The National Student Research Center
E-Journal of Student Research: Multi-Disciplinary
Volume 7, Number 2, June, 1999
The National Student Research Center
is dedicated to promoting student research and the use of the
scientific method in all subject areas across the curriculum,
especially science and math.
For more information contact:
- John I. Swang, Ph.D.
- Founder/Director
- National Student Research Center
- 2024 Livingston Street
- Mandeville, Louisiana 70448
- U.S.A.
- E-Mail: nsrcmms@communique.net
- http://youth.net/nsrc/nsrc.html
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Science:
- In A Controlled Environment, Will
The Addition Of Heat To A Layer Of Soils Act As A Catalyst For
Effective Water Flow?
- The Strength of Electromagnets
- How Friction Effects A Runner On
Different Surfaces
- How Does Pollution Affect An Environment?
- The Effect Of A Mild Acid On Colored
Chaulk
- Heating Water With Solar Energy
- Building Better Concrete Blocks With
Plastic
- Does Music Help Plants Grow?
Consumerism:
- Which Stain Remover Works The Best?
SCIENCE SECTION
TITLE: In A Controlled Environment, Will The Addition Of Heat
To A Layer Of Soils Act As A Catalyst For Effective
Water Flow?
STUDENT RESEARCHER: Justin Pearce
SCHOOL ADDRESS: St. Martin High School
Ocean Springs, Mississippi
GRADE: 11
TEACHER: Ray Werdner
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:
These experiments are a continuation of previous research which
I've done over the past four years. In these experiments, I set
out to prove that there was a correlation between heat and water
movement through soils. The experiment was: adding heat to a
layer of soils, adding water, then measuring the differences in
the waters drainage. These experiments required that I build an
apparatus to test my hypothesis. In order to have a somewhat
controlled environment it was necessary that I use a heating
source of my design and a method of collecting results. Each
year I've improved my methods and proved my hypotheses.
My goals for this year were to:
·again prove that the addition of heat to a layer of sediments
will facilitate a more efficient water flow.
·test the same apparatus used last year after laying dormant
for a year.
·discover if adding more heating elements to the soil would
improve results.
·augment the heating source with the use of heat from the sun.
·collect more data with the addition of more experimental
runs.
·discover if there is a difference in results when warmer or
colder water is used in the experiments.
·measure the amounts of moisture in the soil after each
experiment, this data would determine how to further these
experiments beyond water flow.
·compare the results of these experiments to the results from
last year.
Each of these objectives were carried out with the goal of
proving empirically there is a direct correlation between heat
and water flow through soils.
Duplication of results and confirmation of my hypothesis are key
to this endeavor. In previous experiments, I hypothesized there
would be a significant difference in water flow when heat is
injected into soils. In order to prove this hypothesis, I
constructed an apparatus which enabled me to collect accurate
and consistent data. The control of heat input and water
collection are two important factors in performing controlled
experiments.
In order to strengthen my results, I must prove three questions.
1) Will the addition of more heating elements strengthen
previous results?
The heating element placement last year was on one level. The
elements this year are on three levels. I proved there is an
affect with heat insertion. Therefore, I hypothesize there will
be a greater effect with the additional heating elements.
2) Would there be a difference in the outcomes if the water used
in the experiments were of varying temperatures?
I've proved that the addition of heat to soils via heating
element does have an effect on water flow. Therefore, I can
hypothesize there will be a measurable affect when warmer water
is used as opposed to cooler water.
3) Are there differences in moisture content in soil samples
when each experiment is tested?
Collecting the moisture content of soil samples after each
experiment should show a measurable result. Therefore, I
hypothesize that adding heat (heating element or water
temperature) will have an affect on these outcomes as well.
II. METHODOLOGY:
The procedures this year are similar to last years with respect
to the comparisons of heat and no heat. This year, however,
there are new experiments involving the use of two water
temperatures.
The moisture content of a sample of soil is taken prior to each
set of experiments and compared against the average of six
samples.
Dormant soil tests: (heat and no heat)
Saturation tests- measure the amount of water that exits after
94 liters of water is pumped evenly on the top of the system.
Two pumps are used, one to evenly disperse the water over the
top of the system and one to pump the water into measuring
containers. A saturation test is run prior to each set of
experiments.
No heat tests- measure the amount of water which exits the
system after 94 liters of water is pumped on top of the system.
The heat is not turned on.
Heat tests- measure the amount of water which exits the system
after 94 liters of water is pumped on top of the system. The
heat is turned on.
