Conte Niedbala 3

Comparing the Intensive Properties of Copper and an Unknown Metal

Chris Conte and Andrew Niedbala
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Chemistry 10B
Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. Supal, Mrs. Dewey
May 20, 2013

Conte Niedbala 4
Introduction:
Two researchers were given four metal rods, two that were known to be
copper and two that were not known. Given these rods, they attempted to figure
out whether the unknown rods were copper, or if they were a different element.
The purpose of the experiment was to use the values of two intensive properties
to determine if the unknown rod was or was not copper. This was accomplished
by running various experiments to find the specific heat and linear thermal
expansion of the rods. Both of these characteristics are intensive, meaning that
sample size does not affect results of the properties. The specific heat and
thermal expansion were found for both the known copper rod and the unknown
metal rod. Therefore, the objective was to find the specific heat and linear
thermal expansion values for the both of the metals and additionally to determine
if the unknown rods were copper using a two-sample t-test. After the t-tests were
run and the p values were determined, the researchers were able to determine if
the metal was copper or not.
Specific heat is the amount of energy it takes to raise an objects
temperature by 1C. For their experiment, the researchers found the specific heat
of two copper rods and two unknown metal rods. To find the specific heat, the
researchers took the mass of the rods, then the researchers submerged the rods
in boiling water and then into calorimeters holding room-temperature water. The
temperature change of the water and the rods was monitored using Logger Pro
systems. These recorded values for mass and temperature change were then
used to find the specific heat of the rods.

Conte Niedbala 5
Linear thermal expansion is the length change proportional to the original
length of the metal and the change in temperature of the metal. The linear
thermal expansion of the metal rods was found by placing the rods in boiling
water, and then placing them into a jig after the rods were heated. The jig
measured how much the rods length decreased as it cooled down. The rods
were sprayed with cool water in order to speed up this process. The changes in
length and in temperature were then used to find the alpha coefficient, which is
the degree of expansion or retraction divided by the change in temperature.
Two methods were used to help decide if the metals were the same or not.
First, the percent errors for each of the trials were found by comparing the true
values for copper with the values that were found in the experiment. In addition,
the researchers conducted and analyzed the results of two separate two-sample
t-tests for each of the experiments. The p-value of each test was found and
compared to the alpha level to determine if the results were similar or not. These
results were critical in making a conclusion as to whether the rods were the same
or not. In using all of these methods, the researchers were able to conclude the
true identity of the unknown metal.

Conte Niedbala 6
Background and Review of Literature:
Background:
Copper is generally known as mans oldest metal, and dates back to 8700
B.C. Its chemical symbol is Cu, and it has an atomic weight of approximately
63.546 atomic mass unit (amu). It could not be used effectively until 3500 B.C.
when people learned how to smelt it from ore. There are two methods that are
used to smelt ore. These processes are known as either open pit or underground
mining. During the process of smelting, the ore is combined with water and sinks
to the bottom, allowing the copper to rise to the top and then be skimmed off by
miners.

Figure 1. Copper Extraction Reactions

Figure 1 shows the most crucial reactions that take place in copper
formation. The first reaction shows the formation of slag, or FeOSiO 2. Slag is
formed by the combination of FeO and SiO2, and this slag floats on the liquid and
is easily removed. The second reaction shows Cu 2S reacting with air, 02, to
make blister copper, 2Cu and S02 gas. The formed blister copper is said to be
99.99% pure (Rzadkosz, Kranz, Nowicki, & Piekos).
Furthermore, copper is an excellent conductor of heat and electricity which
makes it invaluable for use in the construction and the industry of electrical
products. It may be used for cables, wiring, plumbing, heating, and also

Conte Niedbala 7
ventilation and many other building materials, such as pipes for plumbing. The
qualities that make this so are that it is one of the most easily recycled metals, is
very durable when installed correctly, is corrosion resistant, and is resistant to
burning or melting during house fires (Dodek, Pavol, Liptakova, Zatkalikova).
Additionally, coppers durability and strength has also caused it be a main
component of dental fillings as they are much less likely to break when they are
in high in copper or copper alloys (Solanki).
When determining if an unknown metal is copper, knowledge of certain
characteristics will prove helpful. First, the density of copper is 8.96 g/cm 3. While
this is helpful, the main two values that will be used to decide if the unknown
element is copper are its specific heat and linear thermal expansion. The specific
heat of copper is 0.385 J/gC. Another value is linear thermal expansion, which is
1.7 x 10-5 C-1 for copper. The specific heat means that it takes just 0.386 joules
per grams to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius. The linear thermal
expansion value is the proportional change in length between the original length
and temperature change when it is heated or cooled. The melting and boiling
points of copper are 1083 C and 2595 C, respectively. Alone the values do not
have a lot of meaning, but do when compared to the values of another metal,
such as silver. The thermal expansion of silver is 2.0 x 10 -5 J/gC. When
compared to the thermal expansion of copper, this shows how much more silver
expands when heated. Therefore, the linear thermal expansion of silver is higher
than that of copper, another main reason that copper, despite conducting
electricity worse than silver, is used more frequently for piping. Compared to

Conte Niedbala 8
values of other metallic elements, copper has a fairly low melting and boiling
point. The average melting and boiling point of metallic elements are
approximately 1199 C, and 2744 C, respectively.

