You are on page 1of 42

Identifying Metals Using Linear Thermal Expansion

Andrew Demmon, Aaron Marcus, Griffin Yakey

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Chemistry

Section 10B

Jamie Hilliard, Mark Supal, Christine Dewey

24 May 2016

Table of Contents

Introduction.3

Review of Literature..5
Problem Statement...8

Experimental Design.9

Data and Observations12

Data Analysis and Interpretation16

Conclusion.28

Application.33

Acknowledgements..35

Appendix....36

Works Cited...42

Introduction

The most abundant metal in the Earths crust has been used since the late 1700s,

although there was never an efficient way to extract it until nearly 50 years later. Before its

efficient extraction, aluminum was a luxury item and very expensive.During that time,
aluminum was used for ornaments and luxury items when it was originally processed, but

today it can be found everywhere, is relatively inexpensive, and is easy to obtain (Gagnon).

A small issue with aluminum, and all other metals, is the effect on the molecules when heat

is applied. This phenomenon is called linear thermal expansion, or LTE. Linear thermal

expansion is the idea that a certain amount of heat applied to a metal will cause the

molecules inside to move faster and farther apart, which in turn, makes the metal expand.

Linear thermal expansion is predominantly used and tested for the security of

buildings. Because the metals inside of the buildings expand when heated up, the sudden

change in size could drastically affect a building during a hot summers day or cold winters

eve due to the effect the temperature has on metals. Heat would increase the size of the

metal while the loss of heat would cause the molecules to decrease in movement and

move closer together. These variables have to be accounted for or an entire building may

suffer. Not only does linear thermal expansion affect construction and architecture, but in

the scientific world it can be used to identify metals and alloys, which was the main purpose

of this experiment.

The purpose of the experiment was to investigate whether or not an unknown metal

is the same as the known metal, aluminum, by calculating the linear thermal expansion

coefficients for both samples of metals and comparing results. This objective was attained

mainly through the calculated alpha coefficients. This is useful for comparison, as each

element has a unique thermal expansion coefficient. By placing each rod into boiling water
and then taking it out and measuring the change, while recording results in the process, a

conclusion was drawn as to whether or not the two metals were the same. Some factors

the led to the conclusion were statistical tests, percent errors, and physical characteristics

of the aluminum and unknown rods.

Review of Literature

The purpose of this research experiment was to investigate the linear thermal

coefficient of two samples of metals, and to determine if those two samples were the same

element. One of the two metals were given and found to be aluminum while the other metal

was unknown and had to be analyzed in correlation to the given aluminum rods. The

researchers used the intensive property of linear thermal expansion to accomplish this.

Excess heat causes the atoms that make up metals to vibrate more intensely, thus

causing the material to have an increase in separation between molecules, which is the
reason the metal would expand and become larger (Clemson.edu). The reason for the

expansion of the rods can be attributed to Kinetic Molecular Theory. Kinetic Molecular

Theory states that the atoms in any matter are constantly moving at random while at any

temperature above -273 (Purdue.edu). In solid matter, the atoms stay in a general place

and vibrate, keeping the object a solid; in a liquid, the atoms move a bit faster and a bit

more random, giving liquids the ability to fit to their containers; in a gas, the particles move

totally randomly and fill any space. Also important to the contribution, Charless Law states

that as the volume of a gas has a direct relationship with its temperature: as the

temperature increases, the volume of the gas increases, and vice versa. This can also be

applied to solid matter, along with gasses (iun.edu). There is an interwoven relationship

between Kinetic Molecular Theory and Charless Law, and it can be applied to solid matter.

In solids, the molecules vibrate in place, keeping the volume consistent. As the water

heated the metal during the experiment, the particles started vibrating faster and faster due

to the increase in kinetic energy, and due to Charless Law, the temperature increased the

volume of the metal, triggering the expansion.

Aluminium is a transition metal with an atomic number of 13 and an atomic weight of

26.98 g/mol. It is an incredibly malleable and ductile element with a silver color (Properties

of Aluminum). There is an equation to solve for the change in object length while testing

linear thermal expansion. A previous experiment is an MMSTC paper comparing aluminum

to an unknown element, and the main purpose of the use of this source was to attempt to
predetermine possible flaws and issues having to do with the research at hand (Balon,

Jaigirdar, Comparing a Known Sample of Aluminum to an Unknown Metal) . What the

previous researchers found was that their percent errors were way higher than expected,

perhaps a problem the current researchers had.

