The Use of Specific Heat and Linear Thermal Expansion in the Identification of

an Unknown Metal
Michael LaBarbera Matthew Polgar
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Chemistry
10C
Mrs. Hilliard / Mr. Supal / Mrs. Dewey
20 May 2014

Table of Contents

Introduction
Review of Literature
Problem Statement

Specific Heat Experimental Design

Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design

Specific Heat Data and Observations

Linear Thermal Expansion Data and Observations

13

Data Analysis and Interpretation

16

Conclusion

20

Application

24

Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction

35

Appendix B: Formulas and Sample Calculations

39

Works Cited

41
43
49

LaBarbera Polgar
Introduction
The world around us is a peculiar place, and even more so on an atomic
level. What humans experience as heat, atoms experience as sudden
fluctuations in kinetic energy. Colliding with each other at rapidly changing rates,
atoms warp the space that they occupy. The force they exert can distort bridges
and skyscrapers, reshaping mankinds most impressive creations with ease. Two
properties that define the relationship between heat and atoms are specific heat
and linear thermal expansion (LTE).
While being remarkable properties in their own right, specific heat and LTE
are also useful in the identification of unknown materials. They are intensive, so
all elements have unique values for each property. As a result, comparing the
specific heats and LTEs of two objects can help a researcher determine if they
are composed of the same element. In this experiment, specific heat and LTE
were utilized to determine if metal rods were composed of pure titanium.
About ninety-five percent of the titanium ore extracted from the Earths
core is converted to titanium dioxide, a stark white pigment used in paints, paper,
and plastics. The remaining five percent is refined into titanium metal, a material
known for its corrosion resistance and astonishingly high strength-to-weight ratio.
Because of these (and other) physical properties, titanium alloys are used
extensively in engineering, architecture, and product manufacturing. Titanium
aircraft parts are stronger than parts made from other materials. Titanium sports
equipment is lighter and sturdier than equipment composed of different elements
(USGS Minerals Information).

LaBarbera Polgar
Titanium is certainly an element worth identifying, but correct
identifications cannot be obtained without precise equipment. In this experiment,
calorimeters were designed to contain exchanges of heat and account for any
energy lost during such exchanges. Specially-designed measuring devices were
also utilized to evaluate minute changes in the length of objects. Since data was
collected in such a meticulous manner, a two-sample t-test could be employed to
determine if the unknown metals were titanium.

LaBarbera Polgar
Review of Literature
Specific heat is the amount of heat (or energy) required to increase the
temperature of one gram of a material by one degree (The Engineering ToolBox).
Specific heat can be used to identify a substance because it is an intensive
property; it does not depend on how much material is being measured. Specific
heat is unchanging, and can therefore be used as a reference to compare
different materials to one other (Ohlone College).
The Kinetic Molecular Theory states that when atoms absorb heat, their
average kinetic energy increases. They begin to vibrate rapidly, much as if they
were bonded to one another through springs (Ohlone College). Since the atomic
radius varies from element to element, different materials behave differently
when vibrating. Since temperature is simply a measure of atomic vibrations, the
specific heats of different elements vary in accordance with their differing atomic
behaviors.
Everyones lives are impacted by specific heat, even if they do not notice
its influence. Waters high specific heat makes it a superb coolant; it is used
throughout industry to keep machinery at acceptable temperatures.
Thermometers and other heat-sensitive devices must have relatively low specific
heats, such that they can record minute changes in temperature (Henderson). In
addition to these applications, specific heat is also used in the identification of
unknown metals.

LaBarbera Polgar

Figure 1. Sample Calorimeter

Figure 1 (College of DuPage) above shows an example of calorimeter. A
calorimeter is an apparatus that insulates a thermal transaction from its
surroundings, and is useful when calculating the specific heat of an unknown
metal. If a scorching hot metal rod is inserted into a calorimeter with roomtemperature water, the specific heat of the rod can be determined by analyzing
the waters change in temperature. Since a calorimeter works to reduce the
amount of heat that can escape from the contained system, the energy gained by
the water should be equal to the energy lost by the rod.
In an identification experiment as described above, the specific heat of the

rod,

sr

(J/(g C)), times the mass of the rod,

in temperature,

Tr

mr

(g), times the rods change

(C), will equal the specific heat of water,

sw

(J/(g C)),

LaBarbera Polgar
times the mass of the water,

Tw

mw

(g), times the waters change in temperature,

(C) (Nasa.gov).

s rmr T r =sw mw T w
The change in water and rod temperatures are found by subtracting their initial
temperatures from their final temperatures. Their final temperatures are the
same, taken after the system comes to equilibrium.
When identifying an unknown element, a researcher would solve for the
rods specific heat and compare it to the specific heat of a known element. In this
experiment, the known metal is titanium, which has a specific heat of
0.47 J/(g C). As points of reference, waters specific heat is 4.19 J/(g C), irons
specific heat is 0.46 J/(g C), and steels specific heat is 0.49 J/(g C)
(The Engineering ToolBox).
Two experiments to identify unknown metals using specific heat were
designed by Simanek and at Ohlone College. In both instances, the mass of
water, initial temperature of water, mass of metal, and initial temperature of metal
were all recorded before the trial. These two components, water and unknown
metal, were both inserted into a calorimeter to facilitate a heat exchange. Once
the system came to equilibrium, their final temperature was also recorded. This
is the procedure of an adequate specific heat experiment, and will be mirrored in
the proceeding one.

LaBarbera Polgar
Most materials expand or retract based on a change in temperature, even
if that change does not produce a change in phase. This property is known as
thermal expansion, and is typically expressed as a change in length or volume
per unit temperature change (Encyclopdia Britannica). An objects thermal
expansion in one dimension is always proportional to its original length in that
dimension and its change in temperature. If the object undergoing expansion
has a predominant dimension, such as the metal rods used in this experiment, it
is helpful to only observe expansion in that dimension. This is called linear
thermal expansion (LTE), and is a widely useful attribute (ASM International).
Though variations in volume/length due to thermal expansion are slight,
they are not always insignificant. For example, many airplanes expand
marginally during flight from the scalding heat created from friction with air, and
special measures must be taken to insure that these planes to not break in two.
In industry, objects thermal expansions are analyzed to prevent buckling and
expansion of gaps/joints. Often times, manufacturers calculate thermal
expansion to guarantee that intricate mechanical parts will interlock correctly
after cooling (The Physics Hypertextbook).
Aside from its numerous uses in manufacturing, thermal expansion (and,
more specifically, LTE) can be used to identify an unknown element. LTE is an
intensive property, meaning that it does not depend on the amount of a
substance that is present. In addition, LTE is unique to each individual element.
LTE occurs when the average amplitude of vibration of atoms increases due to
heat, thus increasing the average separation between the atoms (The University

