Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Lunar Crater Conclusion

My hypothesis in this experiment was: If we make the marbles mass bigger Then I predict that the ray lengths and crater diameter will increase Because the larger the mass the larger the impact. After looking back on the data, I think that my hypothesis is considered to be correct because, according to the data tables the marble with the bigger mass had a increased lead in all of the sets of data compared to the much smaller marble (around the same size as a M&M candy, the bigger marble had a size of a gumball). For example, the crater diameter average for the smaller mass marble was around 20 mm from the height 50 (cm), while the crater diameter average for the larger mass marble was 32 mm, at the same height. Also, most of the ray lengths for the smaller marble compared to the larger marble are much less than the ones for the bigger marble. Evidence to support this is shown in an sample of the data received from the experiment: Smaller marble data for ray lengths at 150 cm have signs of inconsistency when compared to......

The larger mass marble data for its ray lengths at the same height

In other words, the ray lengths difference to both the smaller and bigger marble changed throughout the experiment, sometimes the bigger marbles ray lengths were longer, other times the smaller marble was longer too. Another piece of evidence to support my claim is that according to the data for the marbles depth in our makeshift-moon surface, most of the time the bigger marble ended up below the moons surface, compared to the smaller marble which had a regulating pattern in its depth, fulfilling the quote Because the larger the mass the larger the impact. Based on my findings, I think what happened in this experiment was that the bigger marbles increased mass made a greater impact on the makeshift moon-surface than the much smaller marble made a greater impact on the makeshift moon-surface than the much smaller marble because of the force, otherwise known as gravity which pulled the much heavier marble down to the surface even faster. My reason for this is because according to the data on the depth of the marble in the surface, as I said earlier, the bigger marble was listed mostly in all four tests as below the moon surface. Also, according to Italian

Adrian Ma

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 6:21:07 PM Hong Kong SAR China Time

astronomer Galileo in his book The Starry Night an object with a greater mass had a tendency to drop down quicker or build up drop speed twice as fast compared to an object with less mass due to gravity. This theory was shown in our experiment, the speed of the object was shown in how deep it was buried in the surface, and in this case very deep= lots of momentum. Finally, according to most of the data for the bigger marbles ray lengths it looked like that most of them were longer and spread out more on the surface compared to the other marbles data, which in theory showed signs of an increase in momentum as it dropped from a height. So in conclusion, I think that the bigger marbles larger mass made a greater impact on the surface based on evidence from our data, and an astronomers discoveries in the early 1500s in Italy. There were a few errors I think that may have tampered our data. For one thing, when we were dropping each marble at 50 cm, the big marble bounced off one of the smaller ones, already in the surface. It couldve either messed up the position of that marbles crater diameter and possibly covering up its rays, or it couldve made the bigger marble appear to look like it didnt really go that deep in the surface when, in reality it normally would go below. Also, we ran out of cocoa powder halfway through which was a nagging problem for us, as sometimes we werent really accurate in our drops and dropped one marble too close to an already dropped marble, so in the later tests we sometimes couldnt really see the outline of a ray near a marble due to a lack of an outline surface. Finally, I think that before, the person responsible for filling the bowls will flour probably put too much, effectively creating a thicker and much deeper surface, which could explain why we couldnt clearly see the ray lengths sometimes due to the extremely thick and paste-like surface, and not enough cocoa to compensate for this.

Adrian Ma

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 6:21:07 PM Hong Kong SAR China Time

Potrebbero piacerti anche