The National Student Research Center
E-Journal of Student Research: Science
Volume 7, Number 4, May, 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
- The Flow of Regular and Salt Water
- How Acidic Is The Pop You Drink?
- Salt vs. Sugar
- Construction Of An Electric Motor
- Dissolving Hair
- The Effect of Fertilizer On Grass
- Lighting and Plant Growth
- Is Tobacco The Same?
- How Clean Is the Air?
- The Bouncing Ball Test
- Evaporating Water
- Illusions
Title: The Flow of Regular and Salt Water
Student Researcher: Korey Mercer
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis:
Does regular water or salt water flow down a tube faster? I think
regular water will flow down a tube faster because salt water has
more then just water in it.
II. Methodology:
1. Gather all materials.
2. Fill both bowls with 1/2 liter of water.
3. Add 1 teaspoon of salt to one of the bowls and
label it.
4. Stir the one with salt in it.
5. Turn over two cooking pots and set on a table.
6. Set the bowls with water and salt water on the
cooking pots.
7. Roll two paper towels
8. Place one end of a paper towel in the bowl
with water in it. Place the other end of the
paper towel in an empty bowl on the table. Do
the same for the bowl with salt water in it.
9. Allow everything to sit for 12 hours.
The rolled paper towels acts as a tube for the water molecules to
move through.
III. Analysis of Data:
The regular water did flow faster because of two reasons: one the
capillary action and secondly because salt water is more dense.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
Capillary action is caused by the adhesive force of the water
molecules pulling up on the sides of the tube. The cohesive
force pulls the water concave then convex then flat. It keeps
repeating this process until the water molecule reaches the top
of the tube.
V. Application
In this classroom, we do a variety of science experiments and
some involve salt water. I plan on telling the teachers in our
wing of the building how this flow could affect the water flow in
the pipes so they will not have any problems with the plumbing in
the future.
Title: How Acidic Is The Pop You Drink?
Student Researcher: Megan D. Brumfield
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis:
I want to see if pop will dissolve different materials. I think
that my pops (Coke, Dr. Pepper, Shasta Orange, and 7-Up) will
dissolve different materials (dried paint, hamburger, rust, and
minerals on a penny).
II. Methodology:
1. Put 60 mL of Coke, Dr. Pepper, Shasta Orange,
and 7-Up in different containers.
2. Then I put my materials rust, hamburger, dry
paint and a penny in the pot.
3. Hamburger was tested with each pop as was the
rust, minerals on a penny, and dried paint.
4. I had 16 containers total.
5. I recorded my results each day for three
weeks.
III. Analysis of Data:
My results were that Coke dissolved hamburger the best. Coke and
Dr. Pepper dissolved rust the best. The paint did not dissolve
at all. The minerals on the penny were dissolved evenly by all
the pops. Those are my results.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
My conclusions were that Coke and Dr. Pepper dissolved the
most. I found out everything I wanted to know. I expected Coke
to dissolve the most and 7-Up to dissolve the least. I was
right.
V. Application:
The reason I did this project is to see what pop might do to your
stomach. I found out that you should not drink pop on an empty
stomach, especially Coke, because it is acidic and could give you
an ulcer or a really bad stomach ache.
Title: Salt vs. Sugar
Student Researcher: Kelcey J. Deutscher
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4 Grade
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis
I think that salt and sugar will react differently when mixed
with water and then heated, frozen, and evaporated.
II. Methodology:
1. Freeze the salt and sugar:
a. Mix one tablespoon of salt with one half
cup of water
b. Pour the salt water into an ice tray
c. Mix one tablespoon of sugar with one
half cup of water
d. Pour the sugar water into an ice tray
e. Place both ice trays into the freezer for
two hours
f. Check results
2. Heat the salt and sugar:
a. Place one tablespoon of salt in a pan
b. Heat the pan with salt in it and see the
results
c. Place one tablespoon of sugar in a pan
d. Heat the pan with sugar in it and see the
results
3. Evaporate the salt and sugar:
a. Mix one tablespoon of salt with one half
cup of water in a cup
b. Mix one tablespoon of sugar with one half
cup of water in another cup.
c. Let the cups sit in the air until
evaporated.
d. Check the results and write down the
observations.
