Problem:
What impact will changing the mass/size of a ball being launched from a catapult have on how far and fast it flies and how high it bounces?
How this meets the proficiencies:
Proficiency 1 - Newton's Laws - This tests Newton's Laws by experimenting with (1st) how the mass/size of the ball affects how far its inertia can carry it, (2nd) how the mass/size of the ball affects the force of the catapult and how much force the ball carries, and (3rd) how the ball's mass/size affects how high the ball bounces when it hits the ground.
Proficiency 2 - Friction and Gravity - This tests how friction and gravity affect Newton's Laws by experimenting with how changing the mass/size of the ball affects how long it takes gravity, an outside force, to impede the ball's inertia by pulling it to the ground, and how the mass/size of the ball affects how much the air resistance, a form of friction, slows down the ball while it's in the air.
Proficiency 3 - Speed and Acceleration - This tests the relationship between speed and acceleration by experimenting with how the mass/size of the ball affects how much the catapult can accelerate it and how the mass/size of the ball affects how fast it flies after being launched.
Hypothesis:
I think a bigger ball with more mass will go slower and fly and bounce a shorter distance than a ball with less mass, because a bigger ball would have a greater surface area and thus produce more air resistance than a smaller one and the greater mass of a larger ball would slow it down more than a ball with less mass as more mass equals less acceleration when force is consistent, and less acceleration means less speed.
Materials
Catapult
2 Balls-- a big one with more mass, and a small one with less mass -- made of the same material
Yard stick
A very large sheet of paper (15 ft by 3 ft)
A video camera
Marker
Tape
Timer
Ruler
Variables:
CV:
- Same catapult
- Same ball material
- Same force of catapult arm
- Same measuring tool (paper with lines)
- Same method of releasing catapult
- Same environment
- Same method of launching catapult (rubber bands)
- Same unit of measurement
- Same camera
- Same timer
IV: Mass and size
RV: Impact of mass and size on distance traveled and height of bounce
Control: None
How I eliminated external variables:
I eliminated external variables like so:
Using the same catapult - Every catapult can't be built the same, so the results with one catapult might be different than the results with another.
Using the same materials for the balls - The material the balls are made of affects variables such as the height of bounce. A rubber ball bounces higher than a metal one.
Keeping the force of the catapult the same -I'm measuring the impact mass has on how far the catapult can throw a ball, not the impact of the catapult's force. To change the force of the catapult is to change the results of the experiment.
Using the same measuring tool - Like with the catapult, not every measuring tool will measure the same. Hand drawn lines on a piece of paper taped to the wall and floor won't be the same as meter sticks set end to end.
Using the same method of releasing catapult - Different methods may lead to different results. One method may lead to the catapult being more liable to getting stuck than another.
Using the same environment - A ball won't fly as far when launched into the wind, and won't bounce as high when it hits softer terrain. This would affect the results greatly if one ball was launched in these conditions, and another was launched in the exact opposite conditions.
Using the same method of launching catapult - One method may provide more force than another. Launching the ball with a rubber band will get different results than launching the ball by hitting one end of the launching arm with a mallet.
Using the same unit of measurement - Measuring the distance traveled in centimeters with one ball and measuring the distance traveled in inches for another would make the centimeter ball seem to travel farther, and would make putting the data into a graph a lot harder.
Using the same camera - Some cameras have a clearer picture, and some aren't as well equipped to record videos as others.
Using the same timer - Not every timer is the same, so it would be better to just use the same one.
Procedure:
1. Gather materials
2. Use the yard stick and the marker to draw a 6 inch by 6 inch grid on the paper.
3. Fasten the paper to the wall
4. Place the catapult so the front end is at the edge of the grid.
5. Make sure the catapult won't be moved when launched by taping it to the ground.
6. Set up the camera so as much of the set up as possible is within its view. It at least needs to be able to see where the ball lands and the height of the bounce.