Figure 2. Electron Configuration

Figure 2 displays Coppers electron configuration. Copper has only one
valence electron, which is loosely bound to its atom. This loosely bonded
electron is what makes running an electrical current through copper effective,
because the electron is free to flow from atom to atom, carrying the electronic
current.
Copper has 29 protons and 35 neutrons. The protons and neutrons are
packed closely together in the nucleus of an atom, while the electrons circle the
nucleus and move around the electron cloud randomly. This explains why
copper conducts electricity incredibly well (Acanski).
Specific Heat of Literature:
One property of the unknown metal the researchers tested in the
experiment was specific heat. On a molecular level, specific heat is the amount
of heat it takes to raise an object one degree Celsius or Kelvin. The units of
measurement for specific heat are J/gC, or Joules/ (grams*degrees Celsius).
Although these are the most common units, calories may be used in place of
joules and Kelvin in place of Celsius. Specific heat is an intensive property,
meaning that its value does not vary based off of sample size.

Conte Niedbala 9
The mathematical equation that shows how to calculate specific heat was
learned by the researchers in their chemistry class. In class on January 31 st, the
researchers learned a variation of the following equation for specific heat:

Figure 3. Specific Heat Equation

Figure 3 shows the mathematical relationship between specific heat, total
heat energy, mass, and the temperature change during the transfer heat. Specific

heat is represented by S, temperature change by

, mass by m, and the total

heat energy involved is q. The value found by this equation would yield a value
for specific heat measured in joules per grams Celsius. This formula was then
manipulated to determine specific heat.
The researchers learned in class that the transfer of heat between a
system and its respective surroundings is known as enthalpy. The value for
enthalpy in the equation is represented by the variable q.
The known specific heat of copper is 0.386 J/gC, compared to another
metal used in many of the same industries, such as silver, which has a specific
heat of just .233 J/gC (Table of Specific Heats). These are important to know
because one must apply different amounts of heat in the process of smelting.
Calorimetry is the process often associated with the transfer of heat and
often measured using the help of a calorimeter, or an isolated system in which

Conte Niedbala 10
matter and heat are not able to escape (Potts). The First Law of
Thermodynamics states that the change in energy of a system is equal to the
heat added to the system minus the work done by the system (Nave). The
experiment that the researchers conducted, in addition to many other classroom
experiments, were conducted in similar fashion.
One experiment that the researchers used for reference was one
published by Lake-Sumter Community College. In this experiment, the identity of
an unknown metal was found by comparing its specific heat to those of known
metals. The experiment was performed by simply finding all of the missing values
from the specific heat equation (LCCU). This is similar to the experiment the
researchers conducted because calorimeters were used to find the specific heat,
but different in the fact that the researchers tested more than just specific heat in
their attempts to identify the unknown metal.
Another experiment the researchers used as a reference was a nearly
identical type of experiment with one slight difference, the difference being that
the calorimeter was not really a perfect isolated system but just a Styrofoam cup.
(DeMello). A Styrofoam cup was used in the first experiment as well. The fact that
both experiments used an imperfect isolated system would likely slant some of
their data and it would not plateau and stay there like it normally would when a
closed system is used. This experiment also found the experimental values that
were required to solve for the value of s in the specific heat equation.

Conte Niedbala 11

Linear Thermal Expansion:

The next property of the unknown metal the researchers determined in the
experiment was linear thermal expansion. On a molecular level, linear thermal
expansion is the length change by an amount proportional to the original length
and the change in temperature of a metal. The units of measurement for linear
thermal expansion are m/mC, or meters/ (meters degrees Celsius). This means
that it can also be expressed in inverse degrees Celsius. The metal will build up
kinetic energy and expands when heat increases, and contract when heat
decreases. This occurs because the molecules compact and slow down when
cooled, but expand and speed up when heated. (Hester) Linear thermal
expansion is an intensive property, meaning that its value does not vary because
of sample size.
The following mathematical equation demonstrates how to calculate linear
thermal expansion. The formula illustrates the mathematical relationship between

change in length of the metal,

expansion coefficient, a, initial length of metal,

Li, and the temperature change during the transfer heat,

Figure 4. Linear Thermal Expansion Equation.

After all known values are inserted and multiplied, the change in length on
the left is divided by the initial length multiplied by the change in temperature.

Conte Niedbala 12
This gives a final value for the coefficient of linear thermal expansion in units of
rate of expansion per degree Celsius (Hester). When the thermal linear
expansion is higher than that of another metals, it suggests that the first metal
will expand more when exposed to heat.
These values are important for industry such as the construction of
bridges and even sidewalks. The known coefficient of copper is 1.65 x 10 -5
m/mC, while the coefficient of silver is 1.95 x 10-5 m/mC (Coefficients of Linear
Expansion). This shows that silver is more susceptible to expansion, which
would be a huge problem for a bridge as it may collapse. This knowledge allows
the engineers to leave an appropriate amount of extra space for the bridge to
expand. Manufacturers of planes and cars also must account for extreme linear
expansion and contraction.
One experiment referenced by the researchers was conducted by Donald
E. Simanek. His experiment was used by the researchers because the procedure
he used was similar to theirs; he measured the metal and then heated it up in a

closed system, and then found the coefficient from a graph of

vs.