The results are compared against one another and graphed.
Heat/no heat comparison tests:
Saturation tests- measure the amount of water that exits after
94 liters of water is pumped evenly on the top of the system.
Two pumps are used, one to evenly disperse the water over the
top of the system and one to pump the water into measuring
containers. A saturation test is run prior to each set of
experiments.
No heat tests- measure the amount of water which exits the
system after 94 liters of water is pumped on top of the system.
The heat is not turned on.
- warmer water is used in one set of experiments.
- cooler water is used in one set of experiments.
Heat tests- measure the amount of water which exits the system
after 94 liters of water is pumped on top of the system. The
heat is turned on.
The results are compared against one another and graphed.
- warmer water is used in one set of experiments.
- cooler water is used in one set of experiments.
Percent moisture tests
A soil sample is taken prior to each set of experiments. This
is done using a section of copper tubing. The tube is "plunged"
into the surface and the sample is weighed to the nearest 1/100
of a gram. The samples are taken just after the experiment in
each of the tests.
The samples are baked at 350 F for four hours to remove moisture
and is then weighed. The percentage of moisture in each sample
is found by dividing the difference by the pre-bake weight. The
percentages are averaged and compared against the sample taken
prior to each set.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
DORMANT SOIL: (final averages)
No Heat- 66.11 liters exit the system - 79.81 liters year four
62.13 F soil temperature
68.00 F water temperature
Heat - 68.12 liters exit the system - 90.01 liters year four
103.50 F soil temperature
66.70 F water temperature
last year : 90.01-79.81 = 10.02 liters difference
this year : 68.12-66.11 = 2.01 liters difference
**shows system still had positive numbers after the soil lay
dormant for several months and became compacted.
HEAT/NO HEAT: WARMER WATER COMPARISONS: (final averages)
No Heat warmer water-
86.85 liters exit the system - 79.81 liters year four
60.85 F soil temperature
65.48 F water temperature
Heat warmer water-
97.11 liters exit the system - 90.01 liters year four
113.15 F soil temperature
80.25 F water temperature
last year : 90.01-79.81 = 10.02 liters difference
this year : 97.11-86.85 = 10.26 liters difference
** shows a replication of lasts years experiments and again
proves my hypothesis
HEAT/NO HEAT: COOLER WATER COMPARISONS: (final averages)
No Heat cooler water-
86.59 liters exit the system
64.90 F soil temperature
59.53 F water temperature
Heat cooler water-
88.69 liters exit the system
100.62 F soil temperature
51.70 F water temperature
this year: 88.69-86.59 = 2.1 liters difference
** shows less water flow but still positive when using heat
In analyzing the data, I again found a direct correlation
between heat and soil hydration. The analysis of water volume
comparisons both in the heat and no-heat tests showed a marked
difference, i.e. more water volume with heat.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
The results show differences from year four and also show my
hypothesis correct.
One similar experiment I ran in year I showed differences in the
way water move through soil when it's temperatures vary. When
using two water temperatures in this year's experiments I found
that warmer water reacted differently when compared to cooler
water. Its volume was greater as it exited through the
apparatus.
Adding heat to soils show there is an increase in the volume of
water as it exits the system. The addition of more heating
elements in these experiments while using warm water showed no
significant changes in water volume, but it did again show a
positive affect when compared to cooler water. Since no tests
where made last year using "cooler" water, I cannot make a
judgment about the effectiveness of additional heating elements
on this variable.
I could not show any positive affects of heat augmentation with
a solar panel. The apparatus was positioned in a shaded area
and direct sunlight was unavailable; however, I feel this is a
possible way to help with energy conservation.
The moisture percentages of the soils show how there is an
affect when using heat and no heat. The results show less
moisture on top of the apparatus when the system uses heat,
either via water into the system or the heating element. The
use of no heat in either circumstance shows less moisture that I
cannot explain; however, it is clear there is effect while using
heat.
V. APPLICATION:
Future plans are to recreate these experiments using smaller
separate containers. The tests will be run simultaneously to
further control the experiments. The use of smaller containers
will allow for control of the heat variables. The tests will be
isolated in that all heat experiments will be in separate
containers and the no-heat experiments in separate containers.
TITLE: The Strength of Electromagnets
STUDENT RESEARCHER: Hannah Kaufmann-Swang
SCHOOL: Mandeville Middle School
Mandeville, Louisiana
GRADE: 5
TEACHER: Mrs. Santangelo
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS::
I wanted to know how the number of coils of wire around an
electromagnet affects its strength. My hypothesis states that
the electromagnets with the most coils will be the most
powerful.