7. Take the two balls and label each of them, the smaller one being 'A', and the bigger one being 'B'.
8. Place Ball A in the catapult.
9. Start the camera.
10. Pull the 'arm' of the catapult back.
11. Release the arm and launch the catapult. At the same time, start the timer. You also may want to run after the ball.
12. When the ball hits the ground, stop the timer.
13. Record the time.
14. Stop the camera.
15. Replay the video to find the distance the ball traveled and how high it bounced by using the grid on the wall.
16. Record distance and height.
17.To find the speed that the ball traveled, multiply the distance the ball traveled by pi and dived your answer in half. Then, divide that number by how long the ball was in the air and the resulting number is the ball's speed. The formula: Speed = Distance x pi / 2 / Time.
18. Record speed.
19. Repeat steps 8 - 18 two more times.
20. Repeat steps 8 - 19 with Ball B.
21. Record data
22. Clean up.
Observations:
I noticed that the smaller ball seemed to be going noticeably faster than the larger ball in the video and when I was preforming the experiment, but the data says both balls were going at about the same rate. I think the fact that it took longer for the smaller ball to initially hit the ground might be why the data seems to say the smaller ball's speed was slower than what it had seemed to be when I watched it being launched. I also noticed that the smaller ball went higher before initially hitting the ground as well. This is probably why it took the smaller ball longer to hit the ground and why the speeds of the balls seemed to be so different in real life, but were so close according to the data.
Conclusion:
I wanted to see how a ball's mass and size affected how far it would fly and how high it would bounce when it was launched out of a catapult. I thought that a ball with more mass wouldn't be able to fly as far or fast or bounce as high as a ball with less mass, and my hypothesis was supported. My results showed that the smaller ball averaged a farther distance (218.3inches) and higher bounce (32.3 inches) than the bigger ball (184 and 5.5 inches). It also averaged a higher speed (250.6 in/s versus 244 in/s), though it took a bit longer to initially hit the ground (1.36 seconds versus 1.18 seconds).
Research tells me that the reason the larger ball didn't go as far, fast, or as high as the smaller ball is because of air resistance, which is a form of friction. Because air resistance is a form of friction, and friction is caused by two surfaces rubbing against each other, the larger ball, which had more surface area and thus produced more friction, had more air resistance than the smaller ball, which had less surface area and produced less friction. This means the larger ball's forward momentum had more external force acting upon it and slowing it down than the smaller ball did.
This led me to wonder why the smaller ball took longer to hit the ground after being launched than the bigger ball. Looking back on my experiment, I found that this was also due to air resistance, as the air resistance acting upon the balls made the larger ball, not only not fly as far as the smaller ball, but not fly as high as the smaller ball as well. In fact, I ended up having to adjust the arm of my catapult so it would use less force because the smaller ball kept hitting the ceiling, which messed up the experiment. This difference in high was because air resistance kept the bigger ball from going too high, and the smaller ball's lack of air resistance meant that there was less to keep the smaller ball from going too high.
Unfortunately, the data I collected for my experiment wasn't exact because the camera I used filmed motion poorly, and made the picture quite blurry. It also lacked a slow motion setting, so I ended up having to play-pause-play-pause until the video was at a close enough frame for me to tell where the balls landed. The smaller ball ended up not showing up in the video at all, so I had to do a lot more trials with it than with the larger ball just so I could get it to show up.
Experiment 2: Proficiency 4 - Incline Plane, Wedge, and Screw
Problem:
What impact does removing the incline plane from a wedge, a screw and an incline plane have on how well a task which said simple machines can be used for is performed?
How this meets the proficiency:
This experiment shows how simple machines utilize mechanical advantage by experimenting with how removing a vital part of said machine, in this case, the incline plane, impacts how well that machine can transfer energy. It tests how the inclined plane that makes up the threads of the screw impact how much time and effort it takes for the screw to change rotational energy to lateral energy and drill into wood, how the inclined planes that create the sides of the wedge affect how the wedge directs the force pushing it down out at an angle to cut through an object, and how the inclined plane by itself affects how much work is needed to complete a task.
