Anna's+Blog+1

= = toc

Back to Student Blogs

=Your Blog=

Make sure to follow the instructions on the Student Blog Page

10/16/2007
What is a flame test in your own words? How does this relate to the use of chemicals in fireworks? Make sure to include your MLA citations you may not use Wikipedia! . //Entry:// **A flame test is a test that involves putting a pure element or compound into an open flame, which is also energy. Many of the elements or compounds react by glowing in certain colors. These colors appear based on the properties and families of the element or compound, and can also help to define an element or compound. This relates to the color of fireworks because when they explode there must be some major heat and energy to get to the final outcome. This will cause the fireworks to glow in different colors because the element or compound was subjected to heat and energy. Although this changes the color of the fireworks, it does not make them explode, that would invlve gun-powder. Anyways, scientists are probably able to tell what element or compound was in the fireworks by its color. After time you could be able to remember the substances and their colors by heart.**

Betts, John. "Table of Flame Coloration." __Flame Coloration by Element__. September. Unknown. 17 Oct 2007 <http://webmineral.com/help/FlameTest.shtml


 * Here is a useful citation! :P**

//Comment 1://

Comment 2:

8/24/2007
Find an web article from a reputable news website that contains information about any type of projectile. The article must relate to some science topic this could include something having to do with the projectile of bullets or weapons but should not focus on killing!Write a short (1 paragraph) summary of the article and then describe how anything you have learned in the past week about projectile motion might relate to it (second short paragraph). Finish with a citation to the web article. Enter all of this under "Entry" below.

//Entry: Stephen Hawking went on a parabolic airplane ride that took eight dives into weightlessness. The physicist wanted to prove that anyone, even with a certain disability, could test the factor of projectile motion and explore the effect. Stephen's dream is to go to space, and he is well on his way, he commented that the best part of the flight was the zero gravity part, and that the high gravity portions of the ride weren't a very big problem for him. He also commented "Space, here I come!"// This article pertains to the classroom activities because we are also exploring the effects of parabolic motion. The variables of projectile motion are gravity, velocity, angle, and wind. Of course gravity was a factor on the airplane, if there had been more gravity (if the plane was closer to the ground) weightlessness would have been more of an issue. The velocity, or speed, of the plane effected the flight because if the plane was traveling slower, weightlessness would have also been an issue. When the plane made parabolic dives, it would dive at an angle, and if the angle wasn't very steep, the wieghtlessness factor would have been an issue. Also, the wind could have blown the plane off course, or effected the angle or velocity of the plane. With all factors in mind, the person with the idea of the airplane ride with no gravity must have had something to think about!

Citation: Boyle, Alan. "Hawking goes zero-G: 'Space, here I come'." __MSNBC__. August. MSN. 26 Aug 2007 <[|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18334489/>.]



//Comment 1:// Good job on your blog. Here are a few points I have 1)you had good grammar and spelling 2)You didn’t really say what a parabolic flight was 3) Your Citation was far at the bottom and it wasn’t clear if it was for the picture or the blog. 4) Why would speed have been an issue on the weightlessness factor 5)what do you mean by” When the plane made parabolic dives, it would dive at an angle, and if the angle wasn't very steep, the weightlessness factor would have been an issue?’’ Good job Thomas W-

Comment 2:

**9/24/2007**
Reflect upon the mystery density cube experiment. You may write in first person. Create a long paragraph addressing these questions:

1.) Was the scientific method necessary in this experiment? If not, why? If so, why? 2.) What made this experiment difficult? or was it easy? 3.) Is density very important in finding the identity of an unknown substance?

