Senior Research 1

Alkane Chemiresistor Sensor to Detect Early On-Set Lung Cancer from the Exhaled
Breath
Kyle Cooper, Dr. Ika Malcavic, and Professor Martin Boestock
Wayne State University
21 January 2021
Cooper-Francis-Wrubel 1
Table of Contents
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................2
Background and Review of Literature............................................................................................4
Problem Statement..........................................................................................................................7
Experimental Design.......................................................................................................................8
Data and Observations...................................................................................................................10
Data Analysis and Interpretation...................................................................................................17
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................25
Works Cited...................................................................................................................................28
Appendix A....................................................................................................................................30
Appendix B....................................................................................................................................33
Introduction
Being the fifth most abundant element on Earth, nickel is used on a daily basis. Nickel is
used in coins, sink taps, shower heads, medical devices, and to make metal alloys stronger
("Facts About Nickel"). The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether or not an
unknown metal was nickel by calculating its coefficient of linear thermal expansion. Linear
thermal expansion is the expansion of a substance in raised or lowered temperatures. Each
element has a unique coefficient by which it expands by, and these coefficients are intensive;
which means that the metal rods could be tested regardless of sample size and the coefficients
would remain true to their element ("Thermal Expansion").
The linear thermal expansion coefficient was found by measuring the initial length,
temperature of the rod, and the change in temperature and length of the rod after being heated,
for both the nickel and unknown samples ("Thermal Expansion" ). This data was then used in
order to find the percent error for the nickel rod and the unknown rod. Additionally, the mean
coefficients of the nickel and unknown rods were compared using a two sample t-test. The
results of this test, alongside qualitative observations were used to determine whether the data
was significant enough for the metals to be different.
In addition, the results of this experiment can be used in order to help the engineering
world. When building structures like bridges, the expansion of the metals used must be taken
into account, due to the changing seasons. Because of this, bridges are built with expansion
joints.The expansion joints are made out of nickel and can be found in almost every bridge, most
commonly, the Golden Gate Bridge as nickel alloy joints (“Frequently Asked Questions”). The
expansions joints give the bridge the ability to slightly move when the temperature outside
changes. Nickel is most commonly used because its linear thermal expansion coefficient is just
right for most bridges. If the results of the metals are the same, this can help better understand
the expansion of nickel and how to account for it when building structures; and if the results are
indicative of the metals being different, it may bring new advantages of the unknown metal to be
used in building structures.