II. METHODOLOGY:
1. I gathered my materials: battery, electrical wire, nails,
screws, pins, and a data collection sheet.
2. My dad coiled the electrical wire around three nails. One
nail had 5 coils. One nail had 10 coils. One nail had 20 coils.
These nails were the electromagnets.
3. Then I hooked up each electromagnet to the battery and held
it close to a pile of small metal screws to see how many it
would pick up. I did this three times for all three
electromagnets.
4. Then I hooked up each electromagnet to the battery and held
it close to a pile of sewing pins to see how many it would pick
up. I did this three times for all three electromagnets.
5. I recorded the number of screws and pins that each
electromagnet picked up.
My control variables were the size of the battery, the diameter
of the wire, the size of the nails, the size of the screws and
the pins, and the way that I held the electromagnet next to the
screws and pins. My manipulated variable was the number of coils
of electrical wire around each nail. My responding variable was
the number of screws or pins that the electromagnet picked up.
I used the following materials: a six volt battery, electrical
wire, metal nails, metal screws, sewing pins, and a data
collection sheet.
III. DATA COLLECTION FORM:
The Number Of Metal Screws Picked Up
By The Electromagnets
Five Ten Twenty
Coils Coils Coils
Trial 1 1 5 5
Trial 2 1 3 7
Trial 3 1 1 5
Average 1 3 5.7
The Number Of Sewing Pins Picked Up
By The Electromagnets
Five Ten Twenty
Coils Coils Coils
Trial 1 2 8 11
Trial 2 3 7 10
Trial 3 3 7 12
Average 2.2 7.1 11
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
The electromagnet with five coils picked up an average of 1
metal screw. The electromagnet with ten coils picked up an
average of 3 metal screws. The electromagnet with twenty coils
picked up an average of 5.7 metal screws.
The electromagnet with five coils picked up an average of 2.2
sewing pins. The electromagnet with ten coils picked up an
average of 71 sewing pins. The electromagnet with twenty coils
picked up an average of 11 sewing pins.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIC)N:
The electromagnet with the most coils picked up the most screws
and pins. Therefore, I accept my hypothesis which stated that
the electromagnets with the most coils will be the most
powerful.
V. APPLICATION:
If I want to use an electromagnet to pick up something heavy, I
now know that I will need an electromagnet with many coils.
Lighter objects don't need as many coils on the electromagnet to
be picked up.
TITLE: How Friction Effects A Runner On Different Surfaces
STUDENT RESEARCHERS: Danielle Thorp, Brandi Roe, and Jenna
Harold
SCHOOL: Alki Middle School
Vancouver, WA 98685
GRADE: 8th
TEACHER: Mr. Duncan
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis:
Our purpose was to test a runner on four surfaces, gym floor,
track, grass, and sand. Our hypothesis was that the runner
would run farther in a certain amount of time on the track in
comparison to the gym floor, grass, and sand. We think that the
runner will go farthest on the track because it was made and
designed for running.
II. Methodology:
Our methodology was to have the runner run at about the same
speed on each surface for 2 seconds. We measured the length
with meter sticks and measured the time with a stopwatch. To
make the experiment as accurate as possible, the runner wore the
same shoes each time and the runner ran on each surface three
times.
III. Analysis of Data:
Track Gym Floor Grass Sand
1st 7.60m 4.81m 4.35m 5.54m
2nd 5.90m 6.00m 6.34m 5.44m
3rd 7.86m 7.02m 6.35m 5.44m
Average 7.12m 5.94m 5.68m 5.47m
The track was the fastest time with an average of 7.12m. The
gym floor came in second with an average of 5.94m. The grass
was third with an average of 5.68m. The sand obviously was last
place with an average of 5.68m.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
Our data lead us to the conclusion that the runner ran the
farthest in 2 seconds on the track. The runner didn't run as
far on the gym floor, grass, and sand because they all have
different purposes than the track. The gym floor was designed
for all sports, not just running. The gym floor is also very
slick and the runner's shoes didn't grip as well on the surface.
The runner didn't run as far on the grass because it is a bumpy,
slick surface. It wasn't as easy to run on as the track because
of that. The runner didn't go as far on the sand because it is
a rough, uneven, bumpy surface and when the runners shoes were
pushing off, the sand moved underneath the runner's shoes.
