Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chemistry 10A
24 May 2016
Table of Contents
Introduction.1
Review of Literature...................................................................................3
Problem Statement/Hypothesis...7
Experimental Design..................................................................................8
Conclusion...23
Application...28
Acknowledgements30
Appendix
Works Cited..............35
Butkowski-Tarian
Introduction
enhance the elements usage and allow the element to perform specific functions
that others may not be able to do. Aluminum has many uses, some of which are
used in everyday life and society. These include the use of aluminum in cans,
cars, kitchenware, electric power lines, and computers, among others. Aluminum
is used in a variety of ways due to the fact that is relatively cheap, as well as hav
ing superior malleability (being easily shaped into something else without
breaking), high strength, and good thermal and electric conductivity. Through
linear thermal expansion, an intensive property which states that a metal will
calculate the Linear Thermal Expansion (LTE) coefficient value for two sets of
metals to determine if the two sets are of the same metal. This was done by
measuring the original length of the metal, boiling the metal, calculating the
change in length of the metal, and calculating the change in temperature of the
metal.
A possible application of the research that was conducted includes its use
in power lines. Aluminum is ideal for making power lines due to its low density
the charge of other metals used for power lines, such as copper. However, on
hotter days, power lines may droop due to thermal expansion by the sun. Due to
Butkowski-Tarian
metals, meaning power lines made of this metal will not snap as easily as others.
LTE is the scientific process in which a metal expands or contracts in length due
to the heating and cooling of a metal. Linear Thermal Expansion allows metals to
be identified due to each metal's intensive LTE coefficient. This coefficient value
temperature change.
the fitting of mechanical parts and power lines. Thermal expansion is used to
expand certain parts so that they are able to fit around another part, such as
having a bushing fit around a shaft. The bushing is first heated so its diameter is
greater than that of the shaft, and then it is put over it and cooled to make for a
fit. Another example could be sagging power lines on a hot summer day. This is
because the heat expands the power lines, meaning that there is actually more
power line between the two poles, leaving the middle of the power line drooping
downwards. There are, however, many more uses of Linear Thermal Expansion
Review of Literature
There are several possible ways to identify two elements, and whether or
not they are the same or different. One such way is known as Linear Thermal
Expansion (LTE), or the change in the average separation between the atoms of
an object. In other words, it is the length at which the atoms of the element can
be pulled away from each other. LTE is an intensive property, which means it is a
physical property of a system, and does not rely on the system size or amount of
material in the system. According to the kinetic molecular theory, which states
that the atoms in a solid have a low kinetic energy causing them to move slowly
and take up a small amount of space (Askew). When the solid is heated the
atoms start to increase in velocity and take up more space causing the solid to
expand. When an object is cooled, the atoms tend to move around slower, which
and also for the thermodynamic model. Moreover, it is also used in mechanical
applications to fit parts over one another. In simpler terms, thermal expansion
defines the individual binding forces of a solid and is also used to fit parts to each
L = L0 T
Butkowski-Tarian
This formula can be used to determine if an unknown metal matches the identity
constant by completing the formula above and then compare the constant to
Important values of this metal that will be considered during this experiment
include the density, specific heat, and linear thermal expansion coefficient. These
values are 2.7 g/cm3 (density), 0.921 J/g(specific heat), and 24 C-1 x
water are 1 g/cm3 (density), with the specific heat being 4.186 J/g. However,
since water does not expand in length, but rather in volume, the expansion
Magnesium, the twelfth element on the periodic table (whereas Aluminum is the
values are close to those of Aluminum and thus help to create a percent error for
percent error, within a certain range, the unknown metal can then be identified.
Butkowski-Tarian
for possible hypotheses and conclusions, prior to conducting the experiment. For
with a single-slit opening at the top. As the metal was heated it would expand
along with the device it was attached to. The change in length was then
Figure 1, on the previous page, shows what the device used to calculate
the device looks like. As explained previously, the device heats the strip of
aluminum using a laser and the metal expands based on the kinetic molecular
theory. Although the experiment in the paper will be conducted using a different
method it shows another possible method used to calculate change in length for
the LTE coefficient. The experiment conducted throughout the paper will use an
LTE jig that will contract when the expanded metal is cooled thus determining the
Butkowski-Tarian
change in length, and giving the information needed to determine the LTE
coefficient.