Background and Review of Literature
A recently performed experiment used the intensive property of density to find out the
composition of an unknown metal rod. An intensive property is a property of matter that is not
dependent on the size or mass of the sample. When the experiment was performed, the metal rod
was identified as nickel because the average density of the 30 trials performed was found to be
8.876 g/cm3. The actual density of nickel is 8.902 g/cm3 at 25°C according to Samuel
Rosenberg’s Nickel and its Alloys. Nickel was discovered in 1751 by a Swedish chemist named
Axel Fredrik Cronstedt and has an atomic number of 28, an atomic mass of 58.6934 amu, and a
melting point of 1455°C (Stwertka). The task for this experiment was to determine whether or
not another unknown metal sample was identical to nickel using the intensive property of linear
thermal expansion.
To begin, according to C.Y. Ho and R.E. Taylor’s book Thermal Expansion of Solids,
linear thermal expansion is the tendency of an object to change in length when heated at a
constant pressure. Every substance is composed of atoms, which are in constant motion
dependent on the temperature and state of matter. When temperature is decreased, the atoms in a
substance slow down, whereas when temperature is increased, the atoms in the substance move
more vigorously due to an surplus of kinetic energy. With an increase of kinetic energy comes
the tendency for the atoms within a substance to spread further apart and occupy a greater space,
causing a change in size and length which goes into determining the linear thermal expansion
coefficient (Intro to Thermal Expansion; Raposa and Reyes and Rosales Santos and Sayco).
In addition, linear thermal expansion has a formula attached to finding the overall change
in length of an object after being heated. Using the formula below, the intensive property of
linear coefficient was found. Because the linear coefficient is an intensive property, it could be
used to find the composition of the unknown metal. The formula used to find the change in
length in the rod and the linear coefficient consists of the original length of the rod in mm,
change in temperature of the rod in oC or K, and α, the thermal expansion coefficient, in °C-1 .
The temperature of the metal rod should be in equilibrium with the temperature of the room
when measuring for initial length and should be in equilibrium with the boiling water while
measuring for end length (Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Metals and Alloys). The
change in length, according to Robert Weast’s Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, is defined as
the equation below.
∆𝐿 = 𝐿1 * α * (𝑇𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙)
The thermal expansion coefficient is an intensive property that is indicative of how much
an element expands, based on the change in temperature. The linear thermal expansion of objects
is directly proportional to temperature change. When solving the equation, the variable being
found was the linear thermal expansion coefficient would be found and compared to the thermal
−6
10 𝑚
expansion coefficient of nickel, which had a value of 13.3 𝑚 𝑥 ◦𝐶
(Linear Thermal Expansion).
This experiment has been done in previous years by researchers Mohammed Kibria and
Junior Vang. The researchers were required to identify Nickel, and then identify a second metal
through linear thermal expansion and specific heat. The experimenters found that the unknown
metal was not Nickel. The difference between this experiment and the current was that this
experiment will not identify the metals through specific heat. In addition, the second metal given
could differ from that given to Kibria and Vang. Despite these differences, the rest of the
experiment was used to act as a base for the current experiment (Kibria).
Similarly, an experiment was also done by Tricia Desierto, Luis Diaz, Karhen Estella,
Gabrielle Beatrix Francisco in which these students were asked to find the effects of heat on a
metal rod. The experimenters used many different tests, one of which included linear thermal
expansion. The experimenters found that the metal rods can expand on angles. The
experimenters kept their rod in the contraption while it was being heated, which did not account
for the angled expansion and left the data biased (Desierto). This mistake was taken into account
during the experimental design process for this experiment, as the metal rods will not be placed
into the machine that measures length until they are fully expanded.
Using this information, a new set of procedures can be developed. In order to create an
experiment to determine the different linear thermal expansion coefficients, or alpha values, of
the two metals, a randomized set of trials must be conducted. In these trials, the length of the rod
and temperature of the boiling water would need to be recorded before placing the rod into a
metal loaf pan. The rod would then be timed until it is taken out and immediately placed into the
jig with the dial indicator attached, in order to measure the change in length. These values would
then be placed into the linear thermal expansion equation in order to determine the alpha value
for both the known and unknown metal rods. Once all trials are run, the average alpha values for
the nickel and unknown metal rods can be calculated and compared in order to conduct a t-test of
significance to determine whether or not the two metals are the same.
Problem Statement
Problem Statement:
Determine if the linear thermal expansion coefficient of an unknown metal is the same as
the linear thermal expansion coefficient of nickel.
Hypothesis:
Using a percentage error of 2.31% along with analyzing the intensive property of linear
thermal expansion, the composition of the unknown metal rod can be determined to be nickel or
not.
Data Measured:
The data measured within this experiment was the length of the metal rod in millimeters
and the temperature in degrees Celsius which were the independent variables. The temperature of
the rod is assumed to be in equilibrium with the 98-102oC water. The dependent variables are the
−6
10 𝑚
values of the thermal expansion coefficient in 𝑚 𝑥 ◦𝐶
, and the change in length in millimeters.
Percent error and a two sample t-test will be used to determine whether or not the unknown
metal is nickel.
Experimental Design
Materials:
Caliper (0.01 mm Precision) Linear Thermal Expansion Jig

Digital Thermometer (0.01ºC Precision) Tongs
10 mL Graduated Cylinder Hot Plate
100 mL Graduated Cylinder TI-Nspire Randomization Function
Loaf Pan (135 mm x 70 mm) (2) Unknown Metal Rod (129.19 mm x 6.32
Pittsburgh Dial Indicator (0.01 mm mm)
Precision) (2) Nickel Rod (129.48 mm x 6.28 mm)
Procedures:
1. Use the TI-Nspire randomization function with random numbers one and two to represent
the nickel rod and the unknown metal rod, respectively. Record which rod will be tested
for each trial.
2. Use a zeroed caliper to measure and record the length of the metal rod.
3. Use a 100 mL graduated cylinder and add 120 mL of water into the metal loaf pan and
place it on the hot plate set on the high setting.
4. Heat the water until it has risen to 98-102oC.
5. Place the metal rod into the pan and after 4 minutes, record the temperature of the water,
assuming the metal rod is in equilibrium with the boiling water.
6. Use the tongs to remove the metal rod from the metal loaf pan and immediately place the
rod on the linear thermal expansion jig (see Appendix A) with an ice pack placed
underneath to speed up the cooling process.
7. After 3 minutes, record the change in length.
8. Using the data recorded in steps 1-7, calculate the alpha level and percent error (see
Appendix B).
9. Refill loaf pan so that waterline is approximately where it was when filled with 120 mL
of water
10. Repeat steps 2-8 until all 15 randomized trials are completed for both the nickel and
unknown rods.
Diagrams:
Figure 1. Experimental Setup and Materials Cooper (2019)
Figure 1 above shows the metal rods and equipment used to complete the experiment. To
measure the amount of water to be put into the metal loaf pan, the graduated cylinders will be
used. The caliper will be used to measure the initial length of the rod. The hot plate will be used
to heat the water in the metal loaf pan to a temperature of 98-102oC. Afterward, the metal rod
will be placed into the water for 4 minutes until finally the tongs are used to take the metal rod
out and place it into the linear thermal expansion jig which will be lying on top of the ice pack.
The dial indicator will then be used to measure the change in length. Once the trial is over, the
hot mitt will be used to pour the water out.

