Using Linear Thermal Expansion to Identify an Unknown Metal as Copper

Mia Hahn, Terasia Elias, Jaime Jacob, Callen Fields, Avery Partlow

Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center

Mrs. Kincaid Dewey, Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. May

21 May 2019
 Table of Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………….......................……. 1

Scientific Review of Literature …………………………………….…………......……... 3

Problem Statement ……………………………………………….…………...……...….. 6

Experimental Design……………………………………………..………………..…...…7

Data and Observations .……………………………..………..……………….....…….....9

Data Analysis and Interpretation .………………………………………..…………...... 16

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………...…………… 24

Appendix A: Sample Calculations………......……………….…………………....……. 28

Appendix B: Linear Thermal Expansion Jig Assembly……..………………................. 32

Works Cited …………………………………………………………….……................ 34

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 1

Introduction

Dated back as far as ten thousand years ago, copper has been used for decorative

and serviceable purposes. It was used for jewelry and tools before gold was discovered

(Copper in the USA). Today, the metal is used for more practical services such as wires,

roofing, and plumbing. All of these items can be made out of copper because it is a

durable metal that does not corrode easily, and is a good conductor of heat and electricity.

In fact, compared to other common metals, copper has the best electrical conductivity

(“Properties of Copper”). Copper has an orange-red hue to it and is malleable, which

explains how it can be made into wires. ​Other metals also have an orange-red hue, so

copper can be easily mistaken for other metals.

In the following experiment, a metal identified as copper was compared to an

unknown metal using the intensive property of linear thermal expansion, so the mass of

the metal would not affect the outcome. Linear thermal expansion is the tendency of a

metal when heated up to expand by a certain volume. To find the linear thermal

expansion coefficient, the rods were placed in boiling water for five minutes, and then

quickly placed into a jig that measured the change of length as the rods cooled. The

temperature of the water and air was taken and assumed to be the temperature of the rod

when it was boiling and cooled, respectively. These values were then calculated to find

the coefficient of linear thermal expansion for each trial.

Copper’s known coefficient of linear thermal expansion is 17 mm/°C*10​-6​.

Knowing this, a percent error was calculated comparing the copper rods and the unknown

rods to this value. The separate coefficients that were calculated were then compared
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 2

using descriptive statistics and a statistical test to determine whether or not the unknown

metal was indeed copper.

This research can be used in a practical sense as a model for determining the

identities of other unknown metals. The data can also be used to compare if a similar

experiment was conducted, as the scientists were comparing the metal’s linear coefficient

to copper.

The intensive property of linear thermal expansion is used by many engineers

when designing car engines. The coolant that goes in the radiator of the car is used to

keep the engine from overheating and thus damaging the car. This coolant expands when

heated, and the radiator must be large enough to accomodate for the expansion, so the

coolant does not overflow (“Thermal Expansion”). This is when linear thermal expansion

comes into play. Another example involves wooden doors. The wood, during an increase

in temperature, expands and starts to adhere to the door frame. This often happens in the

summertime. In the winter, the wood cools and shrinks so it is much easier to open and

close. The expanding and shrinking of the door is due to linear thermal expansion. The

developers of the doors must take the expansion into account when assembling the doors,

so they can be effective in both the winter and the summer.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 3

Scientific Review of Literature

Copper is a transition metal, and a malleable metal with an orange hue when

looked at; see Figure 1 as an example​. ​The metal is a good conductor of energy, which

means it can easily transmit energy or heat. Copper also resists erosion by different acids,

so it is often used to make wires and pipes (Clark). Linear thermal expansion (LTE) can

be used to determine whether or not an unknown metals’ identity was copper. By

calculating the length change that the metal went through after a known amount of heat

was taken away from it, the coefficient of the unknown metal’s LTE was found. From

this, the researchers verified whether or not the metal was copper (Clark).

Figure 1. Image of Copper.

Shown above is an image of copper. The orange hue is visible when looked at.

LTE is a change in size of a material based on a change in temperature. As a substance

increases in temperature, the molecules that make up the substance begin to gain thermal

energy. As stated in the First Law of Thermodynamics, this energy can then be

transformed into kinetic energy between the different molecules, as it cannot be

destroyed. The Kinetic Molecular Theory states: as these molecules gain kinetic energy,
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 4

they will begin to vibrate at a greater rate, which results in more space between the

molecules. In turn, the substance increases in size as heat is added, as seen in Figure 2.

As heat is added or removed from a substance, the substance will change in length

accordingly. LTE is an intensive property, meaning the value does not change depending

on the sample size. This makes it a reliable method for determining the identity of an

unknown metal (​Ho, C. Y., and R. E. Taylor.)​.

Figure 2. Particle Expansion

The figure above represents the arrangements of particles before and after the

heating of the metal. This difference in arrangement of particles is what was measured in

the experiment.

In the following experiment, the unknown metal was placed in boiling water until

equilibrium was reached between both. Then, the rod was taken out, and the reduction in

size was measured as it cooled. Once the average reduction in size was found, the

coefficient of LTE was calculated. Since the changes in temperature and length were

known, an equation was used to find the coefficient.

