Viscosity Science Lab Essay Example for Free

Viscosity Science Lab Essay Purpose: To determine of changing the viscosity will affect the time it takes for a marble to flow through a liquid. Hypothesis: If a marble is dropped into dish soap and corn syrup, than I predict that the marble in the dish soap will travel faster than the marble in the corn syrup because I know that the viscosity of the corn syrup is thicker than then the viscosity of the dish soap. Also, the particles in the corn syrup are more compact than those in the dish soap. This makes the marble sink faster in the dish soap than the corn syrup. Apparatus: * 2 identical marbles * 250 Graduated Cylinders of 250mL * 250mL of dish soap * 250mL of corn syrup * 1 timer/stopwatch Procedure: 1. Drop one marble in the graduated cylinder of corn syrup and begin timing 2. Continue timing until the marble hits to the bottom and stop the timer 3. Record the time result in the qualitative chart 4. Record all observations in the quantitative chart 5. Repeat all steps from 1-4 fir the graduated cylinder of the dish soap 6. Clean up the work area Observations: Qualitative Observations Dish Soap| Corn Syrup| * Green * Quick * Pungent * Bubbles * Translucent * Level rose * Bright * Not Viscous| * Level Rose * Very Slow * Bubbles *  Translucent * Pungent * Viscous * Muted * Dark| Quantitative Observations: Dish Soap| Corn Syrup| 7.24 seconds| 87.25 seconds| Data: See graph attached at the end of this lab. Conclusion: Yes, my hypothesis was correct. I discovered that a marble travels approximately 7 seconds in 250mL of dish soap and approximately 87 seconds in corn syrup. Also, I found that the corn syrup is more viscous than the dish soap which is what caused the slow and fast sinking. This result occurred because the particles in the corn syrup are much larger than normal particles. These large particles within the corn syrup take up more space. Since the particles take up so much space, they tend to block each other and not let them pass through. It is very difficult for large particles to move past each other unlike small, tiny particles, like those in the dish soap. The particles in the dish soap are very small and can move more freely and quickly. In the dish soap, the particles are very small and can move past each other easily when compared to the particles in the corn syrup. Another reason also contributed to the result of this experiment. Attraction. Some types of particles tend to attract more than others and that is exactly what happened in the corn syrup. The particles in the corn syrup attracted more than the dish soap. The large particles in the corn syrup held tightly to each other, that when the marble fell in that it made it hard for the marble to pass through more than one particle at a time. IN the dish soap, the particles did not attract as much as the corn syrup which let the marble move easily and quickly through the liquid. The strength of attraction as well as the particle size is important in determining a fluid’s viscosity. Application: This viscosity experiment can be used in real-life when making sun-tan lotion as well as other cosmetic products. It is important for the lotion to be viscous because the lotion could not be applied and spread around the  body if the cream was not viscous enough to suit its use. It would drip all over you! It wouldn’t dry or stay in one place. Many well-known businesses hire highly educated scientists to calculate the right viscosity level and if it is not correct nobody would buy the product. People who once thought highly of the product would think that it has gone bad and useless. Profits would go down for the business and since nobody would by it, the business would have to be shut down. Many jobs would be lost and many businesses would have to be shut down. Jobs from the factory, the transport services, the marketers, and the retail stores would be lost and many people left with nothing but a pension. Viscosity is seen all around the world and it is very important for the measurement of viscosity to be pin-point and accurate.

A Comparison of Things Fall Apart and Julius Caesar Essays -- comparis

Comparing Things Fall Apart and Julius Caesar      Ã‚  Ã‚   "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe and "Julius Caesar" by William Shakespeare are two very different books that are interrelated through their similar themes and characters. There are characters from both stories that can connect to one another through their common motives and characteristics. Many of the main themes and elements of the stories are similar including a tragic ending and themes of betrayal, honor, and conflict. However, there are differences between the characters and themes from the two books as well.    In Things fall apart, Okonkwo would resemble Caesar most because they were both men of high titles with success in war and battle. Okonkwo was a well accomplished soldier known for the many heads that he had severed off enemies during tribal conflicts. Casesar was one of the greatest generals of all time bringing Rome to its peak height of power. Both men did not fear death but meet death abruptly. Even though they were very similar, Caesar was killed by an assassination, while Okonkwo commits suicide.    Mr. Kiaga, the translator and negotiator for the Christian missionary can be matched most easily to Antony. Both men had great oratory skills which they put to good use. Kiaga used his skills to convert and had won many converts to the new faith. Antony used his oratory skills to convince the crowd at Caesar's funeral that Brutus and the conspirators had killed Caesar unjustly. Both men had very loyal qualities. Antony was loyal to Caesar and wanted to avenge Caesar's death. Mr Kiaga was loyal to the church and Mr Brown, the priest and head of the missionary. Even though they are similar in many ways, they have differe... ...ad done nothing at all and Brutus killed him because he believed that the general would change into a tyrannical ruler. Caesar's ambition could have destroyed Rome if it wasn't for the noble actions of Brutus.    Even though these two books may seem very different, they also share many similarities. Though they are not related through their plots, they definitely share some very important themes and resemblance of characters. Through these similarities, two different stories in completely different time frames and locations can be brought together in many instances.    Works Cited:    Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. 1958. The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces, Expanded Edition, Vol. 1. Ed. Maynard Mack. London: Norton, 1995. Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar. Ed. Alan Durband. London: Hutchinson & Co. Publishers Ltd., 1984.

