Science 9H – Solution Fluency Innovation Project – Heater 3000

Introduction 

During the last couple of weeks of science 9 honours, we have been looking at solution fluency. Since we were in the physics unit, our task was to make an electrical device that would solve any sort of problem. But doing so, there were a couple of things we needed to complete before, and after making the circuit. Before we made the circuit, we did some research on how to make the circuit and some background knowledge of the problem that we wanted to solve. After making the circuit, we did a dragon’s den pitch concept. We had to present our idea to some teachers, then they would ask us some following questions

1) Define 

  • To get started, one of the first things we did was zoom call a man named Saul-Paul Mwame. Saul is a social entrepreneur/beekeeper who gave us some tips on problem-solving techniques. He used beekeeping as an example and walked us through his process of problem-solving. I think that helped a lot with making sure that we all had a starting point and getting familiar with all the concepts, it also made sure that the process of this project would go a lot smoother. The second thing that we did was brainstorm some potential ideas whether it was a problem worldwide or even locally. The problem we ended up choosing was sticky residue on an object. We chose this problem because we knew that almost everybody was affected by this problem. Sticky residue is caused by many things like stickers, name/money tags, and many more. Sticky residue is fairly simple but is also very annoying and can be very time-consuming to remove. It comes on your hands, then your hands also turn sticky, lint quickly collects on the sticky surface, so the stickiness you’d turn linty and gross. Similarly, it could damage your object if you keep picking at it for long periods of time. Even though it’s only a 1st world problem, having this device could save you lots of time and effort.
Zoom call with Saul-Paul Mwame adhesive label residue
Zoom call with Saul Mwame                        Example of sticky residue

2) Discover

  • There are many ways that you would solve this problem without our device, but the life hacks you use could be inefficient and wasteful.  You could run some of your objects underwater, others you can’t. For instance, a laptop. If you run it underwater, it would damage the laptop, and additionally, you are wasting lots of water that could be put to a better cause. Likewise, you could use a hairdryer for your object, but you could put your object in danger from things like overheating. Most objects we take labels off of are made out of plastic. The intense heat would melt and ruin your object. A very popular thing to use is oil, acetone, and rubbing alcohol because of the fast and easy results. On one hand, oil can be pretty messy and leave an oily touch to the object. But on the other hand, strong liquids like acetone and rubbing alcohol may leave a distinctive smell on your object and to your surroundings. Additionally, most of these alternative ways do not get your label or sticker off in one piece, it usually leaves a mess. Soaking it in mixtures in liquids is high maintenance and time-consuming. On the contrary, there has been an adhesive remover called goo gone. Although the product gives you quick and easy results, there are one too many hazards that come with the products such as irritating skin/eyes and trigger asthma, also needing ventilation and wearing gloves and googles depending on the person.
Stain Removal
Hairdryer                                               Goo Gone product display

3) Dream

  • Besides the final result of our prototype, our group had a bit of a setback before thinking of the heater 3000. Our original idea was completely unrelated to the heater 3000. Our original idea was to create a phone case built-in wireless charger. But after a couple of days, we found out that the portable charger idea had already existed so we came up with a new plan after some brainstorming. Before we came up with our final design, we had some potential ideas in mind such as, the heat plate taking up the whole lid. This idea was not the best because the heat would overheat the product, another reason was that holding and using the heater would be very inconvenient.

4) Deliver

  • As a part of our project, to finish it off, we had presented our device to 3 staff members as a dragon’s den concept whether they would invest in our product judging from the importance of our problem, the circuit, and the overall result. As far as I can tell, our group had some minor setbacks presenting. Our main reason was that we were unaware that the day to present was Tuesday since the week before, we were told that the presentations would take place Wednesday.  Likewise, our group only had about 15 minutes during lunch to come up with a presentation plan. Considering our circumstances, I believe that our group did well although we missed some points while presenting like how it was lightweight, portable, and mess-free. In order for our device to function, we needed to include a circuit. For starters, our circuit was a simple series circuit. The negative charge from the 9v battery which doubled as a switch connected to the ground and microbit then transfer into the bulb then the charge would go back into the battery making it a complete circuit.