LaBarbera Polgar
of Nevada, Reno). Because all elements have a unique atomic radius, this
increase in separation varies from atom to atom.
An elements LTE is characterized by its linear expansion coefficient
(LEC), a constant ratio defining the extent to which an object will expand when
heated. When a metal rod is heated, its change in length,

equal to the initial length of the rod,

element,

L0

(mm), will be

(mm), times the LEC of its composition

(1/C), times the rods change in temperature,

(C) (The

Engineering ToolBox).
L=L0 T
When identifying an unknown element, a researcher would solve for the LEC
(using collected values for change in length, initial length, and temperature
change) and compare it to the LEC of a known element. This experiments
known element was titanium, which has a LEC of 8.4 to 8.6 x 10 -6 1/C. As points
of reference, irons LEC is 12.0 to 13.0 x 10-6 1/C and steels LEC is 8.6 to 11.0 x
10-6 C (ASM International).
The process used to calculate the LEC of a metal rod is fairly simple. An
experiment by 223 Physics Labs utilized a thermal expansion apparatus, which
allowed researchers to accurately measure the change in length of a metal rod.
Researchers at The University of Nevada, Reno also utilized one such
apparatus, insulating it with foam and thermoplastic tubing to retain heat. A
thermal expansion apparatus should be used in all LTE experiments to ensure

LaBarbera Polgar
accurate length measurements, and insulation should also be used to ensure
accurate readings of temperature. Such a device will likely be used in the
proceeding experiment.

LaBarbera Polgar
Problem Statement
Problem:
To determine if an unknown metal rod is composed of titanium by
comparing its specific heat and linear thermal expansion to those of a titanium
rod.
Hypothesis:
The unknown rod will produce a percent error less than 15% for both
specific heat and linear thermal expansion in relation to a rod of titanium if it is
composed of titanium.
Data Measured:
In the first experiment, the specific heat of a metal rod, measured in
Joules per gram degree Celsius, J/(g C), will be found using the mass of the rod
in grams, the mass of the water in grams, the temperature change of the rod in
degrees Celsius, and the temperature change of the water in degrees Celsius.
The changes in water temperature and rod temperature will both be found by
subtracting their initial temperatures from their final temperatures (all measured
in degrees Celsius). The final temperature of both the rod and the water will be
the same, measured after the system comes to equilibrium.
In the second experiment, the linear expansion coefficient of a rod will be
calculated in inverse degrees Celsius, 1/C. To achieve this, the initial length of
the rod in millimeters, mm, the change in length of the rod in millimeters, and the
temperature change of the rod in degrees Celsius, C, will all be measured. The

LaBarbera Polgar
temperature change of the rod will be calculated by subtracting its initial
temperature from its final temperature (both measured in degrees Celsius).
Specific Heat Experimental Design
Materials:
(2) Titanium metal rod
(2) Unknown metal rod
OHAUS GA200 Balance
(0.0001 g)
TI-Nspire Calculator
Tongs
Loaf pan
LabQuest

Temperature probe (0.1C)

Thermometer (0.1C)
25 mL Graduated cylinder
100 mL Beaker
5 mL Pipet
(2) Calorimeter
Hotplate

Procedures:
1.

Before conducting experiment, construct calorimeters as outlined in

Appendix A.

2.

Ensure that all appropriate safety measures are taken, including wearing
goggles and gloves.

3.

Using the TI-Nspire Calculator, randomly assign a titanium rod to 15 of 30

trials. Assign an unknown rod to the remaining 15 trials.

4.

Set up the LabQuest to record two samples per second for 300 seconds
and attach the temperature probe.

5.

Fill the loaf pan with water until it is half full and place the thermometer in
the water.

6.

Turn on the hotplate and place the loaf pan on it. Place the thermometer
into the water. Wait five minutes for the water to come to a boil, or until
the temperature exceeds 100 C.

7.

Fill the 100 mL Beaker with water.

8.

Using the OHAUS Balance, measure the mass of the metal rod
designated by the randomization in Step 2. Record the mass.

9.

Place the metal rod inside the loaf pan. Wait five minutes.

10

LaBarbera Polgar
10.

Assume that the temperature of the rod is equal to that of the water and
record the initial temperature of the rod.

11.

For a known metal rod trial transfer about 23 mL of water into the 25 mL
graduated cylinder and record the mass. For an unknown metal rod trial
pour about 17 mL of water into the 25 mL graduated cylinder and record
the mass. To ensure precision, use the pipet to transfer water from the 100
mL beaker.

12.

Uncork the calorimeter and pour the water from Step 11 into the center
tube. For instructions on how to assemble the calorimeter see Appendix A:
Calorimeter Construction.

13.

Place the temperature probe through the hole in the cork and replace the
cork on the calorimeter

14.

Begin data collection using the LabQuest interface.

15.

After 30 seconds of data collection, remove the calorimeter cork, use the
tongs to transfer the metal rod from the loaf pan to the calorimeter, and
reseal the calorimeter.

16.

After five minutes, or until equilibrium is observed on the LabQuest

interface, end data collection and remove the temperature probe and cork.

17.

Carefully empty the contents of the calorimeter, pouring the water down a
sink and saving the metal rod.

18.

Thoroughly dry the metal rod and the calorimeter.

19.

Analyze the data from the trial and record the initial temperature of the
water (first 30 seconds of data collection) and the final temperature of the
rod and water (the point of equilibrium).

20.

Repeat Steps 7 19 until 30 trials have been completed; 15 for the

titanium rod and 15 for the unknown metal rod.

11

LaBarbera Polgar

Diagrams:

Figure 2. Diagram of Materials for Specific Heat

Figure 2, above, shows all materials used in the Specific Heat experiment.
The TI-Nspire Calculator was used to randomize which rod would go into which
calorimeter. The OHAUS GA200 Balance was used to find the mass of the metal
rod. The hot plate used in conjunction with the loaf pan was used to heat the
water. The metal rod was placed into the bath using the tongs. The initial
temperature was taken using the thermometer when the rod was removed. The
water was measured out in the 25 mL graduated cylinder. The pipet and beaker
were used to adjust the water in the 25 mL graduated cylinder more precisely.
12

LaBarbera Polgar
The tongs were used again to remove the metal rod from the bath and place it
into the calorimeter. The LabQuest and temperature probe were used record the
interior temperature of the calorimeter.

Figure 3. OHAUS GA200 Microbalance Balance

Figure 3 displays the OHAUS GA200 Microbalance Balance used for the
experiment. When weighing a rod, the rod was placed on the balance plate and
both doors were closed before collecting data. The zero button was used before
each trial (with the doors on either side closed) to ensure accurate results.

13

LaBarbera Polgar
Linear Thermal Expansion Experimental Design
Materials:
(2) Titanium metal rod
(2) Unknown metal rod
TI-Nspire Calculator
Tongs
Loaf pan
LabQuest

Temperature probe (0.1C)

Hotplate
Linear thermal expansion jig
Electric fan
Dry erase marker
TESR Electronic Caliper

14

LaBarbera Polgar

Procedures:
1.

Ensure that all appropriate safety measures are taken, including wearing
goggles and gloves.

