Term 3 Blog Post 4: Reflection

Introduction:

In this blog post I will reflect on my personal growth in science and on my performance in the science assessment test for this term(term 3).

How have I has my knowledge and understanding for Science improved and grown?

Time really flies doesn't it? It's almost the end of term 3 now. I must say my Science has definitely improved since I first stepped into Hwa Chong institution. Over the these three terms of practice, research, experiments and assignments, I am starting to feel the toil of doing them again and again. That is, I am getting bored.

To me, this is a very bad thing. So I told myself that I needed to find my old curiosity and hunger for knowledge again, but how am I to do so? As I reflected for several days, I came to a conclusion: I need to take my learning experience out of just the Internet, classrooms and laboratories. What I am trying to say here is that the school needs to organise more field trips regarding Science for us.

Perhaps this feeling is only going to last awhile, as I know in the next term, we would be having some kind of Forensic Science course, which I am very excited for. During this entire term, it has come to my realisation that the naked human eye's vision is very limited. There are a lot of things that we cannot see. Being further taught about cells this term, I wonder what is the smallest thing in the entire universe?

It is taught to us students that cells are the basic unit of life, and that atoms form cells. What if we one day had the power to magnify something as much as we wanted? Would we be able to see things even smaller than what we perceive to be the smallest now? Also, what if we had the ability zoom out of Earth and to the universe, to explore every single space that was ever created? I understand that in my lifetime, many of my questions will go unanswered. Then as I did an ACE project on stem cells, I start to think if eternal life would ever be possible!

How I have grown in my understanding of Science this term, is that I know that there would always be answers, but I believe that wisemen seek not answers, but questions. If Science one day solves and explains every single mystery and thing in the world, then how do we ever improve further? So I say, I have to keep asking, keep answering, and keep learning!


My performance in the Science Assessment Test:

For this term's test, I scored a total of 32/40, which is actually 80/100. This means that I got an A1!

At the moment I got my Science Test Paper, I shouted, "YES!" With regards to my marks in term 2, this shows that I certainly have improved. What I find is a major factor in my results is if I have listened in class, and most importantly, studied. I still remember that on the day of this test, I woke up extra early at 3a.m. to do one last and final revision before the test itself. Well am I glad I did it, as I think if I didn't, I probably get a whole lot less marks.

I have managed to rid my habit of making careless mistakes, so much of the marks I have lost is due to trick questions, content recall and how I explained my answer. In order for myself to improve, I need to make sure I know what will be tested and study for it thoroughly, this will solve the problem of content recall and that I will not forget the properties of anything. For trick questions and how I explained my answer, I guess it's just more practice to familiarise with the usual trick questions and learn from my mistakes. I feel that if I can keep up with this work and keep improving, I would definitely do well in Science!

This is something I am glad I have achieved, which is to get an A1 for every term! Well, at least thus far. So now I can only hope - no wait, strive to get an A1 for my End of Year Examinations, and I would have secured an A1 for my subject Science! To me though, what's important is really not the grade, but still it is something to rejoice for, as it shows that me that I can score well for my science as long as I want to and that after all that studying, I am rewarded with a good grade!

Term 3 Blog Post 3: Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup

---

Chemicals 'used excessively' in BP oil cleanup

WASHINGTON: The US Coast Guard has routinely approved BP's requests to use thousands of litres of toxic chemicals a day to break up oil slicks in the Gulf of mexico despite a federal directive that the chemicals be used only rearely on surface waters, congressional investigators have said after examining BP and government documents.

The documents show the Coast Guard approved 74 waivers over a 48-day period after the restriction were imposed, resulting in hundreds of thousands of litres of the chemicals being spread on Gulf waters.

Only in a small number of cases did the government scale back BP's requests.

The chemicals break down masses of oil into small droplets that allow the oil to be more easily consumed by bacteria.

But the chemicals are also toxic and it is not known what impact the large volume of chemicals being used against the BP spill might be having on marine life. The extensive use of dispersants to break up oil gushing from BP's Deepwater Horizon has raised concerns early on as to what long-term damage the toxic chemicals may do to the Gulf's aquatic life.

That prompted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 26 to direct BP to stop using the chemicals on the water surface except in "rare cases".

But congressional Representative Edward Markey said on Saturday they continued to be used extensively with Coast Guard approval, often at a rate of 22,710 to 37,850 litres a day.

A request was made and approved on June 13 to spread as much as 136,270 litres of dispersant, according to data obtained by mr Markey's Energy and Environment sub-committee.

The EPA directive "has become more of a meaningless paperwork exercise than an attempt... to eliminate surface application of chemical dispersants", Mr Markey wrote in a letter sent on Friday to retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the government's point man on the spill.

Mr Markey's office released the letter on Saturday as well as the documents his panal had analysed. Mr Markey said that instead of complying with the EPA directive, "BP often carpet-bombed the ocean with these chemicals and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it".

