Khalilah Jones's Blog

Topic

 Our experiment is going to be on solar heating. We will be using three different color cups filled with equal amounts of water. They will be placed under some type of heat whether the actual sun or lamps provided by the professor. We will be determining the different temperatures off of what the NXT robot shows, and make the conclusion that the darkest cup absorbs the most heat.

 

Purpose: To gain understanding and to prove whether darker colors attract and absorb more heat than lighter colors. Additionally, to present an experiment that will allow young students to have insight into energy conservation and sustainability topics.

Most people learn from early on that dark colors absorb more light than light colors. However, is there a difference in the way certain “in-between” colors such as red or pink absorb light?

Background: The purpose of this experiment to to better understand solar power in relation to sustainability. By completing this experiment, the student will have a better grasp of the processes of solar panels within water heating.  This is to tune into a more sustainable way of life and increase awareness of the impact that our everyday practices can have.

In many buildings, solar heating panels have been engineered and implemented. Students will not have much control over whether a building they attend school in has solar panels, so the experiment focuses specifically on heat absorption based on different colors. When a color absorbs light, it turns the light into thermal energy. The more light a color absorbs, the more thermal energy it produces. Black fabric absorbs all colors of light and is therefore warmer than white fabric which reflects all colors.

Here’s some more information about the science behind light absorbtion: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1464

One Quora user in this post (https://www.quora.com/Why-do-black-objects-absorb-more-heat-energy-than-white-or-colored-objects) explained light absorbtion like this,

“…black absorbs the most heat. Objects that are white, on the other hand, reflect all wavelengths of light and that’s why they appear white to us, therefore absorb the least heat.”

Here’s a video of a similar experiment:

Another video explaining why Black absorbs the most heat:

Materials
3 Lego Mindstorm Robots

3 NXT thermometer

Light Sources

LabView (Vi is in our email)

3 Different Cups

 

Procedure:

1. Place three cups (of different colors) with equal amounts of water in the holders.
2. Place a thermometer into each cup of water, connected to the NXT device.
3. Measure the temperature of each cup of water before placing it under the heat lamps or in the sun
4. Place the cups under heat lamps or under the sun (if available)
5. Leave the thermometer in each cup of water for 15 minutes
6. Every 3 minutes, record the temperature of each cup of water. In total you should have 6 measurements (0 minutes, 3 minutes, 6 minutes, 9 minutes, 12 minutes, 15 minutes)

Here are pictures of the experiment:

  

Data:

	0 Minutes	3 Minutes	6 Minutes	9 Minutes	12 Minutes	15 Minutes
Clear	72.2	72.8	73.1	73.5	73.7	74.2
Pink	72.0	72.2	72.2	72.2	72.4	72.6
Black	73.9	74.0	74.2	74.2	74.4	74.4

*Measured in degrees (Fahrenheit)

Here are our results. We did not take a measurement of the initial temperature of the water and had to make some adjustments so that the thermometers did not touch the bottom of the beakers.

Analysis:

1. How would you describe the relationship you found between heat absorbed and color of the cup?

We were able to conclude that pink absorbed the least light energy, clear absorbed slightly more light energy, and as we hypothesized, black absorbed the most energy. Although we thought that pink would have absorbed more color than the clear, we were proved wrong as the clear rose 2 degrees in temperature versus the pink cups’s 0.6 degree rise in temperature.

Some limiting factors that may have influences the results of experiment was that the equipment used to heat the water was not very modern or precise. This meant that each glass of water barely had any heat, resulting in a very low amount of change in temperature for all cups. 

2.What did this experiment teach you about sustainability and energy conservation?

This experiment helped us understand the importance of colors when discussing sustainability, especially in relation to the energy we use for heating and cooling. It really reinforced the reasons why homes in cooler climates are built and colored differently than homes in warmer climates. In Greece, many houses are painted white because it reflects the year round light and perpetual summer conditions. While in the deep woods of Canada, log homes are dark brown and wooden – aimed at keeping in the precious heat they have during brutal winters. Even during the summer time, wearing black is not sustainable because you would have more demand for air conditioning since the sun combined with your attire would cause your body temperature to rise.

There were some limitations such as the slightly outdated equipment we had to use and the very low amount of temperature increase. But it would be very interesting for this to be recreated by other people with sun, different heating apparatuses, other liquids and a larger array of colors!

