Hoisington Maleszyk 1

Introduction
In a lab environment, two researchers were assigned four metal rods. Two
of these rods were known to be composed of aluminum while the other two were
up to question. Using the intensive properties of specific heat and linear thermal
expansion, it was the researchers purpose to determine if the unknown rods
were or were not aluminum. Once the experiments were conducted by the
researchers, it was then known if the rods were of the same composition or not.
The objective was just this, to determine the identity of the unknown metal.
Specific heat, the energy required to raise one gram of a material one
degree Celsius, and linear thermal expansion, the amount a metal expands when
heated, were chosen because they are intensive properties. Intensive properties
are properties of elements that never change, no matter the size of the sample.
The unknown rods of the experiment were quite a bit larger than the aluminum
rods, but that does not matter because the properties measured are intensive.
Many variables were measured, and this is what led to the eventual
conclusion of the composition of the unknown metal. The research gathered was
clearly one sided. The researchers used a calorimeter to guide the calculation of
specific heat and used a linear thermal expansion jig to help calculate that
property. Many other unique materials were used. All of the measurements led to
the calculation of the variables in question. From here, the known variables were
compared to the unknown and a percent error was calculated from the
difference. A two sample t-test will be conducted to analyze the research. The
sample means of the known and unknown values will be compared in the test.

Hoisington Maleszyk 2
The p-value found in the test will then be interpreted into the problem. This will
help to identify whether the two metals are the same or different.

Hoisington Maleszyk 3
Background
Although somewhat unbelievable, aluminum has been used for over 7000
years for household uses. It was identified in 1809 by Sir Humphrey Davy and
under the name aluminium. It was officially discovered in 1825 by Hans Christian
Oersted of Denmark, and then expanded on in 1827 by Friedrich Wohler, who
actually separated the aluminum into its pure, powdery form (Davyson).
Aluminum is very prevalent on Earth, it is the third most available element
and eight percent of the Earths surface (Gagnon). It must first be extracted from
Bauxite before it is pure. Then, it goes through many filters until ultimately casted
(RUSAL). When Hans first prepared the metal, he did it by heating dry aluminum
chloride, AlCl3, with potassium, K, metal.
AlCl3 (s) + 3 K (s)

Al (s) + 3 KCl (s)

Figure 1. Chemical Formula to Separate Aluminum

Shown in Figure 1 is the chemical reaction formula Hans used to separate
aluminum (Shakhashiri). This is not used today, but this is how he separated the
two based on his limitation of resources and technology. Pure aluminum, Al, and
potassium chloride, KCl, are the products of this reaction.
Aluminum is very useful. Aluminums light weight and nontoxicity makes it
especially useful in cooking utensils and soda cans. Second, its durability makes
it perfect for baseball bats or golf clubs. Finally, it is used in medicine, such as
antacids (Lauritzen).
Aluminum has unique intensive properties, like all elements. Intensive
properties are properties of an element that do not depend on the size of the

Hoisington Maleszyk 4
sample, they do not change. Some intensive properties include density, 2.7
g/cm3, specific heat, .89 J/gC, boiling point, 2519C, melting point, 660.323C,
etc. Aluminums phase at room temperature is solid. Its atomic weight is 26.98
atomic mass units (amu), the standard unit for atomic weight (Gagnon). With
such a high boiling point and melting point, it could be very expensive to melt
down to change its shape. Also, it has one of the lowest specific heats, so it
heats and cools quickly. These properties can be compared to waters properties.
Water has a boiling point of 100C and is liquid at room temperature. All elements
have distinct intensive properties and that is what makes them unique.
All elements have a distinct orbital diagram, a visual representation of an
electron configuration. It shows the way that the electrons are arranged in the
various subshells. The subshell numbers are arranged by which period they are
located and the letter associated with each depends on the position of the
element on the periodic table. The order of shells is s, p, and then d (Faizi).

Figure 2. Orbital Diagram of Aluminum

Figure 2 shows the orbital diagram of aluminum (Faizi).Orbital diagrams
are used to communicate electron distribution of an atom. Also, one can
determine key factors from this diagram like shape and energy. The 1s, 2s, 2p,
and 3s subshells are full, with the last electron occupying the 3p subshell. Each
electron is paired besides one, which causes a continuous wanting to bond.