2.

Using the TI-Nspire Calculator, randomly assign a titanium rod to 15 of 30

trials. Assign an unknown rod to the remaining 15 trials.

3.

Fill the loaf pan with water until it is half full and place the thermometer in
the water.

4.

Turn on the hotplate and place the loaf pan on it. Wait five minutes for the
water to come to a boil, or until the temperature exceeds 100 C.

5.

Place the metal rod designated by the randomization in Step 2 inside the
loaf pan. Wait five minutes.

6.

Assume that the temperature of the rod is equal to that of the water and
record the initial temperature of the rod.

7.

Use the tongs to transfer the metal rod from the loaf pan to the linear
thermal expansion jig. Immediately mark the location of the dials hand
using the dry erase marker.

8.

Position the hand fan so that it is cooling the metal rod in the linear
thermal expansion jig.

9.

Wait five minutes for the rod to cool to room temperature and record the
change in length (difference between the hands current position and the
dry erase mark).

10.

Attach the temperature probe to the LabQuest and record the room
temperature as the final temperature of the metal rod.

11.

Repeat steps 5 10 until 30 trials have been completed; 15 for the

titanium rod and 15 for the unknown metal rod.

Diagrams:

15

LaBarbera Polgar

Figure 4. Diagram of Materials for Linear Thermal Expansion

Figure 4, above, shows all materials used in the Linear Thermal
Expansion (LTE) experiment. The TESR Caliper was used to find the length of
the metal rod. The hot plate used in conjunction with the loaf pan was used to
heat the water. The metal rod was placed into the bath using the tongs. The
tongs were used again to remove the metal rod from the bath and place it into
the LTE jig. The initial temperature was taken using the thermometer when the
rod was removed. The initial position was marked on the display of the LTE jig
using the dry erase marker. The final temperature was taken using the
temperature probe and LabQuest.

16

LaBarbera Polgar

Figure 5. TESR Electronic Caliper

Figure 5 displays the TESR Electronic Caliper used for the experiment. It
was used to accurately measure the diameter and length of each metal rod. The
zero button was used before each trial to ensure accurate results.

17

LaBarbera Polgar
Specific Heat Data and Observations
Table 1
Specific Heat Experiment Data for Titanium Rods
Mass
(g)

Initial Temperature
(C)
Water
Rod

Final
Temperature
(C)

Calorimeter
Correction
(J/C)

Specific
Heat
(J/(g C))

Trial

Rod

Calorimeter

22.8

42.5571

20.9

95.0

30.3

-249.67

0.527

23.7

42.5243

21.6

95.0

31.4

-228.00

0.463

23.3

42.5567

24.2

95.6

33.0

-249.67

0.503

23.2

42.5243

23.0

95.6

34.6

-228.00

0.581

23.5

42.5254

22.5

96.4

30.1

-249.67

0.408

23.0

42.5572

19.8

96.4

31.9

-228.00

0.576

22.4

42.5569

22.4

94.9

31.6

-249.67

0.533

23.6

42.5250

23.2

94.9

33.5

-228.00

0.506

23.7

42.5262

23.3

94.5

32.8

-249.67

0.545

10

22.8

42.5577

22.7

94.5

33.5

-228.00

0.547

11

23.0

42.5588

23.1

94.4

32.1

-249.67

0.521

12

23.3

42.5239

20.5

94.4

30.5

-228.00

0.477

13

23.2

42.5239

27.1

95.4

36.7

-249.67

0.587

14

22.9

42.5569

26.2

95.4

36.4

-228.00

0.533

15

23.4

42.5227

22.7

94.7

33.3

-249.67

0.616

23.2

42.5398

22.9

95.1

32.8

-238.33

0.528

Water

Average

Rod

Table 1 displays the data collected from the specific heat experiment for
the titanium rods. Two trials were always run simultaneously, utilizing both
calorimeters and both metal rods. Note that the column for final temperature
displays the final temperature for both the rod and the water, recorded after the
system came to equilibrium. See Appendix B for equations and sample
calculations for calorimeter correction factor and specific heat.

Table 2
18

LaBarbera Polgar
Specific Heat Experiment Data for Unknown Rods
Trial

Rod

Mass
(g)

Calorimeter
Water

2
3
4
5
6

Rod

Initial Temperature
(C)
Water
Rod

Final
Temperature
(C)

Calorimeter
Correction
(J/C)

Specific
Heat
(J/(g C))

17.0 120.8822

25.2

94.5

52.9

-249.67

0.983

17.0 120.6983

26.9

94.5

52.1

-228.00

0.768

17.3 120.8819

25.3

96.4

52.7

-249.67

0.920

17.0 120.6990

26.1

94.6

52.5

-228.00

0.810

17.2 120.6995

25.4

94.8

51.3

-249.67

0.877

17.0 120.8817

22.2

94.0

49.9

-228.00

0.810

17.4 120.8818

26.3

93.6

52.5

-249.67

0.933

17.3 120.6980

20.9

93.6

48.6

-228.00

0.789

17.0 120.6989

20.1

95.3

46.4

-249.67

0.796

10

17.2 120.8817

22.5

95.3

48.1

-228.00

0.696

11

17.1 120.8807

23.8

95.3

48.0

-249.67

0.754

12

17.2 120.7012

24.9

95.3

48.5

-228.00

0.648

13

17.0 120.7001

25.1

96.4

48.4

-249.67

0.718

14

17.0 120.8823

26.0

96.4

48.7

-228.00

0.614

15

16.9 120.7000

21.2

94.7

50.9

-228.00

1.005

17.1 120.7845

24.1

95.0

50.1

-238.33

0.808

Average

Table 2 exhibits the data collected from the specific heat experiment for
the unknown rods. As with the titanium rods, two trials were always run
simultaneously. The column for final temperature embodies the final temperature
of both the rod and the water, measured after the system came to equilibrium.
See Appendix B for equations and sample calculations for calorimeter correction
factor and specific heat.

Table 3
Specific Heat Experiment Observations for Titanium Rods
19

LaBarbera Polgar
Trial

Observations

The water in the calorimeter was spilled and then re-measured.

After the rod was inserted, the rubber cork was placed on later than it should have been. There was a
spike in temperature which dropped and then rose again.

The initial temperature of the rod was taken after the rod was in the calorimeter.

The trial seemed to be run perfectly.

The timer was not correctly started to time the rod's immersion in the water.

The timer was not correctly started to time the rod's immersion in the water.

The temperature did not drop after the peak point.

The temperature did not drop after the peak point.

When cork was placed onto the calorimeter a small amount of water splashed out.

10

The initial temperature of the rod was taken after the rod was in the calorimeter.

11

The temperature did not drop after the peak point.

12

Small amount of water splashed out, and temperature did not drop after the peak point.

13

The temperature did not drop after the peak point.

14

The temperature probe was re-inserted late after the calorimeters were capped

15

The rod remained in the heated water for 90 seconds longer than recorded in the procedures.

Table 3 shows the observations recorded for the specific heat experiment
for the titanium rods. Occasionally, if the calorimeter was filled with a slightly
larger amount of water, some water would squeeze out when the cork was
inserted. Such incidents were rare, and changes in water volume were
negligible.

Table 4
Specific Heat Experiment Observations for Unknown Rods
Trial

Observations

20

LaBarbera Polgar
1

When the rod was placed into the calorimeter a small amount of water splashed out.

When the rod was placed into the calorimeter a small amount of water splashed out.

When the rod was placed into the calorimeter a large amount of water splashed out.

When the rod was placed into the calorimeter a large amount of water splashed out.

The rod remained in the heated water for 15 seconds longer than recorded in the procedures.

The rod remained in the heated water for 15 seconds longer than recorded in the procedures.

When the rod was placed into the calorimeter a small amount of water splashed out.

When the rod was placed into the calorimeter a small amount of water splashed out.

The temperature did not drop after the peak point.

10

When the rod was placed into the calorimeter a small amount of water splashed out.

11

When the rod was placed into the calorimeter a very small amount of water splashed out.

12

The temperature did not drop after the peak point.

13

The temperature did not drop after the peak point.

14

The temperature did not drop after the peak point.

The rod remained in the heated water for 90 seconds longer than recorded in the procedures. When the rod was
placed into the calorimeter a small amount of water splashed out.

15

Trial 4 illustrates the observations recorded for the specific heat

experiment for the unknown metal rods. Due to the unknown rods greater
masses in relation to the titanium rods, droplets of water would intermittently
splash from the calorimeter upon inserting the rod. Changes in water volume
were slight, so they were ignored during later calculations.

Linear Thermal Expansion Data and Observations

Table 5

21

LaBarbera Polgar
Linear Thermal Expansion Experiment Data for Titanium Rods
Initial Length
(mm)

Initial
Temperature
(C)

Change in
Length
(mm)

Final
Temperature
(C)

LTE Coefficient
(1/C)

Trial

Rod

Jig

127.05

0.095

96.8

21.5

9.956 E-06

128.22

0.095

96.8

21.5

9.865 E-06

128.28

0.070

95.2

22.0

7.508 E-06

127.10

0.070

95.2

22.0

7.439 E-06

127.17

0.064

94.6

21.5

6.831 E-06

128.24

0.089

94.6

21.5

9.483 E-06

127.06

0.057

93.4

24.4

6.519 E-06

127.10

0.064

96.7

23.8

6.853 E-06

128.22

0.064

95.3

24.3

6.975 E-06

10

127.07

0.064

95.0

24.3

7.068 E-06

11

128.25

0.064

96.4

23.9

6.829 E-06

12

127.10

0.064

96.4

23.9

6.891 E-06

13

127.08

0.070

94.0

24.2

7.875 E-06

14

128.19

0.064

94.7

24.2

7.026 E-06

128.18

0.064

96.7

23.8

6.796 E-06

127.62

0.070

95.5

23.1

7.594 E-06

15

Average

Table 5 displays the data collected from the linear thermal expansion
(LTE) experiment for the titanium rods. Two trials were always run
simultaneously, utilizing both LTE jigs and both metal rods. Change in rod length
was originally registered in thousandths of an inch, but was converted to
millimeters before recording. See Appendix B for the equation and sample
calculation for the LTE coefficient.

Table 6
Linear Thermal Expansion Experiment Data for Unknown Rods

22

LaBarbera Polgar
Initial Length
(mm)

Initial
Temperature
(C)

Change in
Length
(mm)

Final
Temperature
(C)

LTE Coefficient
(1/C)

Trial

Rod

Jig

120.29

0.121

95.7

21.8

1.357 E-05

120.16

0.114

95.7

21.8

1.287 E-05

120.22

0.127

97.4

21.6

1.394 E-05

120.12

0.127

97.4

21.6

1.395 E-05

120.24

0.089

96.8

24.2

1.018 E-05

120.06

0.102

96.2

24.2

1.175 E-05

120.13

0.121

96.1

23.6

1.385 E-05

120.07

0.089

97.4

24.3

1.013 E-05

120.22

0.114

94.0

24.1

1.360 E-05

10

120.12

0.102

94.0

24.1

1.210 E-05

11

120.10

0.089

96.9

24.0

1.015 E-05

12

120.25

0.102

96.9

24.0

1.159 E-05

13

120.12

0.108

96.4

23.9

1.240 E-05

14

120.28

0.102

95.0

23.9

1.188 E-05

15

120.18

0.102

96.6

23.6

1.158 E-05

120.17

0.107

96.2

23.4

1.224 E-05

Average

Table 6 depicts the data collected from the LTE experiment for the
unknown rods. As with the titanium rods, two trials were always run
simultaneously. The LTE jigs outputted length changes in thousandths of an
inch, which were converted to millimeters before recording. See Appendix B for
the equation and sample calculation for the LTE coefficient.

Table 7
Linear Thermal Expansion Experiment Observations for Titanium Rods
Trial

Observations

23

LaBarbera Polgar
1

The rod was left in the water longer than recorded.

The rod was left in the water longer than recorded.

Initial length was measured after rod was removed from jig.

Initial length was measured after rod was removed from jig.

Trial seemed to run well

Trial seemed to run well

Fan was not immediately placed over the top of the rods.

Fan was not immediately placed over the top of the rods.

The rods were left in the water longer than recorded.

10

The rods were left in the water longer than recorded.

11

Trial seemed to run well

12

The needle appeared to be stuck on the dial

13

Trial seemed to run well, and a second fan was used.

14

Trial seemed to run well, and a second fan was used.

15

A second fan was used during this trial.

Table 7 shows the observations recorded for the linear thermal expansion
experiment on the titanium metal rods. It should be noted that the observations
often occur in pairs due to two trials being run at once. For Trials 13 to 15, an
extra fan was used to decrease cooling time.

Table 8
Linear Thermal Expansion Experiment Observations for Unknown Rods
Trial

Observations

24

LaBarbera Polgar
1

There was difficulty getting the rod into the jig.

There was extreme difficulty getting the rod into the jig.

Trial seemed to run well.

The dial was noted to have jumped whilst not being watched.

The needle appeared to be stuck on the dial.

Trial seemed to run well.

Trial was redone due to extreme percent error.

The needle appeared to be stuck on the dial.

Trial seemed to run well.

10

The rod was left in the water longer than recorded.

11

The rod was left in the water longer than recorded.

12

A second fan was used during this trial.

13

A second fan was used during this trial.

14

Rod had to be left in water longer than 5 minutes. A second fan was used during this trial.

15

The jigs needle was stuck momentarily.

Table 8 shows the observations recorded during the linear thermal

expansion trials for the unknown metal rods. It should be noted that the
observations often occur in pairs due to two trials being run at once. After
investigation into why the needle was not moving, it was found that one of the
jigs was broken, and that jig was replaced.

