Table of Contents: Introduction1 Background and Reviews of Literature.2 Problem Statement...9 Experimental Design..10 Data and Observations..

17 Data Analysis and Interpretation..23 Conclusion...36 Acknowledgements39 Appendix A: Sample Calculations...40 Appendix B: Randomization.....42 Appendix C: LoggerPro.....43 Appendix D: Calorimeter Construction...44 Appendix E: Thermal Expansion Jig...46 Works Cited.47

Kirby-Koury 1 Introduction Metals play a huge role in the day-to-day lives of every human. They are used to make many products that assist with or allow daily activities to take place. Metal products used everyday range from things as simple as silverware to things as complex as bridges. Bridges have to sustain large amounts of weight constantly and remain stable under harsh, constantly changing conditions such as weather and traffic. But how do architects keep these structures stable? They use linear thermal expansion as one of their quantities to assist in the calculations of the specific measurements of the structure. For instance, an iron bridge must take into account the linear thermal expansion coefficient of iron to allow for its expansion and contraction within the bridge. Another important quality of metal is the specific heat. Specific heat applies to every metal, and is used to make everything from thermometers to frying pans to cars. Metals with low specific heat can heat up very quickly, making these metals ideal for pots and pans. Furthermore, research can be conducted to determine the linear thermal expansion coefficient and specific heat value of a metal. On a smaller scale however, similar techniques can be used to identify an unknown metal or determine if it is the same metal as another known metal using specific heat and calorimetry, the measure of heat changes (Chang). With these techniques, the researchers conducted an experiment to identify if an unknown metal is the same as the known metal, iron, based on linear thermal expansion and specific heat. The comparison was made after collecting the values and conducting a statistical test to analyze the data.

Kirby-Koury 2 First, a linear thermal expansion test was conducted by using a linear thermal expansion jig that measured the change in length. In addition, initial length of the unknown metal rod and the change in temperature of the rod were measured. Once the linear thermal expansion coefficient was found, the next step was to determine its specific heat value. This value is determined by using calorimeters that allow the researchers to measure the change in temperature of the metal. The other component in the specific heat calculation is the mass of the metal rod. Overall, the data collected from the specific heat and linear thermal expansion trials was used in a two-sample t-test statistical analysis. The results from the analysis determined whether the unknown metal was iron or not, which is the purpose of the following research.

Background and Review of Literature Background: While making up more than five percent of the earths crust, iron is also the fourth most abundant element on earth. Iron has been known since ancient times, and was first manufactured by humans around 2000 BCE, beginning the Iron Age. The first area of the world to use iron was most likely in south-west or south-central Asia (Spoerl). Iron Fe is naturally found as iron ore, due to the affinity of iron to oxygen. This is the cause for iron ore being classified as an oxide of iron. In order to separate iron from iron ore the substance must go through a process called

Kirby-Koury 3 smelting. When the iron ore is heated over burning charcoal the oxygen is released and the iron is left. The chemical reaction to extract the element from its raw state is (Justusson):

Iron, having a wide range of uses, is often a part of industrial production. A few examples of irons uses include tongs, furnaces, magnets, and more. Not only is iron used to form new products, it is used to create steel. Steel production reached 1,414 million metric tons in 2010, a record high amount, and iron is one of the main components of steel (About Steel). To determine if the metals are the same, intensive properties will be used. These are specific to each metal. The density of iron, 7.874 , will be the same

for any sample of iron. It is an intensive property. This can be used to determine if the metals are the same. When compared to the density of water, 1 , iron is

very heavy. This means that it has a high mass per unit of volume (cm 3). Next is specific heat, which is an intensive property as well so it can be used to determine if the two metals are the same. The specific heat of iron is 0.444 (Stretton), and the specific heat of water is 4.184 (Hilliard). There is a large difference between the two which means that it takes much less energy to change the temperature of iron by one degree Celsius than it takes to change the temperature of water by one degree Celsius. Then there is thermal expansion, which is specific to each metal. When heated, the metals expand and the expansion value can be used to compare the two metals to see if they are the same. The linear thermal expansion coefficient for iron is 11.8 mm 10-6 (Lide).

Kirby-Koury 4 This value is slightly on the high side of the coefficients for other transition metals, which means it expands and contracts more than most other transition metals when heated or cooled. The electronic structure of iron is essential to the property of the metal because the electrons are what take part in the chemical reaction. Therefore, the electron interactions determine the chemical reaction. The electronic structure is relevant to the project because it is what helps determine whether the known and unknown elements are the same.

1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 3d6 4s2

Figure 1. Electron Configuration of Iron Figure 1 above shows the electron configuration for iron. The written form of this would be [Ar] 4s2 3d6 (Gagnon).

Specific Heat: When energy in the form of heat is added to a substance, its atoms or molecules gain kinetic energy. On a molecular level, this process can be described as the movement of the molecules from a relaxed and fairly motionless state to a hectic and rapid moving state. With the additional heat, the metal increases in temperature, and the change in temperature gives researchers the ability to identify the element. The specific heat of a substance is the heat

Kirby-Koury 5 required to raise one gram of it by 1C. It is often measured in J/g C (Hilliard). In order to create an experimental design, prior research was reviewed and two experiments were used to design this research. The first experiment for finding the specific heat of an element begins with heating water, massing a boiler cup, and placing a known metal into the boiler cup and determining its mass. Then, the boiler cup is heated with the metal. Next, a graduated cylinder is used to fill the calorimeter with about 100 mL of water and then record the temperature of the metal and the temperature of the calorimeter water. Once the metal temperature reaches 95

quickly put the

metal into the calorimeter and begin recording the temperature until equilibrium is met. The final step is to calculate the specific heat (Shipman,
Wilson, and Todd). The formula to calculate specific heat uses the heat energy released or absorbed by the reaction in joules, q, set equal to the specific heat in J/g

, s, times the mass of the solution in grams, m, times the change in

temperature in degrees Celsius, t (Hilliard).