Far From the Maddening Crowd Essay

Bathsheba Everdene is the main character in the book â€Å"Far From The Madding Crowd. † She is central to nearly every situation and is held in high regard by the village people. She has her ups and downs in the book, her highs and her lows, finding love and happiness, only for it to be torn away from her and handed back to her in the not too distant future! Bathsheba begins the book in a cold hearted way, first refusing to marry Gabriel Oak and then playing with the feelings of farmer Boldwood, this coming back to haunt her further in the book. She reluctantly sent Boldwood a Valentines card aided by her maid Liddy’s persuasion, declaring her love for him, and seemingly to her surprise, poor Boldwood takes it very seriously resulting in a cat and mouse game of love. In chapter 24 at the fir plantation, Bathsheba was heading home when she bumped into a dark stranger and became tangled up in his boots. She tried to wriggle free but to no avail. After a lot of fiddling by the stranger, he freed Bathsheba and rose face to face. Bathsheba asked him â€Å"Who are you then, who can so well afford to despise opinion? † The stranger replied â€Å"No stranger. Sergeant Troy†. Bathsheba was evidently spooked by Troy; little knowing he’d be her future husband. Bathsheba met up with Troy on several occasions and subsequently fell in love with him. They agreed to marry whilst on a visit to Bath and returned to Casterbrige to Boldwood’s and Oak’s despair as Mr. and Mrs. Troy. When Boldwood discovered the news, he was erratic in his actions. He offered to buy Bathsheba from Troy and eventually after torment from Troy, he murdered him in front of the whole of the village at a Christmas party. He then proceeded to kill himself with the same gun and in the same spot where Troy died. Bathsheba was deeply upset about the death of her husband despite the fact he declared he did not return her feelings after the death of his previous fianci , Fanny Robbin. Eventually our widow married Farmer Oak whom she clearly was in love with from the first time they met. Bathsheba’s toying with Oak, Troy and especially Boldwood could be seen as a reason for her not to find happiness in the book, but despite her unkind joke with Boldwood, Bathsheba didn’t set out to hurt anyone and was caught up in a battle for her love between these men. After the death of Fanny Robbin, it was evident that Troy was still in love with this woman, despite her failing to show for their wedding. He blamed all his misfortune on his wife, Bathsheba and he bullied her into feeling that she was to blame. The death of Troy was a blessing in disguise as she would have been sad for all her days and would not have ended up married to Oak. All in all, I feel that Bathsheba deserved to be happy, as she was an honest, hard working woman who was independent and capable. I think she was genuinely sorry for the Valentines card to Boldwood. She finally does find happiness in Oak and realises his companionship and true love is what she has wanted all her life. I think Gabriel Oak certainly was the right man for her as, like his name suggests, he was angelic, solid and dependable. This was evident when he stays by her, and by his actions on the night of the storm when he and Bathsheba worked together to cover the crops. It is evident they are in love when they cast eyes upon each other and fail to remove them for a few seconds, showing mutual unspoken understanding and purpose.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a key component of the civil rights movement that seeks to enforce the Constitutions guarantee of every Americans right to vote under the 15th Amendment. The Voting Rights Act was designed to end discrimination against black Americans, particularly those in the South after the Civil War. Text of the Voting Rights Act An important provision of the Voting Rights Act reads: No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. The provision reflected the 15th Amendment of the Constitution, which reads: The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. History of the Voting Rights Act President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965. The law made it illegal for Congress and state governments to pass voting laws based on race and has been described as the most effective civil rights law ever enacted. Among other provisions, the act prohibited discrimination through the use of poll taxes and the application of literacy tests to determine whether voters could take part in elections. It is widely regarded as enabling the enfranchisement of millions of minority voters and diversifying the electorate and legislative bodies at all levels of American government, according to The Leadership Conference, which advocates for civil rights. Legal Battles The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several major rulings on the Voting Rights Act. The first was in 1966. The court initially upheld the constitutionality of the law. Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat wide-spread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required nine states to get federal approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, D.C., before making any changes to their election laws. That preclearance provision was originally set to expire in 1970 but was extended numerous times by Congress. The decision was 5-4. Voting to invalidate that provision in the act were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Voting in favor of keeping the law intact were Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Roberts, writing for the majority, said that portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was outdated and that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions. Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions. In the 2013 decision, Roberts cited data that showed turnout among black voters had grown to exceed that of white voters in most of the states originally covered by the Voting Rights Act. His comments suggest that discrimination against blacks had diminished greatly since the 1950s and 1960s. States Impacted The provision struck down by the 2013 ruling covered nine states, most of them in the South. Those states are: AlabamaAlaskaArizonaGeorgiaLouisianaMississippiSouth CarolinaTexasVirginia End of the Voting Rights Act The Supreme Courts 2013 ruling was decried by critics who said it gutted the law. President Barack Obama was sharply critical of the decision. I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent. The ruling was praised, however, in states that had been overseen by the federal government. In South Caroline, Attorney General Alan Wilson described the law as an extraordinary intrusion into state sovereignty in certain states. This is a victory for all voters as all states can now act equally without some having to ask for permission or being required to jump through the extraordinary hoops demanded by federal bureaucracy. Congress was expected to take up revisions of the invalidated section of the law in the summer of 2013.