Comparing Ceramics... (1 Viewer)

[McLake]

Originally posted by CHUDYMASTER
Did you make it onto the olympics team? I did.

Me = worse than BJ, I got a "distinction"

 

[CHUDYMASTER]

Ronnie, your suggestion to measure the change in temperature is flawed. If I raise the temperature and simply throw the very hot ceramic into the water, most of it will vaporise and escape. What then????? I can't simply dunk a thermometer into it...

 

[Lazarus]

If it vaporises you know the temperature is > 100 degrees?


What about those thermal imaging devices that show stripes of red for really hot areas, yellow for less hot and so on?

 

[CHUDYMASTER]

You're describing a spectroscope or something like it. That doesn't give me a quantitative result, which is what I need.

All these qualitative ideas you people are throwing at me are highly inconsiderate of my ability to execute the experiment.

 

[Lazarus]

I'm not sure if it's a spectroscope - but you shouldn't need a precise quantitative measurement. I don't see why you couldn't simply use an interval scale for the type of experiment you're attempting to conduct.

After all, you're making comparisons; does the exact temperature of the ceramic matter, or only the magnitude of the temperature relative to other ceramics?

 

[CHUDYMASTER]

I guess that's true...

It is only with respect to another ceramic.
Well tell me this, if I heat the ceramic and then use the spectroscope to observe how big the buldge to the blue end of the spectrum is, then I compare the buldges' magnitudes....

THEN I SHOULD THEORETICALLY BE ABLE TO WORK OUT A RELATIVE HEAT CAPACITY COMPARISON.

Then what?

 

[Lazarus]

lol usually you come up with an 'aim' or hypothesis for your experiment before you attempt to design it.


try that and get back to us with what you actually want to do.

 

[CHUDYMASTER]

Ugh, I've told you like a thousand times on the first page of this topic.

AIM : To compare the 2 properties : A and B of two ceramics: X and Y when heated.

What more can I provide???

 

[kaseita]

off-topic, but anyway

chudy, you were on the phys olympics team this year? did you meet a guy called roger senior?

 

[Lazarus]

That's not an aim! You have to hypothesise about what you will find.

 

[CHUDYMASTER]

Kaseita, no I didn't meet him, but I'd heard of him, must be a different team.

Lazarus, what are you talking about??? That IS an aim.

As for the hypothesis. I can't hypothesise something when I don't know what I'm gonna be experimenting with. I need a method, which means I need a property to study!!!!

AHHHH...

 

[Lazarus]

You don't just run around conducting experiments willy-nilly.

Experiments are conducted for a reason.

You might hypothesise that black ceramics might be more susceptible to breaking when heated than white ceramics (dodgey example).

But you need to hypothesise something! Then you base your method around how to test that hypothesis.

 

[CHUDYMASTER]

Yeah, but I can't hypothesise anything until:

1) I have 2 specific ceramics I need to examine.

2) I know what properties I shall be testing when heating them

3) I need to know what equipment/formulae will be involved to say "the outcome of condition A will be outcome B."

DON'T YOU GET IT? I reckon you've been away from school too long Lazarus.

 

[Lazarus]

It sounds like you're trying to write a report for an experiment you've already done, rather than writing a proposal for an experiment which you intend to do.

You should already have some kind of theoretical background for your experiment (which would be what prompted you to conduct the experiment in the first place). If Bob's Law said that the susceptibility of a ceramic to breaking is proportional to its temperature, your experiment might be to investigate this and see whether you can provide evidence for or against it. So, Bob's Law would be your hypothesis. Then you draw the properties that you're going to measure from that hypothesis. In this case, it would be susceptibility to breakage and temperature.

I understand what you're saying - you want to work backwards, and have the perfect experiment where everything can be done and fits in neatly. Experiments aren't perfect. If you have difficulty measuring the temperature of the ceramic, document it and approximate it as best as you can. The same goes for susceptibility to breakage.

It doesn't matter if you can't get an exact quantitative measurement of temperature, or if you can't compensate for air resistance rotating your ceramics when they're falling. You try to overcome it, of course, but if you can't it's just another thing you add to the discussion list.

Decide on your hypothesis, and measure properties that correspond to it. Fitting your hypothesis to your experiment instead of the other way around completely defeats the purpose of conducting an experiment in the first place, and probably won't go down well with your teacher (or at least it didn't with mine).

 

[CHUDYMASTER]

Fair enough. What you're saying makes sense. Well I'll go that way (i'm working with a partner anyway, but I doubt he's doing much).

Furthermore, this Bob guy sounds intriguing, his law fits my predicament precisely!! (yes, I know he's ficticious, before you call me an idiot)