By substituting these values into the equation, one can calculate the specific heat of the element. The second experiment had a similar procedure, but instead of using the temperature of the water in the calorimeter and the temperature of the metal in the heated water, the experiment used the temperature of the hot metal bath before and after the metal was placed into an ice cold calorimeter. The researchers first poured 210 mL of cold water into a calorimeter and measured

Kirby-Koury 6 and recorded its temperature. Then, the students placed 0.5 kg of iron from a hot iron bath into the calorimeter and recorded the temperature of the water in the calorimeter. Next, the iron was removed from the calorimeter and returned to the bath and the temperatures of both the bath and the water in the calorimeter were recorded. With this data, the students used the formula where mass of the solution, m, times the specific heat in cal/g , c, times the change in

temperature, t, set equal to two times the mass times the specific heat times the change in temperature(Stephanie & Candace).

These formulas can be used to calculate the specific heat of an element such as iron. On a molecular level, the molecules inside of the metal rods are being heated by the water causing the energy in the water to move into the metal increasing the level of kinetic energy in the metal. This increase is slowed when the rod is placed into the colder calorimeter. When the metal is decreasing and reaching equilibrium the metal is losing kinetic energy to the water in the calorimeter, and the movement of the molecules has slowed as well. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that there is no creation or loss of energy. The kinetic energy gained by the metal came from the surrounding water, and the energy lost by the metal moves into the water in the calorimeter until the distribution of energy equalizes, reaching the state of equilibrium.

Kirby-Koury 7 Linear Thermal Expansion: When designing and constructing a bridge linear thermal expansion must be considered. When the bridge is heated or cooled, it expands or contracts, causing the bridge to buckle or crack and possible collapse if it is not designed and built correctly. In order to allow for the expansion and contraction, the thermal expansion coefficient(s) of its material(s) must be found. This is an essential step in design and construction of many pieces of equipment as well, and could save millions of dollars if done correctly. If done incorrectly, or not considered, the bridge could be destroyed and millions of dollars lost (Wilson). To determine the linear expansion coefficient of a material, one must understand what it is and how to find it. Kinetic molecular theory occurs when the metal is heated and the molecules inside of the metal receive more energy and move at a faster pace, causing them to emit force on the molecules and metal in their surroundings. The force put upon the surroundings causes the metal to expand (Brucat). This expansion can be measured to help identify the material and is modeled by an equation that uses the change in length, L, is equal to the thermal expansion coefficient, , times the initial length, , times the change in temperature, T.

Linear thermal expansion coefficients are measured with the unit m/moC. They are classified as an intensive property. Therefore, this coefficient can be used to identify a material, particularly a pure element (Hester).

Kirby-Koury 8 In a previously conducted experiment through the Stony Brook NN Group, researchers first measured the length and temperature of a rod of pure metal using a meter stick and a thermometer. Then, steam was passed through a heat tube containing the rod. The temperature of the rod was measured, again using the thermometer, and it was recorded once the reading reached a stable value. The length of the rod was also measured, again using the meter stick, and the value was recorded. These values of temperature, temperature change, length, and length change were used to determine the linear thermal expansion coefficient of the metal rod using the same equation as that shown above (McGrew). In a second experiment conducted through Lock Haven University, an apparatus was assembled to measure the temperature and length of a rod before and after thermal expansion has taken place. The rod in this experiment began at 60 centimeters long when measured at room temperature using the apparatus. Then, steam is allowed into a tube containing the rod, and the rod is heated. It gains thermal energy, causing it to expand. Readings of the temperature and length of the rod are recorded every few degrees as it increases in temperature and length. Then, the final and initial temperatures can be used in the formula shown above to compute the linear thermal expansion coefficient of the metal rod ("Thermal Expansion - Linear"). Overall, one way to identify a metal is through the intensive property of linear thermal expansion. Essentially, the metal is heated and the initial and final

Kirby-Koury 9 data are used in calculations to determine the total expansion. This value determines the metal.

Problem Statement Problem: Can the researchers determine if an unknown metal rod has the same composition as an iron rod by using its specific heat and linear thermal expansion?

Hypothesis: If the researchers determine the specific heat within 1% error and linear thermal expansion coefficient within a 3% error, then the unknown metal can be determined as iron or not iron.

Data: The researchers will measure specific heat and linear thermal expansion of the metal rods. The specific heat procedure measures initial temperature, equilibrium temperature, changes in temperature, and mass. The temperatures are in degrees Celsius and the masses are measured in grams. The final specific heat value is measured in J/g . See Appendix A for a sample calculation. The

linear thermal expansion procedure measures the net change in length, initial temperature, and the final temperature of the metal. The temperatures are measured in degrees Celsius and the lengths and changes in length are

Kirby-Koury 10 measured in millimeters. The final value is an alpha coefficient measured in millimeters. See Appendix A for a sample calculation.

Experimental Design Specific Heat: Materials: (2) Iron Fe pure metal rods (2) Unknown pure metal rods Insulated calorimeter Calorimeter stand LoggerPro LoggerPro thermometer probe (0.1C) Ti-nspire CX graphing calculator Thermometer Safety Concerns: Iron is not considered hazardous (Flinn). Wear safety equipment, i.e. goggles, lab coat, and gloves (Flinn). Scout Pro electronic scale (0.1 g) Hot plate Tongs (2) 20.3 cm x 9.8 cm x 6.3 cm loaf pan 100 ml graduated cylinder Electronic timer Insulated glove

Procedure: 1. Using randomization function on the Ti-nspire CX graphing calculator, randomize the order of the fifteen trials (see Appendix B). 2. 3. Tare the Scout Pro electronic scale to calibrate it. Use the scale to determine the mass of the insulated calorimeter.

Kirby-Koury 11 4. Using the 100 ml graduated cylinder, fill the calorimeter with 50 ml of water and place cap on calorimeter. 5. Using the 100 ml graduated cylinder again, fill the 20.3 cm x 9.8 cm x 6.3 cm loaf pan with about 200 ml of water, or enough to cover the metal. 6. 7. Place the loaf pan on the hot plate and turn it on. Cover the loaf pan containing the water with the second loaf pan and allow the water to boil. 8. Using the rod that was determined to be used in the first trial, place it on the scale and record its mass in the data table. 9. 10. Place the metal rod into the boiling water using tongs. Allow the metal rod to heat for two minutes. Use the electronic timer to time the trial, and assume that the temperature of the water is equal to the temperature of the rod. 11. While it heats, turn on the LoggerPro (see Appendix C) and set it to collect data once every second for 180 seconds. 12. Insert the temperature probe of the LoggerPro into the hole in the cap of the calorimeter and start data collection. 13. When the electronic timer reaches one minute and fifty seconds, start the LoggerPro data collection. After ten seconds, remove the cap of the calorimeter. Make sure that the probe is not removed from the water. 14. Remove the metal rod from the beaker, using tongs, and place it inside the calorimeter. 15. Place the cap back on the calorimeter.