The rusted brown color in Figure 2 indicates a copper rod. Heated water
was pumped through the hole in the rod until it reached a uniform temperature,
which would be the final temperature. Before the rod was placed into the water,
an initial temperature and initial length were determined. The trial was conducted
several times, and the data was then used to determine the linear thermal
Problem Statement
Problem Statement:
the same as a given element, Aluminum, through the intensive property of Linear
Hypothesis:
Data Measured:
change of the length, L, by the initial length, L , and the total change of the
length will be found using a Linear Thermal Expansion jig and will be measured
Experimental Design
Materials:
Thermometer (0.1 C) (2) Solid Aluminum Rods, (Al)
(3) Linear Thermal Expansion (LTE) Jig (0.001 mm) (2) Solid Rods of Unknown Metal
Water, (H2O), 100 C Caliper (0.01 mm precision)
Metal Loaf Pan (36x12x12 cm) Timer
Tongs Hot Mitt
TI-Nspire Randomization Function Hot Plate
Procedures:
1. Randomize the order in which the metals will be tested using the TI-
Nspire randomization function (See Appendix x). 30 trials for aluminum rods
and 30 for unknown rods.
2. Randomize the order in which the jigs will be used using the TI-
Nspire randomization function. 30 trials for aluminum rods and 30 for
unknown rods.
3. Fill the baking pan with water and heat it to approximately 100C.
5. Place the first metal rod into the boiling water for 2.5 minutes.
6. Using tongs, remove the metal from the baking pan. Take the
temperature of the water. Record in table as the initial temperature.
7. Place the metal into the LTE jig. Immediately record initial length of
the metal and record in it the data table. Leave it in the jig for 3 minutes.
Diagram:
Figure 3 displays the materials used to perform the experiment. The key
materials featured above include; the metals, the hot plate, the loaf plan, and the
LTE jig.
Butkowski-Tarian
The data trials for the known metal, aluminum are recorded in the table
below. A correction factor of 0.05 millimeters was added to the change in length
for both experiments. This was added because when the metal is transferred
from the loaf pan to the jig is when the metal contracts at the fastest rate.
Table 1
Aluminum Linear Thermal Expansion Data
Change
Initial Change in Alpha
in
Trial Rod Length Temperature Coefficient
Length
(mm) (C) (C-1 x 10-6)
(mm)
1 B 0.20 132.18 -78.4 19.300
2 A 0.17 129.35 -78.3 16.785
3 A 0.17 132.14 -76.3 16.861
4 B 0.19 129.24 -76.0 19.344
5 B 0.16 129.26 -77.4 15.992
6 A 0.21 131.96 -74.5 21.361
7 A 0.17 132.13 -75.7 16.996
8 B 0.19 129.14 -74.0 19.882
9 B 0.18 129.14 -78.3 17.801
10 A 0.18 129.20 -75.6 18.428
11 A 0.19 129.27 -75.4 19.493
12 B 0.20 131.92 -76.6 19.792
13 A 0.16 129.26 -76.1 16.266
14 B 0.20 132.22 -74.6 20.277
15 B 0.19 132.18 -74.6 19.269
16 A 0.18 129.24 -75.3 18.496
17 A 0.16 129.34 -76.5 16.171
18 B 0.20 132.16 -77.9 19.426
19 B 0.18 132.25 -75.1 18.123
20 A 0.14 129.20 -76.2 14.220
21 B 0.16 132.18 -72.9 16.605
22 A 0.19 129.36 -75.8 19.377
23 A 0.16 129.29 -75.9 16.305
24 B 0.16 132.08 -74.1 16.348
Trial Rod Change Initial Change in Alpha
in Length Temperature Coefficient
Length (mm) (C) (C-1 x 10-6)
Butkowski-Tarian
(mm)
25 A 0.21 129.13 -70.4 23.100
26 B 0.17 132.11 -72.1 17.848
27 A 0.21 129.30 -75.0 21.655
28 B 0.21 132.24 -73.7 21.547
29 B 0.22 132.22 -74.9 22.215
30 A 0.18 129.25 -75.8 18.373
Average N/A 0.18 130.60 -75.5 18.589
Table 1, on the previous page, shows the data recorded as well as the
averages of each value for the Aluminum Linear Thermal Expansion experiment.
