Specific Heat and How Intensive Properties Are Used to Identify Tungsten Metal

Rods

Collin Gregersen - Hailey Jasin - Max Wettstein

Macomb Math Science Technology Center

Chemistry 10C

Mrs. Dewey, Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. May

May 21, 2019

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 1
Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 1

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

Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………..5

Experimental Design…………………………………………………………………...6

Data and Observations………………………………………………………………....8

Data Analysis and Interpretation……………………………………………………..13

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………14

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………..22

Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………..25

Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………..30
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 2

Introduction

Metal is almost everywhere, from the utensils used to eat, to the metal used to

make airplanes, railroads and space crafts. Many people don’t know how much specific

heat not only affects how people discover metals and identify them, but also how it can

be used in daily life. From items as small as tools in a toolbox to as big as skyscrapers,

specific heat is very useful in making life better and safer. Specific heat has to be taken

into account for many very common household products, such as pots and pans; larger

than life buildings, for better insulation; appliances, to keep them from overheating, and

many other examples. The purpose of this experiment is to identify the metal of an

unknown metal rod, given a known tungsten metal rod, which has a known specific heat

for tungsten, which is ​0.1340 joules per grams per degrees celsius ​. This was

accomplished by using data collected from the calorimeters used in the experiment to

calculate the specific heat of both metals and comparing their specific heat by using

percent error.

This research can be used in the real world as a guide to identifying unknown

metals found around the world, or to produce better products that are more heat and cold

resistant. Handmade calorimeters were used with water to see how much of a change the

heated metals would undergo when subjected to room temperature water. It was hoped

that this could give the answer as to whether or not the two metals were the same, and if

the data aligned with the true answer, suggesting that it is a viable way of identifying
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 3
metals. Specific heat is used by scientists, to identify unknown metals and find a change

in heat. It is used in the industry to test the safety of metal products, like the examples

stated earlier. Specific heat is used in manufacturing to heat things up, and it’s used in the

world for the change in air temperature near water.

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 4
Review of Literature

Specific heat, recorded in joules per grams celsius, is the heat required to raise the

temperature of a given amount of a substance, measured in grams, by a one degree,

measured in celsius. The heat required to increase the temperature is different for all

substances, and this is because the kinetic energy needed to vibrate certain substances is

different depending on the bonds it needs to break in order to heat up. An example of this

is how water needs more energy to break the hydrogen bonds formed to vibrate and have

kinetic energy. Comparing this to metal that has atoms that are close together that

transfers heat easily from conduction from one atom to the other atoms. The type of

properties that are used in specific heat are physical properties, or properties that can be

observed or measured without changing the composition of matter, and the intensive

property, which means that the specific heat does not depend on the system size or the

amount of material in the system. Specific heat is a great way to figure out what

substance something is, because every substance has a different specific heat.

The formula that is used to find the specific heat, is specific heat, c, equals joules,

Q, divided by grams, g, times a change in temperature, ΔT .

c = Q/(m × ΔT )

Figure 1, located in appendix B, is a sample calculation to figure out the specific

heat of a substance and to identify what substance it is. This way of using specific heat is

really helpful for identifying a substance.

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 5
The known material in this experiment is tungsten, with a density of 19.3 g/cm​3​,

and specific heat of 0.133 J/g*c. These values closely relate to the properties of tungsten,

because tungsten is the metal with the highest melting point, meaning it would have a low

specific heat and high density. To show the opposite, hydrogen has the highest specific

heat at 14.3 J/g*c and lowest density of 0.0000899 g/cm​3​. From this it seems like specific

heat and density are opposite, but they are independent of each other. This is proved

better with lead having a specific heat of 0.159 J/g*c and a density of 11.3 g/cm​3​. This

metal shows better that one value can change and one can be similar, especially if they

are on the same period in the periodic table.

One experiment made by Davis, Mike, can be done. It consists of massing out

metal and putting it in a vial, put the vial in a beaker of boiling water, add water to a cup,

add metal to the cup and record data though a thermometer. Another experiment by

Ninja, GCSE Physics, is started by measuring out mass, measuring temperature before

and after, calculate the thermal energy, and the specific heat. For this experiment there

would be a metal with two holes, put an electrical heater in the metal, with a thermometer

as well. These experiment types are applicable to research, because these experiments are

trying to find specific heat, in order to find out what specific type of metal a metal is.