Hoisington Maleszyk 5
Review of Literature for Specific Heat
Specific heat is an intensive property found in all objects. By definition,
specific heat is how much energy is required to heat one gram of a substance 1
Kelvin or 1 Celsius. Two experiments are perfect examples of find the specific
heat of various objects. In one case, an experiment performed by the University
of Massachusetts Boston on aluminum, the researchers submerged a piece of
aluminum in a body of water whose mass was known. The initial temperature of
both substances was measured and the final equilibrium temperature was
measured as well. From here, it was determined how much energy it took to
reach equilibrium and the overall temperature required to heat one gram of
aluminum (Boston).
This experiment was repeated by the University of Arizona but in a
different way. This university used Rchardts method. This was done by
comparing the specific heat at constant pressure compared to constant volume
(Arizona). Both experiments are easily replicable in a classroom setting, although
the first by the University of Massachusetts Boston would be more applicable.
Both of these methods can be used to find the specific heat of the
unknown metal. In the project, the researchers are challenged to compare an
unknown metal to the known metal. The only way to truly tell if these metals are
the same on the atomic level is by their intensive properties, including specific
heat. Every element has unique intensive properties, only owned by them.
Finding the specific heat is overall very helpful to the researchers in order to
properly identify the metal.

Hoisington Maleszyk 6
The common unit for a specific heat measurement is J/g*K. J stands for
Joules, g for grams, and K for Kelvin. Due to the way it is divided, Kelvin can be
switched out for Celsius, and Joules and grams could instead be kilojoules (kJ)
and kilograms (kg), but they must be changed together to output a proper
specific heat (Hilliard).
To find an unknown specific heat there is a formula to use. The formula is
as follows
Q=sm T
The Q in this case is the heat energy absorbed or released in the reaction,
measured in Joules. The s is specific heat. The m stands for the mass of the
solution and is measured in grams. Finally, T is the change of the
temperature in Kelvin. This is calculated by subtracting the initial temperature
from the final temperature (Hilliard). Due to the fact the element is being
compared to aluminum, the formula will look like this:
sm T =sm T

Hoisington Maleszyk 7
Review of Literature for Linear Thermal Expansion
Linear thermal expansion is a property unique to each and every element.
It is an intensive property. There are many types of thermal expansion but in this
case the most helpful one would be linear. Linear thermal expansion is the
relation of the growth of a metal expanding compared to the temperature the
metal rose (Nave).
One experiment, performed by Kroeger and Swenson, used a threeterminal parallel-plate capacitor to measure the linear thermal expansion of
aluminum when the metal was heated from five to three hundred and twenty
Kelvin. The aluminum used was pure, such as the aluminum being used in the
research experiment. The rod was first placed in the capacitor and then heated
three hundred and fifteen Kelvin. The expansion was then observed to 0.1%
accuracy. Different tools will be used in the classroom setting, but the basic
premise is still prominent.
A second experiment, performed by Clemson University, found different
ways to find linear thermal expansion of different metals. It was done by heating
the various metals and then placing them in water. After this, the experimenters
measured the final length of the metal rod and used the equation to find the
linear thermal expansion of the metals.
Due to the fact that linear thermal expansion is an intensive property, or
that it is unique to each element, it can be used in this experiment to properly
identify the unknown element. The methods used in the experiments are
common methods for measuring expansion. Although the high-tech tools might

Hoisington Maleszyk 8
not be at the researchers disposal, tools that mimic the same purpose will be
applicable.
In relation to the experiment, the metal can be properly identified by
finding its linear thermal expansion coefficient. The linear thermal expansion is
unique to every element. If the thermal expansion of the unknown metal is close
enough to the known value of aluminum and the tested value of the rod, it can be
concluded that the metal is indeed aluminum.
Linear thermal expansion is helpful in the real world. Manufactures would
not want a metal to expand too much in heat. Ideally, the metal would expand a
bit to prevent from cracking in the structure and to improve durability.
Linear thermal expansion is measured in length per degree. This means
that for the experiment, the researchers will be looking for the value in 1/oC.
This value is then to be compared to well-known values and the experimental
value of the known rod of pure aluminum.
L
= T
Lo
In this linear thermal expansion formula (Nave), L stands for the change in
length of the rod, final minus the initial. Lo is the initial length, making this side of
the equation a proportion. The a variable stands for the known expansion
coefficient, to compare the known to the unknown. This variable is measured in
either 1/oC or 1/oF. Finally, the T is the change in temperature, or the final minus
initial.

Hoisington Maleszyk 9
Problem Statement
Problem:
Determine if the identity of the unknown metal is aluminum or not using
the intensive properties of specific heat and linear thermal expansion compared
to the known metal of aluminum.

Hypothesis:
The metal will be identified as aluminum when the average percent error
of specific heat compared to the known metal is between 3% error, or the
average difference 0.0269 J/g*K. The metal will be completely identified as
aluminum when the average percent error of linear thermal expansion compared
to the known metal is 1.13%, or the average difference 0.2610 inverse of
degrees Celsius.

