THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD PAGE
|
A Scientific Investigation
|
|
Before the Experiment even Starts
The Question or Problem:
I wanted to conduct a new investigation, but nothing was coming to mind. I "googled" Science experiments for middle s choolers and pulled up the following website: www.education.com/activity/middle-school/science. I searched for some inspiration and finally found an ancient steam engine on Instructables.com that was modeled after one which may or may not have been created by Hero of Alexandria.
|
|
Research:
|
I started to research Hero of Alexandria and gained information about who he was from Wikipedia.com. Because this research is not based on who Hero was, I didn't feel compelled to further research the man himself but rather his inventions and experiments. On this particular website the "aeolipile," or "Hero's engine" was mentioned as well as the concept of a windwheel, which is the first recorded mention of harnessing the wind.
Hero was not the first to come up with thoughts or ideas with regards to steam power, Ktesibios was a Greek inventor who lived some 300 years before, but he left behind detailed plans on the manufacture of such a device in his book, Pneumatica. There happens to be substantial research on the aeolipile, so I thought it would also be easy to find research on and further aids in the development of my own aeolipile. The website, Instructables.com proved to be a great resource in the creation of my aeolipile. While it does not look like an exact replica of Hero's it does authentically work on the same principles as Hero's invention. |
Purpose:
The purpose for the experiment was first and foremost to create my own aeolipile because I was so fascinated that here steam power was at work some 2,000 years ago and yet steam power did not really take off until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, 1760 - 1820. After having conducted my research and followed the initial protocol in recreating my own engine from Instructables.com, I believed I could make a faster steam engine if I could control the opening of the hole where steam was to be released.
Hypothesis:
|
My hypothesis is that the size of the hole in an aeolipile, will determine the speed at which the engine turns. If I can reduce the hole size and thus control more tightly the release of steam, then I should be able to create a more effective steam engine than the one produced on the Instructables.com website.
|
Planning and Designing the Experiment
Materials:
|
|
1 4 foot section of 1/2" copper pipe (10) 1" copper caps
1 2 foot section of 1" copper pipe (2) 1/2" copper caps (7) 1/2" T-pipe connectors (4) 1/2" 90 degree elbows (1) 1/2" copper female adaptor (1) copper pipe cutter (1) brass female to male adaptor (1) male adaptor 1/16" copper tubing @ 12" 3/32" copper tubing @ 12" 1/8" copper tubing @ 12" 5/32" copper tubing @ 12" 1/4" copper tubing @ 12" (5) toilet bolt packs (1) soldering kit (1) MAP gas and torch (2-3) 5/8" sealed ball bearings rags science journal sandpaper pliers screwdriver hammer tachometer syringes with blunt needle tip
|
|
Procedures:
|
1) The first step will be to go to Home Depot and purchase all the supplies for my Science Fair Project
2) Next I will build the cylinder that will hold the water by drilling the right size hole for the 1/16" copper tubing in which steam is released. I will also sand down the head of a toilet bolt and then solder the whole thing together. 3) After the cylinder is built I will then build the stand that will hold the cylinder making sure that there is enough room for a stern can underneath the cylinder 4) I will then test out the steam engine to see if it works properly. 5) Based on my observations on the first test, I will make adjustments to the stand to make a more aesthetically pleasing stand. 6) The next steps to follow will be to make the cylinders that will hold the various size copper tubing: 3/32," 1/8," 5/32," and 1/4," and basically following all the step 2. 7) I will record my observations on speed by using a formal tachometer to distinguish the revolutions per minute (RPM's) with reference to the various cylinders, and time the length of each cylinder's rotation given that each cylinder has the same amount of water. During this phase of the Science experiment, I will be keeping a science journal and record down my observations. 8) After all the data has been gathered, I will then analyze the data testing whether or not my hypothesis was correct. As part of examining the data, I will also reflect on any scientific concerns or flaws in the scientific method that I was able to identify and list any suggestions for future studies.
|
|
Variables:
|
The variables in the experiment are going to be the various sizes of copper tubing that will be used for steam release. The control or constant in my experiment will be the amount of water placed in each cylinder, the heat and distance from the heat source, and the size of the cylinders
|
|
Science
Journal of Observations: |
I will create a science journal of the investigation process that will further examine the study as performed by me. What shortcomings I have as an investigator or what I may like to change in the study if I was to perform the study again, and what further studies may be of a benefit as a result of my investigation. Where do I want to go from here.
|
Conducting the Actual Experiment
|
Conduct the
Investigation: |
When I started conducting the investigation, I immediately started with the 1/16" diameter tubing that would stem out of the reservoir, or can, thinking that of course my hypothesis must be correct. I had a lot of difficulty getting water into the canister, and so
|
|
Scientific Concerns
or Flaws: |
1) One concern I have with the science project is that the toilet bolt is very difficult to get it perfectly centered on the cylinder This may affect how easily or not the steam engine turns.
2) Another major concern or flaw in my experiment is being able to determine definitively the amount of water each reservoir cylinder holds. I can regulate to some degree based on the numbers printed on the syringe, but I can not obviously see through the copper, and water does spill and drip through the other holes while filling up the can 3) Because of time constraints there were only three tests of the reservoirs with various tubing, because it was quite time consuming trying to refill these copper cans. 4) The toilet bolt is difficult to not only center upon the cap, but in some of the canisters built the bolt is not perpendicular to the cap and veers off in degrees. I had attempted to bend the bolt under pressure applied with some success, but this would certainly affect how well or not the canister rotates. 5) On all reservoirs there are three tubes that stem out releasing steam. A concern I have is that some of the tubing seems to be free flowing while others may have some sort of clog. I know that on the 3/32" tubing one tube stem is totally clogged. This would also affect the rotation. 6) When wrapping the reflective tape around one of the stem tubes, I think that would cause an unbalanced weight in the rotation of the can, which could be a factor. 7) The direction of the tubes could also be a factor in its rotation, so I will try to bend all tubes in the same direction regardless of their inner diameter. 8) Using a type of oil or grease to help facilitate the rotation could be a factor, which I will be exploring. 9) The water boils in the reservoir, or can, it spurts out and steam is released, and then I have to wait w file before it spurts and steam is released again. How do I get consistent steam? 10) When testing the 1/8" canister, I squeezed the end together to try and produce more steam, which is counterintuitive to my hypothesis, so I will have to retest without changing the tubing diameter. |
|
Analyzation
of Data: |
Some Data was recorded and the findings reveal two interpretations of the data. This is how data can sometimes be manipulated by the investigator and why its important to consider the source, so here are both arguments considered:
In general the boys hearing tested better at a score of 90% in their ability to locate the sound in a room and zoom in on a subject with a score of 94%. In comparison to the girls who had scores of 86% and 88%. Girls echolocated with a score of 81% and were able to zoom in on an object at a score of 81% as well. The boys had the same score in echolocating but could zoom in on the sound at a higher rate of 86%. If we consider this interpretation of data then my hypothesis was wrong. Girls do not hear better than boys and boys were able to echolocate with more success. or The girls were most consistent. In the hearing test girls hearing was tested at 86% and in zooming in on a subject they tested at 88%, so only 2 percentage points off. Their ability to echolocate was diminished with the ear plugged but they were still successful at 81%. The boys hearing was better, but in consideration to echolocating they were quite diminished with the ear plug dropping a total of 9 percentage points in comparison to the girls who dropped only 5 points. The girls ability to zoom in on a subject using echolocation changed 7 percentage points, where as in boys it dropped 8 points. If I look at the data this way, then my hypothesis was correct. The girls were better at hearing and demonstrated an ability in echolocating the sound at a higher rate. but One thing we have to keep in mind is in the informality of my observations and assigning a number, as in their success on a scale from 1 -10. It is hard to explain, but doing science this way is too subjective. Meaning that I'm giving an opinion sort of by scoring an individual without all the facts being considered. I couldn't produce the facts in my experiment, so I can't be objective. To many aspects of the experiment, as designed by me and redesigned by me after finding there was too much work involved in the first experimental design, were off to produce facts. My hypothesis was not truly tested due to the limitations of the experimental design. That being said there is some science that can be squeezed out of the experiment, and I think that lies in my suggestions for future studies. |
The real analyzation is the last one. The top two were just to show you that sometimes data can be misinterpreted to be presented in a specific way that helps or hinders an argument. That is why questioning a source is so important, because sometimes data is presented in an inaccurate way because the source may have ulterior motives for presenting the data.
Reflection: Super Important
|
Future
Studies: |
If I was to do this study again, Here are some things I might consider doing instead:
1) I would try to use a screw hole, tap and die, in the reservoir to place new water in from the top as opposed to trying to squeeze water in through the tubes. This would allow more uniformity in filling the reservoirs and it would be much easier to include numerous tests to double check the data through multiple experiences. 2) I would have the drummer beat toward the blindfolded test subject to determine their success at echolocating like a bat might in mid air. There would have been good information on this, because I felt students got better with more experience with the sound. 3) Use a different sound then the drum, which was a plastic storage container. By using this type of container the sound traveled in the opposite direction of the test subject, which could have been the reason for some of the data to be inaccurate. 4) I could have ear-plugged the test subject and then ear-muffled them for extra sound proofing. 5) Check medical records of students to check for any hearing loss. I just chose students at random who said their hearing was good. After conducting the experiment, I am not sure if I chose students with hearing loss or were they the few who put the ear plug in correctly. 6) I noticed that some students pointed in the absolute opposite, 180 degrees, direction to the sound, so I think that perhaps the sound waves traveled and bounced off walls to create this affect. This could be a whole science investigation here. 7) I think it would be a good idea to see if students echolocation improved with practice and experience. A longer period of time being blindfolded and ear plugged may result in students having more success in echolocation. I noticed that sometimes a students first attempt at echolocating was off, but it improved through several trials. 8) The drummer said of one observer, "She can smell me. She doesn't need her hearing. I'm very smellable." Obviously, this made me think that while one sense may be inactive others become more active. Could smell or taste play any role in echolocation? Obviously, it wouldn't be called echolocation but rather, "osmelocation" or something else. There is an investigation to be had here as well. |
My future studies is really long, because I failed at conducting the experiment. When you fail at something, you have to take the time to reflect about why it happened and how it could be avoided in the future.
Producing Final Thoughts and Reports
|
Visual Interpretation
of the Data: |
|
I chose to do just a simple table with numbers as my visual interpretation. I could have used a bar graph or a circle graph, but because the data was so close to one another, the visual would not have been very distinct.
|
Conclusion:
|
To conclude this science experiment, has long been coming. I designed an experiment that I thought was going to be ground breaking, but it was too exhaustive plotting a child's success based on degrees off the sound of the drum with a laser. I redesigned the experiment with the hope that it could be salvaged by taking a more informal approach, students pointing in the direction and then judging their success on a scale from 1-10. It would be interesting to see if the original plan would have been a success. The science experiment as it warped into a design failed because there ended up being so many unforeseen variables. I could not test my hypothesis, but my thoughts on future studies could improve the experiment.
|
The conclusion is your way of finally and formally declaring your success or in my case my failure.
|
Abstract:
|
Girls are known to have better hearing. My hypothesis was to see if this was correct and in turn were girls better at echolocation. I plugged one ear and blindfolded 5 boys and 5 girls. I checked their hearing and then checked their ability to follow the sound of a drum around a room. I tested students in different locations around the school site. Ultimately, I was not able to test my hypothesis accurately due to uncontrollable variables unforeseen in the experimental design of the study. I did come up with better possibilities for a future study. The best science in this experiment is in the analyzation of the data and possible future studies discovered from my failure to test the hypothesis.
|
The abstract is basically an extremely brief summary of your experiment from beginning to end.
|
Scientific
Report: |
|
The Science Report is basically everything from the "Question or Problem" to the "Conclusion." It is everything you have written down about your experiment and everything you plan on including on the display board for the school science fair but just in one big chunk. I basically cut and pasted most of the narrative in this scientific method study link. So while it looks like a lot of work it is work you have been doing all along with your science project.
The Display Board
THIS IS A YOUNGER GRADE STUDENTS BOARD
|
THIS IS MORE OF AN UPPER GRADE STUDENTS BOARD
|
|
Display
Board Components: |
You need to have the following headings on your board:
Title, Name, Purpose, Hypothesis, Materials, Procedures, Abstract, Visual Aid or Graph, Scientific Concerns, Future Studies, Analysis, Report, and Science Journal You should also display evidence of your science investigation. The link below has the science subheadings as a word document. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CHANGE THE LOOK OF THEM FOR YOUR PROJECT. |
|
Display Board Creativity and Visuals:
|
|
Experimentation Models or Proof
|
|
Presentation of Science Experiment to Teacher:
|
|
Presentation of Science Experiment to Judges:
|
A Display Board for
Mold and the Fast Food French Fry
Even thought the abstract is first in my report and visible on the board, it was the very last thing I did with regards to the scientific method. The abstract is a short paragraph that summarizes the entire investigation. It goes without saying that it is missing lots of details. The abstract touches upon the big ideas from hypothesis to analysis. This abstract isn't perfect. I think it's too wordy and maybe could be edited better, but it's here and done and does what it is supposed to do.
A Great Science Investigation has got to have some good visuals.
Be sure to provide those and your evidence of experimentation.
Ideally I would have liked to have my report on the display board along with the science journal, but that's just me. A judge would probably like to have easy access to it along with the evidence in front of my display board.
|
|