Comparing an Unknown Metal to Zinc through Linear Thermal Expansion

Lauren Champlin and Jordan Olszewski

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Honors Chemistry

10A

Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. Supal, Mrs. Dewey

23 May 2016
 Champlin Olszewski 0

Table of Contents

Introduction........................................................................................................................1

Review of Literature...........................................................................................................3

Problem Statement............................................................................................................8

Experimental Design..........................................................................................................9

Data and Observations....................................................................................................11

Data Analysis and Interpretation......................................................................................18

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................29

Application.......................................................................................................................33

Appendix A: Formulas and Sample Calculations............................................................35

Appendix B: Randomization............................................................................................37

Works Cited......................................................................................................................38
 Champlin Olszewski 1

Introduction

Zinc is a metal that has many practical uses in the manufacturing world. It is used

as an anti-corrosion agent on metals such as steel and iron. This process of applying a

protective zinc coating to steel or iron is known as galvanization. The coating helps to

protect the metals from rusting. If the zinc coating is not applied, the metal could rust.

This is why it is important to know whether or not the metal is zinc.

In this experiment, two separate metals were used, one known, zinc, and one

unknown, to determine if the two metals were the same. The method used to determine

this was linear thermal expansion. In each experiment, the metal rods were heated in a

loaf pan with boiling water and then placed into a thermal expansion jig. After the metal

cooled, the change in length of the rod was recorded. With this data, the alpha

coefficient of linear thermal expansion was found, and the value was used to determine

whether or not the two rods were the same metal.

Linear thermal expansion is the tendency of matter to change in length in

response to a change in temperature through heat transfer. This is an intensive

property, which means that it is specific to every element. An everyday example of

linear thermal expansion can be seen in the kitchen. It can be found that after running

hot water over the top of a tight metal lid on a glass jar, the lid comes off. This happens

because the high temperature of the water causes the metal to expand, but because

glass has such a low coefficient of linear thermal expansion it does not expand. Another

example of linear thermal expansion in a solid is the sagging of electrical power lines on

a hot day. This happens because the heat causes the power lines to expand, so there is

a greater length of power line extending from pole to pole than there would be under

lower temperature conditions.

 Champlin Olszewski 2

This research has many practical applications. Bridges are built with expansion

joints to account for linear thermal expansion of the metal used when the temperature

rises. The research could be used to help determine which metal would be the best fit

for the bridge style and function. Expansion joints can also be found on railroad tracks.

Tracks are built from pieces of steel supported by wooden ties, and laid with a gap

between the ends. The gap provides a buffer for linear thermal expansion.
 Champlin Olszewski 3

Review of Literature

Thermal expansion is the tendency of matter to change in shape, area, and

volume in response to a change in temperature through heat transfer. One property of a

metal that depends on temperature is the length. When a metal is heated or cooled, its

length changes by an amount proportional to the original length and the change in

temperature (Temperature and Thermal Expansion). This amount of change in the

length of an object undergoes is called Linear Thermal Expansion (LTE). The coefficient

of LTE depends on the material an object is made of. This is an intensive property,

which means that no matter the mass or volume of a material, the properties, such as

LTE and density, do not change (Senese). The linear thermal expansion coefficient of

zinc is 29.7 (10-6 m/(m K)). This means that for every degree increase in temperature,

zinc will increase in length by 29.7 units. The thermal expansion coefficient of ice at 0C

is 51(10-6 m/(m K)), meaning that the ice will increase in length by 51 units for every

degree increase in temperature. The density of zinc is 7.13 g/cm3, which means that

one cubic centimeter of zinc has a mass of 7.13 grams. This value can be used to

identify zinc because it is the only metal with this density (ZINC). The density of water

is 1.00 g/cm3, and because the density of zinc is much greater than the density of water,

it is known that the molecules in zinc are packed tighter that the molecules in water

(Thermal Expansion).

If an object is heated or cooled and it is not free to expand or contract, the

thermal stresses can be large enough to damage the object or whatever constrains it.

Because of this, it is important to take into account the thermal expansion of objects like
 Champlin Olszewski 4

bridges and sidewalks when they are being built (Thermal Expansion). The linear

thermal expansion of an object can be expressed as

L= L0T

where L equals the change in the objects length in millimeters, equals the linear

expansion coefficient in 10-6/C, L0 equals the initial length of the object in millimeters,

and T equals the change in temperature in degrees Celsius (Linear Thermal

Expansion). A coefficient is a number that serves as a measure for some characteristic

or property (Licudine). It is possible to calculate the degree to which a material will

expand or contract when exposed to changes in temperature. This is known as its

coefficient of expansion. The coefficient of linear expansion is a constant that controls

the change in the length of a solid as a result of a change in temperature. The

coefficient of linear thermal expansion is a number expressed in terms of 10 -6/C. The

equation used to solve for the change in length can then be used to solve for the

coefficient of linear expansion.

Before breaking down how linear thermal expansion works on a molecular level,

the reader must clearly understand the difference between heat and temperature. Heat

is the internal energy that flows from a system of high temperature to a system of low

temperature. This internal energy can also be identified as thermal energy. Thermal

energy is a form of kinetic energy due to the movement of molecules, and it can also be

referred to as molecular translational energy (Linear Thermal Expansion).

Temperature, on the other hand, is defined as a measure of the average molecular

translational energy in a system.

