Barber Coles Monteiro

Identifying Unknown Metals using Specific Heats
Ian Barber Stuart Coles Elisa Monteiro
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Honors Chemistry
Section 10B
Mrs. Christine Kincaid-Dewey/Mrs. Jamie Hilliard/Mr. Mark Supal
24th May 2016

Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Review of Literature......................................................................................................... 3
Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 8
Experimental Design ..................................................................................................... 10
Data and Observations .................................................................................................. 12
Data Analysis and Interpretation.................................................................................... 20
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 28
Application ..................................................................................................................... 31
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A: Constructing the Calorimeters ................................................................... 34
Appendix B: Randomization with Excel ......................................................................... 35
Appendix C: LabQuest Setup ........................................................................................ 36
Appendix D: Formulas and Sample Calcuations ........................................................... 37
Works Cited ................................................................................................................... 40

Barber-Coles-Monteiro 1
Introduction
Molybdenum is a rare but essential element. Too much of it can kill an
animal, but too little of it and digestion will not function properly. Due to its rarity,
it is expensive in its pure form. Its precious and dangerous nature makes
identifying a molybdenum sample very important.
This paper describes an experiment that used the property of specific heat
to determine whether a sample of metal is molybdenum. Specific heat is
measured using calorimeters, which are relatively simple devices that are used to
create isolated systems. Since every element on the periodic table has a unique
specific heat, it is a very convenient and easily tested method of determining the
identity of a sample.
To carry out this experiment, first calorimeters were built to create an
isolated system, allowing changes in heat to be accurately measured. Metal rods
were heated in boiling water until they reached equilibrium with the water and
then placed inside calorimeters. The temperature change within the calorimeters
was then used to calculate the specific heat of the metal samples.
Specific heat is a property that makes it easier for industries to know how
to most effectively use an element. For example, waters relatively high specific
heat makes it very good for insulators or air-conditioning fluid in automobiles.
Similarly, molybdenums middling specific heat means it is a good conductor of
heat and can be used for applications which require heat transfer. It is for this
reason, along with its strength-adding properties, that molybdenum is often used
in the formation of alloys that will later be used for applications such as airplane
engine components and parts within nuclear power facilities. (Uses of New
Molybdenum)
Review of Literature
Specific heat is the amount of heat per unit of mass required to raise the
temperature of an element by one degree Celsius or one Kelvin (Nave, Specific
Heat). Specific heat is an intensive property of an element meaning each
element has a unique specific heat. This allows specific heat to be used to
identify an element. This experiment will use J/G * C, or joules over grams times
degrees Celsius.
Specific heat is measured as a unit of energy over a unit of mass
multiplied by a temperature scale. This experiment will use J/g * C, or joules
over grams times degrees Celsius, as the unit for specific heat. This will be
measured by using calorimetry, which uses calorimeters to create isolated
systems. (Calorimeter and Calorimetry.) These isolated systems are used to
measure the change in temperature during interactions, which can be done
because they do not allow for heat or matter to the system. The First Law of
Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only
transferred. (Lucas) This means that any observed change of energy within an
isolated system must come from within the system itself and be transferred to the
surroundings. Calorimeters are isolated, and thus it can be said with certainty
that any perceived changes in the temperature of the calorimeter are actually just
redistributions of energy within the system, meaning that energy must have
transferred from one place within the system to another.
When describing heat transfer, the variable q is generally used to
represent heat. If the value of q is positive, it is an exothermic reaction, meaning

that heat is released during the reaction. If q is negative, it represents heat being
absorbed in the reaction. This is called an endothermic reaction, in that the water
lost heat energy to the sample.
Figure 1. Calorimeter Example
Figure 1, above, shows an example to a calorimeter. This calorimeter is
slightly different than the one used in this experiment in that it is a different
shape, but the general concept of a sample placed in water within an insulated
box is identical.
= +
( ) = ( )
Shown above is the equation used to determine the specific heat of the
metal. As stated previously, the variable q represents the heat in the system. The
variable s represents specific heat in J/g * C and m represents the mass of the
sample in grams. The temperature in the calorimeter after the sample has been
allowed to reach equilibrium ( ) will be the same on both sides, as the system
has reached equilibrium. The initial temperature ( ) will also be measured. All
temperature measurements will be in degrees Celsius. When performing the
calculations, these variables will apply to the water in the calorimeter on one side
of the equation, and the sample within the calorimeter on the other. This is
clarified by the subscripts.
There are multiple possible methods to determine the specific heat of an
item. One way to do this is, using calorimetry, is to heat up a sample in boiling
water, and then transition it to water of a different temperature within a
calorimeter. The initial temperature of the water in the calorimeter is recorded,
and after the metal has been in the calorimeter for some amount of time the final
temperature of the water is recorded. (Jaskew, ChemLab #17 - Specific Heat of
a Metal) While this experiment aims to take an approach similar to the one
described in ChemLab #17, there are other variations on how this experiment
can be done. For example, a different experimental setup, as used by Barth,
uses little metal beads and starts with chilled water as opposed to room
temperature water, recording the temperature increase with the metal at room
temperature (Barth, Improved Method for Determining the Heat Capacity of
Metals). This allows for easier setup and easier transfer of heat due to the
increased surface area of the beads as opposed to a smaller metal. The Barth
experiment also used more precise measuring strategies that are adopted in the
experiment discussed here, as well as a method of transferring a sample from
one body of water to another more efficiently than that described in Chemlab
#17.
Another method for determining specific heat is called the laser flash
method. In this method, a sample of a material is placed inside of a furnace. A
powerful laser is flashed at the sample. This sample then absorbs the radiation
from the laser, thereby increasing the temperature of the sample. An infrared
light detector placed behind a focusing lens at the back of the furnace then
detects this change in temperature of the sample (Parker). This change in
temperature, along with the mass of the sample, can used to calculate the
specific heat of a substance. This value can be compared to that of a previously
identified sample tested under the same conditions, allowing for identification of
elements (Thermal Diffusivity, Specific Heat, and Thermal Conductivity of
Aluminum Oxide and Pyroceram 9606). As in this experiment, the specific heat
of the material in the experiment is determined based on other factors, and these
values must be compared to a known sample to get a useful metric. Neither
Chemlab 17 nor the Barth experiment use comparative methods for determining
the identities of a sample. The comparison methodology used in this experiment
is based off of the methods put forth in Thermal Diffusivity.
Table 1
Properties of Molybdenum and Water
Specific Heat Density
(J/g * C) (g/cm3)
Molybdenum 0.25 10.2
Water 4.18 1.00
Table 1, above, shows the specific heats of molybdenum and water.
Molybdenum, the known material for this experiment, has a specific heat of 0.25
J/g * C, meaning that it would take 0.25 joules of energy to raise the
temperature of one gram of molybdenum by one degree Celsius. The density of
molybdenum is 10.2 g/cm3 (Nave, Molybdenum). Water has a specific heat of
4.184 J/g * C, which is abnormally high (Kuo and Brewster), and a density of 1
g/cm3 (General Water Information). This means that molybdenum heats faster
than water, making water the better insulator. It also means that molybdenum is
great for any uses that require transfer of heat.
All of the methods outlined in this section, and all information put forward,
should clarify the experiment presented. This experiment combines multiple
previous experiments by other researchers into one experiment, serving the
purpose of identifying an element indirectly through the property of specific heat.

