lpgrasso – Innovative and Contemporary Science SPRING 2012

The Museum of Science in Boston has more than 500 interactive exhibits, numerous presentations throughout the day given by professional, IMAX educational movies and shows the the Charles Hayden Planetarium. According to the museum’s website, its mission is to “play a leading role in transforming the nation’s relationship with science and technology.” They promote active citizenship in the fields of science and technology, inspire appreciation of these and encourage individuals to develop interests in understanding the natural and human-made world.

The museum has an amazing background and history, along with numerous opportunities for jobs and careers and a relationship with the government. The website has all of this information, which is very worth reading…take a look!

http://www.mos.org/visitor_info/about_the_museum

During our visit I mainly visited the red wing, the green wing and the blue wing. Here are some pictures…

The first stop, although designed for kids, was the discovery center. An interactive area with hands – on activities that makes use of real objects in order to create an education environment exploring natural history, physical science and technology topics.

I also visited the “Energized!” and “Bonsai” exhibits. An emphasis on sunlight, wind and energy sources along with hands-on models and videos taught me about renewable energy and innovative energy technologies. The Bonsai exhibit shows miniature trees and the art form behind their creation as well as the variety of trees that form them and what tools are used to make this art. It was great to have the chance to learn about this, it is a temporary exhibit and to have the opportunity to actually learn the history of Bonsai trees and their purposes was great.

I wish I could have visited the entire museum, but that obviously takes a while. I hadn’t been before and I hope to come back soon! This way I can explore the dinosaur part more, the human body exhibit and the IMAX movies.

Today’s class required us to brainstorm for our final project: our group experiment!!!! Together with Evan and Livia (Brittany was absent) we decided to find out what type of surface heats more – sand, soil or water. Together with our NXT Robot, thermometers and lamps we will figure out why the Earth heats up differently in different surfaces. Now we have to sit down to construct our 50 mn experiment as well as its procedures, how we will teach it to the class and what we will learn from it.

I am really excited to work with my team mates to make this a successful experiment!

Nuclear energy has never been a subject of peace and agreement. Almost every one of its aspects is extremely controversial and cause dilemmas. Indian Point Energy Center is a Nuclear power plan that was located in Buchanan New York, close to New York City and right on the bank of the Hudson River. The nuclear plant has been active since 1962 and is now owned and operated by the Entergy Corporation. Already the target of criticism and revolt, the corporation didn’t make it any easier making numerous mistakes that have caused accidents and lead to federal inspection. As with every nuclear power plant, there are pros and cons as to whether it should be active or not. Is it a safe plant that benefits us by providing energy or is it a harm that places its surroundings at risk?

Lets begin with the bad news first.

According to Yahoo, there are 17 Million Residents within 50 Miles of Indian Point, if anything were to happen to the plant that forced evacuation or released radiation it would put these people in danger and at the risk of death.

The plant also puts the area in risk of an earthquake. NY Daily News explains this, “The plant is near the Ramapo Fault line in the earth. Thus the area has a higher than average risk for an earthquake. The fault line had not yet been identified at the time the Indian Point nuclear plant was built. The ability of scientists to identify potential earthquake zones has advanced rapidly since the 1962 when Indian Point was built”.

In 2010, the state of New York declared that the outdated technology used to keep the nuclear reactors cool is in violation of the Clean Water Act. The Indian Point nuclear plant damages and contaminates the water from the Hudson River; killing life and overusing the water taken from the river.

“The world has changed” since the earthquake and tsunami that wrecked Japan’s Fukushima nuclear complex, Cuomo said. The governor of New York called for the shut down of the plant due to these risks.

The pros of the plant are almost obvious to our eyes.

Not only does it produce carbon-free electricity, which is a vital source for New York; but it also employs more than one thousand workers. It is also a price-stable energy source.

I am all for being sustainable as long as it is done correctly and safely. This nuclear power plant has had so many problems and has been shut off and on so many times, that in my eyes, it doesn’t feel very reliable. I understand that shutting it off would cause problems in providing energy for the near buy areas; but then the government should reinforce inspection and make sure the plant is being used for the purpose it was built: to provide benefits and not harms.

REFERENCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/indian-point-shuts-down-reactor-20120229-APX http://voices.yahoo.com/should-indian-point-nuclear-plant-8145276.html http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Indian%20Point%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plant http://www.safesecurevital.com/community_planning/community-contributions.html

MIT PLASMA CENTER VISITATION

This week’s class was a little different, instead of having lecture; we took a field trip to one of the country’s “Leading University Research Laboratories in the Physics and Engineering Aspects of Magnetic and Inertial Fusion” as described by MIT.

We began our visitation with a power point presentation in what seemed like a classroom or presentation room; the presentation was given by a 4^th year PhD student who is working on the project. Although it was very informative in providing us with a background on the project, I felt that he repeated a lot of what we learned in class but forgot that we were not PhD students and many times didn’t understand technical terms and explanations. To be honest, this part could have been skipped and done on the actual site. I think that we would have been more interested and maybe even understand more by actually seeing it.

Once that was finished we moved on to the actual site of Alcator Project. Through Fusion research, MIT’s Alcator C-Mod project is the world’s highest magnetic field tokamak plasma confinement experiment. The project provides research to the ITER project, which is an attempt to create clean and renewable energy through fusion.

The MIT website explains everything very clearly if you’re interested in reading more: http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/intro/info.html#solution

Unfortunately, the funds for this project have been cut off by the government and is not currently running.

Global Warming has become a topic that makes everyday headlines and concerns and according to a very recent Gallup Poll, thankfully, the majority of Americans do believe that Global Warming is real. Yet, despite the numerous scientific evidence we are presented with, there are still people who deny that global warming is real and existent.

A Global Warming Denier is an individual or organization that denies and distorts the science and urgency of global warming as assessed by the world’s foremost authority on global warming, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So who are these people in our society? Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. The August 2007 Newsweek cover story “The Truth About Denial” reported that “this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”

These people include front groups and free market anti-government organizations that try to affect public opinion and policy on global warming. They work together to form an echo chamber of views that appear to be coming from a large, unrelated constituency. In reality, they sit on each other’s boards, publish each other’s writings, form coalitions, use the same scientists, lobby Congress, and spread identical arguments.

Some influential figures in our society have openly talked about how they deny Global Warming. Donald Trump, Ted Nungent, David Bellamy, some weather forecasters – John Coleman and Anthony Watts and even Sen. James Inhofe.

It is disappointing that figures with so much power and knowledge, who are supposed to be teaching the rest of our society, take such extremist actions and settle on a view that it does not exist.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. “They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.”

I like to post videos on the blog topics because I believe visual and audio representations make it easier to understand. It was very difficult to find videos that had worthy information. So I was only able to find two videos on the matter, the first one speaks of the Climate Change Denial Industry and the second one is a very ironic, funny and criticizing video on Global Warming Deniers – very worth watching.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGrkVoa78o&feature=related
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwFSLm4pII

Topics like these are very complicated to judge and analyze. None of us are sure of anything, and even though we have scientific proof, it is not always certain. I myself am a believer of Global Warming, but I don’t solely base myself on scientific facts. I believe that any type of human interaction with the environment that is negative and in exaggeration WILL cause consequences, and not good ones. But, I’d rather be safe than sorry and taking action to try to reverse a possible harm we have done to the earth is the best idea in my opinion.

Their motivations for being deniers are a controversy and most of the time believed to be money – which apparently is what drives everyone anywhere these days. Denying it only brings the self satisfaction o confidence or victory – I honestly don’t understand, especially when so many facts are laid down right before us and even more when we are seeing things happen through our own eyes.

REFERENCES:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/gwdeniers.html#what
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html

THOMAS VALES

Our class today was a little different. We had the pleasure of having Thomas Vales talk to us about heat and thermal dynamics. Mr. Vale is the lab coordinator for the science department and has been a machinist for the past 30 years; he has a business in the area and is a great resource to have on campus!

He presented four different devices to us that use energy in ways we have never imagined and work as well as they did 200 years ago. These devices are an alternative to the resources we currently use that will eventually run out.

The first one wasn’t very efficient. It was created back in 1824, the Peltie. It makes use of two types of metal: copper and bismuth. They form a junction and create electricity; although they are silent generators of power they are not very efficient and are used as semi conductor junctions.

He also showed us his favorite device, the sterling engine created be Reverend Robert Sterling in 1816; he created it as a replacement for steam engines because they weren’t very safe. It is a hot air engine, very efficient and very sensitive.

There was the Medocino Motor, which could be considered as a teaching tool because of the many mechanics that make it up. But it is not a very practical application.

He also showed us a surprise, which seemed to be everyone’s favorite. The Tessel. I made a video on his demonstration, it was really fun!

THOMAS VALES – presentation

Towards the end of his presentation, he spoke a little bit about how his parents always encouraged him and never kept him from pursuing a career in what he was interested one. He demonstrated a great sense of passion towards his job and gave us a great piece of advice: to keep our minds active, because if the mind goes the body goes next.

Mr. Vales was very nice in welcoming us to his office to explore his gadgets and to teach us more about the matter. It was great to have him as a guest to share his knowledge with us!

The Solyndra Scandal consists of a political controversy involving Obama’s administration and its decision to authorize a loan of $535 million in order to guarantee the Solyndra Corporation in 2009 as a part of an environmental program to spur alternative energy growth.

Solyndra is a corporation founded to provide an alternative to silicon-based solar panels amidst a worldwide shortage. According to their website, their solar power solutions offer strong return on investment and make great business sense. Their technology was designed for the rooftop and offers the benefit of lightweight, low cause and the fastest, easiest installation of any solar technology.

Now, back to the scandal. In August of 2009, the Office of Management and Budget was asked about the status of the loan to the solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra. In September of 2011 the company filed for bankruptcy and a few days later the FBI raided their offices yet refused to discuss an details of the investigation.

The loan was granted by the Department of Energy (DoE) under the green-infrastructure provisions of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill, and OMB officials privately said they felt pressured to approve the loan prematurely.

The Washington Post reported these facts after obtaining internal administration emails. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Republican Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.), held a hearing on the Solyndra loan and the emails on Wednesday, where officials from OMB and DOE testified.

Now, the controversy here is that House Republicans allege that the White House pressured OMB to approve the loan prematurely and ignored Solyndra’s financial problems and background and that they did this for political reasons – the administration was rushing to show and promote their action to promote “green”.

The Washington Post says there are 5 myths on the Scandal:
1) This scandal is no big deal
2) Solyndra proves that energy-loan guarantees are a flop.
3) The government should leave energy R&D to the private sector
4) Solar is a doomed industry.
5) It’s all China’s fault

If you want to read more about these myths: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html

Now, in order to understand more clearly what happened, I found that this video helps a lot. In it Allen Barton, Terry Jones and Tim Cavanaugh discuss the Solyndra solar energy scandal. The refer to questions such as, will there be criminal charges? Do we need more sunshine on this green energy debacle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94OPLs3bNuA&feature=fvst

Other perspectives believe that the real problem are their energy subsides.

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.

There are some types of subsidies:

This video is really good at talking about this, but most importantly, fitting it in the Solyndra scandal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb3hjjLbmsk&feature=fvst

Bloomberg sums up this matter very well; I choose to quote them because not only are they very clear, but I agree with their opinion and perspective:

“Since 2009, the Department of Energy has awarded or conditionally committed more than $30 billion in guarantees to support construction of 42 alternative-energy projects. About $9 billion of proposed guarantees are awaiting final approval by Sept. 30. But in this build-out phase, private-sector financing works far better than government backing.

Energy-related loan guarantees arose from the stimulus legislation of 2009. Policy makers thought a huge infusion of low-cost loans would create many thousands of jobs at solar- panel factories, alternative-energy power plants and the like. There was an implicit assumption that most of these ventures would succeed.

Barring fraud, Solyndra’s failure reflects the company’s bet on an inadequate technology. Its tubes, coated with an unusual four-metal compound, were supposed to cut power costs more than 20 percent. That wasn’t nearly enough. Production costs fell much faster for a rival technology, conventional flat silicon panels, and Solyndra couldn’t compete.”

Unfortunately, in today’s society, most of what is done by the government is done with political intentions and most importantly, intentions that lead to financial victory or power instead of the genuine intention of focusing on the cause and consequences. To me, this scandal is a purely political and makes me question the motivation behind and execution of the government’s green stimulus spending

REFERENCES:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/the-solyndra-scandal-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/245186/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html

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

http://www.xconomy.com/national/2011/12/12/energy-subsidies-a-historical-perspective/2/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-23/real-solyndra-scandal-is-u-s-approach-to-renewable-energy-subsidies-view.html

SOLAR CELL LAB

Our Solar Cell lab worked with the of understanding the relationship between light intensity and the voltage output of the solar cell, as well as the relationship between the wavelength of the light and the voltage output of the solar cell.

Our lab was quiet simple, we began by setting up our solar cell and probe to our NXT and we were ready to begin. We plugged it into the computer and ran the program.

To being with we used our materials to conduct two types of trials. One type, which consisted of 4 trials, measured the intensity of light in different distances. Along with my partner, we measured the light intensity from 5cm, 10 cm, 18 cm and 30 cm. The point of this set of trials was to compare Photovoltaic Voltage in relation to distance.

Photovoltaics employ solar panels composed of solar cells with photovoltaic material in order to generate constant electricity power by converting solar radiation into direct current electricity.

Our results were the following:

Although the experiment seemed to be going ok and we followed all the instructions, our results came out a little weird. I believe this happened because of where the flashlight was flashed on the solar cell. In other words, in 2 of the trials it was pointed directly at it and during others it wasn’t. There could be other explanations, but the results don’t make a lot of sense.

Our second set of 4 trials maintained the same distance, but change the color filter of the light. Our results consisted of the following:

These results made sense, the darker the filter, the less light went through and therefore it resulted in a low number of photovoltaic voltage.

According to Earthworks, Hydraulic fracturing is a common technique used to stimulate the production of oil and natural gas. According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, 90 percent of the gas wells in the US undergo fracturing, to stimulate production.

This video explains the process a little bit better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB3FOJjpy7s

According to Hydraulicfracturing.com, natural gas is primarily methane (CH4). Its purity makes it an environmentally friendly fuel. Methane is a nonreactive hydrocarbon, which means its emissions do not react with sunlight to create smog. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is nontoxic, noncarcinogenic and noncorrosive.

Natural gas is lighter than air, making it a safe fuel for many applications. Any leakage will quickly dissipate into the atmosphere, reducing the risk of an explosion as compared to liquid fuels, which can pool on the ground or pollute our groundwaters.

A mix of ingredients and other additives are used in fluids to allow hydraulic fracturing to be performed in a safe and effective manner. Additives used in hydraulic fracturing fluids include a number of compounds found in common consumer products.

The website also provided us with a graph, that helps visualize what happens. Following the graph is a quick explanation:

A representation showing the percent by volume composition of typical deep shale natural gas, or oil hydraulic fracturing fluid components (see graphic) reveals that approximately 98% of the fracturing mixture is comprised of freshwater and sand. This mixture is injected into deep shale formations and is typically confined by many thousands of feet of rock layers.

Fracturing operations may have significant impacts on surrounding communities. Experts cite risks of toxic spills of  fracturing chemicals, and pollution of air or water, among other impacts.  Fracturing operations involve the movement, storage, and disposal of millions of gallons of water and thousands to tens of thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals. But because of a lack of transparency, it can be very difficult to learn what chemicals are used by companies. Spills, regulatory penalties, and litigation linked to fracturing operations in been reported in several states where natural gas companies are active. Media attention to fracturing and levels of public concern about potential environmental impacts have skyrocketed since 2007.

There are many vies and opinions towards this matter, CHEVRON has a whole page on why it is good and what are its benefits. They claim “energy companies have combined two established technologies—hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling—to successfully unlock this resource.”

This video is a cry out against Hydraulic fracturing, I thought it was an interesting video to watch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au4p7clRk-Y

Popular Mechanics also made sure to publish some “hard facts” on hydraulic fracturing: “Natural gas doesn’t run our lives: As a fossil fuel used to generate electricity, it’s in a distant second place behind coal. But with new domestic gas sources—much of it made available thanks to hydraulic fracturing—that all could change, along with (someday) the way you cook your food, heat your home or even drive your car. Here’s a look at the facts behind this controversial new way to get to U.S. gas.”

Popular Mechanics is very good about laying out the facts in a simple and clear way to understand, check it out Hydraulic Fracturing – Fracking Natural Gas – Popular Mechanics

I personally do not have a strong and direct opinion formed on the matter. I really need to read more and research more; yet, for what its worth, to me, anything that we men mess around with too much and invent and find new ways to extract and develop and find is NOT good and does NOT have my approval.

Who knows, I might change my mind. But this is something I will definitely look into because of the fact that I don’t think it has enough exposure, especially in relation to how important and how dramatic it is.

REFERENCES:
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing
http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/naturalgas/shalegas/?gclid=CIHL0tmLja4CFaYQNAodCxHogQ
http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Fracturing-Ingredients/Pages/information.aspx
http://iehn.org/overview.naturalgashydraulicfracturing.php

GENERATOR LAB

Our lab Today consisted of understanding how coiled wires generate electricity. Our lab was quiet simple, we began by setting up our generator to our NXT and we were ready to begin. The experiment aimed towards seeing that the faster the tube is shaken, the greater voltage will be generated.

In order to find that out, groups were in charge of correlating the number of shakes of the generator, in a thirty second time interval, with the voltages (or more precisely the sum of the square of the voltages) that the generator generated.

To be able to analyze this correctly, we repeated the procedure 4 times.

We began by shaking measuring the tube as it shook 0 times. Then we went on to shake the tube 22 times at a specific rate. As we moved on to the next trial, this rate increased. Our second trial consisted of 32 times and our forth trial of 42.

To find the sum of the squares of the generated voltages (SSGV’s) we inserted the data calculated by LabView into Excel. The following table shows the data gathered:

This information then needs to be passed on to a graph so we can make our conclusions, so we copied the number of shakes and the sum of squares of voltages to a new excel sheet. Our x axis becomes the number of shakes and our y axis is the sum of the square of the voltages. This is the graph that we created:

In conclusion, the more shakes the more voltage!

According to the New York Times fuel economy standards have been the primary way in which the United States has sought to control greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light trucks, which along with other parts of the transportation sector account for about one-third of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Congress first adopted the standards — known as Cafe standards, for Corporate Fuel Economy Standards — in 1975, in reaction to the disruption of the 1973 oil embargo. For decades, automakers resisted changes in the standards, but joined Mr. Obama for his 2010 announcement that he was ordering the creation of a new national policy that would result in less greenhouse-gas pollution from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for the first time. It would also reduce exhaust from cars and light-duty trucks beyond the requirements he set in motion a year before.

Manufacturers want a single, national standard set over the long term because is easier to meet than the patchwork quilt of regulations imposed in the past. Writing new regulations that will require cars and trucks to have significantly higher fuel economy by 2025 prompted years of fighting among automakers, environmentalists, regulators and consumer groups.

But now that the standards have been proposed, nearly everyone involved in the process is on board with the results, as a public hearing held Tuesday in Detroit showed. More than 90 people who spoke throughout the day asserted that the stricter fuel economy requirements would create jobs, reduce oil consumption, create cleaner air and save drivers money, all while helping automakers increase their profits.

The administration says the higher standards will cause vehicle prices to increase about $2,000 but that owners will save an average of $6,600 over the life of the vehicle by using less fuel. The rules also will create 484,000 jobs and cut oil consumption in the United States by 1.5 million barrels a day by 2030, according to the Go60mpg coalition, an association of environmental advocacy groups that support the proposal.

This MSNBC VIDEO explains a little bit of the matter…http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/30833326#30833326

So how will the automobile industry increase gas mileage? One of the solutions is presented by Hybridcards.com; the company has put the responsibility on the drivers.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers launched an initiative called “EcoDriving” to educate Americans about how to reduce fuel consumption and cut carbon dioxide emissions by changing driving habits.

The “EcoDriving” program describes a set of best practices for driving and maintenance, allowing a typical car owner to increase fuel economy by approximately 15 percent. Driving and operation practices include: utilizing proper braking techniques, driving at optimum speeds, making the best use of synchronized traffic lights, and deciding when it makes sense to use air conditioning. On the maintenance side, the advice tackles issues such as choosing which motor oil to use, as well as understanding the effects of tire pressure.

Now, environmental groups find themselves in the unusual position of lauding the automakers for making fuel economy a priority in virtually all their newest products, from the tiniest subcompact to the heaviest pickup.

Hyundai for example, has created the Blue Driver. Blue Drive is a philosophy that guides our mission to become the world leader in sustainability. From building lighter vehicles to developing more efficient powertrains, to inventing proprietary hybrid technologies, we’re committed to reaching a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2015. That’s five years before the new government mandates kick in. In the future, Blue Drive will expand to include plug-in hybrid vehicles, zero-emission electric vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles that run entirely on hydrogen. Their only emission is water.

Hyundai’s Eco-Technology Research Institute, as stated on their website, is at the forefront of the industry’s environmental movement. Here, our scientists are leading studies and managing our green energy initiatives. They’re developing innovative new technologies that will revolutionize every part of our process. Creating new ways to lower air pollution from exhaust emissions. Inventing more efficient electric-motor systems. And even improving the sustainability of our raw-material sourcing, manufacturing and recycling methods. As the auto industry moves towards a more sustainable future, our Eco-Technology Research Institute will be leading the way.

This is the company’s interactive website to understand a little bit more of the Blue Driver
http://bluedrive.hyundai.com/BlueDrive.html

Chevrolet explains their methods stating that Chevrolet cars are all being designed to save you money while emitting less CO2 into the environment than conventional vehicles. We’re enhancing designs to reduce wind resistance. We’re using lower-mass components to help you save fuel. We’re incorporating new technologies in our internal combustion engines, such as cylinder deactivation or eAssist, to lessen fuel usage. Even our tires are optimized to reduce rolling friction. We combine these technologies to continually improve your fuel efficiency.

Aside from these two companies, the auto industry is working to create more electric, fuel-efficient, and hybrid cars, (of which we’ve seen already) increasing technology in order to make them better and more efficient every year.

REFERENCES:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/ns/us_news-environment/t/obama-unveils-mpg-rule-gets-broad-support/#.Ty9UMXamJPI

http://www.hybridcars.com/gas-mileage-factors/ecodriving-real-solution0819.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/business/energy-environment/new-fuel-economy-rules-win-broad-support.html?_r=1&ref=fuelefficiency

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/business/carmakers-back-strict-new-rules-for-gas-mileage.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.hyundaiusa.com/new-thinking/environment.aspx

http://www.chevrolet.com/culture/category/environmental-projects/

 
FORCE AND ENERGY, VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION, AND POWER

During this week’s class we conducted an experiment to analyze Force and Energy, Velocity and Acceleration, and Power using our Lego robots, a pulley and 250 grams of weights.

The experiment consisted of 8 trials, of which were divided into two part: one where we had a constant power level (75), which determined the mass for 1-4; and the other a constant mass (0.25kg).

For the first set of trails our group got the following weights: m1 as .17, m2 as .23 m3 as .21 and m4 as .19. The second set of trails were conducted to find the power by using a constant mass of .The power was interesting because while keeping a constant mass the power went up by ten each time, therefore p1 was 50, p2 was 60, p3 was 70, and p4 was 80.

During these trails the mean height was 23 inches. We also had to make sure to record speed (RPM), battery discharge (mV), power, time (seconds), accelerations (RPM/s) and go on to calculate the potential energy and the power used based on the following calculation: Mass*Gravitational field* Height.  In other words, it is .25*9.8*.23.

The numbers recorded along with the calculations were placed on a table in order to facilitate the creation of graphs on excel. We should end up with 4 graphs:

1.       Acceleration vs mass (power level fixed)
2.       Acceleration vs power level (mass fixed)
3.       Battery discharge vs mass (fixed power level)
4.       Power used (mgh/t) vs power level.

Conclusions:
Graph 1:
The power level is constant and as the mass rises the acceleration is smaller. The more energy force the more power is needed.

Graph 2:
The mass is constant and we are looking at acceleration vs. power level. When an object has a constant mass, the power level remains the same. There won’t be change unless we are the ones that change the power. In relation to the acceleration, the more power the more acceleration.

Graph 3:
With a constant power level, we look at the battery discharge VS mass. The more mass, the larger use of battery and the faster it will be drained.

Graph 4:
To find the power used vs. the power level we analyze work/time, the more power the more work and time is used.