(Simanek).
Another experiment the researchers used was by Stony Brook University.
This experiment was much like Simaneks experiment, and like the one the
researchers used. The lengths of metal rods were taken, and then placed in a
closed system while they heated up, and then the change in length was

Conte Niedbala 13
recorded. In this experiment, by measuring Li,

, and

, they determined the

coefficient of linear expansion, . (Stony Brook 1).

Problem Statement:
How can the researches determine the intensive properties of specific
heat and linear thermal expansion and use them to determine whether or not a
metal sample is copper?
Hypothesis:
If the intensive property of specific heat of a metal sample is tested for the
specific heat of copper in joules per gram degrees Celsius, then it can be
determined that the identity of the unknown sample is copper. Furthermore, if the
intensive property of linear thermal expansion of a metal sample is tested for the
linear thermal expansion of copper in inverse degrees Celsius, then it can be
determined that the identity of the metal sample is copper. The unknown will be
determined to be copper with an average percent error for specific heat of less
than or equal to 2% and an average percent error for linear thermal expansion
less than or equal to 3%.
Data:
Specific heat (s) of the unknown metal was calculated by finding the
quantity of heat (q) in joules (J), mass (m) in grams (g), and change in

Conte Niedbala 14
temperature (

) in degrees Celsius (C). The value calculated for specific heat

was measured in joules per gram degrees Celsius (J / g C). The same values
were also used for the water.
The coefficient of linear thermal expansion () was calculated by recording
the initial length of the metal rod (Li) in meters, the change in length of the metal
rod (L) in meters and change in temperature of the metal rod (T) in degrees
Celsius.

Conte Niedbala 15

Specific Heat Experimental Design

Materials:
Copper Metal Rod (2)
Unknown Metal Rod (2)
TESR Caliper 00530085 (0.01mm precision)
Scout Pro Electronic Scale (0.1g precision)
TI-Nspire Graphing Calculator
Paper towel
Calorimeter (4)
Logger Pro Temperature Probe (0.1 precision) (2)
Logger Pro
Hot plate
Timer
20.9 cm by 9.8 cm by 6.3 cm loaf pan
Graduated cylinder
Thermometer
Tongs
Water
Procedure:
Be aware of safety precautions. Wear appropriate attire.
1. Randomize all trials using the TI-Nspire in order to ensure accurate
results, allocating 15 trials for each known metal rod, and 15 for each
2.
3.
4.
5.

unknown rod (Appendix A).

Set loaf pan with 100 mL of water on hot plate and boil to 100C.
Fill graduated cylinder with 60 grams of water.
Fill each calorimeter with the water (Appendix C).
Place Logger Pro probe in the calorimeter and make sure it is set to
record four times a second. Then record the initial temperature of the

water.
6. Place the metal rod on the scale and record the mass. Then quickly insert

Conte Niedbala 16
the metal rod into the boiling water (assume the rod is the same
temperature as the water).
7. Set the timer for 3 minutes.
8. Take the metal rod out of the water using tongs and place it in the
calorimeter without removing the temperature probe.
9. Once the timer goes off, or equilibrium is reached, stop recording on the
Logger Pro and use tongs to remove the metal from the calorimeter.
10. Place the metal on a paper towel and dry it using the tongs.
11. Repeat for every trial.

Diagram:

Figure 5. Specific Heat Materials

Figure 5 shows all of the materials that were used for the specific heat
experiment.

Conte Niedbala 17

Thermal Expansion Experimental Design

Materials:
Copper Metal Rod (2)
Unknown Metal Rod (2)
TESR Caliper 00530085 (0.01mm precision)
Scout Pro Electronic Scale (0.1g precision)
TI-Nspire Graphing Calculator
Hot Plate
Spray Bottle (100 mL)
Loaf Pan
Electronic Timer
Computer
Paper towel
Jig
Logger Pro
Tongs
Water
Procedures:
Be aware of safety precautions. Wear appropriate attire.
1. Randomize all trials using the TI-Nspire in order to ensure accurate
results, allocating 15 trials for each known metal rod, and 15 for each
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

unknown rod (Appendix A)

Measure the initial length of the rod using the caliper
Heat the water to approximately 100 C.
Assume that the temperatures of the rod and the water are equal.
Use tongs to remove the metal rod from the water and place it in the jig
When the dial stops moving, remove the metal from the jig. Make sure to
record observations. In order to speed up the cooling process, use the

spray bottle to spray cool water on the metal

7. Place the metal on a paper towel using the tongs.
8. Repeat for every trial.

Diagram:

Conte Niedbala 18

Figure 6. Linear Thermal Expansion Materials

Figure 6 shows all of the materials that the researchers used for the linear
thermal expansion experiment.

Conte Niedbala 19

Data and Observations:

Table 1
Linear Thermal Expansion Copper Rod Data

Table 1 shows the results from the fifteen specific heat trials that were
conducted on the copper rod. The data was not close to the expected alpha
coefficient of 1.65 x 10-5. However, the data seems to be consistent through each
of the fifteen trials. Reference Appendix D to see a sample calculation for the
alpha coefficient of thermal expansion.

Conte Niedbala 20

Table 2
Linear Thermal Expansion Copper Rod Observations

Table 2 shows the observations that were taken by the researchers during
the process of conducting each of the fifteen trials. In trial six, where it was noted
that the researchers did not mark where the jig had started immediately, a rather
low change in length was recorded.