Data and Observations
Data:
Once all of the trials were conducted, the factors of the initial length, change in length,
and change in temperature were used to find the linear thermal expansion coefficient.
Table 1
Experimental Data for Nickel Rods
Initial
Δ Length Δ Temp. Coefficient
Trial Rod Length 1
(mm) (°C) (°C-1 x 10-6)
(mm)
1 A 129.38 -0.12 -74.70 12.416337
2 B 129.38 -0.11 -75.30 11.290952
4 A 129.44 -0.09 -74.40 9.345468
8 B 129.55 -0.12 -74.60 12.416666
9 B 129.48 -0.12 -74.30 12.473541
11 A 129.35 -0.09 -74.10 9.389833
12 A 129.37 -0.12 -73.60 12.602882
13 B 129.36 -0.12 -74.00 12.535727
16 B 129.41 -0.11 -76.50 11.111263
18 A 129.32 -0.12 -76.80 12.082431
21 B 129.40 -0.11 -75.30 11.289207
23 A 129.33 -0.10 -76.50 10.107396
26 A 129.38 -0.11 -77.20 11.013066
27 B 129.42 -0.12 -75.90 12.216255
29 A 129.33 -0.10 -76.10 10.160523
31 B 129.43 -0.10 -75.00 10.301579
32 A 129.23 -0.11 -74.80 11.379620
33 B 129.29 -0.09 -76.00 9.159336
34 A 129.37 -0.11 -75.70 11.232159
35 B 129.25 -0.11 -76.20 11.168817
Initial
Δ Length Δ Temp. Coefficient
Trial Rod Length 1
(mm) (°C) (°C-1 x 10-6)
(mm)
36 A 129.45 -0.11 -75.50 11.254953
41 B 129.32 -0.11 -74.80 11.371700
42 A 129.41 -0.13 -74.90 13.412005
Average 129.38 -0.11 -75.31 11.292683
Table 1 shows the experimental data for the nickel rods. The table shows the trial number
and which rod was being used. Additionally, the initial dial reading, the final dial readings, the
change of length, and the change of temperature were recorded and then used later on to find the
coefficient. The coefficient was found by dividing the change of length over the original length
6
and change in temperature. The coefficient is multiplied by10 because the coefficient for linear
−6
thermal is so small. To find the actual coefficient, the found answer must be multiplied by 10 .
Table 2
Experimental Data for Unknown Rods
Initial
Length 1 Δ Length Δ Temp. Coefficient
Trial Rod (mm) (mm) (°C) (°C-1 x 10-6)
3 A 129.62 -0.12 -74.60 12.409961
5 B 129.22 -0.11 -74.40 11.441686
6 A 129.56 -0.13 -74.20 13.522859
7 B 129.26 -0.11 -74.60 11.407480
10 A 129.19 -0.09 -73.90 9.426906
14 B 129.66 -0.11 -73.60 11.526803
15 A 129.17 -0.11 -73.70 11.554829
17 B 129.63 -0.08 -73.50 8.396477
19 B 129.60 -0.11 -73.10 11.611018
20 A 129.23 -0.13 -75.90 13.253733
Trial Rod Initial Δ Length Δ Temp. Coefficient
Length 1 (mm) (°C) (°C-1 x 10-6)

(mm)
22 B 129.50 -0.11 -76.50 11.103541
24 A 129.09 -0.14 -75.50 14.364433
25 A 129.24 -0.12 -75.90 12.233269
28 B 129.55 -0.12 -75.50 12.268653
30 A 129.17 -0.11 -75.00 11.354546
37 B 129.10 -0.10 -75.70 10.232409
38 A 129.63 -0.12 -75.50 12.261081
39 B 129.12 -0.09 -74.70 9.331004
40 A 129.50 -0.11 -75.00 11.325611
43 B 129.42 -0.09 -74.80 9.296929
44 A 129.05 -0.12 -74.80 12.431446
45 B 129.44 -0.09 -74.40 9.345468
46 A 129.28 -0.13 -74.30 13.533907
Average 129.36 -0.11 -74.74 11.462350
Table 2 shows the experimental data for the unknown rods. The table above shows the
trial number and which of the two rods were being used. Additionally, the initial dial reading, the
final dial readings, the change of length, and the change of temperature was recorded. These
6
values were then used later on to find the coefficient. The coefficient is multiplied by10 because
the coefficient for linear thermal is so small. To find the actual coefficient, the found answer
−6
must be multiplied by 10 .
Observations:
Table 3
Observations for Nickel Rods