Our group presenting in front of the dragons

5) Debrief  

  • After we had decided on having the heater 3000 as our final decision, the first thing that we did was design the exterior of our design. Since Hanan in our group had experience working with 3D printers that is what our outside layer was made out of. She made sure to design and print the box and lid. Ali was in charge of the coding of the microbit. I did most of the research and coming u As a whole, we all contributed to the making of the circuit. We had thought out the plan on paper beforehand and thought everything through step by step starting from how the lid would look like, the area for heat to come out of, and the light indicator hole. Similar to other groups, we had come across a series of problems. Our first problem was making sure that the lid had fit on top of the actual box so that the lid would not slip and slide. After 3 different prototypes of the lid, we got the last one to somewhat fit. The second problem we encountered was making sure that there was a spot left for the switch. Unfortunately, due to the lack of resources, we could not get the switch that we originally planned on, so instead, we just left the battery pack switch inside the box. Our last problem was the biggest issue because it was supposed to be the main element of how our device worked. This was finding a heat source. Whether it was a heat plate or wire, due to the lack of resources, we could not actually get a heat source. So instead we used a microbit to represent the heat that was coming out, to make the mircobit and the wires that were attached to it a bit more organized, we 3D printed a mircobit holder. Our end result was a portable and lightweight invention which included a white and black-looking box with a microbit and microbit stand at the front. We came to the conclusion that there could have been some improvements in order to get better results, especially getting a heat source, since that was our main element to the device. Additionally adding more components to the heater to make a more complex and advanced circuit/device. If we were to add an extra component it would be a heat adjuster so that you could control the heat level, it would also be a parallel series instead of a simple series circuit. To sum it up, I thought that this project was very educational, fun, and very hands-on. Our group was the biggest reason why we succeeded. Whenever we encountered a problem we were very resilient and came up with a new idea quickly. I hope to do many more projects like this in the future.
 
Ali coding the microbit                                             The circuit inside the device

The final end result                         Our failed results

Website Sources: 

Groth, L. (2021, August 10). How to remove sticker and adhesive residue. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://www.rd.com/article/how-to-remove-sticker-residue/

Pollard, S., & Says, R. (2019, July 10). How to remove even the most annoying stickers & labels. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://hellonest.co/how-to-remove-sticker-residue/

Combiths, S. (2019, May 03). 5 big mistakes you might make using goo gone. Retrieved December 17, 2021, from https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/goo-gone-instructions-clothes-265939

Photo sources: 

“adhesive label residue” by summervillain is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Photo by cottonbro from Pexels

“Stain Removal” by J. Sibiga Photography is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Science 9H- Climate Wonder Question

Sway here:

Ask – The critical questions I researched to answer my fundamental question:   

  • What are the biggest factors to impact climate change?
  • How is the heat of climate change causing natural disasters?
  • Has climate change affected animal growth extinction?
  • How do animals adapt to climate change?
  • How does climate change affect animals’ habitats?
  • How does climate change affect the animal food chain?

Acquire – The digital tools that I used: 

  • Pexles
  • Citation machine
  • Gale engage
  • Google
  • Youtube

Analyze – Here is how I got my information and cited my sources: 

The first thing that I would do once I found good reliable information was to write it down on a notpad in bullet form. I would repeat the process for each critical question. Once  found a source that is usefull, I automatically put it into a citation machine, then pasted it in onto the sway document. As for the photos I found them all on pexels so the citation would just consist of downloading photos and pasteing citations.

Assess –  Here is how the product and process went.

Since this was my first time using many things like sway, citation machine, and pexels, it took a while to get the hang of it but once i figured it out, everything went smoothly. Something I would change for next time is to go a bit more in-depth in the information I find. Next time I will try to watch more videos since this time I only watched one. I think sway could be a very useful tool for other projects.

Science 9H- Aquatic Field Studies

Introduction

During the last couple weeks of science 9 honours, we have been studying the 4 spheres, invertebrates, and water qualities. In correlation to the 4 spheres, we have gone into more in-depth research about the biosphere and hydrosphere. To do so, we visited the oxbow pond, which is right outside our school. As well as the Coquitlam River which is just a couple of minutes’ walk away from our school. The objective of this study was to test the water qualities by using a water quality index, and to go a more in-depth study of the invertebrates; that also helps with getting a better understanding of the 2 water qualities. Additionally, we studied the invertebrates that live in the watersheds which included identifying them. Using the results of the invertebrates we were able to identify whether the water qualities were good or bad.

The Coquitlam River Site

To start off the field studies we began with the Coquitlatlam River. In order to properly collect our data, we went to the River site twice. The first time consisted of collecting water samples to determine the ph, nitrates and temperature change. The second time consisted of finding invertebrates and classifying them.

Data

(Students at the river taking water temperatures, and samples)

We started off by taking the temperatures of the river, then we collected water samples which helped us determine the pH, nitrates. We combined those results with previous data from SFU collected by a professional field scientist a couple of years back. Here are our results:

Coquitlam River
Test Results Units Q-Value Weighting Factor Weighted Q-Value
Dissolved Oxygen 92 % Saturation 95 0.23 21.85
pH 6 pH units 53 0.15 7.95
Temperature Change 4.5o oC 78 0.14 10.92
Nitrates 10 mg/L NO4 50 0.14 7
Phosphates 0.4 mg/L PO4 74 0.14 10.36
Turbidity 2 NTU 93 0.11 10.23
Total Dissolved Salts 50 mg/L 87 0.10 8.7
Approximate Water Quality Index:                                                                                                    77.01

(water quality index)

After calculating these results we can say that the water quality is good using this chart since the water quality score is 77.01. This water condition tells us that the water quality has no harmful substances, and can support various types of life. The river is fit for all recreational activities like swimming and tubing with direct contact.

Invertebrates

In order to get a better understanding of the heath of the waters, we captured invertebrates in the waters and analyzed them. We found that all of the invertebrates were pollution sensitive which means that they are found in the good water qualities, except the dragonfly nymph which is found in somewhat pollution tolerant which means that they are found in good/fair water qualities. Using these results we can say that the water quality for the river was good. Using both the water sample and invertebrate results we can say that they line up; that the water quality is good.