Data:
Specific heat is measured in joules/grams*Kelvin. Heat absorbed in the
reaction measured in joules. The change in temperature is measured in degrees
Celsius.
Linear thermal expansion uses many different variables as well. Linear
thermal expansion is measured in inverse of degrees Celsius. The change in
length is measured in millimeters. Finally, the T is the change in temperature, or
the final minus initial. This is measured in degrees Celsius.

Hoisington Maleszyk 10
Specific Heat Experimental Design
Materials:
(2) Unknown Metal Rods
(2) Aluminum Rods
Scout Pro Electronic Scale (0.1g precision)
TI-NSpire CX Graphing Calculator
22 cm by 10 cm by 6.2 cm Loaf Pan
Logger Pro Thermometer (0.1C precision)
Hot plate
Metal Tongs
Calorimeter
Logger Pro
100 mL Graduated Cylinder
Thermometer (0.1C precision)
Procedure:
1.

Randomize all 30 trials using the TI-NSpire CX calculator, making sure

there is an even amount of trials for the unknown rod and for the
aluminum rod. See Appendix A for how to randomize.

2.

Set up Logger Pro. See Appendix B for set-up.

3.

Tare the scale and mass the rod being used. Record results in the data
table.

4.

Fill the calorimeter with 75 mL of water. Record the initial temperature of

the water into the data table. Also, record the mass of the water. Record
volume as X grams. See Appendix C for calorimeter construction.

5.

Fill graduated cylinder with 75 mL of water and place the loaf pan onto the
hot plate. Pour the water into the loaf pan. Bring water to a boil.

6.

Once to a boil, place the rod into the water for 3 minutes. Record the
temperature of the water after the 3 minutes are up under the initial
temperature of the rod. It is assumed that the temperature of the rod is
equal to the temperature of the water.

7.

Record the equilibrium temperature of the water in the calorimeter after

approximately 5 minutes. Set the timer on the Logger Pro for 5 minutes,
but if the temperature stops increasing and it gets to the equilibrium, stop
early.

Hoisington Maleszyk 11
8.

Compare the equilibrium temperature to the initial temperatures of the

metal and of the water. Record the results in the change of temperature by
subtracting the initial temperatures from the equilibrium temperature.

9.

Calculate the specific heat of the rod.

10.

Repeat steps 2-8 for 30 trials.

Hoisington Maleszyk 12
Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design
Materials:
(2) Unknown Metal Rods
(2) Aluminum Rods
Linear Thermal Expansion Jig
TI-NSpire CX Graphing Calculator
22 cm by 10 cm by 6.2 cm Loaf Pan
Hot Plate
Metal Tongs
Spray Bottle (1 L)
100 mL Graduated Cylinder
TESR Caliper 00530085 (0.01mm precision)
Procedure:
1.

Randomize all 30 trials using the TI-NSpire CX calculator, make sure each
the known and unknown rods have an equal amount of trials. See
Appendix A for how to randomize.

2.

Measure initial length of rod using the caliper. Record in data table.

3.

Fill graduated cylinder with 75 mL of water. Pour water into the loaf pan
that is on the hot plate. Bring water to boil using hot plate.

4.

Using the tongs, place the metal in water for 3 minutes once water is to a
boil.

5.

Record the temperature of the metal in the data table after the 3 minutes
and remove metal using tongs. It is assumed the metal is the same
temperature as the water.

6.

Place rod into jig. Wait 3 minutes and record length change as well as the
final temperature as the current room temperature, it is assumed the rod is
room temperature. To make the cooling process quicker, spray the rod
with water using the spray bottle. If the dial stops moving, it is assumed
the metal has stopped contracting.

7.

Repeat steps 2-6 for all 30 trials.

Hoisington Maleszyk 13
Diagram:

Figure 3. Linear Thermal Expansion Trial Materials

In Figure 3 are the materials used for every linear thermal expansion trial.
The materials shown here are the same materials stated in the material list. The
paper towel underneath the rods was used to identify the rods quickly as well as
keep the lab environment dry.

Data and Observations

Hoisington Maleszyk 14
Table 1
Aluminum Specific Heat Data

Table 1 is the values from the specific heat experiment of the known metal
rod. The final column of the table is the variation from the known specific heat
value of 0.89 J/gC (Boston). The averages are listed in the last row. The
temperature probes recorded a value with an accuracy of 0.1, while the scale
recorded the mass to an accuracy of 0.01. The final specific heat was rounded to
three decimal places. See Appendix D for sample calculation on how to calculate
specific heat.