A call to the BP press office in Houston was not immediately returned. A spokesman on duty at the Unified Command Centre in New Orleans had no immediate comment.

The EPA has said there are trade-offs and some use of the chemicals is essential to combat the oil spill. The EPA directive issued in May concerned only surface dispersal of the chemicals. BP has also used large amounts of chemicals near the ocean floor at the site of the damaged wellhead.

A temporary cap has held the gusher in check for more than two weeks, and engineers were planning as early as today to start plugging the well for good.

The procedure, dubbed "static kill", involves pumping mud and possibly cement into the blown-out well via the temporary cap. If it works, it will take less time to complete a similar procedure using a relief well that is nearly complete. That effort should be the last step to seal the well.

---

Reflection:

Contrary to my previous post on the Gulf Oil Spill, I am glad that actions have been taken to try and stop the oil spill from any further impact. However, when I read this article, my opinion of BP changed entirely.

In the previous article, it was stated that using chemical dispersants to combat the oil spill is essential, and so what BP has done is that it has released a huge amount of chemicals into the ocean every day. The purpose of the chemical dispersants is to speed up the natural process of breaking up oil that wind and waves eventually do anyway. After some research, I found out how this works:

1. A molecule of dispersant has two ends: One is attracted to oil, the other is attracted to water.

2. This nudges the water and oil apart, reducing the surface tension between the two.

3. it is now easier for wind and waves to break the oil slick into tiny droplets.

4. Micro-organisms in the water take over, naturally degrading the oil.

So at first this might seem like a good solution, but the thing is, these chemicals themselves are also toxic and the large amount of volume of chemicals might have an impact on marine life. Doesn't this make the use of these chemicals meaningless then?

The purpose of cleaning up the oil spill is to minimize its impact on the environment. The purpose of trying to stop the leakage of oil is to prevent the oil spill from getting worse. The purpose of releasing these dispersants is to help aid the cleaning of the oil spill, which is to help the environment. If these chemicals harm the environment and marine life, then isn't all of it pointless? I say that all the massive ammount of chemicals that BP has released into the ocean is just a waste of time, effort and money. Every single day that we waste though, is many wasted marine lives that died for the cause of our inaction!

BP has also disregarded EPA's warnings and continued to "carpet-bomb" the ocean with their chemicals, and the Coast Guard continuedly allowed them to do so. My take here is that BP is just trying to rid themselves of the duty of clearing the oil spill, by releasing all these chemicals to temporary solve the problem of the oil spill, and leave another problem for someone else to solve.

At the last two paragraphs of the article though, BP has showed that they are still putting in some effort in really trying to stop and clear the oil spill once and for all. I really hope that they will be able to seal the well in the shortest possible amount of time and with as minimal damage as possible, as each passing day causes more harm to the environment.

Term 3 Blog Post 1: Stem Cells - What Possiblities Could Be Opened?

Recently, I did some research on the topic: Stem Cells. I wrote a report about it, and also used it as an ACE assignment, here's what I've come up with:

Wong Jin Fu Shaun

7 July 2010

1O4 (30)


Stem Cells – What possibilities could be opened?

What are stem cells?

Stem cells are found in all multi-cellular organisms. They are a class of undifferentiated cells that are able to differentiate into specialised cell types. Usually, stem cells come from two broad sources, which are those from the adult tissue and the embryonic stem cells. (Embryos formed during the blastocyst*(refer to embryonic stem cells) phase of embryological development). Also, both types are generally characterised by their potency to differentiate into different cell types. (Bone, skin, muscle, etc.)

Adult stem cells:

Adult stem cells exist throughout the body after embryonic development and are found inside of different types of tissue. These stem cells have been found in tissues such as the brain, bone marrow, blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscles, skin, and the liver. They usually remain in a non-dividing state for many years, as they are only activated by disease or tissue injury. Adult stem cells can also divide indefinitely, enabling them to renew a range of cell types from the originating organ or even regenerate the entire original organ.

Embryonic stem cells:

Embryonic stem cells are taken from a few days old human embryo that is in the blastocyst phase of development. The embryos are usually extras that have been created in clinics where several eggs are fertilised in a test tube, but only one is implanted into a woman. When a male's sperm fertilises a female's ovum, a single cell called a zygote is formed. The single zygote cell then begins a series of divisions, forming 2, 4, 8, 16 cells, etc. After four to six days - before implantation in the uterus - this mass of cells is called a blastocyst. The blastocyst consists of an inner cell mass (embryoblast) and an outer cell mass (trophoblast). The outer cell mass becomes part of the placenta, and the inner cell mass is the group of cells that will differentiate to become all the structures of an adult organism. This latter mass is the source of embryonic stem cells - totipotent cells (cells with total potential to develop into any cell in the body).