Trial Nickel Observations (A)
4/22 Experimenter 2 ran experiment with jig 14 and caliper 7. Water was filled to 120 mL. Room temperature was at 24.0
1 degrees celsius. Beginning water temperature was at 98.1 degrees celsius.
4/22 Experimenter 2 ran experiment with jig 14 and caliper 7. Room temperature was at 24.6 degrees celsius. Beginning
4 water temperature was at 99.5 degrees celsius.
12 water temperature was at 99.6 degrees celsius. Switched to using ice pack with groove.
13 water temperature was at 99.5 degrees celsius. Switched to ice pack without groove.
16 water temperature was at 99.5 degrees celsius. Started with 120 mL of water. Used flat ice pack.
18 water temperature was at 99.5 degrees celsius. Used ice pack with ridges.
23 water temperature was at 100.3 degrees celsius. Dial was stuck, so had to tap dial to get reading.
29 water temperature was at 99.9 degrees celsius. Rod was colder than room temperature coming out of the jig.
33 water temperature was at 99.7 degrees celsius. Water was refilled to 120 mL. Rod came into jig at an angle.
35 water temperature was at 99.7 degrees celsius. Dial was stuck, had to be tapped to go down.
Trial Nickel Observations (A)
Table 3 shows all the observations made for each trial for the nickel rods. The
observations include things like initial water temperature, initial room temperature, and any other
significant details about each trial.
Table 4
Observations for Unknown Rods
Trial Unknown Observations (B)
7 water temperature was at 99.4 degrees celsius. Rod was not immediately placed in jig, stumbled.
10 water temperature was at 99.1 degrees celsius. Rod was dropped on table before being put into jig.
20 water temperature was at 99.5 degrees celsius. Started with 120 mL of water.
22 water temperature was at 99.4 degrees celsius. Rod was dropped on jig, rolled into place.
24 water temperature was at 99.8 degrees celsius. Started with 120 mL of water.
Trial Unknown Observations (B)
44 water temperature was at 99.2 degrees celsius. Dial read lower than usual.
45 water temperature was at 99.9 degrees celsius. Rod was not fully dropped into water, had to adjust.
Table 4 shows all the observations made for each trial for the unknown rods. The
observations above include things like initial water temperature, initial room temperature, and
any other significant details about each trial.

Diagrams:
Figure 2. Images of Dial Readings
Figure 2 shows the difference between the initial dial reading and the final dial reading.
The dial reading measures the change in length for the metal rod. When the rod is heated up it
tends to be larger and as it cools it tends to shrink. This explains why the initial dial reading is
larger than the second dial reading.

Data Analysis and Interpretation
Analysis:
The data collected in this experiment is described as quantitative, or data collected using
numbers. Along with the nickel and unknown metal rods, the data for linear thermal expansion
was collected using various materials such as a caliper, a thermometer, and a linear thermal
expansion jig. The actual values for linear thermal expansion were calculated in a spreadsheet.
The data was analyzed through percent error, which is the inconsistency between a
known value and a value that was obtained through an experiment.
The percent error of the data tells how far off the experimental value is from the true
value. When there is a low percent error, there is a good chance that the experiment was run
correctly. Conversely, if the percent errors are high, then there is a good chance that there was a
flaw in the experiment.
In order to ensure that the data in this experiment is reliable, it must follow “CRR”
guidelines. The “C” stands for control, which in this experiment, was the nickel rods. The
experimenters could use the data from the nickel rod trials as a means of comparison to the
unknown metal rod trials. The first “R” stands for randomization, and all of the trials in the
experiment were randomized using the TI-Nspire randomization function. Finally, the last “R”
stands for repeatability and whether the experiment can be repeated, and in this experiment, each
trial was repeated 23 times.
.
Table 5
Percent Error for Nickel and Unknown Rods
Nickel Rods Unknown Metal Rods
Coefficient Coefficient
Trial Percent Error Trial Percent Error
(°C-1 x 10-6) (°C-1 x 10-6)
1 12.4163 6.644 3 12.4100 6.692
2 11.2910 15.106 5 11.4417 13.972
4 9.3455 29.733 6 13.5229 1.676
8 12.4167 6.642 7 11.4075 14.229
9 12.4735 6.214 10 9.4269 29.121
11 9.3898 29.4 14 11.5268 13.332
12 12.6029 5.241 15 11.5548 13.122
13 12.5357 5.746 17 8.3965 36.869
16 11.1113 16.457 19 11.6110 12.699
18 12.0824 9.155 20 13.2537 0.348
21 11.2892 15.119 22 11.1035 16.515
23 10.1074 24.005 24 14.3644 8.003
26 11.0131 17.195 25 12.2333 8.021
27 12.2163 8.148 28 12.2687 7.754
29 10.1605 23.605 30 11.3545 14.627
31 10.3016 22.545 37 10.2324 23.065
32 11.3796 14.439 38 12.2611 7.811
33 9.1593 31.133 39 9.3310 29.842
34 11.2322 15.548 40 11.3256 14.845
35 11.1688 16.024 43 9.2969 30.098
36 11.2550 15.376 44 12.4314 6.53
41 11.3717 14.498 45 9.3455 29.733
42 13.4120 0.842 46 13.5339 1.759
Average 11.2900 15.88 Average 11.4600 14.344
Table 5 shows the percent errors of all the linear thermal expansion trials of both the
nickel and unknown metal rods, respectively. The range of error for the Nickel rods was 30.291
percent, while for unknown rods it was 36.521 percent. The average percent errors are also
bolded at the bottom of the table. While both the nickel and unknown rods also had differing
percent errors, both of which having high and low percent errors, the difference between the
nickel and unknown metal rods was not large. The difference in average percent errors is
1.536%. Because of the small difference, it is harder to rely on the linear thermal expansion data,
so normality of the data must be checked.
Data with 30 or more data points can be considered “normal”. So in this experiment,
normality must be checked for the statistical test because the number of trials is less than 30.
This is done through normal probability plots and box plots; although box plots can also help
analyze spread of data.
Figure 3. Box Plot for Nickel.
The box plot for Nickel is shown above. The box plot shows that nickel has fairly
symmetrical data. It has a median value of 0.000011, and 50% of the data falls between 0.00005
and 0.000012. The box plot has a fairly tight range of 0.000004. The dashed red line shows the
published value of nickel which is 0.0000133. Overall, the box plot for nickel is fairly
symmetrical with no obvious skewness or outliers.