These would be a good choice for an experimental design, because they find the mass,

change in temperature, and energy, all things that would be used to solve for specific

heat, in one experiment.

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 6
Problem Statement, Hypothesis, and Data Measured

Problem Statement:

Using the intensive property of specific heat, the unknown metal rod will be

identified as tungsten.

Hypothesis:

The unknown metal rod will be identified as tungsten within a 0.75% error.

Data Measured:

The dependent variable of the specific heat will be measured in ​Joules per gram

degree Celsius of the metal (J/g °C), where the temperature change of the unknown metal

is measured in degrees Celsius. The independent variables in this experiment consist of

the specific heat of the water (4.184J) being used and the mass in grams of both the metal

rod and the water. The dependent variable in this experiment is the temperature (℃)

change in the unidentified metal and the water. The unknown that is supposed to be found

in this experiment is the specific heat of the unknown metal.

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 7
Experimental Design

Materials:
(2) Calorimeters (Appendix A)
(2) Unknown Metal Rods (124 x 3 mm)
(2) Tungsten Metal Rod (124 x 3 mm)
Ohaus Ga200 Scale (0.0001 g precision)
Corning PC-35 Hot Plate
Digital Thermometer (0.1​º​C)
(2) 100 ml Graduated Cylinder
Vernier LabQuest
(2) Vernier Temperature Probe (0.1​º​C)
Tongs
Metal Loaf Pan (197 x 95 mm)

Procedures:
1. Randomize trials in order of which metal rod (A or B) in which calorimeter.

2. Before each trial, calibrate the scale that will be used and measure the mass of the
metal rods to record in the data table.

3. Measure out 150 mL of water in the metal loaf pan and bring to 95​º​C to 100​º​C.

4. To prepare LabQuest, turn it on, go to the graph insert a USB to collect data to put in a
data table later.

5. To record the data needed (initial temperature and temperature equilibrium) set the
LabQuest to record.

6. Fill the calorimeters (See Appendix A) with 45 mL of water at room temperature.

7. Check the temperature of the water before placing the metals in for three minutes,
ensuring that the temperature of the water is around 95 to 100 degrees celsius.

8. Check the temperature of the water surrounding the metals in the metal loaf pan hasn’t
changed from when the metals were placed in the water, if it has, record observations,
as it may affect the percent error of that trial.

9. Place the chosen heated metal rod into the chosen calorimeter with the tongs capping it
along with inserting the Vernier LabQuest temperature probe.

10. Use the Vernier LabQuest temperature probe to measure the starting and equilibrium
temperature of the water and record data.

11. After measuring the equilibrium temperature, take the metal rod out of the
calorimeter and randomly choose a different metal rod to repeat the process.
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 8

12. Repeat process until finished with all pre-trials/trials.

Diagrams:

Figure 1. Materials

Figure 1, above, shows all materials except the unknown metal rods and Ohaus

Ga200 Scale. The scale was too dangerous to move from the positioned area, without

damaging the scale, and the unknown metal rods were left out to reduce the chance of

confusion by switching the rods.

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 9
Data and Observations
Data:
Table 1
Tungsten Data Tables
Change in Temp. Specific
Initial Temp. (ºC) Equilibrium (ºC) Mass (g) Heat
Trial Water Metal Temp. (ºC) Water Metal Metal Water (J/g x ºC)
1 22.0 96.4 25.6 3.6 70.8 75.9036 45 0.1261
2 21.5 96.4 25.4 3.9 71.0 75.8944 45 0.1363
3 21.3 97.5 25.0 3.7 72.5 75.9033 45 0.1266
4 20.6 97.5 24.5 3.9 73.0 75.8936 45 0.1325
5 20.5 97.3 23.6 3.1 73.7 75.9033 45 0.1043
6 20.5 97.3 24.5 4.0 72.8 75.8940 45 0.1363
13 22.2 98.3 26.0 3.8 72.3 75.9550 45 0.1303
14 22.6 98.3 26.1 3.5 72.2 75.9471 45 0.1202
15 22.5 98.8 26.2 3.7 72.6 75.9028 45 0.1264
16 22.3 98.8 25.2 2.9 73.6 75.8938 45 0.0978
17 21.9 97.8 25.4 3.5 72.4 75.9065 45 0.1199
18 22.1 97.8 25.5 3.4 72.3 75.8990 45 0.1167
25 23.6 80.1 25.5 1.9 54.6 75.9028 45 0.0863
26 23.4 80.1 25.7 2.3 54.4 75.8930 45 0.1049
27 22.3 87.8 25.1 2.8 62.7 75.9029 45 0.1108
Averages 22.0 94.7 25.3 3.3 69.4 75.9063 45 0.1184
Table 1, above, shows the data was recorded and how to calculate it. Each trial