Table 2
Aluminum Specific Heat Observations

Hoisington Maleszyk 15

Shown in Table 2 are the observations for the specific heat trials using the
known rod. The most important component of this table is the calorimeter
column. The calorimeter has a lot to do with the transfer of heat. The trials that
were completed on the fifteenth of April were pre-trials. In the last few trials the
researchers turned the hot plate down once the specific heat was better when
the initial temperature of the rod was lower.

Table 3
Unknown Metal Specific Heat Data

Hoisington Maleszyk 16

Table 3 contains the same sort of data that Table 1 contains, but this time
the values collected from the unknown rods are recorded. The biggest difference
between the two tables is the mass of the rod. Other than the mass of the rod,
the data remains consistently close.

Table 4
Unknown Specific Heat Observations

Hoisington Maleszyk 17

Table 4 is similar to Table 2. The unknown rod observations are recorded

in Table 4. Once again, the calorimeter is key in properly using the observation
tables. Occasionally there would be a flub in the transition between the boiling
water and calorimeter, which was recorded. This would most likely strongly affect
the specific heat value.

Table 5

Hoisington Maleszyk 18
Aluminum Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Table 5 shows the collected data of the linear thermal expansion of the
known metal rod. The known alpha coefficient of Aluminum is 2.22 x 10 -6 inverse
of degrees Celsius (1/C). The change in length was originally recorded in inches
but was then converted to millimeters. See Appendix E for a sample calculation
of the alpha coefficient.

Table 6

Hoisington Maleszyk 19
Aluminum Thermal Expansion Observations

Table 6 is the observations recorded through the trials of the known rod
linear thermal expansion. Everything that happened is recorded including the rod
number, date, jig number, and caliper number. Occasionally the caliper would
fumble and would have a starting value other than zero. This was added or
subtracted from the length and the calculated length was then recorded in the
data table.

Table 7

Hoisington Maleszyk 20
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Table 7 shows the data collected in the trials for the unknown linear
thermal expansion. The change in length was originally inches and was
converted, like Table 5. The change in temperature is the absolute value of the
final minus initial temperature.

Hoisington Maleszyk 21
Table 8
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Observations

Table 8 contains the observations recorded in the trials on the unknown

rod for linear thermal expansion. The trial, date, rod, caliper, and jig used are
recorded. The majority of the trials there were complications with the caliper,
which were ultimately recorded. The speed of the transition was often recorded
as well.

Hoisington Maleszyk 22
Data Analysis and Interpretation
The first form of comparison of the known data and unknown data was the
average of the value being measured. In the hypothesis, specific values were
calculated to tell if the values were close enough to conclude they are the same
metal. The average value being calculated was the first variable the researchers
compared. Sample calculations for these values can be observed in Appendix D.
In many of the tables following, the percent error is discussed. The
percent error is the comparative difference of the recorded data next to the
proven values. The researchers used the percent error as a constant check of
progress as well as accuracy. A high percent error reading meant that something
was wrong, and the problem was quickly fixed.
A two-sample t-test was used for the comparison of the known to unknown
metals in both the specific heat and linear thermal expansion experiments. This
test was used because it would prove to be the most accurate and valid, due to it
being a test of means over a test of standard deviations, for a sample of this test
see Appendix F. The sample size, 30 per variable, also calls for this test, due to it
being relatively small. For specific heat, the unit joules / grams * degrees Celsius
was calculated, for a sample see Appendix D. As for linear thermal expansion,
the expansion coefficient was calculated in a unit of inverse Celsius multiplied by
10-6 because all of the measurements were in millimeters, the sample for this can
also be found in Appendix D. The data was collected in the lab by the
researchers by performing the procedures prior. The calculations for the
measurable values can both be found in Appendix D.

Hoisington Maleszyk 23
Due to the sample not being greater than thirty, normal probability plots
were included to make sure the data was relatively normal in its distribution. The
other assumptions, that the data is taken from two independent populations and
have equal variances were met. The x represents the same values for both tests,
with x1 being the known values and x2 the unknown. The null hypothesis, or Ho,
was that the two means were near the same.
Ho : x1 = x2
The hypothesis above represents the null. On the other hand, the alternate
hypothesis was that the two means were not equal, or were far from equal. This
hypothesis is represented by Ha.
Ha : x1 x2
The alternate hypothesis is not influenced one way or the other because the
researchers were simply looking for a significant difference. The alpha value the
p-value must be under to deem the two sets of data as statistically significant
was 0.10.