//Entry:// //In the density cube experiment a scientific method was not needed to determine the results of the project. You can determine the density of an object, which can be done in one way. That one way is mass divided by volume, and to find the mass, or amount of “stuff” in an object, you use a scale as opposed to using a triple beam balance, because a scale measures mass, but a triple beam balance measures weight. There are two ways to determine the volume, or space an object takes up, but in this experiment only called for one of the two possibilities. One of those ways is the displacement method which is sometimes used, and is super helpful to find the density of an oddly shaped object by dropping it in a graduated cylinder. The amount the water raises is the volume of the object. The other way is by measuring the sides of a finely shaped object, and the equation is length times width times height, and was the method that we used in the experiment. This experiment was not too hard, but not too easy. What I mean by that is that there was a lot of information and work to be completed to get the final product, but the work did not take much work because it was not as difficult as some other things that my be covered in science class. Anyway, without the density of the object, we might have never been able to discover the true identity of an object. We had to research the density of the possible identities of the cubes and match them to the density of the cubes in our container. Without the method of finding the density of our cubes, this experiment would have been almost impossible.//

//Comment 1: the first half of your entry is irrelevent. the first point is about whether scientific method was necessary not how you did the experiment. your scentence about whether the experiment was easy or difficult does not make a whole lot of sense but your third point was very good. your writing was good but try to keep a serious tone. try not to say things like anyway ond cliches like that. good job!//

Comment 2:

11/1/2007
Go to this site: [|http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=55 .]Click on "Watch the Reaction with Sodium and Chlorine" In your own words and in third person, create a blog entry describing the reaction and explaining what is happening in terms of the bonding. Write a long paragraph. Explain in detail.

//Entry:// **The bond that forms between the two ions is an ionic bond. Sodium is a cation, and chlorine is an anion. As sodium gives an electron away, fire is formed. This is an exothermic reaction because it gives off more energy than it takes in. The sodium is giving away an electron to the chlorine, which makes the sodium positive and the chlorine negative. As the two ions change to salt, you know that this is a physical reaction because they are changing state. So much energy is released that when the two different chemicals combine, they form fire, which changes the ions into salt. Sodium was able to give away an electron because it had one extra in its outer energy level and the chlorine had seven in its outer energy level. When sodium gave one away it was then happy, and so was the chlorine. - Anna J.**

//Comment 1:// You had correct spelling and your explanation was long enough. Your explanation was kind of confusing in some of the parts, and you seemed to be saying that the elements started out as cations and anions, but instead that is what they change to. You explained every part of it thouroughly though, even the giving off of heat. I would give an A- for your entry. -Elizabeth B.

Comment 2: Really good, but needs explanation of what cation, anion, exothermic means. Good description.You were focused and covered everthing necisary. grade: A

Entry Rewrite: **The combination of sodium and chlorine will form an ionic bond, which is a type of bond that either gives or takes electrons. When these two elements form an ionic bond, they release a huge amount of energy that cause a fire, thus making this an exothermic reaction because the elements are releasing energy. Sodium is a cation and chlorine is an anion, and once the bond is made between the two sodium becomes positive and chlorine becomes negative. The final result of the experiment forms salt. This bond works because sodium has on extra electron, and chlorine was in need of one electron. Once sodium gives away an electron and chlorine takes one, they both become happy. - Anna J.

TRIMESTER ONE:

My favorite experiments were the flame tests because they were fun to work with. You never knew what color was going to come up from the fire, and the chart was fun to make too. (I don't know why, but I love charts :P) The snakes are pretty cool, they are fun to hold, and they are awesome colors. This trimester I think that I did really well remembering the 40 elements and at the charts. This year in science 7 I could have improved by studying more for the tests. To do that I would need to go to the teacher for extra help, and study for at least 15 minutes night the week before the quiz or test.

comment 1: Anna, you are always awake in class and ready to learn. You are a good and enthusieastic student about science and you like yo learn.**

12/18/2007

 * Our next unit is about electricity and electronics. In first person write a long paragraph about what you know about electricity and what questions you might like to have answered in our electricity unit. If you could investigate any subject area related to energy in the home, electricity, electronics, computers, etc. what would you like to research or investigate?