was group based on the days trials were held. The rods were randomized and switched to

ensure each metal did not go to the same calorimeter each trial. The initial temperature of

the water in the calorimeter and the metal in the pan heating up was recorded. The change

in temperature of the water is found by subtracting the initial temperature of the water

from the equilibrium temperature of the water. The change in temperature of the metal is
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 10
found in the opposite way, subtracting the equilibrium temperature of the metal from the

initial temperature of the water. Next, find the mass of the metal rod and record it, and the

water is always the same. The specific heat is found by multiplying specific heat of water

times the mass and change in temperature of water, divided by the metal rod mass times

the change in temperature.​ For the percent error, have specific heat minus tungsten

specific heat divided by the tungsten specific heat times 100. For initial temperature,

equilibrium temperature, change in temperature, mass, specific heat, and the percent

error, there is a basic average equation used.

Table 2
Unknown Metal Data Tables
Change in Temp.
Initial Temp. (ºC) Equilibrium (ºC) Mass (g)Specific Heat
Trial Water Metal Temp. (ºC) Water Metal Metal Water (J/g x ºC)
7 21.5 96.1 25.4 3.9 70.7 79.0074 45 0.1315
8 20.6 96.1 24.3 3.7 71.8 77.9493 45 0.1245
9 21.7 96.8 25.6 3.9 71.2 79.0063 45 0.1305
10 21.3 96.8 24.8 3.5 72.0 77.9484 45 0.1174
11 20.5 96.5 24.1 3.6 72.4 79.0069 45 0.1185
12 21.4 96.5 25.2 3.8 71.3 78.0045 45 0.1286
19 21.5 97.8 24.4 2.9 73.4 79.0077 45 0.0942
20 22.0 97.8 25.5 3.5 72.3 77.9495 45 0.1169
21 21.1 97.4 24.7 3.6 72.7 79.0083 45 0.1180
22 22.0 97.4 25.1 3.1 72.3 77.9491 45 0.1036
23 21.1 95.5 24.4 3.3 71.1 79.0067 45 0.1106
24 21.2 95.5 24.4 3.2 71.1 77.9485 45 0.1087
28 22.5 85.3 25.6 3.1 59.7 79.0068 45 0.1237
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 11
29 22.1 85.3 25.6 3.5 59.7 77.9487 45 0.1416
Change in Temp.
Initial Temp. (ºC) Equilibrium (ºC) Mass (g) Specific Heat
Trial Water Metal Temp. (ºC) Water Metal Metal Water (J/g x ºC)
30 22.5 83.0 25.3 2.8 57.7 79.0077 45 0.1156
Averages 21.5 94.3 25.0 3.4 69.3 78.5171 45 0.1189
Table 2, above, shows the way the data recorded and how to calculate it. Each

trial was group based on the days trials were held. The rods were randomized and

switched to ensure each metal did not go to the same calorimeter each trial. The initial

temperature of the water in the calorimeter and the metal in the pan heating up was

recorded. The equilibrium temperature was recorded from the readings on the Logger Pro

software. The change in temperature of the water is found by subtracting the initial

temperature of the water from the equilibrium temperature of the water. The change in

temperature of the metal is found in the opposite way, subtracting the equilibrium

temperature of the metal from the initial temperature of the water. Next, find the mass of

the metal rod and record it, and the water is always the same. The specific heat is found

by multiplying specific heat of water times the mass and change in temperature of water,

divided by the metal rod mass times the change in temperature.​ For the percent error, take

the specific heat minus tungsten specific heat divided by the tungsten specific heat times