Table 1
Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficients

Table 1, above, gives the values used for the coefficients of linear thermal expansion

of aluminum as well as the two elements on either side, magnesium (left) and silicon (right)

("Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion."). These values were used in order to calculate

the percent error of calculations. The purpose of the percent error is to have the ability to

identify the range at which calculated values are in comparison to the LTE coefficient of

aluminum. This percentage error was calculated to be approximately 3.15%.


Problem Statement, Hypothesis, Data Collected

Problem Statement:

To determine whether or not an unknown metal was the same as a given aluminum

metal by measuring the intensive property of linear thermal expansion.

Hypothesis:

If the linear thermal expansion coefficients of both metals were the same at a 3.15%

margin of error and an alpha level of 0.1, the metals were the same.

Data Collected:

The initial length (LI) of both samples of metal was taken by using a caliper in mm.

Then, water was boiled and the temperature (TI) was measured by using a thermometer in

degrees celsius. After the water had reached boiling temperature, the sample was placed

into the water and left for a certain amount of time. It should be noted that the temperature

of the metal was assumed to be the temperature of the water after the certain amount of

time. The metal was then placed into the jig and allowed to come to equilibrium with room
temperature (TO), and the final length (LO) and change in length (L) was measured in mm.

The alpha coefficient was then calculated (see appendix A). This was then repeated 30

times with each sample, and the results for each are compared.

Experimental Design

Materials:

(2) Known rods (Aluminum) Tongs


(2) Unknown metal rod LTE jig (0.001 mm precision)
Hot plate Caliper (0.01 mm precision)
Thermometer (0.01 precision) Loaf pan
Ti nspire calculator Hot mitt
Timer/stopwatch

Procedures:

1. Randomize trials (see Appendix B).


2. Turn on hot plate and wait until it has heated up.
3. Fill loaf pan approximately 50% full of water. Place on the hot plate and wait until it heats up
to 90 - 100C. (If the water runs low during trials, refill the loaf pan and wait for the water to
heat up).

4. Measure and record the length of the rod using the caliper. Record this as the initial length
of the rod. Record the temperature of the room as initial temperature.

5. Place the rod in the boiling water for 1 minute, and after 30 seconds, place the
thermometer into the water and record the temperature of the water as final
temperature(this is assumed to be the temperature of the metal before it is taken out).

6. Ten seconds before taking the rod out, place the jaws of the tongs in the boiling water to
absorb heat which allows for less heat loss during the transfer of the rod from the loaf pan
to the jig.
7. Once the minute is up, take out the rod and place in the jig, use hot mitt if necessary
(NOTE: be quick, for the second the rod is removed, it will start shrinking). Record this
measurement as the final jig length.

8. After roughly 5 minutes record the length of the rod as the initial jig length (five minutes is a
reasonable time for the length of the rod to stop changing).

9. Keep an eye on the percent error for the known metal, if the percent error is outside the
allowed range, a retrial must take place.

10. Repeat steps 4-8 with each rod per randomized order.

Diagrams:

Figure 1. Materials.

Figure 1, above, shows most of the materials used in this research experiment. First,

the hot plate was heated and left while the loaf pan was filled, then a rod was measured
with the caliper and placed into the boiling water. The water temperature was taken with the

thermometer, and then the metal was then taken out of the water with the tongs and quickly

placed in the jig, with the hot mitt under to prevent any metal drops. The initial jig and final

jig measurements were measured and the metal was taken out of the jig. Not pictured here

were the graduated cylinders used to refill the loaf pan, the timer for timing the amount of

time left in the water or in the jig, and the Ti Nspire calculator whose randomize function

helped to randomize the trials.

Data and Observations


Table 2
Data From Known Aluminium Rods for Thirty Trials

Table 2, above, shows all of the data from the thirty trials done with aluminium rods

collected during the experiment. The alpha coefficients are relatively close together with

little to no variation between trials.