Entry:** //I know that Benjamin Franklin invented the lightbulb with a kite and a key, and that tungsten is the lightbulb filament. Electricity can produce things other than light though. Electricity can make the oven heat up and the microwave to work, and most importantly, the T.V. to turn on. Some things that use electricity to work are lightbulbs, ovens, T.V.s, microwaves, radios, even some cars. I know that you can conduct electricity from a lemon or a potato. But really that is all I know about electricity. This unit I would like to attempt to conduct electricity from a potato or lemon, and I would also like to look inside an outlet and discover how it works with the plug to get electricity through the cord and to the object that needs the electricity.//


 * Comment 1:

Comment 2:**

1/3/2008
Our next unit is about electricity and electronics. Observe the following graph, Graph 1. Write at least five sentences for each of the following questions. Write in third person. Directly cite data and identify the graph (1). 1.) Which electricity source in the US has increased the greatest amount over the time period shown in the graph? 2.) Which of the sources listed below directly contribute to global warming? Provide evidence and explain using the Internet (MLA citation). 3.) Describe the overall trends from 1972 to 1985 regarding the US's sources of electricity. [|This graph can also be seen at this LINK.]

Here is an example statement: "Graph 1 shows that from 1960-1965 there was a steady increase in the use of coal as a source of electricity. It rose from roughly 0.2 trillion killwatthours to 0.5 kilowatt hours.

Entry:

I had to predict what would come next, I would have to guess that the line will continues to rise, and eventually get to 2.5 kilowatthours. One of the sources on the graph that contributes to global warming is Nuclear Electric Power. This contributes to global warming because electric power plants put enormous amounts of waste heat into the atmosphere, and that will contribute to global warming. Here is the citation:** Johnson, C. "Global Warming From Electric Power Plants." (2007) January <[|http://mb-soft.com/public2/powerplt.html>.] **On the graph Nuclear Power Plants started in 1957 at zero kilowatthours, and now in 2005 it has risen to be roughly 0.7 or 0.8 kilowatthours. The path of the line did not rise at all in the beginning, but in 1970 it began to rise ad has kept a pretty steady path upwards. Coal was the black line, which started at 0.2 and rose to 2 trillion kilowatthours. The line was basically steady, but you can see that it increased and decreased more in different places on the graph. It was the top source on the graph. Petroleum and natural gas was the black spotted line, which started at zero and rose to roughly 0.9 trillion kilowatthours. The line was very uneven and not steady at all, it had huge dives in different places on the graph. Nuclear Electric Power was the red line, which started at zero in the year 1957 and rose to 0.7 or 0.8. For a few years the line did not rise, but later when it began to rise it was pretty steady. Hydroelectric Power was the green line, which started at zero or 0.1 kilowatthours and rose to roughly 0.3 or 0.3 kilowatthours. The line basically stayed around the same area, it rose a bit, then stayed around that area.**
 * The electricity source in the United States that increased the greatest amount over the time period shown in the graph was coal. Coal started on the graph roughly at 0.2 trillion kilowatthours and stretched outward and up until it reached about 2 trillion kilowatthours. This event took place from 1950-2005. On the graoh you see that the line that represents coal moved upward steadily. There are a few slight decreases and increases at times, but overall the path is pretty straight upwards. If

Comment 1: Good Job! You wrote in third person, and had great content. You even went over 5 sentences. You didn't directly refer to the graph, but you did directly refer to the sources on the graph. Also, you did a great job at referencing your data, just for the wrong time periods. You didn't refer to the trends from 1972-1985. Instead, you wrote the trends for the whole graph. Otherwise, you followed the directions pretty well. You obviously provided evidence for your ideas, they just were ideas for a different time period than in the directions. Also, you did a great job at making everything in your entry make sense, and you described each source extremely well. The only thing that I would change in your entry is to go back and look at the trends from 1972-1985 and put that in your entry. Otherwise, excellent job! -Alyssa P.

