Our experiment does not directly relate to scuba diving, but parts of it do. For example, we tested the buoyant force of objects.  The buoyant force is an upward force on an object. When scuba diving we aim to be neutrally buoyant, which means you neither float to the top, or sink to the bottom. The video to the right shows how we maintained a neutral buoyancy; it is also a link to our videos. The greater the buoyant force, the more weight a diver needs.  For divers, control is one of the greatest skills to master. 

Our experiment tested Archimedes’ Principle. Archimedes’ principle states that the amount of water displaced by an object is equal to the buoyant force on the object. The buoyant force is an upward force on an object. Some of our experiments had results reflecting Archimedes’ principal, others were very off. For example, when the brick was in the water of the Salton Sea, the average weight of displaced water was 1107.95 grams, and the average of the buoyant force was 1150. These results are very close, and nearly prove Archimedes’ principal. Archimedes’ Principal is difficult to prove, but we came very close to having it exactly.

Our results show many different things. To the right is just a few of the results from our tests. We made a hypothesis that Archimedes Principle, which is that the amount of displaced water is equal to the buoyant force, was true. Some of our results proved this was correct, or close; others were extremely off. The Brick in the Salton Sea Water was one of the closest results we had. The weight of the displaced water was only about 10-50 grams off which is remarkable considering other tests, like the Hammer in Pacific Ocean Water, was hundreds of grams off. We have learned that Archimedes’ Principle is true, so our results do have quite a lot of error in them. Although, most of our results were successful.

There was quite a lot of error in our experiment. The first problem that affected the results was that we did not have a set amount of time for the water to drip. This made some results quite different because some tests had water drain longer than others. Also, the hammer created a lot of error. It seems heavy, but due to the wood we had much trouble getting it to displace liquid. The wood always floats, so we struggled to get the hammer to submerge enough to get some liquid displaced. In addition, there may have been some error in the salt water tests. The salt was given a decent amount of time to dissolve, but there is always the possibility that it did not completely dissolve. This may have caused problems when the water was being displaced.  Another factor of error was the carbonation in the 7 up test. The bubbles often stopped in the tube  causing the liquid to have a harder time draining. The picture to the right is the percentages of error we calculated. As you can see, for the most part the brick had low percentages of error. The hammer on the other hand had higher percentage errors, except for the hot water and the Salton Sea when there was no error. This absence of error is probably an error in itself, because it is virtually impossible to have no error at all in an experiment.  This error comes from the fact that the scale we used was measuring in pounds and ounces, which we then had to convert into grams.  However, even one tenth of an ounce makes a big difference when converted into grams, but we were not measuring that closely.  Therefore, all of our measurements for the weight of displaced fluid  are actually estimates.  Error was a big factor in our experiment, but it did not hugely affect all of our results (see above for examples).

If we could redesign our experiment, there is quite a few things we would do. First off, when we had finished doing our experiments we found out that our spring scale was not exactly set on zero. If we were to re do our experiment, we would make sure it was set correctly. Moreover, when finding the weight of the displaced water, instead of transferring from ounces to grams, we would just go straight to grams. The transfer took extra amounts of time, and probably caused some error in our experiment.  Furthermore, we would change the objects we used. The brick gave very good results for the most part, but the hammer’s results were filled with error. We would have liked to use a heavier object, with a more distinct volume, and no wood. The weight, non distinct volume, and wood caused great problems in our results. Finally, if we could redo our experiment we would set a time for the water to displace. The results would have been more accurate if there was a set amount of time for the water to drain. Though there are things we wished we could have changed, for the most part our experiment was very successful.

We learned a lot from our project.  One of the things we learned is how to handle error.  Our project went well, but we had a lot of error because of the objects we used and the calculations we did.  We learned that all projects have flaws and no projects are perfect.  We learned a lot about what we did wrong constructing our project and how we designed our bucket.  In the D.E.E.P. program, we learned how to scuba dive and we learned about the different laws that go with it.  We learned from the very beginning that you have to be prepared and you can’t forget anything.  We learned that you need to cooperate with your group mates or else you will not get your project done in time.  Our project taught us a lot of very interesting, and valuable lessons.