 Champlin Olszewski 5

Any object in motion has kinetic energy, and the faster an object is moving, the

more kinetic energy it possesses. Linear thermal expansion can also be explained

through the Kinetic Molecular Theory. The Kinetic Molecular Theory is a theoretical

model used to explain the experimental observations of gases and molecules in an

object. It is based on many postulates. One postulate states that particles move in a

straight line until they collide with another particle or the walls of the container. A second

postulate states that particles are much smaller than the distance between particles.

Third, none of the energy of a particle is lost when it collides with another particle or with

the walls of the container. Last, the average kinetic energy of a collection of particles

depends on the temperature of the object and nothing else (The Kinetic Molecular

Theory). When heat is applied to a given object, there is more energy in the atoms.

This increase in energy allows the electrons to move farther from the nucleus, therefore

the electron cloud increases in size. This increase in the size of the electron cloud

causes the object to expand.

Table 1
Coefficient of LTE Values of Copper, Zinc, and Aluminum
Metal Coefficient of LTE ((10-6 m/(m K)))

Lead 28.0
Zinc 29.7

Thallium 29.9

To determine whether the unidentified metal can be identified as zinc, a percent

error needs to be calculated. The equation used to calculate the percent error is

Experimental ValueTrue Value

error = 100
True Value
 Champlin Olszewski 6

The true value of LTE for the metals copper, zinc, and aluminum were found in Table 1,

above. These values were used in the equation and the percent error for this

experiment was found to be approximately 2.525%.

In past experiments conducted on this topic, metals were heated in a linear

expansion apparatus and temperature and length changes were recorded. One

experiment uses a lever, while the other uses a strain gauge to measure the change in

length (Experiment 8). Both experiments use a water heater and a rubber hose to

push steam through the system, heating the metal. Then, a thermometer was used to

measure the change in temperature. For this experiment, a similar process will be used.

However, a metal will be heated using boiling water in a metal container instead of

steam. This is an endothermic process because heat is being applied to the metal. An

isolated system will not be used, meaning that some heat will be lost while transferring

the metal rod from the water to the measuring device.

Every metal has unique and specific properties. Examples of these properties are

density and linear thermal expansion. The density of zinc is 7.13 g/cm 3, which means

that one cubic centimeter of zinc has a mass of 7.13 grams. This value can be used to

identify zinc because it is the only metal with this density (ZINC). The density of water

is 1.00 g/cm3, and because the density of zinc is much greater than the density of water,

it is known that the molecules in zinc are packed tighter that the molecules in water. The

linear thermal expansion coefficient of zinc is 29.7 (10-6 m/(m K)). This means that for

every degree increase in temperature, zinc will increase in length by 29.7 units. The

thermal expansion coefficient of ice at 0C is 51(10 -6 m/(m K)), meaning that the ice will
 Champlin Olszewski 7

increase in length by 51 units for every degree increase in temperature (Thermal

Expansion).
 Champlin Olszewski 8

Problem Statement

Problem:

The goal of this experiment was to determine whether the second unidentified

metal was the same as the known metal, which was identified as zinc, by comparing the

coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion (LTE) of each metal.

Hypothesis:

The unidentified metal will be identified as zinc if the coefficient of LTE of the

unknown metal is within a percent error of 2.525% and within an alpha level of 0.1.

Data Measured:

The dependent variable in this experiment was the change in the length of the

metal, which was measured in millimeters (mm), and is defined as , in Cx10 -6, which is

the coefficient of LTE. The independent variable in the experiment was the temperature

of the water used to heat the metal. The device used to measure the change in length of

the metal rod was a digital dial indicator, and it was measured in millimeters. The final

temperature of the metal was measured in degrees Celsius. Lastly, a two-sample t-test

was used for a statistical analysis because the means of the 30 trials for each metal

were compared, along with the percent error.

 Champlin Olszewski 9

Experimental Design

Materials:
(2) Metal Rods, Zinc (Zn)
(2) Metal Rods, Unknown
Caliper (0.01 mm precision)
Hot Plate
(2) Holding Device
(2) Digital Dial Indicator
(0.001 mm precision)
(2) Metal loaf pan (36 x 12 x 12 cm)
Tongs
TI-Nspire randomization function
Thermometer (0.1C precision)
Hot Mitt

Procedures:

1. Randomize the order in which the metal rods and holding device will be tested. A
sample randomization is shown in Appendix B.

2. Fill the metal tray with water and place on the hot plate. Allow the water to reach a
temperature range of 97 to 101C.

3. Using the caliper, measure the initial length of the metal rod and record the
measurement.

4. Using the tongs, place the metal rod into the tray of boiling water for approximately
three minutes. It can be assumed that the water and metal rod will come to
equilibrium and are the same temperature.

5. Measure the initial temperature of the water and record the measurement.

6. Using the tongs, place the metal rod into the groove in the holding device, making
sure one end is flat against the end of the device and the other is touching the
measuring rod on the dial indicator. Immediately record the length given on the
indicator.

7. Allow the metal rod to cool to room temperature in the holding device for
approximately three minutes. Measure the temperature of the room. It can be
assumed that the temperature of the room and the metal rod are at equilibrium,
therefore, the same temperature.

8. Once cooled, record the measurement of the metal rod on the indicator. Remove the
metal from the holding device.

9. Repeat steps 2 through 8 for all four metal rods. Run a total of 15 trials for each rod,
with a total of 30 trials for each metal. Record all measurements in a data table.

Diagrams:
 Champlin Olszewski 10

Figure 1. Materials

Figure 1, above, shows the materials used in the experiment. However, instead

of one large pan, two smaller pans were used.

