Examples Of Argumentation Lab Report

Argumentation Documentation In this lab, the goal was to create a ‘rocket’ out of a pipette and to determine the right ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen to Water in order to generate the maximum possible flight distance. My partner and I arrived at our ratio of 1.5:3:1.5 (H2:O2: H2O) because of its consistency, high distance, and a bit of gut feeling. We had a few ratios that worked pretty well including 2:3:1 and 2.5:2:1.5 (see graph/chart), but we chose ours because it felt like a good decision, and it also went the farthest during testing (10+ meters). On our way to arriving at this conclusion, our partner and I collected data mainly through the use of data tables. We would try a ratio a few times, record the distance that each rocket fetched,
and move on to the next ratio. Certain ratios stood out more than others, and eventually we decided on 1.5:3:1.5.
The methods that we used worked pretty well, and if we were to do this lab again I would not change much. But one thing I would change would be the calibration and measurement system. The measurement system used relied on water displacement. This is why the rocket was completely filled with water before filling it with gas. This method makes it easy to tell how much gas is going into the ‘rocket.’ If this were not the method used, it would be nearly impossible to tell how much gas was filling the rocket. (see hand drawn diagrams attached) Although this system works well, I felt that it was a little bit inaccurate, and caused what were supposed to be similar ratio rockets to travel different distances. I would change this process to provide more consistent and reproducible data. This means that the data is re-creatable, and can be replicated. This
kind of data is very helpful, and provides very good results from which to find conclusions. Another way for the measurements/data collection to be improved is through a different way of measuring each launches success. One could measure the speed/velocity of travel. This could be measured by timing the flight, and dividing the time by the distance traveled. This would serve to find the most reactive combination of gasses, yielding better quality results, and making finding the right ratio to use easier. This is why, and how, I would change the procedures. These procedures are also prone to error, as there are multiple sources.
One mistake many made (my group included) was the tipping of the ‘rocket’ to that the opening pointed up. This caused the gas to escape the rocket, and yielded an unsuccessful launch. This is why you are supposed to hold the rocked downward (as mentioned in the procedures). Another source of possible error is leaving the rocket on the launcher for too long. This results in the water leaking out of the rocket, and a lack of thrust, yielding a much shorter flight. This is because of Newton’s Laws of Motion; if the water is pushed out of the ‘rocket’ by an explosion (action) Then the ‘rocket’ will fly off (reaction). Another source of error is calibrating the ‘rocket’ wrong. If, as a group, we did not divide up the rocket into 6 equal sections, this would greatly affect our ability to reproduce ratios. Say one of the rockets broke, (too many test flights) if it was calibrated differently than other rockets we made, all of the test results would be different for the new
rocket. These sources of error also talk about the variables involved in a successful launch. These include; haste (not letting it sit too long), proper handling (not losing the gas), launch angle (consistent, and so the rocket doesn’t hit the ceiling), the amount of water (so the rocket flies), and finally, a usable ratio (not all hydrogen). If (as mentioned as the final part of the list of variables) the rocket was filled with only hydrogen gas, it is my opinion that it would not launch. For one, no water to provide propulsion, and two, there is no oxygen to burn. In order for a fire or combustion to occur, there has to be oxygen present. This is why when groups like NASA send rockets to space; the rockets have an oxidizer on board, in order for the engines to be able to fire. On the NASA space shuttle, the Oxygen tank is half the size of the Hydrogen tank; this is because liquid oxygen is 16 times heavier than liquid hydrogen, and because of this, they are able to carry more hydrogen, as it weighs less. They carry 1,359,142 pounds of Liquid oxygen and 226,237 pounds of Liquid hydrogen, according to the NASA website. Although, despite having 2.5 times as much hydrogen (in volume), “Each Space Shuttle Main Engine operates at a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen mixture ratio of 6 to 1 to produce a sea level thrust of 179,097 kilograms (375,000 pounds) and a vacuum thrust of 213,188 (470,000 pounds).”(NASA website) This is also because liquid hydrogen is much less dense than liquid oxygen, so a roughly equal amount takes up much more space. This corresponds with our data, as the ratios that used more oxygen worked much better than those that were roughly equal, or used more hydrogen. This is because of what was mentioned in the last paragraph, you need oxidizer in order to facilitate a successful burn/combustion.
NASA also has developed some clever ways to store these liquids in a very lightweight manner. NASA, during its Saturn rocket missions used liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen as propellant for the second stage of the rockets. In order to keep the two elements from reacting with each other, the fuel tank was separated into two by a common bulkhead made of two sheets of aluminum with a honeycomb structure in between the two sheets. The liquids were then fed down to the engine and burned in a slow and controlled manner, to maximize the amount of thrust. Using small valves/pipes that restrict the outflow of the liquids from the tanks controls this release. Burning it all at once will not go as far as using it slowly (pedal to the metal is less fuel efficient than slow going), which is why it is done in said manner. Overall, I feel that this was a very fun lab to take part in, and I hope that that sentiment is expressed through this argumentation documentation.