Hypothesis:
I believe a task will be preformed better and easier with the inclined plane intact, as it's the inclined plane that gives these particular simple machines their mechanical advantage, and without the inclined plane, the wedge wouldn't be able to direct force to split things apart because the sides wouldn't be slanted, the screw wouldn't be able to turn rotational energy into lateral energy because there wouldn't be threads for the energy to travel through, and the inclined plane would be none existent, which means one would have to fight directly against gravity every time they wanted to lift anything up and move it to a higher place.
Materials:
- Ramp
- Weight (should be smaller than the ramp)
- Luggage scale
- A flat surface (same height as the ramp or attached to ramp itself)
- Metal rod
- Knife
- Timer
- 2 Apples
- A screw
- A nail (top should have a gouge in it, like a screw, and the nail itself should be the same width as the screw)
- Screwdriver
- Piece of wood with six pre-drilled holes. (holes should be slightly smaller than the width of the nail and screw)
Variables:
CV:
- Same ramp
- Same weight
- Same scale
- Same metal rod
- Same knife
- Same timer
- Same screw
- Same nail
- Same rope or string
- Same wood board
- Same person doing the experiment
IV: Presence of incline plane
RV: Impact
Control: Simple machines w/incline plane
How I eliminated external variables:
I eliminated external variables by:
Using the same ramp - By using the same ramp I can be sure the ramp I'm using for each trial has the exact same dimensions and that the same general amount of friction is being generated each trial.
Using the same weight for every trial - The same weighted object will have the exact same mass and weight every trial, while two different weights may not have the same consistency.
Using the same scale - I know from experience that not every scale measures as accurately as every other scale, but one scale will measure everything with the same accuracy.
Using the same metal rod - Some metal rods are more prone to bending, some have marks in them, and not all metal rods are the same size.
Using the same knife - A steak knife is different from a butter knife and both of those are different from a knife used to core apples. Using the same knife each trial will give the same results.
Using the same timer - Not every timer counts the same, and not every timer gives the time to the nearest hundredth of a second.
Using the same screw - A screw's mechanical advantage is determined by its threads and lead. There are different kinds of screws that are built different with different threads and lead because they're meant for different jobs, so not every screw will give the same results.
Using the same nail - Sometimes, nails can have chips and bends in them that might affect the data, especially since only one screw is being used already so using three different nails would definitely affect the results, but mostly, it's better to use the same nail every trial because it's already hard enough to just make a groove in the head of one nail, but making the exact same groove in three nail heads is another thing entirely.
Using the same rope or string - Certain types of rope stretch, and some generate more friction than others. Also, using a rope in a pulley meant for a string would be much different than just using string.
Using the same wood board - Drilling into oak is harder than drilling into pine, and the depth of the board should stay the exact same, so instead of trying to find three wood boards that are exactly alike, it would save time and wood to just drill six holes into the same board of wood and use that for each trial.
Having the same person do the experiment - Some people are stronger than others and some people are faster than others. In the wedge test, if a stronger person does the trials with the rod and someone who's not as strong does the trials with the knife, the results wouldn't be the same because the amount of force applied to the wedge most likely wouldn't be the same as the amount of force applied to the wedge. Even though the amount of force applied every trial still wouldn't be exactly the same when there's only one person performing the test, the amounts would probably be closer than when there's two different people.
Procedure:
1. Gather materials.
2. Take the two apples and label them A and B.
3. Prepare to cut apple with the metal rod. Get ready to start the timer. Put the apples on a cutting board if needed.
4. Start the timer and try to cut the apple with the rod.
5. Stop the timer when the apple is cut completely in half.
6. Record time.
7. Repeat steps 3 - 6 with apple B and a knife instead of a rod.
8. Record data.
9. Clear off your work space.
10. Take the board of wood and place it in a vice. If a vice is unavailable, make sure the hole being used isn't on top of a surface that could be damaged if the screw or nail exceeds the bottom of the board.
