seveilleux

During science class on February 27, 2012 as a group we went to the MIT Plasma Center. When we arrived in Cambridge we got to walk around MIT and experience the ‘campus’, which had some really intriguing buildings.

When we arrived at the Plasma Center, we were greeted by a student at MIT who gave us a lecture on plasma, everything to do with it and the importance.

When the presentation about plasma was over, we ventured to the interesting sections of the Plasma Center. We saw the sign for the Alcator C-Mod which uses magnetic fields to enclose hydrogen atoms which allows it to fuse. We learned that MIT is trying to make this work, because honestly it uses a little too much energy. This  Alacator C-Mod is very compact and highly proficient. The student who took us on this tour told us that this Alacator C-Mod is one of the world’s highest magnetic fields for plasma confinement, and it’s at MIT(How cool). The result of the invention at MIT of the Alacator C-Mod  has allowed engineers and scientists to perform large and some of the largest fusion experiments in not just Massachusetts, or the United States, but the world. Unfortunately we couldn’t see the Alacator C-Mod but we did learn about it and see lots of graphs, and video of how it works, and how they measure.

After learning about the Alacator C-Mod we kept going at the Plasma center and saw the The ITER Nuclear Fusion Reactor. Below is a picture of this. The goal of the ITER Nuclear Fusion Reactor is essentially to make and plan for clean and unlimited energy, which would make energy cleaner leading to a better earth. The student told us that this went into the earths crust and that is where the energy sources could be found to study, and to create fusion which would make this clean energy.

The sad news that we were told was that MIT has lost some funding for this project. This is really unfortunate because it is such a great concept.

What do you want first? The bad or the good?

Lets start with the good, and leave the bad for the end.

Nuclear Power has been a very important part of any community for many years, but with this importance comes ridicule and has become controversial.  The nuclear power plant in Indian Point New York is one of the biggest sources of electricity in New York. “The Indian Point nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., has been a major source of power to New York City and its northern suburbs since the first reactor went into operation in 1962″( The New York Times, July 14,2011). When a plant has been in such great power for years it becomes a norm within the community. But, with this time there comes a possibility of problems, because of changing times and possibly technology. “But the plant, which is now owned by Entergy, has encountered a string of accidents and mishaps since its beginnings, and has appeared on the federal list of the nation’s worst nuclear power plants”( The New York Times, July 14, 2011).

Here comes the bad news- The plant is  thought of as a danger by some of the community. Since the attacks on september 11, the plant has become a dangerous thought to the community, and some want to shut it down. “Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York called for it to be shut permanently, repeating a position he had taken ever since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, and the earthquakes and tsunami’s. In response, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it would accelerate a planned review of Indian Point and would allow state officials to be part of the inquiry”(The New York TImes, 2011).

The problem with shutting down this plant would be where the energy source would eventually come from, especially because this plant has NYC, and the Northern suburbs to take care of. But, there are some positive aspects if the plant was closed. “Closing the plant could also increase the frequency of power failures, officials who run the state’s high-voltage grid say, given that New York has weak ties to generation capacity in other states”(The New York Times, 2011).

Some think that shutting down the plant is a good idea, because it is such an old plant, but some disagree and believe that if this happens the world will come to an end(no exaggeration). “The study was prepared by Charles River Associates, a consulting group based in Boston, Mass., at the behest of New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The bottom-line conclusion, as reported yesterday by the New York Times: The licenses for the plant’s reactors are scheduled for renewal in 2013 and 2015. Together, the reactors produce as much as 25 percent of the power consumed in Consolidated Edison’s service area, which includes New York City and Westchester County . . . A shutdown also would drive up the wholesale cost of electricity in the city and state by about 10 percent, or a total of $1.5 billion a year, it says. That would translate to a rise of 5 percent to 10 percent in the amount residential customers pay Con Edison for the electricity they consume” (Pentland, Forbes).

“In 2009, Liberty Consulting Company, conducted a comprehensive management audit of Con Edison for the New York Public Service Commission. The audit concluded that: “[Con Edison] has noted that a capacity surplus of about 1,000 MW currently exists in the city, which is expected to grow with a second Astoria plant being built. The surplus has driven down capacity prices in New York City”(Pentland, Forbes).

I thought it would be interesting to see what this ‘potential threat’ of a power plant actually looks like, lets take a tour! Tour the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant

“Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (NY).” News. 05 Mar. 2012. Web. 05 Mar. 2012.<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/indian_point_nuclear_power_plant_ny/index.html>.

