Lab6_ImpactCratering2_24
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Milwaukee Area Technical College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
122
Subject
Geology
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
Pages
3
Uploaded by LieutenantAtom10859
GeoSci 120: Geology of the Planets
Name:
LAB 6: IMPACT CRATERING II
Go ahead and conduct your proposed (and approved) experiment from Lab 5. Make sure
to record your data! If you end up doing everything exactly as you described in Lab 5,
then feel free to copy your hypothesis, materials, methods, and control case from Lab 5.
If you had to make any changes for practical or other reasons, you need to document the
updated methods used here.
Make sure to upload at least one picture of your experiment. If you are doing with
this a group of students in this class, include a picture with everyone involved and
provide their names here
:
Hypothesis to be tested:
If dropping a quarter from the same height as a dime, nickel, or penny then it would
result in a crater almost twice the size if both were dropped from 30 cm.
List of materials used:
★
Penny
★
nickel
★
dime
★
quarter
★
ruler
★
sugar
★
metal tray
Methods used:
Hypothesis testing
Control case:
The height of the drop and the target size directly impact the resulting crater.
Results (organize your results in a table).
The exact format of your table will vary
depending on the details of your experiment. It should look similar to your tables from
Lab 5.
You might have data on impactor size/weight/composition, height, relative velocity (e.g.
thrown vs. dropped, slingshot), the medium (sand/salt/sugar/other), depth of the “craters”,
width of the “craters”, length of “rays”, crater shape, or descriptions. It all depends on
your setup.
In the end you should be taking an average of multiple runs of the same experiment (as
you did in the first cratering lab), so your table should include all of the trials you did,
along with the average. If you want to, feel free to submit your table in Excel format as a
separate document.
Diameter
Average
Penny
4.5cm
4cm
4cm
4.17cm
Nickel
5cm
4cm
4cm
4.3cm
Dime
4.5cm
4cm
3.5cm
4cm
Quarter
4.5cm
5cm
5cm
4.83cm
Depth
Average
Penny
2cm
1cm
1cm
1.3cm
Nickel
2cm
1.5cm
0.5cm
1.3cm
Dime
0.5cm
0.5cm
0.5cm
0.5cm
Quarter
1cm
1.5cm
0.5cm
1cm
Write your conclusion. In 4-5 sentences (minimum), you need to summarize and
explain your findings; include whether or not your results agreed with your
hypothesis and discuss any issues you encountered:
Unfortunately, my hypothesis did not align with the results of my
experiment. I had expected the different sized coins to create significantly varying
crater sizes, but this was not the case. Issues such as coins flipping in the air and
difficulty removing them from the sugar without altering the crater affected the
experiment's consistency and accuracy. Looking back, I would have chosen a
different object and methodology to improve the reliability of my results. Despite
the lack of variance in the outcomes, the experiment was still insightful for me.
In this lab, your experiments were probably limited by factors such as available
materials, measurement tools, and inherent differences between the experimental
setup and actual impact processes. In 3 sentences, is there anything you wish you
could have done differently, or any experimental techniques you wish you’d had
access to?
Looking back, I should have used tweezers to get the coin out of the sugar, so I
didn't touch the crater. Additionally, having a larger target would have allowed for
dropping objects from greater heights, potentially leading to larger craters and a
wider range of crater sizes.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help