Conte Niedbala 21
Table 3
Specific Heat of Copper Rod Data

Table 3 shows the data collected while determining the specific heat of the
two copper rods. Although several trials were not close to the known specific heat
of 0.386 J / g x C, the majority of the trials were consistently close to that value.
For instructions to calculate the specific heat value, reference Appendix D.

Conte Niedbala 22
Table 4
Specific Heat Copper Rod Observations

Table 4 shows the observations recorded during specific heat trials for the
Copper rods. In several trials where an error occurred, such as trial 11 when the
rod was dropped, the specific heat value for that trial was higher than normal.

Conte Niedbala 23
Table 5
Linear Thermal Expansion Unknown Rod Data

Table 5 shows the results from the fifteen specific heat trials that were
conducted on the unknown rod. This data also was not close to the expected
alpha coefficient of 1.65 x 10-5 inverse degrees Celsius. However, the data seems
to be consistent through each of the fifteen trials. Despite this, the data obtained
in these trials is not similar to that obtained in the copper trials.

Conte Niedbala 24
Table 6
Linear Thermal Expansion Unknown Metal Rod Observations

Table 6 shows the observations that were taken by the researchers during
the process while conducting each of the fifteen trials. In trial eight, where it was
noted that the researchers dropped the rod before placing it in the jig, a rather
low change in length was recorded.

Table 7

Conte Niedbala 25
Specific Heat Unknown Metal Rod Data

Table 7 shows the 15 specific heat trials conducted on the unknown metal
rods. The data collected is consistently close to the known value .386 J / gC,
and also seems to be closer to this value than the data collected from the Copper
rods.

Conte Niedbala 26

Table 8
Specific Heat Unknown Metal Rod Observations
Trial
1

Rod
A

Date
4/19/2013

4/19/2013

3
4

B
B

4/19/2013
4/19/2013

4/19/2013

6
7
8
9

B
A
B
B

4/19/2013
4/19/2013
4/23/2013
4/23/2013

10

4/19/2013

11
12
13
14

A
B
A
A

4/23/2013
4/23/2013
4/23/2013
4/23/2013

15

4/23/2013

Observations
Ran by Researcher 1 and calorimeter 4 was used.
Ran by Researcher 2 and calorimeter 4 was used. Dropped the
metal rods. Were unable to determine which rod was truly A or B.
Ran by Researcher 2 and calorimeter 1 was used. The
calorimeter overflowed upon the rod's insertion.
Ran by Researcher 1 and calorimeter 1 was used
Ran by Researcher 1 and calorimeter 1 was used. Started using
less water to fill calorimeters to accustom for increase in mass.
Ran by Researcher 1 and calorimeter 1 was used Didnt wait as
long as planned due to time constraints.
Ran by Researcher 2 and calorimeter 4 was used. Redo trial
Ran by Researcher 1 and calorimeter 2 was used.
Ran by Researcher 1 and calorimeter 4 was used. Redo trial
Ran by Researcher 2 and calorimeter 4 was used. Data
recording started late and beaker that calorimeter sat in broke.
Ran by Researcher 2 and calorimeter 2 was used. The rod was
dropped during the transfer from boiling water to the calorimeter.
Ran by Researcher 2 and calorimeter 2 was used.
Ran by Researcher 1 and calorimeter 4 was used.
Ran by Researcher 1 and calorimeter 4 was used.
Ran by Researcher 2 and calorimeter 2 was used. Calorimeter
began to leak.

Table 8 shows observations taken while conducting the 15 specific heat

trials for the unknown metal rods. In trial two, both rods were accidentally spilled
and mixed up. Although the identity of each rod was determined a short time
later, this did cause confusion during the trial.

Conte Niedbala 27

Data Analysis and Interpretation:

The researchers conducted two separate experiments testing for two
intensive properties of both a copper rod and of an unknown rod. These intensive
properties were specific heat and linear thermal expansion. The orders of the
trials of both experiments were randomly determined by random integer software
on the calculator. This ensures that these were simple random samples, which
means that both rods had an equal chance of being selected for each trial. The
data collected for both specific heat and thermal expansion were quantitative and
discrete. The researchers, having a sample size below 30 for each experiment,
used normal probability plots to determine the normality and validity of the data.

Figure 7. Copper Linear Thermal Expansion Normal Probability Plot

Figure 7 shows the linear thermal expansion data from the copper rod.
The data seems to be mostly normal and contains no outliers.

Conte Niedbala 28

Figure 8. Unknown Linear Thermal

Expansion Normal Probability Plot
Figure 8 shows the linear thermal
expansion data from the unknown rod.

The data does not seem to be completely normal due to two outliers.
Figure 9. Unknown Linear Thermal Expansion Normal Probability Plot without
Outliers
Figure 9 shows the linear thermal expansion data from the unknown rod
with the outliers removed. The data now seems to be relatively normal.

Conte Niedbala 29

Figure 10. Copper Linear Thermal Expansion Box Plot

Figure 10 shows the box plot of the copper linear thermal expansion trials.
The data is normal with a slight right skew.

Figure 11. Unknown Linear Thermal Expansion

Figure 11 shows the box plot of the copper linear thermal expansion trials.
The data still shows two outliers and a slight left skew.