Pentland, William. “Indian Point Pumps Nuclear Nonsense into New York City.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 08 July 2011. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/07/08/indian-point-pumps-nuclear-nonsense-into-new-york-city/>.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwAO5yRpUs8 (Video)

Global Warming has been an ongoing debate for years now. This debate is very prevalent with celebrities, different groups, and even presidents, or ran for presidency (Al Gore). While saying this, even though some people support global warming there are also people who think that global warming is just a hoax.

Personally, I think that some sort of global warming is occuring, because let’s face it, it’s the end of February and i’m wearing a leather coat and flats outside.

Like anything, the non-believers are in full force. These are called the ‘global warming deniers’. This group of people who don’t believe that global warming has been occurring believe that the film that Al Gore made is all a giant hoax. The website states “Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract – like science – the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics – being a rich politician, for example – it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.” A lot of the non-believers in global warming show persistent frustration with the fact that movie stars, celebrities, and politicians find interest in global warming and put it into the media, while almost glamorizing the idea, and making it ‘trendy’ to believe in.

The Huffington Post created an interesting article, called ‘ Why Global Warming Still Considered Target of Skepticism For Americans”.  This article discusses the fact that one would say the American population as a whole are transitioning into non-believers of global warming, but the truth of the matter is that most Americans are taking a look at the concerning temperature changes and the abnormaly warm winter that we are having in  New England. “If you follow the popular polls you might think that Americans are growing ever more skeptical about man-made climate change — despite the consensus among published climate scientists.That’s simply not true, Jon Krosnick of Stanford University told an audience of social scientists and cognitive researchers Wednesday, in Garrison, N.Y. He maintained that most Americans do, in fact, believe”(Huffington Post, Peeples).

The non-believers in global warming think that the beliefs of global warming and how it is getting worse is extremely exaggerated. 

“Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject”(gallup.com). It is deffinitely interesting that Americas are starting to think that global warming is more of an exagerated trend than an actual problem. Another interesting quote from this non-believer website is “As recently as 2006, significantly more Americans thought the news underestimated the seriousness of global warming than said it exaggerated it, 38% vs. 30%. Now, according to Gallup’s 2009 Environment survey, more Americans say the problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41% vs. 28%”(gallup.com).

Whether global warming is a real issue or not, it is interesting that the trend in Americans are becoming less interested and more frustrated with what they think is ‘exaggerated’ information.

“Is Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth Accurate?” Global Warming and Climate Change Skepticism Examined. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm>.

Peeples, Lynne. “Why Global Warming Still Considered Target Of Skepticism For Americans.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/public-opinion-climate-change-polls-politics_n_1285738.html>.

“Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”” Web. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx>.

The electricity guy.

Tom Vales said time and time again that he loves electricity. Anyone watching his presentation could tell the real love he has for it, and how intrigued he is by it. Vales brought in a lot of visual experiments to show the class, which i really liked because while learning it is easier for me to understand if I actually see how it works.

Vales showed us three different types of motors. The motors were really cool to see up close, and to see how they actually work. Vales also did a very good job describing and making the explanation of these motors interesting.

The first motor that Vales showed us was the Hot air engine. This engine uses one Styrofoam cup. Towards the end of the presentation the class noticed that the motor slowed down and eventually stopped working. This slow down in the motor was because the water that was in the cup which was hot to begin with became cooler which hindered the motor from working. This type of motor is very heat sensitive, which means that it is probably not the best motor to use when the water temperature can’t be controled.

The second heater is the Mendocino Motor. This motor does not use heat necessarily but is run by solar panels. These solar cells are attached to the sides of the motor. The light that is placed in the direction of the panels is what makes the motor work. This motor reminds me of the solar energy lab we did last week. The solar power gives off energy which helps the motor more.

The third and final heater that Vales showed the class was the Peltier motor. This motor was made with two Styrofoam cups, one cup had cold water, while the other had hot water. One part of the motor was in the hot and one part was in the cold water. Vales told the class that this is the type of motor that helps keep portable beer coolers cool. The difference in temperature of the hot and cold water is what makes the energy that this motor uses.

The picture above is Vales using the Tesla coil. The Tesla coil reminded me of the ball of energy/electricity in the Museum of Science in the electricity room. This coil reminded me of this because of the electricity was purple and in lightning like shapes. The lightning shape energy that I just mentioned is how the energy is transmitted through electricity.

The solar energy lab that we worked on in class tested the solar energy through our robot We would test the solar energy from different lengths of light and then used different colors to see the how the solar energy changed.

The first picture is of Evan using the light at the farthest distance to determine the solar energy from 40cm’s. The second is a picture of determining the solar energy using different colors.