Table 3
Observations Gathered During Aluminium Trials

Table 3, above, shows observations for each aluminum rod trial during the

experiment. All trials on day one (trials 1-10) were redone due to high percent errors and

poor execution during transfers. The second time around, much better measurements were

obtained. Another observation for nearly each trial was that the temperature on the
thermometer would fluctuate even though they were steadily held, so the final temp had to

be estimated.

Table 4
Data Gathered from Unknown Rods for Thirty Trials
Table 4, above, shows the collected data from all thirty trials of the unknown metal

rods. The alpha coefficients have more variation than the aluminum, which lead the

researchers to believe that the two metals may not be the same element, although still

unsure.

Table 5
Observations for the Unknown Metal Rods
Table 5, above, shows the observations made for each trial of the unknown metal

rods. Just like with the aluminum rods, trials from day one (1-10) were redone to keep

consistent. Although the researchers could not tell whether or not the readings were

accurate because the metals were unknown, they thought that if the aluminum trials were

done incorrectly, then so were the unknown trials on that day. The temperature reading on

the thermometer often fluctuated as mentioned in Figure 2, so the final temperature

readings may not have been as accurate as the researchers had hoped.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The purpose of the experiment was to identify whether or not a metal was the same

as the known metal, aluminum, based on comparing thermal expansion coefficients. The

coefficient was calculated during the course of running the experiment and tested against

aluminums known coefficient value. Each metal has a unique thermal expansion

coefficient, so there is no possible way the two metals can have the same thermal

expansion coefficient unless the metals themselves are the same. The thermal expansion

coefficients for the known and unknown are compared in several ways and a decision is

made as to whether or not the metals are the same. When measuring both the known and

unknown metal the length changes were measured in millimeters. All temperatures were

measured in degrees celsius.

To check if the data is reliable and valid, there are three concepts that could be

used. The first is control, which is used to compare to the group being experimented on.

The control group was the aluminum rods. The coefficients of those are being compared to
the coefficients of the unknown metal to see if they are the same or not. Randomness is

another concept. Trials must be randomized in order to keep an unbiased experiment. To

make sure the data was not swayed in any direction, a Ti-Nspire CX calculator was used

with the random integer function. This process was done for both the aluminum and

unknown metal rods. The last concept is repetition. The experiment needed to be repeated

for multiple trials in order to obtain or notice any consistencies. There were 30 trials done

for both the aluminum and the unknown to make sure the values stayed consistent.

To check the validity of the data collected, the percent error was calculated. This

percent error was used for a few reasons. First, it was to make sure the aluminum rods

were not getting inaccurate alpha coefficients and it was a frame of reference on the

accuracy of collected data. For example, if there was a 75% error on an aluminum trial, it is

obvious something went wrong along the way and the trial needed to be redone. Because

the unknown metal has an unidentified exact alpha coefficient, the percent error for that

metal was used as a factor in the support of whether or not the two metals were the same.
Table 6
Percent Errors of the Aluminum Alpha Coefficients.

Table 6, above, represents the percent errors over all 30 trials of the aluminum rods

on LTE (for formula, see appendix A). When considering percent errors, it does not matter

whether or not the value is positive or negative, the symbol in from simply means which
direction the calculated alpha coefficient was in relation to the aluminum coefficient. It can

be seen how the percent errors remain consistent, although there is slight variation. The

overall percentage range was approximately 15.69% which means that there was some

variance even though the average was -2.59%. This average percent error means that the

aluminum rod trials were executed correctly because the value was under the target range

of 3.15%. This target range means that if the average percent error was over that value, the

metal could be identified as an element other than aluminum because of the unique alpha

coefficient of aluminum being used in the percent error calculation of the unknown metal.
Table 7
Percent Errors of the Unknown Rod Trials.

Table 7, above, represents the percent errors for all thirty trials of the unknown

aluminum metal. The percent errors of the unknown metal rods had much more variation

than that of the aluminum rods, ranging anywhere from -27.82% to 0.35%, leading to a

percent error of about . As mentioned in table 1, if the percent error was under 3.15%, then

the metal could most likely be identified as aluminum. But, it can be seen how the average

of the percent errors was -13.62%. Because this average percentage was much higher
than the target percent, the metal could reasonably be identified as something else other

than aluminum.