11. Set timer to count down from one minute.
12. Place the tip of the nail in an unused hole and get ready to start screwing it into the wood.
13. Start the timer and use the screw driver to twist the nail into the hole as far as you can in one minute.
14. When the timer reaches zero, stop twisting the nail.
15. Grab nail so the tip of your thumb marks the spot where the nail goes into the wood.
16. Pull the nail out of the wood and measure the length between your thumb and the tip of the nail in centimeters.
17. Record length.
18. Repeat steps 10 - 17 two more times with two unused holes.
19. Repeat steps 10 - 18 with the screw.
20. Record data.
21. Clear you working space.
22. Place the ramp next to the flat surface, or, if the flat surface is attached to the ramp, place the ramp on a level surface.
23. Attach the weight to the luggage scale and hold the scale so the weight is resting on the ground by the ramp and the scale is at zero.
24. Slowly lift the weight up onto the flat surface, reading the numbers on the scale as you go.
25. Record data.
26. Repeat steps 23 - 25 two more times.
27. Place the weight on the ground at the base of the ramp so the scale reads zero.
28. Take the scale, and use it to drag the weight up the ramp. Try to keep the rate which you're dragging the weight the same. Watch the numbers on the scale.
29. Record data.
30. Repeat steps 27 - 30 two more times.
31. Record data.
32. Clean up everything.
Observations:
Wedge - When I did the test, I noticed three things; first I noticed how the time it took for the rod to cut through the apple and the time it took for the wedge was immensely different, then I inspected the apples and saw that the apple cut with the wedge had not only been cut fast, but a lot cleaner. Last, I noticed that I only had two apples to do my experiment with. These observations resulted in me only doing one trial for the experiment, since the results seemed obvious enough.
Screw - After I finished the test and looked over the data, I noticed that the graph showed the distance the screw went into the wood increased each time, while the distance for the nail stayed around the same. I think this means I may have accidentally increased how faster I was twisting the screw and nail into the wood, since the threads of the screw would pull the screw into the wood faster when the screw was turned faster, while the nail would just turn faster because it doesn't have threads to pull it into the wood.
Inclined plane - While testing the incline plane, the scale I was using didn't ever seem to really point at a particular number as much as swing along a certain range of numbers. I noticed that the scale tended to swing through a wider range of numbers while I was pulling the weight up the ramp than when I simply lifted it off the ground. I think this might have been a result of a combination of both friction and the fact that I wasn't pulling the weight at a perfectly constant speed because I'm only human.
Conclusion:
I wanted to find what affect removing an inclined plane from certain simple machines had on how a task that involved those simple machine was preformed. My hypothesis that the tasks would be better preformed when the inclined plane was left intact in the wedge, screw and inclined plane was supported by the data. In each of the tests, the simple machines that had the inclined plane intact preformed the tasks in less time or did more with less work effort.
The reason the machines with the inclined plane preformed better was because it's the inclined plane that makes the machines work. The incline plane was able to make the task easier because it allows one to use less effort over a longer distance by splitting the resisting force of gravity into two smaller forces; one that acts perpendicular to the inclined plane and one that acts parallel. Since the perpendicular force is the one that keeps objects from falling straight away from the slanted surface of the inclined plane, this force doesn't act on movement up or down the inclined plane. Instead, the parallel force, which is only a fraction of gravity's original force, is the one that makes objects slide down an inclined plane. Because there's only a fraction of the usual force pushing the object down, it takes less effort to overcome the force of gravity and move the weight up the inclined plane than it does to do the same through the air.
The wedge could cut through the apple easier than the metal rod could because the inclined planes that make up the wedge's sides cause force applied to the top of the wedge to be exerted perpendicular to the slanted inclined planes. The force pushing in opposite directions can be used to push two objects or two parts of an object away from each other. This is how a wedge, like a knife, can cut through an object. The rod didn't have the inclined planes, and couldn't direct force to either side to force the apple apart, so it ended up crushing through the apple more than anything else, which is harder than cutting because crushing pushes down directly against one solid mass while cutting pushes two smaller mass away from each other.