Below are our results:

Our data is all negative numbers because of how the wires were set up with the robot. But, all that was needed to be done was to change the numbers form negative to positive.

With the distance, when the distance got farther away the solar energy got smaller. For example when the  light was at 1cm the solar energy was 0.56638, and at 40 cm which was the farthest distance we used the solar energy was at 0.348. The reason for this was because the farther the light was the less solar energy it could give off.

The colors were the most interesting conclusion while keeping the same distance of the light at 10cm. At the averages, purple is 0.49068, blue is 0.50351, red is 0.49966, and finally green is 0.4368. It is obvious that green’s average has the lowest solar energy, and blue is the highest.

“Solyndra, a California-based solar panel manufacturer, declared bankruptcy in August 2011 after having received $528 million in federal loan guarantees”(The New York Times, Nov 17, 2011).  Solyndra is a company that has a negative stigma and is part of a huge scandal. Clean energy and solar panels are becoming extremely prevalent in our everyday lives, and the fact that Solyndra declared bankruptcy is a pretty big scandal.

“The loan guarantees, part of the 2009 stimulus package, were the first to be allocated out of 18$ billion Congress has committed to dole out. But the failure of Solyndra-which could cost taxpayers more than half- billion dollars has renewed the highly partisan debate in Washington over the benefits or failures of Mr. Obama’s stimulus program and the wisdom of clean energy subsides in general”(The New York Times, Nov 17, 2011). It is amazing how in order to bring back Solyndra taxpayers will have to pay, which ultimately makes this quite the scandal.

The problem according to outsiders is ” the product looked better when it was conceived than when it hit the market. Solyndra’s design avoided the use of silicon, a commodity that was selling at very high prices in 2009 when the loan guarantee was approved but that since crashed. The design also sought to cut costs with an innovative cylindrical design that reduced the labor required for installation. But the capital costs for manufacturing were high”(The New York Times, Nv 17, 2011).

Below is a great video about the Solyndra Scandal from CNN.

GOP suggests Solyndra cover up

Forbes will say that they saw this failure of Solyndra coming, an they say that it was easy to predict. “Three’s quite a bit of back and forth across the political aisle about Solyndra. Does throwing &500 million at a company that failed show that all government tech pump priming is a waste of money? From the other side, well, sure, some will fail but the program as a whole is going to deliver just great results”(Tim Worstall, Forbes.com).

Below is a visual of how the Solyndra panels work:

Work Cited:

“Solyndra – The New York Times.” Times Topics – The New York Times. 17 Nov. 2011.Web. 19 Feb. 2012. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/solyndra/index.html>.

“Video – Breaking News Videos from CNN.com.” CNN.com – Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/10/14/tsr-sylvester-gop-solyndra.cnn>.

Worstall, Tim. “Solyndra: Yes, It Was Possible To See This Failure Coming – Forbes.”Information for the World’s Business Leaders – Forbes.com. Forbes.com, 17 Sept. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/17/solyndra-yes-it-was-possible-to-see-this-failure-coming/>.

In class for our robotics experiment we made and experimented with a generator. As stated in the generator lab description Fraday’s Law is the changing of magnetic fluxes through coiled wires which generates electricity currents and voltages. Therfore, the more or greater the change in magnetic flux the more or higher the currents and voltages will be. In this lab, the higher our shakes the higher the voltage that will be generated.

Before I moved to Boston, I grew up in New Hampshire. While living in New Hampshire there were many times, for example, the ice storm we had in 2008 that completely wiped out our electricity for weeks. During this time my family thankfully had a generator which made it so much more livable. At the time I didn’t try to figure out how the generator worked I just thought it was amazing because it could generate heat, and electricity, that is why this lab was interesting to see how the generator actually worked.  

In this lab we as a group shook our mini ‘generator’ four times, the first time we shook it zero times and surprisingly there was slight voltage, and the second time we shook it 22 times, the third 40 times, and the fourth 60 times. The sum of the square of voltages is then found which is also considered as polarity. Below is a simple visual of how a generator works, and the spinning can represent the shaking that we did in our experiment.

Every time that we shook the generator more the voltage would go up, which meant that more electricty was being produced. If you think about it sense the magnet fluxing through the coiled wires generates electricity the more that the magnet touches the coiled wire the more electricity will be made, that is why the faster and longer that the ‘generator’ was shaken the generator which was also a flashlight would start to work as an actual flashlight, it created electricity.  Our Sum of Square Voltage graph is a great visual in showing how the more shakes the more electricity.