Therefore, our hypothesis was correct. The runner did go
farther on the track compared to the other surfaces. This was
the information that we got from our data and performing the
experiment.
V. Application:
I think that our finding applies to the real world because this
same experiment could be used on testing tennis shoes or tires.
It would be valuable to the economy because the researchers
could test the product before it was marketed.
Title: How Does Pollution Affect An Environment?
Student Researcher: Jeffrey C. Chen
School Address: Edgemont Jr/Sr High School
White Oak Lane
Scarsdale, New York 10583
Grade 7
Teacher: Ms. Russo
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis:
Don't you remember when people said dumping waste could destroy
an environment? Well, I wanted to see what exactly happens. By
using a bottle greenhouse, I decided to simulate an enclosed
environment and observe what happens when different pollutants
are introduced. I added motor oil to simulate an oil spill and
lemon juice to simulate acidic rain, air freshener which
contains harmful chemicals to simulate air pollution, Drano as a
chemical waste, and water to act as a control.
My hypotheses are that air freshener will slow down plant growth
and kill it slowly and Drano will do a lot of damage to the
plant in under a week, but it will not kill the plant. Motor
oil will be similar to Drano, but it will take longer to cause
damage.
II. Methodology:
In this experiment, I used five large soda bottles, soil, and
fifteen Sonnet pink snapdragons plants of the same species,
small enough to fit three into one bottle. The different
substances used as pollutants were motor oil, Drano, lemon
juice, water, and Wizard vanilla air freshener.
The procedure for testing my hypothesis is as follows:
Cut open the bottles 5cm from the bottom. Plant three plants in
each bottle. Add 10 cc of water to each bottle.
For the treatment for each group, prepare a solution of each
different pollutant as described below. Check and maintain the
pH of each solution using litmus paper.
Bottle One: Control group (orange label) - add 10 cc of plain
water to get a pH of 5.5.
Bottle Two: Lemon Juice group (yellow label) - add 1 cc of
freshly squeezed lemon juice to 9 cc of water to make a solution
with a pH of 2.5.
Bottle Three: Motor Oil group (green label) - add 1 cc of Mobil
super high performance motor oil 10W-40 to 9cc of water to make
a solution with a pH of 8.0.
Bottle Four: Air Freshener group (light blue label) - spray 1 cc
of the substance without adding water, onto the plants every
other day. The pH is already 8.0.
Bottle Five: Drano group (red label) - add 1 cc of Drano to 9 cc
of water to make a solution with a pH of 12.0.
On Day one, before sealing the bottles, for each bottle except
bottle number four, spray 10cc of the pollutant solution into
the soil and another 10cc onto the plant itself. Beginning on
Day 3, spray 5cc to both soil and plants each day. After each
treatment, reseal the bottle with masking tape.
Every other day, take off the upper part of the greenhouse
(bottle). Measure the heights of each plant and also count the
number of dead or damaged leaves.
The controlled variables for this experiment are the bottle
colors, size, type of plant, size of plant at start of
experiment, and the amount of water. The manipulated variables
are the additives to simulate various pollutants. The
responding variables are the heights and damage to the leaves.
III. Analysis of data:
Table 1: Average Heights of plants in Centimeters
Control Lemon Motor Air Drano
Juice Oil Freshener
Day 1 10.00 9.70 9.30 9.80 9.50
Day 5 10.07 9.90 9.80 10.20 9.80
Day 21 14.00 10.70 10.50 11.00 10.30
Table 2: Number of Damaged/Dead Leaves
Control Lemon Motor Air Drano
Juice Oil Freshener
Day 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Day 5 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
Day 21 0.00 13.00 0.00 48.00 65.00
Looking at the data, all the pollutants stunted the growth of
the plants after five days of treatment. They grew only one-two
cm over twenty-one days. However, the control plants grew 4 cm
(from 10 cm to 14 cm)
The pollutants have different effects on the damage of the
leaves of the plants. Drano acted the quickest, it was the
first to slow down the growth of the plant and it also killed
leaves and the plant itself in the shortest number of days. At
Day 21, it had killed 65 leaves and the plants grew to a low
height of 10.3 cm. Therefore, Drano is proven to be the
deadliest out of the five substances used.
The air freshener destroyed the second largest number of leaves
and it also slowed the growth of the plants used. The air
freshener group lost 48 leaves and the plant grew to a height of
11 cm after 21 days.
The lemon juice group had 13 leaves dead and grew to a height of
10.67 cm by day 21.