For a normal pregnancy, the blastocyst stage continues until implantation of the embryo in the uterus, at which point the embryo is referred to as a fetus. However, when extracting embryonic stem cells, the blastocyst stage acts as a signal as to when to isolate stem cells by placing the "inner cell mass" of the blastocyst into a culture dish containing a nutrient-rich broth. Lacking the necessary stimulation to differentiate into specialised cell types, they begin to divide and replicate while still maintaining their ability to become any cell type in the human body. Eventually, these undifferentiated cells can be stimulated to create specialized cells, when “instructed to” by scientists.


A human embryonic stem cell colony on mouse embryonic fibroblast feeder layer.
(^Taken from Wikipedia)

Stem cell cultures:
Stem cells are either extracted from adult tissue or from a dividing zygote in a culture dish. Once extracted, scientists place the cells in a controlled culture that prohibits them from further specializing or differentiating but usually allows them to divide and replicate. The process of growing large numbers of embryonic stem cells has been easier than growing large numbers of adult stem cells, but progress is being made for both cell types.

Stem cell lines:

Once stem cells have been allowed to divide in a controlled culture, the collection of healthy, dividing, and undifferentiated cells is called a stem cell line. These stem cell lines are subsequently managed and shared among researchers. Once under control, the stem cells can be stimulated to specialize as directed by a researcher - a process known as directed differentiation. Embryonic stem cells are able to differentiate into more cell types than adult stem cells.

Potency:

As mentioned earlier, stem cells are categorised by their potential to differentiate into other types of cells. Embryonic stem cells are the most potent since they must become every type of cell in the body of a baby. After much research, the full classification includes:

1. Totipotent - the ability to differentiate into all possible cell types. (For example, the zygote formed at egg fertilization and the first few cells that result from the division of the zygote.)

2. Pluripotent - the ability to differentiate into almost all cell types. (For example, *embryonic stem cells.)

3. Multipotent - the ability to differentiate into a closely related family of cells. Examples include hematopoietic* stem cells that can become red and white blood cells or platelets. )

*A hematopoietic stem cell is a cell isolated from the blood or bone marrow that can renew itself and differentiate to a variety of specialized cells.

4. Oligopotent - the ability to differentiate into a few cells.

5. Unipotent - the ability to only produce cells of their own type, but have the property of self-renewal required to be labeled a stem cell. Examples include adult muscle stem cells.

*Embryonic stem cells are considered pluripotent instead of totipotent because they do not have the ability to become part of the extra-embryonic membranes or the placenta, unlike the zygote.

Identification of stem cells:

Although there is not complete agreement among scientists of how to identify stem cells, most tests are based on the properties of making sure that stem cells are undifferentiated and capable of self-renewal. One way to identify stem cells in a lab, and the standard procedure for testing bone marrow or hematopoietic stem cell (HSC), is by transplanting one cell to save an individual without HSCs. If the stem cell produces new blood and immune cells, it demonstrates its potency.

To test whether human embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, scientists allow the cells to differentiate spontaneously in cell culture, manipulate the cells so they will differentiate to form specific cell types.

Research with stem cells:

There are several reasons why scientist and researchers are interested in stem cells. Although stem cells do not serve any one function, many have the ability to serve any function after they are “instructed” to specialize. Every cell in the body, for example, is derived from first few stem cells formed in the early stages of embryological development. Therefore, stem cells extracted from embryos can be used to become any desired cell type. This makes stem cells powerful enough to regenerate damaged tissue under the right conditions.

Organ and tissue regeneration:

Tissue regeneration is probably the most important possible use of stem cell research. Currently, organs must be donated and transplanted, but the demand for organs far exceeds supply. Stem cells could potentially be used to grow a particular type of tissue or organ if directed to differentiate in a certain way. Stem cells that lie just beneath the skin, for example, can be used to regenerate new skin tissue that can be given to burn victims.

Brain disease treatment:

Additionally, replacement cells and tissues may be used to treat brain disease such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's by replenishing damaged tissue, bringing back the specialized brain cells that keep unneeded muscles from moving.

Cell deficiency therapy:

Since the nervous system, the pancreas and the heart all regenerate too poorly to restore itself after serious injury, healthy heart cells developed in a laboratory may one day be transplanted into patients with heart disease, repopulating the heart with healthy tissue and thus saving them. Similarly, people with diabetes may receive pancreatic cells to replace the insulin-producing cells that have been lost or destroyed by the patient's own immune system. However, the only current therapy is a pancreatic transplant, and it is unlikely to occur due to a small supply of pancreases available for transplant.

Blood disease treatments:

Adult hematopoietic stem cells found in blood and bone marrows have been used for years to treat diseases such as leukemia, sickle cell anemia, and other immunodeficiencies*. These cells are capable of producing all blood cell types, such as red blood cells that carry oxygen to white blood cells that fight disease. Even then difficulties arise in the extraction of these cells through the use of invasive bone marrow transplants. However hematopoietic stem cells have also been found in the umbilical cord and placenta. I found out that this has led some scientists to call for an umbilical cord blood bank to make these powerful cells more easily obtainable and to decrease the chances of a body's rejecting therapy.

*A immunodeficiency is a immunological disorder in which some part of the body's immune system is inadequate and resistance to infectious diseases is reduced.

General scientific discovery:

Stem cell research is also useful for learning about human development. Undifferentiated stem cells eventually differentiate partly because a particular gene is turned on or off. Stem cell researchers may help to clarify the role that genes play in determining what genetic traits or mutations we receive. Cancer and other birth defects are also affected by abnormal cell division and differentiation. New therapies for diseases may be developed if we better understand how these agents attack the human body.

Another reason why stem cell research is being pursued is to develop new drugs. Scientists could measure a drug's effect on normal tissue by testing the drug on tissue grown from stem cells rather than testing the drug on human volunteers.

Stem cell controversy:

Despite all of the possibilities that stem cells might promise, there have been debates surrounding stem cell research. The main concern however, surrounds embryonic stem cell research, which of course is most expected. The main reason is that it requires the destruction of a human blastocyst. That is, a fertilized egg was not given the chance to develop into a fully-developed human.

Chimeras:

There is also the issue of the creation of chimeras. A chimera is an organism that has both human and animal cells or tissues. This is because, very often in stem cell research, human cells are inserted into animals (like mice or rats) and allowed to develop. This creates the opportunity for researchers to see what happens when stem cells are implanted. Many people, however, object to the creation of an organism that is "part human".

Conclusion:

Putting aside the legal issues and debates, stem cells would be very useful to mankind if we are able to fully apply it. The death rate of countries would drop rapidly, and many diseases that we are unable to cure now, would be then. Perhaps this might be a stepping stone towards living forever, where stem cells would be industrially produced and people would receive such treatments to replace their old and dying cells, making them young forever!

Bibliography:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter5.asp

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/sc_cont1.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-are-Stem-Cells.aspx

http://www.cellmedicine.com/description.asp

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-stem-cell-research.htm

http://alzheimers.about.com/od/research/f/stemcells_alz.htm

http://www.cordblood.com/cord_blood_banking_with_cbr/banking/stem_cells.asp

http://www.yourdictionary.com/answers/where/where-do-stem-cells-come-from.html

http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/g/stemcell.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/focus/stemcell.html

Term 2 Blog Post 4: Reflection

Introduction:

In this blog post I will reflect on my personal growth in science and on my performance in the science assessment test for this term(term 2).

How have I has my knowledge and understanding for Science improved and grown?

There is one major thing that I have learnt this term, and that is if I want to maintain the good work and grades up, I have to keep learning and never be lazy. I have to admit, I got a little complacent after getting second in class the previous term.

It was evident in my test this term that, if I choose to slack off and keep thinking I am still going to score well, I am surely wrong. This also brings in what I have learnt last term, which is that Science is actually years and years of gathered information and knowledge. How is this achieved however? How did many famous scientist such as Einstein and Isaac Newton become what they were, and are still remembered across the globe? As I thought through and for a long time, I figured that among many other factors, a constant between what might be all scientists, is hard work and constant improvement.

Well, isn't that how mankind have come this far today? If we look back into our history, we would just think, why was I ever like that? 10 years ago, someone criticised that an "iPhone" was impossible and stupid idea, but look now how you can just walk up to any stranger and ask him what his phone is, and get a 60% chance that it is an iPhone? From the time where the idea of space travel was not even conceived, to now where people are even imagining if slipstream travel would ever be possible in the future? Where will Science and Technology take us, or perhaps where will we take it to?

There are so many answers to all these questions, but if we do not work hard to see or improve, we would be nothing. This sort of gave me a wake-up call. During this term I feel that I have not been working hard enough. So to sum up everything I just said, my understanding for Science has improved that Science isn't just something that has already exists when I was born and irrelevant when I die, but something that will go on forever, as we discover the many strange mysteries and wonders of the world.

My knowledge for Science has of course, improved. I definitely learnt much more, on top of what I have learnt in the previous term. Things like Measurement, Mass and Density; the Kinetic Particle Theory and many other little things that I have come across regarding Science. I also managed to futher my knowledge on the topic of "Antimatter", that I have always been wanting to do since Primary School. I do love the ACE the fact that Hwa Chong Institution has an ACE system for us to just improve our knowledge on any topic we want, and at the same thing get extra marks for doing so. In a way, I am doing something I enjoy.

My performance in the Science Assessment Test:

For this term's test, I scored a total of 30/40, which is actually 75/100. This means that I got an A1!

Well, I would say my score for this term's Science Assessment Test was a pretty close shave. I would have not gotten an A1 if my teacher was not lenient in his marking. Once again I make the same mistakes, except that this time there are more of it but no more careless mistakes.

For the MCQ section, I got three questions wrong, which is the same as last term. All of which I could have gotten right should I have paid more attention in class and studied harder. For section B, I lost many marks. I would say that 90% of the mistakes I made could have been answered correctly if I knew the content knowledge better. This clearly goes to show that the amount of effort I put in to listening in class and studying does make a big difference to my marks.

There is one mistake I feel that I made acceptable however. This occured several times in my paper, as I had no idea I was making that mistake and repeatedly did it. That is I placed all my units in brackets. The reason why I did so was because everytime when I am dealing with units in Mathematics questions, I would not put a single unit in any of my number statements, but at the end of the statement, put the unit concerning the entire equation in brackets. This means that this entire statement is done using this specific unit, and it was also accepted in examinations. I did this to solve my problem of forgetting to add units and losing marks as a result, but I guess this is not allowed in a Science paper, so I will keep that in mind.

My actual mark for this paper is 28 at first, but my teacher to decided to award me 2 more marks for the mistake I stated above. I really want to thank him for it, and from now on I will remember my mistake and never do it again.

I have deproved this term, but I am confident that in the next term, I will do better!

Term 2 Blog Post 3: Lessons and Practicals

Introduction :

In this blog post, I will be talking about the issues and things we learnt in class and a pratical done this term.

What we learnt this term:

So the bulk of what we learnt this term was on Measurements. This was split up into 3 different topics; Instruments, Physical Quantities and Units. So now I will summarise briefly on what I had learnt and reflect on some of the issues.

Use of measuring instruments:

I must say, during this chapter, I got a huge shock. We were introduced to many new apparatus that are common in a laboratory, such as the Bunsen burner, hand lens and microscope. Now that wasn't the part that gave me a surprise. It was when we proceeded to the different measuring instruments, such as measuring cylinders, metre rule and measuring tape, vernier calipers, electronic balance, spring balance, stop watch and thermometers. Now that was quite a lot to me. When I was in primary school, I never knew that, that were so many different instruments used to measure specific units! Well, I did not even think there was a need to measure certain things to such a precise amount. I would always think to myself, if someone wanted to measure something smaller than 1mm, what would he do? I mean, looking at my ruler and seeing how smaller 0.1cm already is, how would someone be able to measure something to the precision of 0.1mm? So there were many of my such questions that were answered, and of course the answer to my previous question was the use of vernier calipers. I don't think I would have ever thought of such an idea.

I would say I had a hard time trying to remember all the different instruments and their different functions or units they measure. Aside from that this chapter was pretty much just like that.

Physical quantities and units:

This part of the chapter was actually quite easy for me, as I had already gone to the National Metrology Centre of Singapore. So basically for this chapter, we were introduced to much bigger and smaller numbers than we ever had since primary school. We also had to know the SI units for measurements such as length, mass, time and temperature. On top of that, we had to determine the appropriate units for physical quantities such as area, volume and density. Oh, and density is also something new to us.

There was also something that we had to remember, and that was the use of prefixes in relation to the units of length and mass. Examples are: milli-, nano-, kilo-.

Mass, Weight and Density:

The only thing new to me here is Density. As we all already know, mass is the amount of matter inside something or someone, while weight is actually the amount of gravitational pull on something or someone. So what exactly is density then? The density of something is defined as mass per unit volume. Which means if we wanted to calculate the density of something, we take its mass, divided by its volume. Also, if the density of something is lower than another thing, then it will float and vice versa. For example, if the density of a steel block is 8, then you put it in a tub of water, it will sink. This is beacuse the density of water is around 1, and since the density of the steel block is higher than 1, it sinks.

During the home learning science lesson this term, we also had some very good and interactive websites where we could understand what density is better. There was also one particular website where we could put different objects into a tub of water and see if it would float or sink, and also virtually change the density of water to see the effects on the things in it.

Practical 12: Forming Compounds

In my opinion, this has to be the most interesting practical done thus far in the entire year. At first, when we were told to get our apparatus and all we had was a strip of magnesium ribbon, I thought it would just be another usual practical experiment. However, when we were told to use the Bunsen burner and after I took a look at the worksheet given to us, I knew that this would be interesting. As I used a pair of tongs to place the magnesium ribbon over the flame, a sudden short burst of white light appeared, and I can tell you, my heart skipped a beat. Never would I have thought that this small strip of ribbon could actually be lit up into such a bright light.

So what has just happened was that a new substance was formed, as the ashes of the magnesium has turned from silvery grey to white, and heat was also involved in the reaction. So basically the word equation for what just took place would be: Magnesium + Oxygen = Magnesium Oxide.

So that was the reacting of two elements. After which we also proceeded to do two more experiments on the reaction of an element with a compound and the reacting of two compounds.

Reacting an element with a compound:

What we did for this experiment was to place half a spatula of iron filings in a test-tube and add dilute sulphuric acid to it. What started to happen was that, effervescence of a colourless and odourless gas could be seen. The test tube soon started to feel warm, which was a clear indicator that heat was released during the entire reaction. So the word equation would be : Iron + Sulphuric Acid = Iron Sulphate + Hydrogen Gas.

Reacting two compounds:

So after that short experiment that I briefly explained in the previous paragraph, we had one last one to complete. It was rather simple, all we had to do was to add some sodium chloride solution with lead(II) nitrate solution all into a test-tube. Then what I saw was that white precipitate after some time and it gradually became more and more. So the word equation for this entire reaction would be Lead(II) nitrate + Sodium Chloride = Lead(II) Chloride + Sodium Nitrate.

Aside from all the experiments that we did, in the pratical worksheet, there was still a section at the last page concerning metals. The first question was asking 3 differences between metals and non-metals. However, the more interesting part was the second section, where we have a 4-paragraph explanation on the uses of some pure metals. Some examples are Aluminium, Copper, Mercuy and Lead. I would say that this worksheet would be very useful to me as there will be parts in the term test that consist of the uses of some pure metals. At the bottom of the page, we were asked to suggest a comercial use for Titanium metal, if Titanium has a high mechanical strength, low density and is very resistant to corrosion. I gave an answer which is pipes, and I certainly was wrong. After some research, I found out that titanium is used for some aircrafts and missiles as its lightweight strength and ability to withstand extremes of temperature.

Conclusion:

I guess that's about all in this pratical and a summary of some of the issues and lessons we had in class. I am sure that all this information will help me in my coming tests and also at the same time increase my knowledge and understanding in Science. I also had lots of fun doing the praticals! So maybe I can call this, "Killing 3 birds with 1 stone!"

Term 2 Blog Post 1: Antimatter - One of the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Physics

I did some research recently on the topic antimatter, and here's what I have found out!

Antimatter – one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics

Introduction:

I still remember the time when I was primary 4; the year when I first heard the word “Antimatter”. At that time, I was new to science and had only begun to learn matter. On top of that, I already had problems which some of the concepts during my science lesson, but something about that word made me very curious. After probing my teacher countless times and sending emails about what antimatter is, I always got the same reply, “You are still very new to science to be able to comprehend what antimatter is about, if you are interested, you could look it up on the internet yourself.” So I guess I made the right choice as I am able to do a science ACE topic on this.

What is antimatter?

We already know that matter is made up of 3 different kinds of particles, electrons, protons and neutrons. So antimatter would basically be a mirror image of matter! Electrons would be antielectrons(positrons), protons would be antiprotons and neutrons would be antineutrons in antimatter! Maybe if you think matter and antimatter as play dough, it would be easier for you to understand. If you cut out a round shape, you would have gotten a circle, but if you look at the dough, there would be another circle shape hole there, which is just like the opposite of the circle you created! So I thought to myself, does this mean that to create matter, you would have to create antimatter, and vice versa?

Production of antimatter:

After more research, I found my answer; whenever producing matter or antimatter, you can only produce a pair of particle and its mirror image, an antiparticle. At least experiments now only show that nobody has managed to create only matter, or only antimatter. So once again, this led to another question of my, does this mean that there are equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the world? Also, if that were the case, and since matter makes up our world, does that also mean that there is another world, made up totally of antimatter?

Travelling way back in time:

After even more research, I found out that in the beginning, there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter, but something happened and thus, the Universe became biased and produced more matter. The things is, while the Universe was expanding and rapidly producing both matter and antimatter, its temperature became to drop continuously and soon it had dropped too low to create any more pairs of matter and antimatter. Particles and antiparticles annihilated each other in pairs and soon everything was gone – all but the surplus of matter that was produced. This then became that made up all of us today!

What happens when matter and antimatter meet?

So in the previous section I mentioned about matter and antimatter annihilating each other when they contact. It’s just like matter and antimatter do not really like each other, and so when they meet, they destroy each other, leaving behind the energy that created them. You can imagine as if you took the circle that you cut out of the dough and put it back into the hole – both the circle shape and the circle hole shape disappears!

Uses of antimatter:

I would like to quote a sentence from Wikipedia, “In antimatter-matter collisions resulting in photon emission, the entire rest mass of the particles is converted to kinetic energy.” I also found out that the energy per unit mass that the collision of antimatter and matter is 9×1016 J/kg, which is even more than the energy produced from nuclear fission which is at 8×1013 J/kg! This means if antimatter could be harnessed, we would solve a lot of the Earth’s resources problems! Antimatter could be used to fuel spaceships, powering cities, or even in regular transport! I then thought to myself, why then isn’t antimatter already being used now?

The flaws of using antimatter:

I found a rather disappointing answer to my previous question. This is another quote from Wikipedia, “Scientists claim antimatter is the costliest material to make.” Well, while I was researching again, I definitely found a lot of figures and values of how much it cost to create antimatter, but it would be meaningless to just copy and paste values here. Even then, I was left staring incredulously at the computer screen when I saw how much money was used to create antimatter and matter, when there are so many people in the world who could be saved by that amount. Nevertheless, the price of creating antimatter to use as fuel does not make up for the result gained, due to many inefficiencies. Furthermore, antimatter cannot be easily stored in containers like petrol – once it contacts with anything made up of matter; well you know what would happen. A Penning trap is thus used to contain antimatter, which is extremely inconvenient if we wanted to use it for anything. On top of that a Penning trap cannot contain any antimatter that is composed of uncharged particles, and so an atomic trap is used instead.

The people vital to our current understanding of antimatter:

Paul Dirac


The modern theory of antimatter begun with him, in 1982, with a paper. He also realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons was predicting the possibility of positrons.

Carl David Anderson



He was the one that discovered antimatter in 1932.

Arthur Schuster



He hypothesised antiatoms, whole antimatter solar systems and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other.


Reflection:

I really tried my best to make this report as organised as possible. I also tried to simplify all the complicated terms and words that I found on various websites, and made sure that this report was not just a compilation of “copy and paste” information, but instead one that was written by me, with help from sources. Well, you could just try searching “Antimatter” on Google and a whole lot of stuff that I have never learnt or even knew about would come out. I guess that I must have missed out certain details, but overall, I feel that I did quite a good job in the making of this report, though I felt that adding too many pictures was unnecessary, and only added the photographs of the scientist as it saves space, printer ink and allows more information. The most important thing of course, is that I have learnt a lot about antimatter, AND of course revised about the things I already knew about matter. Perhaps, maybe in few years time, the knowledge might come in handy in some kind of project or science syllabus!

Bibliography:

http://press.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Antimatter.html

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/AntiMatter/AntiMatter.html

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=7WqZ357pgOIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=antimatter&source=bl&ots=ScYj0q2qYR&sig=EqduRJwawazq9VfNviNP33UBFzw&hl=en&ei=tzFVTIqIO420rAfQiZHzAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13&ved=0CEkQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Term 2 Blog Post 2: Oil Spill article

---

Size of Spill in Gulf of Mexico Is Larger Than Thought

NEW ORLEANS — Government officials said late Wednesday night that oil might be leaking from a well in the Gulf of Mexico at a rate five times that suggested by initial estimates.

In a hastily called news conference, Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry of the Coast Guard said a scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had concluded that oil is leaking at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day, not 1,000 as had been estimated. While emphasizing that the estimates are rough given that the leak is at 5,000 feet below the surface, Admiral Landry said the new estimate came from observations made in flights over the slick, studying the trajectory of the spill and other variables.

An explosion and fire on a drilling rig on April 20 left 11 workers missing and presumed dead. The rig sank two days later about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.

Doug Suttles, chief operating officer for exploration and production for BP, said a new leak had been discovered as well. Officials had previously found two leaks in the riser, the 5,000-foot-long pipe that connected the rig to the wellhead and is now detached and snaking along the sea floor. One leak was at the end of the riser and the other at a kink closer to its source, the wellhead.

But Mr. Suttles said a third leak had been discovered Wednesday afternoon even closer to the source. “I’m very, very confident this leak is new,” he said. He also said the discovery of the new leak had not led them to believe that the total flow from the well was different than it was before the leak was found.

The new, far larger estimate of the leakage rate, he said, was within a range of estimates given the inexact science of determining the rate of a leak so far below the ocean’s surface.

“The leaks on the sea floor are being visually gauged from the video feed” from the remote vehicles that have been surveying the riser, said Doug Helton, a fisheries biologist who coordinates oil spill responses for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in an e-mail message Wednesday night. “That takes a practiced eye. Like being able to look at a garden hose and judge how many gallons a minute are being discharged. The surface approach is to measure the area of the slick, the percent cover, and then estimate the thickness based on some rough color codes.”

Admiral Landry said President Obama had been notified. She also opened up the possibility that if the government determines that BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, cannot handle the spill with the resources available in the private sector, that Defense Department could become involved to contribute technology.

Wind patterns may push the spill into the coast of Louisiana as soon as Friday night, officials said, prompting consideration of more urgent measures to protect coastal wildlife. Among them were using cannons to scare off birds and employing local shrimpers’ boats as makeshift oil skimmers in the shallows.

Part of the oil slick was only 16 miles offshore and closing in on the Mississippi River Delta, the marshlands at the southeastern tip of Louisiana where the river empties into the ocean. Already 100,000 feet of protective booms have been laid down to protect the shoreline, with 500,000 feet more standing by, said Charlie Henry, an oil spill expert for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at an earlier news conference on Wednesday.

On Wednesday evening, cleanup crews began conducting what is called an in-situ burn, a process that consists of corralling concentrated parts of the spill in a 500-foot-long fireproof boom, moving it to another location and burning it. It has been tested effectively on other spills, but weather and ecological concerns can complicate the procedure.

Such burning also works only when oil is corralled to a certain thickness. Burns may not be effective for most of this spill, of which 97 percent is estimated to be an oil-water mixture.

A burn scheduled for 11 a.m. Wednesday was delayed. At 4:45 p.m., the first small portion of the spill was ignited. Officials determined it to be successful.

Walter Chapman, director of the Energy and Environmental Systems Institute at Rice University, said a 50 percent burn-off for oil within the booms would be considered a success. Admiral Landry called the burn “one tool in a tool kit” to tackle the spill. Other tactics include: using remote-controlled vehicles to shut off the well at its source on the sea floor, an operation that has so far been unsuccessful; dropping domes over the leaks at the sea floor and routing the oil to the surface to be collected, an operation untested at such depths that would take at least two to four more weeks; and drilling relief wells to stop up the gushing cavity with concrete, mud or other heavy liquid, a solution that is months away.

The array of strategies underscores the unusual nature of the leak. Pipelines have ruptured and tankers have leaked, but a well 5,000 feet below the water’s surface poses new challenges, officials said.

Reached in southern Louisiana on Wednesday, where he was visiting the response team’s command center, Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, said he did not yet know what went wrong with the oil rig. BP, which was leasing the rig from Transocean, is responsible for the cleanup under federal law.

Until Wednesday night, the well had been estimated to be leaking 1,000 barrels, or 42,000 gallons, each day.

The response team has tried in vain to engage a device called a blowout preventer, a stack of hydraulically activated valves at the top of the well that is designed to seal off the well in the event of a sudden pressure release — a possible cause for the explosion on the rig.

Mr. Hayward said the blowout preventer was tested 10 days ago and worked. He said a valve must be partly closed, otherwise the spillage would be worse.

There are a number of things that can go wrong with a blowout preventer, said Greg McCormack, director of the Petroleum Extension Service at the University of Texas, which provides training for the industry.

The pressure of the oil coming from below might be so great that the valves cannot make an adequate seal. Or in the case of a shear ram, which is designed to cut through the drill pipe itself and seal it off, it might have encountered a tool joint, the thicker, threaded area where two lengths of drilling pipe are joined.

Still, Mr. McCormack said, “something is working there because you wouldn’t have such a relatively small flow of oil.” If the blowout preventer were completely inoperable, he said, the flow would be “orders of magnitude” greater.

Mr. Hayward, of BP, said the crude spilling from the well was very light, the color and texture of “iced tea” and implied that it would cause less environmental damage than heavier crude, like the type that spilled from the Exxon Valdez into Prince William Sound in 1989. He said in most places it was no more than a micron thick and in the thickest areas was one-tenth of a millimeter, or the width of a hair.

Mr. Hayward declined to answer questions about any potential political fallout and said BP “will be judged primarily on the response.”

As the investigation into the cause continued, officials, scientists and those who make their living on the Gulf Coast were focused on the impending prospect of the oil’s landfall.

---

Reflection:

Just yesterday I read an article(above) online on the recent Gulf Oil Spill. My first thought is that, during incidents like this, everybody gets affected. With several million gallons of medium crude already in the water and 210000 gallons of oil leaking into the gulf a day, what impact does it cause on mankind, and most importantly, the environment?

Although some people are saying that, the oil hasn’t gotten to shore yet, so it’s all good, but a lot of animals live in the ocean, and a spill like this becomes bad for marine life as soon as it hits the water. This would have endangered animals such as sea turtles, the larvae of bluefin tuna, shrimp, crabs and oysters. A lot of these are already being affected and have been for 10 days. Even though we are waiting now to see how bad the oil spill is at the shore, but we will never fully understand the full impacts on ocean life!

After I did further research on the internet, I realised that there had actually been some other oil spills that I never knew ever happen, such as the Exxon Valdez accident of 1989. I also found out that compared to the Exxon Valdez accident, the Gulf Oil Spill would have to get much worse before it approaches the impact of the Exxon Valdez accident, which contaminated 1,300 miles of largely untouched shoreline and killed tens of thousands of seabirds, otters and seals along with 250 eagles and 22 killer whales.

Although smaller in level compared to other oil spills, the Gulf Oil Spill still does harm to the environment. As I thought deeper into this incident, the Gulf Oil Spill also does great harm to our economy. All those oil that have leaked into the Gulf have been wasted, and such natural resources are irreplaceable. I know this particularly well as I used to play a game called "Oilgarchy", where I play as the CEO of a large oil company and my job is to drill oil out of places all over the world and sell it out. In the beginning of the game, oil was everywhere, and I never thought twice before placing a drill on a location and start making profits out of it, but in the much later part of the game, usually just before the end, oil deposits start to decline insanely fast, and pollution, politics and all sorts of other stuff start to come in. Simply put, the world turned into chaos. So in this case of the Gulf Oil Spill and as I read the article, I could feel a sense of heartache. All the oil has been wasted and money can no longer be made, but the worst thing is that something that was suppose to help mankind and nature, has instead cause great harm and damage to them.

As I read further into to the article, I am glad that BP is putting all its efforts into trying to remediate the effects of the Gulf Oil Spill. I hope that they will weigh their options carefully and execute the best solution in the least amount of time, as more time wasted means more marine life harmed and more money lost.