Kirby-Koury 12 16. Allow the LoggerPro to complete data collection, and remove the temperature probe from the calorimeter. 17. Remove the cap from the calorimeter, remove the rod, and pour the water into a sink to discard. 18. Repeat steps one through seventeen for the known and unknown metals, adjusting data collection time to end after the water temperature reaches equilibrium.

Diagram:

Cap

Insulation
Stand

Figure 2. Calorimeter Figure 2 shows a model of the calorimeter that was constructed using Google SketchUp 8. The calorimeters used in the specific heat procedure were constructed using PVC pipe, insulation, PVC primer, PVC cement, and tape (see Appendix D).

Kirby-Koury 13 Hot Plate Loaf pan Thermometer Calorimeters

Electronic Timer/TI-nspire CX Graphing Calculator Graduated Cylinder Electronic Scale Tongs Insulated Metal Thermometer LoggerPro Gloves Rods Probe Figure 3. Specific Heat Materials Figure 3 shows the materials required to carry out the specific heat procedure. These include a loaf pan, insulated gloves, metal rods, a hot plate, calorimeters with stands, an electronic timer, a 100 ml graduated cylinder, a Scout Pro electronic scale, tongs, a LoggerPro, a LoggerPro thermometer probe.

Linear Thermal Expansion: Materials: (2) Iron Fe pure metal rods (2) Unknown pure metal rods Ti-nspire CX graphing calculator Hot plate Tongs 20.3 cm x 9.8 cm x 6.3 cm loaf pan Dry-erase marker Thermometer (C) Thermal Expansion Jig (cm) Caliper (mm) Spray Bottle (16 oz) Electronic Timer 100 ml Graduated Cylinder Gloves

Kirby-Koury 14 Safety Concerns: Metal is unknown, so be cautious since dangers are also unknown. Wear safety equipment, i.e. goggles, lab coat, and gloves (Flinn).

Procedure: 1. Using randomization function on the Ti-nspire CX graphing calculator (see Appendix B), randomize the order of the fifteen trials. 2. 3. Use the caliper to record the initial length of the pure metal rod. Using the 100 ml graduated cylinder, fill the 20.3 cm x 9.8 cm x 6.3 cm loaf pan with about 200 ml of water, or enough to cover the metal. 4. 5. Place the loaf pan on the hot plate and turn it on. Cover the loaf pan containing the water with the second loaf pan and allow the water to boil. 6. Once water is boiling, place the metal rod into the loaf pan using metal tongs. 7. Allow the metal rod to heat for two minutes. Use the electronic timer to time the trial. 8. Use the thermometer to measure the temperature of the water, and record as the initial temperature of the water. Assume that the temperature of the water is the temperature of the metal rod. 9. Use the gloves to remove the loaf pan, and use the tongs to remove the rod from the loaf pan after the timer has finished, and quickly place it in the thermal expansion jig (see Appendix E).

Kirby-Koury 15 10. Move the tab on the thermal expansion jig to the starting position of the needle, or use a dry-erase marker to mark the initial position. 11. Allow the metal to cool and the needle on the face of the thermal expansion jig to stop moving. Use the spray bottle to spray the metal rod twelve times every twenty seconds with cold water. 12. When the dial ceases to move, move the second tab on the thermal expansion jig to the final location of the needle, or use the dry-erase marker, and record the net change in length. 13. 14. 15. The final temperature of the rod is assumed to be room temperature. Remove the metal rod from the thermal expansion jig. Repeat steps two through fourteen for the remaining trials.

Diagram:

Dial face

Measurement prong

Rod groove

Wooden frame Figure 4. Linear Thermal Expansion Jig

Kirby-Koury 16 Figure 4 shows the linear thermal expansion jig that was used to measure the change in length of the metal. To know how to operate the jig, see Appendix E. Spray Bottle Graduated Cylinder Loaf Pans

Thermometer Electronic Timer/TI-nspire CX Graphing Calculator Dry-erase Marker Insulated Gloves Unknown Metal Rods Tongs Caliper Jig Figure 5. Linear Thermal Expansion Materials Figure 5 shown above is an image of the materials used for the linear thermal expansion experiment. All of the materials were pictured except for the iron metal rods.

Kirby-Koury 17 Data and Observations Table 1 Iron Specific Heat Data

Trial Rod Initial Temperature ( C) Water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A A B A B A B A B A B A B A B 22.7 20.4 22.0 20.8 21.6 21.8 18.5 22.4 19.9 18.3 17.6 16.6 17.7 19.8 19.5 20.0 Metal 98.1 96.3 96.7 97.2 97.1 98.3 96.9 97.9 97.9 96.0 93.0 99.2 96.1 99.5 98.2 97.2 Equilibrium Temperature ( C) 26.7 24.5 26.4 25.1 25.5 26.0 23.8 25.9 24.3 23.0 21.8 21.7 22.2 24.7 24.3 24.4 Change in Temperature ( C) Water 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.3 3.9 4.2 5.3 3.5 4.4 4.7 4.2 5.1 4.5 4.9 4.8 4.4 Metal 71.4 71.8 70.3 72.1 71.6 72.3 73.1 72.0 73.6 73.0 71.2 77.5 73.9 74.8 73.9 72.8 Mass (g) Water 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50.0 Metal 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 Specific Heat (J/g C) 0.370 0.377 0.413 0.394 0.359 0.383 0.478 0.321 0.395 0.425 0.389 0.434 0.402 0.432 0.429 0.400

Average:

Table 1 shows the raw data collected from the known metal, iron, in the trials to determine its specific heat. The values resulted in an average specific heat of 0.400 J/gC. See Appendix A for sample calculation of specific heat.

Table 2 Iron Specific Heat Observations Trial Rod Date Observations 1 A 4/15/2013 Used LoggerPro #6 and calorimeter #1 Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #4. Probe 2 A 4/17/2013 lifted out of water when inserting metal. 3 B 4/17/2013 Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #1. 4 A 4/17/2013 Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #3. 5 B 4/17/2013 Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #2. 6 A 4/17/2013 Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #4. 7 B 4/17/2013 Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #3.

