Results and Discussion

Mass of metal
132.60 g
Mass of calorimeter
35.30 g
Mass of calorimeter and water
199.70 g
Mass of water
164.40 g
Specific heat of calorimeter
0.215 cal/C
Initial temperature of the metal
81.7 C
Initial temperature of the water 6.0 C
and calorimeter
Final temperature of the system 11.5 C
Temperature change of the -70.2 C
metal
Temperature change of the 5.5 C
calorimeter and water
Heat gained by the water
904.2 cal
Heat gained by the calorimeter
41.74225 cal
Heat given up by the metal
-945.9425 cal
Specific heat of the metal 0.102 cal/gC
(experimental)
Specific heat of the metal 0.110 cal/gC
(standard)
Absolute error
0.008 cal/gC
Percentage error
7.27 %
Table 1 below shows all the raw and computed
data recorded from the experiment.
Table 1. Raw and computed data of specific heat of
metals experiment
In this experiment, the masses of the metal, the
calorimeter, and water were first obtained by using the
triple beam balance. The mass of the water was
computed by subtracting the mass of the empty
calorimeter from the mass of the calorimeter and water.
The standard of the specific heat of aluminum is
0.215 cal/C. Given that the calorimeter used in the
experiment is made out of aluminium, hence, it can be
said that the calorimeter used has a specific heat of
0.215 cal/C as well.
After the empty calorimeter was filled with cold
water, its initial temperature was measured before
dropping the metal inside it. The initial temperature of
the metal was measured as well by placing the
thermometer inside the beaker while it was still on the
hot plate, making sure that the thermometer hits the
surface of the metal. On the other hand, the final
temperature of the system was obtained by measuring
the temperature of the metal as soon as it was placed
inside the calorimeter filled with cold water. It is now
called temperature of the system because the
temperature of the metal, water, and calorimeter is
being measured wherein it is assumed that the three
now have the same temperature as each other.

The change in the temperature of the metal was

calculated by subtracting its initial temperature from
the final temperature of the system. The change in
temperature of the calorimeter and water, on other
hand, was computed by subtracting its initial
temperature from the final temperature of the system.
To compute for the heat gained by the water, the
following formula was used :
Qwater = (mCT)water
Where:
m = mass of the water
C = specific heat of water
T = temperature change of calorimeter and water
By substituting the equation with the values
above, the heat gained by the water can be computed.

Qwater = (164.40g)(1cal/gC)(5.5C)
= 904.2 cal

The formula below was used to compute for the

heat gained by the calorimeter:
Qcalorimeter = (mCT)calorimeter
Where
m = mass of the calorimeter
C = specific heat of calorimeter
T = temperature change of calorimeter and water
The heat gained by the calorimeter was computed
as shown below:

Qcalorimeter =

(35.30g)(0.215cal/gC)(5.5C)

= 41.74225 cal
The heat given up by the metal can be expressed
as the negative value of the sum of the heat gained by
the water and the heat gained by the calorimeter, thus
giving us the equation, (Qwater + Qcalorimeter).
Hence, to compute for the heat given up by the
metal the following formula is used:

Q metal =(Q water + Q calorimeter )

Qmetal =(904.2 cal+ 41.7225 cal)
= 945.9425 cal
As soon as all the variables are obtained and the
heat given up by the metal, which is denoted by Qmetal,
is correctly computed, the experimental specific heat of
the metal can now be solved by using the formula
below.

Cmetal =

(Qwater +Qcalorimeter )
Q
Cmetal = metal
m T
mT

Wherein

error =

0.008 cal/gC
x 100
0.110 cal/ gC

error =7.27

Cmetal = Specific heat of the metal

Qmetal or (Qwater + Qcalorimeter) = Heat given up by the
metal
m = mass of the metal
T = change in temperature of the metal
The specific heat of the metal was computed as
shown below.

Cmetal =

945.9425 cal
=0.102 cal/ gC
( 132.60 g )(70.2 C )

This computation gives us the experimental

specific heat of the metal, which is to be compared to
the standard specific heat of the metal. It is necessary
to compare these two as it is critical in assessing
whether there were drastic, minimal, or no errors that
occurred or were involved in performing the
experiment. The comparison of these two quantities is
done by computing for the absolute error and the
percentage error.
The absolute error is computed by simply
subtracting the experimental specific heat of the metal
from the standard specific heat of the metal. The
percentage error, on the other hand, is the absolute
error divided by the standard value. Apparently, the
metal block that our group got was made out of steel.
Hence, we are to compare the value of our computed
experimental specific heat to the standard specific heat
of steel, which has the value 0.110 cal/gC.
The computation for absolute error is done as
follows:
Absolute error
= Standard specific heat of the metal Experimental
specific heat of the metal
= 0.110 cal/gC 0.102 cal/gC
Absolute error = 0.008 cal/gC
The percentage error was computed by using
the formula below.

error =

Absolute error
x 100
Standard value

Based on the computations done above, it can

be said that our percentage error, having the value of
7.27%, is considerably small as our lab instructor gave
us a percentage error range with 20% being the
maximum percentage error. 7.27% is definitely a
considerably small value compared to 20%.
Although our percentage error is considerably
small, having said that it is far from the maximum
percentage error which is 20%, it still seems to be a
little bit far from zero which indicates that we may
have made some errors during the execution of the
experiment. There may have been some systematic
errors upon performing the experiment which include
faulty calibration of measuring instruments such as the
triple beam balance, as it is poorly maintained. This
may have affected the measurements obtained by the
researchers. This may have made caused the
researchers to make some mistakes in measuring the
weight of the metal block, water, and calorimeter,
which definitely affects all computations involved in
obtaining the results. If the errors made were not
caused by defects in the instruments, it can be said that
the errors may have been due to the faulty reading of
instruments by the researchers. This includes parallax
error, which is caused by the user reading an
instrument at an angle, resulting in a reading which is
either too high or too low compared to the correct
value. Other errors may include random errors.
Common sources of random errors are problems in
estimating a quantity that lies between the graduations
of an instrument and the inability to read an instrument
because the reading fluctuates during the measurement.
The researchers encountered these problems in using
the thermometer. In measuring the temperature of the
metal while it was inside the beaker which was placed
on the hot plate, the readings were fluctuating, which
caused confusion in reading the measurement.
Moreover, some of the temperature measurements were
in between the graduations of the thermometer which
caused us to estimate some values. The errors stated
above may possibly be the reason why we obtained a
value of 7.27% in computing for our percentage error.
But overall, a 7.27% percentage error is not so bad.
The results we obtained were reasonably close to the
standard value.