III. Analysis of Data:
I found out that sugar and salt do react differently when heated,
frozen, and evaporated. When I froze them; sugar froze and salt
didn't. When I evaporated them; salt had bubbles on the side and
sugar looked like plain water. When I heated them; sugar turned
black, and salt stayed the same.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
I found out that salt and sugar do react differently when heated,
frozen, and evaporated.
V. Application:
When the cooks at Shepherd Elementary make cinnamon rolls they
should know the difference between salt and sugar, but if they
don't they could freeze, evaporate, and heat them to find out the
difference.
Title: Construction Of An Electric Motor
Student Researcher: Matthew Knowlen
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. Statement of purpose & Hypothesis:
Can I make a motor that works. I think I can make a simple motor
with a battery, some wire, magnets, and a few odds and ends.
II. Methodology:
1) Gather all materials. 2) Wind the wire around the dowel 10 to
20 times being sure to leave 2" of wire free at each end. 3)
Remove the dowel. You will be left with a spring of wire. 4)
Squeeze the coil together and wrap one end of the wire around the
coil. Wind the free end of the wire around the coil. Be sure
the two leads are well centered and straight. 5) Sand the top
half, and only the top half, of each lead. DO NOT sand the red
enamel off the bottom of the leads. SANDING IS IMPORTANT! Be
sure the paint is completely removed from the top half of each
lead. The sanded part should shine. Also, you should have no
enamel on the sanded top half of each lead. Be sure the area
where the lead meets the coil is well sanded. 6) Now the coil is
finished. Grab and unfold the two jumbo sized paper clips. 7)
Connect the motor like this: Place paper clips into the packing
foam, wrap connecting wire around each paper clip, place magnets
in between packing foam. Connect each end of the connecting
wires to the battery with the battery band. 8) You may need to
give the wire coil a little tap to get it going, but after that
it will keep going for a little while.
III. Analysis of Data:
I created a motor that works!
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
I found out the motor I made will spin. When it moves to the
side it sometimes quit. I need to remake the motor before it
would be usable for any project. Using magnets with a battery to
make a motor does work.
V. Application
I've noticed that our classroom pet, Nibbles has been gaining
weight, big time. I will construct one of these motors to create
an exercise machine for her.
Title: Dissolving Hair
Student Researcher: Kate Whittle
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th
Teacher: Mrs. Cindy Wittman
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:
What will dissolve hair better: Drano, Diet Coke, or vinegar. I
think that Drano will dissolve hair better than Diet Coke and
vinegar. I think that Diet Coke will dissolve the hair, too.
II. METHODOLOGY:
1) Pour Drano, Diet Coke, and vinegar in separate containers of
equal size.
2) Cut equal bands of hair (horsehair suggested) and submerge in
liquids.
I recorded my results after the hair had been submerged for 3
days.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
After 3 days, these were my results. Drano dissolved the hair an
inch, up to the surface. Diet Coke didn't dissolve the hair,
though. Vinegar, also didn't dissolve the hair and after a few
days created a horrible smell.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
Drano dissolves hair well, but Diet Coke and vinegar don't
dissolve the hair. The reason I used Diet Coke and vinegar is
because I have heard both will dissolve substances.
V. APPLICATION:
I decided that Drano is a good solvent and if you use Drano for
your drain clogs, it will work. I will suggest to our school
janitors that they also use it because it will be efficient.
Title: The Effect of Fertilizer On Grass
Student Researcher: Erin Erickson
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis:
The purpose of my project is to see if homemade or natural
(manure) fertilizers work as well as commercial (bought)
fertilizers on grass. I think that homemade fertilizer will make
the grass grow the most and be the most green.
II. Methodology:
I will plant four plots of grass exactly the same way. One will
test the use of a homemade fertilizer, one a natural (manure)
fertilizer, and one a bought fertilizer. The final plot I will
not use any fertilizer in it so that I can see how much the
fertilizer increases the grass growth. I will water them exactly
the same. They will have the exactly growing conditions also. In
the end, I hope to see which has grown the most and which plot is
most green.
