Donovan-Gohlke 1

Donovan-Gohlke 2

Donovan-Gohlke 3

Using Properties of Zinc to Identify an Unknown Metal Jennifer Donovan and Ryan Gohlke Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center Chemistry 10C Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. Supal, Mrs. Dewey May 20, 2013

Donovan-Gohlke 4

Introduction Amazing things have happened in the world of science. One incredible thing was the discovery that all elements have different intensive properties such as linear thermal expansion coefficients and specific heats. Because of this fact, an element can be identified based on these properties. The purpose of this research was to determine whether an unknown metal was the same as the given metal through the use of calorimetry and a linear thermal expansion jig, as well as expanding the wide range of knowledge in the topics of thermodynamics and Kinetic Molecular Energy. The objective for the experiment was to prove that the known metal and unknown metal were the same. Using previous knowledge of thermodynamics and Kinetic Molecular, two experiments were created. To prove the metals were the same, a statistical test was used to determine if the hypothesis was correct. In this experiment, the given metal was Zinc. Experiments for both linear thermal expansion and specific heat were performed first on the known metal, Zinc, and then on the unknown metal. For specific heat, the mass was measured using a scale and the temperature was measured using a temperature probe inside the calorimeter connected to a Logger Pro to read the data. After the mass and temperatures were measured, the specific heat was calculated. For linear thermal expansion, the initial length was measured using a caliper, the final length was observed using a linear thermal expansion jig, and the temperature of the metal was measured using a thermometer. When the values for the unknown metal were calculated, they were compared to the values of the known metal.

Donovan-Gohlke 5

Using this data, a statistical analysis test was then performed to determine if the two metals were the same. The unique linear thermal expansion coefficients and specific heats for each element in the periodic table mean that each element has different jobs in the commercial industries. If the commercial industries want to use a material for a certain purpose, the properties of the material would need to be known in order to decide whether it could perform the job it is needed for. The experiments conducted in this research used the same basic method big industries would use to find the linear thermal expansion and specific heat of their products. Industries are continuously discovering new products that are cheaper, faster to produce, and better quality; yet new products neither come with instruction manuals nor a piece of paper that shows the properties of it. Industries need to perform the same experiments on the newly discovered products to find their properties. The value of finding the properties of the material is that the commercial industries could apply the strengths of the material into certain products (ACS).

Donovan-Gohlke 6

Background Zinc was initially discovered through ores and was used for making brass, healing wounds and sore eyes. In 1374, Zinc was recognized in India as a new metal and was the eighth metal known to man in that point in time. Zinc was recognized in Europe as a separate metal in the 16th century when a new element zincum was discovered. In 1743, the first European Zinc smelter was customary in Bristol, Great Britain, using a vertical retort procedure. Zinc production in the United States started in 1850 and for about 500 years Zinc was produced from its oxide ores before the more abundant sulfides became the present supply. As of today, the U.S. and Canada are the leading producers of Zinc (International Zinc Association). Zinc is produced by heating Zinc Sulfide, ZnS, concentrate to 950C which produces Zinc Oxide, ZnO. After Zinc Oxide is produced, it is then refined into a purer state by a process called electrowinning (sending electric currents through the material). Through electrowinning, Zinc Oxide converts into Zinc Sulfate, ZnSO4. At this point ZnSO4 is separated through electrolysis (the process in which chemical decomposition is produced by passing an electric current through a liquid or solution) containing Zinc ions, Zn (Haghshenas).
ZnS(s) + 3 O2(g) 2 ZnO(s) + 2 SO2(g) ZnO(s) + H2SO4(l) ZnSO4(s) + H2O(l) 2 ZnSO4(s) + 2 H2O(l) 2 Zn(s) + 2 H2SO4(l) + O2(g)

Industrial design of this unique metal is used in design of air-batteries, brass, deodorants, countertops, paints, and now produced in the U.S. one cent penny.

Donovan-Gohlke 7

Specific heat is the heat required to raise the temperature of the unit mass of a given substance by a given amount, by one degree. The specific heat of Zinc is 0.39 J/gK. So it takes 0.39 joules of heat to change the temperature by 1 degree of Zinc for every gram. Waters specific heat is 4.184 J/ g*K. Zinc's linear thermal expansion (LTE) coefficient is 3.02 10-5 0C-1. LTE is knowledge for plumbing industries or industries that use metal because of its need for accounting the space of expansion when heated. The density of Zinc is 7.13 g/cm3 and has a unique color on the infrared spectrum, but to see this color, one must perform a flame test. Zinc burns a white-green color when the flame test is performed. The white light is a mixture of the colors of the visible spectrum, and is just a bit greener than other colors in this mixture to give Zinc that white-green color with a wavelength of about 510 nm ("Flame Tests"). Each element has its own unique melting point and boiling point. The melting point of Zinc is 419.5C (787.2F) and the boiling point of Zinc is 907C (1,665F). The boiling point of water is 100C (212F). The boiling point of Zinc compared to the boiling point of water is widely ranged because Zinc is a metal (Engineering Toolbox).

4s2 3s 2s
2

3d10 3p6 2p6

1s2

Figure 1. Electron Configuration

Figure 1 shows the electron configuration of Zinc. This configuration shows that Zinc is located in the tenth element of the third d block on the periodic

Donovan-Gohlke 8

table, which is located in the fourth period. Electrons are contained in shells around the nucleus, while protons and neutrons are contained in the nucleus. The atomic mass of Zinc is 65.38 amu. Zinc is unique because it has properties to help prevent corrosion, and has its own unique physical properties that were discussed earlier. Review of Literature Specific Heat: Heat lost is equal to heat gained, which is the same as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Using this knowledge will help to understand specific heat. Specific heat is a physical property of matter as well as an intensive property. An intensive property does not depend on the size of an object. On an atomic level, heat causes the atoms in a molecule to vibrate and to move faster and collide with each other. As the molecules vibrate and collide with each other, the temperature of the substance rises. The tighter the bond and closer the molecules of a substance are to one another, the lower the specific heat. It takes more heat energy to make molecules that are further away from others to collide with one another. When the molecules collide, the temperature increases. If the substance has a tight bond, the temperature increases because more energy is applied (Florissant Valley). For example the specific heat of water is 4.184 (J/g*C) and the specific heat of Zinc is 0.39 (J/g*C). Specific heat is applicable for this experimental setup because each element has its own unique number for specific heat. Specific heat of a certain element could be found by various methods. The relationship between heat and temperature change is usually expressed in the form shown below where (s) is

Donovan-Gohlke 9

the specific heat, (Q) is heat in joules, m is mass, and T is the change in temperature. Units are (J/g*C). To find the specific heat of the metal, divide the heat of the water by the heat of the metal using the second equation.

