Paper Airplane Experiment

Objective

To test and conclude the best designs for paper airplanes with respect to flight time, distance, and accuracy.

There are numerous designs of paper airplanes. Each design is unique and alters the plane's flight. Some are made for distance, others for flight time, and some for accuracy. We will test these different models to see what planes are really the best. 

• Several pieces of 8 1/2" x 11" paper
• Scissors
• Hula hoop
• String
• Stopwatch
• Measuring tape

Safety Note: 

Be aware of others around you when you are throwing these airplanes. Some designs have a sharp nose and can fly very fast.

Hypothesis

When you have all of your plane choices, guess which design will fly the farthest, for the longest time, and with the most accuracy.

Method

• Make all of the paper airplanes that you plan on using
• In an open area with plenty of room to fly, throw all of the planes and record the distance that they flew. Repeat this until you have 10 trials for each plane.
• After you have finished with the distance, get your stopwatch for timed flight.
• Hold the stopwatch in one hand and the paper airplane in the other hand. Start the timer as you release the airplane from your other hand. Stop the timer as the plane hits the ground. Record the times and repeat until you have 10 trials for each plane.
• For the accuracy portion of the experiment, tie one end of the string to the hula hoop and the other end to something to hang from (basketball hoop, tree branch, etc.)
• Stand about 15-20 feet away from the hanging hula hoop.
• For each plane, throw it 50 times to try to get it to fly through the hula hoop. Record the number of tims that each plane successfully makes it through the hula hoop.
• 
  
• Try different throwing techniques during each procedure to find the best way to throw each plane for each aspect you are going for (ex: try throwing fast, slow, throw with some angle, etc.).

Results 

For the first and second parts of the procedure, average out the distances and times for each plane. Make three graphs: one with the distances for each plane, one for the times of each plane, and one for the number of times that each plane made it through the hula hoop. How do the results for each plane compare? Any exceptionally good or bad planes? Was your hypothesis correct? Why do you think the best planes performed as well as they did?

The Effect Of An Oil Water Separator's Shape On It's Effectiveness

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the shape of an oil-water separator affected how effectively it separated oil from water

I became interested in this idea when Mr. Norm Hepner, a department of ecology professional engineer, informed me that some oil-water separators could be more effective than others.

The information gained from this experiment will affect us all because if oil mixes with wastewater it is a danger to everyone. It is people who own or manage parking lots or carwashes who have the legal responsibility to make their wastewater cleaner, but all of us are affected.

---

HYPOTHESIS

My hypothesis was that the circular shaped oil water separator would work better because it has less dead space (places where the water sits in one spot) so the oil would have less setting time in the primary chamber

I based my hypothesis on my understanding of fluid dynamic principles and oil water chemistry (stoke’s law).  Fluid dynamics are the characteristics of how a fluid will act, this is also known as Fluid mechanics.  Oil water chemistry depends on something’s density and its viscosity.  The density is a measure of a quantity such as mass per unit volume, and the viscosity is how thick or sticky something is.  Stokes law is the formula showing the velocity at which a less dense liquid will rise through a more dense liquid. 

---

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

• Size of buckets
• Temperature of water
• Amount of water
• Amount of oil
• Type of oil
• Rate at which mixture was poured in
• Size of polypropylene pads
• Polypropylene Pad absorbency

The manipulated variable was the shape of the oil-water separators.

The responding variable was how much oil was in the polypropylene at the end of the experiment.

To measure the responding variable I used a scale to measure the change in mass of the polypropylene pad after it had absorbed the oil. 

---

MATERIALS

                      

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
1	rectangular 7.5 liter bucket
1	rounded 7.5 liter bucket
4	gallons of water
1	gallon of oil
6	pads of polypropylene
2	nozzle
3	separate buckets to mix oil and water in
1	drill
1	paint stirring rod
1	caulking gun
2	tubes of Epoxy

---

PROCEDURES

1. Build two separators

a) Find measurements of separators
b) Cut separator to required lengths
c) Put divider in bucket
d) Use epoxy to keep in bucket
e) Wait for epoxy to dry
f) Drill hole in side of bucket
g) Place plastic nozzle in separator
h) Put epoxy on nozzle to secure
i) Wait for epoxy to dry
j) Repeat steps A-I using other separator  

