which is not statistically significant at the
alpha level of = 0.1, there is no statistical evidence to suggest that the two
metals are different types. However, although the means and the percent errors
of the experiment were very similar between the known and unknown metals,
because the p-value was 0.804, there was an 80.4% chance that these similar
results may have occurred by chance alone if the null were true. Due to an outlier
in the data collected from the unknown metal rods, as well as the error in the
experimental design, these results may not be reliable, and further testing would
be necessary to correctly determine whether the two metals were different.

33

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Figure 7. Probability Graph and Calculations from t Test of Specific Heat
Experiment
Figure 7 shows the graph of the t-value that was calculated for the specific
heat experiment. The shaded portions of the probability graph are set at -0.2513
and 0.2513 from 0, which represents no difference between the two sample
means. The shaded portions represent the p-value, 0.804.
After calculating the t-value for the linear thermal expansion portion of the
experiment, the p-value was determined to be 0.921. The p-value of 0.921
means that if the null were true, there would be a 92.1% chance that the results
received from this experiment could occur by chance alone. The p-value of 0.921
was not statistically significant at the alpha level of = 0.1, meaning that the null
hypothesis failed to be rejected. While there was not statistical evidence to
suggest that the metals were different, the p-value states that there was a 92.1%
chance that the similar results between the known and unknown metals could
have occurred by chance alone if the null were true.

Figure 8. Probability Graph and Calculations from t Test of LTE Experiment

Figure 8 shows the probability graph and calculations of the t- and pvalues calculated for the linear thermal expansion portion of the experiment. The
34

Lumpkins - Werthmann
shaded regions of the graph represent the p-value of 0.921; they are set at a
distance from zero equivalent to the t-value 0.1005 in the positive and
negative direction.

35

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether two unknown
metal rods were iron based on the intensive properties of specific heat and linear
thermal expansion. The hypothesis was that the metal could be accurately
identified as iron if the results of the specific heat portion of the experiment were
within 0.6 percent error and the results of the linear thermal expansion portion of
the experiment were within 12 percent error. This hypothesis was rejected based
on the statistical analysis of the data and the average percent errors for each
experiment.
A Two-Sample t Test was used to analyze the means of the data for both
the iron samples and the unknown metal samples. The experimental means of
the specific heats and the coefficients of thermal expansion were very similar
between the two metals. However, when the statistical analysis was performed,
these similar results were refuted. The p-values calculated showed that there
was a high chance of the data showing similar results by chance alone, and
further analysis of the percent errors had to be done on the data to accurately
reject the hypothesis. Like the means of the data, the means of the percent
errors for the two experiments were very similar -21.378 percent and -21.708
percent for the iron and unknown metal samples, respectively, in the specific heat
experiment and -28.232 percent and -28.674 percent for the iron and unknown
metal samples, respectively, in the linear thermal expansion experiment.
However, the data consistency differed between the two types of metals for the
specific heat experiments, the range of the percent errors was 27.18 for the iron
rods and 42.861 for the unknown metal samples, and for the linear thermal
36

Lumpkins - Werthmann
expansion experiment the range of the percent errors was 45.654 for the iron
rods and 32.693 for the unknown metal samples. In the end, the percent errors
and p-values assisted in rejecting the hypothesis because the metal was proven
to be something other than iron.
Although precautions were taken to avoid error, errors still occurred
throughout experimentation. An experimental design error in the specific heat
experiment was that the amount of water measured in the graduated cylinders
was rounded to the nearest whole number before being put into the calorimeters.
The calculation of the specific heat dealt with small values, so minor changes in
the data reflected greatly on the calculations of the specific heats. Another
experimental design error in the specific heat experiment was the amount of
water in the calorimeters when testing the iron rods. The 50 milliliters of water put
into the calorimeters proved to be too much water; because there was a greater
volume of water, more heat was required to raise the temperature of the water.
Due to this, the change in temperature recorded during the experiment was
significantly less than it would have been with the appropriate amount of water,
which further proves that under the correct conditions, the results of the known
and unknown metals would have been less similar.
An error that affected the results of both of the experiments was the
amount of time it took to transfer the metal rod from the boiling water into the
linear thermal expansion apparatus or the calorimeter. Although it took fractions
of a second to make the transfer, the heat escaped the metal rods at a rapid
pace. As heat left the rods, the molecules of the metal began to slow their

37

Lumpkins - Werthmann
vibrations, which caused them to condense and the metal to shrink before the
change could be recorded by the apparatus. Similarly, during the specific heat
experiment heat was lost from the metals before the temperature probes could
record it.
Another error that affected the data was that the linear thermal expansion
apparatuses and calorimeters themselves were homemade and inaccurate. The
spring in the dial of the apparatus that followed the change in length of the rods
was not sensitive enough to measure the exact change and were easily jostled.
The calculations of the coefficients of thermal expansion dealt with such
miniscule values that the slightest change in data affected the results
tremendously. The homemade calorimeters were not fully isolated systems the
temperature continued to drop after the metal rod and the water were assumed
to reach temperature equilibrium. According to the Kinetic Molecular Theory, the
change in temperature was directly related to the change in heat, meaning heat
must have been escaping throughout the experiment and the changes in
temperature recorded may not have been accurate. The researchers chose not
to use a correction factor to calibrate the calorimeters because there were four
different calorimeters, which would each have a different correction factor.
Manipulating the data with different values for each trial may have affected the
comparisons of the iron and unknown metal samples. Using professional
equipment would have ensured more accurate data for both experiments.
An assumption made during the experiment was that when the metal rods
were placed in water or exposed to room temperature, they would eventually

38

Lumpkins - Werthmann
reach temperature equilibrium with their environment. There was no way to
measure the temperature of the metal rods themselves, so the temperatures
were estimated based on the surroundings of the metal.
It is also important to note that throughout the course of experimentation
each day, the temperature of the room increased. This means that when the
metal rods were placed in the linear thermal expansion apparatuses to cool to
what was assumed to be room temperature, metal rods from later trials were not
losing as much heat as they were in earlier trials. This could have affected the
amount the rods would change in length because if the temperature equilibrium
was reached at a relatively higher point, there would still be a greater amount of
heat acting on the molecules, causing them to jostle each other and remain
stretched farther apart.
For further experimentation in identifying iron, these experimental errors
could have been corrected, or other intensive properties could have been tested.
Among these were malleability and ductility, as well as a few others. For this
particular experiment, malleability and ductility could not be tested because the
metal rods had to remain intact, and could not be drawn into wires or molded into
sheets. Being able to properly identify a metal is extremely important in industry,
especially where iron is involved. Iron is extremely common for industrial
purposes; it is used to make steel, which is used in car parts, trains, kitchen
appliances, and other various everyday objects. It is necessary to be certain that
the material being used for these parts is iron.

39

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Appendix A: Sample Calculations
To analyze the data it was necessary to first use the following equations to
find the specific heats, coefficients of thermal expansion, and percent errors of
the known and unknown metals. This data was then examined and calculated
using the Two-Sample t Test.
To calculate the specific heat of the metal in question, s metal, in J/gC, the
equation for calculating the heat lost by the metal was set equal to the heat
gained by the water because the amount of heat between a system (metal) and
its surroundings (water) is always the same. In the equation, s, is defined as
specific heat in J/gC, m is defined as mass in grams, and T is the change in
temperature (final temperature minus initial temperature) in degrees Celsius.
s water m water T water =s metal mmetal T metal
Below is a sample calculation of the specific heat of a metal rod.
s water m water T water =s metal mmetal T metal
s metal =

s water m water T water

mmetal T metal
J
50 mL( 26.222.9 )
g
31.6814 g( 26.298.2 )

4.184
s metal =

s metal =0.301

J
g

Figure 1. Sample Calculation of Specific Heat

Shown in Figure 1 above is a sample calculation of the specific heat of the iron
rod from trial 1. One side of the equation shows the values of the water (which

40

Lumpkins - Werthmann
has a specific heat of 4.184 J/gC) and the other side of the equation shows the
values of the iron rod that were recorded during the first trial. The value of the
specific heat of the iron rod was unknown, and was solved for. Once the
calculations were made, the specific heat was negative. Specific heat is always a
positive value; because of this, the absolute value of the calculated specific heat
was taken as the true specific heat of the iron rod.
To find the linear thermal expansion of the metal rods, the coefficient of
thermal expansion, , was calculated in C-1. The calculation was made by
dividing the change in length, L, in millimeters by the initial length, Li, in
millimeters times the change in temperature, T, in degrees Celsius. Change in
temperature is defined as the final temperature minus the initial temperature.
=

L
Li T

Below is a sample equation of the coefficient of thermal expansion of a metal rod.

=

L
Li T

0.0762mm
129.32 mm( 99.8 24.5 )

=7.825106 1
Figure 2. Sample Calculation of the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Figure 2 shows the sample calculation of coefficient of thermal expansion using
the data from the first trial of the iron rod samples.

41

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Percent error, E, is used to determine accuracy of data from the trials by
comparing the experimental value, ev, to the true value the value expected
under ideal conditions (tv).
E=

ev tv
100
tv

On the next page is a sample calculation of percent error.

