This week, we did an experiment with a pulley system that was hooked up to the NXT battery.  Through this experiment, we were able to experiment with different masses how much battery discharge was used, the acceleration of the weights being pulled up, the speed, and the time.  This experiment is important to our class because when working with the NXT battery and robotics, and learning about mass and battery discharge and their relation to acceleration, etc. is very important for understanding how they all relate to one another.  At the end of this experiment, we realized that the more power used, the more battery discharge is put out.  Below are the results of our trials.

SAME MASS, DIFFERENT POWER LEVELS

Trial 1: Mass: .25kg;        Speed: 74.851 rpm;    Time: 1.454 seconds;    Acceleration: 51.4794 rpm/s;    Battery Discharge: 14 mV;  Power: 25

Trial 2: Mass: .25kg;    Speed: 37.6202 rpm;    Time: 3.398 seconds;   Acceleration: 11.0713 rpm/s;  Battery Discharge: 111 mV;  Power: 50

Trial 3: Mass: .25kg;   Speed: 106.349 rpm;  Time: .84 seconds;  Acceleration: 126.606 rpm/s;   Battery Discharge: 70 mV;  Power: 100

Trial 4: Mass: .25kg;  Speed: 110.657 rpm;  Time: 1.01 seconds;  Acceleration: 100.506 rpm/s;  Battery Discharge: 125 mV;  Power: 120

Estimated Travel Distance: .03m

DIFFERENT MASS, SAME POWER LEVEL

Trial 1: Mass: .20kg;  Speed: 72.2697 rpm; Time: 1.755 seconds;  Acceleration: 41.1793 rpm/s;  Battery Discharge: 111 mV;  Power: 75

Trial 2: Mass: .24kg;  Speed: 73.7439 rpm;  Time: 1.851 seconds;  Acceleration: 39.94 rpm/s;  Battery Discharge: 97 mV;  Power: 75

Trial 3: Mass: .17kg;  Speed: 81.6956 rpm;  Time: 1.73 seconds;  Acceleration: 47.2229 rpm/s;   Battery Discharge: 69 mV;  Power: 75

Trial 4: Mass: .09kg;  Speed: 90.6218;  Time: 1.635 seconds;  Acceleration: 55.4262 rpm/s;  Battery Discharge: 69 mV;  Power: 75

Estimated Travel Distance: .03m

 

 

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “hydrofracking,” is a relatively new method of extracting natural gas from the earth.  However, hydrofracking is detrimental for the environment and surrounding communities.  Modern day Hydrofracking was first used in 1998, in Texas at the Barnett Shale.  This newer method of fracking is known as “horizontal slickwater fracking.”

Hydrofracking is used to mine natural gases deep in the earth’s crust that are trapped by layers of rock.  Horizontal slickwater fracking uses a horizontal mining system to tap into the natural gas reservoirs using a mixture of water and chemicals that are sent into the earth at such a great pressure that they literally fracture the rock.  Even though fracking is a more economical way to mine these gases, many people worldwide oppose this method.

According to thinkbeforeyoufrack.org, the method of hydrofracking works like this, “During the drilling process, the drill will bore deep down into the earth and then horizontally for approximately 8,ooo feet in each direction. The Hydrofracking process uses a relatively substantial more amount of water compared to that used in conventional drilling, about 6-8 million gallons more, as well as a mixture of chemical additives that are pumped into the shale to fracture the rock and release the gas. Due to the ‘slick water’ mixture, there is a highly increased possibility for toxicity and long-term effects as well as environmental effects.”

The environment around fracking sites becomes severely damaged once drilling begins.  Emissions of methane leaks have been reported around drill sites.  Also, air quality can become worse with the amount of automobile and truck traffic to and from the well for the transportation of chemicals, fuel, etc.  Water is greatly effected near fracking wells.  Ground water contamination has been reported at sites, and this effects the drinking water that humans and even animals drink.  In some areas, homeowners can even light their tap water on fire due to the high amounts of chemicals in it.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did a study which was published in the New York Times, that exposure to such harsh chemicals and even radioactive substances within the communities where there are fracking wells, have led to an increase in seizures, cancer, low blood pressure and even death.  It is evident that the damage caused by hydrofracking is serious.

Overall, even though hydrofracking is an economical way to mine natural gas, especially in the United States, there are a lot of problems with it that need to be remedied before it can be the ultimate method of natural gas mining.  Once the environmental, health, and other issues are taken care of, hydrofracking could become a good and even safe way to mine for natural gases buried within the earth’s crust.

Sources:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/in_syracuse_dozens_rally_again.html

About Hydrofracking

http://www.goclearwater.com/hydrofacturing.php

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

 

Throughout the past decade, rising gas prices have taken a toll on everyone’s wallet.  Large 4 to 6 cylinder cars and SUV’s have been the most expensive to keep because of their low miles per gallon (mpg).  Because of the dramatic gas prices, many Americans are choosing to keep their old car longer, or to purchase smaller cars that get more miles to the gallon.  However, the government and the automobile industry have noticed this trend.  In an effort to help Americans on the market to purchase a new car, new car models are coming out with the highest mpg’s that we have yet to see.

According to usnews.com, “In 2007, the Bust administration raised the gas mileage requirements automakers had to meet.  Then in 2009, the Obama administration raised them further.  Those rules, which are about to be finalized in detail, will require each automaker’s fleet to average a lofty 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025- roughly double the mileage requirement of just five years ago.”  This new policy that the Obama administration is coming forth with will benefit almost everyone.  People looking to buy new cars will be more apt to buy because of the more gas mileage, and the automobile industry should see more revenue because of people purchasing their more fuel efficient cars.