Conte Niedbala 30

Figure 12. Linear Thermal Expansion without Outliers

Figure 12 shows the linear thermal expansion data of the unknown rod but
without the outliers. The data now shows large left skew. This may indicate that
the unknown thermal expansion trials did not produce normal data and the
validity of any tests conducted on this data is in question.

Figure 13. Copper Specific Heat Normal Probability plot

Figure 13 shows the specific heat data from the copper rod. The data
does not seem to be completely normal due to one outlier.

Conte Niedbala 31

Figure 14. Copper Specific Heat Normal Probability Plot without Outliers
Figure 14 shows the specific heat values for copper but the outliers from
before have been removed. The data now seems to be relatively normal without
any outliers.

Figure 15. Unknown Specific Heat Normal Probability Plot

Figure 15 shows the specific heat values for the unknown rod. The data
seems to be normal and has no outliers.

Conte Niedbala 32

Figure 16. Copper Specific Heat Box Plot

Figure 16 shows the specific heat values for the copper rod. The data
seems to have right skew and has one extreme outlier. The trial with the outlier
had the highest equilibrium temperature, the highest change in temperature for
water, and the lowest change in temperature in the copper rod.

Figure 17. Copper Specific Heat Box Plot without Outlier

Figure 17 shows the specific heat values for the copper rod. The data
seems to have moderate right skew but no longer has any outliers.

Conte Niedbala 33

Figure 18. Unknown Specific Heat Box Plot

Figure 18 shows the specific heat values for the unknown rod. The data
seems to have no skew and no outliers. The specific heat data for the unknown
rod was therefore normal.
Table 9.
Copper Thermal Expansion Percent Error
Rod

Alpha
Coefficient

7.37E-06

8.43E-06

1.18E-05

9.29E-06

8.19E-06

8.30E-06

1.01E-05

9.92E-06

9.31E-06

10

9.23E-06

11

9.67E-06

Trial

Percent
Error

55.333%
48.909%
28.485%
43.697%
50.364%
49.697%
38.788%
39.879%
43.576%
44.061%
41.394%

Conte Niedbala 34

12

1.00E-05

13

1.01E-05

14

1.18E-05

15

8.28E-06

39.394%
38.788%
28.485%
49.818%

9.45E-06

42.71%

Avera
ge

Table 9 shows the percent error values for each thermal expansion trial
conducted on copper. Although the data was consistent throughout, the percent error
was greater than expected for the copper trials.

Table 10.
Unknown Thermal Expansion Percent Error
Trial

Rod

Alpha
Coefficient

3.79E-06

4.12E-06

4.24E-06

3.71E-06

2.85E-06

3.78E-06

3.00E-06

3.43E-06

4.30E-06

10

4.07E-06

11
12

A
A

4.69E-06
4.17E-06

Percent
Error
77.036%
75.031%
74.303%
77.497%
82.736%
77.061%
81.802%
79.214%
73.928%
75.361%
71.560%
-

Conte Niedbala 35

13

3.56E-06

14

2.98E-06

15

6.25E-06

74.738%
78.400%
81.958%
62.147%

3.93E-06

76.18%

Avera
ge

Table 10 shows the percent error values for each thermal expansion trial
conducted on the unknown rod. Although the data was relatively consistent
throughout, the percent error was greater than expected for the copper trials.
This is likely due to two percent errors that were outliers.

Table 11.
Copper Specific Heat Percent Errors
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Rod
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A

Specific Heat
(J / g x C)
0.641
0.250
0.278
0.330
0.290
0.397
0.497
0.323
0.270
0.313
0.308
0.421
0.438
0.358
0.344

Percent
Error
65.96%
-35.25%
-27.86%
-14.43%
-24.93%
2.72%
28.71%
-16.24%
-30.10%
-18.87%
-20.21%
9.18%
13.58%
-7.19%
-10.99%

Conte Niedbala 36
Avera
ge

0.364

5.73%

Table 11 shows the percent error values for each specific heat trial
conducted on the copper rod. With the exception of a few outliers, the data was
relatively consistent throughout, although the percent error was greater than
expected for the copper trials. This is likely due to one outlier percent error value.

Table 12.
Unknown Specific Heat Percent Errors
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Rod
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
A

Specific Heat
(J / g x C)
0.426
0.355
0.465
0.328
0.355
0.314
0.365
0.385
0.338
0.407
0.382
0.378
0.366
0.404

Percent
Error
10.33%
-8.01%
20.47%
-15.05%
-8.05%
-18.53%
-5.33%
-0.24%
-12.46%
5.48%
-1.02%
-2.06%
-5.21%
4.60%

Conte Niedbala 37
15

Avera
ge

0.394

2.08%

0.378

2.20%

Table 12 shows the percent error values for each specific heat trial
conducted on the unknown rod. The data was relatively consistent throughout
and near the expected percent error of a rod that had the specific heat of copper.
This is likely due to one outlier percent error value.

The correct statistical test to use to on the data calculated was a two
sample t-test. This is true because the sample means of two normally
distributed, independent populations were compared. The likelihood that copper
and the unknown metal were the same based on the results of the two
experiments was tested using the two sample t-test. The test was performed
with an alpha level of 0.10.

