Ashley's Blog

Museum of Science

Last week as a class we took a trip to the Museum of Science. When we got there i was confused as to what exactly our task was to do while we were there. After walking around in somewhat no direction, I found an exhibit on renewable energy ideas. It went through many different ways on which we could explore renewable energy. One of the first boards explained about Solar Energy.

This board explained to use how the Museum itself uses solar panels on the roof of the building to transform sunlight into electricity. The panels generate on average about the same amount of energy the Theater of Electricity uses, which is about 2,300 kWh every month.

The sun currently provides more than a thousand times more energy than the world needs. However our technologies aren’t developed enough to process all the energy that the sun produces. The sun is also very inconsistent, so we are only able to harness about 1% of that energy.The photo above shows the amount of solar energy available  at ground level averaged over the course of a year.

There are many different shapes that we can use to collect the energy from the sun. Theres the

Parabolic Dish:

Trough:

Tower:

4/5 of today’s energy comes from non-renewable fossil fuels. However we are expecting the renewable energy sector to double from 8% to 16% by the year of 2030.

Final Project

For our final project we were all dived int groups to design an experiment. My group consists of Carol Petrosyan, Julianna Akt, Maggie Morris, and Lillian Rogers. We originally thought of doing an experiemtn about the use of a water wheel and the amount of energy it captured and was able to give out. However we found that some other classmates were already doing a similar project so we began to switch thoughts on some other topics. We remembered the lab we had done in class with the hand held flashlight that after being shaken had stored enough energy to turn on. We decided to do a similar experiment but using a hand crank to then also produce energy to be stored and later used for other uses. We will show how you can convert mechanical energy to electrical energy. We will use the same NXT robot with the help of the computer to document our findings and show the amount of energy created.

Indian Point, Is It Safe?

Indian Point Energy Center is a nuclear power plant located in Buchanan NY about 40 miles away from New York City. They are responsible for powering about 30% of New York City and Westchester County.

After the Japanese Nuclear power plant disaster, people are becoming concerned about how safe this plant is. Governor Cuomo of NY has long opposed of this power plant because of its proximity to NYC. It is located very close to a population of 21 million people and could in turn be very dangerous if there were to be a major melt-down. The Governor has recently decided to have a complete examination of the plant to inspect its safety.

Unfortunately after the examination they had found that there are 2 faults that are located and intersect each other just north of the plant. However they do not believe that this is causing the plant to be unsafe.

While this plant is relatively old, over 40 years old, it actually does have a constant leak in one of the pumps. It  just recently shut down to fix the leak after the flow had started to increase. Meanwhile the other pump continued to operate at full power.

One large benefit of shutting this plant down for good would be safety concerns for the people of New York City.

However shutting down the plant also comes at many dissadvantages. Not only to the people who own the plant or those who work there, but also to the people in NYC. Since the plant provides over 30% of the electric power for the city, the citizens would have to find an alternative source of energy. This could also cause an issue for the NYC power grid, and could likely cause many blackouts in the New York City area. Even if the City is able to find alternative places to get their electricity from, that does not mean that they are immediately safe from a nuclear power plant melt down. It takes many years to decommission a nuclear power plant.

Alternatives to nuclear power come with their own concerns. Wind power only generates a small amount of power for NYC. Even new wind projects would not be able to generate enough energy to compete with the amount that the plant gives off now. If they close the Nuclear Power Plant they would most likely be going in the direction of natural gas through hydrofracking, instead of Wind power.

This is a video that i found that talks about the safety precautions at the plant:

Indian Point 2 Nuclear Reactor Back In Service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/indian-point-2-nuclear-reactor_n_1216562.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/feds-conduct-safety-review-york-indian-point-plant-wake-japan-nuclear-crisis-article-1.122318

http://www.thirteen.org/stateroom/indian-point-nuclear-energy/

Global warming, Fact or Fiction?

Global warming has been a major topic of discussion for years now. I remember back in middle school my teachers bringing up the topic and not knowing anything about it. That was 10 years ago, and the debate just continues to grow.

