For our last class we completed two labs; the first involving the temperatures of water and oil when heated and the second involving the energy output from solar panels when lit. For the first lab we had one beaker filled with 80 milliliters of water and another with 80 milliliters of oil. The beakers were placed on a heater, which were adjusted to a specific degree. Once heated, we plugged the probes into the Labview program and then placed them in the liquids. From this generated data it was determined that water resulted in a higher temperature than oil, which was unexpected because of water’s increased time to heat as compared to oil. To get these results we used the heat energy equation ( H = CP*M*∆T ) as well as the mass density of water (1.00) and oil (0.92) and the specific heat of water (4.18) and oil (2.00). We received a total difference of 0.50 for water and 1.42 for oil and an energy calculation of 168.84 and 209.29 respectively. The percentage difference of these totaled 21.39%.

For the second lab we conducted, we determined the level of energy output from a small solar panel when placed under a light source. In this experiment we used a flashlight to adjust the height and intensity of the light. The panel was then attached to the Labview program, which gathered the voltages and recorded the results in excel. For the first three attempts we varied the height at 0″, 5″, and 10″, which resulted in 9.40, 0.61, and 0.57 averages respectively. From this we determined that the closer the light source was to the solar panel, the higher the intensity. For the next set we kept a steady distance of 5″, but changed a colored film over the light. Although the three colors used (yellow, blue, and red) resulted in similar averages (0.62, 0.60, and 0.61), this was similar to what we assumed in that the darkest color film, blue, would produce the lowest voltage. We did, however, think that there would be a greater variance than what was gathered.

For our previous class we completed a lab in which we needed to generate energy using our robots and a generator (made from a flashlight containing a coil and magnet). As described to us prior to the lab, magnets moving through coiled wire generates electricity so the object of the lab was to shake the generator back and forth to create energy.   After hooking our generators to our robots and the robots to the Labview VI, we were instructed to run several sets of the experiment at different speeds.  In our first run we left our generator motionless and from the data collected in excel established an average sum of the squares of 0.17. In our second set we shook the generator 29 times, which resulted in an average sum of the squares of 121.12. The third and fourth sets were shook at 39 and 42, and resulted in average sum of the squares of 126.27 and 156.74 respectively. From this information we were able to organize our information and create a chart comparing the number of shakes to the sum of the squares of the voltages. This graph shows a positive trend in which the greater the number of shakes, the greater the electricity output.

For the second half of our class Mr. Vale was asked to come and give a presentation regarding the generators patented by Nikola Tesla. These generators come in various sizes and are used to produce high voltage, alternating frequency electricity. The primary use of these coils are for scientific experiments including the transmissions of electrical energy, lightening, and x-ray generation as well as for presentations. Mr. Vale had a large Tesla coil and demonstrated its use through the transmission of electrical energy to light bulbs without wires. The electrical current from the coil was visible and strong electrical, which made the demonstration interesting. This was similar to what I have previously seen at the Massachusetts Science Museum however it was more informative and personal.

For our last class we took a trip to the Plasma Fusion Center at MIT. After taking the train and walking in the rain for a while, we found ourselves at the center, which did not look like what I had imagined. After entering the building we were taken into a room where a student working on his master’s degree in the program gave us a presentation on the basic information of plasma fusion research, energy, and the device. Some of the topics discussed, such as the major source of energy (85% fossil fuel combustion) and the issues involved (national security, greenhouse gas emissions, and shortages), were topics we already discussed in class and in the reading. Also known and discussed were the advantages and disadvantages of plasma fusion. Advantages included: no nuclear waste; no meltdowns; independent of geography; efficient land use; no greenhouse gases; and inexhaustible fuel supply. Disadvantages were fewer, but included: radioactive structural materials; cost; and the fact that it does not work currently. Other topics discussed, but were unknown involved the more complicated work in the plasma fusion center, physics, temperatures, and tokamaks. Although it was somewhat difficult to follow and at times seemed like in a different language, the presenter made the topics interesting and did a great job explaining any complicated areas.

The next part of our trip involved actually going to the plasma fusion lab and seeing the machines used in the experiments. This part was also interesting because we were able to see the the machine in which the presentation was based and understand more of what the research personnel use in their work. The machine was very large and loud and again did not look like what I expected.

Overall I think the trip was really interesting and important to take because it gave the class the ability to actually see a portion of the topics we are studying in class and use the information received to make connections.

