calculated it to be 3.7x10-6. Our percent error for the first trial was 26%. The percent errorwas 84%. As you can see these numbers are not very accurate and not at all close to the standard value. Also there is a significant difference in the linear expansion coefficients that we solved for between the trail one and trial two. We noticed a problem with our data, so we looked for the issues that we causing the problems. We realized that our track was not perfectly lined up and we could not fix it. We tried to support it with pieces of paper towel, but it would not help. Also our pressure gauge was not reliable. Since the apparatus was not functional, this explains why our data was problematic. These are significant issues on the apparatus. That being said, these issues definitely threw off our readings, thus explaining our high percent errors.ConclusionThis lab allowed us to have a better understanding of linear expansion coefficients. This was demonstrated when we saw the aluminum rod expanding. We learned how to use the linear expansion equation to find the linear expansion coefficient. Even though our data was not accurate due to a malfunctioning apparatus, the equation used was the correct way to determine the linear expansion coefficient. I believe that with a good apparatus, we would have been able to correctly measure the linear expansion coefficient for aluminum. Amparo 2
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 3 pages?
- Spring '16
- Physics, Coefficient of thermal expansion, Gabby Amparo