Kirby-Koury 18 Trial Rod Date 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 4/19/2013 4/19/2013 Observations Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #2. 100 ml of water added to the loaf pan after trial. Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #4. Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #1. Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #4. Used LoggerPro #1 and calorimeter #1. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #3. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #4.

9 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B A B A B

Table 2, which spans from page one to page two, shows the observations made during specific heat trials of the known metal, iron. Most trials used LoggerPro #1. The rods were used almost equal amounts, and calorimeter numbers were randomized. The probe was lifted out of the water in trial two, and 100 ml of water was added to the loaf pan after trial nine.

Table 3 Iron Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Trial Rod Jig 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 Change in Length (mm) 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.07 Initial Length (mm) 129.29 129.28 129.29 129.29 129.26 129.29 129.29 129.29 129.34 129.28 129.29 129.28 129.36 129.27 129.24 129.29 Initial Temperature (C) 97.1 97.1 92.3 92.3 97.9 97.9 96.2 94.4 96.9 96.4 96.8 95.0 96.3 97.2 96.7 96.0 Final Temperature (C) 26.7 26.7 23.5 23.5 27.1 27.1 24.7 24.1 23.3 23.3 24.2 24.2 26.5 26.5 25.7 25.1 Alpha Coefficient (mm) 1.116E-05 1.116E-05 8.566E-06 8.566E-06 5.551E-06 5.550E-06 8.243E-06 8.384E-06 8.005E-06 8.063E-06 8.118E-06 8.325E-06 5.626E-06 5.558E-06 8.304E-06 7.944E-06

1 A 2 B 3 A 4 B 5 A 6 B 7 A 8 B 9 A 10 B 11 A 12 B 13 A 14 B 15 A Average:

Kirby-Koury 19 Table 3, on previous page, shows the raw data collected from the trials to determine the linear thermal expansion coefficient of the known metal, iron. The average linear thermal expansion coefficient of the metal rods is 7.944 10-6 mm. See Appendix A for sample calculation of linear thermal expansion.

Table 4 Iron Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Observations Trial Rod Date Observations Did not measure time between sprays. Jig not aligned 1 A 4/18/2013 properly. 2 B 4/18/2013 Did not measure time between sprays. Did not measure time between sprays. Jig not aligned 3 A 4/18/2013 properly. 4 B 4/18/2013 Did not measure time between sprays. 100 ml of water added to loaf pan before this trial. Did 5 A 4/18/2013 not measure time between sprays. Jig not aligned properly. 6 B 4/18/2013 Did not measure time between sprays. Re-did because dropped before in jig. Did not 7 A 4/18/2013 measure time between sprays. Jig not aligned properly. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 8 B 4/18/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 9 A 4/18/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 10 B 4/18/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Jig not aligned properly. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 11 A 4/18/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 12 B 4/18/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Jig not aligned properly. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 13 A 4/18/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 14 B 4/18/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Jig not aligned properly. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 15 A 4/18/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays.

Kirby-Koury 20 Table 4, which is shown on the previous page, shows the observations made during the trials to determine the linear thermal expansion coefficient for the known metal, iron. All of the trials were conducted on April 18, 2013. About half of the trials used jig #7, which was not aligned properly, and about half used jig #11.

Table 5 Unknown Metal Specific Heat Data

Trial Rod Initial Temperature ( C) Water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B B A B A B A B A B A B A B 23.7 18.7 18.6 20.8 22.6 18.3 19.3 20.1 16.3 19.6 19.7 17.9 18.2 20.1 18.0 19.5 Metal 100.0 98.7 98.5 101.0 97.3 101.6 98.9 99.6 99.9 102.2 99.5 99.6 98.9 100.3 98.0 99.6 Equilibrium Temperature ( C) 29.2 25.1 24.9 26.8 28.5 25.1 25.5 26.5 23.2 25.9 25.7 25.0 24.2 26.4 24.5 25.8 Change in Temperature ( C) Water 5.5 6.4 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.8 6.2 6.4 6.9 6.3 6.0 7.1 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.3 Metal 70.8 73.6 73.6 74.2 68.8 76.5 73.4 73.1 76.7 76.3 73.8 74.6 74.7 73.9 73.5 73.8 Mass (g) Water 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Metal 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 Specific Heat (J/g C) 0.349 0.391 0.385 0.364 0.386 0.400 0.380 0.394 0.405 0.371 0.366 0.428 0.361 0.384 0.398 0.384

Average:

Table 5 shows the raw data collected from the unknown metal in the trials to determine its specific heat. The values resulted in an average specific heat of 0.384 J/gC.

Kirby-Koury 21 Table 6 Unknown Metal Specific Heat Observations

Trial 1 2 3 4 5 Rod
A B B A B

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

Observations Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #1. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #4. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #1. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #3. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #2. Added 100 ml of water after trial. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #4. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #3. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #1. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #2. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #4. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #1. Added 100 ml of water after trial. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #4. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #1. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #3. Used LoggerPro #3 and calorimeter #4.

6 A 7 8 9 10 11
B A B A B

12 A 13 B 14 A 15 B

Table 6 shows the observations made during the trials to determine the specific heat of the unknown metal. All trials used LoggerPro #3. 100 ml of water was added after both trials six and twelve.

Kirby-Koury 22 Table 7 Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Trial Rod Jig 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 Change in Length (mm) 0.0508 0.0508 0.0762 0.0762 0.0762 0.0762 0.0762 0.0762 0.0762 0.0508 0.0762 0.0508 0.0762 0.0508 0.0762 0.0680 Initial Height (mm) 121.21 121.42 121.37 121.18 120.97 121.06 121.23 121.40 121.26 121.29 121.29 121.40 121.33 121.33 121.28 121.27 Initial Temperature (C) 99.7 95.1 99.1 90.7 99.7 96.7 100.1 95.2 99.5 98.3 99.7 98.6 100.0 96.8 99.1 97.9 Final Temperature (C) 22.5 22.5 24.1 24.1 23.5 23.5 24.0 24.0 23.9 23.9 24.6 24.6 23.6 23.6 24.6 23.8 Alpha Coefficient (mm) 5.429E-06 5.763E-06 8.371E-06 9.442E-06 8.267E-06 8.599E-06 8.260E-06 8.816E-06 8.312E-06 5.629E-06 8.365E-06 5.655E-06 8.220E-06 5.720E-06 8.434E-06 7.552E-06

1 A 2 B 3 A 4 B 5 A 6 B 7 A 8 B 9 A 10 B 11 A 12 B 13 A 14 B 15 A Average:

Table 7 shows the raw data collected from the trials to determine the linear thermal expansion coefficient of the unknown metal. The researchers were able to calculate that the average linear thermal expansion coefficient of the unknown metal rods was 7.552 x 10-6 mm.