Figure 2. Box Plots of Aluminum and Unknown Rod Thermal Expansion Coefficients.

Figure 2, above, presents the box plots for the data recorded during the course of

the trials. It should be noted that the data look approximately normal. The median of the

aluminum is higher than that of the unknown metal; in fact, a majority of the data is higher

than unknown. However, there is a larger spread of data in the unknown then that of the

aluminum. The aluminum Q1 is surprisingly higher than that of the Q3 of the unknown.
Based on viewing the box plots, the data seems very different and not remotely close to

each other. Looking at the box plots, it can be inferred that the two metals are not the

same.

After the researchers had collected all of the data, a statistical test was needed to be

run in order to identify whether or not the two metals were the same element. Because the

two metals were independent from each other and the standard deviation of the population

was unknown, it was believed that a two sample t-test would be used (the two metals were

independent because the results of one had no effect on the other). The purpose of a two

sample t-test is to determine whether or not the means of two individual groups have any

significant difference. Basically, it is to identify whether or not the two metals are the same.

The first assumption is whether or not the experiments were simple random

samples, or SRS. Because the trial order was randomized, the first assumption can be

proven true.

Next, there had to be a normal distribution in the results from trials. According to the

Central Limit Theorem, a collection of data with 30 or more data points can be assumed to

be normally distributed. To be certain, a normal probability plot was made for the aluminum

and unknown metal rods.


Figure 3. Normal Probability Plot of the Aluminum Trials.

Figure 3, above, shows the normal probability plot of the aluminum values. What a

normal probability plot does is acts as a visual representation of how normally distributed

the alpha coefficient values were. It can be noticed how all of the points somewhat follow

the black reference line, which means that the aluminum alpha coefficients can be

classified as fairly normally distributed.


Figure 4. Normal Probability Plot of the Aluminum Rod Trials.

Figure 4, above, shows the normal probability plot of the unknown metal rod

calculated alpha coefficients. It can be seen how this plot more accurately follows the

reference line than the aluminum rod probability plot. This means that the unknown values

are more normally distributed when compared to the aluminum rods values. Because both

could be considered fairly normally distributed, the second assumption is true.

Finally, a final assumption must be met in which the sample size of each metal rod

was greater than or equal to 30. Each metal had a total of 30 trials run on them, each rod
having 15 individually. Because of these results, it was safe to say that the third and final

assumption had been met.

In order to calculate the t-value in a two sample t-test, the sample standard

deviations (SSD) of each metal had to be found (see appendix A). An SSD is used when

the population standard deviation (SD) is unknown. This information and calculations can

be located in Appendix A. The calculation used to calculate t is found in Appendix A.

Using this formula, the value of t was calculated out to be about 5.5068, which

means that the chances of this occurring by chance alone is about 5.5 standard deviations

away from the mean, indicating that most likely the two metals are not the same. In a

normal bell curve, 68% of the data is within one standard deviations from the mean, 95% is

within two standard deviations, and 99.7% within 3 standard deviations from the mean.

Being 5.5 standard deviations from the mean means that if the two metals were known to

be the same, then there is less than a 0.001% chance of the data results to have the

outcome that they did.

H o : a=u

H a : a u

Figure 5. The Null and Alternative Hypothesis.

Figure 5, above, shows the two hypotheses when conducting a statistical test. The

null hypothesis, Ho, provides the idea that the two metals are the same element, indicated

by the equal sign. The null hypothesis is always comparing the two samples using an equal
sign. The purpose of this is to state that the sample parameter is equal to a certain value, in

this case, that the rods are made up of the same element. The alternative hypothesis, H a,

provides the idea that the two metals are not the same, as represented by the not-equal-to

sign. The null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value (the probability of reaching t standard

deviations from the mean) is lower than the alpha level of 0.1.