2. Fill Separator with clean water
3. Cut 6 polypropylene pads
4. Weigh all polypropylene pads
5. Weigh all Ziploc bags
6. Place 1 pad in each of the six bags
7. Weigh all bags containing pads
8. Pour .5 liters of oil into solution bucket
9. Pour 7 liters of water into solution bucket
10. Pour 7.5 liters of water into separator
11. Use paint stirring rod to mix solution
12.  Open solution bucket valve
13. Open separator nozzle
14. Wait for solution bucket to empty
15. Close separator nozzle
16. Let it sit for 5 minutes
17. Place polypropylene pad in collection bucket
18. Stir around for 5 minutes
19. Take pad out of bucket
20. Hang up to dry
21. Wait 45 minutes
22. Place in Ziploc bag
23. Put rubber band around bag
24. Place on scale
25. Measure weight
26. Clean out all buckets and separators
27. Repeat steps 2-26 for trials 2 and 3
28. Repeat steps 2-27 using other separator

---

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to find if an oil water separator’s shape affected the separator’s ability to do its job.

The results of the experiment were that the square separator worked better than the circular separator, I know this because the square had an average weight gain of 42.13 grams, where as the circular separator had an average weight gain of 50.37.  I think this was because the circular did not have as much surface area causing the oil to go down deeper and letting it pass through the separator.

---

CONCLUSION

My hypothesis was that the circular separator would work better because there would be less dead spaces.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be rejected because the square separator was more effective than the circular.

Because of the results of this experiment, I wonder if varying the depth of the separator would have any effect on how the oil water separator performs.

If I were to conduct this project again I would make the separators have the same surface area to eliminate the possibility of that having an effect on the experiment.  I would also have more trials, and test lighter and heavier types of oil.

Does Golf Ball Bounciness Affect Distance Traveled?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of golf ball bounciness on the distance it traveled.

I became interested in this idea when I first started playing golf and wondered which type of ball was the best to use. 

The information gained from this experiment would benefit golfers around the world to know which type of ball to play.
  

---

HYPOTHESIS

My hypothesis was that the ball that bounced the highest would go the furthest when hit by the club.

I based my hypothesis on Microsoft Encarta as it stated momentum equals mass Times velocity.  

---

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

• The club used.
• The golf ball hitting mechanism.
• Location
• Type of tees
• Height of ball
• How far the club is pulled back.

The manipulated variable was the brand of golf balls.


The responding variable was the distance the golf balls traveled.  


To measure the responding variables I used a tape measure to determine how far the golf ball went. 
 Materials

---

                        Materials

                            

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
24	Golf balls (3 each of 8 different brands.
1	Screwdriver.
1	36-by-36-inch plywood section _ inches thick.
3	2-by-4-inch wood sections.
2	Eye lag bolts.
2	3-inch plywood.
5	golf tees.
1	Tape measure.
25	Screws.
1	Metal door spring inch in diameter and 6 inches in length.
1	7-iron.
20	Sheet rock screws.

---

PROCEDURES

Conduct the bounce test

1. Group all golf balls together.
2. Select a hard surface next to a wall.
3. Tape a tape measure to the wall vertically.
4. Drop the ball from six feet.
5. Measure the height of the golf ball and record.
6. Repeat steps 4-5 6 times with the same ball and find the average.
7. Repeat steps 4-6 with the other golf balls.

Conduct the distance test

1. Place golf ball hitting mechanism on level ground in an outside area.
2. Place ball on tee.
3. Pull back on the club to its maximum point and release.
4. Measure where the ball hit first.
5. Repeat steps 3-4 6 times with the same ball.
6. Repeat steps 3-5 with the other golf balls.

---

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of golf ball bounciness on the distance it traveled.




The results of the experiment were that the pinnacle golf ball went the furthest and the maxfli ball went the least furthest.    

---

CONCLUSION

My hypothesis was that the ball that bounced the highest would go the furthest when hit by the club.


The results indicate that this hypothesis should be accepted because the golf ball that bounced the highest went the furthest. 


Because of the results of this experiment, I wonder if it would be the same results if a different club was used.  If a larger club like a 3 iron was used would the results be the same. 


If I were to conduct this project again I would use different type of golf club to see if the results indicate the same data.  I would also conduct the experiment in a different place like a golf course. 

Researched by Tyler. S For Selah School District

The Effect of Anhydrous Ammonia on the Dehydration Rate of Plant vs. Animals Cell

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to compare the dehydration rate of plant and animal cells exposed to anhydrous ammonia.