There are groups of people that are believers that global warming is a real thing, and that humans are the cause of it. There are many scientific consensus agreeing on the seriousness of this situation.

However there is also the opposition who downplay these findings and are denying that the warming of the earth over the past centry has been minimal. They argue that in fact it has actually stopped within the past 10 years. They dont believe that human contributions to this past warming was anything to cause concern over, that it was modest and we are indeed not in a crisis.

While the scientists are still claiming that temperatures are going up by around .32 degrees Fahrenheit each decade, these deniers are blaming their technique of measuring the temperatures. They claim that the records of temperatures are unreliable and exaggerated. They say that the scientists are getting temps from ground weather stations located under cities and towns, that could cause the temperatures to go up.

One such Global Warming Denier is scientist Richard S. Lindzen from MIT. He explains that he is not a skeptic but a denier instead. While the media is constantly talking about global warming accelerating, and polar ice caps shrinking more each day, Lindzen doesn’t understand how that’s possible. He says that the polar ice caps are growing and shrinking each year depending on the climate. Many scientist make the mistake of discussing their OPINIONS when they have no real evidence to back it up. The media then spins this as a fact as opposed to an opinion and the population goes wild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://www.aim.org/briefing/denying-global-warming/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703819904574551303527570212.html

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/the-facts-about-global-warming-denial.html

Solyndra

Solyndra Inc. is a corporation that was founded to provide an alternative to silicon based solar panels.  A few years ago the United States Congress passed an act called “Energy Policy Act”. This act was aimed to help companies in the US that deal with a variety of developing energy problems. This act allowed for the Department of Energy to offer loans to help pay for promising energy projects.

In 2009 the White House scheduled a press event and federal reviewers gave approval for a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra. They estimated that this loan would help the company create over 4,000 new jobs in the area.

However in 2011, 2 years later, the company had to announce that it was filing for bankruptcy. Which resulted in 1100 employees being laid off and the company having to shut down all of its operations and manufacturing.

Solyndra filing for bankruptcy was in part due to the fact that the price of solar panels have dropped drastically over the past year. Because Solyndra sold higher priced solar panels, it was being outsold by cheaper companies.

After the bankruptcy the loan decision and Solyndra’s use of the loan money was criticized. Auditors and analysts blamed the presidents administration for not being able to evaluate the company and for not realizing the signs that the company was already in trouble. There was also reports of Solyndra using the loan money to buy new equipment and never using it. They were accused of spending money left and right without concern. It was also said that Solyndra made large donations to the Obama campaign as well as a large amount of money on lobbying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fred-upton-gop-critic-of-solyndra-loan-sought-funds-for-mich-solar-firm/2011/11/16/gIQAJKGhSN_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/10/romney-slams-obama-solyndra-loan-guarantees/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy

http://firststreetresearch.cqpress.com/2011/09/09/research-report-the-lobbying-activity-of-solyndra-inc/

Voltage VS Light

Today we did a lab that introduced light Intensity. We started off by connecting all the parts of our NXT and connecting it to the computer. This included a light sensor that  was laid out on the table as well as a flashlight that pointed down onto the sensor.

To begin the lab we first did a test run with the flashlight off. We ran the program for 11 seconds with the light sensor measuring only the slight light from the windows. The Voltage results came back at an average of -0.067 V.

For the next run we turned the flashlight on and placed it at 1 cm above the light sensor on low light. We ran the program for another 11 seconds and got a Voltage result back of an average of 0.324 V. We then raised the flashlight to a height of 10cm, and got a result of an average Voltage of 0.203 V. After raiding the flashlight again to an even higher distance away of 20cm the voltage results came back at an average of 0.071 V. And our final height test at 30cm came back with an average Voltage of 0.040 V.



As you can tell by the results, with no light, the Voltage was close to 0, However when the light is directly on the sensor the voltage becomes higher around 0.324. As the light gets further away the Voltage drops accordingly.