Figure 4. Box Plot for Unknown Metal
The box plot above is that data for the unknown metal. The box plot shows that the
unknown metal has fairly symmetrical data with obviously a larger spread of data. It has a
median value of 0.000011, and 50% of the data falls between 0.00001 and 0.000012. The box
plot has a larger range of 0.000007 when compared to the nickel box plot. The dashed red line
shows the published value of nickel which is 0.0000133. Overall, the box plot for the unknown
metal is fairly symmetrical with no obvious skewness or outliers.
Figure 5. Box Plot for Coefficients
In order to compare the data for the nickel rod and unknown rod, their data was placed on
the same axis. Both the nickel and unknown data box plots are fairly symmetrical with no
obvious skewness, which means the both sets of data are normal. As shown above, the median
for both of the box plots are 0.000011. Additionally, the unknown rod’s data is much more
spread out the the nickel rod’s data. The unknown data had a range of 0.000007, where the nickel
rod’s data had a range of 0.000004. Lastly, the actual value for the coefficient of nickel is
0.0000133 as shown by the red dashed line. As shown above, both the nickel and unknown rod’s
data has approximately the top 75% of data around the coefficient.
Figure 6. Normality Plots for the Nickel and Unknown Metal Rods
To test for normality, the data can be grafted onto normal probability plots. The closer the
data points are to the line, the more “normal” the data is. Since the data points are clustered close
to the line, and the y-axis’ minimum and maximum are at highest two, normality is implied.
Normality is further implied by the fact that the largest residual on the normal probability plot is
only about 0.35, which means that all of the data lies close to the linear line. This further
indicates normality, along with the fact that the medians are also very close.
Now that there is significant evidence of normality, a statistical test can be ran to further
analyze the data to see if the unknown metal rods are nickel . The most appropriate statistical test
would be a two-sample t-test, because it compares the means of two independent populations,
which in this case are the nickel and unknown metal rods. Some assumptions must be met before
carrying out the two-sample t-test. The first is that the data is normal, assuming that there are 30
or more data points in each population. Because there are only 23 trials for each population, the
normality of the data was checked by making box plots and normal probability plots as shown in
Figures 4 and 5. The plots showed that the data is fairly normal. The second assumption is that a
simple random sample was taken for each trial. This is true for this experiment because all of the
trials were randomized using a TI-Nspire calculator. The third and last assumption is that there
are two independent populations, which in this experiment are the nickel and unknown metal
rods.
Not only will percent error be used to analyze the data collected, but a two sample t-test
will be used to determine whether or not the unknown metal is nickel. A two sample t-test is
used to compare whether the average difference between the two groups is really significant or if
it is due instead to random chance
Statistical tests use null (𝐻0) and alternative (𝐻𝑎) hypotheses to hypothesize if the two
population means are equal or not. The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:
𝐻𝑜 = µ1 = µ2
𝐻𝑎 = µ1 ≠µ2
Figure 7. Statistical Hypothesis
The null hypothesis states that the population mean of the nickel rod’s coefficient (µ1) is
equal to the population mean of the unknown metal rod’s coefficient (µ2). The alternative
hypothesis states that the population mean of the nickel and unknown metal rods are not equal.
Figure 8. Linear Thermal Expansion Two-Sample T-Test Results
Above are the results of the two-sample t-test ran with the data for both the nickel and
unknown metal rods. The experimenters failed to reject the null hypothesis because the P-Value
of 0.6181 is larger than the alpha level of 0.5. Having a P-Value of 0.6181 means that there
would be a µ1 equal to µ2 by random chance alone 61.81% of the time, if it is assumed that the
null hypothesis is true. Knowing this, there is evidence that the composition of the unknown
metal rod is also nickel.
Interpretation:
The elements of control, randomization, and repeatability were all factors in creating an
experiment with reliable data. The nickel rods were used as a control in this experiment, or a
means of determining whether or not the data of the unknown rod was significant enough to
determine whether its composition was the same or not. All trials were randomized using a
TI-Nspire calculator and came from two independent populations and was repeated a total of 23
trials for both the nickel and unknown rods. As seen in Figure 6, the data in this experiment is
fairly normal, with no outliers for the boxplots and a fairly linear pattern for the normal
probability plots. The boxes both overlapped and both had a mean of 1.1 x 10-5. Then, once the
data was determined to be normal enough for a test of significance, a two sample t-test was used
to compare the means of the two populations. Once conducted, a P value of 0.6181 was found.
Since 0.6181 is above the alpha level of 0.5, the null hypothesis, which states that the two metals
are the same, could not be rejected. The data concludes that the unknown metal rod is nickel.
This data contradicts with some physical observations taken, such as magnetism and appearance,
but this shall be discussed later in the conclusion.