Figure 2. Holding Device

Figure 2, above, shows the device used to measure the change in length of the

metal rod. The groove used to hold the metal rod is indicated by the arrow.

Data and Observations

 Champlin Olszewski 11

Table 2
Zinc Linear Thermal Expansion Data

Initial Initial Final Alpha

L T
Trial Length Temp. Temp. Coefficient
(mm) (C)
(mm) (C) (C) (C-1 x 10-6)

1 129.21 -0.17 100.3 23.8 -76.5 17.199

2 129.17 -0.15 100.6 22.7 -77.9 14.907
3 129.05 -0.18 99.2 23.2 -76.0 18.353
4 129.34 -0.16 100.2 22.4 -77.8 15.900
5 129.18 -0.20 99.9 23.8 -76.1 20.345
6 129.27 -0.11 99.9 22.7 -77.2 11.022
7 128.98 -0.10 99.5 23.7 -75.8 10.228
8 129.24 -0.37 100.1 23.6 -76.5 37.423
9 129.28 -0.16 99.8 23.5 -76.3 16.220
10 128.88 -0.17 99.7 23.7 -76.0 17.356
11 129.15 -0.14 99.5 22.8 -76.7 14.133
12 129.26 -0.14 99.7 23.7 -76.0 14.251
13 129.25 -0.13 100.1 23.5 -76.6 13.131
14 129.26 -0.15 99.1 23.9 -75.2 15.432
15 129.14 -0.16 99.3 24.2 -75.1 16.498
16 129.14 -0.14 99.7 23.9 -75.8 14.302
17 129.24 -0.15 99.5 23.4 -76.1 15.251
18 129.23 -0.15 99.4 24.1 -75.3 15.415
19 129.18 -0.13 100.1 23.9 -76.2 13.207
20 129.09 -0.13 100.0 23.8 -76.2 13.216
21 129.22 -0.18 98.1 23.9 -74.2 18.773
22 129.33 -0.16 98.2 23.9 -74.3 16.651
23 129.33 -0.16 97.5 22.9 -74.6 16.584
24 129.03 -0.18 98.3 22.9 -75.4 18.502
25 129.19 -0.16 98.0 22.7 -75.3 16.447
26 129.29 -0.18 98.1 23.5 -74.6 18.662
27 129.29 -0.17 98.0 22.7 -75.3 17.462
28 129.36 -0.17 98.7 23.5 -75.2 17.476
29 129.18 -0.13 97.5 23.5 -74.0 13.599
30 129.31 -0.18 98.0 23.5 -74.5 18.685
AVG 129.20 -0.16 99.2 23.4 -75.76 16.554

Table 2, on the previous page, shows the data collected in the trials for the zinc

linear thermal expansion experiment. It can be seen that the water temperature varied
 Champlin Olszewski 12

throughout the trials, with the lowest at 97.5 and highest at 100.6C. The alpha

coefficient of the trials stayed mostly consistent between 13 C-1 x 10-6 and 18 C-1 x

10-6. There were a few outliers, such as trials 7 and 8, where the coefficient value was

significantly higher or lower than other trials.

 Champlin Olszewski 13
Initial Final Alpha
Initial Length L T Table 3
Trial Temp Temp Coefficient
(mm) (mm) (C) -1 -6
(C) (C) (C x 10 )
1 123.58 -0.09 97.6 23.2 -74.4 9.789
2 123.62 -0.09 97.5 23.2 -74.3 9.799
3 123.64 -0.09 97.4 23.3 -74.1 9.823
4 123.63 -0.08 97.6 23.3 -74.3 8.709
5 123.70 -0.08 97.4 23.0 -74.4 8.693
6 123.68 -0.10 98.5 23.2 -75.3 10.738
7 123.59 -0.08 98.4 23.3 -75.1 8.619
8 123.47 -0.07 98.0 23.3 -74.7 7.590
9 123.62 -0.09 98.3 23.3 -75 9.707
10 123.66 -0.10 98.1 23.2 -74.9 10.797
11 123.59 -0.10 98.2 23.3 -74.9 10.803
12 123.66 -0.10 98.2 22.8 -75.4 10.725
13 123.67 -0.08 98.6 23.2 -75.4 8.579
14 123.67 -0.09 98.9 23.0 -75.9 9.588
15 123.68 -0.09 97.5 23.0 -74.5 9.768
16 123.38 -0.10 98.1 23.2 -74.9 10.821
17 123.57 -0.09 98.4 23.0 -75.4 9.660
18 123.68 -0.08 98.6 23.1 -75.5 8.567
19 123.68 -0.09 97.6 23.1 -74.5 9.768
20 123.62 -0.09 98.0 22.7 -75.3 9.668
21 123.67 -0.08 98.6 22.8 -75.8 8.534
22 123.66 -0.10 98.2 22.7 -75.5 10.711
23 123.54 -0.08 98.5 23.0 -75.5 8.577
24 123.66 -0.09 98.0 23.0 -75 9.704
25 123.42 -0.08 99.1 23.0 -76.1 8.518
26 123.61 -0.09 98.8 23.0 -75.8 9.605
27 123.60 -0.09 98.3 22.8 -75.5 9.644
28 123.67 -0.08 98.5 22.9 -75.6 8.557
29 123.40 -0.09 97.7 22.9 -74.8 9.750
30 123.67 -0.07 98.4 22.8 -75.6 7.487
AVG 123.61 -0.09 98.2 23.1 -75.1 9.443
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Data
Table 3, on the previous page, shows the data collected for the unknown linear

thermal expansion experiment. Similar to the zinc experiment, the temperature of the

water varied. The temperatures ranged from a low of 97.4 to 99.1C. The alpha
 Champlin Olszewski 14

coefficient for the unknown metal stayed more consistent than the coefficients for the

zinc trials, with no major outliers.

Table 4
Zinc Linear Thermal Expansion Observations
Trial Rod Jig Observations
1 B 2 Had to redo, the jig was not turned on
Jig measurement altered between
2 B 2
16.00 and 16.01
3 A 1 Good transfer from water to jig
Timer started 1-2 seconds after the
4 B 1
metal was put in the water
Final jig measurement was not
5 A 1
consistent at the end
6 B 2 Good transfer from water to jig
7 A 2 Trial did not have any major errors
Water in pan is low, refilled after trial
8 B 1 coefficient is very high compared to
other trials
Timer started 1-2 seconds after the
9 B 2
metal was put in the water
Trial went smoothly without major
10 A 1
errors
11 A 2 Switched tongs
Rod got stuck in the pan and dropped
12 B 2
slipped in the tongs onto the jig
Metal rolled onto the side of the jig
13 A 2
before going into the groove
Metal rolled onto the table before it
14 A 1
was put into the jig
15 B 1 Water refilled before trial
16 B 2 Metal looks like it is curved a little bit
17 A 2 Trial went smoothly without errors
Trial Rod Jig Observations
18 A 1 Metal dropped onto the table

19 B 1 Water was warmer than other trials

 Champlin Olszewski 15

Timer started 1-2 seconds after the

20 B 1
metal was put in the water
First trial of day two water cooled off
21 B 1
during the trial---trial redone
Turned trays to a different position on
the hot plate---trial redone water
22 A 2
cooled off while metal was in the pan,
took longer to heat up
Initial length is the same as the
23 A 2 previous trial water cooled when
metal was in the pan
24 B 1 Refilled water before trial
25 B 1 Metal rolled onto table during transfer
26 A 1 Room temperature was higher
Trial went smoothly without major
27 A 2
errors
28 A 2 Good transfer from water to jig
29 B 2 Lower temperature than other trials
30 A 1 Water temperature was lower

Table 4 shows the observations made during the zinc linear thermal expansion

experiment. Two different zinc rods were used, and were labelled A and B, with each rod

used in 15 trials. It can be seen that some trials had errors, such as the rod rolling onto

the table or side of the jig before going into the jig. In other trials, the rod was in the

water for longer than the expected three minutes due to transfer errors.

Table 5
Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion Observations
Trial Rod Jig Observations
Water temperature would not get
1 C 1
above 98 degrees
2 D 2 Lower water temperature
 Champlin Olszewski 16

Same change in length as previous

3 D 2
two trials
Metal dropped off the table before the
4 C 1
trial
Top of metal out of the water for some
5 D 1
of the trial
Refilled water before trial, metal
6 D 2
slipped from tongs during transfer
7 C 2 Water temperature was higher
Metal slipped from tongs many times
8 C 1
when transferring from water to jig
9 D 2 Water has a higher temperature

10 D 2 Different tongs than day two

Metal slid a little bit onto the side of
11 C 1
the jig
Water does not have as much of a
12 C 2
raging boil as the other pan
End of metal stuck out of the water for
13 D 1
about 1 second water was hotter
14 D 1 Water is warmer than other trials
15 D 2 Metal slipped from tongs in pan
16 C 1 Trial went smoothly without errors
Water was warmer than previous
17 C 2
trials
Right side of hot plate seems to be
18 D 1
hotter than left
Water cooled while the metal was in
19 C 2
the water
20 C 1 Room temperature lowered
Water temperature was higher than
21 C 1
previous trial
Trial Rod Jig Observations
22 C 2 Water level in pan started to get low
23 D 2 Water refilled before trial
24 C 1 Good transfer from water to jig
 Champlin Olszewski 17

Water temperature was higher slow

25 D 2 transfer from water to jig- metal rolled
on jig
26 D 1 Water temperature was higher
27 C 1 Room temperature was lower
Water temperature was higher---
28 C 2 redone metal dropped onto table after
taking it out of the water
29 D 1 Room temperature lowered
30 D 2 Metal went into jig on an angle at first

Table 5 shows the observations made during the unknown metal linear thermal

expansion experiment. Similar to the zinc linear thermal expansion experiment, there

were some errors made. These errors include the metal slipping from the tongs or

rolling onto the table during the transfer from the water to the jig.
 Champlin Olszewski 18

Data Analysis and Interpretation

This experiment was conducted to compare the linear thermal expansion (LTE)

coefficients of a known metal, zinc, and an unknown metal. The data measured includes

the change in length of the metal before and after it was heated by the water measured

in millimeters (mm), the change in water temperature in degrees Celsius (C), and the

alpha coefficient for linear thermal expansion measured in C -1x10-6 millimeters (mm).

The data collected for this experiment follows the guidelines for CRR, which

stands for control, randomness, and replication. The control is the zinc metal rods

because the alpha coefficient is known. The coefficient of the unknown metal can be

compared to the coefficient of zinc. The randomized trials help to reduce bias in the

results. Last, the replication means that the trials in the experiment were repeated many

times. Table 1, below, shows the percent error values calculated for the linear thermal

expansion experiment of zinc.