These results and values will be used as a comparison for the unknown metal
Table 2
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Data
Change
Initial Change in Alpha
in
Trial Rod Length Temperature Coefficient
Length
(mm) (C) (C-1 x 10-6)
(mm)
metals as well as the averages for each data value. These results and values will
be used to determine if the unknown metal is the same as the known metal,
Aluminum.
Table 3
Aluminum Linear Thermal Expansion Observations
Aluminum metal trials. These observations include which rod was used, as well
as which jig it was placed in. Additionally, observations such as whether the rod
was fully submerged in the water, and whether the transfer of the metal from the
loaf pan was smooth or not, have been included. If no major observations were
Table 4
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Observations
metal. For instance, some trials had water splashing out of the loaf pan while the
transfer to the jig occurred, and others had extended transfer times because the
metal was in the water for a few extra seconds. There are some trials however,
that went along smoothly without any major observations, these trials are marked
Clean Transfer.
Butkowski-Tarian
Thermal Expansion (LTE) coefficient value for two sets of metals to determine if
the two sets are of the same metal. This was done by measuring the original
length of the metal, boiling the metal in loaf pan, calculating the change in length
of the metal by using an LTE jig, and calculating the change in temperature of the
metal. The LTE coefficient, in inverse degrees Celsius, was found by dividing the
change in length by the product of the initial length times the change in
temperature.
conducted with the concepts of control, randomness, and repetition in mind. The
aluminum metal rods where used as a control for the unknown metal, the trials in
the experiments were chosen randomly, and the experiments each had 30 trials
to assure that a statistical test could be conducted. Also, it should be noted that a
correction factor of 0.05 was added to the change in length to account for the
loss of length during transfer from the loaf pan to the Linear Thermal Expansion
(LTE) jig.
Table 5
Aluminum Percent Error
Alpha
Percent
Trial Metal Coefficient
Error
(C-1 x 10-6)
1 B 19.300 -13.06
2 A 16.785 -24.39
3 A 16.861 -24.05
4 B 19.344 -12.87
5 B 15.992 -27.96
6 A 21.361 -3.78
7 A 16.996 -23.44
Trial Metal Alpha Percent
Butkowski-Tarian
Coefficient
Error
(C-1 x 10-6)
8 B 19.882 -10.44
9 B 17.801 -19.81
10 A 18.428 -16.99
11 A 19.493 -12.19
12 B 19.792 -10.85
13 A 16.266 -26.73
14 B 20.277 -8.66
15 B 19.269 -13.20
16 A 18.496 -16.68
17 A 16.171 -27.16
18 B 19.426 -12.49
19 B 18.123 -18.36
20 A 14.220 -35.94
21 B 16.605 -25.20
22 A 19.377 -12.72
23 A 16.305 -26.56
24 B 16.348 -26.36
25 A 23.100 4.06
26 B 17.848 -19.61
27 A 21.655 -2.45
28 B 21.547 -2.94
29 B 22.215 0.07
30 A 18.373 -17.24
Average N/A 18.589 -16.27
Table 5 shows the percent errors recorded for each individual trial of the
aluminum metal as well as the average percent error of all the experiments. The
average percent error for the unknown metal experiment was -16.27%.