Problem Statement
Problem Statement:
To determine whether an unidentified sample is molybdenum, using the
intensive property of specific heat.
Hypothesis:
The unidentified metal is molybdenum, determined using specific heat
values to an alpha value of 0.1 and a percent error of 7%.
Data Measured:
This experiment will measure the temperature of each body of water, and
the temperature of the known and unknown sample before and after it is
submerged in the cooler body of water. All temperatures are measured in
degrees Celsius. The masses of the metal samples will be measured in grams.
To analyze the data, the specific heat of the unknown metal will be compared to
the specific heat of molybdenum in a two-sample t test, with the specific heat
measured in J/g * C.
There are various variables needed to calculate specific heat. The variable
s represents specific heat in J/g * C and m represents the mass of the sample in
grams. tf represents the final temperature of the system, which is going to be the
temperature recorded when the metal rod and water in the calorimeter meet
equilibrium, in C. ti represents the initial temperature of the metal or water. On
one side of the equation, these variables apply to the water in the calorimeter. On
the other side, they apply to the metal sample. The specific heat on the water
side of the equation will be waters known specific heat value, 4.184. It is also
important to note the mass of the water will be determined based on the milliliters
or water added to the calorimeter, as the density of water is one gram per one
milliliter.
Experimental Design
Materials:
Loaf Pan (2) Molybdenum Samples (Material A)

Scale (0.0001 g precision) (2) Unknown Metal Samples (Material B)
Tongs Vernier Temperature Probe (0.01 C)
Hot Plate Vernier LabQuest
Thermometer (0.1 C) Timer
Hot Mitt (4) 100mL Graduated Cylinder
(4) PVC Calorimeters Microsoft Excel
Procedure:
1. Using Microsoft Excel, randomly assign each sample to one of thirty trials.
Ensure that each sample is used in 15 trials. Do this for both materials A
and B. (see Appendix B)
2. Fill the loaf pan approximately half full with water.
3. Place the loaf pan on a hot plate, turn the hot plate on high, and bring the
water somewhere between 95-105 C.
4. Set up the Labquest (see Appendix C).
5. Using a scale, measure the mass of the sample and record it.
6. Using tongs, place the metal rod into the boiling water within the loaf pan
for 60 seconds. Using the thermometer, record the temperature of the
water in the pan at this point as the initial temperature of the metal for
each trial.
7. For trials using the known metal samples, measure out 45 ml of room
temperature water using a graduated cylinder. For trials using the
unknown metal samples, measure out 37 ml of room temperature water
using a graduated cylinder. Note how much water was measured. Pour
this water into the appropriate calorimeter (see Appendix A for how to
create the calorimeters).
8. Record the temperature of the water in the calorimeter after the

temperature probe has reached equilibrium with the water as the initial
temperature of the water. Keep the temperature probe in the water.
9. Using the tongs, place the hot metal rod into the calorimeter. Be sure to
replace the lid on the calorimeter
10. Record the temperature of the water in the calorimeter after 45 seconds
as the final temperature.
11. Use the recorded values to calculate the specific heat of the metal (see
Appendix D for example calculation).
12. Repeat steps 5-11 for all trials.
Diagram:
Figure 2. Calorimeter Setup
Figure 2 shows the setup used in this experiment. Not pictured are the
tongs, hot plate, metal samples, and loaf pan.