ΔL
α= L₀*ΔT
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 5

In the equation for LTE, ΔL represents the change in length. Αlpha, represents the

coefficient of LTE. L​0 represents

​ the initial length, and ΔT represents the change in

temperature. Once the trials were finished, and the coefficient for LTE was calculated, it

was compared to coppers’ coefficient of LTE, 17 mm/​ ​℃ fractional change in size. This

value means as the copper’s temperature increased by one degree, the length of the solid

copper increased by one unit. This is low compared to other substances like water, which

has a coefficient of LTE of 1.210​4​. Since water is a liquid, the coefficient of LTE is

higher because the molecules already have more energy than solid copper, so it takes less

for them to expand.

Many experiments concerning the idea of the LTE of copper have been

conducted. One experiment had tested the thermal conductivity and expansion of

copper-graphite composites (The Origin of High Thermal Conductivity and Ultralow

Thermal Expansion in Copper Graphite Composites). There was found to be an ultralow

thermal expansion of the composites in this experiment. Even though copper-graphite has

slight variance in properties from pure copper, this could assist in determining whether or

not the unknown metal was copper. This experiment expresses an understanding that

copper should not expand a significant amount, and the coefficient should be be rather

low. Another experiment tested the LTE of high-conductivity copper tough-pitch. This

experiment had found that the “different conductivities of copper had similar thermal

expansions and not much variance, which suggests that in the experiment conductivity of

the metal does not play a significant role.” (Kroeger, Fredrick Robert). This experiment

eliminates the worry of conductivity factors affecting the experiment.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 6

Problem Statement

Problem Statement​:

Using the intensive property of Linear Thermal Expansion (LTE), this experiment

will be conducted to identify an unknown metal as copper.

Hypothesis​:

It is hypothesized that the unknown metal will be identified as copper with a

percent error of 2% of its coefficient of linear thermal expansion of 17*10​9​ ​mm/m*℃​.

Data Measured​:

The independent variable was the change in temperature in degrees Celsius and

the length of the metal rods. The constants were the temperature of the water the metal

was heated in and the room temperature in degrees Celsius, and the initial length of the

unknown metal rod in millimeters. The dependent variable was the coefficient of the

thermal expansion of the metal. To analyze the data, a two-sample T test was conducted

to compare the unknown metal’s coefficient of LTE to copper’s known coefficient of

LTE and the percent error was calculated. Descriptive statistics were then used on the

results of the test to further support the statistical conclusions.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 7

Experimental Design

Materials​:
(2) Rods of Copper (129.22mm x Phillips Dial Indicator (0.01 mm
5.5mm) precision)
(2) Rods of Unknown Metal (120.47mm Hot Plate
x 12.08mm) Metal Loaf Pan (129.89 mm x 49.27 mm
Digital Thermometer (0.1℃ precision) x 60.07 mm)
TESR Caliper 00530085 (0.01 mm
100 mL​ ​Graduated Cylinder
precision)
Tong
Linear Thermal Expansion Jig

Procedures​:

Be aware of safety precautions. Wear gloves, goggles, and additional appropriate attire.

1. Using a graduated cylinder, place 200 milliliters of water into the loaf pan. Heat water
in metal loaf pan using hot plate setting of 6. Wait for the water to reach boiling point
of a range of 95-105 ℃.

2. Randomize the order of rods that will be measured.

3. Measure length of determined rod using TESR Caliper. Record.

4. Using the tongs, place the rod into the boiling water. Wait 5 minutes.

5. Assume water temperature is the same as the temperature of the center of the rod,
measure using the digital thermometer. Record as initial temperature.

6. Using tongs, take the rod out of the water and quickly put into the slot on the linear
thermal expansion (LTE) jig, the assembly can be found in Appendix B. Record
measurement shown on dial indicator.

7. Wait 5 minutes as the rod cools to room temperature. Assume the center of the rod is
the same temperature as the room. Record the room temperature as the final
temperature.

8. Record final dial reading as determined by the LTE jig.

9. Repeat steps 2-8 for both the unknown metal rod and copper rod for 15 trials each.
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 8

Diagrams​:
In this section the diagrams of the jig, the loaf pan, and the caliper are included
and displays how each material was used.

Figure 3. Materials

In the image above, the materials are shown. The two metal rods can be seen side

by side. The thicker rods are the unidentified metal. The linear thermal expansion jig is

displayed in addition to the digital indicator. Once the metal rod was taken out of the hot

water, it was placed into the jig. The change in length was recorded by the digital

indicator to one decimal place accuracy. The loaf pan was used to boil in before its’

linear thermal expansion properties were measured. By bringing the metal to a

temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, the researchers were able to record the LTE as the

metal rod cooled.