Hoisington Maleszyk 24
Table 9
Aluminum Specific Heat Percent Error

Table 9 contains the percent error calculated in the 15 specific heat trials
performed on the known metal of aluminum. The range of measured values was
0.451 J/gC to 0.976 J/gC, and the percent error ranged from -49.375% to
9.675%. The average percent error is -24.655%. This number means that on
average, the calculated specific heat is 24.655% lower than the known specific
heat of 0.89 joules / grams * degrees Celsius. As trials progressed, the percent
error increased. This could be due to the fact that the researchers were rushing
and trying to get more trials done. See Appendix E for percent error calculation.

Hoisington Maleszyk 25
Table 10
Unknown Metal Specific Heat Percent Error

Table 10 shows the percent error of the 15 specific heat trials of the
unknown metal. The range was 0.615 J/gC to 0.751 J/gC, and the percent error
ranged from -30.950% to -15.629%. The average percent error for the trials was
-23.602%. The calculated specific heats are being compared to the specific heat
of the known metal, aluminum, of 0.89 joules / grams * degrees Celsius. The
known and unknown trials have close percent errors, just a little more than one
percent off. See Appendix E for percent error calculation.

Hoisington Maleszyk 26

Figure 4. Normal Probability Plot of Known Values

Figure 4 displays the normal probability plot of the known values. The line
shown is the perfect normal distribution of the data. Since the points have a
linear regression model, the data is normally distributed. The normality of the
distribution proves that the data is good and ready to use. It can be assumed that
all statistics test done to this set will be proficient.

Hoisington Maleszyk 27

Figure 5. Normal Probability Plot of Unknown Values

Figure 5 shows the normal probability plot of the unknown values of the
specific heat experiment. Using the plot, it can be confirmed that the data is
normally distributed. Since the data is normal, the third assumption is met and all
statistics tests conducted will be correct.

Hoisington Maleszyk 28

Figure 6. Box Plot of Collected Data

Figure 6 shows a box plot of the collected known and unknown data. The
known data is more spread out. The unknown data is all contained inside the
middle half of the known data. With this, it can be concluded that the two metals
are alike. In both data sets, there are no outliers, which is good for the data. It
makes the test more accurate and thorough.
Stated before, a 2-sample t-test is the statistical test picked to test the
difference between the known and unknown means. This test proves to be very
accurate once all of the assumptions are met. All of the assumptions were met
during the experiment, so the test is free to be conducted correctly.

Hoisington Maleszyk 29

Figure 7. Statistical Test for Specific Heat

Figure 7 shows that the p-value for the 2-sample t-test is 0.7592, which is
more than the given alpha value of 0.10. In this test, the known values were
compared to the unknown. Based on the data received, the null hypothesis was
failed to be rejected. With account of the high p-value, it can be inferred that the
two metals are the same. An in-depth walkthrough of how to conduct the 2sample t-test is shown in Appendix F.

Hoisington Maleszyk 30

Figure 8. Plotted P-Value

Figure 8 contains a graph showing the p-value in context with the t-value.
The p-value covers more than 75 percent of the data. The p-value of 0.7592 can
be interpreted that there is a 75.92% chance that results this extreme would
occur by chance alone if the null hypothesis was true. This p-value is very high,
which is good. The p-value predicts the metals are the same.
In the specific heat test, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. The test
overall shows that there is strong evidence the two metals are the same. The pvalue of 0.7592 means that there is a 75.92% chance that results this extreme
would occur by chance alone if the null hypothesis was true.

Hoisington Maleszyk 31
Table 11
Aluminum Linear Thermal Expansion Percent Error

Table 11 holds the recorded data from the aluminum linear thermal
experiment alongside the proven value. The units are inverse Celsius, and the
values were multiplied by ten to the negative six. The range of values was 1.317
x 10-6 1/C to 1.930 x 10-6 1/C, with the percent errors -40.680% to -13.054%.
The percent error was majorly negative on these trials, with an average of
-29.089%. This means that on average the recorded value was almost 30%
lower than the proven value. The percent error was less at the end when the
researchers began to transition between the boiling water and the jig quicker,
giving the metal less time to contract outside of the jig. See Appendix E for
percent error calculation.

Hoisington Maleszyk 32

Table 12
Unknown Metal Rod Linear Thermal Expansion Percent Error

In Table 12 are the calculated values of the trials for the unknown metal
rod. The units of measure are the same as in Table 11. The range of recorded
values was 1.431 x 10-6 1/C to 2.146 x 10-6 1/C, and the percent errors ranged
from -35.541% to -3.326%. The average percent error is -18.151%, which is
more than 10% more than the average percent error for the known trials. This
greatly exceeds the hypothesized value, by almost a multiple of ten. This infers
the two rods are not composed of the same metal. For reference of percent error
calculation, see Appendix E.