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether or not a metal rod was identical
to a nickel rod through linear thermal expansion (LTE). After conducting trials, the hypothesis
that stated “Using a percentage error of 2.31% along with analyzing the intensive property of
linear thermal expansion, the composition of the unknown metal rod can be determined to be
nickel or not” was rejected.
To start, the data in this experiment was analyzed through a two sample t-test where a
p-value of 0.6181 was found. This means that by random chance alone, the LTE coefficient of
the nickel rod and the unknown rod will be the same 61.81% of the time. Since this is a majority
of the time, it is implied the two rods are identical. After trials; however, a magnetism test was
conducted. When the magnet was held to the nickel rod, there was a strong attraction between
the two, but there was no attraction with the unknown rod. Due to the fact that a metal cannot be
both magnetic and non-magnetic, the metals were proved to be different.
The data collected in this experiment does not align with scientific research done today.
The data suggests that the two rods have the same LTE coefficient, which means they would be
the same, but the metal rods are different. One possible reason for the small difference in percent
errors was that the unknown metal rod could be a nickel alloy. There are alloys, such as different
types of inconels, that are not magnetic and have LTE coefficients that are within
−6
10 𝑚
0. 2 𝑡𝑜 0. 3 𝑚 𝑥 ◦𝐶
of nickel’s coefficient ("Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Metals and
Alloys"). These close coefficients would yield percent error that can easily look the same due to
flaws in the experimental design.

