Hypothesis: My group and I believe that the room temperature water would have the most bubbles and that the ice water won't have very many if any because temperature will probably denature the effect.
Conclusion: The purpose of this experiment was to see the affect of yeast respiration. We set up at controlled experiment where we set a test tube with small amounts of yeast and a pack of sugar and then filled the test tube with water, inserted that stopper and placed it in water upside down and waited 20 minutes. Our results show that room temperature had more bubbles than the ice water. These results support our hypothesis because we thought the room temperature would get bubbles because the cold effected the respiration. Our experiments had sources of error which include having air bubbles at the beginning of the experiment.
Materials: Yeast, test tubes, stoppers, beakers, acid/base, hot plate, and sucrose solution.
Procedure: Step 1- Took two testubes
Step 2- Put the yeast and sugar in each testubes
Step 3: Put water
Step 4: Put the stopper in the iced cold water and one in regular water for 20 minutes
Step 5: Took out them out and examined for the bubbles
We first took three plastics bags and we put a spoonful of starch in each.
Next we put about 50ml of hot, cold, and room temp water in each bag.
After we took three beakers and put 100ml of iodine in each.
We then placed each bag in the iodine for two minutes
Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to see how different temperatures affect a cells diffusion rate. We set up a controlled experiment where we put equal amounts of starch and water in each bag and had one bag that stayed in room temperature water. Our results from our experiment show that the hot water showed diffusion fastest, the cold showed the diffusion second fastest, and the room temperature water and starch showed diffusion slowest. The results support our hypothesis because the hotter temperature made the starch seep through the bag fastest. Our experiments had sources of error when at first we put the different temperature water in the beaker instead of in the ziplock bag.
In our experiment we are going to test whether the catalyst develops more bubbles in cold water, hot water or room temperature water.
Hypothesis
We believe that the hot water mixed with the hydrogen peroxide will in fact create more bubbles than the hydrogen peroxide mixed with room temp and ice water.
Experimental Group
The experimental group is the catalyse because that is the object which we are testing.
Control Group
The control group in our experiment was the room temperature water that one of the test tubes was placed in
Procedure
1. Place the catalyse in three different test tubes.
2. At the same time, place one test tube in hot water, ice cold water, and hold one to keep it at room temperature and leave it for about 2 minutes.
3. After two minutes, place an equal amount of hydrogen peroxide and leave it for 3 minutes.
4. After the 3 minutes, you will notice bubbles forming. Measure the height of oxygen bubbles and put down the data into a chart or table.
The purpose of this experiment was to see whether the hot, cold, or room temperature water with a catalyse and hydrogen peroxide got bubbles faster. We set up a controlled experiment where we got three test tubes, and put a catalyst in all of them. We then put one of the test tubes over the hot plate for two minutes. We put the second test tube in ice cold water for two minutes, and we left the third test tube out in room temperature. Once the two minutes were up we took each of the test tubes and evenly distributed two drops of hydrogen peroxide in each. Our results for our experiment show the test tube with the cold water had the most bubbles(1cm). The room temperature had the second highest amount of bubbles(1.3cm) and the hot water had the least(0cm). These results refute our hypothesis because we all thought the hot water mixed with the hydrogen peroxide would have a different response. We thought the mixture would have bubbled over like vinegar and baking soda does. Our experiment had sources of error which include at first not using equal amounts of hydrogen peroxide in each test tube.
Alanna Johnson, Grace Balatbat, Michaela Lantrip, and Shannon Miyoshi
Our Goal
Our goal was to figure out if a mealworm found food faster in a dark or light environment.
Hypothesis
The mealworm exposed to a bright light will move towards the pile of food faster than the worm that will not be exposed to any light, because being exposed to light will provide warmth, which will cause the worm to be more active.
Materials: Flashlight, Two containers, mealworm food, and Stopwatch
Get two containers
Place the food at one end of the container
Place the worm at the opposite end of the food
Get a flashlight
Shine the flashlight on one of the worms
Use a stopwatch or phone to time the amount of time it takes each worm to reach the food
Conclusion
In our experiment, we tested to see if a mealworm would crawl to a pile of food faster in a light/dark environment. We hypothesized that the worm with the light would crawl to the food quicker, because it would provide warmth, which would increase its strength and activity. To test our hypothesis, we first placed both worms in seperate plastic dishes, and put a small pile of food on opposite sides (about 4 inches away from worm). Next, we picked a worm that would recieve light from a flashlight shining above it (about 1/2ft away), and one with just natural light. We then timed which worm would crawl to the pile of food faster. Our results showed that the worm without the flashlight actually crawled to the food quicker than the worm with the light. We tested our experiment about 3 different times, and the results showed that the worm without light reached the food a few seconds before the one with light did. So in conclusion, the worm that did not recieve the direct light from the flashlight crawled to the food quicker than the worm that DID recieve the flashlight.