The Identification of an Unknown Metal as Tantalum Using Specific Heat

Noah Banick and Dylan Barrick

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Honors Chemistry 10A

Mrs. Hillard, Mrs. Kincaid Dewey, Mr. Supal

May 24, 2016

 Table of Contents

Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2

Review of Literature ........................................................................................................ 4

Specific Heat Experimental Design ................................................................................. 6

Data and Observations.................................................................................................... 8

Specific Heat Data Analysis and Interpretation ............................................................... 12

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix A: LabQuest Setup ......................................................................................... 21

Appendix B: Calorimeter Building Procedure .................................................................. 22

Appendix C: Randomization ........................................................................................... 23

Appendix D: Sample Calculations .................................................................................. 24

Work Cited ..................................................................................................................... 27

 Banick-Barrick 1

Problem:

To determine if the identity of an unknown metal is tantalum using the intensive property

of specific heat.

Hypothesis:

If the specific heat of the unknown metal has less than 5% error rate and an alpha level

of 0.1, then the metal can be identified as tantalum.

Data Measured:

In this experiment the independent variables were the initial and final temperature of the

water, in which the metal placed, the initial temperature of the metal rod, the mass of the metal

in grams, and the volume of the water in the calorimeters measured in ml (used to find the

mass with the known ratio for water of one gram to one milliliter). All measurements of

temperature are in degrees Celsius. These variables were used to calculate the specific heat

of the metal, measured in joules over grams degrees Celsius (/( )).
 Banick-Barrick 2

Introduction:

Tantalum, element 73, is a rare, lustrous metal that is highly corrosive resistant. Due to

its corrosive resistant properties it is used often in lab equipment, as a substitute for platinum,

as well as in electronic components such as resistors. In addition to its resistance to acid,

tantalum also has an extremely high melting point, high density, and is rather resistant to

oxidation. It is qualities like these that attribute to its ability to be made into high maintenance

products, such as vacuum furnaces.

The purpose of this experiment was to see if a group of unknown metal rods had the

same identity as the known metal rods, tantalum. In order to determine if the metals had the

same identity, a specific heat experiment was conducted. Specific heat is an intensive property

meaning it is a unique value for each element. Due to this, the data yielded by the known

metal rods compared to that of the unknown metal rods was able to determine if they were

identical materials.

In order to determine the specific heat of the metal, the rods were heated to

approximately 100 and placed within calorimeters, constructed of PVC and pipe insulation.

The data collected was used to determine the specific heat of the metals. The specific heats

were compared to see if the metal rods were the same or different.

After the collection of data had ended, the properties of the two metal rods were

compared. A two sample t-test was conducted and compared along with the observable

physical properties of the rods, as well as the percent error factors from the data. The percent

error values in the experiment were used to compare how the data yielded by the experiment

differed from the true value, to the observed and if there was consistency between the data
 Banick-Barrick 3

sets. The combined data gathered, however, was not viewed as more defining than the t-tests

conducted, and only helped enhance the identification process.

Specific heat is an attribute important in industry. One application of this

experiment could be deciding which metals to use in construction. Since specific heat

measures the energy required to change the temperature of a substance, this is important in

deciding materials for infrastructure. A metal used in buildings must be strong and resistant to

its environment. If the temperature of a metal changes too quickly or slowly, it could become

too malleable to support the weight of the building, or too brittle. This could lead to issues

concerning the stability of the construction. Specific heat is used to ensure that a potential

material is strong enough for its intended purpose.

 Banick-Barrick 4

Review of Literature:

For this experiment, the identity of an unknown metal is found by comparing it to the

known properties of tantalum. The specific heats of the two metals are compared to identify the

unknown metal. Specific heat is an intensive property (a constant property that is not affected

by the amount of a substance), so using specific heats for comparison is a reliable process

(Helmenstine). The specific heat of the unknown metal will be found by measuring the heat

transferred from it to surrounding water in an isolated system.

