GUIDE QUESTIONS

1. In the performance of the experiment, cite the possible sources of error and its effect
in the computed values. What are the recommendations then to minimize the error?
A few possible errors would be the room temperature, the different materials
or residue left inside the tube, wrong computations and wrong measurements.
To minimize such errors, be sure to perform the experiment where there are
no devices that would alter the temperature greatly.
2. Would the result be different if the condense water was not drained from the
expansion tube? Why?
If there were condensed water inside, the result would be very different. This
is because the condensed water inside would absorb the heat from the steam.
Without heat the tube would not expand.
3. From the result of the experiment, compute for the coefficient of expansion for area
and volume of the metals.
Aluminium:
Copper:

A=2 =2(23,8 x 106)

4.76 x 105
V =3 =3(23.8 x 106 )
7.14 x 105

A=2=2(16.8 x 106)
3.36 x 105
V =3 =3(16.8 x 106)
5.04 x 105

PROBLEMS:
1. On the hot day where the temperature is 32C, the distance between two lamp post
on the road is 30m as measured by a metal tape whose coefficient of linear
expansion is hypothetically 50x10 -6/C. If the tape gives its correct reading at 20C,
what is the actual distance between the lamp posts?

Given :

Solution :

t 0=32

L=L0 ( 1+ t )

L=30 m

6
30=L0 ( 1+ ( 50 x 10 ) (3220 ) )

=50 x 10

29.98 m

t=20
Required :

L0=?
2. An aluminum rod and a copper rod have the same length of 100 cm at 5C. At what
temperature would one of the rods be 0.5mm longer than the other? Which rod is
longer at such temperature?

Given :

23.8 x 10 t16.8 x 10 =0.9999160.999381

6

Aluminum=100 cm; 23.8 x 10

6

Copper=100 cm; 16.8 x 10

7 x 10 t=5.33 x 10

t=76.43

t 0=5

Aluminum will be longer

Solution :

than copper at 76.43

x=L0 (1+ t )1
x+ 0.5=L0 ( 1+ t )2
1+ cu t=L0 ( 1+ al t )5
L0
6
6
4
1+16.8 x 10 ( t5 )=1+23.8 x 10 ( t5 ) 5 x 10

EXPERIMENT 301 : LINEAR EXPANSION

Name

RABE, Angel Unico C.

Program/Yea
r
Subject/Sect
ion

CE - 3

Group
No.
Seat
No.
Date

PHY12L/B2

04
402
05/05/15

DATA and OBSERVATION

Trial / Type of Tube
Trial 2. Copper tube

Trial 1. Aluminum Tube

Initial Length of Tube

745.00 mm

745.00 mm

Initial Resistance of Thermistor at Room

Temperature

104,800

103,100

Initial Temperature

24.0 C

24.35 C

Change in Length of Tube

1.21 mm

0.89 mm

Resistance of Thermistor at Final Temperature

6,840

6,800

Final Temperature of tube

93.6257 C

93.8037 C

Change in Temperature of the Tube

69.6257 C

69.4537 C

Experimental Coefficient of Linear Expansion

2.332710-5 / C

1.720010-5 / C

Actual Coefficient of Linear Expansion

23.8010-6 / C

16.8010-6 / C

Percentage of Error

1.99 %

2.38 %

Approved By:

Instructor

SAMPLE COMPUTATION

Aluminum Tube
Final Temperature
RR L
T T L
=
R H R L T H T L
68406980.6
T 93
=
6755.96980.6 9493
T =93 . 6257 C
Experimental Coefficient of Linear Expansion
exp=

L
Lo T

exp=

1.21 mm
(745)(69.6257)

Date

exp=2.3327 10 /C
Percent Error

actual experimental
100
actual

2.380 1052.3327 105

100
2.380 105

error =

error =

error =1. 99

REMARKS
Based on the data gathered and observations, the percentage error we got is
1.99%. It seems that the source of error is the thermistor setup in which the thermistor
determines the temperature of the tube by its resistance recorded by the multi-meter.
We expect that the temperature of the metal tube must be the identical with the steam,
but the recorded data based from the thermistor is quite unexact from what we
expected. For the multi-meter, its function was not that instant since it changes from
time to time so we find it hard to record the real resistance of the metal tube. With the
30 seconds rule, we agreed to what value we must record to further complete the data
and the experiment.
For the dial gauge, we adjusted it prior to the start of the steaming of the metal
tube. We were astonished on how it works since the idea of it is a revolution equals a
millimetre of expanding. We were not able to see the change in length of it, but with the
help of the dial gauge, we got it.
The values of coefficients obtained proved the concept of thermal expansion which
relates the change in temperature and length of the given metals. is considerably
small because materials expand in a minimal length. To check the acceptability of the
experiment, the percent error was calculated.

CONCLUSION
The experiment was about thermal linear expansion. It aims to determine the
coefficient of linear expansion and the factors affecting the linear expansion. The theory
behind linear expansion was verified that the change of length is directly proportional to
the change of temperature. The coefficient of linear expansion is the proportionality
constant in the equation that relates the change of temperature and dimension.
Type of material, original length, and temperature are the factors that affect the
change in length in thermal expansion. The coefficient of thermal expansion varies with
the type of materials being analysed. Next, the original length might shrink if it is at the
maximum to avoid deformation. Lastly, temperature is directly proportional to the
change of length of the metal. Increase in temperature expands the metal tube while a
decrease in temperature causes the metal to contract.
Sources of error do roots from the apparatus itself and gathering of data.
Measurement of length also gives possible chances of error. The uncalibrated dial gauge
can also relate to wrong reading. Assumed temperature is so likely to give a great
uncertainty when compared to the actual temperature.
In this experiment, we recommend that the whole apparatus should be improved
to be more precise in reading. A built-in thermometer, a digital output for the dial gauge,
and a close system steam generator would further help in improving the data obtained.