My team consisted of Sofia, Alexis, and Kara. After working in a previous experiment on the usage of solar panels to power NXTs, we knew that we wanted to do something related to solar energy and its relationship to sustainability. First we thought of using the NXT solar panels, but decided not to use them because they were a bit complicated and we did not want to meddle with Labview too much as we wanted the majority of the experiment to be spent doing the project rather than recording information, inputting it into excel, and creating graphs. Though they are useful tools, we wanted to simplify our process and procedure as much as possible. After googling science projects related to solar energy, we found one project that stuck out to us. It involved placing different colored cups filled with liquid under the sun, measuring the temperature of the liquid in each cup over time, and comparing the differences. It seemed to be an interesting project and gathering the tools needed to perform it would be simple.

We then strategized what our plan of action and divided up the tasks amongst ourselves to make the process of designing and running our experiment as easy as possible. It was great that the whole team contributed ideas and provided their honest opinions about the direction they’d like the project to take. Without honest input, contribution and thoughtfulness, the experiment would be much more complicated and time-consuming to run. We are hoping that the experiment will increase understanding of sustainability as something as simple as color can have a great impact on the amount of energy that is absorbed.

Mars 10 years ago was a dream for mankind, traveling to Mars has been used in Sci-fi movies because it was so far away from reality it was perfect for TV, however by 2027 we hope to have a permanent human colony thanks to the Mars One project. A trip to mars according to the Mars One project will take approximately 7 months, a bit longer than what current astronauts stay on the ISS. The benefits of traveling to mars are astonishing, it will undoubtedly allow us to accelerate our scientific research and once again improve our presence in the solar system. Mars is also quite similar to Earth, which would allow us to learn about our home planets history and future.

NASA has a long term program called Orion in which they believe spaceflight to mars is anticipated by about 3035, 8 years after what Mars One have claimed. After the Orion project shorter flights up-to 4 person capsules will be involved, with experiments to protect from deep space radiation which is one of the bigger health hazards of long-term space travel. The amount of energy needed to transfer between planetary orbits between Earth and Mars is lowest at fixed intervals by the Synodic period. This period is every 26 months, so missions are planned to coincide with this 26 month pattern. The energy needed in these low-energy windows also varies on a 15 year cycle, with the lowest amount of energy needed being nearly half as much of the peaks.

Despite needing 26 months between setting the missions in motion, a round trip to Mars and would take 400-450 days according to Werner von Braun’s book, “Popular Science”. The downside to this kind of mission is the higher energy requirements. A faster Mars mission has been estimated at 250 days with on-board staging. The cost of sending humans to mars is estimated to be roughly 500 billion dollars, although those costs are likely to rise. Currently the largest limiting factor for space travel to mars isn’t the technology, it’s the fact that there isn’t enough funding for travel to mars. Despite funding being the biggest challenge, there are several key physical challenges as well.

Health threats from high-energy cosmic rays will produce a great radiation risk, the calculated radiation dose for a round-trip is 0.66 sieverts, the limit for a NASA astronaut is 1 sievert for their entire career. On top of that there is the chance of visual impairment due to prolonged exposure to weightlessness. The psychological effects of living as a hermit, with complete isolation from earth can be devastating to most humans. There is also smaller problems of the lack of medical facilities and failure of equipment which makes the entire mission not feasible.

The European Space Agency also has long term goals to send out humans but has not yet built the manned spacecraft required for this, however it has sent robotic probes and plans to launch an unmanned ExoMars in the coming years. Japan has attempted to send a robotic mission to Mars, however it failed to achieve Mars orbit. One technical hurdle of traveling to mars is the shallow atmosphere which will pose difficulty with re-entry and a heat shield would need to be used, further increasing the size.

Whilst traveling to Mars is becoming a reality for many scientists worldwide, we are still too far away to know how successful these projected timelines will be, and how much the total cost of a mission would be in the future. The Mars One astronauts are just like you or me, regular people who are going on a one-way trip for science, without any guarantee that what they do will survive for future generations. Travel to Mars is happening.

The Boston Museum of Science is world-famous for its engaging exhibits and informative displays. Their lightning exhibit alone has drawn thousands and thousands of visitors (like me). What makes it so special is that they built and operate the largest Faraday cage in the world there.