Specific heat is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of a certain

substance by one unit. The equation to find specific heat is as follows: S=Qm x T. Specific

heat (S, measured in J/gK) is the heat capacity (Q, measured in Joules), multiplied by the

mass of the substance (m, measured in grams), multiplied by the change in temperature (T,

measured in Kelvin) (Eyland). Since the specific heats of water and tantalum are already

known in the scientific community (4.184 J/gK and 0.140 J/gK respectively). The data sets

measured are the required variables to complete the equation. With these values, the process

of determining the specific heat of the unknown metal becomes simple substitution of

variables.

David N. Blauch of Davidson College created a device in which one could examine heat

capacity and specific heat through calorimetry. Calorimetry is the measuring of changes in

chemical reactions, physical changes and shifting of phases. A calorimeter is an insulated

device in which one can add water other objects, such as the metal rods (Larsen). Since the

system is isolated, there is no effect on the data measurement by the surroundings, ensuring

the data is reliable. Using the calorimeter, the specific heat capacity of a metal was found, as

well as the specific heat of copper (Blauch). Similarly, a calorimeter is used in this experiment
 Banick-Barrick 5

to accurately measure values necessary to find the specific heat of the unknown metal. This

research aids the experiment because it demonstrates the necessity of calorimeters and the

process used to find specific heat.

Heat is a transfer of energy between a system and its surroundings. Heat, on a

molecular level, is the level of vibration of the molecules in the system. Excited molecules can

transfer energy into its surroundings by colliding with other molecules as well (PSU). In the

calorimeters used in this experiment, the surroundings of the system is water. This leads to the

conclusion that the increase in temperature of the water is equal to the decrease in

temperature of the metal, so the change in temperature of the water is the data measured and

substituted for the metals change in temperature. This data is used in the equation mentioned

previously to find the specific heat of the metal.

Dr. Patrik Nemec from ilinsk univerzita v iline conducted a study in an industrial

setting testing temperatures effect on the manufacturing of pipe. This experiment used specific

heat to analyze how pipes change under the stress of heat (Nemec). This demonstrates the

importance of specific heat in real-world settings. Specific heat is important in many branches

of manufacturing, from the development of cookware to building construction. For all products

under high heat or stress levels, it must be known how quickly energy increases the

temperature of a substance, to ensure efficiency. In industrial settings, where quality is of the

utmost importance, testing metals using the best processes is key, for using improper metals

with different specific heats will change how the metal reacts and could cause major problems

(Nave). In this experiment, the identity of an unknown metal will be found using this kind of

method, calorimetry, using an intensive property, specific heat. This experiment also bolsters

the importance of specific heat.

 Banick-Barrick 6

Materials:
(2) Unknown metal rods (C,D)
(2) Tantalum metal rods (A,B)
100 ml Graduated cylinder
LabQuest
LabQuest temperature probe (0.01g precision)
Electronic scale (0.01g precision)
Thermometer (0.01 precision)
3x5 Hot plate
Tongs
TI n-spire cx graphing calculator
Calorimeter
Loaf pan
Hot mitt

Procedures:

1. Randomize trials using the calculators random integer function. (Appendix A.)

2. Following the randomization, record the mass of each of the four rods using a 0.01 g
precision electronic scale.

3. Measure 55 ml of water using a 100 ml graduated cylinder. Pour the water into the
calorimeter that will be used. Record the mass of the water

4. Place the metal rod in the loaf pan with enough water for it to be fully submerged.

5. Place the loaf pan on the hot plate at high heat until the water is from 97 C to 102 C.
(Measure using a thermometer.)

6. Set up the Lab Quest to measure temperature every second for five minutes. (Appendix
B.)

7. Once the water in the loaf pan is approximately 100 C, gently place the metal rod into
the water using the hot mitt.

8. Let the metal rod sit in the boiling water for 3 minutes. Then measure the temperature of
the water again. This serves as the internal temperature of the metal.

9. 60 seconds before taking the metal rod out of the boiling water, start the Lab Quest in
the calorimeter. This is allows the temperature probe to reach equilibrium with the
water.