The reason the nail didn't go into the wood as well as the screw was because the screw's threads allow it to change rotational energy into lateral energy. They can do this because the threads of a screw act like a spiraling inclined plane--objects can be move up or down the plane, and if the object can't move up the plane, the plane, and the rest of the screw with it, moves down. The nail doesn't have this inclined plane to pull it into the wood, so the only reason the nail went into the wood at all was because the force that was applied to the top of the nail while I was twisting it with screwdriver pushed it down
Experiment 3: Proficiency 4 -Pulley, Lever, and Wheel and axle
Problem:
What impact will removing the point of rotation from a lever, a pulley, and a wheel and axle have on how well a task which said simple machines can be used for is performed?
How this meets the proficiency:
This experiment shows how simple machines utilize mechanical advantage by experimenting with how removing a vital part of said machine, in this case, the point of rotation, impacts how well that machine can transfer energy. It tests how the fulcrum of a lever impacts how the lever changes the direction of force to make a task easier, how the point of rotation in a pulley affects how well the pulley changes the direction of force, and how the wheel and axle impacts the amount of effort force needed to preform a task.
Hypothesis:
I believe a task will be preformed better with the point of rotation intact, as, like with the inclined plane in the wedge, screw, and inclined plane, it's the point of rotation that gives these particular simple machines their mechanical advantage, and without it, the lever wouldn't be able to change the direction of force in the opposite direction since it can't make each end go in opposite directions without the fulcrum, the pulley would be able to change the direction of force as efficiently as without the rotation, friction builds up, and the wheel and axle wouldn't be as useful because the entire wheel and axle IS the point of rotation, and to remove the point of rotation, and thus, the entire wheel and axle, would mean a lot more friction would have to be overcome in able for an object to move the same distance as with the wheel and axle in place.
Materials:
- Rope
- Pulley
- Weight
- A bar that's high up
- Paint can
- Screw driver
- Tissue box
- Four toothpicks
- 4 cardboard circles
- Ruler, yardstick, or tape measure
- Timer
Variables:
CV:
- Same rope
- Same pulley
- Same weight
- Same distance from ground
- Same paint can
- Same screw driver
- Same tissue-box car thing
- Same timer
- Same unit of measurement
- Same person doing the experiment
IV: Presence of point of rotation
RV: Impact
Control: Simple machines w/point of rotation
How I eliminated external variables:
Using the same rope - This make sure variables such as elasticity, length, friction generated purely by the rope, and the rope's tendency to slip out of the pulley stay the same every time.
Using the same pulley - To be sure the circumference and amount of friction produced by the pulley is the same.
Using the same weight - It's harder to lift five pounds than it is to lift 1. A heavier weight may also pull the pulley down.
Using the same distance from ground - It takes longer to pull a weight a farther distance. Pulling a heavy weight two feet and pulling a light weight 20 feet will really mess up the results of the experiment.
Using the same paint can - Not all paint cans have the same kind of lid. Not all paint cans are the same size. Not all paint cans are the same material. All of these affect how easy it is to open the paint.
Using the same screw driver - Using my lazor-gun shaped screw driver to open a can of paint would be much hard than using a regular screwdriver And the longer the screw driver, the more force is multiplied.
Using the same tissue box car -The distance from wheel to wheel should be the same, size should be the same, weight should be the same. All those variables will change the distance the car travels, so they should all be kept the exact same.
Using the same timer - Some timers don't count backward, and having to look up to check to see if it's been a minute yet every so often will mean less focus on the task at hand, meaning weird results.
Using the same unit of measurement -15 centimeters is much different than fifteen feet.
Same person doing the experiment - One person trying to use the exact same amount of force every time is hard enough. Getting three people to use the exact same amount of force as each other is even harder.