Data and Observations
Data:
Table 2
Data from the Specific Heat Molybdenum Trials
Molybdenum
Change in Temp. Specific
Initial Temp. (C)
Equilibrium (C) Heat
Trial Rod Mass (g)
Temp. (C) (J/g x
Water Metal Water Metal
C)
1 B 21.3 99.3 24.5 3.20 -74.8 42.7913 0.188
2 A 21.3 99.3 24.4 3.10 -74.9 42.7114 0.182
3 A 22.6 99.5 25.5 2.90 -74.0 42.7076 0.173
4 B 22.2 99.5 25.0 2.80 -74.5 42.7953 0.165
5 A 26.7 99.3 29.2 2.50 -70.1 42.7115 0.157
6 B 26.8 99.3 29.5 2.70 -69.8 42.7913 0.170
7 A 25.4 98.6 28.2 2.80 -70.4 42.7077 0.175
8 B 25.0 98.6 27.4 2.40 -71.2 42.7953 0.148
9 B 26.8 99.2 28.9 2.10 -70.3 42.7912 0.131
10 A 26.2 99.2 28.7 2.50 -70.5 42.7117 0.156
11 B 25.8 99.0 28.3 2.50 -70.7 42.7914 0.156
12 A 25.9 99.0 28.5 2.60 -70.5 42.7134 0.163
13 A 25.4 99.3 28.1 2.70 -71.2 42.7076 0.167
14 B 25.1 99.3 27.9 2.80 -71.4 42.7953 0.173
15 B 23.7 99.5 26.5 2.80 -73.0 42.7907 0.169
16 A 24.1 99.5 27.0 2.90 -72.5 42.7119 0.176
17 B 23.8 94.3 26.9 3.10 -67.4 42.7949 0.202
18 A 23.6 94.3 26.5 2.90 -67.8 42.7066 0.189
19 A 23.6 93.0 26.6 3.00 -66.4 42.7068 0.199
20 A 23.6 90.1 26.1 2.50 -64.0 42.7161 0.172
21 B 23.7 93.0 27.2 3.50 -65.8 42.7954 0.234
22 B 23.7 90.1 26.5 2.80 -63.6 42.7938 0.194
23 A 23.6 97.1 26.4 2.80 -70.7 42.7146 0.175
24 B 23.7 97.1 26.3 2.60 -70.8 42.7888 0.162
25 A 23.9 99.1 26.8 2.90 -72.3 42.7072 0.177
26 B 23.8 99.1 26.8 3.00 -72.3 42.7921 0.183
27 B 23.2 95.5 26.5 3.30 -69.0 42.7865 0.210
28 B 23.3 97.2 26.7 3.40 -70.5 42.7921 0.212
29 A 23.2 95.5 26.1 2.90 -69.4 42.7108 0.184
30 A 23.4 97.2 26.3 2.90 -70.9 42.7033 0.180
31 B 22.9 91.3 26.0 3.10 -65.3 42.7901 0.209
Change in Temp. Specific

Initial Temp. (C)
Equilibrium (C) Heat
Trial Rod Mass (g)
Temp. (C) (J/g x
Water Metal Water Metal
C)
32 A 22.8 91.3 25.8 3.00 -65.5 42.7096 0.202
33 A 21.9 98.9 24.8 2.90 -74.1 42.7065 0.173
34 B 21.6 98.9 25.0 3.40 -73.9 42.7939 0.202
35 B 22.2 99.3 25.6 3.40 -73.7 42.7897 0.203
36 B 22.1 99.2 25.9 3.80 -73.3 42.7925 0.228
37 B 21.8 99.2 24.8 3.00 -74.4 42.7896 0.177
38 B 21.8 98.5 25.0 3.20 -73.5 42.7929 0.192
39 B 21.6 98.9 24.9 3.30 -74.0 42.7897 0.196
40 A 22.4 99.3 25.5 3.10 -73.8 42.7101 0.185
41 A 22.2 99.2 25.5 3.30 -73.7 42.7052 0.197
42 B 21.7 98.8 25.2 3.50 -73.6 42.7934 0.209
43 B 21.8 98.9 25.1 3.30 -73.8 42.8059 0.197
44 A 22.0 99.2 25.0 3.00 -74.2 42.7099 0.178
45 A 21.9 98.5 25.3 3.40 -73.2 42.7058 0.205
46 B 22.0 99.0 25.7 3.70 -73.3 42.8036 0.222
47 B 21.9 99.1 25.1 3.20 -74.0 42.7987 0.190
48 A 21.7 98.9 24.7 3.00 -74.2 42.7095 0.178
49 B 22.3 99.3 25.4 3.10 -73.9 42.7987 0.185
50 A 21.7 98.8 25.1 3.40 -73.7 42.7052 0.203
51 A 22.0 98.9 25.1 3.10 -73.8 42.7141 0.185
52 A 22.1 99.0 25.1 3.00 -73.9 42.7131 0.179
53 A 21.9 99.1 24.9 3.00 -74.2 42.7154 0.178
54 A 22.5 99.3 25.6 3.10 -73.7 42.7124 0.185
55 A 22.8 99.1 25.9 3.10 -73.2 42.6833 0.187
56 B 22.6 99.1 25.6 3.00 -73.5 42.7946 0.180
Average 23.2 97.8 26.2 3.01 -71.6 42.7512 0.185
Table 2, above, compiles all the data collected from the samples known to
be Molybdenum, as well as the specific heat of each trial.

Table 3
Data from the Specific Heat Trials of the Unknown Metals
Unknown Metal
Change in Temp.
Initial Temp. (C) Equilibrium Specific
Trial Rod Temp. (C) Mass (g) Heat
Water Metal (C) Water Metal (J/g x C)
1 A 21.7 99.3 32.7 11.0 -66.6 75.2389 0.344
2 A 24.3 99.5 35.0 10.7 -64.5 75.2392 0.346
3 B 21.8 99.3 33.1 11.3 -66.2 75.6435 0.354
4 A 27.2 99.3 37.8 10.6 -61.5 75.2321 0.359
5 B 24.2 99.5 34.9 10.7 -64.6 75.6510 0.344
6 B 27.1 99.3 37.9 10.8 -61.4 75.6429 0.365
7 A 26.0 98.6 36.7 10.7 -61.9 75.2322 0.361
8 A 27.8 99.2 37.4 9.6 -61.8 75.2408 0.324
9 A 28.7 100.1 37.4 8.7 -62.7 75.2315 0.289
10 A 27.7 99.0 38.0 10.3 -61.0 75.2398 0.352
11 A 26.5 99.3 37.2 10.7 -62.1 75.2310 0.359
12 B 26.0 98.6 36.1 10.1 -62.5 75.6511 0.335
13 B 27.8 99.2 37.8 10.0 -61.4 75.6425 0.338
14 B 29.0 100.1 38.7 9.7 -61.4 75.6497 0.328
15 A 25.6 99.5 36.4 10.8 -63.1 75.2399 0.357
16 A 23.8 94.3 35.8 12.0 -58.5 75.2338 0.428
17 B 27.8 99.0 37.7 9.9 -61.3 75.6433 0.335
18 A 25.8 93.0 36.0 10.2 -57.0 75.2419 0.373
19 B 26.6 99.3 36.6 10.0 -62.7 75.6518 0.331
20 B 25.3 99.5 35.9 10.6 -63.6 75.6428 0.346
21 B 23.7 94.3 36.0 12.3 -58.3 75.6518 0.438
22 B 25.5 93.0 35.9 10.4 -57.1 75.6444 0.378
23 B 25.5 90.1 34.6 9.1 -55.5 75.6507 0.340
24 B 26.0 97.1 34.9 8.9 -62.2 75.6444 0.297
25 B 25.6 99.1 35.9 10.3 -63.2 75.6520 0.338
26 A 25.6 90.1 36.4 10.8 -53.7 75.2348 0.419
27 A 26.0 97.1 36.5 10.5 -60.6 75.2422 0.361
28 B 25.5 95.5 35.6 10.1 -59.9 75.6444 0.350
29 A 25.7 99.1 36.2 10.5 -62.9 75.2338 0.348
30 A 25.6 95.5 35.4 9.8 -60.1 75.2423 0.340
31 A 25.2 97.2 35.7 10.5 -61.5 75.2397 0.356
32 A 25.1 91.3 35.8 10.7 -55.5 75.2337 0.402
33 B 24.8 97.2 35.3 10.5 -61.9 75.6440 0.352
34 B 25.1 91.3 34.9 9.8 -56.4 75.6504 0.360
35 A 21.2 98.9 32.7 11.5 -66.2 75.2400 0.362
Equilibrium Change in Temp Specific

Initial Temp. (C) Mass
Trials Rod Temp. (C) Heat
(g)
Water Metal (C) Water Metal (J/g x C)
36 A 23.2 99.3 34.8 11.6 -64.5 75.2337 0.375
37 B 21.6 98.9 34.1 12.5 -64.8 75.6432 0.400
38 A 23.6 99.2 35.4 11.8 -63.8 75.2409 0.386
39 A 24.1 99.2 34.9 10.8 -64.3 75.2340 0.350
40 A 23.4 98.5 35.4 12.0 -63.1 75.2399 0.397
41 B 23.6 99.3 36.3 12.7 -63.0 75.6503 0.418
42 A 24.0 98.8 35.0 11.0 -63.8 75.2331 0.360
43 B 24.2 99.2 36.6 12.4 -62.6 75.6435 0.411
44 A 23.7 98.9 35.5 11.8 -63.4 75.2562 0.388
45 A 24.0 99.0 35.3 11.3 -63.7 75.2458 0.370
46 B 24.2 99.2 35.7 11.5 -63.5 75.6500 0.376
47 B 24.0 98.5 35.7 11.7 -62.8 75.6428 0.386
48 B 24.4 98.8 35.5 11.1 -63.3 75.6502 0.364
49 A 25.8 99.1 35.1 9.3 -64.0 75.2533 0.303
50 A 24.1 99.3 36.1 12.0 -63.2 75.2357 0.396
51 A 24.1 99.1 35.4 11.3 -63.7 75.2343 0.370
52 B 24.1 98.9 36.1 12.0 -62.8 75.6667 0.396
53 B 24.3 99.0 35.3 11.0 -63.7 75.6690 0.358
54 B 24.2 99.1 36.6 12.4 -62.5 75.6546 0.411
55 B 25.1 99.3 36.6 11.5 -62.7 75.6443 0.380
56 B 24.9 99.1 37.1 12.2 -62.0 75.6445 0.408
Average 25.0 97.9 35.9 10.9 -62.0 75.4435 0.365
Table 3 shows the data collected during the trials of the unknown
samples, with the specific heat also calculated.

Observations:
Table 4
Observation Data from the Specific Heat Trials of the Molybdenum Samples
Molybdenum Observations
Trial Metal Calorimeter Observations
1 B 2 One minute transfer
2 A 1 One minute transfer
Approximately 30 second transfer, switched
3 A 1 tongs
Approximately 30 second transfer, switched
4 B 2 tongs
Approximately 20 second transfer, early temp
5 A 1 reading (known moved first)
Approximately 20 second transfer, early temp
6 B 2 reading (known moved first)
Approximately 30 sec transfer. Calorimeter
7 A 1 tipped over, increasing time in air.
Approximately 30 sec transfer. Took longer to
8 B 2 get into calorimeter than normal.
9 B 2 20 sec transfer, but smooth.
20 sec transfer, took longer in air than other
10 A 1 samples.
11 B 2 Flawless transfer (20 seconds)
12 A 1 Flawless transfer (20 seconds)
13 A 1 20 sec transfer
14 B 2 20 sec transfer
15 B 2 30 second transfer
16 A 1 30 second transfer
17 B 2 Smooth transfer
18 A 1 Smooth transfer
Lid failed to sit properly on calorimeter
21 B 2 immediately, but did after being forced on.
25 A 1 Smooth transfer 20 seconds
26 B 2 Smooth transfer 20 seconds
28 B 2 15 sec fast transfer

30 A 1 15 sec fast transfer
31 B 2 Smooth transfer, a little extra time in the air.
33 A 1 Smooth efficient transfer (16 seconds)
34 B 2 Smooth efficient transfer (16 seconds)
35 B 2 Smooth efficient transfer
37 B 2 Took a while on transfer
Good transfer, thermometer turned off during
38 B 2 reading
39 B 2 Smooth transfer (no corresponding Unknown)
40 A 1 Smooth efficient transfer
42 B 2 18 sec smooth transfer
43 B 2 Okay transfer
44 A 1 Took a while on transfer
Good transfer thermometer turn off during
45 A 1 reading
47 B 2 10 second, very good transfer
Rough transfer, hit calorimeter before going
48 A 1 inside (no corresponding Unknown)
50 A 1 18 sec smooth transfer
51 A 1 Okay transfer
53 A 1 10 second gold transfer
Table 4, above, shows the qualitative observations of each trial of the
known metal samples. The times of transfer are approximate and are measured
from when all four metals tested at a time were in the water for one minute to
when the fourth sample was placed into its calorimeter.