(Students using suber technique to find invertebrates, a student getting ready to get in the water)

Diversity

  • Stonefly (Pollution sensitive) – 4
  • Stonefly larva (Pollution sensitive) -2
  • Mayfly (Pollution sensitive)-8
  • Riffle beetle (Pollution sensitive) -1
  • Caddisfly Larva (Pollution sensitive) -1
  • Dragonfly nymph (Somewhat pollution tolerant) -1
  • (No other living things found)
(The invertebrates we found)

The Oxbow Pond Site

We next headed over to the oxbow pond. Using two different bodies of water can help us differentiate the qualities and invertebrates of moving waters  (river) and still waters ( pond). We went to the pond 2 times. The first time consisted of finding the pH, nitrates, and temperature change. The second time consisted of finding the invertebrates and classifying them.

Data

(The water sample water bucket, students in the pond getting water samples)

We used the same techniques as the river to find results which were by starting off by taking the temperatures of the river, then we collected water samples which helped us determine the pH, nitrates. We combined those results with previous data from SFU collected by a professional field scientist a couple of years back. Here are our results:

Oxbow Pond
Test Results Units Q-Value Weighting Factor Weighted Q-Value
Dissolved Oxygen 90 % Saturation 93 0.23 21.39
pH 6.5 pH units 71 0.15 10.6
Temperature Change 1o oC 88 0.14 12.32
Nitrates 10ppm mg/L NO4 50 0.14 7
Phosphates 5 mg/L PO4 13 0.14 1.82
Turbidity 8 NTU 80 0.11 8.8
Total Dissolved Salts 100 mg/L 85 0.10 8.5
Approximate Water Quality Index:                                                                                                     69.4

After calculating the results we came to a conclusion that the water quality score was 69.4 which means that the water quality was average. This water condition tells us that the water is not of the best quality and is not admirable. So the invertebrates that live in these water conditions aren’t as diverse. In these water conditions, there can be algae growth.

Process

Here is the process of finding the nitrate level.

Since the colour changed to very pale peach colour, we can say that the water is neutral (around 0 ppm)

Here is the process of finding the pH level.

Looking at the colour of the water change we came to a conclusion that the pH level was about 6.5

Invertebrates

In order to get a better understanding of the heath of the waters, we captured invertebrates in the waters and analyzed them. We found that 4 species of invertebrates were pollution sensitive which means that they are found in good water qualities, 4 species were somewhat pollution sensitive, and 3 species were pollution tolerant. Using these results we can say that the water quality of the pond was good because there are some invertebrates that can only survive/ live in good quality waters like the riffle beetle. Using both the water sample and invertebrate results we can say that they somewhat line up because the water quality test was 69.4 which was right below a good score and the water quality using the invertebrates was good. So based on the 2 tests I can say that the water quality is good.

Diversity

  • Gilled snail (Pollution sensitive) – 4
  • Riffle beetle (Pollution sensitive) -1
  • Mayfly (Pollution sensitive) – 2
  • Caddisfly (Pollution sensitive) – 1
  • Damselfly larva (Somewhat pollution tolerant) – 2
  • Dragonfly larva (Somewhat pollution tolerant) -1
  • Watersnipe larvae (Somewhat pollution tolerant) -1
  • Scud (Somewhat pollution tolerant)- 1
  • Water mite (Pollution tolerant) – 1
  • Water boatman (Pollution tolerant) – 9
  • Stick bug (Pollution tolerant) – 2

(some invertebrates that we found, water boatman, damselfly larvae, stick bug)

Other found organisms

  • Fish – 7
  • Tadpole -3
  • Adult dragonfly – 1
  • Ladybug -1
  • Chipmunk -1
  • Bugs on the surface – 3
  • Snails – 3

 

(Other found things, tadpoles, dead bugs, fish)

Comparison of 2 sites

I think that both these sites had some similar features but also had their differences. Overall I think that the river was cleaner because it was a flowing body of water, which explained why we would have fewer invertebrates in the river although the water was cleaner; because the space was bigger. As for the river, I think that the water was less clean because it was a still body of water which meant there would be no circulation. I think that is also why we were able to find more invertebrates in the pond; because it is a more enclosed space. The similarities were the abiotic factors. They both had similar dissolved oxygen, pH, levels, and nitrates. The differences of the abiotic factors are the temperature change, phosphates, turbidity, and total dissolved salts.

Reflection

I thought that these hands-on activities were more interesting because you are there throughout the whole process as opposed to reading off a textbook. This study gave me a better understanding of the biotic and abiotic factors of the bio, and hydrosphere. It also has given me a better understanding of the different bodies of water and how different situations can affect them differently. I thought that going doing this unit in a way that a professional field scientist really gave me a different perspective on things. If the groups were to be a bit more organized I think that it would make the activities more meaningful because at the end there was some confusion on massing some materials on. Overall I think that this was a great experience of working with different people and a really fun activity.