Hoisington Maleszyk 33

Figure 9. Normal Probability Plot of Known Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Figure 9 shows the normal probability plot of the known data for linear
thermal expansion. The line in Figure 9 is the perfect distribution of the data. The
proximity of the data point to the line is how close the data point is to normal. The
majority of the points are close to the line, so the third assumption of a normal
distribution is met on the known linear thermal expansion data.

Figure 10. Normal Probability Plot of Unknown Linear Thermal Expansion Data
Figure 10 shows the same type of graph the previous figure did, but with
the unknown linear thermal expansion data. This data is also close to the line, so

Hoisington Maleszyk 34
the third assumption can be assumed for this one too that the data is close to
normal.

Figure 11. Box Plot Spread of Linear Thermal Expansion Trials

Figure 11 exhibits the box plot of the linear thermal expansion trials. The
box plots are quite far apart from each other and are spread thin. The x-axis
represents the value of alpha, or the expansion coefficient. The medians are
extremely far away from each other for two values that are supposed to be close,
the known being 1.592 1/C 10-6 and the unknown being 1.834 1/C 10-6. This
means the two sets of data are very different from each other, hardly overlapping
at all. This box plot shows the two sets of data were far apart from each other on
average.

Hoisington Maleszyk 35

Figure 12. Statistical Test for Linear Thermal Expansion

Figure 12 shows the p-value of the linear thermal experiment is 0.0027,
which is much less than the given alpha value of 0.10. In this test, the known
values were compared to the unknown. The p-value implies the two data sets are
significantly different, also implying that the known and unknown rods are made
of different metals. For an in-depth walkthrough of the statistical test, see
Appendix F.

Hoisington Maleszyk 36

Figure 13. Linear Thermal Expansion Plotted P-Value

Figure 13 is the bell curve of the statistical test. On the x-axis is the value
of t and on the y-axis is the density of the data. Barely visible, near the far
outside of the curve, is the shaded region. The p-value is 0.0027, which is below
the alpha value. The null hypothesis was rejected in this test. This means the two
tests have a statistically significant difference, which leads one to think the two
metals are different, solely based on this curve.
For the linear thermal expansion test, the null hypothesis was
rejected. This means that there is evidence against the two metals being
composed of the same element. The p-value of 0.0027 suggests that by chance
alone, there is a 0.27% chance the same results would occur if the null
hypothesis was true.
With all assumptions being met, the information received from the
statistical test can be trusted. The specific heat test implies that the two metals
are the same, while the linear thermal expansion test implies the two metals are
of different composition.

Hoisington Maleszyk 37
Conclusion
The primary objective aiming to be accomplished was the correct
identification of the unknown metal rod. The hypothesis was ultimately rejected
due to the data. The specific heat portion of the hypothesis was met, the specific
heat average percent errors were 1.053% different and the average specific heat
value was 0.009 J/gC off, which meet both of the required ranges. However, the
linear thermal expansion data was far off, with the average percent error being off
by 10.938 % and the expansion coefficient differing by 0.241 x 10 -6 1/C. Overall,
the unknown metal rod was concluded to be aluminum nonetheless. The
researchers concluded their knowledge on specific heat made that test more
valid than the linear thermal expansion test.
The times given in the procedure were too long, but were kept just in case
one trial did last that long. This hindered the time the researchers had to perform
trials. Either when equilibrium was reached or when the metal stopped
expanding, the researchers would stop the trial right there. This is up to
interpretation by the researcher.
The amount of trials made the distribution normal and also helped in
limiting the percent error of the data and it helped to identify the unknown metal.
Being able to trust ones data is an important thing in trying to conclude if it is
valid or not. There were also some problems in the experiments. To improve the
research, the researchers could have used more precise tools and instruments.
The coefficients of the variables measured are very close to other metals, off by
less than a unit. Cutting the temperature off at one decimal point could have

Hoisington Maleszyk 38
negatively affected the results. The researchers did not have access to these
more detailed instruments, but future researchers could use them for more
precise measurements.
Some mistakes were made in the experiment. One of the mistakes was
that the temperature of the rod is assumed to be the temperature of the water.
This could have affected the results because the temperature of the metal is not
exactly the temperature of the water due to them being of a different molecular
composition. The metal could have been way less in temperature and the results
could have been drastically affected. The results are assumed to not be affected
though. Also, another glaring mistake was the time it took to transfer the metal
from the boiling water to the tool of measure. This definitely affected the results,
but nothing could have been done. Finally, the constructed units used to measure
the specific heat and linear thermal expansion, the calorimeter and the jig, were a
large problem. In the calorimeter, the plastic PVC pipe most likely absorbed heat,
which affected the results. Also, the jig was a piece of wood with a dial, and was
not a factory-made jig. This most likely affected the results.
One could expand this research by checking various things that are
constructed using metal. An example of this would be if a bridge collapsed, one
could do a test on a sample from it to see if the metals specific heat and linear
thermal expansion coefficients are the blame. An example of this is the
temperature that day. To test for the same kind of metals, one could also use
tests for density, volume, melting point, or boiling point. All of these properties are
intensive properties so they will be the same regardless of the sample size.