25

LaBarbera Polgar
Data Analysis and Interpretation
In the specific heat experiment, masses and temperatures were collected
to calculate the specific heat of metal rods in joules per gram degree Celsius
(J/(g C)). The masses recorded were found in grams (g) using an OHAUS
GA200 Balance (0.0001 g). The temperatures recorded were found in degrees
Celsius (C) using a temperature probe (0.1 C) connected to a LabQuest. To
ensure accurate data, each rod was randomly assigned a calorimeter for each
trial.
In the linear thermal expansion (LTE) experiment, lengths and
temperatures were measured to calculate the LTE coefficient of different metal
rods in inverse degrees Celsius (1/C). The lengths recorded were found in
millimeters (mm) using a caliper (0.01 mm) and a linear thermal expansion jig
(0.001 in). The temperatures recorded were found in Celsius (C) using a
Temperature probe (0.1 C) connected to a LabQuest. To ensure that data
remained unbiased, rods were randomly assigned a jig for each set or trials.
Table 9
Averages for Specific Heat Experiments
Value

Specific Heat (J/(g C))

Titanium Average

0.528

Unknown Average

0.808

Published Titanium Specific Heat

0.523

Table 9 displays the average specific heat for the titanium and unknown
data sets, along with the published specific heat for titanium
(KnowledgeDoor.com). Looking solely at these averages, it is easy to see that
the average specific heat for the unknown rods varied wildly from the published
specific heat of titanium. While the titanium rod average differed only
26

LaBarbera Polgar
0.005 J/(g C) from the published specific heat of titanium, the unknown rod
average differed by 0.285 J/(g C). This indicates that the unknown rods might
not be made of titanium.
Table 10
Averages for LTE Experiments
Value

LTE Coefficient (10-6/C)

Titanium Average

7.461

Unknown Average

12.24

Published Titanium LTE Coefficient

8.6

Table 10 displays the average LTE coefficient for both the titanium rods
and the unknown rods, along with the published LTE coefficient for titanium.
While the experimental average for the titanium rods is not extremely close to the
published value (differing by 1.139 x 10-6/C), the average coefficient for the
unknown rods differs by more than three times as much (3.64 x 10 -6/C). This
fact implies that the unknown rods may not be composed of titanium.

Figure 6. Box Plots for Specific Heat Experiment

Figure 6 displays box plots of the data collected during the specific heat
experiment. The published specific heat of titanium is included as a reference,

27

LaBarbera Polgar
and is 0.523 J/(g C) (KnowledgeDoor.com). Both sets of specific heat data are
approximately normally distributed, though the titanium plot is skewed slightly to
the left and the unknown plot is skewed slightly to the right. Since both forms of
skew are minor, they can be attributed to the low sample size of each data set.
The box plots overlap a negligible amount (0.002 J/(g C)) at their
extremes, but the spreads of data are largely independent of one another. The
median of the titanium data is only 0.010 J/(g C) away from the published
specific heat of titanium, and the data seems to be evenly distributed to either
side of the published value (as it should be). In contrast, the median of the
unknown data is 0.273 J/(g C) away from the published specific heat of titanium,
and the spread of data is far removed from that published value. The closest
unknown data point to the published specific heat of titanium is 0.614 J/(g C),
which is still 0.091 J/(g C) away. This is a good indicator that the unknown rods
may not be made of titanium.

Figure 7. Box Plots for Linear Thermal Expansion Experiment

28

LaBarbera Polgar
Figure 7 illustrates box plots of the data collected during the linear thermal
expansion (LTE) experiment. The published LTE coefficient of titanium,
8.6 x 10-6/C (KnowledgeDoor.com), is plotted as a point of reference. The
titanium LTE data is skewed to the right, whilst the unknown LTE data is skewed
somewhat to the right. Interestingly, both plots are skewed towards the
published LTE coefficient of titanium, though this may be of no significance.
Because both sets of data are skewed, a statistical test performed on them will
be less valid than a test performed on normally distributed data.
Despite being skewed towards a common point, the titanium LTE plot and
the unknown LTE plot never intersect. The lowest unknown data point,
10.13 x 10-6/C, is still 0.84 x 10-6/C greater than the highest titanium data point,
9.292 x 10-6/C. The median of the titanium data, 7.026 x 10-6/C, is about twice
as close to the published LTE coefficient of titanium than the median of the
unknown data, 12.10 x 10-6/C. Though it is not centered on the published LTE
coefficient for titanium, the titanium data is certainly closer to the published value
than the unknown data. The titanium data crosses over the published value in
the fourth quartile, while the lowest unknown LTE coefficient (10.13 x 10-6/C) is
1.5 x 10-6/C away from the true value. Albeit not as convincingly as the specific
heat plots, this implies that the unknown rods might not be composed of titanium.

29

LaBarbera Polgar

Figure 8. Normal Probability Plots for Specific Heat

Figure 8 displays normal probability plots of the titanium specific heat data
(left) and the unknown specific heat data (right). Almost all the data points hug
the plotted lines closely, indicating that both sets of data are normally distributed.

Figure 9. Normal Probability Plots for LTE

Figure 9 shows normal probability plots of the titanium LTE data (left) and
the unknown LTE data (right). There are distinct curved patterns in both graphs,
which are to be expected due to the skew observable in Figure 7. While the data
points never vary too much from their respective lines, they are certainly not
close enough to consider the data sets normally distributed. Both sets of data
are only somewhat normal, which will decrease the reliability of any statistical
test performed on them.

30

LaBarbera Polgar
Percent error is an effective tool for comparing experimental values to
known values. It adjusts itself according to the scale of data that is being worked
with, and can be calculated during an experiment to ensure that there are no
flaws in the experimental design. For the percent error formula and sample
calculation, see Appendix B.
Table 11
Percent Errors for the Specific Heat Experiments

Titanium
Percent Error (%)
0.70

Unknown
Percent Error (%)
88.04

-11.43

46.76

-3.89

75.82

11.10

54.84

-22.00

67.61

10.22

54.86

1.91

78.33

-3.33

50.77

4.19

52.11

10

4.68

33.00

11

-0.42

44.15

12

-8.87

23.84

13

12.21

37.29

14

1.90

17.33

15

17.81

92.23

Average

-0.22

54.47

Trial

Table 11 displays the percent errors for each of the specific heat trials.
The percent errors for titanium, while rather inconsistent, are generally close to
zero. The only exception is Trial 5, which has a percent error of -22.00%. It is
possible that a slight error was made during the execution of Trial 5, but the longterm effect of such an error would be insignificant. The percent errors for the
unknown rod are all far greater than zero, to extents that vary about as much as
the titanium percent errors. However, Trial 14, with a percent error of 17.33%,

31

LaBarbera Polgar
seems to stand apart from the rest. Again, it is possible that an error was made
during the execution of Trial 14, but the effect of such an error would be
negligible.
The average percent error for the titanium rods is extremely close to zero,
as it should be. The average unknown percent error, on the other hand, is over
50%. This is strong evidence that the unknown rods may not be composed of
titanium.
Table 12
Percent Errors for the LTE Experiments