One question that comes up is how is the automobile industry finding new ways to increase fuel economy?  The answer is that they are finding new technology and innovations to “lighten the load.”  Again, usnews.com says that some of these new methods to increase mpg’s are “advanced powertrains and transmissions, lighter components, and even fix-a-flat canisters in lieu of a traditional jack and spare tire to save weight.  Since 2007, the average fuel economy of cars purchased has risen from 20.1 miles per gallon to 23.6 mpg, according to the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute.”

Even environmental groups are agreeing with the auto industry, maybe even for the first time.  According to the nytimes.com, “‘these proposed standards can be met using well-known technologies such as better engines, lower-cost hybrids and electric cars,’ said Roland Hwang, transportation program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.”  This is a major moment for the auto industry, to finally be in agreement of environmentalist groups.  In the end, only good can come of this.

 

Sources:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/08/27/tough-government-gas-mileage-rules-good-for-drivers-auto-industry

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/27/738621/why-fuel-mileage-standards-will-benefit-the-auto-industry-and-create-nearly-700000-new-jobs/?mobile=nc

http://www.decisivemagazine.com/automotive/auto-tech

 

This week, we experimented with the NXT cars.  Below are the results of five trails.

NXT Tire Diameter: 5.5cm

Circumference: 3.14 (Diameter) (m) —–> 3.14 (5.5) (.01)= 0.172m

Percent of Error: Distance measured – distance computer / Average (distance ruler + distance comp. /2) * 100%

 

Trial 1: Time: 1 second;  Power: 75   Power 2: 75;       Rotation: 552     Rotation 2: 559;       # of wheel turns: 1.533

Distance: 26cm;     Estimated Distance: 29cm;       Velocity: .26 m/s      % Error: 11%

 

Trial 2: Time: 3 seconds;   Power: 75    Power 2: 75;       Rotation: 1789    Rotation 2: 1794;        # of wheel turns: 4.96944

Distance: 85cm;     Estimated Distance: 90cm;      Velocity: .2849 m/s      % Error: 6%

 

Trial 3: Time: 2 seconds;    Power: 50     Power 2: 50;      Rotation: 750     Rotation 2: 754;      # of wheel turns: 2.0833

Distance: 35cm;     Estimated Distance: 39cm;      Velocity: .179 m/s;      % Error: 11%

 

Trial 4: Time: 2 seconds;   Power: 25    Power 2: 25;      Rotation: 349    Rotation 2: 348;     # of wheel turns: .96944

Distance: 16cm;    Estimated Distance: 19cm;    Velocity: .0833 m/s;      % Error: 17.14%

 

Trial 5: Time: 1 second;   Power: 100    Power 2: 100;     Rotation: 784    Rotation 2: 792;      # of wheel turns: 2.17778

Distance: 37cm;    Estimated Distance: 39cm;    Velocity: .3745 m/s;    % Error: 5.26%

 

Throughout this experiment, we were seeing how far the NXT car went with different amounts of power and speeds, and then we recorded our results.  For our estimated distance, we were always fairly close to the actual computer measured distance.  I believe that out percentage of error never went over 12% because we paid close attention to the NXT car and how to set it.  However, our percentage of error could have been much lower.  For some reason, our NXT car kept veering towards the left.  I think it has something to do with the wheel rotations.  If you look at the numbers comparing rotation 1 and rotation 2, rotation 2 is always a little lower than rotation 1.  This experiment is important because it allows you to gain experience programming the NXT car, and then measuring the results.  Overall, I really liked this experiment, and I thought that it was very beneficial to this course.

In October of 2012, the category two Hurricane Sandy hit the Northeast coast of the United States, devastating many communities.  In addition to this, many scientists are attributing this deadly storm with global warming and global climate change.  For a while now, climatologists have seen a correlation between super storms and global climate change.  However, the question remains: was Hurricane Sandy caused from climate change?

According to the New York Times, research meteorologist Thomas R. Knutson who works in Princeton, NJ at the government’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab, states that “We’re changing the environment- it’s very clear.  We’re changing the global temperature, we’re changing atmospheric moisture, we’re changing a lot of things.  Humans are running this experiment, and we’re not quite sure how it’s going to turn out.”  This remark is very unsettling for many scientists as well as global citizens.  The world as we know it is changing because of our negligence.  The New York Times also said that “the resulting storm surge along the Atlantic coast was almost certainly intensified by decades of sea-level rise linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases.  And they emphasized that Hurricane Sandy, whatever its causes, should be seen as a foretaste of trouble to come as the seas rise faster, the risks of climate change accumulate and the political system fails to respond.”  What can be taken from this quote is that some climatologists believe that the storm itself was not caused by global warming, but much of the damage and effects of the storm were.

Scientists meeting at the annual Geological Society of America convention believe that Hurricane Sandy was definitely exacerbated by global climate change.  These scientists agree that the rising sea levels increased about 1ft of the storm surge in the NY/NJ area.  Hurricanes, like most storms, gain their power from moisture in the atmosphere.  Hurricanes are going to occur with or without global warming, but these scientists agree that these storms will become more intense as the atmosphere warms up and as the sea levels rise.

Overall, Hurricane Sandy (the storm), is believed to have not been caused by global climate change, but as stated earlier, the effects of the storm, the intensity, and the much of the damage (i.e. storm surge flooding) was most likely caused by global warming and global climate change.  For now, we need to find ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and lessen our impact on the environment or be faced with similar or even worse storms in the future.

Sources:

http://www.livescience.com/24566-hurricane-sandy-climate-change.html

Global warming systemically caused Hurricane Sandy