For the previous two classes we were assigned numerous programming options in order to lift different masses at varying accelerations. In this there were three designated weights and speeds, which were programmed into our robots. When instructed to start our robot would pull the weight at the speed provided. This data would then be collected and stored in a database automatically collected. This spreadsheet contained the necessary information needed to compute the formulas for f=ma. Based on these formulas charts were created to demonstrate the information graphically and show the linear relationships. Through these charts it can be seen that the greater the weight the slower the acceleration and the less weight the faster the acceleration. Also seen is the less the power level, the less the acceleration. These relationships were related to the topics discussed in class including Newton’s Laws on Motion and Inertia as well as the energy output.

Demand Response is used in electricity grids in order to manage customer consumption of energy. These mechanisms are typically used to adjust to price changes in the market and supply conditions. DR devices are used in household appliances including washing machines and dryers as well as large corporate generators. Although the devices assist in overall energy use reduction, they must be provided specific commands in order to work. This is a greater hassle as compared to similar devices that work without specific instructions. The energy device used in opposition to this is a dynamic demand device, which automatically shuts off when there is too much pressure on the machine.

Demand Response is used as energy management to reduce expenses. Demand for energy typically increases during summer months as well as during and after natural disasters. When demand increases, price does as well and DR devices can limit the increase to consumers. If DR devices are incorporated into all machines sold in the future energy use will be greatly reduced and the direct effect on greenhouse gases from energy production and consumption will be altered.

“Demand Response Incentives.” PG&E | Welcome. Web. 13 Feb. 2011. <http://www.pge.com/demandresponse/>

“Department of Energy – Demand Response.” Department of Energy – OE Home. Web. 13 Feb. 2011. <http://www.oe.energy.gov/demand.htm>.

On the second day working with the robots we also had a presentation at the end of class. Mr. Vale came in to discuss both past and present energy generators and some of their different uses. One device discussed was the Stirling Engine, which was invented in 1816. This device is a hot-air engine that pushes both hot and cool air around in order to move. This process was shown to us by placing the engine on a cup of hot water. Another device that was shown was the Peltier Engine invented by Jean Peltier and is an electric pad that creates voltage when there are different temperatures on either side. Also included in the presentation was the Mendocino Motor and was the most interesting of all. The Mendocino Motor is a rotor block with solar cells attached to the sides, suspended above five magnets on a platform. When exposed to sunlight or a high-voltage light the motor begins to move and rotate. What was most interesting to learn from the presentation were the different uses for these engines. The Stirling Engine was used in the past to replace steam engines, the Peltier Engine is used for USB connected drink coolers as well as in space, and the Mendocino Motor is used solely for instructor and teaching purposes.

For the previous two classes, we have worked together in pairs building and programming LEGO robots. Although difficult to assemble due to inexperience on my part with the pieces and confusion over the instructions, my partner and I were able to create our robot with minor defects (some of the pieces just wouldn’t fit). Once built, our robots were plugged in and synced with the computer programming software for the device. Although the steps were explained I still had trouble programming the correct sequence in order to make the robot follow different commands. On the first day we only attempted simple functions, which included moving for a short distance and stopping at a specific time. On the second day, however we were able to attempt much more. Withthe help of my partner, Jason, we were able to follow the instructions and make our robot move, stop, change directions, and make noise. We were able to program the robot and download the material so that it could complete loops and run continuously through the sequence we directed.

Following the directions of the lab we were asked to measure the distance our robot moved at different power levels. In order to do this we measured the diameter of the tire and multiplied that number by p. The diameter, 5.5 centimeters (0.055 meters), multiplied by p provided an estimated distance of 17 centimeters (0.17 meters). Once activated at the instructed power level our robot moved approximately 16 centimeters.

For our next instruction we were asked to make our robot drive in a circle with a one-meter radius. In order to do this we needed to adjust the tires to different power levels in which one was faster than the other. After one failed attempt (the radius was under one meter), we were able to complete the task. The next instruction of programming the robot to move in a one-meter radius circle while reversing direction was completed quickly due to the previous experience with our first circle. Adding a sound to play at the end as well as creating our own unique program was also done without much difficultly.

Overall working with the robots was a unique experience. I am typically not interested in labs like this, however it was interesting to put the robot together and think its relation to energy. Working with the robots was also a good way to become familiar with our class partners and to understand the team dynamic.