Table 6
Unknown Metal Percent Error
Alpha
Percent
Trial Metal Coefficient
Error
(C-1 x 10-6)
1 B 22.734 2.41
2 A 21.872 -1.48
3 A 18.164 -18.18
4 B 19.937 -10.19
5 B 22.424 1.01
6 A 22.252 0.23
7 A 16.424 -26.02
Alpha
Percent
Trial Metal Coefficient
Error
(C-1 x 10-6)
8 B 23.281 4.87
Butkowski-Tarian
9 B 18.847 -15.10
10 A 19.441 -12.43
11 A 21.153 -4.72
12 B 19.991 -9.95
13 A 21.127 -4.83
14 B 13.132 -40.85
15 B 21.450 -3.38
16 A 21.665 -2.41
17 A 19.097 -13.98
18 B 21.563 -2.87
19 B 18.437 -16.95
20 A 21.725 -2.14
21 B 19.789 -10.86
22 A 18.813 -15.26
23 A 29.537 33.05
24 B 22.034 -0.75
25 A 20.716 -6.69
26 B 21.982 -0.98
27 A 23.170 4.37
28 B 21.890 -1.40
29 B 19.872 -10.49
30 A 21.831 -1.66
Average N/A 20.812 -6.25
Table 6 shows the percent errors recorded for each individual trial of the
unknown metal as well as the average percent error of all the experiments. The
average percent error for the unknown metal experiment was -6.25%. The
aluminum value has ten percent higher percent error than the unknown metal
value. This could affect the reliability of the data because the unknown value was
closer to the true LTE value. However, it was decided that the data was relatively
Figure 4, above, gives a boxplot of the aluminum data with a five point
summary, as well as a normal probability plot, with the equation for the line of
best fit for the aluminum data. The boxplot shows that almost all of the data
collected is below the actual true alpha coefficient value. The data also seems
fairly spread apart, being only very slightly skewed to the left. However, because
the data seems lower than the true value, the metal rod could be placed in the jig
or loaf pan for a longer period of time to acquire results closer to this value.
According to the normal probability plot the data is fairly normal with an even
Figure 5 gives a boxplot of the unknown metal data with a five point
summary and a normal probability plot, with the equation for the line of best fit for
this data.
The boxplot for the unknown metal data also shows that a majority of the
data collected, over 75%, is below the true value alpha coefficient, being 22.2
, and is heavily skewed to the left. However, unlike the aluminum data
values, the unknown metal data shows two outliers, one above and one below
the mean and true value. The outlier 29.537 may be due to the large change in
length as opposed to the other trials from being exposed to the water for
additional time, while the lower outlier of 13.132 may be due to a very small
change in length overall. Using these outliers, it can be predicted that the alpha
coefficient value has a direct relationship with the change in length of the metal
rod. This suggests that, in the future, longer time in the jig or loaf pan could
produce results closer to the true value because the additional time heating could
cause additional expansion. The normal probability plot shows that the data is
fairly normal with about an even number of point above or below the normal line.
two-sample t test. This statistical test was chosen because the samples came
from two independent populations. This test can be conducted because certain
conditions have been met. These conditions are; the two experiments were both
simple random samples from two distinct, independent populations and both
populations are approximately normal. These conditions have been met because
the trials were conducted randomly, the Aluminum trials and unknown trials are
Butkowski-Tarian
independent from each other, and by looking at the descriptive statistics above-
Ho: k = u
Ha: k u
Figure 6 displays the null and alternative hypothesis of the statistical test
mean of the aluminum LTE coefficient, and u is the true mean of the unknown
metal LTE coefficient. The null hypothesis is: the true mean of the aluminum LTE
coefficient is equal to the true mean of the unknown metal LTE coefficient
meaning if true it can be concluded that the metals are the same. The alternative
hypothesis is: the true mean of the aluminum LTE coefficient is not equal to the
true mean of the unknown metal LTE coefficient meaning if true it can be
concluded that the LTE coefficient of the two metals is not the same. The
S
S
( 1)2 ( 2)2
+
n1 n2
xx 1 xx
2
where xx is the mean of each sample, S is the standard error of each sample,
n is the sample size of each sample, one is the aluminum sample, and two is the
Figure 7 displays from the results of the two-sample t test the null
hypothesis is rejected because the p-value of 0.000816 is less than the alpha
level of 0.05. There is evidence that the LTE of the Aluminum sample is not
equal to that of the unknown metal. There is only a 0.08% chance of getting LTE
coefficients this extreme by chance alone if the null hypothesis is true, meaning
that the LTE coefficient are equal. Since this is so unlikely to occur the linear
Conclusion
metal was the same as, or different than, a given metal, Aluminum. This was to
(LTE). It was hypothesized that if the percent error of the experiment was within a
6.3 percent error, and the p-value was not within an alpha level of 0.1, the
Using this hypothesis and the results that were obtained, the unknown
metal was thought to be different than the Aluminum metal, which was given.