10. After the metal has been in the water for three minutes, take the metal rod out of the
boiling water and immediately place it into the calorimeter.
 Banick-Barrick 7

11. The temperature will be recorded for 4 minutes after placement into the calorimeter.
Record equilibrium temperature, assume temperature of water is equal to the metal.

12. Repeat steps 3 11 for 30 trials with the unknown metal rods, and 30 trials with the
tantalum rods.

Diagram:

Calorimeter
Beaker
Tongs Metals

Scale
Graduated Cylinder

Thermometer

Hot Plate
Temperature Probe
LabQuest
Loaf Pan
Hot Mitt

Figure 1. Materials

Figure 1, above shows all previously listed materials. Some items such as the hot plate

and loaf pan do not need to be a uniform size.

 Banick-Barrick 8

Data and Observations:

Table 1
Trials on Tantalum
Initial Change in Specific
Temperature Equilibrium Temperature Mass (g) Heat
Trial (C) Temperature (C) (J/g x
(C)
Water Metal Water Metal Metal Water C)
1 21.4 96.0 23.8 2.4 -72.2 67.7 54.0 0.111
2 21.1 96.0 23.9 2.8 -72.1 67.8 54.3 0.130
3 23.1 98.5 25.6 2.5 -72.9 67.7 53.5 0.113
4 21.4 98.5 24.5 3.1 -74.0 67.8 54.0 0.140
5 24.1 98.0 26.4 2.3 -71.6 67.7 53.4 0.106
6 23.4 98.0 25.9 2.5 -72.1 67.8 54.1 0.116
7 23.3 97.9 25.5 2.2 -72.4 67.7 53.0 0.100
8 22.9 97.9 25.2 2.3 -72.7 67.8 53.5 0.104
9 21.8 99.3 24.3 2.5 -75.0 67.8 53.6 0.110
10 21.8 99.3 24.4 2.6 -74.9 68.0 53.7 0.115
11 22.2 100.0 24.7 2.5 -75.3 68.2 53.5 0.109
12 21.6 100.0 24.5 2.9 -75.5 68.2 53.2 0.125
13 24.1 100.0 26.4 2.3 -73.6 68.4 53.1 0.102
14 24.2 100.0 26.8 2.6 -73.2 68.4 54.0 0.117
15 25.8 100.0 27.8 2.0 -72.2 68.6 52.6 0.089
16 26.2 100.0 28.4 2.2 -71.6 68.6 54.0 0.101
17 26.7 100.0 28.1 1.4 -71.9 68.8 55.1 0.065
18 26.7 100.0 29.0 2.3 -71.0 68.8 53.7 0.106
19 23.3 100.3 25.8 2.5 -74.5 68.8 53.1 0.108
20 23.9 100.3 26.3 2.4 -74.0 68.8 53.7 0.106
21 26.0 98.2 28.3 2.3 -69.9 68.8 53.0 0.106
22 25.8 98.2 27.9 2.1 -70.3 68.8 53.7 0.098
23 23.6 100.2 25.7 2.1 -74.5 68.8 52.4 0.090
24 23.9 100.2 25.9 2.0 -74.3 68.8 53.0 0.087
25 25.7 98.0 28.0 2.3 -70.0 68.8 52.5 0.105
26 26.0 98.0 28.0 2.0 -70.0 68.8 52.7 0.092
27 27.3 99.2 29.6 2.3 -69.6 68.8 53.8 0.108
28 27.4 99.2 29.5 2.1 -69.7 68.8 52.4 0.096
29 24.5 99.5 27.3 2.8 -72.2 68.8 53.8 0.127
30 25.0 99.5 27.5 2.5 -72.0 68.8 52.4 0.111
Averages 24.140 99.007 26.500 2.360 -72.507 68.363 53.427 0.106

Table 1, above, shows the data from all trials on the known metal and the averages.
 Banick-Barrick 9

Table 2
Trials on Unknown Metal
Initial Equilib Change in Specific
Temperature rium Temperature Mass (g) Heat
Trial (C) Temper (C) (J/g x
ature
Water Metal Water Metal Metal Water C)
(C)
1 21.2 98.3 23.7 2.5 -74.6 68.0 53.5 0.110
2 20.9 98.3 23.3 2.4 -75.0 67.9 55.0 0.108
3 21.3 97.0 23.8 2.5 -73.2 68.0 53.3 0.112
4 21.1 97.0 23.9 2.8 -73.1 67.9 53.3 0.126
5 22.6 96.8 25.1 2.5 -71.7 68.0 53.5 0.115
6 22.4 96.8 24.9 2.5 -71.9 67.9 54.5 0.117
7 25.5 97.5 27.5 2.0 -70.0 68.0 53.6 0.094
8 22.9 97.5 25.2 2.3 -72.3 67.9 54.6 0.107
9 23.7 97.2 26.1 2.4 -71.1 68.0 52.9 0.110
10 22.9 97.2 25.5 2.6 -71.7 67.9 53.7 0.120
11 21.9 99.0 24.7 2.8 -74.3 67.7 52.9 0.123
12 21.9 99.0 24.7 2.8 -74.3 68.2 53.4 0.123
13 22.4 99.5 24.7 2.3 -74.8 68.1 53.6 0.101
14 22.5 99.5 24.6 2.1 -74.9 68.1 53.6 0.092
15 22.5 100.0 25.0 2.5 -75.0 68.3 53.6 0.110
16 22.3 100.0 25.0 2.7 -75.0 68.3 53.7 0.118
17 24.7 100.0 27.1 2.4 -72.9 68.5 53.7 0.108
18 24.5 100.0 27.7 3.2 -72.3 68.5 52.6 0.142
19 26.5 100.0 28.9 2.4 -71.1 68.7 53.6 0.110
20 26.5 100.0 28.7 2.2 -71.3 68.7 52.4 0.098
21 24.5 98.6 27.0 2.5 -71.6 68.7 53.4 0.114
22 27.1 98.6 29.7 2.6 -68.9 68.7 53.5 0.123
23 26.5 100.0 28.4 1.9 -71.6 68.7 52.5 0.085
24 28.0 100.0 30.8 2.8 -69.2 68.7 53.6 0.132
25 24.4 100.1 26.9 2.5 -73.2 68.7 52.4 0.109
26 26.8 100.1 29.4 2.6 -70.7 68.7 53.3 0.119
27 26.6 98.0 28.9 2.3 -69.1 68.7 52.6 0.107
28 27.6 98.0 30.3 2.7 -67.7 68.7 53.7 0.130
29 27.7 98.1 30.8 3.1 -67.3 68.7 53.5 0.150
30 28.5 98.1 31.0 2.5 -67.1 68.7 53.2 0.121
Averages 24.263 98.673 26.777 2.513 -71.897 68.305 53.423 0.115

Table 2, above, shows the data from all trials on the unknown metal and the averages.
 Banick-Barrick 10

Table 3
Observations
1 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
2 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
3 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
4 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Went well
5 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
6 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
7 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
8 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Went well
9 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
10 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
11 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
12 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Went well
13 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
14 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
15 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
16 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Went well
17 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
18 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
19 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
20 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Went well
21 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
22 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
23 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
24 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Went well
25 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
26 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
27 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
28 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Went well
29 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
30 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
31 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
32 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Metal boiled extra 45 seconds
33 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
34 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
35 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
36 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 Went well
37 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 Went well
38 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2 Went well
39 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3 Went well
Went well, metals boiled in another
40 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4 groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
41 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1 groups loaf pan