Figure 6. The t Distribution Bell Curve

Figure 6, above, shows the t distribution bell curve for the similarities between the

aluminum and unknown metal rod. It can be seen how there appears to be no shading on

the bell curve, but it is because the p-value is so small it is difficult to see on the graph. A p-

value of 0.00004 means that the researchers most likely do not have the same metal.
The researchers reject the null hypothesis, Ho, because the p-value of 0.00004 was

less than the alpha level of 0.10. There is evidence that on average the properties of linear

thermal expansion on aluminum did not match up with those of the unknown metal. If the

null hypothesis were true, then that would mean that there was an extremely low chance of

receiving the same outcome of the unknown metal by chance alone. Because of this very

low probability, Ho was rejected.

Conclusion

The problem investigated by the researchers was determining the identity of an

unknown metal by using the intensive property of linear thermal expansion. The conclusion

hypothesized by the researchers which that if the two metals had the same linear thermal

expansion coefficient with a margin of error of 3.15%, then the metals were the same.
Inversely, if the linear thermal expansion coefficients were different following a 3.15%

margin of error, the metals were not the same. The hypothesis was rejected based on the

results showing that the metals had much different percent errors, meaning the metals

would be different; however, it was given later that the two metals were indeed the same.

The aluminum rods were under the percent error of 3.15% at while the unknown rods

percent error averaged out to be about -13.62%, displaying that their thermal coefficients

were generally lower than that of aluminums.

The reason for the expansion of the rods and their ability to expand itself can be

attributed to Kinetic Molecular Theory. Kinetic Molecular Theory states that the atoms in

any matter are constantly moving at random while at any temperature above -273 . In

solid matter, the atoms stay in a general place and vibrate, keeping the object a solid; in a

liquid, the atoms move a bit faster and a bit more random, giving liquids the ability to fit to

their containers; in a gas, the particles move totally randomly and fill any space. Also

important to the contribution, Charless Law states that as the volume of a gas has a direct

relationship with its temperature: as the temperature increases, the volume of the gas

increases, and vice versa. This can also be applied to solid matter, along with gasses.

There is an interwoven relationship between Kinetic Molecular Theory and Charless Law,

and it can be applied to solid matter. In solids, the molecules vibrate in place, keeping the

volume consistent. As the water heated the metal during the experiment, the particles

started vibrating faster and faster due to the increase in kinetic energy, and due to

Charless Law, the temperature increased the volume of the metal, triggering the

expansion.
These findings agree with research found in the experiment titled "Heat Pipe

Experiment on ASTRO-8(ii)" (Saul Harari, Sang-Hoon Lee, Hong Wong, and Vikram

Kapila). In the experiment, heat was applied to a pipe to see if it would expand in any way.

As heat was applied, the pipe did indeed expand slightly, which correlates with the findings

of the researchers. With more heat being applied to the rod and for longer durations, the

metals would continue expanding until it would eventually melt down into a liquid.

Although there was data that showed the metals were different, there was also data

which proved the metals similarity. Initially, the researchers were set on the metals being

different based off of the two-sample t-test p-value of 0.00004. This value could have been

obtained through experimental design flaws having to do with the mass of the rods and

transfer time that will be explained later. The t-test and percent errors are really what drove

the researchers to believe the metals to be different. Of the researchers data, only the

physical characteristics and box plots (see figure 2) really showed the metals were the

same. A large factor that played into the metals being the same were the physical traits.

The physical analysis of the metals showed a similar silvery-color as well as texture and

hardness. Also, it can be seen how there is a decent overlap between the boxplots

indicating the two metals to be the same.

There were some flaws in the experiment which may have led to the

misidentification of the unknown metal by the researchers. One of the flaws was in the

experimental design, in that there was no way to perfectly transfer over the metal from the

boiling water to the LTE jig without having the rod decrease in length somehow. As soon as

the metal rods were pulled out of the water, the colder room temperature air would

immediately cause the molecules to vibrate slower and the metal then began decreasing in
size. This would have the effect of a smaller final jig length, which in turn, led to a smaller

change in length and therefore different calculated alpha coefficient. This can never be

completely avoided, but the best way to diminish the time in between would be to have the

LTE jig in use as close to the water as possible for a shorter transfer time. If the metals

could have been transferred with some other tool that could have helped to retain the heat,

or if there was some way to keep the metal hot as it was transferred, the researchers could

have acquired better results.