Comment 2: Your points were written scientifically and well. Although you commented on the whole graph, not the designated dates. (not finished)

COMMENT 3: " **REFERENCE THE GRAPH. FOCUS ON THE QUESTION-** 3.) Describe the overall trends from 1972 to 1985 regarding the US's sources of electricity.- JT

1/8/2008
Please read the paragraph below about energy use to create electricity from 1972-1985 in the US. Observe that the graph is referred to, there is an introductory statement, supporting statements are backed up with data, and that their is a concluding sentence. This would have been a well written paragraph for question 3 in our previous blog entry.

"As seen in Graph 1, there were four sources of electricity production in the US from 1972-1985. These sources were coal, petroleum/natural gas, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power. From 1972-1985, the US needed greater and greater production of electricity from these combined resources. This best example of this is that during these years, coal increased from 0.5 trillion kilowatthours to roughly 1.5 trillion kilowatthours. During this same time period hydroelectric sources remained approximately the same at 0.3 trillion kilowatthours. There was a slight increase in nuclear electric power sources from 0.1 trillion kilowatthours to 0.3 trillion kilowatthours during this same time period. Finally, petroleum and natural gas showed the greatest amount of fluctuation during this time period staying about the same from 1972-1980 at 0.4 trillion kilowatthours but then deceasing to 0.3 trillion kilowattthours by 1985. Thus, although greater and greater amounts of resources were needed to produce electricity during this time period, coal accounted for the greatest increase in use." - JT

//**Using the above paragraph as a model, describe the changes in electricity production sources from 2000-2005. Make sure that you reference the graph (Graph 1). Make sure all statements are backed up with data. Make sure you have an introductory sentence and a concluding sentence that provide an overall summary/statement.**//

Entry: In the above graph there are four sources of electricity production in the United States from the years 1972-1985. The four sources were coal, petroleum and natural gas, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power. As you can see in graph one, the United States was in need of more electricity production because each of the four electric power sources rose to more kilowatthours in that expanse of time. In the said years, coal, the thick black line, kept a basically steady line and continued to be the most productive source, rising from 0.7 kilowatthours to nearly 1.5 kilowatthours. Petroleum and natural gas, the black spotted line, was right on up there with coal in 1972, but while coal continued to gain more kilowatthours, petroleum and natural gas stayed around 0.6 or 0.7 kilowatthours. By the year 1979, and through to 1985, the petroleum and natural gas dropped in production rapidly, and fell to about 0.4 kilowatthours. Nuclear electric power, the red line, started around 0 kilowatthours in the year 1972, with no production, but by the year 1985 it was at an even rate with petroleum and natural gas. Hydroelectric power, the green line, began in 1972 at about 0.3 kilowatthours and kept a steady pace at 0.3 kilowatthours through the years, it was the source of the least production. By 1985 hydroelectric power continued to stay at 0.3 kilowatthours.

Comment 1: Anna, you did a great job on this entry because you wrote all of the data that you used and also the years. You made it especiially easy for someone to read because your entry flowed really well. I also like how you described what color each line was on the graph because i could easily find them. You did a good job because you referenced to graph 1 with your data. I think that you could add a concluding sentence to wrap up the ending. -Rabiya S.

Comment 2:

Re-Entry: In the above graph there are four sources of electricity production in the United States from the years 2000-2005. The four sources were coal, petroleum and natural gas, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power. As you can see in graph one, the United States was in need of more electricity production because each of the four electric power sources rose to more kilowatthours in that expanse of time. In the said years, coal, the thick black line, kept a basically steady line and continued to be the most productive source, rising from 1.9 billion kilowatthours to at least 2.1 billion kilowatthours. Petroleum and natural gas, the black spotted line, was WERE right on up there WORDING with nuclear electric power, and gained so many more kilowatthours that it inched WORDING above nuclear electric power, petroleum and natural gas changed from 0.5 to about 0.8 billion 9TRILLION kilowatthours. Nuclear electric power, the red line, started around 0.7 billion TRILLION kilowatthours in the year 2000, and with slight production, but by the year 2003 it was at an even rate with petroleum and natural gas. Unfortunately, it dropped below petroleum and natural gas in the end of 2005, and ended as about 0.7 like it started. Hydroelectric power, the green line, began in 2000 at about 0.3 TRILLION kilowatthours and kept a steady pace at 0.3 kilowatthours through the years, it was the source of the least production. By 2005 hydroelectric power continued to stay at 0.3 kilowatthours. In 2005, if you combine all of the sources, the United States had 3.9 billion kilowatthours! BETTER CONCLUDING SENTENCE AND WATCH YOUR UNITS. OVERALL, GOOD JOB. - JT