Table 6
Percent Error for Zinc Linear Thermal Expansion
Alpha
Alpha Coefficient
Coefficient With
Without Percent
Trial Rod Jig Correction
Correction Factor Error
Factor
(C-1 x 10-6)
(C-1 x 10-6)

1 B 2 17.199 24.280 -18.248

2 B 2 14.907 21.864 -26.385

3 A 1 18.353 25.490 -14.175

4 B 1 15.900 22.857 -23.041

5 A 1 20.345 27.465 -7.524

Trial Rod Jig Alpha Coefficient Alpha Percent

Without Coefficient With Error
Correction Factor Correction
 Champlin Olszewski 19

Factor
(C-1 x 10-6)
(C-1 x 10-6)

6 B 2 11.022 18.037 -39.270

7 A 2 10.228 17.388 -41.454

8 B 1 37.423 44.504 49.843

9 B 2 16.220 23.317 -21.492

10 A 1 17.356 24.503 -17.500

11 A 2 14.133 21.200 -28.621

12 B 2 14.251 21.377 -28.024

13 A 2 13.131 20.201 -31.984

14 A 1 15.432 22.633 -23.795

15 B 1 16.498 23.715 -20.151

16 B 2 14.302 21.453 -27.767

17 A 2 15.251 22.369 -24.684

18 A 1 15.415 22.608 -23.878

19 B 1 13.207 20.318 -31.589

20 B 1 13.216 20.332 -31.542

21 B 1 18.773 26.074 -12.209

22 A 2 16.651 23.935 -19.410

23 A 2 16.584 23.839 -19.734

24 B 1 18.502 25.697 -13.479

25 B 1 16.447 23.643 -20.394

26 A 1 18.662 25.920 -12.727

Alpha
Alpha Coefficient
Coefficient With
Without Percent
Trial Rod Jig Correction
Correction Factor Error
Factor
(C-1 x 10-6)
(C-1 x 10-6)
 Champlin Olszewski 20

27 A 2 17.462 24.652 -16.997

28 A 2 17.476 24.671 -16.931

29 B 2 13.599 20.922 -29.556

30 A 1 18.685 25.951 -12.623

AVG N/A N/A 16.554 23.707 -20.178

Table 6, above, shows the coefficient of linear thermal expansion and the percent

error for each trial in the zinc experiment. The formula and a sample calculation for

percent error can be found in Appendix A. A correction factor of -0.07 was added to

the change in length to account for any errors made during the experiment, and to bring

the experimental data closer to that of the known value. This value is negative because

the change in length is the difference between the initial and final length, which gives a

negative value. If the correction factor was positive, it would decrease the change in

length, and therefore, decrease the alpha level. The coefficient from the trials without a

correction factor is also shown in the table. Also, it can be seen that Trial 8 has a much

higher alpha coefficient than the other trials. Therefore, it is an outlier. This higher value

may have resulted in the lower water level in the pan during the trial.

Table 7
Percent Error for Unknown Metal Linear Thermal Expansion
 Champlin Olszewski 21

Alpha
Alpha Coefficient
Coefficient With
Without Percent
Trial Rod Jig Correction
Correction Factor Error
Factor
(C-1 x 10-6)
(C-1 x 10-6)
 Champlin Olszewski 22

1 D 1 9.789 17.402 -41.407

2 C 2 9.799 17.420 -41.348

3 D 2 9.823 17.464 -41.199

4 D 1 8.709 16.330 -45.018

5 D 1 8.693 16.299 -45.123

6 D 2 10.738 18.254 -38.539

7 D 2 8.619 16.161 -45.586

8 C 1 7.590 15.179 -48.892

9 C 2 9.707 17.257 -41.895

10 D 2 10.797 18.354 -38.201

11 C 1 10.803 18.365 -38.166

12 D 2 10.725 18.233 -38.611

13 C 1 8.579 16.086 -45.837

14 D 1 9.588 17.046 -42.607

15 C 2 9.768 17.365 -41.533

16 C 1 10.821 18.396 -38.061

17 C 2 9.660 17.173 -42.180

18 D 1 8.567 16.064 -45.914

Alpha
Alpha Coefficient
Coefficient With
Without Percent
Trial Rod Jig Correction
Correction Factor Error
Factor
(C-1 x 10-6)
(C-1 x 10-6)

19 C 2 9.768 17.365 -41.533

20 C 1 9.668 17.188 -42.126

21 C 1 8.534 16.001 -46.123

22 D 2 10.711 18.208 -38.692

 Champlin Olszewski 23

23 C 2 8.577 16.082 -45.852

24 D 1 9.704 17.252 -41.914

25 C 2 8.518 15.971 -46.227

26 D 1 9.605 17.076 -42.504

27 C 1 9.644 17.146 -42.270

28 D 2 8.557 16.044 -45.981

29 C 1 9.750 17.334 -41.636

30 D 2 7.487 14.974 -49.582

AVG N/A N/A 9.443 16.983 -42.819

Table 7, above, shows the coefficient for linear thermal expansion and the

percent error for each trial in the unknown metal experiment. The formula and a sample

calculation for percent error can be found in Appendix A. Again, a correction factor of

-0.07 was added to the change in length to account for any errors made during the

experiment, and to make the experimental data closer to that of the known value. The

coefficient from the trials without a correction factor is also shown in the table.