Table 8 Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Observations

Trial Rod 1 A 2 B 3 A 4 B Observations Jig not aligned properly. Rod sprayed twice upon 4/22/2013 beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 4/22/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Jig not aligned properly. Rod sprayed twice upon 4/22/2013 beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. 4/22/2013 Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Date

Kirby-Koury 23
Trial Rod 5 A Date 4/22/2013 Observations Jig not aligned properly. Added 100 ml of water after trial. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Jig not aligned properly. Trial re-done because it was dropped before being placed into the jig the first time. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Jig not aligned properly. Added 100 ml of water to loaf pan after trial. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays.

6 B 7 A 8 B 9 A

4/22/2013 4/22/2013 4/22/2013 4/22/2013

10 B

4/22/2013

11 A 13 A 14 B 15 A

Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 4/22/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Jig not aligned properly. Rod sprayed twice upon 4/22/2013 beginning of measurement and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. Rod sprayed twice upon beginning of measurement 4/22/2013 and again every 20 seconds for a total of 12 sprays. 4/22/2013

Table 8 shows the observations made during the trials to determine the linear thermal expansion coefficient for the unknown metal. All trials were sprayed twice every twenty seconds for a total of twelve sprays while cooling.

Data Analysis and Interpretation To determine the success level of the researchers hypothesis, a statistical analysis must be completed. What the researchers are measuring is the likelihood of the unknown metal being, or not being, iron. In order to test the hypothesis, samples of metals for the known and unknown trials were chosen

Kirby-Koury 24 using a simple random sample, SRS. Then the samples were randomly allocated to trials using the Ti-nspire graphing calculator. The randomization is an important factor because it assists in eliminating bias. The statistical analysis test that the researchers determined would be the best fit to the data is a two-sample t-test. A two-sample t-test was chosen because the data collected compares the means of two different factors, in this case, the known and the unknown metals. The t-test will be applied to both the linear thermal expansion analysis and specific heat analysis. In order to conduct the test, the statistical analysis assumptions must be made prior to the mathematics portion. The assumptions for this analysis are that the samples are independent, the samples have been selected using a simple random sample, and that either the sample size is greater than or equal to thirty or the data is known to be normal. Also, the population means and population standard deviations are not known, that alpha () is equal to 0.10, and the populations variances are normal. The validity of this depends on how accurately the experiment was conducted and the experience level of the researchers. The null hypothesis sets the first mean of the known metal, , equal to the unknown metal, , because the hypothesis is to see if the metals are the same. The alternative hypothesis is trying to validate if the metals are different, so the first mean of iron is set as not equal to the second mean of the unknown metal.

Kirby-Koury 25 Next, the researchers must determine if every assumption is met. First, the samples can be assumed independent because the metals are two separate pieces and do not affect each other because they do not interact. The samples have been selected using a simple random sample because the researchers randomly allocated them to each trial. The assumption of the population means and population standard deviations being unknown is assumed because not every pure metal rod can be tested to find such values. Also, the alpha level is assumed to be 0.10 because this value is the given value for alpha. Lastly, the assumption that the sample size is greater than or equal to thirty has not been met. So, a normal probability plot must be created to see if the samples are normally distributed. The data used in the normal probability plot for linear thermal expansion can be seen in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Iron Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Trial Rod Alpha Coefficient (mm) 1.116E-05 1.116E-05 8.566E-06 8.566E-06 5.551E-06 5.550E-06 8.243E-06 8.384E-06 8.005E-06 8.063E-06 8.118E-06 8.325E-06 5.626E-06 5.558E-06 8.304E-06 7.944E-06 Percent Error -5% -5% -27% -27% -53% -53% -30% -29% -32% -32% -31% -30% -52% -53% -30% -33%

1 A 2 B 3 A 4 B 5 A 6 B 7 A 8 B 9 A 10 B 11 A 12 B 13 A 14 B 15 A Average:

Kirby-Koury 26

Table 9 shows the raw data collected from the linear thermal expansion trials conducted on the iron rods. The percent error allows the researchers to analyze how precise the experiment was. The lower the percent error is, the better, because it implies a more accurate test and thus a lower chance of misinterpreting the identity of the metal. The percent error farthest from zero is relatively high, -53%, implying an inaccurate trial. The value closest to zero is relatively low, -5%, implying a fairly accurate trial. The range of percent error is about 48%. This large range shows that the trials were not run precisely the same. The average percent error was -33%. The average percent error is higher than the necessary percent error stated in the hypothesis, 3%. This shows that the trials were not nearly as accurate as they should have been and that the data collected is not the most accurate and best data. Table 10 Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Data
Trial Rod Alpha Coefficient (mm) 5.429E-06 5.763E-06 8.371E-06 9.442E-06 8.267E-06 8.599E-06 8.260E-06 8.816E-06 8.312E-06 5.629E-06 8.365E-06 5.655E-06 8.220E-06 5.720E-06 8.434E-06 7.552E-06 Percent Error -54% -51% -29% -20% -30% -27% -30% -25% -30% -52% -29% -52% -30% -52% -29% -36%

1 A 2 B 3 A 4 B 5 A 6 B 7 A 8 B 9 A 10 B 11 A 12 B 13 A 14 B 15 A Average:

Kirby-Koury 27

Table 10 shows the raw data collected from the linear thermal expansion trials conducted on the unknown metal rods. The minimum value was -54%, and the maximum is -20%. The range of the percent error is 34% showing that these trials may not have been very precise, but they were more precise than the data in Table 9 above. The average percent error was -36%. The average percent error is greater than the necessary percent error, 3%. This data is not the most accurate either.