Procedure:
1. Gather all materials.
2. Take the can of paint and place it on a flat surface.
3. Set timer to count down from three minutes.
4. Start timer and try to open the can of paint with your hands until the can either opens or time runs out.
5. Record time in seconds. If the can wasn't opened, just put 180 seconds.
6. If the can was opened, put the lid back on the can and make sure it's on tight.
7. Repeat steps 2 - 6 two more times.
8. Repeat steps 2 - 7 using a screwdriver as a lever to open the can.
9. Record data.
10. Clear off workspace.
11. Take the rope and throw it over the bar.
12. Tie one end of the rope to the weight.
13. Place the weight on the ground.
14. Start the timer and pull the other end of the rope so that the weight goes up.
15. When the weight touches the bar, stop pulling and stop the timer.
16. Record time.
17. Repeat steps 13 - 16 two more times.
18. Tie a pulley to the bar and place the rope in it.
19. Repeat steps 13 - 17 with the rope in the pulley.
20. Record data.
21. Clear off work space.
22. Take the cardboard circles and shove a toothpick through the center of each to creates wheel and axles.
23. Glue or tape the wheel-less ends of two of the wheel and axles together.
24. Take one of the 'wheels' of one end of the glued together wheel and axles.
25. Push the glued together wheel and axles through the box, wheel-less end first, so that the wheel-less end comes through the box on the other side.
26. Replace the wheel that was taken off in step 24.
27. Repeat steps 23 - 26 with other two wheel and axles.
28. Place some tape on the ground where the box will start and a tape measure or yard stick along where it will roll.
29. Place the box behind the tape.
30. Push the box and let it roll.
31. Record distance traveled.
32. Repeat steps 29 - 31 two more times.
33. Take the wheel and axles out of the box.
34. Repeat steps 29 - 32 without wheel and axles.
35. Record data.
36. Clean up everything.
Observations:
In general, I observed that, in both of the graphs where time was being measured, the amount of time the task took decreased with every trial for each variable, except when I tried to open the paint can without using a screwdriver in the lever test. The pulley test even seemed to be following a pattern of decreasing more than before with every trial.
Lever - When I tried to open the paint can, I expected the second and third trials to have results similar to the first, but both trials turned out much smaller numbers when I opened the can with the lever. The explanation I can think of for this is that the first trial took me longer because I'd never actually opened a paint can with a screwdriver before that first trial.
Pulley - Instead of using a bar placed high off the ground, I had to use a metal ring fixed to the ceiling when I tested the pulley. When the point of rotation was removed, the rope not only took longer to go the same distance, it almost pulled the ring out of the ceiling as well. When the pulley was added, the ring no longer threatened to fall to ground. I think this might have affected my results slightly, since people tend to take more care when a heavy metal ring seems to be about to fall on top of them than when said ring seems secure.
Wheel and axle - During the test, I found out that, when the wheel and axles were removed from the box, the box had a tendency to turn to the side when I pushed it. It always turned to the same side but how much it turned varied. I think this was just a weird occurrence of friction and my position relative to the box.
Conclusion:
I wanted to see what effect removing the point of rotation from certain simple machine had on how well they transferred force to preform a task. I thought that the task would be preformed easier with the point of rotation intact in the machines as it was the point of rotation that gave the machines their mechanical advantage. My hypothesis was supported by the results I got, as the tasks were preformed easier and more efficiently when the machines were able to rotate.
The reason the point of rotation allowed the simple machines to make a task easier was because the simple machines required rotation to utilize their mechanical advantage. The lever, for example, was used to magnify force in the experiment. The reason the lever could do this was because it utilizes torque, which is basically force the rotates. In the experiment, the screwdriver was the lever, and the way that it was positioned made the edge of the can the fulcrum of the lever. The fulcrum of the lever was closer to the resistance force of the paint can lid, than to the handle where force was applied. When the effort arm of a lever is longer than the resistance arm, torque is magnified because it loses less force from having to travel a shorter distance, and more force is applied to the resistance force than was originally applied to the effort arm. When I tried to open the paint can without the lever, force was not magnified, so there wasn't enough force to pry the lid off the can. This is why the can opened so easily when the lever was used.
The pulley both changed the direction of force and reduced the amount of friction created when the rope was being pulled. When the rope was simply thrown over the bar, or through the metal ring in this case, the metal wouldn't move with the rope, so they rubbed against each other, creating friction that needed to be overcome to move the rope. When the rope was placed in the pulley, the wheel of the pulley rotated, moving with the rope instead of pushing against it. this created a significantly smaller amount of friction as the rope was pulled through the pulley.