42 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2
43 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3
44 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4
45 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1
46 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2
47 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3
48 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4
49 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1
50 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2
51 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3
52 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4
53 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1
54 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2
55 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3
56 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4
57 Known 1 in Calorimeter 1
58 Known 2 in Calorimeter 2
59 Unknown 1 in Calorimeter 3
60 Unknown 2 in Calorimeter 4
Table 3 above shows what metal was put in what calorimeter as well as how the trial
went and ay irregular things that occurred. As can be seen, in the latter third of the trials, the
metals were boiled in another groups loaf pan, because the hot plate for this experiment had
stopped working. This most likely had no effect on the results.
Banick-Barrick 11
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Massed metal after cooling, metals
boiled in another groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, dropped metal, metals boiled
in another groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled longer, metals
boiled in another groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Dropped metal ,metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
Went well, metals boiled in another
groups loaf pan
 Banick-Barrick 12

Data Analysis and Interpretation:

For this experiment, two metal rods known to be tantalum were compared to two

unknown metal rods to find if they are the same. A random integer function was used to

randomize the order of the trials to ensure the effects of any lurking variables were minimized.

The temperatures of the metal and the water surrounding it were measured using a LabQuest

and corresponding temperature probes. To ensure that heat from the system did not escape

into its surroundings, the trials were run inside calorimeters (four were used in this

experiment).The change in temperature in relation to time was used to calculate the specific

heat of the metal rods, and a correction factor was added to reduce the effect of flaws in the

calorimeters. Specific heat is the energy required to raise the temperature of a substance by

one unit. Since the specific heat of tantalum is already known (0.14 J/g), comparing it to the

calculated specific heat of the unknown metal will easily show whether or not the unknown

metal is tantalum.

In order to analyze the data found for specific heat trials, a two sample t-test was

performed. A two-sample t-test compares the means of two data sets (in this case, the mean

specific heats of the metal rods). In order to use the statistical test for the given data, the data

must fit within three given assumptions, which are SRS, independent trials, and

normality. This means that each group is considered to be a distinct sample from a population,

that the responses in each group do not rely upon another groups data, and that the

distributions of the variable of interests are normal under the null hypothesis. The first

assumption is met by the metals being only a portion of all of the metal tantalum. The second

assumption is met by the data being collected from more than one metal rod keeping the two
 Banick-Barrick 13

populations independent. The data also yields a normal distribution as can be seen in figure 4

and figure 5.

Table 9
Percent Error Values of Specific Heat

Tantalum Specific Unknown Metal Specific Heat

Trial Number
Heat Percent Error Percent Error

1 -0.161 5.449
2 1.046 7.201
3 3.026 1.933
4 -11.652 -2.696
5 -0.479 4.964
6 9.046 4.102
7 -6.577 -1.235
8 -0.722 -10.267
9 -1.770 -27.152
10 -0.194 3.668
11 2.211 2.018
12 -18.309 -9.583
13 -1.050 1.196
14 -2.740 3.494
15 28.323 16.907
16 -7.225 14.724
17 5.169 21.487
18 -1.283 4.460
19 -8.240 -3.620
20 1.018 3.699
21 3.494 11.318
22 -18.739 5.577
23 -0.100 -5.943
24 16.881 -2.663
25 -14.355 -2.574
26 3.134 -8.546
27 9.656 -16.256
28 0.578 -12.821
29 8.476 -9.648
30 1.536 0.807
Averages: -0.000017 0.0000014
 Banick-Barrick 14

Table 9 above displays the specific heat percent errors for the data. Percent error is a

measurement of how inaccurate a measurement is, so the values above show how far away

the calculated specific heat of the experiment is from the known specific heat of tantalum (0.14

J/g), as a percent of that known specific heat. The table indicates that both the tantalum rods

as well as the unknown metal rods are, on average, have specific heats very close to the

known specific heat of tantalum. When considering how small the numbers are, the chances of

the two metals being different in composition are low.

Table 10
The Averages of the Specific Heat
Tantalum Specific Heat Unknown Metal Specific Heat
Average
0.140 0.140

Table 10 displays the two averages for specific heat. The difference between these two

numbers is so small that they are rounded to the exact same value. This immediately suggests

that the two metals could very well be the same, but further statistical analysis is used for

validation.