The specific heat capacity is an important quality in the food industry because it determines the amount of energy that must be supplied or withdrawn from a material in order to increase or decrease its temperature by a given amount. Specific heat also allows researchers to develop molds for car parts, movement for bridges, and liquids that can boil in pots and pans without the pots and pans actually melting (Engineering Toolbox). There are many ways of finding the specific heat of a metal. A calorimeter is the most accurate way of measuring the specific heat (J/g*C). One way is to fill a 500 mL beaker with water to at least the 350 mL mark. Then place the beaker on a hotplate to bring the water to a steaming boil. The next step is to mass one beaker without the element, and another beaker with the element. Subtract the final mass from the initial mass to get the mass of the element. Obtain and record the mass of the calorimeter cup. Fill the cup halfway with water and record the mass once more. Transfer the unknown element to a large test tube, clamping it on the edge of large beaker on the hotplate leaving it there for ten minutes so the element reaches equilibrium with the water. Next, take the temperature of the water in the beaker, and the water in the calorimeter cup. After ten minutes, remove the test tube from the beaker, and place the element

Donovan-Gohlke 10

into the calorimeter cup and cover it. Measure the temperature of the water in the cup when it reaches equilibrium while stirring the water. Use the numbers and plug into specific heat equation (Kwanga). The second experiment is similar to the first one. The first step is to mass the element. Next, bring a beaker of water to a boil and drop the element into the boiling water. Fill the calorimeter with water and then mass it. After this, place the element inside the calorimeter with the water, and wait for the equilibrium between the water and element. Then find the difference between the final and initial temperature to calculate the heat energy that was gained or lost in the process. After the data is collected use the equation to calculate the specific heat of the element and determine what the element is. Calculate percent error after each trial to the proposed metal's name (N. DeLeon).

Linear Thermal Expansion: Despite popular belief, thermal expansion and linear thermal expansion are not the same thing. Although both thermal expansion and linear thermal expansion require a change in temperature to occur, the difference is that thermal expansion is the change of volume, and linear thermal expansion is the change in linear dimension, length. Linear thermal expansion is a physical property as well as an intensive property. It can be used to identify an element because each element on the periodic table has a unique measurement of linear thermal expansion. On an atomic level, the main reason linear thermal expansion occurs is because of the Kinetic Molecular Theory (KMT). The KMT is observed when an object is heated up, the molecules inside the object start to vibrate and

Donovan-Gohlke 11

move further apart due to the increase in kinetic energy supplied by the increase of temperature. This causes the object to expand slightly to account for the increased space between the vibrating molecules. Linear thermal expansion is the increased space between the moving molecules (Tipler). The known coefficient of linear thermal expansion for Zinc is 3.02 10-5 C-1 and is very important for this research to determine the unknown element (Toolbox). Linear thermal expansion could be found using the equation below:

is linear expansion coefficient in C -1, Li = initial length in meters, L is change in length in meters, T is final temperature initial temperature in C. The units are C-1. The linear thermal expansion coefficient is found by taking the change in length then dividing it by the initial length multiplied by the change of temperature (Toolbox). The coefficient of linear expansion is used in the industry business for multiple reasons. First of all, linear thermal expansion is a relatively new problem in household plumbing systems. When water is heated, it expands the volume of the tank by 2-3% depending upon the initial and final temperature. This means that as much as three to four extra gallons of water are in that closed system. Since water is not compressible, the expanded water cannot be accommodated in the piping system through which it travels, and therefore it creates hydraulic pressure, exerting a potentially hazardous stress on the system (TMB). Linear thermal expansion is used when making roads and other outdoor structures so that fluctuating temperatures do not the cause the roads and structures to crumble.

Donovan-Gohlke 12

Experiments that were conducted to find the linear thermal expansion coefficient for an element use simple method. Take two different metals and measure their length at room temperature. Then, place the rods in boiling water for roughly 2 minutes, and measure the length of the rods again. Finally,

calculate the coefficient of linear thermal expansion using the formula, and compare them to known values for accuracy (Boston University). Another experiment, use the hot plate and heat the water to a boil. Measure the initial length of a rod at room temperature and record the initial length in meters. Record the room temperature because this is the initial temperature of the rod. Insert the rod into the caliper and record the initial reading of the gauge on the data table. Then place the rod into the boiling water for roughly 2 minutes. Next, take the rod out of the water and place it back into the caliper, and record the final reading. Finally, calculate the coefficient of linear thermal expansion, and compare them to the known values to determine if the unknown element is Zinc (St. Louis Community College).

Donovan-Gohlke 13

Problem Statement Problem: To prove the unknown metal rods are or are not Zinc having measured the specific heat and linear thermal expansion, and compared it to Zincs known values.

Hypothesis: The unknown metal rods equal Zincs specific heat of 0.39 (J/g*C) and linear thermal expansion coefficient of 3.02 10-5 C-1 with less than an average of 10% error on both experiments.

Data: Data collected in the specific heat experiment; the final and initial temperature of the element and water, measured in oC. Another data point that was collected was the mass of the element and the mass of the water in the calorimeter measured in grams. Lastly, the specific heat is measured in (J/g*oC). Data collected in the linear thermal expansion experiment; the final and initial length of the elemental rods, measured in millimeters. The final and initial temperatures of the elemental rods were measured in oC. Lastly, the coefficient of linear thermal expansion was calculated in oC-1.