Titanium
Percent Error (%)
8.05

Unknown
Percent Error (%)
57.82

7.07

49.67

-12.70

62.05

-13.50

62.19

-20.57

18.42

2.39

36.67

-24.20

61.08

-20.31

17.77

-18.89

58.16

10

-17.81

40.70

11

-20.59

18.07

12

-19.87

34.77

13

-8.43

44.14

14

-18.30

38.14

15

-20.98

34.66

Average

-13.24

42.29

Trial

Table 12 shows the percent errors for all of the LTE trials. Though they
are a ways from zero, most of the titanium percent errors show minimal variation.
Trials 1 and 2 are exceptions, with percent errors far exceeding the average
percent error. Though the gap between the percent errors of Trials 1 and 2 and
the average percent error is fairly large, it was not so large as to skew the data

32

LaBarbera Polgar
an excessive amount. The percent errors for the unknown rods quite a bit, but all
of them are far removed from the distribution of titanium percent errors. Since
they are so far from the average titanium percent error, the wide spread of the
unknown percent errors should not affect the assumptions drawn from the data.
Unlike for specific heat, the average percent error for the titanium rods is
not close to zero. However, it is much closer to zero than the average percent
error of the unknown rods, which is about three times further from zero. In
addition, the average percent errors of each rod type are on opposite sides of
zero, meaning that the titanium rod LTE coefficients were less than the published
LTE coefficient for titanium, and the unknown rod LTE coefficients were greater
than the published value. Because of this, the average percent errors for the
LTE experiments still provide evidence that the unknown rods might not be
titanium, despite the fact that both the titanium rods and the unknown rods
average percent errors are far from zero.
Two-sample t-tests are used to compare the means of two samples to
each other and determine the likelihood that those means would have resulted if
they came from populations with equal means. In the specific heat experiments
two-sample t-test, the average specific heat for the titanium rods and the average
specific heat for the unknown rods will be compared. Similarly, the two-sample ttest for the LTE experiment will compare the average LTE coefficient of the
titanium rods to the average LTE coefficient of the unknown rods. Both tests will
be conducted with the purpose of determining the likelihood that the results
would have been obtained if the rods are composed of the same metal (titanium).

33

LaBarbera Polgar
In order to perform a two-sample t-test, certain assumptions must be met.
First, the data for each sample must have been collected independently. This
assumption is met, as there were no trends or patterns observed in either data
set (specific heat or LTE coefficient) to indicate that the titanium data or the
unknown data was affected by the collection of the other. Second, the data sets
being compared must be simple random samples (SRS). As stated previously,
the calorimeters and jigs used in all trials were randomly selected, ensuring that
all samples are SRSs. Third, the data sets must be normally distributed. This
assumption is met for the specific heat data, whose box plots and normal
probability plots (Figures 6 and 8) indicate distributions of normalcy. The
distributions for the LTE data, however, appear non-normal (see Figure 7).
Though the third assumption is not met for the LTE data, a two-sample t-test will
still be run, though the reliability of the results will be diminished.
The hypotheses for both the specific heat t-test and the LTE t-test are
identical.
H 0 : t=u
H a : t u
The null hypothesis,

H0

, states that the true mean of the titanium rod value

(be it specific heat or LTE coefficient),

unknown rod value,

, is equal to the true mean of the

. Contrarily, the alternative hypothesis,

34

Ha

, states

LaBarbera Polgar
that the true mean of the titanium rod value is not equal to the true mean of the
unknown rod value.

Figure 10. Two-Sample t-Test Results for Specific Heat

Figure 10 shows the results of the t-test for the specific heat experiment,
where sample 1 is the titanium rod data and sample 2 is the unknown rod data.
The p-value is extremely low, 6.0101E-8. For details on how to calculate t-value
and perform a two-sample t-test, see Appendix B.
The null hypothesis is rejected because a p-value of 6.0101 E-8 is
considered significant at an alpha-level of 0.1. There is substantial evidence to
suggest that the specific heat of the titanium rods and the specific heat of the
unknown rods are not equal. There is only a 6.0101 E-6% chance that results as
extreme would have been obtained by chance alone if the specific heats of the
titanium rods and unknown rods were actually equal.

Figure 11. Two-Sample t-Test Results for LTE

35

LaBarbera Polgar
Figure 11 shows the t-test results for the LTE experiment, where sample 1
is the titanium rod data and sample 2 is the unknown rod data. The p-value is
incredibly low, 4.8062E-11. For a formula and sample calculation for t-value, see
Appendix B.
The null hypothesis is rejected because a p-value of 4.8052 E-11 is
extremely significant at an alpha-level of 0.1. There is considerable evidence
that the titanium rods and unknown rods do not have the same LTE coefficient.
There is only a 4.8052E-9% chance that results as extreme would have been
obtained by chance alone if the LTE coefficients of the titanium rods and the
unknown rods were the same. It should be noted, however, that these results
are less valid than those of specific heat because one of the assumptions
(normal distribution) was not met.

36

LaBarbera Polgar
Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine if a metal rod was
composed of titanium by comparing its specific heat and linear thermal
expansion (LTE) coefficient to those of a rod composed of titanium. It was
theorized that the unknown rod would produce a percent error less than 15% for
both specific heat and LTE in relation to a rod of titanium if it was composed of
titanium. This hypothesis was accepted, as the percent errors for specific heat
and LTE of the titanium rod were below 15%, while those of the unknown rod
were beyond the accepted range. Because of this, the unknown rods were
declared not to be composed of titanium.
The Kinetic Molecular Theory states that, as energy (or heat) is added to a
system, the kinetic energy of the particles within the system increases. Different
elements require different amounts of heat to change their atoms kinetic energy,
or change their temperature, and this is the principle of specific heat. In addition,
as the kinetic energy of the atoms increases, they have more interactions with
each other. These collisions cause the volume that the atoms take up to
increase, and this increase is defined by the LTE coefficient. Both specific heat
and LTE are intensive properties; they do not change as the amount of a sample
changes and are unique to each element.
The average specific heat for the titanium rods differed only 0.005 J/(g C)
from the published specific heat of titanium, while the average specific heat for
the unknown rods was 0.285 J/(g C) away from the published titanium value.
Furthermore, the average LTE coefficient for the titanium rods was