Motor oil stunted the growth of the plants, but killed none of
them. I thought something worse would happen with the motor
oil.
Finally the control group treated with water grew the tallest
with a height of 14 cm and no damaged leaves after 21 days.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
From all the data I have collected in my experiment, I conclude
that substances with a high pH are more deadly than acidic
substances. All the substances used as pollutants have damaging
effects on the plants. If Drano, Motor oil, acids, and air
freshener are put into an environment, they would be very
destructive.
My hypotheses that Drano would destroy the plant the quickest
and air freshener would damage the plants at a slower rate than
the other substances was pretty accurate. My hypothesis that
lemon juice will not kill plants and only stunt the growth was
disproved because lemon juice killed some leaves. My prediction
that motor oil would kill the plants was also disproved because
it did not damage any leaves and only stunted growth.
V. Application:
Now I know what effect these pollutants have on the growth of
plants. My experiment needs to be repeated and expanded to
verify the results. We need to protect our environment from
these and other chemicals to preserve plant life, which is
critical for our survival. One solution would be to avoid
dumping any substances with a very high or very low pH level
into sewers or a living environment. Motor oils should be
recycled by a local gas station and not dumped. By doing this,
the Earth will probably have a brighter future.
TITLE: The Effect Of A Mild Acid On Colored Chaulk
STUDENT RESEARCHER: David Nolan
SCHOOL: Urbandale Middle School
Urbandale, Iowa
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: Carmen Crump
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
The purpose of this project was to see if brand, color, and
density affect how quickly chalk dissolves in vinegar. My
hypothesis stated that the less dense chalk is, the quicker it
would dissolve. Do different colors of the same brand affect
outcome because some brands make chalk differently than others?
I thought the darker chalk would be more dense.
II. METHODOLOGY
I used 1 gallon of vinegar, 2 brands of colored and white chalk,
1 liquid measuring cup, 1 timer, an area of constant
temperature, a gram scale, a thermometer, 1 pair of rubber
gloves, and a sharp knife.
My procedure included the following steps:
1. Put on the rubber gloves.
2. Take two brands of chalk in red, blue, and white and weigh
them in grams.
3. Cut the chalk pieces into 5.5 grams each.
4. Pour 1 cup of vinegar into a measuring glass.
5. Take the vinegar's temperature and record it.
6. Drop the chalk gently into the vinegar. Record the time it
takes for the chalk to dissolve (in seconds).
7. If the chalk does not dissolve, record what happens and how
long the chalk remained in the vinegar.
8. Chart or graph the data.
Variables, controllable: quantity of vinegar, weight from brand
to brand of the chalk, size of the chalk within a brand, method
of chalk insertion into vinegar, acidity of vinegar in brand,
minimizing skin oil contact with chalk, and shape of chalk
within brand.
Variables, uncontrollable: Humidity, density of color in chalk,
crumble factor of chalk when cutting, density of each chalk
piece, imperfect cylindrical shape of chalk due to
manufacturing, shipping, and handling.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
DENSITY:
The data showed that Crayola chalk varied more in density. It
ranged from .0029 to .0034 compared to Mead's .0029 to .0030
scale of density.
COLOR:
The data showed density in colors of chalk varied. Density
didn't favor darker/lighter colors. Blue within Mead took
longer to react than Mead red and Mead white. Red and blue in
Crayola had the closest reaction time compared to white Crayola
reaction time. White in Crayola dissolved and took about 18
times longer than any others to show a chemical reaction.
BRAND:
When mass, volume, and temperature of vinegar are controlled and
two brands of chalk (Crayola and Mead) are dissolved in vinegar,
Crayola dissolves while Mead only bubbles. White Crayola was
the only piece of chalk to dissolve. All other colors of both
brands just bubbled.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I researched how long it would take for chalk to dissolve in
vinegar, depending on color, brand, and density. My hypothesis
was the less dense the chalk, the quicker to dissolve; colors in
one brand would make a difference; and darker chalk was denser.
I took three colors of chalk from two brands, dissolved them in
vinegar, and recorded the results. The only brand that
dissolved was Crayola White, but others bubbled from four to ten
minutes. Crayola had a wider horizon of density than Mead. The
density in colored chalk varied, but didn't favor lighter/darker
colors. Mead blue took longer to react than Mead red or white.
Density of chalk doesn't favor darker/lighter colors, nor how
quickly it dissolves in vinegar. Color affects how quickly
chalk dissolves in vinegar, depending on how heavy the dye is.
White Mead chalk didn't dissolve because it had protective
agents that gave it a yellowish tinge. I think that the less
dye there is in chalk, the more it dissolves. Chalk density
varies because of ingredients in chalk, not because of color
darkness.
V. APPLICATION
This research would be a real help to street chalk artists.
Rain is often acidic (like vinegar) so I'd recommend using
Crayola colored chalk and Mead white because they dissolved
least in vinegar. Artists could use Mead colored chalk, too.
Crayola colored chalk has richer color and would be more visible
after a rainstorm.
TITLE: Heating Water With Solar Energy
STUDENT RESEARCHER: Stephanie Burnley
SCHOOL: Franklin-Simpson Middle School
P. O. Box 637
Franklin, KY 42135
GRADE: 7th
TEACHER: Mary Rachel Cothern
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:
My purpose was to discover if, by using solar energy, I could
efficiently heat water and keep it warm. I wanted to do this
project because my family wanted to get a hot tub, but we did
not want to pay for the monthly hot water
heater bills. I thought that the solar hot water heater would
work properly if built accurately and to a scale.
II. METHODOLOGY:
I tested my hypothesis by actually building a replica solar hot
tub. Everyday I sat it out in the sun and observed the effects
of solar energy.
I controlled the variables in my project by checking the water
temperature at the same time every day, using the same water
every day, setting the hot water heater in the same spot every
day. The weather was the variable that did not remain the same
from day to day.
When I began my experiment I went to Homestead and bought all of
my supplies; insulation, copper tubing, black metal, glass, and
a pump. (I already had a plastic tub.) I constructed my solar
panel by nailing together four pieces of wood to make a box. I
slid a sheet of black metal and two sheets of glass into grooves
that had previously been cut in the sides of the box. I added a
layer of insulation under the metal to hold heat in the solar
panel. Copper tubing was placed inside of it to hold the water
and it ran down into my tub. My tub was covered in styrofoam to
insulate it. A small pump was sat in the tub at the bottom of
the tubes to circulate water
through them. Cold water was then poured into my tub and the
temperature of it checked. I also checked the water temperature
everyday for one week at designated times to see how it was
working. Then I recorded my results.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
I gathered from this project that on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Saturday, and Sunday my water got hotter than on the other days.
On all of these days the water temperature reached 120° F. or
above. The temperatures for the other days were 92°, 94°, and
104°. On most days, the time that the water reached the highest
temperature was at 2:30 PM. Two out of the eight days that I
conducted my experiment, the thermometer read 125+ °. This was
because the numbers on my thermometer only went up to 125°, but
the mercury inside was up above that point.
I had three different charts and graphs. My chart showed the
temperatures for every day at each of the five times I checked
the temperature of the water. It also showed the high
temperature for each day. My line graph showed the temperatures
of a typical day at each of the designated times. The bar graph
showed the high temperature for each of the eight days. My data
adequately showed that my hypothesis was right and that solar
energy did work.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
I found that the temperature of the water in my solar hot tub
reached the highest on days that the sun was shining the
brightest. It really doesn't matter if it is warm or cool
outside when dealing with solar energy, but how brightly the sun
is shining. Some of the days that the water reached the highest
temperature, it was very cold outside. This is how solar energy
can work in the winter as well as the summer. Of course, in the
winter the temperature outside will have some effect on the
temperature of the water, but not enough to make a drastic
change in it. I also concluded that since I used a scale to
build my model, solar energy could also be used to heat an
actual size hot tub.
V. APPLICATION:
By using the knowledge I learned from this project, I now know
that solar energy can be used for almost anything in real-life.
Whether you want to use it for the same reason that I did, to
heat a hot tub and to save money, or for your own reason, solar
energy can be used. Not only can solar energy be used to heat
water; it can also be used to heat air. There are lots of very
good informative books out there that can teach you everything
you need to know about, if you have never dealt with solar
energy. One more plus to solar energy is that it is a resource
that can be used for almost anything and it has an unlimited
supply.
TITLE: Building Better Concrete Blocks With Plastic
STUDENT RESEARCHER: Steven Lopez
SCHOOL: Franklin-Simpson Middle
P.O. BOX 637
Franklin, Ky. 42135
GRADE: 7
TEACHER: Mary Rachel Cothern
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:
Can plastics be recycled into concrete blocks to help the
environment? My hypothesis is that we can recycle plastics into
concrete blocks and therefore help the concrete not weather as
quickly. My reasoning behind my hypothesis is that plastics do
not weather as quickly as concrete. My second hypothesis is
that the 50-50 concrete block will last longer than the other
two concrete blocks that I am preparing.