Figure 2. Box plots of Specific Heat Trials

 Banick-Barrick 15

The box plots in figure 2, above, display the spread of the data. The box plots almost

completely overlap and have close means, which suggests that the specific heats of the metals

are the same.

Figure 3. Tantalum Specific Heat Normal Distribution Plot

Figure 4. Unknown Metal Specific Heat Normal Distribution Plot

The two figures above show the normality of the data from the trials for both known and

unknown metal rods. The plots both show that the data is normal as there are not any

significant outliers from the linear function within the plot. This consistency is why the data is

considered reliable.
 Banick-Barrick 16

Figure 5. Histogram of Data for Tantalum Specific Heat Values

Figure 6. Histogram of Data for Unknown Metal Specific Heat Values

The histograms above display the frequency of values within the data. The histogram in

figure 5 is very slightly right skewed while the figure 6 histogram is more left skewed. The

histogram for the known metal shows how concentrated the data is, which further strengthens

the reliability of the data, while the unknown results are more spread out.
 Banick-Barrick 17

A two-sample t-test was performed on the data. This test compares the means of two

data sets, making it the ideal test to use for the comparison of the means of the specific heat of

the metals. (See Appendix C for sample calculation.)

Figure 7. Probability Graph of the Specific Heat Values

Figure 7, above, shows the probability distribution of the data (the probability of each

result). The null hypothesis (H), which states that the means of the values for the two metals

are equal, is unable to be rejected because the p-value of 1 is greater than the alpha level of

0.1. Evidence suggests that the unknown metal has the same mean as the known metal

(tantalum). Within the context of the experiment, the p-value means that there is a 100%

chance that the metals have a difference in the x value of 0.000 by chance alone if the null

hypothesis (H) is true.

The p-value of 1 matches the expectations and predictions as it shows that the null

hypothesis is true. The null hypothesis of (H): Mks = Mus, where Mks is the known values of

specific heat and Mus is the unknown values, suggests that the metals are the same. With the

alternate hypothesis (Ha): Mks =/= Mus not being accepted, it is safe to assume that the metals

are the same.

 Banick-Barrick 18

Conclusion:

The objective of this experiment was to find whether a set of unknown metal rods were

the same as a set of metal rods known to be tantalum. This was tested by comparing the

specific heats of both sets of metals (calculated from data collected in calorimeters). It was

hypothesized that comparing the specific heats would be able to accurately indicate if the

metals were both tantalum. Because of a p-value of 1, the results of the two-sample t-test

strongly supported the original hypothesis.

The results of the experiment agreed with research based on the fact that no two

elements have the same specific heat. Because of the unique molecular makeup of each

element, the energy required to increase the temperature of that substance by one degree

varies for every element. The consistent results of the data lead to calculated specific heat

values, on average, the same as that of tantalum, and allowed for the conclusion to be made

that both metals were tantalum.

The statistical tests run on the data also supported that conclusion. After running a two-

sample t-test, which compared the means of the calculated specific heat values for the

unknown and known trials, it was concluded that the metals were indeed the both tantalum.

With the inclusion of the correction factor, the specific heats for both the unknown metals and

the metals known to be tantalum matched the previously-known specific heat of tantalum (0.14

J/(g C)). Because of the very low percent error, the yielded p-value of the t-test was 1.0,

meaning that if the metals were the same, there was a 100% probability for the data values

collected to occur by chance alone. This meant that the null hypothesis (claiming that they are

the same) could not be rejected, which lead to the unknown metal being correctly identified as

tantalum.
 Banick-Barrick 19

Due to time constraints on data collection, certain procedures were performed more

quickly than desired. This produced minor inconsistencies in how long the metal was

submerged in the boiling water, which could have influenced the initial temperatures.

Observations were also affected by this. Trials were being run as preparations for other trials

were being executed, which streamlined the process of data collection, but pulled focus from

the trials being run, and potentially left some events unobserved.