The results that we came up with after shaking the generator four times are stated below along with our graph:

The Natural gas hydraulic fracturing or in simpler terms hydrofracking is a controversial issue. As you will see, to some it is an important issue but to others it causes more harm than help.

Many may ask what hydrofracking is, and the basic explanation is       “ The process used in nine out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States, where millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are pumped underground to break apart the rock and release the gas”(Fracking, ProPublica). The diagram below is a great visual to aid the explanation of hydrofracking.

Like previously stated some people don’t agree with hydrofracking and are even worried about the process. “Two state lawmakers in Illinois are promoting legislation to restrict hydraulic fracturing, a process used by the energy industry to free oil and gas from rock that has drawn concern form environmentalists nationwide”(Illinois bills would restrict hydraulic fracturing, Illinois News).  There are many reasons why this hydrofracking scares people but especially the threat of the chemicals leaking into the water systems. “Environmentalists worry the chemicals could leak into supplies of drinking water from cracked casings in wells, and that wastewater from the process could contaminate water supplies”( Illinois bills would restrict hydraulic fracturing, Illinois News).

The places where hydrofracking generally occurs are: 

The positive aspect that some see about hydrofracking is that it can retrieve natural gas, which can be very beneficial to us as a nation. “ Hydraulic fracturing is a proven technological advancement which allows producers to safely recover natural gas and oil from deep shale formations. This technology has the potential to not only dramatically reduce our reliance on foreign fuel imports, but also to significantly reduce our national carbon dioxide emissions and accelerate our transition to a carbon-light environment”(hydraulicfracturing.com, Hydraulic Fracturing Facts).

“What Is Hydraulic Fracturing?” ProPublica. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.          <http://www.propublica.org/special/hydraulic-fracturing-         national>.

“Illinois Bills Would Restrict Hydraulic Fracturing,.” Illinois          News. ABC 7 News, 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 9 Feb. 2012.          <http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois         &id=8527437>.

“Hydraulic Fracturing Facts.” Hydraulic Fracturing Facts. Web.          09 Feb. 2012.          <http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Pages/information.asp         x>.

As our robot experiment of the day as a class we had to determine mass and velocity and energy using our robots, weights, and a pulley. What we had to learn before going into this experiment is a couple formulas and guidelines: The higher the power level the more force is going to be used. The more the mass the more or higher the acceleration will be. Mass is the same everywhere even on the moon, and weight depends on the gravitation pull, which is why as humans we weigh differently on the moon or on pluto than how we much we weigh on the earth. In order for anything to work it has to have power behind it which essentially is work divided by time, or how much work someone or something puts into moving or doing something divided by how much time it took to accomplish.  So, essentially the more power the less time it will take, and vice versa the less time it takes the more power an object will have. In this experiment we also needed to be sure we knew what acceleration is, and how it is velocity/time.

The experiment started out with doing eight runs with the mass, pulley, and robot. The first four contained a constant power level of 75, and determining the mass for 1-4. As a group we got m1 as .17, m2 as .23 m3 as .21 and m4 as .19. The second run was to find the power by using a constant mass of .25. 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.  The mean height was 23 inches. The second step was to find potential energy which is the Mass*Gravitational field* Height.  Therefore, it is .25*9.8*.23, which will give you the potential energy of the experiment.

When we ended up doing our graphs they were off and not like the graph that was shown in class at all.

This is an example of the data that we took. In conclusion our results were not consistent with the law of physics because our graphs ended up way off.

If our graphs followed the laws of physics the graphs would be described as-

Graph 1 is on acceleration vs mass with a fixed power level. When the power level is fixed and the mass rises it will be harder to have an acceleration because behind any energy force power is needed.  When thinking about acceleration vs mass one should think about when a train is going down  the tracks it is much harder for this train to stop than a car going down the street because the train is heavier and uses more power to go which ultimately means it takes more power to stop than the car.

Graph 2: Acceleration Vs power Level with a fixed mass level. When an object has a fixed mass level the power will stay the same. If the max is the same the power will stay the same in the sense that there won’t be a change in power unless we manually changed the power. If the power raises the acceleration will raise and vice versa.

Graph 3: Batter discharge VS mass with a fixed power level: If the battery is being used up because the mass is higher than the battery will be working harder and will be drained quicker. If the mass is lower and the power level is fixed than the batter will not be using as much power.

Graph 4: Power used(mgh/t) vs power level: To find this information the previous information that is supplied about determining power is to use work/time, and that the larger the power the more work and time used. The greater the power the more quickly it can do the work(or the time).