E=

ev tv
100
tv
0.301

E=

J
J
0.449
g
g
100
J
0.449
g

E=33.060

Figure 3. Sample Calculation of the Percent Error

Figure 3 shows a sample calculation of percent error using the data from the first
trial of the iron rod samples. Under ideal conditions, the specific heat of iron is
0.449 J/gC. For trial 1, the experimental value was 0.301 J/gC. The percent
error that was calculated for this trial was -33.060%, where the negative sign
represents that the experimental value was less than the expected value.
The Two-Sample t Test was used to calculate a t-value, t, which expressed
the greatness of the difference between the two statistics being compared in
this case, the sample means of the known and unknown metals samples specific
heats. The calculated t-value then produced a p-value, which represented the
probability of getting the results that were received if the null hypothesis were
true. The p-value was tested at an alpha level of = 0.1. To calculate the t-value,
42

Lumpkins - Werthmann
the difference of the means of the specific heats of the known and unknown
samples, k and u respectively, were divided by the square root of the ratio of the
standard deviation of the known sample, sk, squared and the number of trials, nk,
plus the ratio of the standard deviation of the unknown sample, su, squared and
the number of trials, nu.
t=

k u

(s k )2 ( s u)2
+
nk
nu

Below is a sample calculation of the t-value from a Two-Sample t Test.

t=

k u

(s k )2 ( s u)2
+
nk
nu

0.3477
t=

J
J
0.3516
g
g
2

( 0.0328 ) ( 0.0527 )
+
18
15

tvalue=0.2513
pvalue=0.8038

Figure 4. Two-Sample t Test Calculation for the Specific Heat Experiment

Figure 4 above shows the calculation of the t-value and p-value of the specific
heat portion of the experiment. The means of the specific heats of the known and
unknown metals (0.3477 J/gC and 0.3516 J/gC, respectively) were compared
to see how great the difference is when the number of trials and the standard
deviations of the two experiments were taken into consideration.

43

Lumpkins - Werthmann

44

Lumpkins - Werthmann
Appendix B: Building the Homemade Calorimeters
Materials:
Datey Purple Primer
Datey Medium Clear PVC Cement
3 ft. of 3/4 PVC pipe
3 ft. of 1.5 PVC pipe
3 ft. of PVC Insulation
Sand paper
Drill Press

1/8 Drill bit

PVC pipe cutter
(8) 3/4 PVC caps
(4) 1.5 PVC caps
Tape measure
Dry erase marker
Scissors

45

Procedures:
1. Use the tape measure to measure 7 of the 3/4 PVC pipe. Use the dry erase
marker to mark around the pipe at this length.
2. Use the PVC pipe cutter to cut the pipe at the marked line.
3. Slightly round both edges of the PVC pipe with sand paper.
4. Use a layer of Datey Purple Primer on one end of the PVC pipe and on the
edge of one cap to prepare for use of the glue.
5. Put a thin layer of Datey Medium Clear PVC Cement over the purple primer
and then quickly place the prepared cap onto the prepped end of the PVC
pipe.
6. Use the 1/8 drill bit in the drill press to drill a hole in another 3/4 cap. The
hole should not be centered on the cap, but off to the side.
7. Use the tape measure to measure 7 on the 1.5 PVC pipe and mark this
measurement with the dry erase marker.
8. Use the pipe cutter to cut the PVC pipe on the marked line.
9. Slightly round both edges of the PVC pipe with sand paper so the cap will fit
on the PVC pipe easier.
10. Use a layer of Datey Purple Primer to prepare one end of the PVC pipe and
one cap for the glue.
11. Put a thin layer of Datey Medium Clear PVC Cement over the purple primer
and then quickly place the cap onto the prepared end of the PVC pipe.
12. Measure about 7 of the PVC insulation and cut it to this length with scissors.
(Excess must be trimmed to accommodate for caps at either end of the PVC
pipe).
13. Slide the PVC insulation onto the 3/4 finished PVC pipe and slide the 3/4
pipe into the 1.5 pipe so that the glued cap of the 3/4 pipe is cradled by the
glued cap of the 1.5 pipe.
14. Once the 3/4 pipe and insulation are fit snuggly into the 1.5 PVC pipe, place
the cap with the hole drilled into it on the top of the 3/4 portion of the
calorimeter.