Another flaw in the experimental design was that the masses of the rods were

different between the aluminum and unknown rods. Although the lengths were the same,

the diameters between the different types of rods were substantially different. Because of

the small diameter of the aluminum rods, the core of the metal was able to heat up faster

and have a greater change in length when compared to the unknown metal rods which had

a larger mass and width. Because the metals were heated from the outside inward, the

larger unknown rods did not have enough time in the water to heat up their core and did not

expand as much as the thinner aluminum rods. For future research, some possible ways to

avoid this from occurring is to have known and unknown rods of the same (or similar)

mass. This would have a more equal effect on the temperatures of the rods themselves and

give more accurate results overall. Another possible solution for if other sized rods are

unobtainable would be to calculate a correction factor to compensate for the larger

diameter of whichever rod. This would also show more accurate results.

This data agrees with the other referenced research titled Comparing a Known

Sample of Aluminum to an Unknown Metal (Balon, Rachel, and Nafis, Jaigirdar) in that the

metals were indeed the same although the percent errors were abnormally large for the
unknown metal, which leads back to the experimental design and execution flaws. What

the other researchers had found was that the metals were assumed to be the same

temperature as the water around them, leading towards a possibly inaccurate alpha

coefficient calculation. This conjecture holds true to this research in that there was no way

to properly identify whether or not the metals were the same temperature of the water,

especially through to the core of the metal.

This research can be used to limitless bounds. In the ever-evolving world of science,

there is always research to be done. This research can be applied to people building things

that may have heat applied to them; for example, a car engine has constant heat flow in

and out of itself. If a metal with a low thermal expansion coefficient is used to build it, the

metal inside of the engine could expand and warp, causing problems with the engine that

could be dangerous to people operating it. In any event, there are several ways to apply the

research in this experiment to the real world, and there are several ways to expand it.

In conclusion, the hypothesis between the percent errors of the aluminum and

unknown rods was rejected . The aluminum percent errors fell into the target range of

3.15% while the unknown metal fell outside. The percent errors were not the same;

however, the metals were indeed the same due to a flawed experimental design and

execution.
Application

Aluminum has many uses in the real world, one of the uses is a can. Whether it is food or drink,

cans are used everyday by people.

Figure 8. Isometric Can View

Figure 8, above, shows an isometric view of the aluminum can. The bottom of the

can is shown, along with a partial view of its side.


Figure 9. Drawing of aluminum can

Figure 9, above, shows the drawing of the aluminum can. The drawings have their

measurements labeled. The measurements are in inches.

The product created is an aluminum can. The use of the can is to hold liquids and

may soft foods. It can be found at any local grocery store. It is made out of aluminum. Most,

if not, all cans are made of aluminum. Aluminum is used as the material for the cans

because it is very abundant in the Earths crust. Also, aluminum is easily recyclable and

since cans are used everyday by people, they are constantly being recycled. They could
then be recycled and used to make more cans, almost like a cycle. The mass of the can is .

17539978 pounds and since aluminum costs $0.701 per pound, it costs about 12 cents to

make a can.

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to acknowledge Jaime Hilliard for all the scientific

assistance and equipment provided to conduct the experiment. They would also like to

thank Mark Supal for all of his formatting help and SolidWorks assistance when making the

model for the application. Next, they would like to thank Rosemary Cybulski for help during

the statistical tests in the Data Analysis and Interpretation. Lastly, they would like to thank

Christine Dewey for her input on the Data Analysis and Interpretation and the ways to

improve it.
Appendix A. Sample Calculations.

To run a test of significance, since there was two sets of data, a two sample t-test

was used.

xx 1xx 2
t=

s 21 s 22
+
n1 n 2

XX1 = Sample Mean of Known Aluminum Rods

XX2 = Sample Mean of Unknown Metal Rods

s 21 = Sample Standard Deviation Squared of Known Aluminum Rods


2
s 2 = Sample Standard Deviation Squared of Unknown Metal Rods

n1 = Number of Trials of Known Aluminum Rods

n2 = Number of Trials of Unknown Metal Rods

2.21052.0105
t= =5.507

8.71013 5.81 012


30
+
30

Below shows the tables and equations used to calculate the sample standard

deviation, or s, for both the Aluminum and unknown.