Elias-Hahn-Jacob 9
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 10

Data and Observations

Data​:

Throughout the span of three days, 60 different trials were performed. For the

known metal rods, copper, 30 trials were conducted and 30 more were conducted for the

unknown metal rods. This was done so later, when the results were interpreted, the law of

large numbers would be applied and the sampling distribution would be normal.

Table 1
Experimental Data for Copper
Change in Alpha
Rod Length Initial Final
Trial Length Coefficient
(mm) Temp (ºC) Temp (ºC)
(mm) (mm/°Cx10​-6​)

1 129.43 0.13 96.8 25.2 14.028

2 129.11 0.14 98.4 25.1 14.793

3 129.44 0.13 96.8 25.6 14.106

4 129.19 0.12 97.1 24.7 12.830

5 129.46 0.12 96.6 23.8 12.733

6 129.00 0.12 96.6 24.1 12.831

7 129.46 0.13 97.1 25.4 14.005

8 129.17 0.13 97.0 28.2 14.628

9 129.45 0.12 97.2 27.6 13.319

10 129.12 0.12 97.2 25.2 12.908

11 129.12 0.14 98.3 25.8 14.955

12 129.44 0.13 97.8 25.6 13.910

13 129.47 0.14 97.7 26.6 15.209

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 11

Change in Alpha
Rod Length Initial Final
Trial Length Coefficient
(mm) Temp (ºC) Temp (ºC)
(mm) (mm/°Cx10​-6​)

14 129.09 0.14 97.6 25.8 15.105

15 129.37 0.13 97.5 25.9 14.034

16 129.12 0.13 98.5 23.5 13.424

17 129.34 0.13 98.8 23.1 13.277

18 129.20 0.13 98.6 23.6 13.416

19 129.42 0.12 98.7 23.6 12.346

20 129.12 0.12 98.4 23.6 12.425

21 129.35 0.13 97.2 25.0 13.920

22 129.07 0.12 97.5 24.4 12.719

23 129.42 0.13 98.3 23.6 13.447

24 129.09 0.12 97.5 23.6 12.579

25 129.28 0.12 97.5 23.9 12.612

26 129.17 0.13 97.5 23.9 13.674

27 129.40 0.12 97.7 24.1 12.600

28 129.10 0.13 97.5 24.3 13.756

29 129.44 0.12 95.6 24.2 12.984

30 129.11 0.12 97.0 24.3 12.785

Average
s 129.28 0.13 97.53 24.8 13.475

In Table 1, the experimental data and the resulting averages for the known metal

rods, copper, are shown. The initial length of the rods, the change in length, the initial

and final temperature, the alpha coefficient, and finally, the percent error. The range for
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 12

change in length is only 0.02 mm which is rather consistent. The alpha coefficient for

copper should be 17 but the average coefficient is 13.475.

Table 2.
Experimental Data for Unknown Rods
Rod Initial Final
Change in Alpha Coefficient
Trial Length Temp Temp
Length (mm) (mm/°Cx10​-6​)
(mm) (ºC) (ºC)

1 118.05 0.11 98.2 25.2 12.765

2 123.33 0.10 96.3 25.6 11.469

3 118.51 0.08 98.6 24.9 9.159

4 123.29 0.09 98.3 25.3 10.000

5 118.08 0.08 97.7 25.0 9.319

6 128.15 0.08 98.2 25.9 8.634

7 118.23 0.08 97.6 26.4 9.503

8 123.05 0.09 99.1 26.0 10.006

9 118.21 0.09 98.9 24.5 10.233

10 123.31 0.11 98.7 24.7 12.055

11 118.14 0.10 97.0 25.7 11.872

12 123.1 0.09 97.5 26.4 10.283

13 118.24 0.09 97.9 26.2 10.616

14 123.33 0.08 97.8 25.7 8.997

15 118.15 0.09 98.4 25.9 10.507

16 123.32 0.12 98.3 23.7 13.044

17 118.37 0.09 98.2 21.6 9.926

18 123.35 0.09 98.9 22.6 9.563

19 118.33 0.09 98.7 24.2 10.209

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 13

Rod Initial Final

Change in Alpha Coefficient
Trial Length Temp Temp
Length (mm) (mm/°Cx10​-6​)
(mm) (ºC) (ºC)

20 123.40 0.08 98.1 24.6 8.820

21 118.24 0.08 96.6 25.0 9.450

22 123.25 0.10 98.3 24.9 11.054

23 118.33 0.08 97.6 23.8 9.161

24 123.25 0.08 98.0 23.9 8.760

25 118.55 0.09 98.2 24.0 10.231

26 123.35 0.09 97.4 24.2 9.968

27 118.43 0.10 97.7 24.2 11.488

28 123.22 0.10 97.0 24.3 11.163

29 118.46 0.09 97.8 24.3 10.337

30 123.19 0.08 97.6 24.3 8.860

Averages 121.03 0.09 98.0 25.6 10.271

In this table, the experimental data for the unknown metal rods are shown. The

initial length of the rods are displayed, as is the change in length. The initial and final

temperature, the alpha coefficient are shown. The range for the alpha coefficient is 4.224.

