Showing posts with label other-science-fair-project-experiments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label other-science-fair-project-experiments. Show all posts

Aerodynamic Drag of Several Basic Vehicle Shapes



PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the aerodynamic drag of several basic vehicle shapes.

I became interested in this idea when I was riding in our convertible and I felt the air hit me in the back of the head instead of the front of my head. I wondered why the air was coming from behind me. 

The information gained from this experiment could show designers which shape would be the most aerodynamic. Society would want to build more aerodynamic cars and planes because they are more efficient and would save gas and money.
  
HYPOTHESIS

My first hypothesis was that the hemispherical nose would be the most aerodynamic, having the least amount of drag.

My second hypothesis was that the conical tail would be the most aerodynamic, having the least amount of drag. 

I based my hypothesis on a science project done in 2003 by Landin Arnett, ”The Effect of Different Fuselage Shapes on Drag.” He said, “The hemispherical nose and the conical tail did the best.”

              EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    The speed of wind

•    The size of wind tunnel

•    The type of wind tunnel

•    The spring scale

•    The type of wheels

•    The size of wheels

•    The main body of the car

•    The source of wind

•    The mass of the car 

The manipulated variables were the shape of the nose and tail. 

The responding variable was the force of drag.  

To measure the responding variable, I used a spring scale to see how much drag force there was in newtons.

                                   MATERIALS

QUANTITY
ITEM DESCRIPTION
2
Hemispherical shapes of Styrofoam
2
Conical shapes of Styrofoam
2
Square shapes of Styrofoam
1
Air tunnel
1
Spring scale
1
Roller
1
Car body
2
Leaf blowers
3cm
string
4”
Wide tube

  
PROCEDURES

1.    Get all of the supplies listed in “materials”

2.    Construct the car and the interchangeable nose and tail pieces

a.    Use nose and tail pieces that are two conical shapes, two hemispherical shapes, and two flat shapes that are cut out of Styrofoam

b.    Each of the shapes must be four inches wide which is the width of the tube

c.  Make sure that the car rolls easily

d.  Build the car low to the ground so that you only see the tires

e.  Don’t let the pipe touch the tires on the roller

3.    Setup the wind tunnel for use

a.    Attach the spring scale to the wind so it wont slide around during the experiment

b.    Tape the spring scale inside the wind tunnel

c.    Put the two leaf blowers together so they can be used

4.    Install the hemispherical shape of Styrofoam for the nose. Then install a conical shape for the tail of the car (the nose and tail do NOT have to be the same but eventually will have to)

5.    Attach the shapes chosen to the car’s nose and tail and place the shapes inside the tunnel 

6. Tie the car to the spring scale with the 3cm string

7. Turn the two leaf blowers on while they are in the wind tunnel

8.  Watch the spring scale closely for force changes

a. This will give you the amount of drag the car produces

9.  Record your observations of the spring scale

10. Watch the car closely for its reaction to the wind 

11.  Record your observations of the car’s behavior 

12. Do each experiment for each set of shapes 5 times

13. Choose another set of Styrofoam shapes for the car’s nose and tail 

14. Repeat steps 4-14 until you run out of shape combinations to use for the nose and tail of the car you made 

15. Record your results of each of the experiments 

a.    Average out how well each nose did with each of the three tails

b.    Average out how well each tail did with each nose

c.    That will tell you which pair of shapes did the best

d.    It will also tell you which pair of shapes did the worst
  
RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the aerodynamic drag of several basic vehicle shapes.

The results of the experiment were that the conical nose and the conical tail section, the conical nose and the hemispherical tail, and the conical nose and flat tail section all averaged 0.00 newtons of drag. Thus, the average amount of drag of the conical tail was 0.00 newtons.

The hemispherical nose along with the conical tail section averaged 0.01 newtons of drag, while the hemispherical nose along with the hemispherical tail section averaged 0.05 newtons of drag, and the hemispherical nose and the flat tail section averaged 0.00 newtons of drag. Thus the average amount of drag in newtons for the hemispherical nose was 0.02.

The flat nose along with the conical tail section averaged 0.33newtons of drag, and the flat nose and the hemispherical tail section averaged 0.16 newtons of drag. The flat nose along with the flat tail section averaged 0.29 newtons of drag. Thus, the average amount of drag in newtons of the flat nose was 0.26.    