This was concluded because the difference in percent error between the two
trials was 10.02 percent. Additionally, the p-value was calculated to be 0.000816,
well within the alpha level of 0.1. This supports the idea that the two metals were
similar, however the aforementioned percent error had a large enough difference
from what was expected that it was decided the two were different. However, it
was later determined that the unknown metal was also a sample of aluminum.
Overall the data does not support the hypothesis. The true value for LTE
coefficient of aluminum is 22.2 C-1 x 10-6. After the experiment was completed,
the mean of the trials with the aluminum sample was calculated to be 18.589 C -1
x 10-6. After the experiment was completed, the mean of the trials with the
unknown metal sample was within the 6.3 percent error limit established in the
hypothesis it was determined that it was not close enough to the mean from the
Butkowski-Tarian
aluminum trials to be used to determine that the metals were the same. A two-
sample t-test was conducted and a p-value 0.000816 was found, well within in
the 0.1 alpha level set. This along with the lower than true value alpha
coefficients led to it being concluded that the metals were different. The data
does not support the hypothesis though because the metals were actually the
same.
The results of this experiment and others similar to it do not support each
other. The results of this experiment say that if one of the two conditions are met
(not being within the alpha level and within a certain percent error), the metals
are similar. However, other experiments show that both of these conditions must
adjustments to the design may need to be made, along with the correction of
multiple errors, which are expressed below, along with their effects on the overall
research.
positive and some negative. The randomization process was beneficial to the
the process of removing the metal from the loaf pan and transferring it to the LTE
jig may have altered the results. This is because the time immediately after the
removal from the loaf pan is when the metal contracts at its highest rate causing
the initial part of the contraction to be not recorded in the data. A correction factor
of 0.05 mm was added to counter the effect but it is possible that the metal
contracted more than this, still affecting the data. Taking the temperature also
Butkowski-Tarian
proved to be an issue. Often the thermometer had not finished measuring the
initial temperature when the metal was removed from the loaf pan causing the
To expand upon this research, more time would certainly be needed, and
perhaps produce more accurate results. That aside, other improvements could
include better timings, as sometimes a timer did not start as soon as the metal
rod was placed in the loaf pan or jig. This of course would also provide with more
accurate results, even if they are only slightly different from those that were
collected. Additionally, some trials included the rod not being fully submerged in
the water, since the water had not been refilled prior to that particular trial. This is
important to note in that the portions of the rod that were not submerged may not
have been as heated as those that were, meaning those portions, and possibly
the entire rod, did not expand as much as they or it should have. One final error
that was made throughout the trials was that the metal rod was left in the loaf pan
for either too long or too short of a timespan. This would mean those trials may
have expanded more or less than others, depending on the greater or fewer
number of seconds it was left in the loaf pan. These trials have an effect on the
overall data, and may have influenced it one way or the other. Perhaps with
larger loaf pans, less errors in timing, and an extended period of time to perform
the experiment, the results would be more accurate and closer to the true value.
offered so the same mistakes are not made. To start, be sure to always have
someone ready to remove the rod when need be so that the rod is not in the loaf
Butkowski-Tarian
pan for longer than it should be. An increased time in the loaf pan for one trial, as
opposed to the others, could change the data and sway it one way or another. A
large number of trials that are left in the loaf pan too long could drastically
change the data, and cause it to be very different from these results or the known
true value of the metal. Some instances in which the rod was in the loaf pan too
long were due to an inability to remove rod, as it became stuck between two
sides of the loaf pan, so a larger loaf pan may help as well. Additionally, a larger
team of three or four people may make the research go along more smoothly.