Table 11 Iron Specific Heat Data Trial Rod Specific Heat (J/g C) 0.370 0.377 0.413 0.394 0.359 0.383 0.478 0.321 0.395 0.425 0.389 0.434 0.402 0.432 0.429 0.400 Percent Error 17% 15% -7% 11% 19% 14% 8% 8% 11% -4% 12 % -2% -9% -3% -3% -10%

1 A 2 A 3 B 4 A 5 B 6 A 7 B 8 A 9 B 10 A 11 B 12 A 13 B 14 A 15 B Average:

Table 11 shows the raw data collected from the specific heat trials conducted on the iron rods. The value closest to zero is -3%, and the value

Kirby-Koury 28 farthest from zero is 19%. The range for percent error is 22%, this range is much smaller than the ranges in previous tables, and this range implies that the trials were more precise and more accurate than previous data. However, the range is still fairly large implying that the trials could have been more precise. The average percent error was -10%. Due to the necessary percent error of 1% and the average percent error being -10%, it is assumed that the trials were not as accurate as necessary and the data is not the best. Table 12 Unknown Metal Specific Heat Trials Trial Rod 1 A 2 B 3 B 4 A 5 B 6 A 7 B 8 A 9 B 10 A 11 B 12 A 13 B 14 A 15 B Average: Specific Percent Heat Error (J/g C) 0.349 0.391 0.385 0.364 0.386 0.400 0.380 0.394 0.405 0.371 0.366 0.428 0.361 0.384 0.398 0.384 -21% -12% -13% -18% -13% -10% -14% -11% -9% -16% -18% -4% -19% -14% -10% -13%

Table 12 shows the raw data collected from the specific heat trials conducted on the unknown metal rods. The value closest to zero is -4%, and the value farthest from zero is -21%. The range for percent error is 17%, this range is smaller than the ranges in previous experiments, and this range implies that the

Kirby-Koury 29 trials were more precise and more accurate than previous data. However, the range is still fairly large showing that the trials could have been more accurate. The average percent error was -13%. The necessary percent error for the specific heat trials is 1%, however the average percent error for these trials is greater than 1%, -13%, it is assumed that the trials were not as accurate as necessary and the data is not the best.

Figure 6. Linear Thermal Expansion of Iron Normal Probability Plot For the known linear thermal expansion experiment, the normal probability plot can be seen in Figure 6 above. It shows the line of best fit for the values, and the closer the data points are to forming the line of best fit, the more normal the data. The graph does not show a very normal distribution since the data does not follow the line of best fit very closely. Because the data did not appear very normal, the data was checked for outliers. Outliers can be determined by multiplying the inner quartile range by 1.5 and subtracting it from quartile two as well as adding it to quartile three. If a value is outside of this range, it is

Kirby-Koury 30 considered an outlier. The data does not contain outliers, so the data is not skewed or affected by outliers that may cause a non-normal distribution.

Figure 7. Linear Thermal Expansion of Unknown Metal Normal Probability Plot Figure 7 shown above is the normal probability plot for the linear thermal expansion of the unknown metal. The data does not form the line of best fit very well, so the distribution is not perfectly normal. This implies that the reliability of the results is not very good. The trials should have been more accurate and more precise in order to be reliable.

Figure 8. Linear Thermal Expansion Box Plot of Data

Kirby-Koury 31 Figure 8 shows the box plots for the linear thermal expansion data. The box plot on top is the Iron data, and the box plot on the bottom is the unknown metal. Both box plots do not appear symmetrical, and the graphs appear to be skewed left. The box plots overlap for a large majority of their data Over 75% of the unknown metal data overlaps the iron data. Also, just less than 25% of the iron data is higher than the values of the unknown metals linear thermal expansion coefficient. It is seen that there are no outliers in either of the data collections.

Figure 9. Linear Thermal Expansion Normal Distribution Graph Figure 9 shown on previous page displays the normal distribution graph for linear thermal expansion. The t-value was found to be 0.6643, and the pvalue was found to be 0.5122. The t-value is the center of the graph, also named the mean or occasionally median of the data. The p-value is a probability. It is the percentage of the time that a value will be found as extreme as this under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true. Figure 10 below shows all of the values used to calculate the t-value and the p-value.

Kirby-Koury 32

Figure 10. Two-Sample t-test Calculations Figure 10 shows the results of the t-test. The formula used has the first mean of iron, , minus the second mean of the unknown metal, , all divided by the square root of the first standard deviation of iron squared, number of iron trials, , over the

, plus the square root of the second standard deviation of , divided by the number of unknown metal trials,

the unknown metal squared, .

For a sample calculation, see Appendix A.

For the linear thermal expansion data, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected because the p-value of 0.5122 is greater than the alpha level of 0.10. There is no significant difference between iron and the unknown metal. There is about a 51.22% chance of getting a difference in the test scores this extreme by chance alone, if the null hypothesis is true. There is not enough evidence to show that the unknown metal is not the same as the known metal, iron. However,

Kirby-Koury 33 since the data was found to not be very reliable, the decisions based of this data should not be fully trusted because they may not be correct.

Figure 11. Specific Heat of Iron Normal Probability Plot Figure 11 shows a normal probability plot of the specific heat values of the iron rods. The values appear to fit the trend line, and therefore the data can be determined to be normal.

Figure 12. Specific Heat of Unknown Metal Probability Plot Figure 12 shows the normal probability plot of the values determined for the specific heat of the unknown metal rods. The data values appear to fit the trend line, and therefore the data can be determined to be normal.

Kirby-Koury 34

Figure 13. Box Plots of the Known and Unknown Specific Heat Data Figure 13 shows two box plots displaying the distribution of the data values for the known and unknown metals specific heat. One may determine from the distributions that both data sets appear to be relatively symmetrical and normally distributed. The top plot represents the iron rods and the bottom plot represents the unknown metal rods. The top plot has a much greater range than the bottom plot, and 100% of the bottom plot overlaps it. The top plots range seems to be approximately twice the range of the bottom plot. About 25% of the iron data has higher values than the unknown metal, and less than 25% of the iron data has values less than the unknown metal. To determine if the null hypothesis should be rejected, one should determine if the p-value of the samples is less than the alpha level. In this case, the alpha level is 0.10. The p-value can be found with the use of the t-value, which can be calculated by a specific equation previously stated.

