This is the last post of the blog.
We had a great time doing the preperation to this project and the project itself.
We studied a lot, in the matter of science as well as in the matter of corporation and shared work.
We know that we had some weaknesses as well as some successes and in overall, we feel that that was a great project and a very positive experience.
Our personal reflections, that of course come from our group reflection are going to appear on our personal reflection sheets.
Thank you for reading, guiding and supporting us through the whole process.
Michele, Logan, Bikem, Kenta and Einat.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wrapping Things Up
Analysis:
It's been an eventful few weeks, and it was great to see that our hard work payed off last Saturday. With time to review and analyze the collected data, we have come to several conclusions. However, before I announce our conclusions, I think it's important that we highlight the variables within the experiment:
Independent Variable(s):
Dependent Variable(s):
Control(s):
*Light Meter: A device created by our very own Mark Wheen. The "Light Meter" measures the amount of voltage that is recorded through the transmittance of the water. By rule of thumb, the measurements are inversely proportional; an increased amount of recorded voltage means that there is a decreased amount of light that is transmitted through the water samples (i.e. the water is less transparent), and vise versa.
If you refer back to the results previously posted, you can see that during the first and second tests, the water from sites 4 and 5 had the lowest voltage reading, and thus, we most transparent. You can follow this pattern to analyze the remaining data.
Conclusion:
In our original hypothesis, we concluded that the water closer to the Pedder Bay Marina would be less transparent due to the lack of constant water flow, and because it's assumable that the shallower water could be contaminated with the sediments below. However, referring to the data collected from our first test through the light meter, our hypothesis was disproved. The water near the Green Buoy was less transparent. Nevertheless, our the results from our second test matched up with our hypothesis. On the other hand, there are several factors which could have affected, limited, and hindered our results.
Throughout the experiment, we neglected to take into consideration the affects of the water temperature, salt concentration within the water, external light (in relation to the measurements made with the Secchi Disk), tides, currents, amount of rain water from the previous night, e.t.c. Furthermore, the samples of water we collected for testing with the Light Meter were from the surface of the water, whereas the visibility of the Secchi Disk was measured several 10's of centimeters underwater. Although the distance in between the two mediums were only a few meters apart, the temperature as well the concentration of the sediments could have varied exponentially and hindered the visibility of the water.
Upon completing our tests with the Light Meter, we conclude that the results from the second test (i.e. water from the Marina is less transparent) were more "accurate," because they complied with our hypothesis. However, the water samples had been sitting in room temperature for over 1/2 hour by then. What we might have perceived as a flaw within our experiment might actually be hinting to areas we should concentrate on for further study within our experiment. Perhaps the lower transparency of the water near the Green buoy, as presented in Test #1, was not so much as inaccurate, but had the affects of temperature influencing our the results. With more time and possible resources, e.g. thermometer, we would have been able to measure the water temperature of the samples upon collection, and furthermore, find if there is a correlation between the temperature and amount of visibility within the water.
Needless to say, with the time and resources we were granted, I believe the group did a great job and I would like to thank all of those who made this experience possible. Congratulations everyone! Job well done!
It's been an eventful few weeks, and it was great to see that our hard work payed off last Saturday. With time to review and analyze the collected data, we have come to several conclusions. However, before I announce our conclusions, I think it's important that we highlight the variables within the experiment:
Independent Variable(s):
- N/A
Dependent Variable(s):
- Voltage read by Light Meter*
Control(s):
- Equipment (e.g. Light Meter, beakers, distilled water samples)
- Temperature of water samples - Room temperature
- Location of sample collections - Sites 1-6
- Volume of water samples
*Light Meter: A device created by our very own Mark Wheen. The "Light Meter" measures the amount of voltage that is recorded through the transmittance of the water. By rule of thumb, the measurements are inversely proportional; an increased amount of recorded voltage means that there is a decreased amount of light that is transmitted through the water samples (i.e. the water is less transparent), and vise versa.
If you refer back to the results previously posted, you can see that during the first and second tests, the water from sites 4 and 5 had the lowest voltage reading, and thus, we most transparent. You can follow this pattern to analyze the remaining data.
Conclusion:
In our original hypothesis, we concluded that the water closer to the Pedder Bay Marina would be less transparent due to the lack of constant water flow, and because it's assumable that the shallower water could be contaminated with the sediments below. However, referring to the data collected from our first test through the light meter, our hypothesis was disproved. The water near the Green Buoy was less transparent. Nevertheless, our the results from our second test matched up with our hypothesis. On the other hand, there are several factors which could have affected, limited, and hindered our results.
Throughout the experiment, we neglected to take into consideration the affects of the water temperature, salt concentration within the water, external light (in relation to the measurements made with the Secchi Disk), tides, currents, amount of rain water from the previous night, e.t.c. Furthermore, the samples of water we collected for testing with the Light Meter were from the surface of the water, whereas the visibility of the Secchi Disk was measured several 10's of centimeters underwater. Although the distance in between the two mediums were only a few meters apart, the temperature as well the concentration of the sediments could have varied exponentially and hindered the visibility of the water.
