Analytic Essay

 Background Information

 Lab Report

 Method and Materials

 Hypothesis

 Index

Results

 Photos

 Diagram

 Animations

 Bibiliography

Enhancement

 DEEP Homepage

 

 In our experiment, we tested how well sound travels through water at different distances. To do this, we burned two different sounds on a CD, one high frequency and one low frequency. To test this, we had to waterproof a sound sensor and speakers. Once in the water, we tested each sound at four, ten, and twenty feet away from each other. We also did this above water as our control.

While doing our experiment, we learned many things. First we learned that we needed to test our waterproofing before doing our experiment. If we would have done this, we would have been able to perfect the waterproofing because both of our non-waterproof devices, the sensor and the speakers, flooded. Second, we found a large margin of error. According to our data, the sounds traveled better five feet under water than above water. This is accurate. But some of these sounds could have come from the background sounds in the pool. Some other problems could have come from faulty equipment.

An example of how this applies to scuba diving is when a scuba instructor is trying to get the attention of his/her students. The scuba instructor will use various amounts of devices such as banging a scuba knife against the tank. The sound of this will travel very well under water getting the attention of the students.

Our data showed that sound travels better under water than above water. Our data was very hard to measure for many reasons. It was hard to measure because there were a lot of other background noises. One noise would have come from Becky's regulator (mouth piece for breathing), which released bubbles every time she exhaled. Becky was holding the sound sensor so the sensor would have picked up noise that she made. (We then got our data from the peaks of the graph.) The sound sensor would pick up this noise and it would show up on the graph. It could be the peak of the graph, which we would then base our information on. This would mean our conclusion was based on the bubbles, not the actual sound. Other noises could have come from other people's projects that were going on at the same time. We would then be taking data from the noise of their projects, not ours.

We have a lot of future advice for the coming years interested in this topic. First, the future group would use a waterproofed sound sensor to record sounds (high and low frequency) with a microphone (waterproofed) under water. Then the group would edit out the sound error. They would do this by playing back the sound and editing out all the background noises. Then the group would play the edited sound back for the sound sensor, above water. This would reduce the destruction of the sound sensor. This would reduce error, thus giving much more accurate information. We highly recommend this for future years, interested in sound underwater.

Next we advise better waterproofing, of all underwater materials. Our sound sensor got drenched along with our speakers. First of all if the future groups use our recommended method they will have to waterproof a recorder and speakers. The best thing to do in the process of waterproofing is testing. The tests should happen multiple times before the experiment is performed. The testing should be done after all the materials are put in the boxes or bags. We tested the plastic "glad-ware" boxes without the materials and it worked. But when we put the materials (such as the sensor) in the plastic box it got drenched. Testing for waterproofed materials multiple times would help reduce flooding during the actual experiment.

 Background Information

 Lab Report

 Method and Materials

 Hypothesis

 Index

Results

 Photos

 Diagram

 Animations

 Bibiliography

Enhancement

 DEEP Homepage