A Faraday cage is an insulated (metal) cage that lets someone experience a lightning storm up close. In theory. In practice, cars for example, are built to protect the people within them from possible hits of lightning. The car itself can and will most likely be totalled, however the passengers take minimal to no damage from an otherwise deadly voltage.

Purpose-built faraday cages are completely safe and used in physics experiments as well as, in the Boston Science Museum, to show the beauty that is hidden in the destructive force of electricity. These fake lightning storms are generated by a so-called Van der Graaff generator. This is a spark generator that creates lightning like surges of electricity.

The whole thing is air-insulated to contain the phenomenon within. It is part of the normal museum building and can be visited via a special show, in which visitors get to first-hand experience this. As for the machine itself, it looks like a metal ball on a long stick when shut off. In fact, most of us have already seen one.

They were very popular in the 90s and 2000s as Plasma globes. Those little, often USB powered, looked like empty plastic balls with a metal ball in the middle. Kids all over the world loved them as they would generate purple sparks of electricity that would dance on the inside of the plastic (or glass) container. When touched by human fingers, the electricity would move there.

These plasma balls aren’t quite the same thing, however as a comparison they work well as the process is the same-comparably large amounts of electricity are discharged as little purple bolts. In clear skies (which are somewhat rare during lightning storms) the bolts will also appear somewhat lilac or purple, or white. On very rare occasions it can even appear as blue. This depends on a variety of factors such as location, time of day, and strength of electricity. The bolts in plasma balls are always purple however.

I don’t know a single child in my school that didn’t have-or wanted-one of these. On a much (much, much) larger scale, the Boston Museum of Science’s Van der Graaff does the same thing-except during the show, the visitors are IN the ball, and not touching it from the outside. In fact, the chamber at the centre is where the electric bolts end, due to the Faraday cage. Tesla coils are also used to generate up to 2 million volts.

In comparison, a natural stroke of lightning has much less-less than half at maximum strength and a fraction of it for the average lightning storm. Unprotected, this is still more than enough to kill a human hit by it (though there are the occasional survivors). In comparison to this very dangerous phenomenon, the museum show is completely safe.

It is, also, an amazing spectacle. A guide explains what’s happening during the show which takes place several times a day. In addition to the general lightning show, there are also features for children, such as the static-generator responsible for a plethora of funny pictures. The static electricity generated will make the hair of the person touching it stand on end-very popular with young boys, not so popular with teenage girls surprised by the effect.

The term immunization crisis refers to the current low-point in vaccinations nationwide, especially among children. So called ‘anti-vaxxers’ have become a social movement, actively lobbying against the vaccinations of their children, relying on various (often bogus) studies to back up their claims that vaccinations do more harm than good, and that they even cause illnesses like autism, epilepsy, etc, while preventing other illnesses they consider ‘minor’.

These ‘anti-vax’ parents are also making an effort to eliminate all mandatory vaccinations that are currently being administered by doctors and at school. There are recommended vaccines and so called baby shots for small children. These cover the most common vaccine-preventable diseases, such as rubella or mumps, and are recommended by nearly all physicians.

Despite the current crisis, anti-vaccination movements have been around as long as vaccinations have. Even in the very beginning, when the smallpox vaccine was discovered and made publically available, people were scared of it and many chose not to get it at all. Mind you, many of them died as the disease was at its peak then, however the idea already existed. The reasons for it were varied, and while some of them no longer apply (people felt injecting part of an animal-cow, with smallpox-counted as bestiality), others sound strangely familiar to modern ears-such as the question of whether or not man should interfere with god’s work. Granted-this is no longer a major concern, however there are always voices asking whether we are taking medicine too far.

But why are vaccinations important? A good example are measles-on the whole a fairly harmless illness, it can claim lives, however the ‘normal’ progression is unpleasant but harmless. Either way, the illness was eradicated in the US, according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), due to vaccinations. However, with anti-vaccination movements on the rise, the illness has actually resurfaced and claimed lives again.

Mass vaccinations, especially in children have a positive effect, even on children who are not vaccinated. It’s called ‘herd immunity’ and it means that in a large group those who are or cannot be immunized are protected anyway. Leaving aside parents who simply don’t want their kids vaccinated there are always those who genuinely cannot be vaccinated for a variety of medical reasons. In order to protect those, as many of the others need to be vaccinated as possible. However, with numbers in certain states actually falling rather than rising, this can no longer be ensured and the parents are endangering not only their own kids, but also those of others.