Hoisington Maleszyk 39
Multiple industries would be interested in this experiment. Any type of building
maker would be interested to know what metal is used to make the best type of
house. Also, any type of industry that uses metal in the construction of things
could be interested in this experiment. If the builder makes something out of a
certain type of metal and their plans get lost, a simple test of specific heat or
linear thermal expansion could be conducted to find out what kind of metal it is.

Hoisington Maleszyk 40
Appendix A: Randomization of Trials
The randomization of trials is used to assure validity of data.
Materials:
TI-NSpire Calculator
Procedure:
1.

Turn on TI-NSpire and open a document with a calculator page.

2.

Press Menu, 5: Probability, 4:Random, 2:Integer. This will produce a

command randInt().

3.

Inside of the parenthesis type 1,4,15. Press enter.

4.

The fifteen numbers produced are the calorimeter to be used for the
corresponding trial. Repeat for the known and unknown rod. Record the
calorimeter into the data table and begin experimentation.

Diagram:

Figure 14. Full Randomization Example

Figure 14 shows what the screen of the calculator should look like once
the entire experiment has been randomized. Each number in the bracket
represents the calorimeter to be used for the corresponding trial. The first row of
numbers is for the known rod experiment and the second row is for the unknown
rod experiment.

Hoisington Maleszyk 41
Appendix B: Logger Pro Set Up
The Logger Pro is the tool used to record temperature measurements over
a period of time. This is what is used to find equilibrium for the specific heat test.
Materials:
Logger Pro
Temperature Probe
LabQuest App
USB Flash Drive
Procedure:
1.

Plug in the USB Flash Drive to the top of the Logger Pro. Also connect the
temperature probe.

2.

Press the power button on the Logger Pro to turn it on. Choose New File
from the File menu.

3.

On the Meter screen, tap Rate. Change the data collection rate 2
samples/second and change the data collection length 600. Select OK.

4.

Start data collection once temperature probe is placed in calorimeter. After

30 seconds, add metal. A graph will be displayed on the screen.

5.

After graph begins to level out, wait a few more seconds to make sure it is
not still rising and stop data collection. Collection should stop well before
600 seconds have elapsed.

6.

Record values into table using graph on the Logger Pro.

7.

Store data by tapping File Cabinet icon.

Hoisington Maleszyk 42
Appendix C: Calorimeter Construction
The calorimeter is a sealed tube functioning as an isolated system. This is
used for the specific heat tests.
Materials:
(2 feet) .5 inch wide PVC pipe
(8) PVC Pipe Caps
PVC Pipe Glue
Drill Press
1/8th inch Drill Bit
Procedure:
1.

Cut PVC pipe into four equal pieces, 6 inches long.

2.

Use drill press and 1/8th inch bit to cut holes into four of the eight pipe
caps. Drill the hole a bit outside the middle of the cap.

3.

Glue pipe caps without the hole onto the PVC pipe using the pipe glue.

4.

Place but do not glue the drilled caps on the calorimeter.

5.

Number each calorimeter for use in randomization.

Hoisington Maleszyk 43
Appendix D: Specific Heat and Linear Thermal Expansion Sample Calculation
In order to calculate the specific heat, the following formula must be used.
The specific heat, s, will be used in the comparison and statistical test.

4.184( water mass )(water temperature change)

( metal mass )(metaltemperature change)

4.184( 70.0 g )(2.0 C)

( 9.87 g )(67.2 C)

s=

s=

s=0.883

joules
grams Celsius

Figure 15. Sample Calculation for Specific Heat

Figure 15 shows the sample calculation of how to calculate specific heat.
The numbers used are the numbers from the first known trial. The units for
specific heat are joules/grams * degrees Celsius. The value of 4.184 is the
specific heat of water.
The linear thermal expansion coefficient must also be calculated for
comparison.

is the expansion coefficient.

L
| LT
|10

0.127
|129.1074.7
|10

1.3171061
C

Hoisington Maleszyk 44
Figure 16. Sample Calculation for Linear Thermal Expansion
Figure 16 shows the sample calculation of how to calculate the linear
thermal expansion coefficient. The numbers used are from the first trial of linear
thermal expansion with the known aluminum rod. The

L represents the

change in length, measured in millimeters. The L represents the length of the rod
measured in millimeters and the

represents the change in temperature

measured in degrees Celsius. The unit for the linear thermal expansion

coefficient is

1061
, or inverse degrees Celsius times 10-6 because the
C

instruments measured in millimeters.