This could mean that the precision of the trials were off.

Observations​:

Throughout the duration of the trials, observations were taken that included the jig

and caliper number. The trials that were not completely normal were also noted in the

observations. There are two separate tables: one for the copper metal rods and one for the

unknown. These tables can be viewed below.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 14

Table 3.
Observations for Copper
Trials Observations

1 jig 3 caliper 3; rod A

2 jig 3 caliper 3; rod B

took longer than normal to get into jig, might throw off data; researcher burnt
3
hand; rod A

4 took longer to get into jig; two researchers instead of three; rod B

5 jig 3 caliper 11; rod A

6 jig 3 caliper 3; rod B

7 jig 10 caliper 11; rod A

8 jig 10 caliper 3; rod B

9 jig 3 caliper 3; rod A

10 jig 3 caliper 11; rod B

day 2, jig 3 , jig 10 , caliper 3: hot plates needed to be switched thrice: second hot
11
plate did not heat efficiently ; rod A

12 jig 10 caliper 3; rod B

13 jig 10 caliper 11; rod A

14 jig 3, caliper 3; rod A

15 jig 3, caliper 11; rod B

16 jig 3, caliper 3; rod B

17 jig 10, caliper 3; rod A

18 jig 10, caliper 11; rod B

19 day 3; jig 3 caliper 11; rod A

20 jig 3, caliper 11; rod B

21 jig 10, calliper 11; rod A

22 jig 10, caliper 3 ; rod B

23 jig 10, caliper 3; rod A

24 jig 3, caliper 11; rod B

25 jig 3, caliper 11; rod A

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 15

Trials Observations

26 jig 10, caliper 3; rod B

27 jig 3, caliper 11; rod A

28 jig 10, caliper 11; rod B

29 jig 3, caliper 10; rod A

30 jig 3, caliper 11; rod B

In Table 3 above, the observations for each trial of the copper rods can be seen. It

should be noted that in trials three and four, the time to get into jig was longer than

normal and in trial four, there were only two researchers present. This is due to the fact

that researcher one burnt their hand, and the routine through the trial may have been

different with only two researchers.

Table 4.
Observations for Unknown
Trials Observations

1 jig 10 dial 1 caliper 3 rod B

2 jig 3 dial 2 caliper 11 rod A

3 jig 10 caliper 3 rod B

4 jig 10 caliper 11 rod A

5 jig 3 caliper 3,dial has to be re-zeroed every time; rod B

6 jig 10 caliper 3; rod A

7 jig 3 caliper 3; longer than normal; slightly unsubmerged; rod B

8 jig 10 caliper 11; slightly unsubmerged, very warm jig; rod A 

9 jig 3 caliper 11; rod B 

10 day 2; jig 10 caliper 3; ; rod A

11 jig 10 caliper 11; the lowest initial length; rod B

12 jig 3 ; caliper 3; rod A

13 jig 3 ; caliper 11; rod B

14 jig 10; caliper 3; rod A

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 16

Trials Observations

15 jig 3; caliper 3; rod B

16 jig 10; caliper 11; rod A

17 jig 3; caliper 11; rod B

18 jig 10; caliper 3; rod A

19 day3; jig 3 caliper 3; rod B

20 jig 10; caliper 11; rod A

21 jig 3; caliper 11; rod B

22 jig 3 caliper 3; longer boiling time; rod A

23 jig 10 caliper 11; rod B

24 jig 3 caliper 11; rod A

25 jig 10 caliper 3; rod B

26 jig 10 caliper 3; caliper acting out of the normal; rod A

27 jig 3 caliper 3; rod B

28 jig 10; caliper 11; rod A

29 jig 3; caliper 3; rod B

30 jig 10; caliper 11; rod A

In Table 4 above, are the observations for the 30 unknown trials. In some of the

trials, there were irregularities in the data. Note in trials seven and eight, the metal rod

was not completely submerged for the entire duration of the trial. This may have affected

the internal temperature of the rods which would affect the length it expands. There were

also some caliper issues later in the trials, where the caliper was not acting regularly, and

may have affected the data collected.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 17

Data Analysis and Interpretation

To determine whether or not the two metals were the same, a two sample t-test

was conducted. Before this could happen, the validity of the data should be established.

To start, the control in this experiment was the copper metal rods. The researchers did the

same number of trials for the copper rods as the unknown rods to make sure the data was

reliable. The researchers finished thirty for each in the time allotted. This allowed for the

Central Limit Theorem to be applied. The Central Limit Theorem states that as the

sample size grows larger, the sampling distribution becomes more normal. Thirty is the

minimum to apply the law of large numbers. Throughout the trials, the jig that was used

and caliper that measured the rods were randomized. The researcher that did each job was

also randomized. This is done to reduce bias in the experiment. The percent error was

also calculated for each trials, and can be seen in Table 1.​ ​Percent error can be calculated

using the formula found in Appendix A.