Part of the experimental design stated to use an ice pack to speed up the rate at which the
metal rod cooled. But once the jig was taken off the ice pack, the metal rod was below room
temperature, causing it to contract and ultimately affecting the LTE coefficient. Also, the percent
error in the experimental design associated with accepting or rejecting the hypothesis was 2.34%.
−6
10 𝑚
This is because the LTE coefficient of nickel was 13.3 𝑚 𝑥 ◦𝐶
, while the metal with the closest
−6
10 𝑚
coefficient was thulium with 13.0 𝑚 𝑥 ◦𝐶
, which makes the percent error approximately 2.34%.
However, even though thulium was the closest pure metal, there are metal alloys with LTE
coefficients that are even closer to that of nickel. For example, the alloy called inconel 625
−6
10 𝑚
("Inconel 625 Technical Data") has a LTE coefficient of 13.1 𝑚 𝑥 ◦𝐶 , which would have a 2%
error.
Although even a 2% error would not change the results of the data, there are other
measures that could have been put into place to ensure a more accurate result. Alongside the
experimental design, lurking variables also caused problems within the experiment. For example,
in trial 7, the experimenters fumbled with the rod before it was placed in the LTE jig. When the
rod was pulled out of the boiling water, there was a drastic change in temperature lowered
causing the particles and rod to contract immediately. The fumbling of a rod alloted time for the
rod to shrink without the initial length to be recorded. By the time the rod was within the jig, it
could have already shrunk, therefore giving the experimenters a smaller change in length. In
addition to this, the equipment used had inconsistent results. For example, throughout the
experiment, when the same rod was measured by different calipers, each caliper gave a different
reading, which would have caused an incorrect initial length. For example, in trial 3 the length of
the metal rod was 129.62 millimeters with a percent error of 6.692. In trial 5, the length of the
rod was 129.22 millimeters with a percent error of 13.972. In both trials the change in
temperature and length were very similar, yet the same rod yielded a 7.28 percent difference.
Although the research done in this experiment was inaccurate and inconsistent, the
concept of LTE can be applied to the real world. For example, in Michigan, the Mackinac bridge
has metal infrastructure that expands and contrasts. Although the expansion is not visible on a
small scale, when the structure is outstretched 5 miles with extreme temperature changes in
Michigan, engineers must take the expansion into account for the stability of the entire structure
(Oldhand). This experiment may be helpful to find a metal with a lower expansion coefficient
compared to those being used commercially. This can be done by running multiple LTE
experiments and finding which ones expand the least when heated and cooled and analyzing the
prices and integrity in order to hopefully find a better material when building large metal
structures.
Works Cited
Desierto, Tricia, Luis Diaz, Karhen Estella, and Gabrielle Beatrix Francisco. "Experiment No. 6:
Heat Effects Laboratory Report." Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2019.
<https://www.academia.edu/8948587/Experiment_no._6_Heat_Effects_Laboratory_Repo
rt_3_0_3>.
F.C, Nick, and MacNair D. “The Thermal Expansion of Pure Metals: Copper, Gold, Aluminum,
Nickel, and Iron.” Phys. Rev., vol. 60, no. 8, ser. 597-605, 1941. 597-605,
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.60.597.
“Frequently Asked Questions about the Golden Gate Bridge.” , 23 Nov. 2011,
goldengatebridge.org/research/facts.php.
Ho, C Y, and R E. Taylor. Thermal Expansion of Solids. Materials Park, OH: ASM International,
1998. Print.
“Intro to Thermal Expansion.” Khan Academy, Khan Academy,
www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-thermal-properties-of-matte
r/in-in-thermal-expansion-in-solids/v/intro-to-thermal-expansion-class-11-india-physics-k
han-academy.
Kibria, Mohammed, and Junior Vang. "MMSTC Determining the Identity of an Unknown Metal
by Calculating Its Specific Heat and Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficient." SlidePlayer.
N.p., 2016. Web. 24 Mar. 2019. <https://slideplayer.com/slide/9291309/>.
"Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Metals and Alloys." Agilent Technologies, 2002.
Web. 23 Mar. 2019.
<https://psec.uchicago.edu/thermal_coefficients/cte_metals_05517-90143.pdf>.
Raposa, Denisse, Rohmere Reyes, Justin Marron Rosales, Gabrielle Mari Santos, and Raquiel
Angelo Sayco. "Coefficient of Linear Expansion." Academia.edu. N.p., 10 Feb. 2016.
Web. 24 Mar. 2019.
<https://www.academia.edu/23957351/Coefficient_of_Linear_Expansion>.
Rosenberg, Samuel J. Nickel and Its Alloys. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, 1968. Print.
Stwertka, Albert. The Young Oxford Guide to the Elements. New York: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.
Weast, Robert C., Melvin J. Astle, and William H. Beyer. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics. 64th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1984. Print.

Appendix A
Materials:
(1) 10-32 x 1/4 in Set Screw LTE Jig Foot (2.5in x 1in x 0.375in)
(4) 10-32 x 1/5 in Socket Head Button Cap Pittsburgh Dial Indicator (0.01 mm
LTE Jig Head (2.5in x 1in x 0.375in) Precision)
LTE Jig Base (5.75in x 2.5in x 0.375)
Procedures:
1. Align the holes in the LTE jig foot with the holes in the base with the excess of the foot
sticking out towards the side of the base with the rod indentation.
2. Screw the foot into place using two of the 10-32 x 1/5 in socket head button caps.
3. Align the holes in the LTE jig head with the holes in the base with the excess of the base
sticking out towards the side of the base with the rod indentation.
4. Screw the head into place using the other two 10-32 x 1/5 in socket head button caps.
5. Take the dial indicator and place it into the remaining hole in the head.
6. Screw the dial indicator into the assembled LTE jig using the 10-32 x 1/4 inch set screw.
Figure 1. Linear Thermal Expansion Jig
Above are a picture and a drawing for the linear thermal expansion jig. The jig was used
to measure the change of length of the metal rod when it first came out of the water, to when it
was cooled off and in equilibrium with the room. The drawing on the right gives specific
measurements if the jig was to be recreated. The jig is made up of three separate parts, set
screws, and socket head button caps.