Table 5
Observation Data of the Specific Heat Trials of the Unknown Metals
Unknown Metal Observations
1 A 3 One minute transfer
2 A 3 30 second transfer switched tongs
3 B 4 One minute transfer
20 second transfer early temp reading (known
4 A 3 moved first)
5 B 4 30 second transfer switched tongs
20 second transfer early temp reading (known
6 B 4 moved first)
Dropped before making it to calorimeter, no
simultaneous Molybdenum trials, odd temp
9 A 3 spike around 20 seconds (0.3C).
10 A 3 Flawless transfer (20 seconds)
14 B 4 No corresponding molybdenum trials
15 A 3 30 second transfer
17 B 4 Flawless transfer (20 seconds)
18 A 3 Smooth transfer (took while longer)
20 B 4 30 second transfer
22 B 4 Took longer smooth transfer
23 B 4 Fell twice
24 B 4 Fell on transfer to calorimeter
25 B 4 Smooth transfer 20 seconds VIDEO
29 A 3 Smooth transfer 20 seconds VIDEO
30 A 3 Took long time on transfer
31 A 3 15s fast transfer
33 B 4 15s fast transfer
34 B 4 Smooth transfer, a little extra time in air.

35 A 3 Smooth efficient transfer (16 seconds)
36 A 3 Smooth efficient transfer one corner exposed
37 B 4 Smooth efficient transfer (16 seconds)
Good transfer. Thermometer turned off during
40 A 3 reading.
Smooth, efficient transfer. One corner of the
sample was exposed above water in loaf
41 B 4 pan.
42 A 3 18 sec smooth transfer
44 A 3 Okay transfer
Good transfer thermometer turn off during
47 B 4 reading
48 B 4 18 sec smooth transfer
49 A 3 10 second gold transfer
50 A 3 Slightly longer transfer
52 B 4 Okay transfer
53 B 4 Dropped twice on transfer
54 B 4 10 second gold transfer
Table 5 shows the qualitative observations of the unknown trials. The
transfer times are approximate and are measured the same way as the unknown
trials were, as they were conducted simultaneously. No notable photographs
were taken.
Data Analysis & Interpretation
This research was done in order to determine if an unknown sample is
molybdenum by comparing the specific heat of the known molybdenum samples
to the specific heat of the unknown metal samples. This was done by
constructing calorimeters and measuring the specific heats of metal samples.
Specific heat is measured in Joules over grams times degrees Celsius.
In order to ensure reliable data, there must be a control, there must be
randomness, and there must repetition. The control in the experiment was finding
the specific heat of the known molybdenum samples, to allow for accounting for
error introduced through flaws in the procedure and materials. The order the
trials were run was randomized using Excel. Each metal was subject to 56 trials,
a sample size large enough to ensure the central limit theorem applies and the
data is normal, which is verified more thoroughly later.
Table 6
Percent Error of the Known Molybdenum Trials
Perc. Perc. Perc. Perc.
Trial Trial Trial Trial
Error Error Error Error
1 -24.71% 16 -29.47% 31 -16.45% 46 -11.19%
2 -27.02% 17 -19.06% 32 -19.24% 47 -23.91%
3 -30.89% 18 -24.57% 33 -30.98% 48 -28.71%
4 -33.86% 19 -20.33% 34 -19.03% 49 -26.18%
5 -37.12% 20 -31.13% 35 -18.80% 50 -18.64%
6 -31.92% 21 -6.39% 36 -8.76% 51 -25.94%
7 -29.86% 22 -22.52% 37 -29.03% 52 -28.42%
8 -40.68% 23 -30.17% 38 -23.38% 53 -28.72%
9 -47.43% 24 -35.36% 39 -21.51% 54 -25.83%
10 -37.47% 25 -29.27% 40 -25.93% 55 -25.28%
11 -37.77% 26 -26.97% 41 -21.04% 56 -28.17%
12 -34.97% 27 -15.82% 42 -16.31% AVG -26.08%
13 -33.13% 28 -15.12% 43 -21.33%
14 -30.99% 29 -26.32% 44 -28.71%
15 -32.49% 30 -27.86% 45 -18.09%
Table 6 on the previous page shows the percent error for all trials of the
known metal. Percent error was monitored during the experiment in order to
make sure that the experiment was delivering consistent results. The range of
the percent error of the molybdenum samples is 41.03 percent.
Table 7
Percent Error for the Trials of the Unknown Metal
Perc. Perc. Perc. Perc.
Trial Trial Trial Trial
Error Error Error Error
1 37.77% 16 71.12% 31 42.41% 46 50.24%
2 38.38% 17 33.99% 32 60.83% 47 54.58%
3 41.62% 18 49.26% 33 40.74% 48 45.48%
4 43.78% 19 32.31% 34 44.15% 49 21.19%
5 37.41% 20 38.28% 35 44.90% 50 58.39%
6 45.94% 21 75.03% 36 50.03% 51 47.98%
7 44.20% 22 51.11% 37 60.05% 52 58.49%
8 29.57% 23 36.02% 38 54.27% 53 43.22%
9 15.75% 24 18.72% 39 40.11% 54 64.58%
10 40.85% 25 35.20% 40 58.63% 55 52.17%
11 43.74% 26 67.77% 41 67.24% 56 63.26%
12 34.06% 27 44.52% 42 43.83% AVG 45.80%
13 35.13% 28 39.89% 43 64.35%
14 31.06% 29 39.25% 44 55.21%
15 42.77% 30 36.01% 45 47.96%
Table 7 shows the percent errors from the trials of the unknown samples.
The range of the percent error of the unknown samples is 59.27 percent. These
percent errors are consistently much higher than the ones in the known
molybdenum trials. In fact, the difference in the averages is 71.6 percent.
The control tests yielded a specific heat value that was on average 0.158
(J/g x C). However, it is known that the actual specific heat of molybdenum is
0.25 (J/g x C). In order to correct for the errors led to this discrepancy, the
difference of these two values, 0.065 (J/g x C), was added to every specific heat
data point collected for both metals before any further analysis was performed.
This adjustment means that the average percent error for the known
molybdenum samples is 0.45%, and the average percent error for the unknown
samples is 71.85%.
Before any statistical analysis test is run, various descriptive statistics and
graphs can be analyzed. The first to be analyzed will boxplots of the data, as well
as the quartile data.
Figure 3. Box Plot of the Specific Heat Values of Molybdenum
Figure 3 shows the boxplot for the specific heat values of the molybdenum
samples. The median specific heat and true specific heat values appear close to
each other, having a difference of only 0.002 (J/g x C). The box plot appears to
be mostly normally distributed, with a slight right skew. The data points all lie
between 0.299 (J/g x C) and 0.196 (J/g x C), giving the data a range of 0.103
(J/g x C).
Figure 4. Box Plot of the Specific Heat Values of the Unknown Samples
Figure 4 shows the boxplot for the specific heat values of the unknown
samples. The median specific heat and true specific heat values appear relatively
far from each other, having a difference of 0.175 (J/g x C). The box plot appears
to be mostly normally distributed, with a slight right skew, similar to that of the
molybdenum trials. The data points lie between 0.503 (J/g x C) and 0.354 (J/g x
C), giving the data a range of 0.149 (J/g x C).
Before running a statistical test, it is helpful to verify that the data tested is
normal. Normal probability plots are one method used to determine if the data
comes from a normally distributed population.