In this case, the theoretical value is 17 as that is the alpha coefficient for copper

and what the experimental data is being compared to. A sample calculation can be found

in Appendix A.

Table 5.
Percent Error for Metal Rods
Percent Error Percent Error
Trial
(Known) (Unknown)

1 17.482 24.915

2 12.981 32.537

3 17.025 46.121

4 24.532 41.178
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 18

Percent Error Percent Error

Trial
(Known) (Unknown)

5 25.103 45.181

6 24.525 49.209

7 17.617 44.097

8 13.951 41.143

9 21.653 39.804

10 24.071 29.089

11 12.027 30.166

12 18.174 39.512

13 10.538 37.553

14 11.149 47.078

15 17.444 38.195

16 21.034 23.271

17 21.897 41.612

18 21.083 43.749

19 27.374 39.946

20 26.913 48.115

21 18.118 44.414

22 25.185 34.977

23 20.901 46.112

24 26.006 48.473

25 25.814 39.815

26 19.563 41.367

27 25.883 32.423

28 19.080 34.335
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 19

Percent Error Percent Error

Trial
(Known) (Unknown)

29 23.622 39.196

30 24.797 47.885

Averages 20.737 39.585

In Table 5 above, the individual percent error for each trial of the copper metal

rods are shown. The average of percent error of the unknown rod’s LTE coefficient was

39.585% at the bottom. The range of the percent error for the unknown metal rods was

24.294%. For the copper rods, the average was 20.737% and the range was 16.836%.

This variance can suggest that the procedures were performed inconsistently or mistakes

were made that skewed the data. The percent error was calculated as the trials were being

run, and if the percent error was larger than normal, adjustments were made in the trials.

For example, the rods were hot when coming out the boiling water, and that often heated

the jigs up. When the jig was already warm, the metal rods did not cool down adequately,

therefore the researchers gave time for the jigs to cool down before running another trial.

To further examine the data, different descriptive statistics can be applied. To

start, one variable statistics were calculated. These values can be seen below.
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 20

Figure 4. One Variable Statistics for Copper (left) and Unknown Metal (right)

The figure above describes the one variable statistics for both the copper, and the

unknown metal. These values are used in the box plots below to determine if there are

any outliers in the data, and if the data is skewed. The sample standard deviation can be

found as well, which was used for the test statistics.

Another example of descriptive statistics is a box plot. A box plot can be helpful

in analyzing the data, and the box plot below shows the data for copper and the unknown

metal.
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 21

Figure 5. Box Plots of Alpha Coefficients

The box plots, as seen in the figure above, have very little overlap. The minimum

alpha coefficients for copper overlap a portion of the maximum alpha coefficients for the

unknown metal. Since the means of each are larger than the medians, it was determined

that both box plots are right skewed. Visually, no outliers can be seen. Being right

skewed suggests most of the data collected lies on the left side of the box plot. There are

no outliers suggesting that there had been little inconsistency in the experiment. The five

number summary can also be seen above. The true LTE coefficient of copper is about 17,

which can be seen on this box plot. Each plot is much farther left than the accepted value.

As there were thirty trials that were finished, the issue of normality is not relevant.

As stated earlier, this is due to the Central Limit Theorem and that the sampling

distribution of the data will appear normal. Throughout the trials there were some

inconsistencies as noted in the observations table, Table 1, noted earlier. For example,
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 22

when only two researchers were present, there may have been extra stress. This may have

caused the data to be skewed if the researchers accidentally made a mistake.

To determine if the two metals were the same, a two sample t test was conducted.

This test is relevant because it compares the mean of two separate samples from different

populations. The samples are the metal rods, and the population is the type of metal:

either copper or unknown. The current difference between the two average linear thermal

coefficient is 3.204. To conduct the test, certain conditions must be met first. Both

samples must be simple random samples; both samples must be normally distributed or

have a sample size of thirty or greater; both samples must be less than 0.1 of the

population. It can be assumed the rods are made of random samples of each metal. Each

sample also had a sample size of thirty, as seen in the data and observations section.

There was also much more copper than the two small rods, and it can be assumed there

was more of the unknown metal as well. The conditions of the test were met, so it could

be performed. To start, the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are stated below.

Null Hypothesis: H​0​:μ₁=μ₂

Alternative Hypothesis: H​a​: μ₁≠ μ​2

Figure 6. Null and Alternative Hypotheses

The hypotheses above state that the mean of the linear coefficient of the known

copper rods was equal to the mean of the linear thermal expansion coefficient of the

unknown metal rods. The null hypothesis states that the mean of the copper and unknown

metals were the same. The alternative hypothesis states that the means of the linear

coefficients were not equal. The two sample t-test was appropriate because it compared
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 23

two separate means, the mean of the alpha coefficient of the copper and unknown metals.

The formula is found in Appendix A along with a sample calculation. The resulting t test

value was 12.1237, which represents the standard deviations away from the true mean.

Figure 7. T Test Results: P-Value

The resulting t value was then used to find the P-value. The t test resulted in a

P-value of 7.9482 * 10​-17​. This value represents the chance of the two metals’ coefficients

difference being this extreme if the null hypothesis was true. This value was compared to

the alpha level of 0.05. The P-value was less than the alpha level, which suggests that the

alpha coefficients of the two metals were not the same. As a result of this, the null

hypothesis was rejected. There was convincing evidence to suggest the rods have

different linear thermal expansion coefficients. The P-value of 7.9482 * 10​-17​ means

there was a 7.9482 * 10​-17​ %, much less than the alpha level of five percent, chance of

getting a mean difference of 3.204 mm/°C*10​-6​ between the copper and unknown metal

rods’ linear thermal expansion coefficient.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 24

To find the 95% confidence interval for the true difference of the means of linear

thermal expansion coefficient, a two sample t interval was conducted. The same

conditions apply as did to the two sample T-test, therefore the confidence interval could

be calculated. The formula and sample calculation can be seen in Appendix A.

T was found using a “T-Distribution Critical Values’ table. The degrees of

freedom was 29 as the sample size was 30 and the confidence interval being conducted

was 95%. The resulting 95% confidence interval was from 2.6825 to 3.7255. The

researchers were 95% confident the interval from 2.6825 to 3.7225 captures the true

difference of means between the copper and unknown metals linear thermal expansion

coefficient. The difference range of the coefficients in this experiment was 3.3433,

which was in the range determined by the confidence interval.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 25

Conclusion

The experiment was conducted between two copper metals and two unidentified

metals to determine whether or not the unknown metal was copper using the intensive

property of linear thermal expansion. Initially, it was hypothesized that the unknown

metal would be found to be copper with a percent error of 2% of its coefficient of linear

thermal expansion (LTE) of 17*10​9​ ​mm/m*℃​. After conducting the trials, calculating the

LTE coefficients, and conducting statistical tests, the hypothesis was rejected, and the

unknown metal was found not to be copper. The researchers were able to compare the

intensive LTE coefficients to determine if the unknown metal rod was copper. The

results of the two sample t-test and the analysis of box plots suggested that the two metals

had different LTE coefficients, which further suggests that they were different metals.

This experiment compared two copper rods and two rods of the unknown metal.

The specified metal’s length was measured and the rod was placed into boiling water for

5 minutes. Once the allotted time passed, the metal was taken out of the boiling water and

put into the LTE jig. This instrument then measured the change in length over a 5 minute

period as the metal rod cooled. The change in temperature and length was recorded, then

was used to calculate the LTE coefficient. To determine if the metal rods were the same,

researchers used descriptive statistics and statistical tests to compare data collected. The

two sample t-test conducted resulted in a p-value of 7.9482 × 10​-17​. This means there was

a 7.9482 × 10​-17​ percent chance of the two metals’ coefficients difference being this

extreme if the hypothesis, that they have the same coefficient, was true. This p-value was

significantly less than the base level alpha value of 0.05. This suggested that the two
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 26

metal rods were not the same, and therefore did not support the hypothesis. Due to the

precision and accuracy of the trials and experimental design, it can be assumed that the

results of the experiment were accurate.

LTE is tendency of a material to change its length when heat is added to it. Each

element has it own LTE coefficient, 𝜶, which is an intensive property, meaning the mass

of the material does not affect the coefficient. This is why the coefficient can be used to

compare separate metals of different sizes as done in this experiment. LTE occurs

because as the element gains thermal energy, the particles that make up the element begin

to increase their kinetic energy; this is known as the kinetic molecular theory. The atoms

begin to move more and need more space, which causes the expansion of the material. In

this experiment, the two metals expanded differently, which caused their coefficient to be

different. This is what was compared to determine the metals were not the same.

Other experiments conducted with LTE and copper suggest that the results were

consistent with additional research done on the topic. An experiment that had tested the

thermal conductivity and expansion of copper-graphite composites (The Origin of High

Thermal Conductivity and Ultralow Thermal Expansion in Copper Graphite Composites),

found there to be an ultralow thermal expansion of the composites in this experiment.

Meaning that if the unknown metal was not copper, it would have a dramatically lower

LTE coefficient, which aligned with the results from this experiment. Another

experiment, conducted by Kroeger, Fredrick, and Robert, concluded that linear thermal

expansion is not affected by neither the size nor conductivity of the metal. This further
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 27

suggested that the unknown metal was not copper because, as this experiment discovered,

these properties would have little effect on the coefficients of the data collected.

Mistakes were made during the trials that may have affected the data. As seen in

table 3 trials three and four, an example of these mistakes can be seen when the

researcher who put the metal rod into the jig took longer to get the metal into the jig than

previous trials. The metal started to cool immediately after it was removed from the

boiling water, so speed and efficiency was critical when transferring the rods into the

LTE jigs. The time difference could have made the difference between a 0.9 difference in

length compared to a 0.13 difference. In table 4 trial 22, the researchers left the metal

rods in longer than the allotted five minutes. There was a greater change in internal

thermal temperature when the rod was left longer than five minutes and allowed to

accumulate more heat than in previous trials. More kinetic energy could have been gained

leading to a greater expansion which could have altered the LTE coefficient.

There can be steps taken to further the research on the LTE of copper, which can

include changes can be made in the experimental design. If multiple unknown metal rods

were to be compared to the known copper rod, it would result in a more accurate true

value of the unknown metal’s LTE coefficient because of the added data. Additionally, if

the metal rods were left in the boiling water for a longer period of time, a greater

expansion may have occurred, which may yield slightly different results. Furthermore, if

the experiment was to be conducted again, more than one known metal could be

compared to the unknown metal to further determine the identity of the metal. Then, the
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 28

unknown metal could possibly be identified as another metal or, at the very least, more

metals could be eliminated from the list of possible elements the unknown rods could be.

This data can be used for further research in the future. By using this method to

find and compare the LTE coefficients of different metals, future researchers would have

a fairly straightforward method to determine if metals are the same or not. By using this

experiment, forensic scientists will have a method of identifying the unknown metal in a

victim’s body as copper. This experiment could help finally determine why a metal that

was presumed to be copper didn’t have the same properties.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 29

Appendix A: Formulas and Sample Calculations

To determine whether the unknown rods were in fact copper, the coefficients for

linear thermal expansion were calculated. To find the linear thermal expansion

coefficient, alpha, divide the change in length, ​ΔL, by the initial lengths of the rod, L​0​,

multiplied by the change in temperature, ΔT.

ΔL/(L₀ * ΔT )

Shown in Figure 1 below is a sample calculation of the linear thermal expansion

coefficient, alpha ( α ).

α = ΔL/(L₀ * ΔT )

= 0.13mm/(129.43mm * 71.6℃)

= 14.028mm/°C * 10−6

Figure 1. Alpha Equation.

The figure above is a sample calculation for alpha in Trial 1 of the known metal.

To determine if the unknown metal is copper, or if the known rods possess the

same coefficient as copper, the percent error of the coefficients were taken. Percent error

is found by taking the difference of the experimental value and theoretical value, 17

mm/°C * 10−6 , and dividing it by the theoretical value. Then multiply that quotient by

100 to get the percent.

(Experimental V alue− T heoretical V alue)
P ercent Error = (T heoretical V alue) * 100

Shown in Figure 2 below is a sample calculation using the equation for percent

error of the alpha value calculated. The experimental value is the calculated linear
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 30

thermal expansion coefficient for each trial. The theoretical value is the known value of

copper linear thermal expansion coefficient, 17.

(Experimental V alue− T heoretical V alue)
P ercent Error = (T heoretical V alue) * 100
−6 −6
(14.028mm/°C *10 −17mm/°C *10 )
= (17mm/°C *10−6 ) * 100

= 17.482%

Figure 2. Percent Error Equation

The figure above is a sample calculation of the percent error for Trial 1.

To determine if the means are different from the two independent groups, the

known trials and unknown trials, a two sample t-test must be conducted. To use this

equation, we must take the difference of the mean from the known rods, x₁ , and the

mean off the unknown rods, x₂ . After finding this difference, divide it by the square root

of the standard deviation for the first sample, s​1​ , squared divided by the size of the

sample for the first population, n​1​, plus ​the standard deviation for the first sample, s​2​ ,

squared divided by the size of the sample for the first population, n​2​.
(x₁−x₂)
T wo Sample T − T est = S₁2 S₂ 2
√ n1 + n2

Shown in Figure 3 below is the calculation and results of the two sample t-test

using this formula. X̄₁ is the mean for the known copper rod’s coefficient; x₂ is the

mean for the unknown rod’s coefficient. S ₁2 is the sample standard deviation for the

known copper rod’s distribution, and S ₂ is the sample standard deviation for the

unknown rod’s distribution. N is the sample size.

(x₁−x₂)
T wo Sample T − T est = S₁2 S₂ 2
√ n1 + n2
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 31

(13.475mm/°C *10−6 −10.271mm/°C *10−6 )

= 0.83944² 1.17925 2
√ 30 + 30

= 12.1236

Figure 3. Two Sample T-Test Calculation

Figure 3 above calculates the t value, this value uses sample standard deviations

to estimate sigma. This puts a greater error into the distribution.

To estimate the true mean difference between each independent sample, one

would have to calculate the two sample t-interval for 𝜇​1​-𝜇​2​ .This equation consists of the

difference of x₁ and x₂ added and subtracted to the t-value, calculated in Figure 3,

multiplied by the square root of s​1​ squared over n​1​, plus ​the standard deviation of s​2​ ,

squared over n​2

2 2
T wo Sample T − I nterval = (x₁ − x₂) ± t * √ S₁
n1
+ S₂
n2

Presented in Figure 4 below is the calculation of a 95% confidence interval. X̄ 1

represents the mean of the copper’s coefficient, while X ₂ is the mean for the unknown

rod’s coefficient. T is found using a “T-Distribution Critical Values’ table. ​S​1​ represents

the sample standard deviation for the copper’s distribution, while ​S​2​ represents the same

for the unknown metal rod’s data.

2 2
Confidence Interval= (x₁ − x₂) ± t * √ S₁
n1
+ S₂
n2

2 2
=(13.475mm/℃​*​10​-6​-10.271mm/℃​*​10​-6​) ± 2.042 √ 0.83944
30
+ 1.17925
30

= (2.67378,3.73422)
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 32

Figure. 4 Two Sample T-Test 95% Confidence Interval Calculation

Figure 4 above calculates the 95% confidence interval for the two sample t test.

The lower level for the confidence interval is 2.67378, the upper level for the confidence

interval is 3.73422.
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 33

Appendix B: Linear Thermal Expansion Jig Assembly

The metal jig is vital to getting an accurate read of the change in length the rods

go through as they go through the temperature changes. Images of this piece is shown

below. It was crafted in Solidworks. The hole allows for the dial indicator to be inserted

into the jig. Use the allen wrench to secure the dial indicator in the jig. Be sure the dial

indicator moves freely when the rod is inserted into the jig. This assures the most

accurate reading is acquired from the indicators.

Materials​:

LTE Base Plate 3/32 in Allen Wrench

LTE Side 1 (3 Holes) ⅛ in Allen Wrench
LTE Side 2 (2 Holes) (4) 10 - 32 × 12 mm Head Cap
10 - 32 × 8 mm Set Screw Screw
Procedure​:

Beware of all safety precautions and dress in appropriate attire

1. Using the socket cap screws, screw the two sides to the onebase plate.

2. Take the first side and attach it to the top of the base plate using two 10 - 32 × 12

mm head cap screws using the ⅛ inch allen wrench .

3. Take the second side and attach it to the opposite end of the base using the

remaining 10 - 32 × 12 mm head cap screws and the ⅛ inch allen wrench.

4. Use the 10 - 32 × 8 mm set screw and 3/32 allen wrench to attach the dial

indicator to the LTE Jig.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 34

Diagrams​:

Figure 1. SolidWorks Jig

On the left in Figure 1 above, the jig is shown. This is an example of how to

construct the jig using a program called Solidworks. The dimensions of the jig are

displayed within the image.

On the right of Figure 1 above, the dimensions of the jig used to place the metal

rods so the changes in length can be recorded. The centered hollow allows for the

entrance of the dial indicator. The left and right hollows allow for screws to attach the

bottom and top portion to the center rectangle.

 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 35

Works Cited

Clark, Jim, and Binod Shrestha. “Chemistry of Copper.” ​Chemistry LibreTexts​,

Libretexts, 16 Dec. 2017,

“Copper in the USA: Bright Future - Glorious Past.” ​Copper History: Copper in the

USA: Bright Future - Glorious Past​,

www.copper.org/education/history/us-history/.

Hahn, Thomas A. “Thermal Expansion of Copper from 20 to 800 K-Standard Reference

Material 736.” ​AIP Publishing​, American Institute of Physics, 1 Dec. 1970,

Ho, C. Y., and R. E. Taylor. ​Thermal Expansion of Solids​. ASM International, 1998.

“How to Calculate Thermal Expansion.” ​x​,

x-engineer.org/undergraduate-engineering/physics/thermodynamics/calculate-ther

mal-expansion/.

Kroeger, F. R., and C. A. Swenson. “Absolute Linear Thermal-Expansion Measurements

on Copper and Aluminum from 5 to 320 K .” ​AIP Publishing​, American Institute

of Physics, 1 Mar. 1977,

Kroeger, Frederick Robert. “Absolute Thermal Expansion of Copper and Aluminum

between 5K and 330 K.” ​Iowa State University​, Iowa State University, 1974, pp.

58–97.

“Measurements of Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Copper SRM 736 and

Some Commercially Available Coppers in the Temperature Range 20–300 K by

Means of an Absolute Interferometric Dilatometer.” ​Cryogenics​, Elsevier, 19 May

1998,
 Elias-Hahn-Jacob 36

“Properties of Copper: Chemical, Mechanical and Physical.” ​European Copper Institute​,

European Copper Institute,

copperalliance.eu/about-copper/copper-and-its-alloys/properties/.

“Synthesis of Size-Controlled and Shaped Copper Nanoparticles.” ​ACS Publications​,

pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la0635092?src=recsys.

Stwertka, Albert. ​A Guide to the Elements​. Oxford University Press., 2018.

“The Origin of High Thermal Conductivity and Ultralow Thermal Expansion in

Copper–Graphite Composites.” ACS Publications,

pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01664.

“THERMAL EXPANSION.” ​Thermal Expansion​,

www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Chemistry-Vol-4/Thermal-Expans

ion.html.

Zdzislaw, et al. “Thermal Expansion of Solids.” ​Journal of Modern Physics​, Scientific

Research Publishing, 14 Aug. 2012,