Perhaps have one person recording the data, one person the designated timer,
one person to place the rod into and remove the rod from the loaf pan, and one
to control the jigs. This would make the process easier, as the timing could be
more accurate and trials which started directly or soon after each other could be
handled easier, as opposed to having to rapidly switch back and forth between
include comparing properties such as the specific heats of the elements, the
can be tested more simply by weighing the element for mass and finding the
pulling it apart or shaping it into a new form to test malleability and ductility. Other
for other uses, could use this information to be sure the metal that they are using
fits any standards they may have for using it, as well as to determine other
Butkowski-Tarian
properties of the metal. For example, if the Linear Thermal Expansion coefficient
is different than that of the given metal, other properties of the metal can then be
Application
Butkowski-Tarian
Butkowski-Tarian
Figure 8, above, displays the aluminum can designed along with its
alcoholic beverages. These include soda and pop, as well as beer. These cans
are also often recycled and then made into another product, if of course the
metal being used for the can is recyclable. This is one reason metal cans like
these are often made from aluminum. Aluminum is very easy to reuse and
recycle, so it can be used over and over again as the same, or a different
product. Another reason why aluminum is used is because of its reactivity, which
is important because the can holds a number of acids and bases which could
cause cans made of other metals to either rust, or even explode due to the cans
contents. A third reason aluminum is used for this type of product is due to the
workability of the aluminum, as the parts being put together to create the can are
stamped out on a flat piece of the metal. Finally, aluminum has great malleability,
meaning it can be made into a number of shapes with breaking much or at all.
Aluminum was found to cost 0.002 cents per gram. The aluminum can
designed has a mass of 422.28 grams. When the mass is multiple by the cost it
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank numerous people for their guidance with this
project. First, we would like to thank the 10thgrade teaching staff at MMSTC; Mrs.
Hilliard for her scientific suggestions and analysis, Mr. Supal for design and
paper formatting suggestions, and Mrs. Dewey for her mathematical analysis.
Next, we would like to thank our parents for their constant support throughout this
project and our attendance at this center. We would also like to thank our
environment. Most importantly, we would like to thank each other because even
through the sacrifices and time that this research requires we were able to go
formula
= L/(L * T)
= L/(L * T)
-.20
= * 10
139.55 * -78.8
= 18.188
A percent error was used to determine if the data was valid. To calculate
where the experimental value is the LTE coefficient recorded from the data and
19.30022.2
= 100
22.2
Butkowski-Tarian
-13.06
Figure 10 shows how to find the percent error using the linear thermal
expansion data.
A two sample t test was used to determine if the data was statistically
S
S
( 1)2 ( 2)2
+
n1 n2
xx 1 xx
2
where xx is the mean of each sample, S is the standard error of each sample,
n is the sample size of each sample, one is the aluminum sample, and two is the
S
S
( 1)2 ( 2)2
+
n1 n2
=t
xx 1 xx
2
18.589-20.812
2.1211 2 2.70402
30
+
30
=t
-3.54318
Figure 11 displays a sample two sample t test equation that was used to
To randomize the order in which the metals will be tested complete the
following steps
1. On a calculator page click Menu, Probability, Random, and Seed and enter a
number to be a seed.
2. Click Menu, Probability, Random, Integer and enter (1,2) into the calculator. If
the calculator returns 1 then the trial will conduct metal A and if it returns 2
then the trial will conduct metal B.
3. The next trial will conduct the metal not previously conducted. This allows
multiple trials to be conducted at once while still achieving randomness and
keeping equal trials.
To randomize the order in which the jigs will be used complete the following step
1. On a calculator page click Menu, Probability, Random, and Seed and enter a
number to be a seed.
2. Click Menu, Probability, Random, Integer and enter (1,3) into the calculator. If
the calculator returns 1 then the trial will use jig A, if it returns 2 then the trial
will use jig B, and if it returns 3 then the trial will use jig C.
3. The next trial will use a jig not previously used. This allows multiple trials to be
conducted at once while still achieving randomness and keeping equal trials.
Butkowski-Tarian
To do this enter (1,3) until a number representing a jig not currently in use
appears.
randomization jig.
Butkowski-Tarian
Works Cited
Askew, Jim. "Kinetic Theory & Phase Change." Kinetic Theory & Phase Change.
Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
<http://crescentok.com/staff/jaskew/isr/chemistry/class16.htm>.
"Facts About Aluminium Cans." Planet Ark. 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 13 May 2016.
"Table of Specific Heats." Hyper Physics. Georgia State University. Web. 14 Apr.
2016. <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/sphtt.html>.