Kirby-Koury 35

Figure 14. T-test Figure 14 shows the calculation of each value required to conduct the ttest, as well as the results of the t-test itself. The t-value is 1.4496, which results in a p-value of 0.1617. The t-value represents the number of standard deviations away from the mean that the result lies, and can be shown visually on a bell curve. However, this decision may not be fully trusted due to the unreliability of the data.

Figure 15. T-Distribution

Kirby-Koury 36 Figure 15 shows the distribution of the t-value determined in the t-test with a shaded area displaying the p-value. The p-value is not extremely small and thus relatively close to the population mean. This shows that getting a result this extreme or more extreme is not very improbable. Since the p-value of 0.1617 is greater than the alpha level of 0.10, the researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis. There is no significant evidence that the unknown metal, (iron, , is a different metal than the known metal

). There is a 16.17% chance of getting a result this extreme or more

extreme by chance alone if the null hypothesis is true. Based on specific heat, the unknown metal is likely to be iron. Conclusion The researchers tested the specific heat and linear thermal expansion of iron and an unknown metal to determine if the unknown metal was iron. The researcher's hypothesis that an unknown metal's identity could be determined using only specific heat and linear thermal expansion was accepted since the researchers were able to determine that iron was the unknown metal using these attributes. This determination was made using the collected values and the results of the statistical analysis of the data. Both the iron and unknown metal were tested for their specific heat value and linear thermal expansion coefficient, and then statistical test on the collected data values was conducted. The data analysis of the specific heat value showed that the null hypothesis of the metals being the same was failed to be rejected, because there was a very high chance, nearly a 51%, of getting the same result by chance alone. As for linear thermal

Kirby-Koury 37 expansion, the analysis showed over a 16% chance that the computed values could be as extreme as or more extreme than were calculated by chance alone. This indicated that there was no significant evidence that the unknown metal rod was of a different atomic composition than the known iron metal rod. In this way, the data supports the research. In addition, the average percent error of the data collected for the known metals specific heat is about -10%, and the unknown percent error is about 13%. These percentages are very similar, indicating that the experiments were run with the same accuracy. However, the necessary percent error value for specific heat is nearly -1% error. The same situation can be seen with linear thermal expansion, the average percent error of the data collected in for the known metals linear thermal expansion coefficient is -33%, and the unknown average percent error is -36%. The necessary percent error value is about 3%. The linear thermal expansion experiment was assumed to have been run similarly as well. Due to the similar accuracy of the known and unknown experiments it was assumed that the data collected was acceptable for the analysis and that their comparisons could be accepted for a conclusion. Also, there were not any data points that were extremely different or outliers from the rest, showing that all of the data collected could be used. The researchers encountered several problems while conducting the tests and making measurements. During the specific heat trials, the temperature probe was occasionally lifted out of the water in the calorimeter while inserting the rod. During some of the linear thermal expansion trials, the researchers

Kirby-Koury 38 failed to measure the number of times the rods were sprayed with water and the intervals between the sprays, and the intensities of the sprays may have been different. This may have affected the cooling rate of the metal rods. In addition, one of the two jigs used to measure the change in length was not aligned properly, which may have caused the data to be collected inaccurately. Similarly, occasionally the placement would not be as quick or as accurate as other trials, which may have led to results that are not as accurate as possible. Also, the environment of the experimentation was different with each trial, on certain days windows may have been open causing a cooler room temperature and a more rapid cooling rate for the metals. Many steps could be taken in order to improve the procedures and improve the experimental design to reduce errors and produce more accurate data. To improve the specific heat procedure, the researchers could acquire a longer temperature probe, allowing the cap of the calorimeter to be lifted farther away from the opening and easier insertion preventing loss of heat. During the linear thermal expansion trials, the researchers should set specific guidelines for spraying the rods with water while cooling, such as time between sprays and intensity of sprays. These standards would allow for more uniform cooling processes among the trials. In addition, the researchers should use a jig that is properly aligned. This misalignment of the jig may have affected the measured values of linear thermal expansion, and a properly aligned jig would ensure more accurate results. A more enclosed and stabilized environment would help ensure the accuracy of the results. All in all, with each improvement, the results of the

Kirby-Koury 39 experiment would more accurate, more trustworthy, and percent error faults could be corrected. This research can be expanded by finding density, another intensive property. To determine density, the only additional information necessary would be radius and volume of the metal rods, and no additional equipment would be needed. Uses for this research include welding. This data could help determine which metals are which, and could prevent mistakes while welding because each metal has a different welding technique and not all metals can be welded together. Acknowledgements The researchers wish to acknowledge several people who have aided them in carrying out their research. Mrs. Jamie Hilliard has helped the researchers by editing and proofreading sections of this paper and supplying the known and unknown metal rods, linear thermal expansion jigs, thermometer, LoggerPro, LoggerPro thermometer probe, hot plate, caliper, dry-erase marker, tongs, graduated cylinder, and insulated gloves. Mrs. Rose Cybulski has aided the researchers by educating them about the statistical test used to analyze the data. The researchers wish to thank Mrs. Christine Kincaid-Dewey for aiding in the data analysis and editing and proofreading the section. Mr. Mark Supal has aided the researchers by constructing the linear thermal expansion jigs and helping with construction of the calorimeters used in this experiment, as well as proofreading and editing sections of the paper. Mr. Brian Kirby has taken his time to shop for the materials needed to construct the calorimeters.

Kirby-Koury 40 Appendix A: Sample Calculations Mathematics is a major part of science. For example, throughout this research mathematics was used to calculate percent error, t-values, alpha coefficients, and specific heat values. Without these values much of the research would be worthless. Below are samples of all of the calculations.

Figure 16. Sample Calculation for Percent Error Figure 16 shows the sample calculation for percent error. The values used were from the first trial in Table 3. The percent error found is -5%.

Figure 17. Sample Calculation for Two-Sample t Test Figure 17 shows the sample calculation for the two-sample t test. The values used were the linear thermal expansion data. The same process would be completed for specific heat. The result of this calculation is equal to 0.6643.

Kirby-Koury 41

Figure 18. Sample Calculation of Linear Thermal Expansion Figure 18 shows the sample calculation for linear thermal expansion. The result is 1.116 10-5 mm. The values seen in Figure 18 can be seen in the first trial of Table 3.