Figure 5. Normal Probability Plot of the Specific Heat Molybdenum Trials
Figure 5 shows the normal probability plot for the molybdenum specific
heat trials. As seen in the figure, the data appears to be roughly linear. This
means that the data can reasonably be modeled using a normal distribution.
Figure 6. Normal Probability Plot of the Specific Heat Unknown Trials

Figure 6 shows the normal probability plot for the unknown metal specific
heat trials. Again, the data also appears to be roughly linear and can be modeled
with a normal distribution.
The appropriate statistical test in this situation is a two-sample t test,
because the specific heat of different samples from two different populations of
uncertain standard deviation is being compared. These populations are the
unknown metal trials and the known metal trials.
In order to run a two-sample t test numerous conditions must be met. The
first condition is that the data comes from a simple random sample. In this case,
the Excel randomization acts to make sure that the data is a random sample. The
second condition that must be met is that the data comes from a normally
distributed population, and there must be enough data to satisfy the central limit
theorem. As shown above by the normal probability plots, the data appears to be
for the most part normally distributed. The sample size, 56, is also large enough
that it can be concluded that the data is normal by the central limit theorem. The
third condition is that the samples are from independent populations. This
experiment was designed to keep the four rods isolated from each other, and
thus independent. All conditions for the test have been met, so a two-sample t
test can be run.
For a two sample t-test to be run, first a null and alternative hypothesis
must be stated.
0 : =
0 : =
Figure 7. Null and Alternative Hypothesis
In figure 7, the null hypothesis, H , states that the true mean of the specific
o
heat values of the known molybdenum samples (k) is the equivalent to the true
mean of the specific heat values of the unknown samples (u). The alternative
hypothesis, H , states that the mean of the true specific heat values of the known
a
molybdenum samples (k) is not equivalent to the mean of the true specific heat
values of the unknown samples (u). The equation for a t-test, as well as a
sample calculation, is shown in appendix D.
Figure 8. TI-Nspire Two-Sample t Test Results
Figure 8, above, contains the results from the two-sample t test run on the
specific heat values, as well as a graph of the p-value, where the portion of the t
distribution represented by the p-value is shaded. This region is so small that the
shaded portion is not visible. The t value of -36.1791 means that the shaded
region starts 36.1791 standard deviations from the mean.

The null hypothesis was rejected, because the p-value of 3.96 x10-56 is
less than the level of 0.1. This means that it is highly unlikely the unknown
metal has the same specific heat as molybdenum. If the null hypothesis were
true, that is, if the true mean for the specific heat of the unknown metal was 0.25
(J/g x C), there is only a 3.96 x 10-54% chance that the average reading of 0.430
(J/g x C) could occur by chance. Since these results are so unlikely to occur by
chance, it can be concluded that the unknown samples do not have the same
specific heat as molybdenum.

Conclusion
This experiment was intended to identify whether a metal sample was
molybdenum. During the experiment, metal samples were heated and then
placed in a calorimeter to measure their specific heats. A two-sample t test was
then carried out on the specific heat data. The hypothesis that the metal sample
was molybdenum was rejected. The unidentified metal samples are not
molybdenum. This conclusion was drawn due to both the difference in mean
specific heats and the physical differences of the metal samples.
The two-sample t test determined that there was a less than 3.96 x 10 % -54
chance that the difference in mean specific heats would occur by chance alone, if
the samples were in fact molybdenum. The unlikeliness of this occurring,
combined with physical differences observed in the metals from known
molybdenum samples, allow the hypothesis to be rejected with certainty. The
unknown metal samples are not molybdenum.
The calorimeters used in this experiment were bespoke, and hand-built
out of PVC by the researchers. PVC is not designed to insulate heat. While the
design of the calorimeters attempted to counter this shortcoming by wrapping the
pipe in insulation, and was further benefited by the presence of water, which is a
poor conductor of heat, there were still many exposed areas of the pipe that may
have leaked heat into the environment. This heat loss means that the readings of
the calorimeters were not perfectly accurate. This was a minor shortcoming
experiment of the experiment, especially in comparison to the main source of
heat loss in the experiment: the heat lost while transferring the samples from the
boiling water to the calorimeters. Heat energy always moves towards equilibrium
in its environment, and, while exposed, the samples released heat in pursuit of
equilibrium with the lab air. This introduced error into the experiment. Although
the statistical analysis process attempted to account for the errors due to heat
loss by adding a correction factor, the correction was not exact and thus some
error remained.
Further, error was introduced by the failings of the researchers to carry out
the experiment perfectly. The metal samples were repeatedly dropped while
attempting to transfer them from the boiling water to the calorimeters. This
resulted in the metal samples spending a greater amount of time in the air, thus
losing more heat to the air before being placed into the calorimeters.
Furthermore, the samples were held by metal tongs, and heat transferred from
the metal samples to the tongs. Also, the amount of time required to transfer the
samples from the boiling water to the calorimeters varied, causing variation in the
amount of heat released into the air. Once in the PVC, some heat from the
samples transferred to the PVC pipe and not the water, resulting in more loss of
heat during the transfer. These errors could be reduced by using more secure
tongs or by placing the calorimeters closer to the source of the boiling water.
Despite this, the results are still in line with the existing scientific
knowledge as referenced in the review of literature section. The property of
specific heat proved to be a good metric for determining the identity of a sample.
Also, the behavior of the heat within the calorimeters and outside them was in
line with how it was explained in the literature. These similarities to previously
published results lend credence to the results of this experiment.
Further tests could be used to ID this element, including chemical tests
and tests of other intensive properties such as tensile strength and density, but
those are beyond the range of this experiment. The design of this experiment
could also be used by other researchers to design a more sophisticated test of
specific heat, using superior calorimeter and refined transfer techniques.