Calculating the Sample Standard Deviation of Aluminum



( xxx )2
n1

X = Given Term

XX= Mean of Terms

n = Number of Terms

=8.73*10-13

Calculating the Sample Standard Deviation of the Unknown Metal



( xxx )2
n1

=5.79*10-12

To find a range of error for the data collected to see if it was correct or not, a percent

error was calculated. To calculate the percent error, the alpha coefficient for aluminum was

subtracted from the calculated alpha coefficient and then divided by the alpha coefficient for
aluminum. This value was then multiplied by 100 so the percentage would be easier to

read.

Calculated value
Percent error=True value 100
True value

( 2.2 E05)
Percent error=(2.3 E05) 100
( 2.3 E05)

= -3.01%
Below is the equation used to calculate the thermal expansion coefficient. The

equation can be modified to solve for it.

L = L0 (t1 - t0)

L = change in object length (m, inches)

L0 = initial length of object (m, inches)

= linear expansion coefficient (m/moC, in/inoF)

t0 = initial temperature (oC, oF)

t1 = final temperature (oC, oF)

= (0.21/71.2) / 132.22

= 2.3 * 10-5 C-1 * 10-6

Appendix B. Randomization of Trials

To randomize the trials, a function on a Ti Nspire calculator was used. Below are the

steps to randomizing.

1. Open document and select calculator page.


2. Press menu and select Probability, Random, Integer.
3. In the parentheses, type the lower bound (1), the upper bound (30), and the amount of
numbers to generate (30) and press enter.

Works Cited

"223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal Expansion." 223 Physics Lab: Linear Thermal

Expansion. Clemson University, 27 Jan. 2006. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.clemson.edu/ces/phoenix/labs/223/expansion/>.

Balon, Rachel, and Nafis, Jaigirdar. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry (2014): n. pag.

Comparing a Known Sample of Aluminum to an Unknown Metal. 2014. Web. 14 Apr.

2016. <http://rachel-balon.weebly.com/uploads/7/3/3/7/7337355/balon-

jaigirdar_final_paper.pdf>.
Chang, Raymond. Chemistry. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. Print.

"Charles Law." Charles Law. Indiana University Northwest. Web. 23 May 2016.

<http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/gases/charleslaw.html>.

"Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion." Coefficients of Linear Thermal

Expansion. The Engineering ToolBox, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html>.

"Coefficient of Thermal Expansion." Coefficient of Thermal Expansion. Web. 15 Apr.

2016. <http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/coefficient_of_thermal_expansion>.

Elert, Glenn. "Thermal Expansion." - The Physics Hypertextbook. The Physics

Hypertextbook, 2015. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. <http://physics.info/expansion/>.

Gagnon, Steve. "The Element Aluminum." The Element Aluminum. Jefferson Lab,

n.d. Web. 10 May 2016. <http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele013.html>.

"Properties of Aluminium." Aluminiumdesignnet. Aluminiumdesignnet, n.d. Web. 14

Apr. 2016. <http://www.aluminiumdesign.net/why-aluminium/properties-of-

aluminium/>.

Nave, R. "Thermal Expansion/Linear Expansion/Expansion

Concepts."Hyperphysics. Georgia State University, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thexp.html>.

http://physics.info/expansion/

Raymond, Jimmy. "Thermal Expansion Equations Calculator." AJ Design. AJ Design,

n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajdesigner.com

%2Fphpthermalexpansion

%2Fthermal_expansion_equation_linear_length_change.php>.
Saul Harari, Sang-Hoon Lee, Hong Wong, and Vikram Kapila "Heat Pipe Experiment

on ASTRO-8(ii)." Heat Transfer, Thermal Control, and Heat Pipes (1980): 378-92.

Polytechnic University, 2003. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

<http://engineering.nyu.edu/mechatronics/smart/pdf/experiments/Project2.pdf>.

"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. 14 Apr. 2016.

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

"Thermal Expansion." SpringerReference (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~msci301/ThermalExpansion.pdf>.

You might also like