CONCLUSION

My original hypothesis was that the hemispherical nose would be the most aerodynamic.

My second hypothesis was that the conical tail would be the most aerodynamic. 

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be rejected, because the conical nose and the hemisperical  tail did the  best, instead of the hemisperical nose and the conical tail.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if I used the same shapes in hydrodynamics if the results would be the same. 

I also wonder if  I used the same shapes only as sails if I would get the same results.

If I were to conduct this project again I would use a lighter pipe, different shapes and smoother shapes, a different material for the shapes, and I would do more trials.


Researched by -------Brennan D


Read More

Effect of Various Levee Designs on the Ability to Withstand Water



PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of various levee designs on the ability of a levee to withstand water.

I became interested in this idea when I heard about the floods in New Orleans and I thought that engineers should design better levees.

The information gained from this experiment could save many lives and millions of dollars for those who live near levees.

HYPOTHESIS

My hypothesis was that the levee constructed with walls at a 45-degree angle would withstand the longest time against the water.

I based my hypothesis on the shape that today’s levees are constructed and what I know about dirt compaction.

 
EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    Material that levee was constructed on

•    Moisture in material

•    Soil used to construct levee

•    Amount of water held behind levee

•    General testing method

The manipulated variable was the shape of the levee.

The responding variable was the amount of time the levee was able to hold back the water. 

To measure the responding variable, I used a stopwatch to time how long it took for the levee to fail.

MATERIALS


QUANTITY 
ITEM DESCRIPTION
1
Wooden block (at least one inch long)
1
Plastic Tub
Cloth for drying plastic tub
2
Wooden block (2.54 cm Tall)
1
Bag of potting soil
   
                                             PROCEDURES

1. Place .946 liters of potting soil in a line directly down the center of the laundry tub

2. Use three wooden blocks (approximately  1 cm X 13 cm X 5 cm) to compact potting soil into a specific cross-sectional shape. Push down firmly on soil many times with block until the shape is stable and strong.  Each levee should have a length that crosses the entire tub and meets the tub walls tightly.

    One group will have a rectangular cross-section about 5 cm tall and 7 cm wide with vertical walls.  

    One group will have a triangular cross-section also 5 cm tall and 7 cm wide at the base. 

    One group will have a trapezoidal cross-section also 5 cm tall and
7 cm wide at the base but with a flat top about 2.5 cm wide and 45° walls.

3. For the first three trials create trapezoidal levees only.

4. Pour .946 liters of water on one side of the tub and start the stopwatch

5. Observe levee

6. When levee fails (water leaks through) stop timing.

7. Record data

8. Clean tub out and dry well.

9.    Redo steps 1-8 until all three levee shapes have been tested three times each.

10.    Average results for each cross-sectional shape.

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of various levee designs on the ability of a levee to withstand water.

The results of the experiment were that the rectangular shaped levee lasted 85.3 seconds on average where as the 45° tabletop only lasted 41.67 seconds on average.


CONCLUSION

My original hypothesis was that the table top levee with walls at a 45° angle would have the ability to withstand the most force created by water.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be rejected, because the rectangular shaped levee held back water the longest.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if I were to conduct this experiment on a larger scale, with more materials and shapes, and different soils the data would be different.  

If I were to conduct this project again I would conduct more trials and examine more variables such as different amounts of water, and different rates of compaction.

  
Researched by ---- Billy H

Read More

Comparing the Impact Resistance of Various Materials Struck by a Projectile



                                         PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the impact resistance of various materials struck by projectile such as a paintball.

I became interested in this idea when I heard that body armor blocked bullets enough to keep from penetrating, although it would knock the wind out of you.

The information gained from this experiment could affect the designs of body armor for soldiers and police officers. It could show the government cost-effective materials to use in the future. 

HYPOTHESIS

My first hypothesis was that the neoprene would protect the most when used alone.

My second hypothesis was that the Cordura nylon would protect the least when used alone.

My third hypothesis was that the combination of neoprene and the high-density foam would protect the most in combination.

My fourth hypothesis was that the combination of High Density Foam and Mylar would protect the least in combination.

I based my hypothesis on information from various Internet sites explaining that neoprene is used in a lot of paint ball armor.