Hoisington Maleszyk 45

Appendix E: Percent Error Sample Calculation

The percent error is the secondary comparison method next to the
statistical test.

Error=

Calculated ValueKnown Value

100
Known Value

0.883
Error=

J
J
0.890
gC
gC
100
J
0.890
gC

Error=0.7699

Figure 17. Sample Percent Error Calculation

Figure 17 displays a sample calculation for percent error. The percent
error is used as a constant check of accuracy as well as progress for the
researchers. A high percent error is bad, while a low one is good. The known
value is subtracted from the calculated value in the numerator, and then divided
by the known. This is then multiplied by one-hundred because it is a percentage,
and percentages are out of one-hundred. The percent error in the sample is
-0.7699%, which is extremely low, and means the trial was very accurate.

Hoisington Maleszyk 46

Appendix F: 2-Sample T-Test Sample Calculation

The t-test used here is the primary method of comparing the data.

t=

t=

x 1 x 2

s 12 s 22
+
n1 n2
0.66590.6787

0.15382 0.04032
+
15
15

t=0.3119
p=0.7592

Figure 18. 2 Sample t-test Calculation

Figure 18 shows the sample calculation of the 2 sample t-test. The first set
of data is the known data and the second set is the unknown data. The p-value is
the chance that results of this like will occur by chance alone if the null
hypothesis is true.

Hoisington Maleszyk 47

Works Cited
Arizona, Physics. "Specific Heat." Measuring the Ratio of Specific Heat at a Constant
Volume to Specific Heat at a Constant Pressure Using Rchardt's Method. University of
Arizona, 18 July 2001. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/GAMMA.pdf>.
Binczewski, George J. "The Point of a Monument: A History of the Aluminum Cap of the
Washington Monument." A History of the Aluminum Cap of the Washington Monument.
The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 1995. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.
Boston, University of Massachusetts. "Experiment #2, the Specific Heat of Aluminum."
University of Massachusetts Boston, 29 June 2007. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.physicslabs.umb.edu/Physics/sum07/Exp2_182_Sum07.pdf>.
Buyco, Edgar H., and Fred E. Davis. "Specific Heat of Aluminum from Zero to Its Melting
Temperature and Beyond. Equation for Representation of the Specific Heat of Solids."
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 15.4 (1970): 518-23. Specific Heat of Aluminum
from Zero to Its Melting Temperature and Beyond. ACS Publications, 24 Apr. 2013. Web.
24 Apr. 2013. <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/je60047a035>.
Davyson, Sam. "Aluminum History." Aluminum History. N.p., 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Mar.
2013. <http://sam.davyson.com/as/physics/aluminium/siteus/history.html>.
Faizi, Sarah. "Electronic Configurations - ChemWiki." Electronic Configurations - ChemWiki.
University of California, 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.
<http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Inorganic_Chemistry/Electronic_Configurations>.

Hoisington Maleszyk 48

Gagnon, Steve. "The Element Aluminum." It's Elemental -. Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility - Office of Science Education, 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
<http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele013.html>.
Hashimoto, E., Y. Ueda, and T. Kino. "Purification of Ultra-High Purity Aluminum." Le Journal
De Physique IV 05.C7 (1995): C7-153-7-157. Print.
Hilliard, Jamie. "Thermochemistry: The Study of Energy." Chemistry 1. MMSTC, Sterling
Heights. 22 Jan. 2013. Lecture.
Kroeger, F. R., and C. A. Swenson. "Absolute Linear Thermal-expansion Measurements on
Copper and Aluminum from 5 to 320 K." Journal of Applied Physics 48.3 (1977): 853-65.
Print.
Lauritzen, Georgia C. "Auminum." Utah State University Cooperative Extension. Utah State
University, 26 Feb. 2009. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
<http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/FN_226.pdf>.
Nave, R. "Thermal Expansion." Thermal Expansion. Georgia State University, 15 Oct. 2001.
Web. 02 Apr. 2013. <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thexp.html>.
RUSAL, UC. "How Is It Produced?" All about Aluminium. RUSAL, 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 20
Mar. 2013. <http://www.aluminiumleader.com/en/facts/extraction/>.
Shakhashiri, Gassam. "Chemical of the Week." General Chemistry. Scifun.org, 9 Sept.
2008. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/aluminum.pdf>.
Wyma, B. "Aluminum." Industrial & Engineering Chemistry 57.8 (1965): 85-88.
ALUMINUM. ACS Publications, 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50668a012>.