100. For initial temperature, equilibrium temperature, change in temperature, mass,

specific heat, and the percent error, there is a basic average equation used.
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 12

Observations:
Table 3
Tungsten Observations
Tungsten Observations
Trial Rod Calorimeter Observation
1 A 1 7 seconds without cap, 5 second transfer
2 B 2 5 second transfer
3 A 2 3 second transfer
4 B 1 4 second transfer
5 A 1 3 second transfer
6 B 2 3 second transfer
13 A 2 Unusually high initial temperature of water, 2 second transfer
Unusually high initial temperature of water, metal was put in before
14 B 1 it was supposed to, cap left open 5 seconds, 2 second transfer
15 A 1 Unusually high initial temperature of water, 2 second transfer
16 B 2 Unusually high initial temperature of water, 2 second transfer
17 A 2 A little water was lost during transfer, 6 second transfer
18 B 1 4 second transfer
First trial of the day, initial water temp unusually high, different hot
25 A 1 plate was used, temp of water to heat metal was unusually low
First trial of the day, initial water temp unusually high, different hot
26 B 2 plate was used, temp of water to heat metal was unusually low
27 A 2 7 second transfer, calorimeter left open for 5 second
Table 3, above, shows the observation taken of the known metal, tungsten, this is

used to show why certain trials would have yielded their data. For example, the trials

where the transfer was longer would have been cooler while inside the calorimeter
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 13
because they would have time to lose heat in the open air. Some trials did have some

unusual observations though, like unusually high water temperature.

Table 4
Unknown Metal Observations
Unknown Metal Observations
Trial Rod Calorimeter Observation
7 A 2 3 second transfer
8 B 1 3 second transfer
9 A 1 3 second transfer
10 B 2 3 second transfer
11 A 2 7 second transfer
12 B 1 5 second transfer, was knocked over before testing
19 A 1 2 second transfer
20 B 2 2 second transfer
21 A 2 4 second transfer
22 B 1 4 second transfer
23 A 1 3 second transfer
24 B 2 5 second transfer
28 A 2 6 second transfer, cap was left off for 5 second
29 B 1 6 second transfer, cap was left off for 5 second
30 A 1 3 second transfer, some water was lost with transfer
Table 4, above, shows the observations for the unknown metal trials. Each trial

shows how long the metal rod was exposed to outside air, but some trials the calorimeter
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 14
was either knocked over before testing without water loss, the cap was left off for a brief

time, or little amounts of water was lost.

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 15
Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data Analysis:
Percent error is a great way to check if the data collected during testing was

properly executed, to get good results. Percent error takes the experimental value (ev),

specific heat in this case with sample calculations in figure 1 of appendix B, subtract the

true value (tv), specific heat of tungsten in this case, divided by the true value, and

multiplies it by 100 to convert a decimal to a percent.

P ercent error = ((ev − tv)/tv) * 100

Figure 2, located in appendix A, is a sample calculation to figure out the percent

error of an unknown metal and to identify how similar it is to tungsten. The calculation

shows that the unknown metal is very similar to tungsten. This way of using percent error

is really helpful for confirming a metal is the same metal given.

Table 5
Tungsten Metal Rods Percent Error
Trial Percent Error
1 -5.167
2 2.459
3 -4.818
4 -0.347
5 -21.551
6 2.488
13 -2.042
14 -9.641
15 -4.948
16 -26.504
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 16
Trial Percent Error
17 -9.842
18 -12.288
23 -35.098
24 -21.136
25 -16.712
Averages -11.010
Table 5, above shows all of the percent error, for the tungsten metal rods. The

percent error was calculated from the data collected in the trials, for specific heat. How

the percent error works is, the higher the percent error, the bigger the flaw testing.

Table 6
Unknown Metal Rods Percent Error
Trial Percent Error
7 -1.161
8 -6.413
9 -1.853
10 -11.716
11 -10.905
12 -3.278
17 -29.208
18 -12.084
19 -11.275
20 -22.131
26 -16.836
27 -18.262
28 -6.959
29 6.472
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 17
Trial Percent Error
30 -13.051
Averages -10.577
Table 6, above shows all of the percent error, for the unknown metal rods. The

percent error was calculated from the data collected in the trials, for specific heat. How

the percent error works is, the higher the percent error, the bigger the flaw testing.