Many mistakes were made during the execution of the trials which could have altered

the data. Minor mishaps such as dropping the rods while transferring them to the calorimeters

or changing hot plates most likely had no effect on the data. Larger problems included the

insulation peeling off the pipe of the calorimeter, and metal rods boiling for a slightly longer

time. Although these mistakes likely affected the data to some degree, the extreme regularity

of the data implies the effect is insignificant. The main beneficial change to the experiment

would be to allow for a longer period of time for trial execution, data collection, and

observations.

This research could be furthered. Having used only one property (specific heat) to

determine the metals, the data being compared is relatively small. If another property of the

rods were observed, such as linear thermal expansion or density, the conclusions of the

experiment could be made with more certainty. From the information gathered in this

experiment, other researchers could draw that using specific heat to identify and compare

metals is a sound process.

In industry, this experiment could be used to help decide which metals to use in

construction. Since specific heat is essentially a measure of how easily the temperature of a

substance is changed, this is important in deciding materials for infrastructure. A metal with
 Banick-Barrick 20

such a purpose must not only be strong, but also resistant to its environment. If the

temperature of a metal changes too quickly or slowly, problems in expansion or longevity could

arise.
 Banick-Barrick 21

Appendix A: LabQuest Setup

1. Connect temperature probes to the LabQuest.

2. Turn on the Labquest by pressing the power button. Choose New from the File menu.

3. On the Meter Screen, choose Rate. Change the data-collection length to 200

1. To start the data collection, click the green arrow in the bottom left hand corner.

2. To stop data collection, click the red square that will be in place of the green arrow.

3. To find the initial temperature of the water inside of the calorimeter, press Table in the

upper right hand corner. The first temperature measured in table is the initial

temperature.

4. The equilibrium temperature is the last temperature measured in the table.

 Banick-Barrick 22

Appendix B: Constructing the Calorimeters

Materials:

1 by 7in Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe

Polyvinyl Chloride caps (1 in inner diameter 10)
Polyvinyl Chloride Insulator 6 feet
1/4 drill bit
Electrical tape

Procedures:

1. Cut 7 inch polyvinyl chloride Pipe (PVC).

2. Slide PVC pipe into the cap and twist.

3. Cut a 5 inch piece of the insulator.

4. Put it around pipe then wrap it in electrical tape.

5. Drill a 1/4 hole in the middle of the cap that is not cemented on.

6. Repeat step 1 through 8 until 4 calorimeters are made.

7. Label the calorimeters 1 through 4.

 Banick-Barrick 23

Appendix C: Randomizing the Trials

1. On the TI-Nspire Calculator enter randint(1,4) until all 4 number show up. The number
correspond to the number on the calorimeter.

2. On the TI-Nspire Calculator enter randint(1,4) until all 4 number show up. The number
correspond with the metal rod A,1; metal rod B, 2; metal rod C, 3; and metal rod D, 4.

3. Repeat 68 time to get 34 trail of tungsten metal and 34 of the unknown metal.
 Banick-Barrick 24

Appendix D: Sample Calculations

Specific heat:

To analyze the data the researchers needed to use the following formula where specific

heat of the metal being tested, S is founded when the product of specific heat of water, S ;
m w

mass of water M ; and change in temperature of the water, T are divided by the product of
w w

mass of the metal M and change in temperature mass T .

m m

Sm=SwMwTwMmTm

A sample calculation using the formula above to find the specific heat of the metal being tested

is shown below in figure 8.

(4.184 )(70g)(2.2C)(75.9636g)(-75.4C)=Sm
JgC

0.112JgC=Sm
Figure 9. Specific Heat Sample Equation

Figure 9 is a sample problem how the researchers calculated the specific heat values

for the known and unknown metal rods.

Percent Error:

The percent error was used by the researchers to tell how close the experimental value

is to the true value of the calculation. This also show how close the known metal and unknown

metal were from one another.

(Experimental Value-True Value)(True Value)100=Percent Error

The percent error was founded by taking the difference of the experimental value and true

value, dividing by the true value. Then multiply by 100. Below is a sample problem on how the

researchers found the percent error of specific heat.