37

LaBarbera Polgar
1.139 x 10-6/C away from the true LTE coefficient of titanium, whilst the average
LTE coefficient for the unknown rods differed 3.64 x 10 -6/C from the true value.
These differences are apparent in the percent errors: both percent errors
(specific heat and LTE coefficient) for the titanium rods were less than 15%, while
both percent errors for the unknown rods were far greater; both exceeding 40%.
This is good evidence that the unknown rods may not be composed of titanium.
Two-sample t-tests were performed on the data; one for specific heat and
one for LTE. These produced p-values so low (less than a hundred thousandth
of a percent) that it was almost statistically impossible for both the rods to be
composed of the same element (titanium). Though the results of the LTE t-test
were less reliable (due to the data being skewed), these p-values provide
evidence that the rods may not be composed of the same metal.
Overall, the designed experiments fulfilled their intended purpose. Results
were essentially accurate, even more so for the specific heat experiment
because the calorimeters were calibrated during experimental execution. The
precision of the LTE jig allowed for extremely precise measurements, without
which the LTE coefficient of the rods could not have been calculated. The fan
was vital to cooling rods in the LTE experiment in an efficient and consistent
amount of time. Without it, research would not have been completed in a timely
manner. All things considered, the various components of each experiment
allowed research to run smoothly and accurately.
Despite the relative ease with which research was executed, problems
and imperfections were encountered along the way. In both experiments, and

38

LaBarbera Polgar
especially for the unknown rods (as they were far greater in volume than the
titanium rods), it could never be stated for certain that the rods in the boiling bath
came to the same temperature as the surrounding water. It was impossible to
measure the temperature of the rods themselves, so it was unknown whether
their temperatures ever completely matched that of the water. In similar
experiments, the rods should be heated up for longer to ensure that their
temperatures truly match the waters temperature.
It was noted in the observations that the needles of the jigs would
occasionally jump great distances or remain stationary for a long time. The
source of these malfunctions was never discovered, though it was theorized to
be an issue with the placement of the rod in the jig. In other LTE experiments,
jigs should be more structurally sound and should measure length changes in a
more enclosed environment. This would increase the accuracy of measurements
by reducing the impact of external forces and initial misplacement of rods.
The calorimeters used in the specific heat experiment were imperfect.
Though insulated on the sides, trace amounts of heat could still escape, or even
be stored in, the walls of the calorimeters. Even more heat could have escaped
through the top of the calorimeters, as these areas were not as fortified as other
faces. Even though heat lost from the calorimeters should have been accounted
for in the calorimeter correction factor, it is probable that this correction was
inexact.
Specific heat and LTE are not the only properties that can be utilized in the
identification of unknown objects. Any intensive property that is unique to each

39

LaBarbera Polgar
element, such as density or melting point, can be used in such identifications. In
industry, it is necessary to determine the identity of metals; especially to
determine if there are impurities in said metals. If imperfections exist in the
formation of titanium oxide, for example, unwanted byproducts might be
produced. Therefore, identification methods such as specific heat and LTE are
both practical and effective in an industrial setting.

40

LaBarbera Polgar
Application
Titanium is a lightweight, durable metal. In manufacturing it is often
combined with oxygen to make titanium oxide. This is then used to in many
white dyes. Most of the remaining titanium is used to make lightweight products
such as golf clubs and tennis racquets.

Figure 12. Tennis Racquet Orthographic View

Figure 12, above, shows the frame of a tennis racquet constructed of
titanium. Tennis racquets constructed out of titanium are generally more durable,
lighter, and stronger than their composite counterparts. The trend today is
toward lighter, bigger rackets, and these are achievable because of metals such
as titanium. Because of the advantages of a titanium racquet, many players will
invest in one to help improve their game. The price of the 1.45 lbs. of titanium
used in the frame shown above is $12.33. The volume of the metal is 8.89 cubic
inches.

41

LaBarbera Polgar

Figure 13. Tennis Racquet Isometric View

Figure 13, above, shows the isometric view of the tennis racquet frame.
The frame shown above does include the handle of the racquet because, in an
actual tennis racquet, the handle is made of a different material.

42

LaBarbera Polgar
Appendix A: Calorimeter Construction
Materials:
in. PVC
1 in. PVC
in. PVC End cap
1 in. PVC End cap
PVC Primer

PVC Glue
Utility knife
Hand saw
Rubber Cork
Spray insulating foam sealant

43

Construction Procedure:
1.

Ensure all safety measures are taken including wearing googles to

prevent any eye damage.

2.

Use the hand saw to cut the in. PVC and the 1 in. PVC to 14 cm in
length.

3.

Coat one exterior end of each PVC pipe with PVC primer.

4.

Coat the interior of the end caps with PVC primer.

5.

Once the primer has dried, coat the inside of the end caps and the ends of
the PVC pipes with PVC glue.

6.

Quickly push each PVC end cap onto the end of its corresponding PVC
pipe in a screwing motion. This will ensure the end cap is pushed all the
way on.

7.

After both pipes have dried, use gloves to suspend the in PVC pipe
inside the larger 1 in PVC pipe. Use the insulating foam sealant to fill
the gap inside the 1 in PVC pipe.

8.

Using the utility knife, cut the excess foam off the outside of the rim of the
in PVC pipe.

9.

Cut a small section of the cork out using the hand saw. The opening
should be roughly 0.75 cm wide.

Diagram:

Figure 14. Diagram of Calorimeter

Figure 14 shows an exploded view of the complete calorimeter. All pieces
are included above excluding the foam sealant, glue, and primer. The in. PVC
pipe and end cap are placed inside of the 1 in. PVC pipe and end cap. The
rubber cork is placed on the end to seal the calorimeter.

Appendix B: Formulas and Sample Calculations

Percent Error:
Percent error is a ratio of the difference between experimental value and
the true value. If an experimental value is found, percent error can be used to
compare it to the published value. This helps to determine the accuracy of an
experiment. This information can then be used to determine if certain trials need
to be rerun to produce coherent results. The

for the specific property of the metal rod. The

True Value

is the published value

Experimental Value

value for the same property of the metal rod. The

Percent Error

is calculated

is calculated

by dividing the difference between the experimental value and the true value by
the true value, and multiplying by 100.
Percent Error=

Experimental ValueTrue Value

100
True Value

Shown below is a sample calculation using the above formula. The data used in
the equation is from Trial 1 of the known metal rod specific heat experiment.
Percent Error=

Experimental ValueTrue Value

100
True Value

Percent Error=

0.527 J /(g )0.523 J /(g )

100
0.523 J /(g )

Percent Error=

0.003662 J /(g )
100
0.523 J /(g )

Percent Error=0.00700100

Percent Error=0.70
Figure 15. Percent Error Sample Calculation
Figure 15, above, shows a sample calculation for percent error. The final
result is a percentage. The value 0.527 J/(g C) is supplemented as the
Experimental Value and 0.523 J/(g C) is supplemented as the True Value. The
final percent error found is 0.70%.

Calorimeter Correction Factor:

The calorimeter correction factor accounts for the heat that escapes a
calorimeter due to design imperfections. The published specific heat of titanium,
st

(J/(g C)), times the rods mass,

change,

Tt

waters mass,

mt

(C), minus the specific heat of water,

mw

calibration factor,

sw

(J/(g C)), times the

(g), times the waters temperature change,

divided by the waters temperature change,

CF=

(g), times the rods temperature

CF

Tw

Tw

(C), all

(C), is equal to the

(J/C).