2/28/2008
This trimester we started by finishing up our chemistry unit by doing an acid/base experiment. After this, we started our electricity/electronics unit in which we first made basic series and parallel circuits with buzzers, speakers, motors, and lights. We applied ohm's law to these experiments. Following this, we started working on the Radioshack Electronics Kits where we made complex circuits that had a variety of functions- blinking LEDs, screeching speakers, analog to digital converters, etc. The technology we used this trimester included the pH probes that we connected to our computers to get the pH of household chemicals, using the wiki to create an class test review sheet, the Radioshack Electronic Kits, and creating collaborative lab reports in the wiki for our electronics unit (instead of a formal lab report).

//__In this blog prompt, please write a paragraph long entry (5-6 sentences with a intro and concluding sentence) that addresses what you enjoyed during this trimester and what you have learned. You can also comment on what you would like to improve upon for next trimester or what was difficult for you. Feel free to comment on our snakes- Peppermint and Diablo if you would like to as well as the technology that you enjoyed this trimester. Please check your spelling and grammar as this blog entry may appear in your end of trimester comment. You may want to write it in Microsoft Word to check the spelling, etc. and then copy it in the blog.__//

Entry: This year in science class I have learned a lot and had fun. My favorite thing that we did was building the circuits because Julia was in my group and it was sort of like a game, and we could be independent while doing it. I tried to maintain my grades, because science is very hard for me. This trimester I tried to step up and study more, but I still think that I can do better. For example, next year I will look ahead to prepare for the tests and quizzes by studying a bit each night for a week or two before the quiz or test. Overall, I have had a great year in science class! -Anna

Comment 1: Anna, you were a great person to work with for the Radioshack Electronics lab. We did a great job building the circuits and worked together well. You helped me understand a lot about the circuits and other things we did during class. :]]

Comment 2:

4/22/2008
Go to: [|The Tech Museum: Robotics]. Spend 10 minutes browsing the information and museum. Answer the following blog prompt in complete sentences and in third person. Create a full paragraph. If in the future machines have the ability to reason, be self-aware and have feelings, then what makes a human being a human being, and a robot a robot? Explain. Are there any kind of robots that shouldn't be created? Or that you wouldn't want to see created? Why?

Entry: **A human being was created as a mortal, surviving with certain organs and a heart, living only about 80 years average. A robot was created with wires and was not born through another human, but in fact was built through another human. There would be virtually no way to tell the difference between robots just looking at features. It would be a huge advancement to create a robot to act, think, and feel like a human, but what exactly is the point? Sure they can be used to serve you, but how long would that last when a robot has feelings and thoughts. Think of the movie iRobot if you've seen it, and think of the mass destruction that the robot created for the town. That movie somewhat grasped what might happen when robots are created like humans. It would be fine for a robot to be able to move around and take voice commands from humans, that way they can serve people and make things easier. Those robots could help community service and everything. But if a robot is able to feel and think, most likely something would go wrong. Because after all, human people would not put up with serving each other for no pay. So a robot who can take voice commands and perform numerous actions is great, but a robot with a mind would not be the best choice for people to create. After all, what is the point for a robot to be like a human? Then we could not be unique, and anyways, why should there be a robot who is like us when we don't need more people to help us populate the world? After all, humans can create robots, but robots can not create humans, and thus eventually our world would be taken over by a bunch of robots if we built them to be like us. Well maybe... But still, that would be completely unnecessary to make a robot like us.**

Comment 1:

Comment 2: