People who are good at science: is my lab report okay?
January 30th, 2010 | by admin |The spectacular, brilliant minds of Snowy Recreations, Inc. have begun a major revolution in the history of snowmobiles! We have used careful research and run tests to create the remarkable, the divine, the ingenious…Snow Sensation 3000! Yea, so, we didn’t make the actual snowmobile…but we did make the snowmobile’s shell, which is super durable, super strong, and super safe! The properties used to make the composite include PETE, epoxy glue, silk, nylon, and more to create the most innovative, safe, fire-proof, and all around marvelous snowmobile shell that’s the biggest trend on all of the mountains!
The original design for the properties of the snowmobile’s shell was layers in this order: thermoset, nylon, silk, PETE, and thermoset again. The good things about this design? It’s tough and it won’t melt, and it doesn’t scratch too easily. We wanted to glue all of the properties together with epoxy glue. But first, we wanted to create other options for ourselves to see if we could make a composite that is even better, because the customer must be completely satisfied, if not dazzled.
The second design we tried was PETE, then thermoset, silk, and lastly, nylon, all glued together with gorilla glue. The advantages of using the nylon as the last layer is that it is stiff and hard to tear, but unfortunately, we found that the gorilla glue just couldn’t handle too much weight, which is an important part of the snowmobile’s shell. So, we ditched that idea, and tried one more design.
The third design we tested was glued together with epoxy glue again, with layers consisting of PETE, nylon, silk, thermoset, and PP. The design is not fragile and the epoxy hardens to make the shell even stronger, it doesn’t scratch easily, it doesn’t tear under weight pressure… it’s simply a dream!
The third design turned out to be the composite we used to create the shell of the Snow Sensation 3000. It is strong, safe, non-flammable, and just amazing in general, of course. It’s everything that you could possibly look for in a snowmobile shell! Someone pinch the snowmobile riders, because this phenomenon is so perfect, it seems unreal!
The test we performed on the composite was scratching the surface of the composite to test its sturdiness. The scratches were not at all severe, showing that the composite is strong and ready for action!
Only one last modification we could make would probably be adding more PETE onto the composite to make it even stronger; and even more fabulous, of course. We would glue the PETE to the composite using epoxy, the same glue used to glue together the other layers. It is guaranteed that this amazing snowmobile will sell like crazy if it is sporting this fantastic shell!
It sounds like you did some work and were committed in your actions, but I didn’t hear any numbers.
How much glue, polymers were used? How did you test whether it was inflammable? I’m not convinced of this fact. Perhaps it is just the PETE itself that is thermally resilient and has nothing to do with any of your modifications…
How did you test for scratch resistance – did you use calibrated laboratory apparatus that could be quantified and compared to industry standards? – Only then could you claim it was scratch resistant.
Did you test the stress-strain and breakage resistance, and by what method? – Did you use laboratory equipment?
How do the numbers of your stuff compare to PETE alone for all tests?
I hate to take the devils advocate position – I’m am just trying to get you to think of some unanswered questions I have about what I read.
3 Responses to “People who are good at science: is my lab report okay?”
By Dr Dave P on Jan 30, 2010 | Reply
It sounds like you did some work and were committed in your actions, but I didn’t hear any numbers.
How much glue, polymers were used? How did you test whether it was inflammable? I’m not convinced of this fact. Perhaps it is just the PETE itself that is thermally resilient and has nothing to do with any of your modifications…
How did you test for scratch resistance – did you use calibrated laboratory apparatus that could be quantified and compared to industry standards? – Only then could you claim it was scratch resistant.
Did you test the stress-strain and breakage resistance, and by what method? – Did you use laboratory equipment?
How do the numbers of your stuff compare to PETE alone for all tests?
I hate to take the devils advocate position – I’m am just trying to get you to think of some unanswered questions I have about what I read.
References :
By Ro G on Jan 30, 2010 | Reply
A lab report should be less "marketing-prone" and more scientific. Present the facts with NUMBERS. Also the use of statistical tools will be nice. E.g. "strong" could be more reliable if you test the shell on a hundreds of stress-tests and you summarize the central tendency, the dispersion, etc of the "resistance until break" of the shell.
etc., etc.
bye!
References :
By hono785 on Jan 30, 2010 | Reply
this is how my science experiments are setup.
The Objective: usually the question to your SWAG (scientific wild ass guess); something you can measure.
i.e. test strength, impact/scratch resisitance, plyability, flammability, paint cohesion, repair advantages, etc.
Information: fields of inquiry from background research.
Equipment list: what will be used to measure your test.
i.e. impact studies, controlled scratch test, impliments, scales, photo equipment, etc
Hypothesis: an explaination of how things will work and other possible observed phemomena. "If ______________i do this
_____________will happen, then ___________________this results."
Plans for observations: experiment design and how measurements will be taken to explain your original question. The experiment must be repeatable with consistant results, usually against a control.
Experimentation: test
I. Control
a. against these tests
b. sub catagory test
II. One composite formula (include all ingredients)
a. Findings
b. impact test
c. scratch test
d. tensil strength
III. hybrid formula
a.
b.
i.
ii.
c. flammibilty test
experimental studies: are these fair tests? observations true or false? repeatable by empirical evidence and measurements?
Analysis: results of data and reasoning collected from measurements. Numbers, figures, charts, and calculations.
Reliability of measurments, archive data… etc.
Conclusion: what was learned from experiment. Is hypothesis true. What are the facts. If not, what could be done in experiment to validate or invalidate experiment. Maybe construct new hypothesis to test and/or new ways to test. New theories may be bound by experimental test results.
Abstract: Final report to commuicate your results, journal/display to others. A full disclosure of verified and shared data to establish the presented results.
"it appears you have an abstract"
Of coarse, this is general, but this is the basic scientific method; without the examples i listed for you.
Hope this helps. @;)’
have a good day!
References :