The US government as well as almost all major (and minor) healthcare providers are taking care to raise the numbers of vaccinations through a variety of ways. Primarily they try to inform and educate by teaching parents to tell the difference between made up things and real medical evidence. They also make sure that the vaccinations are readily available, not only by making the necessary shots free, but also by making them mandatory. For example, an insurance company will refuse to insure a family unless they get all the recommended vaccinations for their children and themselves. Both of these measures have shown fairly high success rates.

The legal situation on vaccinations in the US depends on the individual states. This means that same already mandate vaccinations in schools whereas others leave it up to individual schools or parents. Obviously, the states in which certain vaccines-usually rubella, measles and mumps-are required, the overall rate of illness is much lower-the connection is obvious. However, since the situations differ, and quite a lot, that makes a one size fits all solution almost impossible as a country-wide consensus or legislation would have to be reached.

Barring that almost utopic scenario, the current US immunisation crisis with its low vaccination and comparably high infection rates cause a constant struggle to protect all its children, regardless of their parents good or bad choices, however efforts are being made towards just that goal.

References:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4162046/

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/t0912_measles-outbreaks-data.html

When buying a new car, most of us will consider the same issues. Price, speed and size, perhaps color and add-ons. For what it’s worth, gas mileage usually isn’t at the top of the list, despite its importance.

The automobile industry has been working hard on improving this important aspect of it, through a variety of measures. One aspect, a fairly overlooked one, is weight. When trying to improve mileage, scientists will look at the engine, or the fuel itself. Now, these aren’t bad approaches, however there are other inroads to be made.

For a long time, the preferred way of going about this was to make the cars smaller, which wasn’t considered the best option as people wanted big cars. Certainly not everyone, however little smart cars are clearly less popular than bigger alternatives. So, on the whole, this was not the path to take.

Instead what is happening now is that they are trying to make car parts lighter, while maintaining the original shape and size of the car. Many vital car parts are still made of steel-not exactly a lightweight material. Now people are working on replacing steel with other materials. The current favourite is aluminium. Much lighter and usually thinner, it can easily replace parts of modern cars.

Concerns for safety have been easily dispelled as the newer lighter cars perform just as well in safety tests as their hard-steel counterparts. The car parts that are currently being replaced do not affect a cars safety in an accident. Not all parts are being replaced as of right now, however more than enough in order to seriously lower the weight and improve the mileage of the new cars.

The US has a goal set for 2025-to improve the mpg (miles per gallon) to 54.5mpg. The current goal expires in 2016 and mandates 34.1mpg-so the 2025 goal would be a massive improvement, however it also still comes with serious issues. This goal is not exclusive to the US, other countries are attempting it too. In fact, the EU is the USs biggest competitor. Not all countries are capable of competing at the same level of course, however as it is now, the US are actually ahead of schedule to reach their 54.5mpg goal.

The second area (next to smaller cars) that is currently not a completely viable alternative option are fully electric cars. Hybrid cars are currently fairly popular and help make massive advances towards the 54.5 goal, however entirely electric cars turned out to be not as popular as they were originally heralded to be. They have their fans, and they are being worked on, however they are no longer considered the be all and end all of modern cars. Their limitations are simply too encompassing for now. The lack of charging stations, (reduced) lack of reach in miles.

Despite all of this, why are all of these advances made? Why does it matter how far one gets with a gallon of fuel? Aside from reducing the cost of fuel for the end user and therefore keep oil/fuel prices low, the main positive outcome is the severe lowering of emissions caused by cars. The more fuel a car needs to run, the more emissions it expels.

It is very much in the government’s interest to keep emissions to a minimum, and so it helps fund research to achieve just that. Higher mileage per gallon, lower emissions, more efficient cars, at first glance they may not be all that similar however they are connected and they are important. Important enough to warrant significant funds and investments.

However, this whole affair depends on one more factor-the consumers. All of this can only be successful if consumers buy into it-this was a major issue with electrical cars as they weren’t as well received as was hoped. However so far consumers approve, models like the new Tesla are highly sought after and are built based on much more mpg efficient technology than more commercial models. This suggests that people approve of and are interested in lightweight car models and are willing to support them, at the very least for now.

References:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml

http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/the-road-ahead-how-well-get-to-54-5-mpg-by-2025/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-boost-gas-mileage-automakers-explore-lighter-cars/

The 2015 Parisian Climate Change Agreement, signed by over 190 countries, is the first ever legally binding global climate deal. While it was signed in December 2015, the document will not be in full effect until 2020. It was signed during the United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Paris (thus the name). For the agreement to fully become legally binding, 55 signing countries that produce over 55% of the gas emissions of the world need to adapt the rules set in the agreement into their own legislations.

The conference’s high cost was widely criticised, having taken 170 million USD or 180 million €. In response to the concerns raised about the high costs, France stepped up and, as the host country, offered to cover 20% of the cost themselves. They ended up paying for slightly more than those 20%, and the gesture was widely praised as a step in the right direction-the willingness to commit to it all was internationally appreciated. Within the country itself, many felt that the money could have been better spent-as is often the case with large financial spending of any nation.

At the time of the initial conference, there were demonstrations, worldwide, in favour of a strong and binding agreement, uniting the attending states in their desire to do good for the environment. At the time of the conference Paris had banned public gatherings due to the recent terrorist attacks, however law enforcement made an exception, allowing thousands to gather in order to express their favour for this agreement. In addition to this demonstration, there was another at the time, and that illegal gathering involved several violent clashes and injured policemen as well as over 300 arrests. The two demonstrations were held separately however.

There have been some concerns about some countries not being entirely happy with that, especially the US being rather hesitant. Without big players like the US and Russia the agreement was doomed to fail. That being said, there are meetings set for 2016 and 2017, during which certain aspects are set to be renegotiated-treating those big players more kindly and making it easier for them to implement it into their own legal bodies.

The general idea is that global warming should be limited to no more than 2°C. The short-term goal is no more of an increase than 1.5°C, with the secondary goal of stopping global emissions from rising any higher than they currently are, the long-term goal here being the overall reduction of them, which will not happen for a good while.

In addition to the overall reduction of emissions and global warming, the signing governments also agreed on other things-to periodic meetings and milestones. This means that they will meet every 5 years, continually supply information to other members as well as their public about their progress on the goals. In addition to those meetings, smaller regional meetings have also been spoken about-however those are voluntary and not required.

At every future meeting, they agreed to set new short- and midterm goals for themselves. The constant progress reports have been implemented in different ways in different countries, however they generally equate to a yearly report published and made accessible as well as half-yearly updates on it. These reports are made available by the government, but they are created, then fact-checked by independent scientists.

While there are a lot of other countries that signed this agreement, the EU took on a rather central role in the whole affair, especially supporting climate-positive actions and also financially supporting companies and individuals that are doing extraordinary work towards that, and even going so far as helping other countries (mostly developing countries) out in their own efforts to meet the goals, as most of the signing countries are aware the most effort will be required from them, despite the often unfavourable political and economic situations in those countries.

 

 

References:          http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

Pandora’s promise presented a strong argument in support of the use of nuclear power. It followed the stories of notable scientists and people who once feared and distrusted nuclear power. The film also explores the strong pull of the anti-nuclear movement, and the US’s history with nuclear power. Pandora’s Promise aimed to spur debates and question the trends within our society toward distrust of nuclear power that run parallel to increasing demands for electricity and power. The main arguments made within the film were that the anti-nuclear movement used scare tactics to create terror and panic amongst people that lack the expertise to come to a holistic understanding of nuclear science, that nuclear power is cheaper than renewable, and leaves less of an impact on our environment than renewables or coal and oil.

One steep statement made by the film was that ‘to be anti-nuclear power, is to support the use of fossil fuels that release greenhouse gases into the environment.” I think that statement is a bit of a stretch. The majority of people who are against nuclear power have misgivings about its safety, long term impact, and the issues that arise from nuclear waste. Another dramatic parallel drawn was the comparison of those who deny global warming.

