Apparatus: 2 one meter rulers, 1 fifteen cm rulers, clamp stand, tub of sand, 1 88g plasticine ball (43mm in diameter)
Variable change: I will change the height the plasticine ball is falling from.
Method: Set the ruler up as shown in diagram below and roll 88g of plasticine into a ball. I will use wet sand because I think that it will be easier to measure the diameter as the sand wont be easily moved as I take the plasticine ball out of the crater. I will then hold the ball of plasticine at the appropriate height then drop the plasticine ball into the sand (I will carry out my readings from 50mm – 500mm going up in 50s). Then I will carefully pick the plasticine ball out of the sand and measure the diameter of the crater.
Trial run:
My results did not vary from a decent enough different in results, I though that the higher the fall of the plasticine ball the larger the diameter of the crater. This was true but the change was ever so slight. I figured there was no point plotting these results in a graph because the line would be almost horizontal with a slight positive correlation.
I think that my results showed so little change because the wet sand worked a bit like an adhesive, this probably explains why the sand almost took the same diameter of the ball. If I change the sand from wet sand to dry sand the impact will in my opinion will more effect upon the diameter of the crater. I am also going to take twice as much readings so that the reading will go from 50mm – 1000mm this will make the graph more accurate.
New Method: Same as previous method but twice as much readings will be taken and wet sand will be replaced by dry sand.
Strand O - Obtaining evidence.
I collected my apparatus and carried out my experiment safely, I took my readings. These are my readings.
Strand A - Analysing the evidence.
From my results I have found out that the higher the meteor fall from the larger the crater will be. I have also found out that this is also dependent on the density of the ground the crater has landed on. There will be a more significant change in a ground with a low density compared to a ground with high density. My graph shows a positive correlation with no anomalous results. My prediction was right and my gravity theory was also right according to my results although my first couple of results showed quite a big gap at the start and then turned to a positive correlation. Even though my results showed a positive correlation they did not at all show even gaps in diameter.
Strand E - Evaluation.
The method I used in collecting results was good, I had no problems taking measurements or getting the right height. I had no problems with the accuracy, observations or measurements in obtaining my results. My first couple of results were a little bit worrying because they showed quite a big gap but they turned into a positive correlation towards the end, I don’t think this was due to inaccurate readings or to any other fault of my own. If I was to conduct this experiment again I would take more readings so that I could have enough evidence to support a firm conclusion. If I was to extend this experiment I would have collected more data on the diameter and I would have collected results on the depth of the crater, then I could find the relationship between the depth of the crater and the diameter of the crater, this would provide me with additional evidence for the conclusion.