Application
Molybdenum is a rare and precious element, and the fact that it is
essential for life as well as being very durable makes it desirable as jewelry.
Figure 9. Drawing View of the Ring
Figure 9 shows the SolidWorks drawing view output of the ring, which is
useful in actually constructing the jewelry piece.
Figure 10. Isometric View of the ring

Figure 10 shows a 3-dimensional rendering of the ring, which includes a
faux diamond-shaped setting for aesthetic effect. The ring has a mass of 0.1
pounds, and molybdenum sells for $30 a pound, so the rings raw materials
would cost approximately $3.00.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Stuarts family and Elisas mother for financing this
experiment. Without the materials we would not be able to conduct the
experiment.
Appendix A: Constructing the Calorimeters
Materials:
20 in. in. diameter PVC Pipe

Hand saw
(8) in. PVC Endcaps
14 in. in. diameter polyethylene pipe insulation
Drill
4 mm Drill Bit
Scissors
8 Wire Coat Hangers
Cutting Pliers
Procedure:
1. Using the saw, cut a five inch segment of PVC pipe.
2. Using scissors, cut the insulation into a 3.5 inch segment.
3. Place one end cap on each onto PVC segment.
4. Slide one segment of insulation over each segment of PVC.
5. Using the drill with the 4 mm drill bit in place, drill a hole in the top of
another end cap, approximately one centimeter from the edge.
6. Place this cap onto the open end of the PVC pipe.
7. Repeat steps 1-7 for all four calorimeters.
8. Use the cutting pliers to separate the bottom, straight segment of the wire
hanger from the top.
9. Use the pliers to bend the wire hangers around the edges of the bin,
locking them in place.
Appendix B: Randomization with Excel
Materials:
Microsoft Excel 2010
Procedure:
1. Open a new workbook in Microsoft Excel.
2. Type the values 1-30 in their respective boxes in Column A.
3. In column B, alternate between letters A and B for each box, to indicate

which sample will be assigned to which trial.
4. In cell C1, type rand().
5. Use autofill to copy the random number generation command into cells
C2-C30.
6. Select cells B1-B30 and C1-C30, and right click on the selection. From the
list of options in the context menu, place the mouse over Sort and select
Custom Sort.
7. In the custom sort box, ensure that the Column drop down is set to
Column C, the Sort On box is set to Values and the Order box is set
to Smallest to Largest. The resulting order of As and Bs will indicate
which sample is assigned to which trial.
8. Repeat these steps for the other group of metals.

Appendix C: LabQuest Setup
Materials:
Vernier Labquest
(4) Vernier Labquest Temperature Probe
Procedure:
1. Plug a temperature probe into each slot on the back of the Labquest.
2. Turn the Labquest on.
3. Click the duration on the screen that appears.
4. In the prompt that appears, change the duration to 180 seconds and press
OK.
5. Select the Data Collection Tab.
6. Begin data collection.

Appendix D: Formulas and Sample Calculations
The calculation for determining specific heat was performed on every data
point. The formula used to calculate specific heat is shown blown, where smetal is
the specific heat of the metal, mmetal is the mass of the metal, timetal is the initial
temperature of the metal, tf is the final temperature, tiwater is the initial temperature
of the water, swater is the specific heat of the water, and mwater is the mass of the
water.
( ) = ( ( ))
A sample calculation is shown.
( ) = ( ( ))
42.7913 (24.5 99.3)

= (4.184( ) 45 (24.5 21.3))

= 0.188
Figure 11. Sample Calculation of Specific Heat
Figure 11, above, shows the calculations to determine specific heat of the
metal sample using the data collected in trial number one of the Molybdenum
data collection.
As well as specific heat, a test was done to determine the percent
error of each trial. This was used to ensure consistency in the results. The
following formula was used to calculate this, where the experimental value is the
value determined in the lab, and the true value is the published value for the
metal.

= 100

An example calculation using values from the experiment is shown on the
next page.

= 100

0.344 ( ) 0.25( )
= 100

0.25 ( )

= 37.77%
Figure 12. Sample Calculation of Percent Error
Figure 12 shows the example calculation of percent error.
Finally, a two-sample t test was conducted. The equation for this test is
shown below:

=
( )2 ( )2

+
In this equation, t stands for the t value of the test, stands for the mean
of the samples, s stands for the standard deviation of the sample population, and
n stands for the number of samples in each sample population. The subscript m
means that that number represents the known molybdenum population and the
subscript u means that the value represents the unknown metal population. A
sample calculation using the formula is carried out below.