Many US citizens have witnessed nuclear scares within their lifetimes, including Chernobyl, recent Japan meltdowns, the Cold War, and the constant fear of nuclear weapons use in war. The fear of cancer was also stated as a primary reason for fear within the film, as 20% of people within developed nations die as cancer and a great deal is still to be researched about causes of cancer. Some critics of the movie suggest that Pandora’s Promise drew the conclusion that nuclear power hasn’t expanded due to the anti-nuclear movement. While in fact some reasons that it hasn’t expanded is the lack of funding for further development and the significant amount of waste produced by the industry. Much like the Dupont case, it brings into question whether the nuclear industry uses ethical practices in the disposal of waste. I am doubtful that waste is disposed of 100% of the time and often poor, minority groups might be most affected by the outcomes of incorrect disposal of waste. Overall, the environmentalists in the movie presented some solid insight into nuclear power, arguing that it is the most safe and clean form of energy. As energy consumption increases and reliance on “dirty” energy sources such as oil increases, it is essential that our society has conversations about other power sources and the public is provided with information on which to base their decisions.

During this experiment, we learned about the correlation between the amount of energy put into the generator and the voltage it produces. Unlike some other experiments, this concept made a great deal of sense to me because the law involved is quite simple. Faraday’s Law states that changing magnetic fluxes through coiled wires generate electricity (currents and voltage).   

More change in magnetic flux results in more change in currents/voltage. So the faster we shake the generator, the more voltage is produced. This type of generator is very sustainable because human energy is being used to produce a greater energy output and has few negative drawbacks other than some arm pain. There should be an upward trend in the amount of voltage generated. The size of the generator made a huge difference in the amount of energy produced as well.

We were provided with a flashlight looking device, that contained a magnet inside that shook back and forth. We were also provided with a NXT battery, robot, a telephone cable and a USB cord.

After assembling and connecting the device to the computer with the USB cord, we began to inspect the VI that we would be working with. The VI measured the voltage produced and graphed time vs. amplitude.

We performed 5 trials in which we shook the tube at a certain rate from extremely slow to extremely fast, counting the number of shakes within a 30 second interval. The in excel we did calculations to determine the sum of the squares of the voltages and repeated this process for each trial.

The graphs we created demonstrated a positive relationship between the number of shakes and the voltage produced. As we increased the number of shakes and put more energy into generator, the voltage recorded increased. This demonstrates Faraday’s Law because the changing magnetic fluxes went from low energy generated in the trial with no shakes to high energy generated in the trial with 100 shakes.

This experiment gave me a great deal of first hand insight into Newton’s 2nd law. This law states that Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. Using the Lego Mindstorm robot and a pulley system, we gained insight into the law of conservation as well as power, velocity and acceleration. The pulley was set up by connecting the Lego motor to the LabView program, a cable was connected the battery to a Lego arm piece. The pulley consisted of a string tied around part of the arm piece then around a pulley connected to weights.

Here is the set up:

This is the VI in LabView used to control the pulley:

In the experiment, we changed the mass of the weights by adding or removing pieces connected to the pulley as well as the power level. Initially I thought that speed would be the only thing that changed because the amount of weight was being altered. These minor changes resulted in great differences in acceleration, speed, and power. When applying Newton’s 2nd Law to this experiment, force is represented by power level provided by the Lego Mindstorm motor. Work (work=f) was done as force was applied by the motor, which pulled up the weight. It is also important to note that not all of the energy goes toward lifting the weight. Some energy is lost due to friction.

In Labview each time we ran the experiment we adjusted the power level from anywhere between 0% and 100% and entered the weight we measured. The program recorded millivolts generated, rotation, battery discharge in mV, speed in rate per minute, time in seconds, and acceleration in rpm/second. Below are the results of each time we ran the experiment in the VI that include both our inputs and the program’s recording.

One problem that we did have with recording the data is that we did not do enough tests at each power level, so we are missing some data points. Newton’s 2nd Law suggests that if the mass remains the same and the force is increased, the acceleration will increase. If the mass is increased, the acceleration will decrease.

As I noted previously, not all the energy applied goes toward pulling the weight. Battery discharge accounts for some of the energy lost due to friction. We found that as the mass increased, the battery discharge increased because more energy was put toward pulling the weight.

As we continued to analyze our results we found a positive correlation between power and power level. Power=work/time, meaning that as the power increases, more energy is output.

Overall, this experiment gave me a better understanding of Newton’s Second Law, as well as the law of the conservation of mass. All potential energy must be accounted for as it is not wasted.