II. METHODOLOGY:
Here's a look at the materials I used for my experiment:
Quikrete (concrete mix), 7 plastic pellets, forms, weather, and
water. I controlled my variables by doing the same exact thing
to each concrete block. I made them all on the same day, let
them cure for the same amount of time, and placed them outside
at the same time. I also took pictures of each block regularly.
Lastly, I brought each block in at the same time and ran water
over them for a week.
Here is how I tested my hypothesis. First, I purchased Quikrete
to make concrete blocks. Next, I got plastic pellets from
Southern Recycling. The third thing I did was to get forms in
which to pour the cement. I added water to the Quikrete to make
a solid concrete block. After this, I poured the cement into a
form. This made up the plain concrete block.
I added water to some more Quikrete and also added several
plastic pellets. Then I poured the mixture into the form. This
made up the 50-50 concrete block.
This time, I added water to the Quikrete and added half the
amount of plastic pellets as in the 50-50 concrete block.
Afterward, I poured this mixture into its form. This made up the
25-75 concrete block.
Finally, I set the blocks outside against the wall of my house,
on a screened-in porch in order for them to dry and cure. When
the concrete blocks dried and cured I took them out of their
individual forms and set them outside in the rain. In the end,
I recorded the results.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
For my data I took pictures of the concrete blocks every two
weeks. I took these pictures over a ten weeks period.
First week:
I observed that the plain concrete block was showing no signs of
erosion The 25-75 concrete block was showing no signs of erosion
either. The 50-50 concrete block was cracked slightly through
the middle.
Second week:
The plain concrete block was still showing no signs of erosion.
The 25-75 concrete block was also showing no sign of erosion.
The 50-50 block was still slightly cracked through the middle.
3rd week:
The plain concrete block was now starting to show slight signs
of erosion. Next, the 25-75 concrete block was still showing no
signs whatsoever of erosion, besides the occasional loss of a
single plastic pellet The crack in the 50-50 concrete block was
beginning to enlarge.
4th week:
The plain concrete block was now beginning to show more signs of
weathering. The 25-75 concrete block was still managing to keep
its form. Finally, what I have been waiting for to happen to the
50-50 concrete block happened It cracked all the way through the
middle.
5th week:
The plain concrete block is still showing signs of erosion.
Although the 25-75 concrete block is still going strong. The 50-
50 concrete block, has completely cracked through the middle The
two separate pieces have also moved apart from each other
slightly.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
I began my project on September 2, 1998. It was three months
and a week when the project was completed in its entirety.
Here's some extra information.
October 4, 1998
The 50-5Q concrete block cracked through the middle.
October 4, 1998
The solid concrete block began its slight erosion.
Three month period
The 25-75 block showed no signs of erosion.
I thought that the 50-50 concrete block would not erode as
quickly. My hypothesis proved to be false. Surprisingly to me,
the 25- 75 concrete block was the most resistant to the weather.
I learned that using concrete blocks made of 25% plastic pellets
and 75% concrete retards erosion better than the standard
concrete block. This will now be a way to recycle plastics if
the construction industry considered this type of concrete
block.
I feel, from what I have observed throughout the project, that
too much plastic in concrete blocks will cause them to separate.
Solid concrete does erode, bit by bit over a period months.
This amount of erosion over three months is not that much, but
if it were the outside wall of a building and the building was
up for several years the block's erosion could be extensive.
V. APPLICATION:
The main way to use the information that I have collected from
my experiment in real life is in the field of construction. If
contractors looked into my type of concrete block, construction
with this type of block would be more durable. Contractors
would have a concrete block that is weather resistant, improving
their buildings. Using this type of concrete block would also
reduce the amount of plastics going into landfills. Plastics do
not decompose as quickly as other materials. Plastics also
makes up a major part of the wastes that are thrown away daily.
So hopefully my experiment will greatly improve the conditions
of the environment and the quality of concrete blocks.
TITLE: Does Music Help Plants Grow?
STUDENT RESEARCHER: Elizabeth Marie Chin
SCHOOL ADDRESS: Shell Creek Elementary
1205 98th Street
Columbus, NE 68601
GRADE: 8
TEACHER: Anita Long
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis
My hypothesis is that classical music will help the plants to
grow. I also believe that the plants that listen to country
will have their growth stunted.