Upon completing our tests with the Light Meter, we conclude that the results from the second test (i.e. water from the Marina is less transparent) were more "accurate," because they complied with our hypothesis. However, the water samples had been sitting in room temperature for over 1/2 hour by then. What we might have perceived as a flaw within our experiment might actually be hinting to areas we should concentrate on for further study within our experiment. Perhaps the lower transparency of the water near the Green buoy, as presented in Test #1, was not so much as inaccurate, but had the affects of temperature influencing our the results. With more time and possible resources, e.g. thermometer, we would have been able to measure the water temperature of the samples upon collection, and furthermore, find if there is a correlation between the temperature and amount of visibility within the water.
Needless to say, with the time and resources we were granted, I believe the group did a great job and I would like to thank all of those who made this experience possible. Congratulations everyone! Job well done!
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious - the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science"
-Albert Einstein, 1931
So, here are our results. I struggled a bit in creating a table with HTML, I forgot everything I knew about it :)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Research Question
By the way, why are we doing this?
First off, Let’s go back to our origin, the research question. Our research question was “ How transparency vary in different positions in Pedder Bay?” But why do we have to know the transparency of water in Pedder Bay? Is it really worth to know? Of course it is worth! That’s why we are doing this.
When we came up this idea, we knew that transparency of water affect the photosynthesis of organisms. As you know, most of the oxygen that we breathe comes from the ocean. So, this is a really familiar topic to us. That’s why we are doing this. We think understanding transparency of water in Pedder Bay is a first step of understanding photosynthesis and how we breathe!
First off, Let’s go back to our origin, the research question. Our research question was “ How transparency vary in different positions in Pedder Bay?” But why do we have to know the transparency of water in Pedder Bay? Is it really worth to know? Of course it is worth! That’s why we are doing this.
When we came up this idea, we knew that transparency of water affect the photosynthesis of organisms. As you know, most of the oxygen that we breathe comes from the ocean. So, this is a really familiar topic to us. That’s why we are doing this. We think understanding transparency of water in Pedder Bay is a first step of understanding photosynthesis and how we breathe!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Map
The places where Kenta, Michele and Logan went were, as you can see, marked on the map. Also, the arrows show the change of the visibility of the water in those places.
As we can see, water is more transparent in the outer sites of the bay and the sample that is taken from the third location (which is the most inner one) has the least transparency. We find other factors that affected our results such as temperature, the current etc. which are going to be posted on the blog soon.
The big day
It started!
After coming to the meeting at 8:30 at the LLT and doing a quick check-in with Catrin, we started working!
While Michele, Logan and Kenta went out to the bay (it turned out to work better with the Zodiac boat and not the initial idea of the canoe), Bikem and Einat made a sketch of the bay in order to mark the places in which the samples were taken from (the sketch is to be uploaded).
After coming to the meeting at 8:30 at the LLT and doing a quick check-in with Catrin, we started working!
While Michele, Logan and Kenta went out to the bay (it turned out to work better with the Zodiac boat and not the initial idea of the canoe), Bikem and Einat made a sketch of the bay in order to mark the places in which the samples were taken from (the sketch is to be uploaded).
For the time being we are all in the physics lab, setting the experiment.
* This post is being made while the experiment is taking place, so more updates are to come soon.
* This post is being made while the experiment is taking place, so more updates are to come soon.
The experiment set-up
Working on the experiment collaboratively
Friday, April 16, 2010
-1
Less than 24h to the big day!
We're pretty much ready to go.
So, in the end, that's what we're planning to do:
- With a canoe, reaching different points of the bay (near the open ocean and near to the end of the bay, and various locations in between) and collecting different samples of water.
- At the same time and same locations, using a Secchi Disk, measuring the critical depth at which the disk cannot be seen anymore.
Afterwards, we're gonna make light pass through the different samples of water and measuring the different of intensity.
Also, plugging the results given by the Secchi Disk into the equation (see link above), calculate the transparency of the water at those point, comparing these results with the ones given by the light intenisty experiment.
The bigger factor that influences transparency in the bay are algae, and with this experiment we'll be able to see how the spread and the density of them is different in various part of the bay.
According to what Laura told me, the algae should be less present near the ocean than inside the bay. The visibility/transparency should therefore be much better approaching the ocean.
I hope everything is gonna be fine. We already found a Secchi Disk to use, and test tubes to collect water. Hope we're gonna be able to use the 'light intensity-measuring-device": according to Mark, there are many people who need it.
We're pretty much ready to go.
So, in the end, that's what we're planning to do:
- With a canoe, reaching different points of the bay (near the open ocean and near to the end of the bay, and various locations in between) and collecting different samples of water.
- At the same time and same locations, using a Secchi Disk, measuring the critical depth at which the disk cannot be seen anymore.
Afterwards, we're gonna make light pass through the different samples of water and measuring the different of intensity.
Also, plugging the results given by the Secchi Disk into the equation (see link above), calculate the transparency of the water at those point, comparing these results with the ones given by the light intenisty experiment.
The bigger factor that influences transparency in the bay are algae, and with this experiment we'll be able to see how the spread and the density of them is different in various part of the bay.
According to what Laura told me, the algae should be less present near the ocean than inside the bay. The visibility/transparency should therefore be much better approaching the ocean.
I hope everything is gonna be fine. We already found a Secchi Disk to use, and test tubes to collect water. Hope we're gonna be able to use the 'light intensity-measuring-device": according to Mark, there are many people who need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)