What is the inspiration for our exploration?:

Sir Isaac Newton’s law of motion: An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line, unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.

The law (above) lead to Newton’s second law, which is what we are experimenting with: Force= mass X acceleration, F=ma

The force= unbalanced force. Expressed as 1N, or one Newton.

What does the experiment entail?:

The experiment was set up to test the amount of weight we put on a pulley system, and how much power(total amount of work done, the amount it took) it took to work (force times parallel distance. was required for it to move) . We placed weights of 20, 10 and 5 grams on a pulley hook, and first tried to fool around with different speeds, just to get on a more comfortable level with different speeds and weights.

We established a constant weight of 190g, or .19kg to test the first round of our pulley system. It works, and we are able to move on to building a series of 4 graphs, our group only put together 2.

 

Let’s wise up: this is gross.

 

With so many cars on the road today, and so much a foreign dependency on gas used on America soil, one has to wonder: WHAT IS UP WITH THIS?? So, unless we get back to ye ole days of Flintstone automobiles, (which we are currently too fat to do) it is about time we do something about this issue awkwardly lurking around on American soil. (Hat’s off to those who are cruising in hybrid, like myself J)

The lurking issue is the continuous air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions caused by:

Gas, Gas and more Gas.

 

Since elected to office, President Obama has made fuel efficiency an issue to tackle. He has set a standard for American auto manufacturers to reach between the years of 2017- 2025. Naturally, like any political mumbo-jumbo, American auto-manufactures have begged for an extension to this timeline. However, there is progress being made. I see it everyday, on the Mass Pike, as I drift by, in-between, in front of and behind endless hybrid cars. Most of which, have around 39 miles per gallon and range anywhere from a 8-12 gallon engine.  Yes, this, my friends is in- your- face progress from certainly 10, and definitely 5 years ago. Remember the Hummer faze, at 9 mpg?!

 

In an article published by NPR, the auto industry is panicking over the cost that all of the parts will cost in order to produce strictly fuel-efficient cars for Americans. However, long-term financial relief will weigh out this spike in production costs:

 

“Although the new requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, drivers could save as much as $3,000 over the life of a vehicle through better gas mileage, according to a government statement. The new standards also will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and cut carbon dioxide emissions by nearly a billion tons over the life of the regulated models”

 

 

Environmental groups have been pressing the issue of fuel efficiency since the Bush administration, and states like the ever-green California have enforced strict air-pollution rules for vehicles on their highways. However, 2012 is a start date for the auto-industry to wise up, bite the bullet, spend some extra cash, and provide Americans with fuel-efficient cars.

 

The proof is in the pudding! (In this case, the pudding being cough, the air we breathe). With Obama continuing to press the issues he has since 2008, there has been a great improvement within the auto-industry. Here is a February 2012 list of the 23 most fuel-efficient cars on the road:

 

		Fuel Economy
Rank	Make & model	CR Overall MPG	City MPG	Highway MPG	150 mile trip MPG
1	Nissan Leaf SL	1061	861	1181	1241
2	Chevrolet Volt	612	452	761	702
3	Toyota Prius Four	44	32	55	53
4	Toyota Prius v Three	41	33	47	46
5	Lexus CT 200h Premium	40	31	47	46
6	Honda Civic Hybrid	40	28	50	50
7	Smart ForTwo Passion	39	30	44	46
8	Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE	38	32	43	42
9	Honda Insight EX	38	29	45	46
10	Volkswagen Golf TDI (MT)	38	27	49	44
11	Volkswagen Passat TDI SE	37	26	51	27
12	Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI (MT)	36	25	49	37
13	Honda CR-Z EX (MT)	35	26	45	41
14	Volkswagen Jetta TDI	34	25	45	41
15	Fiat 500 Pop (MT)	34	25	42	41
16	Ford Fusion Hybrid	34	25	40	41
17	Scion xD (MT)	34	25	40	42
18	Mazda2 Sport (MT)	33	25	40	40
19	Fiat 500 Sport (MT)	33	24	42	41
20	Mini Cooper (base, MT)	33	24	41	41
21	Hyundai Sonata Hybrid	33	24	40	39
22	Honda Fit Sport (MT)	33	24	37	41
23	Ford Fiesta SE sedan	33	22	45	41

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125458204

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/most-fuelefficient-cars/overview/index.htm

http://zautos.com/could-52-6-mpg-be-a-reality-by-2017/

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgFSUwwZdpo

 

First step:

Using the Lego Mindstorm kit, we built a robot that is capable of using energy from a given battery that can be programmed to perform specific movements. The NXT brick is connected with a USB cord to the computer. The Lego robot that we built had three wheels for motion.

 

 

 

Second Step:

We were able to identify our built robot on the computer, with the given NXT robotics software. With the grid we were able to design certain movements that we wanted our robot to do. We were also able to establish certain speeds for our robot use. There is a stop button that makes halting our robot completely, possible. With the software, our first test was to program the robot to do a complete 360-degree,two-foot diameter circle. This was a success!

 

Given Goal/ Experiment:

Our group was then prompted to determine the distance that our robot could travel in one second of motion.  We measured the distance the robot traveled in one second, using a ruler, and subtracted the program’s estimated measurement of distance. Using the given formula:

 

measurement with ruler- program measurement

measurement with ruler + measurement of program

2

 

With our measurement with ruler being= .267m

and our program measurement being= .264m

we were able to find the measuring error with the ruler to be 1.13%

 

What is demand response? Demand response is a mechanism implemented to conserve electricity when the demand is high, such as afternoons during the day, (when many Americans are getting home from work, turning on lights, heat and other electric items) so if possible events (such as natural disasters) occur there is enough saved energy to somewhat manages the damage. It balances out all of the excess electricity used by reducing use for small increments of time. Simply put, constant use of electricity in excess can cause blackouts and meltdowns of the power-grid, and electrical suppliers in America, such as Pacific Gas & Electric, are beginning to offer incentives to businesses or households that are willing to commit to reducing their electricity use during peak times, everyday. (Here is a great link from EnerNOC explaining demand response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgFSUwwZdpo) This is an AWESOME explaination of Demand Response by Boston based company, EnerNOC!!

 

When and why did this concept become popular? While demand response is still a budding concept in the U.S., it has been used in the U.K. since 2009, and produced successful back-up energy rates. Canada is also beginning to test demand response in some provinces aiming to become more sustainable. In 2005, the U.S. began to research the possible outcome of enforcing demand response, weighing the positives and the negatives. As described in Wikipedia:

 

“The report estimates that in 2004 potential demand response capability equaled about 20,500 megawatts (MW), 3% of total U.S. peak demand, while actual delivered peak demand reduction was about 9,000 MW (1.3% of peak), leaving ample margin for improvement. It is further estimated that load management capability has fallen by 32% since 1996. Factors affecting this trend include fewer utilities offering load management services, declining enrollment in existing programs, the changing role and responsibility of utilities, and changing supply/demand balance.”

 

To further the use of demand response, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission created a required compensation for electric providers of demand response in March 2011. This concept of compensation has proven to be somewhat taboo, due to the reward to companies for what should become a natural commitment. Eventually, the government will not be able to provide compensation after all of the electric providers have embraced demand response, thus causing an eventual down-fall of the concept (possibly).

 

How could you start to use demand response?

While the concept is slowly growing on a national level, there are ways that individuals can help reduce the demand of electricity during peak times: use less electricity, when you would usually be using the most! Also, check in with your utilities provider, and see if there is any deal they have to reduce your payments by using the demand response mechanism.

 

 

 

 

http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/demandresponse/whatisdemandresponse/

 

http://www.healthtechzone.com/news/2012/01/26/6079989.htm

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

 

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was caused by the devastating Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, which hit Japan on March 11^th 2011.  The nuclear plant was home to six boiling water reactors at the time of disaster. When the earthquake struck the island, water reactor #4 had previously been de-fuelled. Simultaneously, reactors numbered 5 and 6 were shutdown and reduced to a cold temperature, in preparation for usual maintenance. Reactors 1, 2 and 3 were automatically shut off after the earthquake struck. Following the standard programmed emergency procedure, computer generators then engaged in the cooling and electronic controls of the shut down reactors.

This process would be used to keep the plant active until weather subsides, but there was an encroaching Tsunami, which soon struck the plant.

The tsunami diminished the connection between the generators, (which had kicked in during the earthquake) and the reactors. The power-grid that was being used to cool the reactors, then shut down, and lead to the ultimate overheating of the reactors.  Natural flooding from the earthquake kept the plant from receiving assistance from outside of the country to aid in cooling the now unattainably hot reactors.

Land up to 20 miles around the nuclear plant was affected by the reactors meltdown, and it’s following hydrogen explosions. The explosions exposed many already suffering Japanese to radiation.

Radiation has brought cancer rates up around the areas of the plant between 100 and 1,000 cases. And the land surrounding the plant has been soiled with radioactive materials, from the ground to the ocean. While the nuclear plant meltdown has been re-booted and is currently running, the effects on the people and land have been the harshest after-math.

 

Bibliography:

“Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster>.

 

GlobalResearch.ca – Centre for Research on Globalization. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va>.

 

“Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.” Ecoversity. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ecoversity.org/fukushima.html>.

 

“Explosion at Quake-hit Nuclear Plant – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).” ABC.net.au. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-12/explosion-at-quake-hit-nuclear-plant/2659388>.

 

 

Welcome to Blogs.cas.suffolk.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Manage>Posts or make a new one under Write>Posts then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Design tab to choose a new look for your blog as well.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.