The formula that is for the two sample t-test, is the sample mean of tungsten, x 1 ,

minus the sample mean of the unknown metal, x 2 , minus the population mean of

tungsten , μ 1 , minus the population mean of the unknown metal, μ 1 , over the square

root of the standard deviation of tungsten squared, s1 2 , over the number of terms, n1 ,

plus the standard deviation of the unknown metal squared, s2 2 , over the number of

terms, n2 .

(x 1 −x 2 )−(μ 1 −μ 2 )
t=
√
s1 2 s2 2
n1 + n2

Figure 3, located in appendix A, is a sample calculation to figure out the t-value

of an unknown metal and to identify how similar it is to tungsten.

The statistical test that was used in this experiment is a two-sample T-test. This

test allows the test of both the known metal and the unknown metal. It works for this kind

of experiment because there are two different groups, both with different dimensions and

data. The conditions that needed to be met were met, there were a total of 30 trials were
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 18
conducted, and the trials were each decided by a randomized program on a calculator.

This satisfies the large numbers theorem, and the randomization rule.

Null Hypothesis- H n = μ 1 = μ 2

Alternate Hypothesis- H α = μ1 =/ μ2

Figure 4. Null and Alternative Hypothesis

Figure 4, as shown above, is the Null and Alternative Hypothesis used to

determine the conclusion, in the conclusion section of the paper.

When finding the P-Value of the test, it helps to have one-variable statistics to

find the averages and standard deviation for both groups. The tables below show the

one-variable statistics for both groups.

Table 7
One-Variable Statistics for Tungsten Metal
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 19
Table 7, above, shows the basic statistics of the tungsten metal rods like the

average of the sample, number of terms, and standard deviation. This data is then used to

calculate the p-value and t-value.

Table 8
One-Variable Statistics for the Unknown Metal Rods

Table 8, as shown above, describes the statistics of the unknown metal rods, using

sample mean, standard deviation, and the number of terms, all of which were used to find

the p-value and t-value.

Interpretation:

The T-value found, which is -0.1171, means that there is a very small chance of

error in the calculations. This means that the found value of specific heat is with the

limits set by the hypothesis. Using that, it can be interpreted with 95% certainty, the
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 20
known and unknown metals are within 0.8159 to 0.8186 degrees of freedom. This can be

used to fail to reject the hypothesis of the unknown metal is tungsten within a .75% error.
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 21
Conclusion

The objective of the study was to find the percent error of the specific heat of an

unknown metal rod, in order to determine whether or not the unknown metal rod is made

of the same metal as a tungsten metal rod, by comparing the percent error of the specific

heat of both rods.

The hypothesis of the unknown metal rod being identified as tungsten within a

0.75% error was failed to be rejected, so it was accepted. This was because the difference

in the percent error was less than 0.75% error, being a ​0.433​% error.

The data gives the information that supports the hypothesis, being that the metal

rods had a percent error of -11.010% for the tungsten rod, and a -10.577% error for the

unknown metal rod. This gives a 0.433% error difference, which is less than the

maximum 0.75% difference stated in the hypothesis. This value was calculated to be the

maximum difference possible for the percent error, in order for the metal to still be

tungsten.

The use of handmade calorimeters would negatively impact the data in that the

metals and water could lose heat to outside of the calorimeter and could be built

differently than the other, or if the calorimeters were still hot inside and, not cooled off.

Something that could’ve also negatively impacted the research was human error, through

the transfer of metals to the water, and gathering unneeded or inaccurate data depending

on who was collecting data. Another error that could have skewed the results, was the

temperature of the room, heating up the water while in the calorimeter, and being
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 22
different each day. One last thing was how the metals were exposed to room temperature

air during transfer, which could have cooled the metal before it was enclosed in the

calorimeter. What would benefit the consistency of the data is that the metals were

always massed before each trial. Another thing is that a consistent transfer time was used

(five seconds between) in every trial. One last positive is that the temperature probes used

were always tested in room temperature water to insure accuracy, and the temperature of

the water in the calorimeter was always taken before every trial to insure that the

temperature of the water was always in a 19-21 degrees celsius range, the common room

temperature of water.