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    The area of the Styrofoam

•    The thickness of the Styrofoam

•    The amount of material used

•    Distance the paintball gun is from target

•    The type and size of paintballs

•    The type and power of the paintball gun

The manipulated variable was the type of materials used to cover the Styrofoam target. 

The responding variable was the depth of the dent made in the Styrofoam target. 

To measure the responding variable, I used a micrometer accurate to thousandths of an inch.

                                     MATERIALS

QUANTITY
ITEM DESCRIPTION
2
2-by-4 sheets of Styrofoam that is 20cm thick
1
Spyder VL Lynx Paintball marker
100
Big Balls .68 caliber Paintballs
1
T-shirt
1
Sweatshirt
1
Jacket
1
Micrometer (Machinist’s Depth Gauge)
1
Neoprene Wetsuit
4
20cm by 20cm pieces a high density foam
4
20cm by 20cm sheets Mylar
1
1/2 yard by 60 in Cordura nylon
1
Sheet of plywood about 10cm thick
5
Wooden Stakes
                                 
PROCEDURES

1.    Gather Materials

a.    Buy Paintball marker and paintballs.

b.    Pick up wet suit from dive shop.

c.    Buy 20cm by 20cm sheet of Mylar.

d.    Buy 500 X 152cm piece of1050 Denier Ballistics Cordura nylon.

e.    Buy 20cm by 20cm piece of high-density foam.

f.    Get 10cm thick piece of plywood and 5 wooden stakes

g.    Get one old sweatshirt, one old jacket, and one t-shirt.

2.    Setup Experiment

a.    Cut Styrofoam into equal sheets of 20cm by 20cm.

b.    Saw 1 stake in to two 8 1/8in pieces.

c.    Saw another stake into two 10in pieces.

d.    Then screw 1 of the 8 1/8in pieces vertically on to plywood in center.

e.    Then screw the other piece vertically 10in to the right.

f.    Then screw the 10in pieces on the top and bottom of the 8 1/8in pieces making a square  frame.

g.    Put one test material on each labeled separate sheet of Styrofoam.

h.    Create several combinations of protective materials. Use each of the following:

i.    Neoprene + High Density Foam

j.    Neoprene + Cordura Nylon

k.    Cordura Nylon + High Density Foam

l.    Mylar + High Density Foam

m.    Set the plywood upright against fence.

n.    Load paint ball marker.

3.    Conduct the Experiment

a.    Put each material in wooden frame.

b.    Fire at material on one Styrofoam sheet from 5 meters away three times.

c.    Repeat steps 1 on each material.

d.    Take material off.

e.    Take to Kelly Conolly at Smith inc. with the micrometer to measure the indent in the Styrofoam with micrometer.

f.    Record depth of craters on a chart.


RESULTS

 The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the impact resistance of various materials struck by a projectile such as a paintball.

The results of the experiment were that Cordura Nylon protected best for the single materials. The combinations of Neoprene and Cordura Nylon, Neoprene and High Density Foam all protected completely. Out of the single materials Mylar protected the least. Out of the composites the combination of High Density Foam and Mylar protected the least.

CONCLUSION

My first hypothesis was that the neoprene would protect the most alone. The results indicate that my first hypothesis should be rejected, because neoprene did not protect the best, Cordura Nylon did.

My second hypothesis was that the Cordura nylon would protect the least alone. The results indicate that my second hypothesis should be rejected because the Cordura Nylon did not protect the worst, Mylar did. 

My third hypothesis was that the combination of neoprene and the high density foam will protect the most. The results indicate that my third should be accepted because the Neoprene/High Density Foam combination did protect the best. Although one other combination protected just as well.

My fourth hypothesis was that the combination of High Density Foam and Mylar would protect the least. The results indicate that my fourth hypothesis should be accepted because the combination of High Density Foam/Mylar did protect the least.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if there would be a way to make an inflatable or “bubble wrap” style composite that used air bag materials perhaps bonded to thin ceramic plates.

If I were to conduct this project again I would make bigger targets, and find a flatter material to shoot at. I would do more trials and use a more powerful projectile.

Researched by ---- Jack C


Read More
Home About-us Privacy Policy Contact-us
Copyright © 2017 www.sciencefairprojects.in | All Rights Reserved. Design By Templateclue