The wheel and axle functioned in the same way the pulley did in the experiment. It was used to reduce friction and allow more work with less force by rolling over the ground instead of dragging across it. However, the wheel and axles didn't eliminate the friction on the ground because they actually needed friction between the wheels and the ground for the wheels to not slide all over the place. Instead, the friction that needed to be overcome was the friction generated between the axle and where it touched the box as it went through. The toothpick rubbing against the inside of the hole produced less friction than the entire bottom of the box rubbing against the floor, so there was less friction to overcome.
Proficiency 5
Wind Energy
To whom it may concern,
There are times when people have financial troubles, and paying bills become somewhat of a nightmare. To lessen the burden of bills and taxes during these times, people try to lower their bills and energy bills usually become one of the main interests for cutting back. When this fact is couple with the many concerns people have about the environment and how we should find new, more environmentally friendly methods of generating electricity, one can see that a less expensive, 'green' energy source would be desirable. Fortunately, an already existing method of alternate energy could be utilized to help solve these problems; wind energy. Wind energy, unlike more conventional types of energy, is dependent on a plentiful, renewable source that won't ever run out, and is almost always present. The wind turbines that produce the energy can be bought or even built and set up in one's yard, so after the purchase, one doesn't need to pay for the energy produced by a wind turbine. Wind energy is environmentally friendly, and can be less expensive than other energy sources.
Wind turbines are like reverse fans; instead of creating wind from electricity, wind turbines create electricity from wind. Wind is actually created by the sun; the sun heats up the land unevenly, the air around the land gets heat up with it, the hot air rises, and cold air rushes in to replace the rising hot air. The motion of the air rushing in to fill the gap is a form of kinetic energy, some of which can be captured and utilized to turn the blades of a wind turbine if said turbine were to be place in the path of the rushing air. The turning blades turn an axle inside the turbine, though at a pace too slow to make very much energy. However, this problem is solved by utilizing a wheel and axle in the form of a slow pace axle turning a large gear, which turns a much smaller gear. The smaller gear turns at a faster rate because the circumference is small so the large gear only has to turn a fraction of its full circumference to make the smaller gear turn full circle. The faster moving smaller gear turns another axle, which turns a bunch of permanent magnets around a coil. This creates voltage in the coiled wire in the form of alternating current (AC) power. The air used to power this whole thing isn't used up, but simply goes around the blades of the turbine, and the energy isn't lost, just transferred from one form to another, then to yet another so it can be reused again and again. This means the wind energy used to turn the blades of wind turbines and produce AC power is plentiful, has zero chemical emissions, and will never run out, making it easier to obtain than fossil fuels, which are used up faster than they're made.
Because of the way wind energy is created, it has many advantages over other, non-renewable forms of energy. For example, coal power, while more efficient and with a lower production cost, creates an infinite more amount of pollution than wind power and actually costs more than wind power when the initial cost and the expenses taken to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the environment are factored in. While coal power plants constantly release pollutants into the environment, with pollution output that exceeds coal intake by 2.7 million tons, the pollution output of wind turbines is almost completely made up of the small amount created during the manufacture and installation of the turbine. Coal power plants also have a much larger footprint than wind turbines; the plants themselves take up lots of acres of land, and the mines that are needed to supply the coal can take up to two square miles of land. On the other hand, wind turbines have a very small footprint, to the point where a wind farm can be installed in a field and still leave enough room for a farmer to plant his crop, or not being built on land at all. Wind energy runs a power source that will never run out as long as the sun shines, but coal, being a fossil fuel, will eventually run out of the world isn't careful. Wind energy has similar advantages over other fossil fuels, with an added advantage over oil, which America needs to import from foreign countries, including the country we're currently at war with. Wind does not need to be imported because wind is everywhere in the world and can't run out in one particular place like oil.