Figure 2. Linear Thermal Expansion Jig Foot
Above is a model and a drawing of the foot of the Linear thermal expansion jig in Figure
1. On the left is the model, and on the right is a drawing with measurements if the jig were to be
recreated.
Figure 2. Linear Thermal Expansion Jig Head
A model and a drawing of the head of the linear thermal expansion jig is seen above. The
model is on the left, and a drawing with the specific measurements for recreation are on the right.
Appendix B
A significance test with the formula for a two sample t-test was used in order to calculate
the t-statistic for the nickel and unknown rod populations.
(𝑋1−𝑋2)
t= 2 2
(𝑆1) (𝑆2)
𝑛1
+ 𝑛2
In the formula above, the percent error of the known and unknown rods are compared in
order to determine the significance of the data. When the means, standard deviation, and the
number of trials are inserted into the equation, the t value can be determined and used to find the
P value. If the P value is above the alpha level of 0.5, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
(𝑋1−𝑋2)
t= 2 2
(𝑆1) (𝑆2)
𝑛1
+ 𝑛2
(0.000011𝑚𝑚 − 0.000011𝑚𝑚)
t= 2 2
(0.00000𝑚𝑚) 1 (0.000002𝑚𝑚)
23
+ 23
t = -0.5025 Pvalue = 0.6181
Figure 1. Example Two-Sample T-test for Specific Heat
Figure 1 above shows a sample calculation for finding the test statistic, t, and the P-Value
for the data. This calculation is the two-sample t-test for the known and unknown specific heat
results. First, 𝑋2, the mean of the unknown data, was subtracted from 𝑋1, the mean of the known
2
data. This was then divided by the square root of (𝑠1) , the standard deviation squared, over n1,
2
the sample size, plus the square root of (𝑠2) over n2. The test statistic came out to be about
-0.5025, which yielded a P-Value of 0.6181.
∆𝐿
|α| = 𝐿𝑖 · ∆𝑇
The following above was used to find the coefficient of linear thermal expansion.
∆𝐿
|α| = 𝐿𝑖 · ∆𝑇
−0.12 𝑚𝑚
|α| = 𝑜
129.38 𝑚𝑚 · −74.70 𝐶
−6 𝑜 −1
=12.42 · 10 𝐶
Figure 2. Linear Thermal Expansion Sample Calculation
Figure 2 above shows a sample calculation that finds the alpha coefficient of the known
metal, from the first trial of linear thermal expansion data. The change in length (∆L), was
divided by the initial length (Li), multiplied by the change in temperature (∆T). This yielded a
−6 𝑜 −1
coefficient of 12.42 · 10 𝐶 .
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ( 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 ) · 100
The formula above was used to find the percent error of a data set.
|𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟| = ( 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 ) · 100
|𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟| = ( 0.000012𝑚𝑚 − 0.0000133𝑚𝑚

0.0000133𝑚𝑚 ) · 100
=6.644%
Figure 3. Percent Error Sample Calculation
Figure 3 above shows a sample calculation that finds the percent error of a trial. This
calculation shows the percent error of the first trial.

Senior Research 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senior Research 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alkane Chemiresistor Sensor to Detect Early On-Set Lung Cancer from the Exhaled

Kyle Cooper, Dr. Ika Malcavic, and Professor Martin Boestock

Wayne State University

Background and Review of Literature............................................................................................4

Data and Observations...................................................................................................................10

Data Analysis and Interpretation...................................................................................................17

thermal expansion is the expansion of a substance in raised or lowered temperatures. Each

would remain true to their element ("Thermal Expansion").

was significant enough for the metals to be different.

used in building structures.

Background and Review of Literature

the equation below.

the linear thermal expansion coefficient of nickel.

Caliper (0.01 mm Precision) Linear Thermal Expansion Jig

4. Heat the water until it has risen to 98-102oC.

7. After 3 minutes, record the change in length.

Figure 1. Experimental Setup and Materials Cooper (2019)

hot mitt will be used to pour the water out.

Data and Observations

Length 1 (mm) (°C) (°C-1 x 10-6)

Observations for Nickel Rods

Trial Nickel Observations (A)

significant details about each trial.

Trial Unknown Observations (B)

any other significant details about each trial.

Figure 2. Images of Dial Readings

larger than the second dial reading.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

known value and a value that was obtained through an experiment.

flaw in the experiment.

trial was repeated 23 times.

so normality of the data must be checked.

analyze spread of data.

Figure 3. Box Plot for Nickel.

symmetrical with no obvious skewness or outliers.

Figure 4. Box Plot for Unknown Metal

metal is fairly symmetrical with no obvious skewness or outliers.

Figure 5. Box Plot for Coefficients

it is due instead to random chance

Figure 7. Statistical Hypothesis

Figure 8. Linear Thermal Expansion Two-Sample T-Test Results

metal rod is also nickel.

but this shall be discussed later in the conclusion.

nickel or not” was rejected.

both magnetic and non-magnetic, the metals were proved to be different.

flaws in the experimental design.

“Intro to Thermal Expansion.” Khan Academy, Khan Academy,

N.p., 2016. Web. 24 Mar. 2019. <https://slideplayer.com/slide/9291309/>.

Web. 23 Mar. 2019.

Angelo Sayco. "Coefficient of Linear Expansion." Academia.edu. N.p., 10 Feb. 2016.

Web. 24 Mar. 2019.

Bureau of Standards, 1968. Print.

Physics. 64th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1984. Print.

Figure 1. Linear Thermal Expansion Jig

screws, and socket head button caps.

Figure 2. Linear Thermal Expansion Jig Foot

Figure 2. Linear Thermal Expansion Jig Head

the t-statistic for the nickel and unknown rod populations.

t = -0.5025 Pvalue = 0.6181

Figure 1. Example Two-Sample T-test for Specific Heat

-0.5025, which yielded a P-Value of 0.6181.

Figure 2. Linear Thermal Expansion Sample Calculation

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ( 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