( stmt T t ) ( s wmw T w)
Tw

Shown below is a sample calculation using the above formula. The data used in
the equation is from Trial 1 of the known metal rod specific heat experiment.

CF=

CF=

CF=

( stmt T t ) ( s wmw T w)
Tw

( 0.523 J /( g )42.557 g64.7 )(4.184 J /( g)22.8 g9.4 )

9.4

1440.051 J 896.715 J
9.4

CF=248.59 J /
Figure 16. Calorimeter Correction Factor Sample Calculation
Figure 16, above, shows a sample calculation for the calorimeter
correction factor. The calorimeter correction factor for the selected trial is
-248.59. To find the correction factor of a calorimeter, the correction factors of all
trials with that calorimeter are averaged.

Specific Heat:
Specific heat is a measure of energy change per unit of temperature for a

1 g sample of a material. The specific heat of a rod,

the waters specific heat,

sw

sr

(J/(g C)), is equal to

(J/(g C)), times the waters mass,

times the waters temperature change,

Tw

mw

(g),

(C), plus the calibration factor,

CF

(J/C), times the waters temperature change,

mass,
sr =

mr

(g), times the rods temperature change,

Tw

(C), over the rods

Tr

(C).

s wm w T w +(CF T w )
mr T r

The temperature change for both the rod and the water was found by subtracting
the initial temperature from the final temperature. The specific heat of water is
known to be 4.184 J/g C. Shown below is a sample calculation using the
specific heat formula. The data used in the equation is from Trial 1 of the
titanium metal rod specific heat experiment.

sr =

s wm w T w +(CF T w )
mr T r

sr =

4.184 J /( g )22.8 g9.4 +(249.665 J /9.4 )

42.5571 g(64.7 )

sr =

4.184 J /( g )22.8 g9.4 +(2346.85 J )

42.5571 g(64.7 )

sr =

896.715 J 2346.85 J
(2753.44 g )

sr =

1450.14 J
2753.44 g

s r =0.527 J /(g )
Figure 17. Specific Heat Sample Calculation
Figure 17, above, shows a sample calculation for specific heat. The
average correction factor for Calorimeter A was used in place of the correction
factor for that trial.

Linear Thermal Expansion:

The linear thermal expansion (LTE) coefficient is a measure of length
change based on original length and temperature change. The LTE coefficient,

(1/C), is equal to the change in length,

of the initial rod length,

Li

(mm), divided by the quantity

(mm), times the quantity of final temperature,

(C), minus initial temperature

=

Ti

Tf

(C).

L
Li( T f T i )

Shown below is a sample calculation using the above formula. The data used in
the equation is from Trial 1 of the known metal rod LTE experiment.
=

L
Li( T f T i )

0.09652 mm
127.05 mm( 21.596.8 )

0.09652 mm
127.05 mm(75.3 )

0.09652mm
9566.865 mm

=0.00001009/
Figure 18. Linear Thermal Expansion Sample Calculation
Figure 18, above, shows a sample calculation for linear thermal
expansion. It should be noted the absolute value of the final answer is shown
above.

Two-Sample t-Test:
A two-sample t-test was run on the results to decide if the means of two

samples differ significantly. The mean of the known metal rods,

x1

, minus the

mean of the unknown metal rod,

x2

, over the square root of the sample

deviation of the known metal rod,

s1

, squared over the population of the

known metal rods,

n1

, plus the sample deviation of the known metal rod,

s2

squared over the population of the known metal rods,

n2

, equals t . Units

differ based on the experiment.

t=

x 1x 2

s 12 s 22
+
n1 n2

The variable
x 1x 2

is the number of standard deviations away from 0 that (

) is on a t-distribution with degrees of freedom equal to (n-1) where n is

the lower of the two sample sizes. Shown below is a sample calculation using
the above formula. The data used in the calculation is from the specific heat
titanium experiment.
t=

t=

t=

t=

t=

x 1x 2

s 12 s 22
+
n1 n2
0.528 J /( g )0.808 J /(g )

( 0.0531 J /( g ) )
15

( 0.1169 J /( g ) )

15

0.279867 J /(g )

0.002816( J /(g))2 0.013662( J /(g ))2

+
15
15

0.279867 J /(g )

0.001099(J /(g ))2

0.279867 J /(g )
0.033144 J /( g )

t=8.444
Figure 19. Statistical test sample calculation
Figure 19, above, shows a sample calculation for a statistical test. To
correlate a t-value with a p-value, a t-table or a more sophisticated calculation
tool must be used. Using a table with 14 degrees of freedom, a t-value of -8.444
would correspond to a p-value less than 0.0005 (tables can only be so accurate).
Using a more sophisticated calculation tool, a t-value of -8.444 can be associated
with a p-value of 6.01 x 10-8.
Works Cited
"223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal Expansion." 223 Physics Labs. Clemson
University, 27 Jan. 2006. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.clemson.edu/ces/phoenix/labs/223/expansion/>.
The Editors of Encyclopdia Britannica. "Thermal Expansion." Encyclopedia
Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Mar.
2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/591408/thermalexpansion>.
"The Elements Handbook." KnowledgeDoor. KnowledgeDoor LLC, 3 Mar. 2014.
Web. 1 May 2014. <http://www.knowledgedoor.com>.

Henderson, Tom. "Measuring the Quantity of Heat." The Physics Classroom. The
Physics Classroom, 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-2/Measuringthe-Quantity-of-Heat>.
"Measuring the Coefficient of Linear Expansion of Copper, Steel, and Aluminum."
The University of Nevada, Reno. University of Nevada, Reno, 2014. Web.
26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.unr.edu/Documents/science/physics/labs/
181/measuring-the-coefficient-of-linear-expansion-04march2013.pdf>.
Simanek, Donald. "H-2 Specific Heat Capacity." Lock Haven University. Lock
Haven University, 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/labman1/spheat.htm>.

"Specific Heat." Ohlone College. Ohlone College, 12 Nov. 2008. Web. 27 Mar.
2014. <http://www2.ohlone.edu/people/jklent/labs/101A_labs/
SpecificHeat.pdf>.
"Specific Heat." The Engineering ToolBox. The Engineering ToolBox, 7 Mar.
2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specificheat-capacity-d_339.html>.
"Specific Heats." National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ed. Tom
Benson. FirstGov, 18 Nov. 2005. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/ education/rocket/specheat.html>.
"Thermal Expansion - Linear." The Engineering ToolBox. The Engineering
ToolBox, 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansiond_1379.html>.
"Thermal Expansion." ASM International. ASM International, 22 July 2004. Web.
26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~msci301/
ThermalExpansion.pdf>.
"Thermal Expansion." The Physics Hypertextbook. The Physics Hypertextbook,
2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://physics.info/expansion/>.
"Titanium Statistics and Information." USGS Minerals Information. U.S.
Geological Survey, 25 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 May 2014.
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/titanium/>.