Wind energy has benefits over nuclear energy as well, starting with cost. Nuclear energy, though also more efficient than wind energy, is much more expensive than wind energy. It can cost up to 18 cents per kilowatt hour, plus the billions of dollars to build the actual nuclear reactor and the cost of the fuel rods, which are $90 per kilogram. Wind energy, which needs no extra money to be spent on fuel, costs 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and a 2 megawatt commercial wind turbine costs a few million dollars to install as opposed to the billions of dollars needed for a nuclear power plant. Along with more money, nuclear power plants take more time, even up to 10 years, to be built as opposed to the 6 months needed for wind turbines, and the amount of pollution created during the manufacturing of both generators follow this trend; it takes 6 months for a wind turbine to make up for the pollution created during its manufacture, and 7 years for a nuclear power plant to do the same. Finally, the radioactive by-product produced by the nuclear power plants poses both a hazard to the environment, and to the economy, as it costs even more money to safely dispose of this waste, a problem wind turbines don't have.
Though wind energy has many advantages, there are also disadvantages to using wind energy. It's not as efficient as fossil fuels and nuclear energy because wind is not constant, and can either slow down, with the risk of leaving the grid with too little power, or speed up in storms, raising the chance of overloading the grid with excess power. Non-renewable forms of energy don't have this problem because their source of energy, while non renewable, generates a more consistent amount of electricity. Wind energy is also less effective than its competitors. For a wind farm full of 2 megawatt wind turbines to generate as much electricity as 1 nuclear power plant that produces 2500 megawatts, it would have to have at least 1250 wind turbines working at full capacity 24/7, which wouldn't be likely to happen. To produce the same amount of power as a 1000 megawatt coal fired power plant, the same farm would need at least 500 wind turbines working at the same rate, which has the same probability of actually happening. Placement can also be an issue, as far too many people have invested in their own wind turbine and place them in locations that gave poor results. Mounting wind turbines on the sides of houses, around structures in general and around trees will cause the turbine to give poor results in the amount of energy it produces because all these things will mess with the wind flow and make it unpredictable. In fact, it's a bad idea to put a wind turbine in or around a city in general, which means the turbines can't be placed near the areas where the energy would be needed most and investments must be made towards transmission lines. Turbines have proved fatal for birds that fly into the blades, and can also be completely destroyed if struck by lightning, unlike nuclear or fossil fueled power plants.
Wind turbines have their disadvantages, but most of them can be fixed, avoided, or are already minor. While the blades of turbines may kill birds, they only account for 1 out of every 5000 to 10000 avian deaths in the united states, and research is being done to lower this number further. The need for wind turbines to be located father away from cities may mean more money is needed to utilize the energy created by the turbine, but the low cost of wind energy would save money and help to pay back at least part of the expenses. Lightning, the worst enemy of wind turbines, might prove destructive toward the inner workings and blades of wind turbines but fatal lightning strikes can be avoided. There are systems inside of wind turbines that protect against lightning by attracting it, a conductive and heat resistant lightning receptor inside turbine blades allowing the lightning to travel along it, through cables in the turbine tower, and into the ground where it does less harm. However, the low efficiency of wind turbines, the biggest drawback in wind energy, is not so easily fixed. There is no foreseeable way to make wind turbines more efficient because of the inconsistent nature of wind, and wind power only generates around 2% of the nation energy as is. With our current technology, the greatest amount of electricity wind turbines will ever be able to create while still being cost effective is 5 to 10% of the nation energy. Wind power alone would not be able to prevent an energy crisis. This doesn’t mean it can’t help lower energy costs, though, especially when used with other renewable sources of energy. Renewable energy sources have already saved taxpayers millions of dollars in energy costs, and kept tons of pollutants from being released into the air on top of this, when they only account for around 10% of the total amount of energy used in America. Even if they can’t completely get rid of America’s dependency on fossil fuels, renewable energy sources like wind turbines can at least reduce how much America uses fossil fuels, cut the amount of pollution created in America, and save money on energy costs. Wind energy and other forms of renewable energy are more environmentally friendly and cheaper than non renewable sources, and even if wind energy can’t prevent an energy crisis by itself, it can still make a difference.