To analyze the data found in the linear thermal expansion experiments for both

zinc and the unknown metal, a series of graphs were created. Figures 3 and 4, below,

show normal probability plots, which were used to determine the normality of the data

and find any outliers or skewness. Figures 3 and 4, below, show box plots used to

display the distribution of data in both the linear thermal expansion experiments of zinc

and the unknown metal. Because thirty trials were run for both experiments, the data

should be normal.
 Champlin Olszewski 24

Figure 3. Normal Probability Plot for Zinc LTE Coefficient

Figure 3, above, shows the normal probability plot for the linear thermal

expansion coefficient of zinc. Though the data itself forms a fairly linear line, it does not

line up exactly with the line on the probability plot. This is because of the outlier, which

skews the data.

Figure 4. Normal Probability Plot for Zinc LTE Coefficient without Outlier

Figure 4, above, shows the normal probability plot for the linear thermal

expansion of zinc without the outlier. The outlier was removed to decrease the

skewness of the data. This made the data much more normal and closer to the line on

the normal probability plot.

 Champlin Olszewski 25

Figure 5. Normal Probability Plot for Unknown Metal LTE Coefficient

Figure 5, above, shows the normal probability plot for the linear thermal

expansion coefficient of the unknown metal. It can be seen that the data points seem to

form groups along the line on the plot. This is because the data is not evenly spread

between values.

Figure 6. Box Plots for Known and Unknown LTE Coefficients

Figure 6, above, shows the box plots for both the known, blue, and unknown,

orange, LTE coefficients. The true value of 29.7C -1 x 10-6 is shown on the graph, and it
 Champlin Olszewski 26

can be seen that both plots are below the line, meaning that the experimental values

were below the true value for the LTE coefficient of zinc. For the zinc box plot, the data

displayed is fairly normal, with the mean value being very close to the median value and

the data being distributed fairly evenly. One outlier, which was Trial 8, is not plotted,

which reduces skewness of the plot. The standard deviation, or the average distribution

of the data points, is approximately 2.4273. The range of the box plot is 10.0770. For

the unknown box plot, the data displayed is normal, with the mean value being very

close to the median value. The box plot is somewhat left skewed, meaning that there

are more data points with lower alpha coefficients. The standard deviation of the data is

approximately 0.9457, and the range is 3.4220.

It can be seen in Figure 6 that the box plot for the unknown coefficient is below

the plot for the zinc coefficient. This is because the values collected from the unknown

trials were lower than the values for the zinc. These plots can be used to help determine

whether or not the unknown metal is in fact zinc. Because the box plot for the unknown

metal is below the plot for zinc, evidence is given to prove that the metals are not the

same.

Before running a two-sample t-test, there are conditions that must be met. First, a

simple random sample, SRS, was needed for the trials. All trials were randomized as to

which rod and jig were used, and the zinc metal acted as the controlled variable.

Second, the number of trials for each sample needed to be greater than or equal to

thirty when the trials for each rod were combined. For both the linear thermal expansion

experiments for zinc and the unknown metal, thirty trials were ran and the data was all

fairly normal. Third, the total population must be at least ten times the sample size, and
 Champlin Olszewski 27

it can be assumed that the populations of zinc and unknown metals are both greater

than three hundred. The population consists of the zinc and unknown metals in the

world. Because these conditions were met, and in accordance to the Central Limit

Theorem, a two sample t-test can be ran. A two sample t-test is most appropriate in this

case, because two means from two separate populations are being compared to

determine whether or not they are equal. Below are the hypotheses tested and the

results of the two sample t-test.

H 0 : 1=2

H a : 1 2

Figure 7. Null and Alternative Hypotheses

Figure 7, on the previous page, shows the null and alternative hypotheses that

were tested in the two sample t-test. The null hypothesis states that the mean linear

thermal expansion coefficients of zinc and the unknown metal are the same, while the

alternative hypothesis states that the two means are not equal. If the two means are

equal, then the unknown metal will be determined as zinc, but if the means are not

equal, then it will be determined that the unknown metal is not zinc.
 Champlin Olszewski 28

Figure 8. Results of the Two Sample t-Test

Figure 8, above, shows the results of the two sample t-Test. The formula used to

run a two sample t-test and a sample calculation can be found in Appendix A. The p-

value is the probability, assuming that H0 is true, that the test statistic would be as

extreme or more as that of the experiment by chance alone. Because the p-value for the

statistical test is so small, it can be concluded that it is very unlikely to get results this

extreme if the experiment was run again. A sample calculation of the two-sample t-test

is shown in Appendix A.

Based on the results of the two sample t-test, the null hypothesis was rejected. If

the null hypothesis had been true, meaning that the two sample means were equal to

each other, this information could be used to lead to the conclusion that the unknown

metal is not zinc. The p-value of 6.65x10-9 is much smaller than the alpha level of 0.1,

further rejecting the claims made by the null hypothesis. Assuming that the null

hypothesis is true, there would be an almost zero percent chance of the two means

being equal. Because the null hypothesis was rejected and there is a large difference in

the coefficients, which can be seen in the box plots, the conclusion that the unknown

metal is not zinc can be supported.

 Champlin Olszewski 29

Conclusion

The purpose of the experiment was to use linear thermal expansion (LTE) to

determine whether an unknown metal was the same as a known metal, zinc. It was

hypothesized that the unidentified metal would be identified as zinc if the coefficient of

LTE of the unknown metal is within a percent error of 2.525% and within an alpha level

0.1. It was determined that the unknown metal had a mean percent error of -42.819%.

The mean alpha coefficient of linear thermal expansion of the zinc metal was 23.707C -1

x 10-6, whereas the mean alpha coefficient of the unknown metal was 16.983C -1 x 10-6.