After we came to this conclusion we decided to do the same test however switching different colored lenses over the sensor, and keeping the flashlight at a consistent distance of 10cm. Yellow was the lense that let in the most light and allowed the voltage to be the highest at 0.175 V. The next color that allowed the voltage to stay relatively high was surprisingly the purple lense. It came back with an average of 0.141V. Then came the pink lense with an average voltage of 0.131V, Followed by the green lense that allowed an average voltage of 0.102 V.

As a conclusion we came to the fact that the darker color doesn’t necessarily cause the voltage of the light to go down.

Hydrofracking

Hydraulic Fracturing, also known as Hydrofracking, is a new type of extracting natural gas from the ground. This process is much more practical and a cheaper solution compared to other costly techniques. Hydrofracking is done in Reservoirs made up of materials such as porous sandstones, limestones or dolomite rocks. As well as shale rocks and coal beds.

To begin the process fluids are injected underground at a high pressure. This causes the shale rock to fracture and allows the fluid to continue deeper into the earth, continuing to fracture and penetrate further. To keep all the fractures open they introduce and additive into the fluids, and this allows the oil or gas to flow freely up through the fractures.

Although this technique allows for an easier way to for the removal of natural gases, it can also be harmful on the environment. Some of the fluids used such as diesel fuel, can stay behind in the rock and lead to contamination of the ground water. Although it can be hazardous to peoples health, companies continue to use these chemicals, and are not required by law to notify the public of the potential harm.

Many cases have been discovered and reported of contaminated drinking water in areas near to an active gas well. Some peoples water has been so badly contaminated that they are able to actually light the water on fire. However at the same time there have been no conclusive tests done to directly link the contaminants to be a result from the chemicals used in fracking.

However due to all of these pressing concerns the US Department of Energy has created a special task force to improve environmental impacts as well as safety concerns while fracking for natural gas. They will need to  develop a more proper and successful way to seal the wells durring the process, as well as how to dispose of the wastewater in a safer way.

Although there are still many ways in which to develop fracking into a safer process, it is still yet to be proven that natural gas can even deliver any environmental benefits. Natural gas in itself is a greenhouse gas if it were to escape during a pipeline operation or a hydrofraking incident. There is still much research to be done with both pre-drilling and post-drilling samples, to try and discover all the potential problems.

While Hydrofracking is mostly used in extracting natural gases from the ground it can also be used in other ways as well. Other reasons that it can be used is as follows:

-Stimulating groundwater wells

-Help in cave mining

-Enhancing the waste remediation processes

-Disposal of waste

-To help measure the stresses in the earth

-For heat extraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-for-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells

http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing

http://www.peacecouncil.net/NOON/hydrofrac/HdryoFrac2.htm

Voltages

Today in class we learned about Faraday’s Law. This law states that as a magnet passes by a coiled wire, it causes it to flux, and therefore create electricity. The larger the change in the magnetic flux, the greater the voltage will be.

To test this law we did an experiment that involved shaking a flashlight with a magnet and coiled wire located inside of it. Each time we shook the flashlight the magnet would pass by the wire and generate voltage.

To record our findings we connected the flashlight to the computer to monitor the voltage generated. Each run consisted of a recording each second for 30 seconds. The first run we did without moving the flashlight. This recorded how much voltage was generated while not moving the magnet. Although the flashlight did not move we still got a small sum total of .55.

For the next run we shook the flashlight back and forth for a total of 32 times. The computer documented the voltages and automatically recorded them in an excel worksheet. We then entered the formula =SUMSQ( and highlighted all the numbers. This then automatically squared each voltage and added them all together. We got a sum voltage total of 68.45.

The next run consisted of shaking the flashlight a total of 50 times back and forth. We repeated the steps in the excel worksheet, and got a sum total of 75.32. The last run that we did was a total of shaking the flashlight 70 times. This then resulted in a sum square voltage of 112.06.

The following graph represents all of our findings.

Graph

Increased Gas Mileage, Increased Future.

In today’s economy everyone is doing the best they can to save money in any possible way. One major expense in most people’s lives is the cost of transportation. As more studies are done and more discoveries are made, researchers are able to come up with new ways to increase the fuel efficiencies of cars.