II. Methodology
Materials:
Nine small plastic yogurt containers
Twenty-seven bush bean seeds
Potting soil
Measuring cup
Water
Country music CD or cassette
Classical CD or cassette
Plant three seeds in each yogurt container after filling them
almost up to the top with potting soil. Place the seeds just a
little bit below the surface. Water the plants with 1/4 cup of
water. Put all nine containers in a spot by a window. Take the
plants away from the window at 4:00 P.M. everyday. Place the
controls in a room where the music that the other six plants are
listening to can not be heard. The three plants that listened
to country music listened to Garth Brooks or Faith Hill and the
Classical plants listened to Lorie Line and Mendelssohn for an
hour each day. Record the growth of each plant each night
around 9:00. Since there had three of each kind of plant, this
fulfills the minimum number of trials: three. Let each plant
grow for two whole weeks. Then find out the total growth of the
plants.
III. Analysis of Data
My charts showed that, after two weeks of growth, two of the
country music plants were doing the best by far. The other
plant did not come up until the last day. My hypothesis was
half right. The classical plants, on average, did better than
the country music plants, but the control did the best on
average than any of them.
IV. Summary and Conclusion
I found out that the control did the best, then the classical,
and last of all the country. This led me to reject my
hypothesis. It wasn't an entirely controlled experiment because
a few times I forgot to play the music, but had to make it up
the next day.
V. Application
My research could apply to the real world, because it could help
farmers produce crops faster. For further research, instead of
plants, use your brain. Does music help it to learn? Some
studies have already been started on the effects of classical
music on the brain. It regenerates brain cells.
CONSUMERISM SECTION
TITLE: Which Stain Remover Works The Best?
STUDENT RESEARCHERS: Justin Beitzel and Rudy Odom
SCHOOL: Mandeville Middle School
Mandeville, Louisiana
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: Tammy Gendusa
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:
We would like to do a scientific research project on which stain
remover works the best. Our hypothesis states that Castrol
Cleaner will be the best stain remover for Grape Juice and that
409 would remove the Coke stain the best.
II. METHODOLOGY:
First, we bought the stain removers and then we bought the Coke
and the grape juice. Second, we bought a large piece of white
carpet. Third, we poured a cup of Coke into a measuring cup.
Fourth, repeat 3rd step with the grape juice. Fifth, place 3
tbsp. of Coke on the carpet all in the same spot, repeat 2 more
times. Sixth, do the same with the grape juice. Seventh, let
the stain soak in. Eighth, then spray one type of cleaner on
one coke stain, and one grape juice stain. Repeat for the 2
other stain removers. Ninth, let the stain removers soak into
the stain. Tenth, we rubbed each stain. Eleventh, take a
picture of the stain and record the results. Twelfth, clean up.
The materials we use included: 1 white 4 foot by 4 foot piece
of carpet, 1 bottle of 409, 1 bottle of Castrol Cleaner, 1
bottle of Resolve, 1 cup of grape juice, 1 two liter bottle of
coke, 1 measuring cup, 1 tablespoon, and 1 camera.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
This experiment was conducted on 3/8/99. Three trials were
conducted with the same results every time. During this
experiment we tested three brands of stain cleaners: 409,
Castrol Super Clean, and Resolve.
We poured Coke onto a piece of white carpet. Resolve cleaned
the Coke stain up the best leaving no part of the stain there.
Castrol Super Clean came in a close second leaving just a little
part of the Coke stain left on the carpet. 409 came right behind
Castrol and Resolve in third place, leaving just a little bit of
the stain left. Therefore, Resolve is the best Coke stain
remover.
The test we ran with the grape juice was the same thing we did
with the Coke. The Castrol Super Clean got most of the stain
out of the carpet, there was only a little left. 409 came in
second cleaning some of the stain and last was the Resolve; it
barely did anything to the carpet, it just faded the stain.
Therefore, Castrol is the best grape juice stain remover.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
After doing the experiment, it was determined that Resolve was
the best cleaner to use to remove Coke stains. Castrol was the
best cleaner to use to remove grape juice stains. Therefore, we
accept our hypothesis that states Castrol will clean the Grape
juice stain the best, but we reject our other hypothesis which
stated that 409 would clean the Coke the best because Resolve
cleaned it the best.
V. APPLICATION:
The reason we decided to do this project is because we wanted to
know which stain remover would work the best on coke stains and
grape juice stains. We can now recommend which product should
be purchased and used for the removal of Coke stains and grape
juice stains.