Donovan-Gohlke 14

Experimental Design Specific Heat: Materials: (2) Calorimeters (2) Metal Zinc rods, Zn (2) Unknown Element Rods (2) Tongs (1) Metal Loaf Pan Hot Plate 100 mL Graduated Cylinder Procedures: Safety Precautions: *Ability to execute two experiments at once proves great if restriction of time occurs. **Goggles, apron, gloves. 1. Randomize trials using the random integer function on the TI-nspire CX. (See appendix A). Program the Logger Pro (See appendix B). Construct the calorimeter (See appendix C). Fill the metal loaf pan with 300.0 mL of water. Place the metal loaf pans on the hot plate and heat the water to a temperature between 98.0oC - 100.0oC. (Add water to loaf pan throughout trials due to evaporation of water). Measure 65.0 mL of water and pour into calorimeter. Record initial temperature of water and record mass of water (1 mL = 1g). Record the mass of the rod using the scale. Place the metal rod in the boiling water for 3 minutes. Continue setting up the calorimeter while waiting for the 3 minutes to pass. Start recording in the Logger Pro and after 10 seconds, take rod and place in calorimeter to begin recording. (2) Thermometers (0.1oC precision) Scale (0.01g precision) Logger Pro (2) Logger Pro Temperature Probe Ti-nspire Calculator Stopwatch Function Ti-nspire Calculator Randomization Function

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

Donovan-Gohlke 15

10.

Leave the metal rod in the calorimeter until the temperature of the water has reached equilibrium. Record the temperature at which equilibrium was reached. Calculate the specific heat of the metal and record (see Appendix D for sample calculation). Calculate Percent Error after each trial to find flaw (see Appendix F for sample calculation). Repeat steps 6-12, 15 more times using Zinc rods and 16 more times using unknown metal rods.

11. 12.

13.

14.

Diagram:
Temperature Probe Calorimeters

Logger Pro

Unknown Metal Rods

Electronic Thermometer

Figure 2. Specific Heat Setup

In Figure 2, the unknown metal rods were measured using the scale, boiled, and then recorded the initial temperature of the water using the electronic thermometer which gives a quick and accurate reading. The unknown metal rods were then put into the calorimeters while the logger pro was recording the change in temperature produced by the temperature probes.

Donovan-Gohlke 16

Linear Thermal Expansion: Materials: (2) LTE Jigs (0.01mm precision) (2) Unknown Element Rods (2) Zinc Rods, Zn (1) Metal Loaf Pan Hot Plate (2) Tongs 100 mL Graduated Cylinder Spray Bottle with Cool Water Procedures: Safety Precautions: *Ability to execute two experiments at once proves great if restriction of time occurs. **Goggles, aprons, gloves. 1. 2. 3. Randomize trials using Ti-inspire. (See appendix A). Fill the metal loaf pan with 300.0 mL of water. Place loaf pan on hot plate to bring water to temperature between 98.0100.0 oC, record temperature. (Add water periodically due to evaporation of water). Measure initial length of rod and record in data table. Let metal rod set in boiling water for 3 minutes. Assume the temperature of the rod is equal to the temperature of the water. Record initial temperature of water in data table. Place the rod in the linear thermal expansion jig, quickly and carefully, mark the initial length with a tic marker. Spray the hot rod with a cool spray bottle to rapidly decrease the time it takes to do a trial. Mark the final length and record the net change in length. (Each tic is 0.01 mm, so if moved 5 tics, record 0.05 mm). Record room temperature of rod in data table after 3 minutes of being in the jig. Assume the temperature of the rod is equal to room temperature. Using the data collected from the experiment, use the linear thermal expansion coefficient equation to solve for (See Appendix E for sample calculation). TESR Caliper (0.01mm precision) (2) Thermometers (0.1 oC precision) (2) Timers Ti-nspire Calculator Stopwatch Function Ti-nspire Calculator Randomization Function

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

Donovan-Gohlke 17

9.

Calculate Percent Error after each trial to find flaw in trial (see Appendix F for sample calculation).

10. Repeat steps 4-9, 15 more times using Zinc rods and 16 more times using unknown metal rods. Diagram:

LTE Jig with Dial Measuring 0.01 mm

Caliper Zinc Metal Rods

Figure 3. LTE setup

In Figure 3, the Zinc metal rods had initial length measured by the caliper, boiling water expand the metal, and then measured the net change in length by the linear thermal expansion Jig to calculate the LTE coefficient.

Donovan-Gohlke 18

Data and Observations Table 1 Specific Heat Data for Zinc Rods Initial Temperature Equilibrium Ro (C) Trials Temperatur d e (C) Wate Meta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Averag e A B B B A A B A A B A B A A B A N/ A r 22.6 22.5 20.1 20.3 20.1 20.1 22.1 24.9 22.0 20.6 18.6 18.6 17.2 19.1 16.9 20.1 20.4 l 98.1 98.5 99.2 98.6 99.2 98.6 99.3 99.3 99.1 99.1 98.5 98.5 99.2 98.7 99.2 99.2 98.9 25.6 25.4 23.2 23.5 23.0 23.1 25.2 27.9 24.9 23.6 21.6 21.5 20.4 22.0 19.9 23.0 23.4

Change in Temperature (C)

Mass (g) Wate r 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0

Wate Meta Meta r l l 3.0 -72.5 27.9 2.9 -73.1 28.3 3.1 -76.0 28.3 3.2 -75.1 28.3 2.9 -76.2 28.0 3.0 -75.5 28.0 3.1 -74.1 28.3 3.0 -71.4 27.9 2.9 -74.2 28.0 3.0 -75.5 28.3 3.0 -76.9 27.9 2.9 -77.0 28.3 3.2 -78.8 27.9 2.9 -76.7 27.9 3.0 -79.3 28.3 2.9 -76.2 28.0 3.0 -75.5 28.1

Specifi c Heat (J/g*C ) 0.403 0.381 0.392 0.409 0.370 0.386 0.402 0.410 0.380 0.382 0.380 0.362 0.396 0.369 0.364 0.370 0.385

Table 1 shows the data from the specific heat of Zinc trials. It can be seen that the specific heat of each trial stayed within the same general vicinity with an overall average of 0.385 (J/g*C) with a range of 0.048 (J/g*C). Sample calculation can be found in Appendix D.

Donovan-Gohlke 19

Table 2 Observation of Specific Heat Zinc Rods Trials Rod 1 A Date Observations

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

B B B A A B A A B A B A A B A

Trials were done simultaneously. Noticed slow changes in 4/15/2013 temperature. Researchers assumed that water in calorimeter would heat up rapidly, but it didn't. Both trials were tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error for rod A was 3.42, where it was -2.25 for 4/15/2013 rod B. The -2.25 means that the calculated specific heat was under the normal specific heat of Zinc. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error was quite low at 4/18/2013 0.51%. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error was relatively low at 4/182013 4.99%. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error was relatively low at 4/18/2013 5.22%. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error was quite low at 4/18/2013 1.04%. 4/18/2013 Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error for rod B was 3.09%, where it was 5.02% for rod 4/18/2013 A. Both percent errors were relatively low. 4/18/2013 Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error for rod A was -2.66%, where it was -2.09% for 4/18/2013 rod B. Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on a Zinc 4/18/2013 rod. Percent error for rod A was -2.49%, while it was -7.20% for rod 4/18/2013 B. Both percent errors are considered to be relatively low. 4/18/2013 Trial was done on a Zinc rod. Percent error was quite low at 1.50%. 4/18/2013 Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error for rod A was -5.50%, while it was -6.78% for rod 4/18/2013 B. Both percent errors were relatively low. Trial was done on a Zinc rod. Percent error was relatively low at 4/18/2013 5.22%.

Table 2 shows the observations from the specific heat of Zinc trials. In each observation, the percent error was discussed and in each trial, the percent error was low.

Donovan-Gohlke 20

Table 3 Specific Heat Data for Unknown Rods Initial Temperature (C) Equilibrium Temperature (C) 26.1 28.0 29.2 31.4 30.8 31.4 29.4 28.3 31.4 32.1 33.2 31.5 30.1 29.4 29.7 31.7 30.2 Change in Temperature (C) Mass (g) Specific Heat (J/g*C) 0.403 0.399 0.410 0.391 0.414 0.380 0.375 0.375 0.391 0.383 0.390 0.379 0.369 0.388 0.388 0.390 0.389

Trials

Rod

Water Metal 1 A 18.2 99.1 2 B 20.4 99.1 3 B 21.5 99.2 4 B 24.3 99.0 5 A 23.2 99.2 6 A 24.5 99.0 7 B 22.4 98.9 8 A 21.2 98.9 9 A 24.3 99.1 10 A 25.2 99.3 11 B 26.3 99.1 12 B 24.6 99.3 13 A 23.2 99.7 14 A 22.1 99.5 15 B 22.4 99.7 16 B 24.6 99.5 Average N/A 23.0 99.2

Water Metal Metal Water 7.9 -73.0 72.95 65.0 7.6 -71.1 72.83 65.0 7.7 -70.0 72.89 65.0 7.1 -67.6 73.05 65.0 7.6 -68.4 72.99 65.0 6.9 -67.6 72.98 65.0 7.0 -69.5 73.04 65.0 7.1 -70.6 72.93 65.0 7.1 -67.7 72.93 65.0 6.9 -67.2 72.94 65.0 6.9 -65.9 73.06 65.0 6.9 -67.8 73.05 65.0 6.9 -69.6 72.99 65.0 7.3 -70.1 72.98 65.0 7.3 -70.0 73.03 65.0 7.1 -67.8 73.04 65.0 7.2 -69.0 72.98 65.0

Table 3 shows the data from the specific heat of the unknown metal trials. It can be seen that the specific heat of each trial stayed within the same general vicinity with an overall average of 0.389 J/g*C. Sample calculation can be found in Appendix D.

Donovan-Gohlke 21

Table 4 Observation of Specific Heat Unknown Rods Trials Rod Date Observations 1 A 4/18/2013 Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on the unknown metal rods. Percent error compared to Zinc was 3.45% 2 B 4/18/2013 for rod 1 and -9.45% for rod 2. This metal may be Zinc. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error was 3 B 4/19/2013 5.24%, which is relatively low. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error was 4 B 4/22/2013 0.26%, which is quite low. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error was 5 A 4/19/2013 6.15%, which is relatively low. 6 A 4/22/2013 Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on the unknown metal rods. Percent error compared to Zinc was -2.47% 7 B 4/22/2013 for rod 1 and -3.84% for rod 2. Both percent errors are low. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error was 8 A 4/22/2013 3.84%, which is low. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error was 9 A 4/22/2013 0.28, which is quite low. 10 A 4/22/2013 Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error compared to Zinc was -1.84% 11 B 4/22/2013 for rod 1 and -0.06% for rod 2. Both percent errors are quite low. 12 B 4/22/2013 Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error compared to Zinc was -2.85% 13 A 4/22/2013 for rod 2 and -5.29% for rod 1. Both percent errors are relatively low. 14 A 4/22/2013 Trials were done simultaneously. Both trials were tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error was -0.50% for rod 1 and 15 B 4/22/2013 0.42% for rod 2. Both percent errors are quite low. Trials were tested on an unknown metal rod. Percent error was 16 B 4/22/2013 0.02%, which is quite precise. Table 4 shows the observations from the specific heat of the unknown metal trials. In each observation, the percent error was discussed and in each trial, the percent error was low.

Donovan-Gohlke 22

Table 5 LTE Zinc Rods Final Rod Length (mm) A B B B A A B A A B A B A A 129.10 129.30 129.45 129.58 129.32 130.14 129.56 129.36 129.40 129.53 129.51 129.35 129.62 130.61 129.46 129.49 129.55 Initial Length (mm) 128.95 129.14 129.28 129.41 129.14 129.97 129.41 129.20 129.23 129.37 129.34 129.19 129.47 130.46 129.30 129.33 129.39 Net. Change in Length (mm) 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 Final Initial Temp. Temp. (C) (C) 25.1 25.5 26.2 25.2 25.8 26.3 23.9 23.9 23.8 23.8 25.0 25.0 24.4 25.3 24.4 24.1 24.9 98.8 99.3 98.7 99.2 98.9 99.4 98.5 98.5 99.1 99.1 98.6 98.6 98.8 98.3 98.8 99.4 98.9 Change Alpha in Coefficient Temp. (C-1) (C) -73.7 -73.8 -72.5 -74.0 -73.1 -73.1 -74.6 -74.6 -75.3 -75.3 -73.6 -73.6 -74.4 -73.0 -74.4 -75.3 -74.0 1.578E-05 1.679E-05 1.814E-05 1.775E-05 1.907E-05 1.789E-05 1.554E-05 1.660E-05 1.747E-05 1.642E-05 1.786E-05 1.683E-05 1.557E-05 1.575E-05 1.663E-05 1.643E-05 1.691E-05

Trials

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 B 16 A Average N/A

Table 5 shows the data from the linear thermal expansion of the unknown metal trials. It can be seen that the linear thermal expansion of each trial stayed within the same general vicinity with an overall average of 1.691 10-5 C-1. Sample calculation can be found in Appendix E.

Donovan-Gohlke 23

Table 6 Observations of LTE Zinc Rods Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rod A B B B A A B A A B A Date 4/16/2013 4/16/2013 4/16/2013 4/16/2013 4/16/2013 4/16/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 Observations Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error is -47.74%, which is quite high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error is -44.41%, which is quite high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error is -39.94%, which is lower, but still high. It remains unknown why the percent errors are so high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error was -41.22%, which is still high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error was -36.86%, which is high. There could be an error with the calculations. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. Percent error was calculated to be -40.75%, which is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -48.55% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -45.03% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -42.15% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -45.61% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -40.87% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -44.28% was calculated. This percent error is high. The percent errors, although high, are within the same range which leads the researchers to believe the problem is indeed the calculations. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -48.44% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -47.85% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -44.93% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on a Zinc rod. A percent error of -48.55% was calculated. This percent error is high.

12

4/17/2013

13 14 15 16

A A B A

4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013

Table 6 shows the observations from the linear thermal expansion of the unknown metal trials. In each observation, the percent error was discussed and in each trial, the percent error was quite high.

Donovan-Gohlke 24

Table 7 LTE Unknown Rods Final Length (mm) 132.44 131.99 132.34 132.17 132.30 132.37 132.10 131.88 132.08 132.45 132.50 132.99 132.33 132.08 132.08 132.45 132.28 Initial Length (mm) 132.29 131.85 132.19 132.02 132.16 132.24 131.97 131.75 131.94 132.32 132.35 132.85 132.19 131.95 131.94 132.30 132.14 Net. Change Change Final Initial Alpha in in Temp. Temp. Coefficient Temp. Length (C) (C) (C-1) (C) (mm) 0.15 24.2 98.2 -74.0 1.532E-05 0.14 24.2 98.2 -74.0 1.435E-05 0.15 24.5 99.3 -74.8 1.517E-05 0.15 24.5 99.3 -74.8 1.519E-05 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14 23.4 23.3 23.4 23.3 23.4 23.4 23.2 23.2 23.1 23.1 23.4 23.4 23.6 98.7 98.5 98.7 98.5 99.0 99.0 99.3 99.3 98.4 98.4 98.9 98.9 98.8 -75.3 -75.2 -75.3 -75.2 -75.6 -75.6 -76.1 -76.1 -75.3 -75.3 -75.5 -75.5 -75.2 1.407E-05 1.307E-05 1.308E-05 1.312E-05 1.404E-05 1.300E-05 1.489E-05 1.385E-05 1.406E-05 1.308E-05 1.405E-05 1.502E-05 1.409E-05

Trials

Rod

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

A B A B A A B B B A A B A

14 B 15 B 16 A Average N/A

Table 7 shows the data from the linear thermal expansion of the unknown metal trials. It can be seen that the linear thermal expansion of each trial stayed within the same general vicinity with an overall average of 1.409 10-5 C-1.

Donovan-Gohlke 25 Table 8 Observations of LTE Unknown Rods Trials Rod 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B A B A A B B B A Date 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/19/2013 4/19/2013 4/19/2013 4/19/2013 4/19/2013 4/19/2013 Observations Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -49.26% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -52.49% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal. A percent error of 49.77% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -49.70% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -53.42% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -56.71% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -56.68% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -56.55% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -53.52% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -56.97% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -50.69% was calculated. This percent error is high. The percent errors are within the same range, which are similar to the results of Zinc. The unknown metal could be Zinc. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -54.15% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -53.43% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -56.86% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -43.46% was calculated. This percent error is high. Trial was tested on an unknown metal rod. A percent error of -50.57% was calculated. This percent error is high.

11

4/19/2013

12 13 14 15 16

B A B B A

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

Table 8 shows the observations from the linear thermal expansion of the unknown metal trials. In each observation, the percent error was discussed and in each trial, the percent error was quite high.

Donovan-Gohlke 26

Data Analysis and Interpretation After collecting the data, an analysis is necessary in order to prove that the unknown metal rods were Zinc. The control for the experiment was Zinc rods and all percentage errors were calculated from the actual property values of Zinc. Calculation of percent error is needed to see the validity of the experimental design. There were 64 trials done overall, 32 trials for the Zinc rods and 32 trials the unknown element rods. 16 trials were done on Zinc and the other 16 trials were done on the unknown Rods for specific heat. This process was replicated for the Linear Thermal Expansion experiment as well. The two experiments validated the data collected from the specific heat and linear thermal expansion experiments. In the specific heat experiment, the change in temperature, equilibrium temperature, and initial temperature were measured within the water and metal. Using the measured variables, the specific heat was measured with the units (Joules over grams C). Linear thermal expansion coefficient was calculated using the change in length (0.01 mm), change in temperature, and initial temperature all measured to create the units C inverted (C). The lurking variables were reduced using a comparative experiment because the same variables and conditions were applied to both the control and the unknown. There were two rods of Zinc and two rods of the unknown metal, both of which were labeled Rod A and Rod B. The calorimeters and LTE Jigs were also randomized. With randomization, bias was eliminated.

Donovan-Gohlke 27

Percent Error Tables: Table 9 Specific Heat Percent Error for Zinc Rods Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Average Experimental Value 0.403 0.381 0.392 0.409 0.370 0.386 0.402 0.410 0.380 0.382 0.380 0.362 0.396 0.369 0.364 0.370 0.385 True Value (J/g*C) 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Percent Error 3.42 -2.25 0.51 4.99 -5.22 -1.04 3.09 5.02 -2.66 -2.09 -2.49 -7.20 1.50 -5.50 -6.78 -5.22 -1.37

Table 9 shows the specific heat percent errors for Zinc. The percent error was calculated from the known value of Zinc which was 0.39 (J/g*C). The average percent error is -1.37%. The range of percent error is 12.22%. These percent errors are relatively low due to minuscule error in the experiment. An example calculation to find percent error can be found in Appendix F.

Donovan-Gohlke 28

Table 10 Specific Heat Percent Error for Unknown Rods Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Average Experimental Value 0.403 0.399 0.410 0.391 0.414 0.380 0.375 0.375 0.391 0.383 0.390 0.379 0.369 0.388 0.388 0.390 0.389 True Value (J/g*C) 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Percent Error 3.45 2.35 5.24 0.26 6.15 -2.47 -3.84 -3.84 0.28 -1.84 -0.06 -2.85 -5.29 -0.50 -0.42 -0.02 -0.21

Table 10 shows the percent error for specific heat for the unknown metal. The percent error was calculated from the known value of Zinc for comparison. The average percent error was -1.37%. The range of percent error is 11.44%. When the percent error is negative, it means that the value was below the true value. These percent errors are relatively low and leave a possibility of having a connection to the known metal, Zinc. It is not conclusive yet, but the percent error of the unknown metal and Zinc are convincingly close to each other. The difference between the two metals is 1.16%.

Donovan-Gohlke 29

Table 11 LTE Percent Error for Zinc Rods Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Average Experimental Value 0.0000158 0.0000168 0.0000181 0.0000178 0.0000191 0.0000179 0.0000155 0.0000166 0.0000175 0.0000164 0.0000179 0.0000168 0.0000156 0.0000158 0.0000166 0.0000164 0.0000169 True Value 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 Percent Error -47.74 -44.41 -39.94 -41.22 -36.86 -40.75 -48.55 -45.03 -42.15 -45.61 -40.87 -44.28 -48.44 -47.85 -44.93 -45.60 -44.01

Table 11 shows the linear thermal expansion percent error for Zinc. The percent error was calculated from the known coefficient of Zinc. The average percent error is -44.01% which is incredibly high compared to the true value of Zinc. The large percent error proves defectiveness in the experimental design. The range of percent error is 11.69%. Math was frequently checked and executed correctly, but the change in length was consistent with all trials leaving the percent error consistent.

Donovan-Gohlke 30

Table 12 LTE Percent Error for Unknown Rods Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Average Experimental Value 0.0000153 0.0000143 0.0000152 0.0000152 0.0000141 0.0000131 0.0000131 0.0000131 0.0000140 0.0000130 0.0000149 0.0000138 0.0000141 0.0000131 0.0000141 0.0000150 0.0000141 True Value 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 0.0000302 Percent Error -49.26 -52.49 -49.77 -49.70 -53.42 -56.71 -56.68 -56.55 -53.52 -56.97 -50.69 -54.15 -53.43 -56.68 -53.46 -50.27 -53.36

Table 12 shows the linear thermal expansion percent error for the unknown metal. This percent error was calculated from the known coefficient of Zinc for comparison. The average percent error is -53.36% and is out of the range that which there was a possibility that the two metals were the same. The range for the percent error is 7.76%. Comparing the two percent errors can conclude that there is somewhat of a possibility of having the same metal. The difference between the two metals is 9.35%.

Donovan-Gohlke 31

Specific Heat (J/g*C)

Figure 4. Distribution of Specific Heat Data

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the specific heat trials from both Zinc and the unknown metal. The data is plotted into a box plot because it shows the variation of specific heat in both types of metals. It can be seen that both box plots appear to be normally distributed with almost the same spread with much overlap. Although, the two medians of the box plots are relatively close to each other, it remains uncertain that Zinc and the Unknown Rods are the same metal.

9 Figure 5. Normal Probability Plot for Specific Heat of Zinc Figure 5 shows the normal probability plot for the specific heat data recorded for Zinc. The figure shows how the data points are relatively linear, which means that the data is normal. This allows the statistical test to be conducted, even with the lack of over 30 data points.

Donovan-Gohlke 32

Figure 6. Normal Probability Plot for Specific Heat of the Unknown Metal

Figure 6 shows the normal probability plot for the specific heat data recorded for the unknown metal. The figure shows how the data points are relatively linear, which means that the data is normal. This allows the statistical test to be conducted, even with the lack of over 30 data points.

LTE Coefficient (C-1)

Figure 7. Distribution of LTE Data

Figure 7 shows the data collected from linear thermal expansion trials from both Zinc and the unknown metal. The data is plotted into a box plot because it shows the variation of linear thermal expansion in the two metals. It can be seen that both box plots appear to be normally distributed. The spread is relatively even, but there is no overlap even though it is a small scale. Although the two medians of the box plots are relatively close to each other, it remains uncertain that Zinc and the Unknown Rods are the same metal.

Donovan-Gohlke 33

Figure 8. Normal Probability Plot for Linear Thermal Expansion for Zinc

Figure 8 shows the normal probability plot for linear thermal expansion data recorded for Zinc. The figure shows how the data points are relatively

linear, which means that the data is normal. This allows the statistical test to be conducted, even with the lack of over 30 data points.

Figure 9. Normal Probability Plot for Linear Thermal

Figure 9 shows Metals the normal probability plot for linear thermal expansion Expansion for Unknown data recorded for the unknown metal. The figure shows how the data points are relatively linear, which means that the data is normal. The data is less normal than the other linear probability plots even though it is a small scale. This allows the statistical test to be conducted, even with the lack of over 30 data points.

Donovan-Gohlke 34

Interpretation: Using a two-sample t-test, it can be inferred if the data is statistically significant to each other. The reason why a two-sample t-test was used was because two sample means from different independent populations were being compared and the standard deviation was not known. In this case, the two simple random samples were that of random rods chosen for each trial. The two distinct populations were the Zinc Rods and Unknown Rods. All experiments have less than 30 trials, but data is still valid due to normal probability plots, which are shown in Figures 5, 6, 8, and 9. The population means are known and the deviation of the metal is unknown, even though the sample deviation is known. After the two-sample t-test is done, it can be inferred that the p-value calculated shows if the two sets of data are significantly different from each other. If they are significantly different to each other it can also be inferred that they are different metals. A sample calculation can be found in Appendix G. The null and alternative hypothesis is stated below for both linear thermal expansion and specific heat. H0: z = u Ha: z u Ho, or the null hypothesis, is that the values of Zinc, z, are equal to the values of the Unknown metals, u. Ha, or the alternative hypothesis, is that the values of Zinc, z, are not equal to the values of the unknown metals, u. The null hypothesis is what the whole goal of the statistical test is trying to prove. The null and alternative hypothesis can be read in a different way.

Donovan-Gohlke 35

Figure 10. P-Value for Specific Heat of Zinc and the Unknown Metal Figure 10 shows the t-value of -0.8541and the p-value of 0.4001 for the specific heat trials. The t-value of -0.8541means that the unknown and Zinc population data are over one standard deviation apart from each other (Sample calculation found in Appendix G). Fail to reject H0 because the p-value of 0.4001 is greater than the alpha level of 0.10. There is significant evidence that the mean of the two metals are similar to Zinc. There is a 40.01% chance of getting results this extreme based on chance alone assuming H0 is true, z = u.