Some say it is as simple as placing a tire repair kit in the trunk of new cars instead of spare tires. Although these repair kits aren’t able to fix all flats. A tire with a hole bigger than a quarter of an inch, or if the hole happens to be on the side of the tire, wouldn’t be able to get fixed from this method. Although by removing the tire from the trunk, you create extra space for storage as well as take out 20lbs of weight that could cause the car to use more fuel.

The key to better gas efficiency in cars is to decrease the weight. It is said that by ever 10% you reduce an objects weight, the fuel economy increases by 7%. In order to get a larger fuel savings you would need to take off a decent amount of weight off the everyday cars. Which is absolutely possible with today’s scientists developing new materials all the time.

Most cars today are made essentially of steel. However there are some that use an amount of light structural aluminum. However aluminum can cause issues when it comes to repairs.

There are several things a car depends on that changes the amount of fuel a vehicle consumes  while driving. They include:

1. Thermodynamic efficiency of the heat engine
2. Friction inside the mechanical system
3. Friction inside the wheels, and between the road and wheels
4. Internal forces the engine works against
5. External forces that resist motion
6. The breaking force turning energy into reusable energy

In order to try and help correct some of these issues there are many options:

-The use of thinner engine oils.

-A more aerodynamic exterior.

-More efficient tires.

-The use of lower friction lubricants.

-The use of more efficient diesel engines.

-Recapturing wasted energy in the vehicle suspension.

-Reducing the volume of water-based cooling systems.

-Replace with tires that are low rolling resistance.

Many of these option are sold after you purchase a car. They are suppose to improve the fuel economy and sometimes even the exhaust emissions of your vehicle.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/transportation/car-manufacturers-are-replacing-spare-tires-with-air-pumps-to-improve-mileage/923

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/3374271

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_saving_devices

Lego Mindstorms

Lego Mindstorm is a robotics kit that contains software and hardware to create customizable robotics. For our science lab recently we had to break into groups and assemble this kit in order to put together a robot to be programed to our demands. The kit included a varying supply of lego pieces to make many different types robots, however as a group we worked together to make a robotic car.

After following the instructions and constructing the robotic car, we then had to connect the appropriate wires to the car. Port A side of the car had to be attached to the A mark on the motor, and Port B had to then be attatched the B side with a connector cable. After the motor was attatched to each side of the car, we had to plug it into the computer and begin the programing.

After opening the Lab View program on our monitors we began to learn the different ways of programming the car. In order to run the motor so that the car moved forward, backward, and at various power levels we had to select the motor button. When clicking on the top arrow that appears on the square you can select either port A for the left wheel or port B for the right wheel. The right arrow then shows how fast the wheel will turn, also known as its power. The bottom arrow on the square will then tell you the direction you want the wheel to go, either forward or backward.

By selecting our port A ( also known as the left wheel)  to go forward at a power of 75, and our port C to go forward at a power of 25, the car moved forward and in a circle. This happened because the outside wheel was turning faster than the wheel on the inside.

Next we decided to measure the distance the car would go in 1 second, as well as to measure the cars velocity. In order to do this however, we first needed to take some measurements of the wheels. Each wheel had a diameter of 5.5 cm, which makes its circumference to be .1727 meters. When we entered this information into the computer and ran the car for one second at the speed of 75 power, the computer came back with the car traveling a distance of 17.4cm. However when we measured the car it only went a total of 17.5cm.

This result showed us that there was a difference in the computer calculation and what distance the car actually went. So we therefore decided to calculate the difference in the results. In order to do this we had to find the difference in each result, but subtracting the larger one from the smaller one. This came out to be .1cm. We then have to divide that number by the average of the two results. In order to get the average of the two results you add them together and then divide by 2. Which comes out to be 17.45cm. So the total difference in results comes out to be .1 divided by 17.45 which is .0057.

The number .0057 represents the percent of error in the experiment. Whether it be the computers error or our error. We could have possibly miscalculated the distance that the car traveled by not reading the ruler correctly. We also could have started the car not on the edge of the desk which also could of accounted for the numbers being off. Although there was a .0057% error rate, there  will always be a small percent of error in any experiment. So our small amount was expected.