Figure 19. Sample Calculation of Specific Heat Figure 19 shows the sample calculation for specific heat. The result of the calculation is 0.370 J/g the first trial in Table 1. . The values used in this calculation were taken from

Kirby-Koury 42 Appendix B: Randomization In order to prevent bias in research, many researchers randomize trials. In this research, the trials were randomize. Below are the directions on how to randomize using the TI-nspire graphing calculator software. Materials: TI-nspire graphing calculator software Procedure: 1. Open the TI-nspire graphing calculator software and select a calculator page. 2. 3. Press Menu Probability Random and Integer. Then, enter the minimum value, 1, the maximum value, 2, and the number of responses, 15. 4. 5. Click Enter. Use the values to order the trials. Note, the ones represent Rod A, and the twos represent Rod B.

Kirby-Koury 43 Appendix C: LoggerPro In order to complete the specific heat section of the research, the LoggerPro was used to collect the initial and equilibrium temperatures of the metals and the water inside of the calorimeter. The following appendix is the directions on how to properly use the LoggerPro. Materials: LoggerPro LoggerPro temperature probe Procedure: 1. 2. Turn on LoggerPro. Set specific time and rate of measurements by clicking on the values on the right side of the screen. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Enter values. Place temperature probe into water in calorimeter. Click the green arrow to begin recording. Press the red square to finish recording once equilibrium has been met. Save file to flash drive or computer. Start a new file for each trial.

Kirby-Koury 44 Appendix D: Calorimeter Construction For the specific heat trials, a calorimeter was used to calculate the change in temperature. Calorimeters are used in order to have sufficient insulation to prevent heat loss. The following appendix is the directions for the calorimeter construction. Materials: inch diameter PVC pipe inch non-threaded PVC cap inch diameter threaded PVC pipe Oatey PVC cement end 1inch diameter threaded PVC cap Permanent marker inch diameter PVC pipe stand Foam PVC pipe insulator Electrical tape Oatey PVC primer

Procedure: 1. 2. 3. 4. Drill an off center inch diameter hole in the top of the threaded PVC cap. Cut the inch diameter PVC pipe to six inches in length. Using the Oatey PVC primer, prime the ends of the PVC pipe. Then using the Oatey PVC cement, apply cement on top of primer and attach the non-threaded PVC cap and the threaded PVC pipe end. 5. Cut the PVC insulator to six inches in length, or a length that covers the body of the PVC pipe. 6. Wrap the insulator around the body of the PVC pipe and secure with electrical tape.

Kirby-Koury 45 7. Use the permanent marker number the calorimeters and label with necessary information, such as researchers names. 8. Screw the 1 inch diameter threaded PVC cap onto the threaded PVC pipe end. 9 Place the calorimeter, non-threaded cap down, into the diameter PVC pipe stand. inch inner

Kirby-Koury 46 Appendix E: Thermal Expansion Jig Another important part of this research was the thermal expansion jig which was used to find the net change in length of the metals. The directions on how to operate the jig are below. Materials: Linear Thermal Expansion Jig Procedure: 1. Place linear thermal expansion jig on flat surface at a slight angle to reduce the amount of water resting on the measurement prong. 2. 3. Pull measurement prong up. Once metal is placed in jig release prong and mark initial length. Note, may require more than one operator.

Kirby-Koury 47 Works Cited "About Steel." World Steel Association -. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2013. <http://www.worldsteel.org/faq/about-steel.html>. Brucat, Philip J. "Molecular Motion." Kinetic-Molecular Theory. University of Florida, 13 May 2009. Web. 06 Apr. 2013. <http://www.chem.ufl.edu/ ~itl/2045/lectures/lec_d.html>. Chang, Raymond. "Thermochemistry." Chemistry. 9th ed. New York: McGrawHill Companies, 2007. 224-44. Print. Flinn Scientific, Inc. "FLINN SCIENTIFIC INC. "Your Safer Source for Science Supplies""Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) 416.00 (2002): 1-2. Print. Gagnon, Steve. "The Element Iron." Jefferson Lab: Exploring the Nature of Matter. Newport News, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://education.jlab.org/ itselemental/ele026.html>. Hester, Jerry. "223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal Expansion." 223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal Expansion. Clemson University, 27 Jan. 2006. Web. 05 Apr. 2013. <http://www.clemson.edu/ces/phoenix/labs/223/expansion/>. Hilliard, Jamie. Thermochemistry: The Study of Energy. Chemistry Lecture. Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center, Warren, MI. 31 January 2013. Lecture. Justusson, Bo. "Iron Production - Techniques and History." Iron Production Techniques and History. N.p., 2 Dec. 2001. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.algonet.se/~justus/railways/rw71iron.htm>.

Kirby-Koury 48 Lide, David R., ed. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 88th ed. New York: CRC, 2007-2008. Print. McGrew, Clark, Prof. "PHYSICS 126 EXPERIMENT NO. 3 THERMAL EXPANSION."Stony Brook NN Group. N.p., 2 Sept. 2004. Web. 05 Apr. 2013. <http://nngroup.physics.sunysb.edu/~mcgrew/phy126/labs/12603_Thermal_Expansion.pdf>. Shipman, Wilson, and Todd. "SPECIFIC HEAT AND HEAT OF FUSION." HyperPhysics. Georgia State University, 2005. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/class/phscilab/heati.html>. Spoerl, Joseph S., Professor. "A Brief History of Iron and Steel Manufacture." A Brief History of Iron and Steel Manufacture. Saint Anselm College, 6 Apr. 2004. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/hcarnegie-steel.htm>. Stephanie, and Candace. "Heat Experiments Stephanie & Candace." Carson City - Crystal Area Schools. WordPress, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.carsoncity.k12.mi.us/~hsstudent/Chemistry02/1abreport1/>. Stretton, Tom. "Specific Heat Capacity Table." Specific Heat Capacity Table. Tom Stretton, 30 Mar. 2006. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://www2.ucdsb.on.ca/tiss/stretton/database/Specific_Heat_Capacity_ Table.html>. "Thermal Expansion - Linear." Thermal Expansion - Linear. Engineering Toolbox, 29 Oct. 2012. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.

Kirby-Koury 49 <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansiond_1379.html>. Wilson, Jerry D., and Cecilia A. Hernandez. N.p.: n.p., n.d.Google Books. Mary Finch. Web. 19 May 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?id=9PWWOd Dt69kC>