The Specific Heat of Different Metals: a Comparative Experiment

The main objective of the specific heat of metalslab was to compare the specific heat of the different metals, find the theoretical and experimental values, and describe the transfer of heat when the metals are transferring heat to its surrounding room temperature water.We used a few different metals for this experiment. We chose Tin, Copper, and Zinc because they would all fit in the containers and their masses were similar. The lab also consisted of some variables and constants. The independent variable was the heat from the boiling water.Alternatively, the dependent variableswerethe final metal temperature and the room temperature water.The constants were the quantities of water in our second and third experiments. Ideally, the quantity of water, the boiling water, and the room temperature water would be constant but since we did the experiment over multiple days, these became variables. Our calculations used direct measurements to figure out our variables with a thermometer.My hypothesis was that the metals specific heat and the final temperatures were directly proportional.

Equipment

• Beaker
• Excel spreadsheet for calculations
• Thermometer
• Insolated container for cold water
• Sample Metals
• Hot plate or heating device for boiling water.
• Tongs
• Procedure

Use the hot plate to boil water.

While this is boiling, fill an insulated container with room temperature water.

Place one of the metals in the boiling water until it reaches the same temperature as the boiling water.

Place the metal from the boiling water into the room temperature water.

Once it has reached a peak in temperature, record the results

Record the results for each trial when changing metals.

Make sure you do multiple trials to ensure consistent and accurate results.

Analyze your data to see the relationship between the theoretical and experimental values.

For each metal, wechanged the boiling temperature, room temperature, and quantity of water in the room temperature container.When we did the specific heat test for Tin, we were only 0.012Kcal/kg·°C off of the actual value (22% above the theoretical). For Copper we were even closer with 0.003Kcal/kg·°C off of the actual value (3% under the theoretical). Last, Zinc was much farther of by being 0.052Kcal/kg·°C (56% below the theoretical). Our most accurate calculation was when we tested Copper. Our least accurate calculation was when we tested Zinc.

This shows that our data was more consistent on the first two tests because our data was much more accurate with the values given.The only reason why our trial spiked in the first trial was because we might have not been as familiar with the equipment and the important parts that could cause error. If we had done more trials I think the percentage of error would have decreased. On the third metal, Zinc, we might have rushed or been less careful about accurate results because we needed to get the data quickly; and/or, we could have done many trials that would have helped average out human errors. Unfortunately, this resulted in poorer data.

To figure out the Experimental Cp we used the formula,〖Cp〗_metal=Q/〖(Boiling-End room Temp)*M〗_metal

To find Q we used 〖(M〗_(room temp H2O) 〖)(Cp〗_H2O)(Room Temp-End Room Temp)

My hypothesis was somewhat accurate. Mathematically, my hypothesis was completely accurate although using the data from the lab; I could not conclude my hypothesis was correct.It would have been possible to my hypothesis was correct with the data if I had more constants. For example, if my room temperature, boiling temperature, and quantity of water were always the same, the lab would have been easier to complete. If I had done the lab during one class period, my results could have been more constant.If I were to do the lab again, I would have done more trials because I think our results would have also been more consistent. I think that we were able to be more exact with our calculations because we used direct measurements and were not calculating as much that could have human error.Overall, our results were relatively accurate and weremathematically what I predicted.