Ho: x1 = x2
Ha: x1 x2
Here, the x1 represents the average specific heat or linear thermal
expansion for the copper rods, while the x2 represents the specific heat or linear
thermal expansion for the unknown rods. The null hypothesis says that the two
values are equal while the alternate says they are unequal.

Conte Niedbala 38

x1 x 2
2

SD1 SD2

n1
n2

This is the equation used in a two-sample t-test. Here, xrepresents the

mean of the sample, SD represents the standard deviation of the sample, and n
represents the sample size. Variables with a subscript of 1 are for copper, and
variables with a subscript of 2 are for the unknown metal.

Figure 19. Two-Sample t-test Linear Thermal Expansion Results

Figure 19 shows the results of the two-sample t-test that was ran on the
thermal expansion data. The high t-value of 14.176 suggests that null hypothesis
should be rejected. A second test without the outliers was also run but the data
was relatively the same with a t-value of 15.62.

Conte Niedbala 39

Figure 20. Linear Thermal Expansion Density Curve

Figure 20 shows the density curve from the linear thermal expansion twosample t-test. The shaded regions, which are hardly visible at the tails of the plot,
represent how likely the results that were received were assuming the null
hypothesis was true. Clearly, the p-value displayed here is far too low to pass the
0.10 alpha level, so the null hypothesis is rejected.

All of these results led the researchers to reject H o, or the null hypothesis
that says the two rods have the same mean values for linear thermal expansion,
because the p-value is far smaller than that of the alpha level of 0.10. This is
convincing evidence that the copper rod and the unknown rod do not have the
same linear thermal expansion. There was less than a 0.1% chance that this
sample would get such extreme alpha coefficients, assuming that the null
hypothesis is true by chance alone. If the null hypothesis were true, then the true
mean of alpha coefficients would be the same for the copper rod and the
unknown rod.

Conte Niedbala 40

Figure 21. Two Sample t-Test Specific Heat Results

Figure 21 shows the results of the t-Test run on the specific heat trials. The
low t-value of -0.480 suggests that the null hypothesis should be accepted.

Figure 22. Specific Heat Density Curve

Figure 22 shows the density curve for the specific heat trials. The shaded
regions show how likely these results would occur if the sample means really
were equal. This graphs shows that the p-value is quite large, and the null
hypothesis, stating that the sample means are equal, should be accepted. In this
instance, the researchers failed to reject the null hypothesis, H o, because the pvalue was greater than the alpha level of 0.10. There is convincing evidence that
the Copper rod and the unknown metal rod have the same mean value for

Conte Niedbala 41
specific heat. There was a 63.70% chance that these results would happen if the
sample means were the same, which means that the Copper rods and the
unknown metal rods both have the same specific heat.

Conte Niedbala 42

Conclusion:
Given a copper and an unknown metal rod, the researchers set out to
determine the identity of the unknown rod. They did this by conducting
experiments on these rods, testing for two intensive properties. The properties of
specific heat and linear thermal expansion were used to determine the identity of
unknown metal rods. The researchers tested specific heat by taking the mass of
the rods, and then placing the rods into a loaf pan and heating them to
approximately 100C. After a few minutes, the rod was removed from the pan
and placed into an isolated system with room temperature water. After
equilibrium had been reached, the researchers recorded necessary values for
temperature change. The researchers tested linear thermal expansion by
measuring the length of the unknown metal, heating it, then finding the difference
in length as it cooled using a jig. Finally, they recorded these values for both the
known and unknown metal and used them to calculate the linear thermal
expansion coefficients for the two.
The original hypothesis was proved to be incorrect. The hypothesis stated
that the researchers could test the properties of specific heat and linear thermal
expansion to an average percent error of 2% and then be able to determine if
unknown metal samples were copper. The hypothesis was rejected because the
results were not within 2% of the true value. The percent errors determined
during the experiment were greater than 2%, especially for linear thermal
expansion. Despite the inflated percent error values, the researchers were able
to correctly conclude that the unknown metal sample was not copper. The

Conte Niedbala 43
conclusion was based on the results of the two different two sample t-tests
performed with the data collected and by analyzing the percent error values for
each of the trials.
The first two sample t-test performed was for the linear thermal expansion
trials. This test yielded a miniscule p-value of just 3.0254 x 10 -13. At an alpha level
of 0.10, the researchers rejected the null hypothesis, or the hypothesis that says
that the rods have the same values for linear thermal expansion. Based on this ttest alone, the researchers concluded that the unknown metal had a different
thermal expansion value than copper. Additionally, the percent errors for the
unknown trials were much larger than the ones found for the copper rods and
even larger than the actual thermal expansion of copper. This data provides
convincing and substantial evidence that the unknown rods were not copper.
The two sample t-test performed for specific heat provided a more
conclusive p-value, and the test had more reliable data than the linear thermal
expansion test. The p-value for this test was 0.6370, which means that the
researchers failed to reject the null hypothesis for this test using the 0.10 alpha
level. This result made it unclear whether the unknown rod was copper, because
many elements have a specific heat similar to that of copper. With so many
elements having specific heat values that are very close to 8.96, the chances of
the rod being another metal is high. This explains why the test may have yielded
such a high p-value despite the rods being different. Therefore, it may be
concluded that the unknown metal is not copper.