The results agree with the current research that is being conducted by others

referenced in the review of literature shown above. Those researching this topic used

much more advanced calorimeters and other products, but still reached the overall

conclusion that using calorimeters is an accurate way to identify the specific heat and the

identity of metals.

A few problems that occurred were the water being too high or too low of a

temperature, spilling water, taking too much or too little time between transfers. Other

ways to identify the unknown metal could have been done. These could be many things,

as in density, linear thermal expansion, and physical properties, like color. This research

can be used to model identifying unknown materials in the field, or even space metals.

Mistakes that were made were not planning in case of someone not being able to

help during the trials, or any other time during researching, and what would happen if
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 23
someone were to miss trials. If there was planning for that, it would've put less stress and

confusion on those who were there. If this experiment was repeated, it would be easier to

plan around extracurricular activities and follow plans more accurately instead of falling

behind.

If this experiment were to continue, it would be best to introduce a different

known and unknown that are different but have very similar characteristics and specific

heats. This could prove that the handmade calorimeters work and the method of

collecting data was accurate. It could be done using linear thermal expansion, using the

same metals, and figuring out how linear thermal expansion works. Others could use the

information to identify tungsten while trying to identify unknown metals similar to it.
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 24
Appendix A: Calorimeters

Materials:

(4) 0.75” PVC Pipe Cap PVC Primer

(2) 1.25” PVC Coupler PVC Cement
0.75” PVC Pipe (12” long) 12” Cell Foam

Procedures:

1. Cut foot long PVC pipe in half.

2. Sand the top and bottom of the PVC pipe to make the caps fit easily.

3. Drill a hole with 0.25” diameter through two of the PVC pipe caps.

4. Coat the bottom of the PVC pipe and the inside of the undrilled cap with primer and
wait 10 seconds before adding the cement coating, push the PVC together, and wait
for them to dry.

5. Apply primer and cement to the outside of the cap and the inside of the coupler,
combine, and wait till dry.

6. Cut foot long cell foam in half and to fit around the now calorimeter.

7. Repeat for both calorimeters

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 25

Figure 9. Calorimeters

Figure 9, above, is the two calorimeters used during the experiments that were

used to write the paper. One thing to note is that it didn’t have a very stable base, which

led to some spills, which may have affected data.

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 26

Figure 10. PVC Pipe

Figure 10, above, shows the foot long .75 inch pvc pipe, that acts like the body of

the calorimeter. This part was attached to both caps, one on each side.

Figure 11. PVC Pipe Cap

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 27
Figure 11, above, shows the .75 inch cap attached to the pvc pipe, in order to stop

leaks and keep heat in.

Figure 12. PVC Pipe Cap with hole

Figure 12, above, shows the .75 inch cap attached to the pvc pipe, but it has a hole

in it, in order to put the temperature probe through the cap, into the calorimeter.

Figure 13. PVC Coupler

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 28
Figure 13, above, shows the one inch pvc coupler, that connects to the pvc pipe

cap, in order to hold the calorimeter still.

Figure 14. PVC Calorimeter

Figure 14, above, shows the pvc calorimeter in all, which is a foot long pvc pipe

connected to two .75 inch caps, where one cap is connected to a coupler for stability. This

is the main component for this experiment, to keep water and heat in a closed system.
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 29
Appendix B: Sample Calculations

The formula that is used to find the metals specific heat, is specific heat, c, equals

the specific heat of water, wc, multiplied by the waters mass in grams, wm, times a

change in water temperature in celsius, ΔwT , divided by the metal rods mass in grams,

m, times the change in metal temperature in celsius, ΔT .

wc•wm•ΔwT
c= m•ΔT

Figure 15, shows the sample calculation on how to find the specific heat of a

metal rod to identify it.

wc•wm•ΔwT
c= m•ΔT

4.184(J)•45(g)•3.9(c)
c= 75.8936(g)•73(c)

J
c = .133 g
•c

Figure 15. Specific Heat of a Random Metal

Figure 15, above, shows the formula and a sample calculation for the specific heat

of a metal. This calculation shows the specific heat, mass, and change in temperature for

water, over the mass and change in temperature for a metal, in order to find the specific

heat. After the calculation, if the specific heat of the substance is then looked up, this

random metal would be identified, as tungsten.