I became interested in this idea when a Yakima County Sheriff’s Department drug detective showed me money that had been dehydrated by anhydrous ammonia.

The information gained from this experiment could help people preserve food. Also it will help with food transportation because dehydration cuts down the weight by taking away the moisture.  This could also help space travel.

---

HYPOTHESIS

My hypothesis was that the animal cells would dehydrate more completely and faster than the plant cells.

I based my hypothesis on an Internet site of Florida State University that said, “plant cells have a rigid wall surrounding the plasma membrane” it also said that “animal cells don’t have a cell wall.” This means that the plant cell has a harder outside with the rigid cell wall and the animal cell doesn’t, so it should be easier to take all the moisture out.

---

 EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

• Anhydrous ammonia
• Temperature
• Size
• Time
• Brand of plastic sandwich bag

The manipulated variable was the different types of food being dehydrated.

The responding variable was the weight of the cells after being dehydrated. 

To measure the responding variable I used a digital scale calibrated in grams. 

---

MATERIALS

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
2	Steaks
2	Pork chops
2	Chickens
2	Apples
2	Oranges
2	Celery
2	Broccoli
1	Triple Beam Balance
1	Ruler
1	Knife
3 Pints	Anhydrous Ammonia
1 Box	Plastic Sandwich Bags
1	Sink
1	Wooden Spoon
1	Pot
1	Strainer
1	Tongs

---

 PROCEDURES

1. Prepare foods for drying

a) Clean and dry

b) Slice food into 2 by 2 by 8 cm strips

c) Store in a sandwich bag and record weight

d) Repeat until all food has been weighed 

e) For the orange take off peel

2. Find a well ventilated area

3. Put 250ml of anhydrous ammonia into the metal pot

4. Put the three pieces of beef into the same pot

5. Stir and mix the food and ammonia around with the wooden spoon

6. Take out using the tongs and/or wooden spoon

7. Put the dehydrated food back in plastic bag

8. Get new anhydrous ammonia (250ml)

9. Repeat steps 4-8 using the other foods

10. Continue until all food has been dehydrated

11. Dispose all anhydrous ammonia in a well ventilated area

12. Record new weights

---

  RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to compare the dehydration rate of plant and animal cells exposed to anhydrous ammonia.

The results of the experiment were that the anhydrous ammonia dehydrated the animal cells the most with a total of 13.75 and the plant cells the least with a total of 12.25.

---

 CONCLUSION

My hypothesis was that the animal cells would dehydrate more completely and faster than the plant cells.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be accepted.

Because of the results of this experiment, I wonder if different types of plant and animal products would dehydrate in a similar manner.

If I were to conduct this project again I would have conducted more trials and would have used more types of food.  

Researched by Brooke S for Saleh

Fuel Go Boom

Objectives/Goals 

To measure the energy output during the combustion of biodiesel- petrodiesel fuel blends.

To determine which fuel/fuel blend will optimize energy output.

Methods/Materials

• 0.250 L of biodiesel
• 0.250 L of commercial-grade petrodiesel
• Benzoic acid tablet
• Iron fuse wire
• Bomb calorimeter
• XLinx Software

Method

1)Place sample in crucible

2)Twist fuse wire onto both ends of calorimeter to allow a current to pass

3)Place wire so it comes in contact with sample

4)Assemble calorimeter

5)Detonate bomb

6)Record temperature change using software

7)When temperature graph asymptotes, remove and clean bomb.

8)Repeat steps 1-7 for other samples.

Results

Biodiesel yielded 8556.90 kilocalories per liter of fuel combusted. 50-50 biodiesel to petrodiesel blend yielded 8415.01 kilocalories per liter of fuel combusted. Petrodiesel yielded 8324.81 kilocalories per liter of fuel combusted. 

Conclusions/Discussion 

The hypothesis of the experiment was correct. As the percentage of biodiesel increased in a biodiesel-petrodiesel fuel blend, the energy output increased in a somewhat proportional manner. 

This helps to demonstrate the feasibility of biodiesel as a mass-produced alternative fuel. In order to better model this relationship, a greater variety of fuel blends should have been used. 

This was unable to be accomplished due to time-restraints in the lab. 

Overall, project was valid. Little systematic error, and the errors caused by uncertainties in lab equipment would only yield a ±0.6039% change in the worst-case scenario.