=
( )2 ( )2

+

0.2498 ( ) 0.4295( )
=
2
(0.0196 ( )) (0.0316 ( ))2
+
56 56
= 36.971
Figure 13. Example Calculation of a Two-Sample t Test
Figure 13 on the previous page shows the calculations required to execute
a two-sample t test.
Works Cited
Barth, Roger, and Michael J. Moran. "Improved Method for Determining the Heat
Capacity of Metals." Journal of Chemical Education. Journal of Chemical
Education, 10 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/ed500466m>.
Calorimeter and Calorimetry. Calorimeters and Calorimetry. The Physics
Classroom, 2016, Web 15 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-2/Calorimeters
-and-Calorimetry>.
"General Water Information." General Water Information. N.p., 13 Apr. 2016.
Web. 13 Apr. 2016. <http://www.csgnetwork.com/waterinformation.html>.
Jaskew. "ChemLab 17 - Specific Heat of a Metal." ChemLab 17 - Specific Heat of
a Metal. N.p., 9 Mar. 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
<http://crescentok.com/staff/jaskew/isr/chemistry/chemlab17.htm>.
Lamp, B. D., T. Humphry, V. M. Pultz, and J. M. McCormick. Schematic
Representation of a Calorimeter. Digital image. Chemlab.Truman. Truman
State University, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 May 2016.
<http://chemlab.truman.edu/CHEM130Labs/Calorimetry.asp>.
Lucas, Jim. What Is the First Law of Thermodynamics? LiveScience.
TechMedia Network, 19 May 2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.livescience.com/50881-first-law-thermodynamics.html>
Nave. "Molybdenum." Molybdenum. N.p., 1 Nov. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pertab/mo.html>.
Nave. "Specific Heat." Specific Heat. N.p., 4 June 2004. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html>.
Parker, W. J., R. J. Jenkins, C. P. Butler, and G. L. Abbott. "Flash Method of
Determining Thermal Diffusivity, Heat Capacity, and Thermal
Conductivity." Journal of Applied Physics. Journal of Applied Physics, 13
Apr. 2016. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
<http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/32/9/10.1063/1.1728417>.
"Thermal Diffusivity, Specific Heat, and Thermal Conductivity of Aluminum Oxide
and Pyroceram 9606." Thermal Diffusivity, Specific Heat, and Thermal
Conductivity of Aluminum Oxide and Pyroceram 9606 (2007): 1-10. 9
Sept. 2007. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.calce.umd.edu/TSFA/laser_flash/Results.pdf>.
"Uses of New Molybdenum." International Molybdenum Association. International
Molybdenum Association, n.d. Web. 11 May 2016.
<http://www.imoa.info/molybdenum-uses/molybdenum-uses.php>.
Wang, Kuo, & M. Quinn Brewster. "Thermodynamic Behavior of Water from Soft-
Cell Theory." International Journal of Thermodynamics [Online], 14.1
(2011): 1-9. Web. 8 Apr. 2016

Barber Coles Monteiro

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Barber Coles Monteiro

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Identifying Unknown Metals using Specific Heats

Ian Barber Stuart Coles Elisa Monteiro

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Mrs. Christine Kincaid-Dewey/Mrs. Jamie Hilliard/Mr. Mark Supal

24th May 2016

Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 8

Experimental Design ..................................................................................................... 10

Data and Observations .................................................................................................. 12

Data Analysis and Interpretation.................................................................................... 20

Appendix A: Constructing the Calorimeters ................................................................... 34

Appendix B: Randomization with Excel ......................................................................... 35

Appendix C: LabQuest Setup ........................................................................................ 36

Appendix D: Formulas and Sample Calcuations ........................................................... 37

Works Cited ................................................................................................................... 40

Molybdenum is a rare but essential element. Too much of it can kill an

identifying a molybdenum sample very important.

to determine whether a sample of metal is molybdenum. Specific heat is

To carry out this experiment, first calorimeters were built to create an

isolated system, allowing changes in heat to be accurately measured. Metal rods

heat makes it very good for insulators or air-conditioning fluid in automobiles.

Similarly, molybdenums middling specific heat means it is a good conductor of

temperature of an element by one degree Celsius or one Kelvin (Nave, Specific

Heat). Specific heat is an intensive property of an element meaning each

Specific heat is measured as a unit of energy over a unit of mass

multiplied by a temperature scale. This experiment will use J/g * C, or joules

measured by using calorimetry, which uses calorimeters to create isolated

systems. (Calorimeter and Calorimetry.) These isolated systems are used to

measure the change in temperature during interactions, which can be done

Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only

transferred from one place within the system to another.

When describing heat transfer, the variable q is generally used to

represent heat. If the value of q is positive, it is an exothermic reaction, meaning

lost heat energy to the sample.

Figure 1. Calorimeter Example

Figure 1, above, shows an example to a calorimeter. This calorimeter is

temperature measurements will be in degrees Celsius. When performing the

clarified by the subscripts.

There are multiple possible methods to determine the specific heat of an

water, and then transition it to water of a different temperature within a

calorimeter. The initial temperature of the water in the calorimeter is recorded,

temperature of the water is recorded. (Jaskew, ChemLab #17 - Specific Heat of

can be done. For example, a different experimental setup, as used by Barth,

temperature (Barth, Improved Method for Determining the Heat Capacity of

experiment discussed here, as well as a method of transferring a sample from

method. In this method, a sample of a material is placed inside of a furnace. A

detects this change in temperature of the sample (Parker). This change in

specific heat of a substance. This value can be compared to that of a previously

elements (Thermal Diffusivity, Specific Heat, and Thermal Conductivity of

values must be compared to a known sample to get a useful metric. Neither

the identities of a sample. The comparison methodology used in this experiment

is based off of the methods put forth in Thermal Diffusivity.

Table 1, above, shows the specific heats of molybdenum and water.

temperature of one gram of molybdenum by one degree Celsius. The density of

molybdenum is 10.2 g/cm3 (Nave, Molybdenum). Water has a specific heat of

great for any uses that require transfer of heat.

should clarify the experiment presented. This experiment combines multiple

previous experiments by other researchers into one experiment, serving the

purpose of identifying an element indirectly through the property of specific heat.

To determine whether an unidentified sample is molybdenum, using the

intensive property of specific heat.

The unidentified metal is molybdenum, determined using specific heat

values to an alpha value of 0.1 and a percent error of 7%.

submerged in the cooler body of water. All temperatures are measured in