Percent Error=(Experimental Value-True Value)(True Value)100

= (0.112JgC-0.13JgC)(0.13JgC)100
= -0.1556008157100
= -15.56%
 Banick-Barrick 25

Figure 10. Percent Error Sample Equation

Figure 10 is how the researchers calculated the percent error for specific heat using the

experimental value that was found and a true value.

Box Plot:

To create a box plot 5 main thing are need to be found the maximum, max; minimum, min;

third quartile, Q ; first quartile, Q , and median.

3 1

1. Gather data.
2. Find Median, the middle 50% of data. Find the maximum and minimum the highest and
lowest value.
3. Find first quartile, the median of the lower half of the data set.
4. Find third quartile, the median of the upper half of the data set.
5. The inner quartile range (IQR) is the difference of the third quartile and first quartile.
Determine if data points are outlier, 1.5 times the IQR, and if the number is outside the
range then it an outlier.
Below is a sample calculation.

Data {1,2,3,4,5,6,7}

Median= 4

Max=7

Min=1

Q =1, 2, 3
1

Q =5, 6, 7
3

IQR= 6 - 2 = 4

Outlier= 1.5(4)= 6 ( 7 then is an outlier due to the fact that it is higher than 6.

Two Sample t-Test:

To see whether the null or alternative hypothesis is accepted or rejected, the

researchers needed to find the p-value. The symbol for population mean, ,the quotient of the

sum of data and sample size;

 Banick-Barrick 26

Data {1,2,3,4,5,6,7}

Mean = (1+2+3+4+5+6+7)/7

standard deviations, s, the square root of the mean of the difference of mean and data

squared; and sample size n .Everything with a subscript of one has to do with the data of the

known metal, tungsten, and with a subscript of two is related to the unknown metal.

t=(1-2)S1n1+S2n2

A two-sample t test formula calculates the t- value. T-value is the quotient of the difference of

the mean and the square root of the sum of the quotient of standard deviation and sample

size. Once the t-value is found it can be used to find the p-value. The p-value can be found on

a table but using degrees of freedom. The degree of freedom is one less than the smallest

sample size and closest to the t-value. If it is right in between, find the average. The

significance level is at 10%.

T-test equation

t=(1-2)S1n1+S2n2
=(0.110912-0.109176)0.00901334+0.00683334
=0.8945
Figure 11. Two-Sample t Test Sample Equation

With the t-value of 0.8945 and the degree of freedom the p-value is 0.3744.
 Banick-Barrick 27

Works Cited

Blauch, David N.. "Calorimetry." : Specific Heat Capacity of Copper. Davidson College , n.d. Web. 15

Apr. 2016.Nave. "Specific Heat." Specific Heat. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html>.

"Definition of Equilibrium." - Chemistry Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.chemicool.com/definition/equilibrium.html>.

Helmenstine, Anne Marie . "Tantalum Facts." About.com Chemistry. About, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016..

<http://chemistry.about.com/od/elementfacts/a/tantalum.htm>.

Larsen. "Applications of Calorimetry." - Chemwiki. N.p., 02 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Calorimetry/Applicati

ons_of_calorimetry>.

"MOLECULAR DESCRIPTION." MOLECULAR DESCRIPTION. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/e/jea4/earth/moleculdescr.html>.

Nemec. INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE DURING MANUFACTURE OF THE HEAT PIPE

FILLED WITH FLUID FC-72 ON ITS FUNCTION (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

<http://vec.vsb.cz/userfiles/Publikace%20SK/Influence%20of%20temperature%20during%20ma

nufacture%20of%20the%20heat%20pipe.pdf>.

"Specific Heat Capacity of Metals Table Chart | Engineers Edge | Www.engineersedge.com." Specific

Heat Capacity of Metals Table Chart | Engineers Edge | Www.engineersedge.com. N.p., n.d.

Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.engineersedge.com/materials/specific_heat_capacity_of_metals_13259.html>.