With this information, the hypothesis could be accepted, meaning that because the

unknown metal had a percent error far from 2.525% and an alpha coefficient much

lower than that of zinc, it is not zinc.

The hypothesis was supported by the data in the fact that the mean alpha

coefficients for zinc and the unknown metals had a distinct difference, the coefficient of

zinc being 23.707C-1 x 10-6, and the coefficient of the unknown metal being 16.983C -1 x

10-6. Every metal has a specific alpha coefficient for linear thermal expansion. Metals

with similar properties have coefficients that are closer in range than metals with

different properties, making this large difference in the coefficients significant. The

difference supports that the metals do not have many similar properties, which further

supports the conclusion that the metals are not the same. The results from a two-

sample t-test were also used to determine whether or not the metals were both zinc.

The statistical test resulted in a p-value of 6.65 x 10 -9, which is much smaller than the

alpha level of 0.1. This rejected the null hypothesis stating that the two metals were the
 Champlin Olszewski 30

same. Using the results from the trials and statistical test, it was concluded that the

unknown metal was not zinc.

There were many factors that contributed to the results of the experiment, one

being the experimental design. The high water temperature allowed an increase in the

kinetic energy of the zinc molecules, causing the electrons to move further from the

nucleus. This increase in the atomic radius causes an increase the length of the metal.

A higher water temperature, or more time for the metal to boil, would have increased

linear thermal expansion. This larger change in length would have an effect on the

alpha coefficient, making it larger and closer to the true value. A second factor was the

distance the metal had to travel from the boiling water in the loaf pan to the digital dial

indicator used to measure the change in length. When the distance between the two

was fairly large, accounting for more room for transfer errors and more time for the

metal to cool before being placed in the indicator, the alpha coefficient strayed far from

that of the other trials, resulting in outliers.

While doing this experiment, errors were made that could have been improved to

better the results of the trials. One error that had a larger effect on the results was the

transfer time of the metal rods. The time between when the metal was taken out of the

boiling water and placed into the thermal expansion jig was when the metal rod

changed in length the most, in response to the dramatic change in temperature.

However, the change in length during these few seconds was not recorded because the

metal rod was not yet in the jig to be measured. This could be improved by shortening

the distance between the hot plate with the boiling water and the jig. In addition, using

the same pair of tongs in each trail would ensure accuracy and prevent the metal from
 Champlin Olszewski 31

slipping during transfer. Improving the length of time it took to transfer the metal to the

jig and the tongs used would have a large effect on the change in length that is

measured, which would improve the results of the trials. The effect of the transfer time

can be seen in zinc trials such as 10 and 13 in Tables 2 and 6 and in unknown trials 16

and 25 in Tables 3 and 7. In trials 10 and 25, the transfer time was longer because of

errors such as the metal slipping during transfer, and made the coefficient lower. In

trials 6 and 13, the transfer time was shorter, which made the coefficient higher.

In past experiments done on the linear thermal expansion of metals, the design

was similar to the one done in this experiment, aside from a few differences in the

setup. Other experiments used steam to heat up the metal rod, whereas in this

experiment, boiling water was used. In addition, the metal rods were manually

transferred from the water to the digital dial indicator. However, in other experiments

steam traveled through a rubber tube to the metal rod that rested in a closed system.

The closed system kept heat from being lost, and steam traveling directly to the metal

eliminated the possibility errors in the transfer process, such as dropping the rod while

taking it out of the water. These differences in the experimental designs may have

contributed to differences in the results.

In this experiment, the coefficient of linear thermal expansion was used to identify

an unknown metal and compare it to a known metal, but using linear thermal expansion

is not the only way to this. The specific heat of both metals could have been

determined by calorimetry and compared to one another. Other experiments that could

be conducted to compare and unknown metal to a known include measuring the

 Champlin Olszewski 32

densities of both metals, determining the heat capacity of the unknown metal, and

measuring the reactivity of the metals to water, steam, acids, and so on.

Knowing how different metals react to temperature change is important for

industries such as construction and engineering, making this research on linear thermal

expansion practical for uses outside of the lab. Bridges and walkways need to be built

with expansion joints accounting for changes in length due to an increase in

temperature. Engineering industries consider this when selecting materials to build

bridges with, making sure to select metals with low alpha coefficients and that will not

expand too much in response to a rise in temperature. It is also important for these

industries to take into account the linear thermal expansion coefficients of metals they

build with, so that they can allow for the right amount of space needed in the expansion

joints for that specific metal.

Application

One of the many uses for zinc is in zinc-carbon batteries. It is used as a

protective sleeve on the outside of the battery and also acts as an anode. An anode is

the part of the battery where electrical current flows in from the outside. Zinc is ideal for

a protective coating because it is an anti-corrosion agent. Batteries are useful in

everyday life because many household products, such as clocks, flashlights, and

television remotes. Zinc- carbon batteries have a long shelf life and are cheap, which
 Champlin Olszewski 33

means that many batteries can be bought and stored at one time. The shelf life is

approximately six to eight years and the cost ranges from one to two dollars for a

package of two batteries. These qualities make zinc-carbon batteries a popular choice

for household use.