15. Set aside to dry overnight to ensure sealing of the glue.

16. Repeat steps 1-15 three more times until four calorimeters are completed.

Appendix C: Application of Iron

Figure 1. Drawing View of Iron Pot

Figure 1 shows the different views of the iron pot with dimensions. The
cost of iron is approximately $2.00 per pound of pure element when bought out of
bulk. This specific pot is 29.37 pounds and therefore costs about $58.74 without
added amenities. This price is around average for a cast iron pot of this size.
While the weight of this pot is relatively heavy, it is made of sturdy material that is
known to be extremely durable.

Figure 2. Isometric View of Iron Pot

Figure 2 shows the three-dimensional view of the iron pot drawn in Figure
1. Iron pots are common household items used to cook meals and boil water.
Cast iron is used to make pots because it is very durable and lasts a long time. It
is also versatile because it can be used both on the stove top and in the oven
itself. Cast iron is also used to make pots because it is easily made into non-stick
cookware and disperses heat well so the food is cooked evenly throughout. The
downside of using cast iron cookware is that it is very heavy and very expensive.

Works Cited
Bauck. "Chemistry Lab: Specific Heat of Metal." Know What's Absolutely
Necessary to Get Ahead. Palm Harbor University High School, 10 Mar.
2012. Print. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.kwanga.net/chemnotes/specificheat-lab.pdf>.
Bookhardt, Charles E. "Coefficient of Thermal Linear Expansion." Physics and
Astronomy. St. Louis Community College, 6 June 2010. Web. 26 Mar.
2014. <http://users.stlcc.edu/cburkhardt/sum/lab/thermal.pdf>.
Brucat, Philip J. "Calorimetry." General Chemistry I. University of Florida, 13 May
2009. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2045/lectures/lec_9.html>.
"Calorimeter." Chemistry at the College of DuPage. College of DuPage, 10 Mar.
2003. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.cod.edu/dept/chem/poc/Experiments/CALORIMETRY02/Calorimeter.html>.
Calvert, James B. "Iron." Physics and Chemistry. University of Denver, 13 Dec. 2
002. Web. 08 May 2014. <http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/iron.htm>.
Cooper, Melanie. "Specific Heat Table." Chemistry Education Research Program
Chemistry Department. College of Engineering and Science, 1 Sept. 2004.
Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/Energy/SpecificHeat.htm>.
De Leon, N. "Specific Heat and Heat Capacity." Chemistry 101 Class Notes.
Indiana University Northwest, 30 Jan. 2001. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-andenergy/specificheat.html>.
Elert, Glenn. "Density." The Physics Hypertextbook. Glenn Elert, 26 Mar. 2014.
Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://physics.info/density/>.
Gammon, Steven D. "6.6 Measuring Heats of Reaction." General Chemistry,
Enhanced Edition. By Darrell Ebbing. 9th ed. N.p.: Cengage Learning,
2010. N. pag. 3 Dec. 2007. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=8_7iGj4QLR4C&dq=specific+heat&so
urce=gbs_na vlinks_s>.
Hooks, C. C., and William Harner Goetz. "Laboratory Thermal Expansion
Measuring Techniques Applied to Bituminous Concrete: Informational

Report." Joint Highway Research Project 20 (1964): n. pag. Purdue

University. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2007&context=jtrp>
"Iron." Minerals Education Coalition. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, 7 May 2014. Web. 7 May 2014.
<http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/iron>.
Kollerstrom, Nick. "The Traditional Association of Mars and Iron."
Skyscript.co.uk. Skyscript, 7 May 2014. Web. 08 May 2014.
<http://www.skyscript.co.uk/metal4.html>.
"Linear Coefficient of Thermal Expansion." NDT Resource Center.
Nondestructive Testing Field, 23 May 2008. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.ndted.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Physical_Chemi
cal/ThermalExpansion.htm>.
Pearce, Mitchell. "Real World Context of Specific Heat Capacity." Scribd. Scribd,
26 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/139539080/real-world-context-of-specificheat-capacity>.
Senese, Fred. "What Are Extensive and Intensive Properties?" General
Chemistry Online. Frostburg State University, 15 Feb. 2010. Web. 25 Mar.
2014.
<http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/matter/faq/extensiveintensive.shtml>.
Tarr, Martin. "Coefficient of Thermal Expansion." Online Postgraduate Courses
for the Electronic Industry. University of Bolton, 9 July 2007. Web. 26 Mar.
2014. <http://www.ami.ac.uk/courses/topics/0197_cte/>.
"Thermal Expansion - Linear." The Engineering ToolBox. N.p., 7 Mar. 2014.
Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermalexpansion-d_1379.html>.
Vawter, Richard. "Thermal Expansion." Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Western Washington University, 14 Jan. 2009. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/ThermExpan.ht
ml>.