III. Analysis Of Data:
My results indicate that the manure and store fertilizer is best.
Manure is just a tad bit better than store bought fertilizer.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
There is not very much difference between commercial fertilizer,
manure, and grass without fertilizer. The homemade fertilizer
looks the worst, it grew the least and the blades are the
thinnest. In the manure and commercial fertilizer plots, the
blades of grass are slightly taller and slightly thicker than the
plot without fertilizer.
V. Application:
I decided to do this project so my Mom and I would know what kind
of fertilizer to put on grass to get the best quality.
Title: Lighting and Plant Growth
Student Researcher: Erin Kathleen Wall
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th grade
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis:
Will a plant grown in a sunny window grow faster than a plant
grown under an ultra - violet light? I think plant will grow
faster in a sunny window.
II. Methodolodgy:
First, I took two of the same kind of seeds and planted them the
same depth in the soil on the same day. Then I took my ultra-
violet light and put one plant under the it. I also put one
plant in a sunny window. As soon as they sprouted, I measured
each plant every 7 days and record my data. The ultra-violet
plant had light from 9:30 P.M. to 6:30 A.M. (9 hr.) the plant in
the window had sunlight from 8:00 A.M. each day for a total of 9
hours. I began this experiment on Jan. 16, 1999 and continued
for 5 week until the 20th of February. I watered each plant
after I measured it with an equal amount of water.
III. Analysis of Data:
I found out that a seed grown under the sun or in a sunny window
grows faster than if it were grown under an ultra- violet light.
Now I know that if I want to grow a plant I would want to grow it
in a sunny a sunny window or out side not under an ultra-violet
light.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
I found out that a plant grown in a sunny window or out side
grows faster than a plant grown under an ultra-violet light. I
accepted my hypothesis.
V. Application:
When my mom wants to grow her garden she would want to put it out
in the sun not under an ultra-violet light.
Title: Is Tobacco The Same?
Student Researcher: Josh Neibauer
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis:
Although tobacco products are sold in many different forms I
think they all come from the same plant.
II. Methodology:
First, I bought my tobacco and microscope slides. Then I put
each kind of tobacco on a slide and looked in my microscope. I
noted if each different kind of tobacco product looked the same
on slides under my microscope.
III. Analysis of data:
The different tobacco products look, smell, and feel different.
They looked different under my microscope.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
Even though they are not the same under my microscope they all
come from the same plant. I know this because I called two
stores and they all said the same thing.
V. Application:
The reason I did this project was because my grandpa, uncles, and
step-dad chew tobacco. I wanted to see if they were chewing the
same thing. I hope to next research the harmful effects of
tobacco and share it with my family.
Title: How Clean Is the Air?
Student Researcher: Quinn M. Halverson
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:
My purpose is to see if there is more dirt and/or dust particles
inside or outside. I think that there will be more dust and dirt
particles outside than inside.
II. METHODOLOGY:
1. Divide 14 index cards into 2 groups of 7.
2. Label the first set of cards 1-7 to represent
each day of the week.
3. Label the second set of cards 1A-7A to
represent each day of week.
4. Using a ruler, draw a one inch square in the
center of each card with a felt tip marker.
5. With your finger or cotton swab, smear a
small patch of petroleum jelly into the
square making sure the jelly is evenly spread
and not too thick.
6. Tape card 1 to the outside of a window with
the petroleum jelly facing you.
7. Tape card 1A to the inside of a window with
the petroleum jelly facing you.
8. After fifteen hours remove both cards and
replace with card 2 on the outside of the
window and card 2A on the inside of the
window.
9. Now compare 1 and 1A carefully with a
magnifying glass.
10. Note the number and size of the largest
particles on card one and record your
observations.
11. Now note the difference in both the shape and
quantity of particles on card 1 and card 1A.
12. After fifteen hours replace cards 2 and 2A
with cards 3 and 3A and so on until you have
two complete sets of cards for the week.
13. Each day compare the sets of cards not only
to each other but to the previous set.
Also note the conditions both inside and outside while your cards
collect particles.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
There was more dirt collected on the outside cards than on the
inside cards during the 7 day test period. The cloudier and/or
windier it was, the more dirt particles were observed on the
outside cards.