Conte Niedbala 44
While both experiments were designed well at a classroom level, there are
significant improvements that could be made for future experiments. The percent
error for both experiments had room to be reduced. The use of more precise
measuring devices and materials is a possible solution for this problem.
Specifically, this would be a better constructed calorimeter for specific heat, and
a better linear thermal expansion jig for linear thermal expansion. Also, using
metal rods with more similar dimensions could help increase accuracy. The rods
of the unknown metal used in the experiments were noticeably thicker than the
copper rods used. Although this should not have affected the actual data, it made
it difficult for the researchers to run the trials and may be the reason for some of
the errors.
Though kept to a minimum, some trials were affected by outside
occurrences. An example of this is in the early copper trials for linear thermal
expansion when the window was left open for many of the trials, which could
have potentially altered the data. A breeze or draft from the open window could
have cooled the air temperature compared to when the window was closed,
which would change the values for temperature change. While it appears to be
irrelevant in this specific occurrence, it has potential to significantly alter data.
Additionally, this experiment involved assuming that the temperature of the rod
was the same as the temperature of the water after it was removed by the
researchers. Lastly, the calorimeters made by the researchers were not perfectly
isolated systems, so outside forces must have had an effect on the results.

Conte Niedbala 45
An additional experiment that could be performed to support the results of
the two experiments performed would be to find the density of the rods. This
would require no additional materials, performing this experiment would need
only the caliper and analytic balance. This procedure was used to identify the
known rods as copper, showing the procedure is very accurate and consistent.
This could provide indisputable evidence that the unknown metal is not copper.
Also, the researchers could conduct an experiment determine if the two rods
were magnetic or not, because not all metals are magnetic, and this
characteristic could also prove useful in identifying metal rods.

Conte Niedbala 46

Appendix A: Trial Randomizing

In order to ensure no bias was placed on a specific rod during the
experiment, the researchers randomized the order of the trials, so each rod had
an equal chance to be tested. This ensured that each rod had an equal
opportunity to use the same equipment. To randomize the trials, the researchers
used the random integer program on a TI-Nspire calculator.
Procedure:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Open a new calculator page on the TI-Nspire

Press the menu button
Select probability (5)
Select random (4)
Select integer (2)
Input a number that represents rod A, a number for rod B, and the number
of trials, each separated by a comma (randInt(1,2,15)).

7. The sequence of random numbers is displayed after pressing enter.

Conte Niedbala 47

Appendix B: Logger Pro Set Up

To keep track of and record data measured during specific heat trials, a
Logger Pro system was used. When a temperature probe is attached to the
Logger Pro system, data can be recorded from inside the calorimeters.
Procedure:
1. Plug the Logger Pro into an outlet
2. Turn on the Logger Pro
3. On the right hand side, select the length button with the stylus
4. Next to length, select the down arrow next to it
5. Type in the desired length of data collection. For this experiment, the
researchers selected 300 seconds.
6. Press okay
7. Plug in two temperature probes into the Logger Pro
8. When the trial is ready to be run, hit the green play arrow in the bottom
left corner.
9. When the trial is over with, hit the red stop square in the bottom left
corner.
10. Select the File Table in the top right corner to view the data tables from
the trial

Conte Niedbala 48

Appendix C: Calorimeter Construction

In the trials for specific heat, the researchers used calorimeter for an
isolated system. Without an isolated system like this calorimeter the results for
the specific heat trials would be unreliable.
Materials:
1 inch diameter PVC Pipe (3 feet)
1 inch diameter Insulation (3 feet)
(8) PVC Cap
Pipe Glue
Sharpie
Ruler
Scissors
Drill (3/16 inch bit)
Procedure:
1. Use the Sharpie to mark every seventh inch on the pipe.
2. Give the PVC pipe to your instructor so he may cut the pipe into four
pieces.
3. Once each pipe has been cut, apply the pipe glue to the PVC pipe on both
sides.
4. Wait two to three minutes for the glue to dry before tightly screwing the
caps on each side of the pipe.
5. Take the top cap piece and tighten it onto the top of the calorimeter.
6. Drill a hole through the center of each cap of the calorimeters.
7. With the scissors, cut the insulation pieces into four equal pieces that will
cover the calorimeter and also be able to act as a base for it to stand on
8. Put the insulation on each of the calorimeters.
9. Use the Sharpie to number each of the calorimeters from one to four.

Conte Niedbala 49

Appendix D: Sample Calculations

When the researchers attempted to find the specific heat of the rods
during the experiment, they used the following formula. In the formula, m
represents mass, Tf and Ti represent final temperature and initial temperature,
respectively, and s represents the unknown specific heat of the rod.

Figure 23 below shows a sample calculation using this formula. Data from the
first trial using Copper rods is used to find the specific heat of rod B.

4.184*70*(28.8-24.5) = s*28.3*(28.8-98.2)
1259.384=s*-1964.02

0.641=
Figure 23. Sample Calculation of Specific Heat

After the specific heat of the rod was found, the percent error for the trial
was calculated, to determine how close this found value was to the true value of
the specific heat of Copper.

Conte Niedbala 50
Using this equation, the percent errors for all of the trials for specific heat and for
linear thermal expansion were found. Below in Figure 24 is a sample percent
error calculation, using the data from the first specific heat trial.