Figure 11. P-Value for LTE of Zinc and the Unknown Metal Figure 11 shows the t-value of 8.9632 and the p-value of 0.0000 for the specific heat trials. The t-value of 8.9632 means that the unknown and Zinc

Donovan-Gohlke 36

population data are over one standard deviation apart from each other. (Sample calculation found in Appendix G). Reject H0 because the p-value of 0.0000 is less than the alpha level of 0.10. There is significant evidence that the means of the metals are not the same as Zinc. There is a 0.00% chance of getting results this extreme based on chance alone assuming H0 is true, z = u.

Donovan-Gohlke 37

Conclusion The objective of this research experiment was to prove whether the unknown metal rods were Zinc or not by measuring the specific heat and linear thermal expansion. The hypothesis was that if the values for specific heat and linear thermal expansion were within ten percent error of the values collected for the unknown metal, then the unknown metal is Zinc. In order to determine the accuracy of the hypothesis, percent error and p-values were recorded. Even though the percent errors for the specific heat experiment were within ten percent of error, the hypothesis for the specific heat experiment was rejected. The data collected between the known and unknown metals were almost identical with Zinc being -1.37% and the unknown metal being -0.21%. Just by looking at the similar percent errors, there was a high possibility that the two metals were the same. Because the similar percent errors do not contain enough conclusive evidence, a two-sample t-test was conducted to determine whether the metals were the same or not. The statistical test concluded that there was a 40.01% probability of the two metals being the same. Have this large percentage led the researchers to believe that the metals were in fact, the same. The percent errors for the linear thermal expansion experiment were by no means within 10% error, so the hypothesis for the linear thermal expansion experiment was also rejected. The linear thermal expansion coefficient values mislead the experimenters. The percent error for linear thermal expansion for Zinc was -44.01% and the unknown metal was -53.36%. Conducting the twosample t-test, it was concluded that there was a 2.6709 10-9% probability of having the same metal. Because the percent errors were so far off for even the

Donovan-Gohlke 38

known metal, the linear thermal expansion experiments were deemed too inconclusive by the researchers and were not taken into much consideration when determining whether the metals were the same. After analyzing the data, the researchers concluded that the two metals were indefinitely the same. After reanalyzing the data, the researcher's then concluded that the metals were different because the probabilities of having the same metal were too small. A 40% probability for specific heat and an almost 0% probability for linear thermal expansion left no chance for the two metals to be the same, so both hypothesis were rejected. Throughout the experiment there were many flaws and set-backs that occurred that manipulated the data. The water in the calorimeters were not constant, but still produced a reasonable specific heat value. Also heat was lost when the metal was transferred from the boiling water to the calorimeter. There was a setback for the linear thermal expansion experiment. When the metal was transferred from the boiling water to the linear thermal expansion jig, the metal rod would shrink in a fractional length before being placed in the jig. The values for the linear thermal expansion were minuscule compared to the true value of Zinc. The experimental designs were set up to previous experiments that accomplished the correct values, but obviously the experimental design for the linear thermal expansion failed to give the reading the researchers were looking for. Contrary to the flaws of the linear thermal expansion values, the specific heat values were incredibly close to the true value.

Donovan-Gohlke 39

To reduce the error in the experiments, a real lab environment would be helpful and beneficial to the researcher's. Up-to-date technological equipment such as measuring the internal temperature of the metal because the researchers assumed that the metal was the same temperature of the water after three minutes, and means of transporting the metals from the boiling water to either the calorimeter or the linear thermal expansion jig would prove more efficient. Time is a huge factor in today's school environment lab and it reflected on how poor the linear thermal expansion values turned out for both metals. Further research can be conducted to support this work and will involve experiments finding intensive properties of the unknown metal. Some ideas for other types of experiments would be calculating the density, melting point, and conductivity. These experiments produce unique numbers for each metal just like the specific heat and linear thermal expansion coefficients do. Companies would use these experiments to differentiate two elements found in a mining industry. For example if the companies are working in a mine and discover a pure element that looks similar to another element, in this case Zinc, the companies can test the properties of density by calculating mass and divide it by the volume, the companies could also calculate the melting point. Measuring the conductivity of the metal would prove the most efficient at timing. All these experiments can identify more intensive properties of the unknown metal to see if the element is Zinc (ACS).

Donovan-Gohlke 40

Acknowledgements Special thanks to Mr. Koburg for reading over the grammatical errors in the paper even though he did not know what the experiment was actually about. That is the reason he is an English teacher. Thank you to the upper classmen for encouraging us on not to procrastinate on compiling the paper because it was funny watching everyone else stress out. Thanks to Mrs. Hilliard, Mrs. Dewey, and Mr. Supal for constructive criticizing and making our logic make sense.

Donovan-Gohlke 41

Appendix A: Randomizing Trials Using Ti-nSpire Random Integer Function Procedures: 1. Turn on calculator and open up a "New Document" (Press 1 or click highlight and select 'ok'). Press "Add Calculator" (Press 1 or highlight and select 'ok'). Find and press 'menu' on calculator (right above the delete button). Find and select "Probability" (Press 5 or scroll down and select 'ok'). Then find and select "Random" (Press 4 or scroll down and select 'ok'). From there, find and select "Integer" (Press 2 or scroll down and select 'ok'). "randInt()" should appear on the screen. Set Rod A = 1 and Rod B = 2 and then input into function. "randInt(1,2)" should appear on your screen. Press "Enter" until satisfied with your random trials.

2. 3.

4.

Donovan-Gohlke 42

Appendix B: Setting up Logger Pro to Record Data Procedures: 1. 2. Connect the Temperature Probe to LabQuest. Press the power button on LabQuest to turn it on. Choose 'New from the File menu. If you have an older sensor that does not auto-ID, manually set up the sensor by choosing 'Sensor Setup' from the 'Sensors' menu. On the 'Meter Screen', tap 'Rate'. Change the data-collection rate to 0.5 samples/second (interval of 2 seconds/sample) and the data-collection length to 180 seconds. Select OK. Logger Pro is now ready to collect data.

3.

4.