Percent error is a great way to check if the data collected during testing was

properly executed, to get good results. Percent error takes the experimental value (ev),
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 30
specific heat in this case, subtracts the true value (tv), specific heat of tungsten in this

case, divided by the true value, and multiplies it by 100 to convert a decimal to a percent.
ev−tv
P ercent error = ev
• 100

Figure 16, shows the sample calculation on how to find the percent error of a

metal rod to identify how properly executed the testing was.

ev−tv
P ercent error = ev
• 100

0.136−0.133
P ercent error = 0.133
( Jg • c) • 100

P ercent error = 2.459 %

Figure 16. Percent Error of a Tungsten Metal Rod

Figure 7, above, shows the formula and a sample calculation for the percent error

of a tungsten metal rod. This calculation shows the experimental value, being subtracted

by the true value, divided by the true value, and multiplied by 100 to convert to a percent,

in order to find the percent error. After the calculation, the percent error is shown to be

low enough, that shows that the experiment was run smooth, and with a small error

margin.

The formula that is for the two sample t-test, is the sample mean of tungsten, x 1 ,

minus the sample mean of the unknown metal, x 2 , minus the population mean of

tungsten , μ 1 , minus the population mean of the unknown metal, μ 1 , over the square

root of the standard deviation of tungsten squared, s1 2 , over the number of terms, n1 ,
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 31
plus the standard deviation of the unknown metal squared, s2 2 , over the number of

terms, n2 .

(x 1 −x 2 )−(μ 1 −μ 2 )
t=
√
s1 2 s2 2
n1 + n2

Figure 17, shows the sample calculation on how to find the two sample t-test.
(x 1 −x 2 )−(μ 1 −μ 2 )
t=
√
s1 2 s2 2
n1 + n2

(−11.0098−(−)10.5773)−(0)
t= 11.1429 2 + 8.9772 2
√ 15 15

t = -0.1171 standard deviations

Figure 17. Two Sample t-Test

Figure 17, above, shows the formula and a sample calculation for the two sample

t-test of a metal. This calculation shows the result of the means of the percent error.
 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 32
Works Cited

Chang, Raymond. ​Chemistry​. McGrawHill Higher Education, 2007.

Davis, Mike, director. ​Specific Heat of Metals Lab.​ ​YouTube​, YouTube, 10 Sept. 2015,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKSql42xg_I.

Desorbo, Warren. “Low Temperature Heat Capacity of Bismuth and Tungsten.” ​Google

Docs​,

Google, 1960,

docs.google.com/document/d/1RNh_azgSEv1lc2Y45qfn0c4tiS2ipUyJxyOR5Oh

WtVM/edit.

Jones, H. “The Specific Heat of Metals and Alloys at Low Temperatures.” ​Proceedings

of the

Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences​, vol. 240,

no. 1222, 1957, pp. 321–332. ​JSTOR​, www.jstor.org/stable/100135.

Narasimhamurty, H. “Relation Between Specific Heat and Total Emittance in Tantalum,

Niobium, Tungsten, and Molybdenum.” ​Google Docs,​ Google, 1960,

docs.google.com/document/d/1vM3eNvy3IgjZzMkV_a74yH4UELvlXTiOIuFcjlI

s0cw/edit?usp=sharing.

Ninja, GCSE Physics, director. ​Specific Heat Capacity Experiment - Thermal Physics

Tutorial​.

YouTube​, YouTube, 18 Nov. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwRfg7JHJMk.

 Gregersen - Jasin - Wettstein 33
Parlin, W. A. “SPECIFIC HEAT MEASUREMENTS FOR THE LABORATORY.”

Proceedings

of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science,​ vol. 14, 1940, pp. 129–133. ​JSTOR​,

www.jstor.org/stable/44109099.

Trowbridge, C. C. “The Specific Heat of Metals at Low Temperatures.” ​Science​, vol. 8,

no. 183,

1 July 1898, pp. 6–11. ​JSTOR​,

www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1627261?refreqid=search-gateway:4321c78e0aa79

c9d54a4d203f835219e.

Stwertka, Albert. ​A Guide to the Elements​. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Weast, Robert C., et al. ​CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.​ CRC Press, 1984.