Figure 24. Sample Percent Error Calculation

After the experiments were completed the researchers used the following
formula to conduct a two sample t-test. The researchers found the sample means
( x1 and x 2 ) and the standard deviations (SD1 and SD2) for the specific heat
trials, and those values were plugged into the formula.

x1 x 2
2

SD1 SD2

n1
n2

Conte Niedbala 51
Figure 25 shows this formula using the data found by the researchers.

x1 x 2
2

SD1 SD2

n1
n2

Figure 25. Sample Calculation of two-sample t-Test

To calculate the alpha coefficient for linear thermal expansion, the
researchers used a different equation. They calculated the initial length of the
rod, Li, the change in length of the rod, L, and the initial and final temperatures
of the rod, Ti and Tf respectively.

Figure 26 below shows the data from the first linear thermal expansion trial used
in a sample calculation of the alpha coefficient.

Figure 26. Sample Alpha Coefficient Calculation

Conte Niedbala 52
Acknowledgements:
Mrs. Hilliard for teaching the researchers the concepts they used and for
assisting the researchers during trials.
Mrs. Cybulski for teaching the researchers the concept of a two sample t-test,
which was used for analyzing the data
Mrs. Dewey and Mr. Supal for guiding the researchers in the right directions.
Mr. and Mrs. Conte and Mr. and Mrs. Niedbala for supporting the researchers
throughout the ordeal and for helping with the construction of the calorimeters

Conte Niedbala 53

Works Cited
Acanski, Marijana M. "Comparation of Fundamental Analytical Methods for
Quantitative Determination of Copper(II) Ion." Hemijska Industrija 62.2
(2008): 85-89.Directory of Open Access Journals. Web. 19 May 2013.
<http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0367-598X/2008/0367598X0802085A.pdf>.
CDA. "Copper Production from Ore to Finished Product." Copper.org: Copper
Production. Copper Development Association Inc, 2013. Web. 20 Mar.
2013. <http://www.copper.org/education/production.html>.
"Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion." The Engineering Toolbox.
Engineering Toolbox, 2013. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-

expansion-coefficients-

d_95.html>.
"Copper." Copper. UNCP, 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.uncp.edu/home/mcclurem/ptable/copper/cu.htm>.
DeMello, Nick.
"Experiment*5:*Specific*Heat*Determination." ChemLectures.com. N.p.,
2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://chem.ws/192/labs/Lab-05SpecificHeat.pdf>.

Conte Niedbala 54
Dodek, Alexander, Pavol Fajnor, Tatiana Liptakova, and Viera
Zatkalikova. Materials

Engineering 18.4 (2011): 135-40. Directory of

Open Access Journals. Web. 19 May 2013. <http://fstroj.uniza.sk/journalmi/PDF/2011/24-2011.pdf>.

Hester, Jerry. "Physics Instructional Laboratories." 223 Physics Lab: Linear
Thermal

Expansion (2006): n. pag. 223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal

Expansion. Clemson University, 2006. Web. 19 May 2013.

<http://www.clemson.edu/ces/phoenix/labs/223/expansion/>.
Hilliard, Jamie. "Enthalpy and Specific Heat." Chemistry. MMSTC, Warren. 31
Jan.

2013. Lecture.

Large-Area Picosecond Timing Project. "Index of /materials." Index of /materials.

University of Chicago, 2013. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.
<http://psec.uchicago.edu/materials/>.
LSCC. Lscc.edu. Lake-Sumter Community College, 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.lscc.edu/faculty/claude_richards/Documents
%20%20Downloads/Lab%2004%20Specific%20Heat%20of%20a
%20Metal.pdf>.
Nave, Carl R. "Specific Heats and Molar Heat Capacities for Various Substances
at 20 C."Table of Specific Heats. Georgia State University, 2013. Web. 25
Mar. 2013. <http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/sphtt.html>.

Conte Niedbala 55
Ophardt, Charles E. "Copper Smelter." Copper Smelter. Elmhurst College, 2003.
Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/335coppersmelter.html>.
"Physics 126 Experiment No. 3 Thermal Expansion." Stony Brook NN Group.
Stony Brook University, 2013. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.
<http://nngroup.physics.sunysb.edu/~mcgrew/phy126/labs/12603_Thermal_Expansion.pdf>.
Potts, Gretchen E. "Calorimetry." Calorimetry. Gretchen E Potts, 2001. Web. 26
Mar.

2013.

<http://www.utc.edu/Faculty/GretchenPotts/chemistryhelp/calorimetry.htm>
Rzadkosz, S., M. Kranz, P. Nowicki, and M. Plekos. "Refining Processes of
Selected Copper Alloys." Archives of Foundry Engineering 9.2 (2009): 2934. Directory of Open Access Journals. Web. 19 May 2013.
<http://www.afe.polsl.pl/index.php/pl/578/refining-processes-of-selectedcopper-alloys.pdf>.
Simanek, Donald E. "H-1 Thermal Expansion of Metals." Donald Simanek's
Pages. Donald E Simanek, 2004. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/labman1/expans.htm>.
Solanki, Gaurav. "Uses of High Copper Amalgam Alloys in
Dentstry." International

Journal of Biomedical and Advance

Research 3.2 (2012): 101-05. Directory of Open Access Journals. Web. 19

Conte Niedbala 56
May 2013.
<http://ijbar.ssjournals.com/index.php/journal/article/view/102/626>.