Zinc
Sleeve

Zinc
Sleeve
Figure 9. Zinc-Carbon Battery

Figure 9, above, shows a model of a battery made with Solid Works along with

the drawing for this part. The model is made completely from zinc, whereas in the real

world, only a metal sleeve would be made from zinc. The mass of an average zinc-

carbon battery is 67 grams and the dimensions are 55 millimeters in length and 26.2

millimeters in diameter. The cost of pure zinc is $5.30 per 100 grams, so if the battery

was made completely of zinc the cost would be approximately $3.50.

 Champlin Olszewski 34

Appendix A: Formulas and Sample Calculations

To analyze the data the following equation was used where the change in length,

L, equals the linear expansion coefficient for that material, , multiplied by the original

length, Lo, multiplied by the change in temperature, T.

L = LoT

Shown in Figure 10, below, is a sample calculation using the equation to solve for the

alpha coefficient of zinc.

 Champlin Olszewski 35

L
=
L 0 T

0.240
=
129.21 76.5

=24.280 C1 106

Figure 10. Linear Thermal Expansion Equation

To compare the alpha coefficient for linear thermal expansion found in the

experiment to a known value, the following equation was used.

Experimental ValueTrue Value

Percent Error= 100
True Value

Shown in Figure 11, below, is a sample calculation using the equation to find the

percent error in a trial for the linear thermal expansion of zinc.

Experimental ValueTrue Value

Percent Error= 100
True Value

24.28029.7
Percent Error= 100
29.7

Percent Error=18.248

Figure 11. Percent Error Equation

To compare the means of the alpha coefficients for the zinc and the unknown

metal, and to determine whether or not they are the same metal, a two sample t-test

was used. The following equation was used to run the two sample t-test where xx 1 equals

the mean of the alpha coefficients in the zinc experiment, xx 2 equals the mean of the

alpha coefficients in the unknown experiment, s1 equals the standard deviation for the
 Champlin Olszewski 36

alpha coefficients in the zinc experiment, s2 equals the standard deviation for the alpha

coefficients in the unknown metal experiment, and n1 and n2 equal the total number of

trials in each experiment.

xx 1xx 2
t=

s 1 2 s 22
+
n 1 n2

Shown in Figure 12, below, is a sample calculation used in running the two sample t-test

to compare the mean values for the alpha coefficients in each experiment.

xx 1xx 2
t=

s 1 2 s 22
+
n 1 n2

23.707216.983
t=

4.5952 0.9462
30
+
30

t=7.850

Figure 12. Two Sample t-Test

Appendix B: Randomization

In order to reduce bias in the results of the experiment, randomization of the trials

and jigs used is necessary. There are many ways to randomize the trials and jigs, and

for this experiment, the randomization function on the TI-Nspire CX calculator

 Champlin Olszewski 37

spreadsheet was used. Shown in Figure 13, below, is an example of the randomization

function used in a spreadsheet. For this experiment, the numbers 1 and 2 meant rods A

and B, respectively, and also meant jigs 10 and 11, respectively. Note that the order

shown in Figure 13 is not the order that was used in the trials.

Figure 13. Sample Randomization of Rods and Trials

Works Cited

ECPlaza. Bridge Expansion Joint. Digital image. Thermal Expansion. N.p., n.d. Web. 20

May 2016. <http://ffden-

2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/212_spring_2015/Lindsey_Kromrey/Lindsey_Kromrey/Sli

de4.html.html>.
 Champlin Olszewski 38

Expansion Joint on a Bridge. Digital image. Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_joint>.

"Experiment 8 Thermal Expansion Coefficient of Linear Expansion."Pstcc.edu.

N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.<http://www.pstcc.edu/department

s/natural_behavioral _sciences/Web%20Physics/Experiment%2008-1320.htm>.

Licudine, Kylie Anne. "Coefficient of Linear Expansion." Lab Report. N.p., 2013.

Web. 8 Apr. 2016. <http://www.academia.edu/8236887/Lab_report>.

"Linear Thermal Expansion." Linear Thermal Expansion. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansion-d_1379.html>.

Ms Amperios - Qu Es ACCR Y Cmo Funciona? Digital image. ACCR Pagina

Inicial. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

<http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/es_BO/EMD_ACCR_LA/Home/ProductB

enefits/MoreAmps/>.

Random Motion Is the Physical Basis for Internal Energy. Digital image. 2.1 First Law of

Thermodynamics. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

<http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node15.html>.

Senese, Fred. "What Are Extensive and Intensive Properties?" General

Chemistry Online: FAQ: Matter:. N.p., 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/matter/faq/extensive-

intensive.shtml>.

"Temperature and Thermal Expansion." Temperature and Thermal Expansion. N.p., n.d.

Web. 10 Apr. 2016. <http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Temperature.html>.

 Champlin Olszewski 39

"The Kinetic Molecular Theory." The Kinetic Molecular Theory. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr.

2016. <http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/

ch4/kinetic4.html>.

"Thermal Expansion." - The Physics Hypertextbook. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

<http://physics.info/expansion/>.

"Thermal Expansion." Science of Everyday Things. 2002, "Expansion, Thermal." UXL

Encyclopedia of Science. 2002, and "Thermal Expansion." UXL Encyclopedia of

Science. 2002. "Thermal Expansion."Encyclopedia.com. HighBeam Research,

01 Jan. 2002. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Thermal_Expansion.aspx>.

Ways to Open a Difficult Jar. Digital image. WikiHow. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

<http://www.wikihow.com/Open-a-Difficult-Jar>.

"ZINC." ZINC. National Center for Biotechnology Information, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

<https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/zinc#section=Top>.