Donovan-Gohlke 43

Appendix C: Constructing Calorimeter Materials: (2) 7" PVC Pipe (2 Diameter) (2) 8" PVC Pipe (3/4 Diameter) (2) PVC Caps (2 Diameter) (4) PVC Caps (3/4 Diameter) Pipe insulation (3/4" Diameter w/ (1/2" wall) Electric Saw Drill Drill bit (3/16") Tape Measure Glue Caulk Goggles Procedures: Safety Precautions: **Goggles, gloves. 1. Measure and cut two 7 inch sections of the pipe (2 diameter) with electric saw. Measure and cut two 8 inch sections of the pipe (3/4 diameter) with electric saw. Tightly install one PVC Cap (2 diameter) to the 7 PVC pipes and caulk it. Tightly install one PVC cap (3/4 diameter) to the 8 PVC pipe and caulk it. Wrap the 8" PVC pipe in pipe insulation and glue it securely. Insert the 8" pipe into the 7" pipes and glue it securely. Loosely attach one PVC cap (3/4" diameter) to the center tube. Puncture a 3/16 hole in center cap so thermometer probe will fit (see Figure 12 on next page). The center tube should stick out of larger tube for easy access to loosely fit cap (see Figure 13 on next page).

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

10. Repeat steps 4-10 to create second calorimeter.

Donovan-Gohlke 44

11. Sand the bottom of both calorimeters to have them stand up. Diagrams:

Figure 12. Overview of Calorimeter

Figure 12 shows the outside layer is the seven inch PVC, the next layer is the pipe insulation, and the middle part is the top of the cap with a hole to stick the thermometer probe into it. The cap is placed over the eight inch PVC pipe.

Figure 13. Side view of Calorimeter

Figure 13 shows the side view of the calorimeter with no cap. Notice that the center pipe is jetting out farther than the outside making it easy to take the cap on and off.

Donovan-Gohlke 45

Appendix D: Sample Calculation of Specific Heat To analyze the data for specific heat the use the following equation where specific heat of water, S, times the mass of water, m, and times the change in temperature of water, T, divided by the mass of the metal, m, times the change in temperature of the metal, T. The units are (J/g*C).

Shown below in Figure 14, is a sample calculation using the equation to find the specific heat of a metal.

Figure 14. Specific Heat Equation

Donovan-Gohlke 46

Appendix E: Sample Calculation of Linear Thermal Expansion To analyze the data for Linear Thermal Expansion the use of the following equation where change in length, L, divided by the initial length, L i, times the change in temperature, T. The units are C-1.

Shown below in Figure 15, is a sample calculation using the equation to find the Linear Thermal Expansion coefficient of a metal.

Figure 15. Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficient Equation

Donovan-Gohlke 47

Appendix F: Sample Calculation of Percent Error In order to find if the data collected for the metal rods were similar to the property values of Zinc, a percent error calculation was executed. The equation for percent error is the experimental value, e, subtracted by the true value, t, divided by the true value, t, multiplied by 100. The units are in percent. ( )

Shown below in Figure 16, is a sample calculation using the equation to percent error of the Specific Heat of Zinc. ( ( )
( )

)
)

( ( )

Figure 16. Percent Error Sample Calculation for Specific Heat of Zinc

Donovan-Gohlke 48

Appendix G: Sample Calculation of Two Sample t-Test The equation for the two-sample t-test, t, is the difference in means of the two populations, x1 and x2, divided by the square root of the standard deviation of the first population squared, s1, divided by the total number of samples in that population, n1, plus the standard deviation of the second population squared, s2, divided by the total number of samples in that population, n 2. Shown below in Figure 17, is a sample calculation of a two-sample t-test.

Figure 17. Sample Calculation of T-test

Donovan-Gohlke 49

Work Cited ACS. "American Chemical Society - The World's Largest Scientific Society." American Chemical Society - The World's Largest Scientific Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May 2013. <http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true>. Boston University. "Temperature and Thermal Expansion." Temperature and Thermal Expansion. Web. 19 May 2012. <http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Temperature.html>. De Leon, N. "Specific Heat." Specific Heat. Tracklit. Web. 19 May 2012. <http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-andenergy/specificheat.html>. Engineering Toolbox, "Metals - Specific Heats." Metals - Specific Heats. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specificheat-metals-d_152.html>. Fine Ceramics World. "Thermal - Thermal Expansion | Characteristics of Fine Ceramics | FINE CERAMICS WORLD - All About Advanced Ceramics -." Thermal - Thermal Expansion | Characteristics of Fine Ceramics | FINE CERAMICS WORLD - All About Advanced Ceramics -. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://global.kyocera.com/fcworld/charact/heat/thermaexpan.html>. "Flame Tests." About.com Chemistry. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://chemistry.about.com/od/analyticalchemistry/a/flametest.htm>.

Donovan-Gohlke 50

Florissant Valley. "Specific Heat." Specific Heat. Florissant Valley. Web. 19 May 2012. <http://users.stlcc.edu/cburkhardt/sum/lab/specificheat.pdf>. Haghshenas, Darvishi D. F. EXTRACTION OF ZN, MN AND CO FROM ZN MN-CO-CD-NI CONTAINING SOLUTION USING D2EHPA, CYANEX 272 AND CYANEX 302. 2nd ed. Vol. 24. New York: IJE Transactions B: Applications, 2011. Print. Ser. 2. International Zinc Association, "History of Zinc." Zinc History. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.zinc.org/basics/history_of_zinc>. Kwanga. "Chemistry Lab: Specific Heat of a Metal." Chemistry Lab. Web. <http://www.kwanga.net/chemnotes/specific-heat-lab.pdf>. St. Louis Community College. "Coefficient of Thermal Linear Expansion." 23 Sept. 1997. Florissant Valley. 7 Apr. 2013 <http://users.stlcc.edu/cburkhardt/sum/lab/thermal.pdf>. Tipler, Paul A. "Thermal Expansion Equations and Formulas Calculator." Thermal Expansion Equations Formulas Calculator. Worth Publisher. Web. 19 May 2012. <http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpthermalexpansion/thermal_expansion_eq uation_linear_coefficient.php>. TMB. "TMB Plumbing Engineer - Features: November 2006: Thermal Expansion." TMB Plumbing Engineer. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://www.plumbingengineer.com/nov_06/thermal.php>

Donovan-Gohlke 51

Toolbox. "Thermal Expansion - Linear." Thermal Expansion - Linear. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermalexpansion-d_1379.html>. USEPA, "Primary Metals." Zinc Processing. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.wmrc.uiuc.edu/info/library_docs/manuals/primmetals/chapter7 .htm>.