Other results I observed were:
1. Generally, there were very few dirt particles
on the inside cards.
2. The dirtiest inside card was card was 7A,
because we had the sliding glass door open.
This may be caused by more air movement inside
the house.
3. What was cooked inside the house didn't seem
to affect the number of dirt particles on the
inside cards.
4. More dirt particles were collected on the
inside cards on the days the dog was in the
house.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
My hypothesis was right. There were more dirt particles on the
outside cards than on the inside cards. My conclusion is that
there is more dirt particles and dust outside a house than inside
a house. I accept my hypothesis.
V. Application:
I have always wondered how much dirt there was in the air and if
there was more dirt inside a house or outside a house. People
who have allergies would benefit from this information because
they would know to stay inside and avoid the dust pollutants that
are in greater concentration outside.
Title: The Bouncing Ball Test
Student Researcher: James J. Douglas
School: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
Grade: 4th
Teacher: Mrs. Wittman
I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis:
I think a ball that is not frozen will bounce higher than a
frozen ball.
II. Methodology:
1. I gathered my materials.
2. Then I dropped the ball from a yard above the
ground.
3. Last, I put the same ball in the freezer for
five hours and dropped it.
III. Analysis of data:
The unfrozen ball bounced 23 inches, the frozen ball bounced 12
inches when I dropped it.
IV. Summary and Conclusion:
The ball frozen didn't bounce as high because the molecules got
tighter and smaller.
V. Application:
This will help us in basketball, because the coach needs to know
that he should keep the ball in a warm environment so that they
bounce well.
TITLE: Evaporating Water
STUDENT RESEARCHER: Desarae Lynch
SCHOOL: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
GRADE: 5
TEACHER: Mrs. Fulghum
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:
The reason I'm doing this is to see which kind of water
evaporates faster: plain water, sugar, or salt. I think the
salt water will evaporate faster.
II. METHODOLOGY:
1) I gathered all my materials together.
2) I labeled the three glasses.
3) I put equal amounts of water in the three glasses.
4) I put 1 teaspoon of salt in the glass that said salt and
stirred until dissolved.
5) I put 1 teaspoon of sugar in the glass that said sugar and
stirred until dissolved.
6) I sat the glasses on a shelf.
7) I measured the amount in each glass and recorded the
amounts.
8) I kept track of the water for 2 weeks each day with a ruler.
Each time I measured I recorded the amount left in each glass.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
I did a graph illustrating the two weeks of measurements.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
The plain water evaporated first and then the sugar water and
finally the salt water.
V. APPLICATION:
I would share this finding with homeowners. If they would want
to attract hummingbirds, then they would want to use sugar
water.
TITLE: Illusions
STUDENT RESEARCHER: Annika Charter
SCHOOL: Shepherd Elementary
Shepherd, Montana
GRADE: 5
TEACHER: Mrs. Cindy Wittman
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:
I wanted to find out if boys and girls see optical illusions
differently. I thought the girls would see more of the optical
illusions and more of the hidden optical illusions than the
boys.
II. MEHTODOLOGY:
This was my procedure: First, I showed 6 boys and 6 girls five
optical illusions. Then I ask them a question about each one.
My first question was: "Which cylinder is bigger? The purple
cylinder or the blue cylinder?" My second question was: "How do
you think they built this staircase picture---like the marble
and the block on the side of the wall?" My third question was:
"How many faces do you seen in this picture?" My fourth
question was: "What animal do you see? Are the edges rounded
or curved?" My fifth question was: "Stare at the box with the
face in it for a minute, then look at the white box. What do
you see?" Then I put all the answers into a graph.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:
My results for the first optical illusion question showed that
one girl and no boys got it right. For the second question,
three girls and one boy got it right. For the third question,
the results were that four girls and two boys got it right. For
the fourth question, two girls and four boys got it right. For
the fifth question, two girls and five boys got it right.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
From my results, I came to the conclusion that girls see some
things boys don't see. But boys see thing girls don't see. The
boys and the girls both had 12 correct responses to the
questions about the optical illusions. My hypothesis was
wrong.