User:Rslupski
From MariachiWiki
My name is Rose Slupski and I am currently involved in setting up this webpage for WSE 187. When I'm not setting up webpages for the first time, I am pursuing a major in biology and considering a minor in applied mathematics and statistics. I hope to go on to earn a PhD in the field of neurobiology and eventually become a neurobiological researcher.
I like to take long walks along the beach in the dead of winter...just kidding, but I might not mind doing so during the warmer months. I am partial to a good book, poetry or fiction, and a cup of jasmine tea or a mug of hot cocoa. When I'm feeling especially daring, I get up and walk around and term the activity "exercise." I play the trombone in the wind ensemble (the concert will be April 26th, I believe: come and listen), and I play piano for pleasure, which is what one does when one lacks the talent to play for anyone besides oneself. My eating prowess is the stuff of legend, second only to my sleeping skills. I also have a knack for creating highly original and highly confusing bad puns, so consider yourselves forewarned.
I am a curious kind of person, and I like to figure things out and understand the way things work. I like things that work the way they are supposed to work; I dislike things that seem to malfunction the moment I step into a room.
I sincerely hope that this webpage proves to be a member of the former category.
Enter the wonderful world of WISE 187
What to do on a Saturday afternoon
3/2/06
On Tuesday, we did the Popcorn Lab in class, which consisted of recording the number of "pops" in a bag of microwave popcorn over a period of time (three min.). Questions about "pop" distribution, frequency, average number of pops in a given time and deviations from that average, and the number of popped kernals vs. unpopped kernals (among other questions) are being answered through analysis of the pop data. Before the Popcorn Lab, we were introduced to the scintillator and the particle detector boxes. We examined the number of particles that passed through both boxes, and the rate at which they did so, as we shifted the boxes' relationship to each other, prompting questions about what effects certain configurations would have on the number of cosmic rays passing through both.
Lightbulb moment: Preliminary data from the Popcorn Lab seems to be conforming to a standard distribution bell curve, so graphs for the rate of pops and the acceleration of the popping over time might be able to be created by taking derivatives of the distribution curve (considering it to be in the form A-cos(X)). With the scintillator, the particle data we were recieving seemed to indicate that if the receptor boxes were separated (in our experiments, by a plywood board), interference with the cosmic rays occured so that the number of particles going through both boxes slowed, indicating that distance or an object between objects (receptors) affects the path of cosmic rays through those objects.
Challenge questions: For popcorn, is the time to popping determined by the relative size of a kernal or the moisture inside it, or does the wave pattern in the microwave affect the bag of popcorn unevenly so that specific kernals are subjected to more or less heat than others? For the scintillator, if one placed different interfering mediums between the receptor boxes, how would they affect the particle readings, if at all (i.e., would the rate of particles going through be larger or smaller if the boxes were separated by a block of glass, a piece of wood, insulating material, conductive metals, magnetic metals, etc.)?
3/9/06
On Tuesday, we brainstormed ideas for the labs that we would do for this course that would allow us to learn more about cosmic rays. Some ideas we came up with were measuring the effect that the distance between the scintillators would have on the rate of cosmic rays passing through both and how that distance might delay the channel two wave on the oscilloscope, observing and measuring the effects that different materials had on the cosmic ray rate/count when the material was placed between the two scintillators, determining the direction from which cosmic rays arrived at/went through the scintillators, and figuring out if cosmic rays had simultaneous coincidences.
Lightbulb moment: Observing the effect that adding a length of wire to the circuit into the oscilloscope made me even more interested in finding out what effects distance between separated scintillators would have, and prompted me to help suggest an idea for the lab based on a similar effect.
Challenge moment: Figuring out the best way to separate the scintillators has been difficult, due to the fact that raising one scintillator by placing it on a shelf-like portrusion might cause the shelf material to interfere with the rate. Jesil had a very good idea involving suspending one using pulleys, but the questions of where to attach the ropes, how to rig the mechanism up, and the availability of pulleys were also issues. For now, it seems we'll have to get by with holding the scintillator up ourselves, although this method presents its own problems.
3/14/06
On Thursday, we carried out our first experiment, in which we set out to determine the relationship between scintillator separation and the rate of cosmic ray coincidences, as well as the relationship between scintillator separation and the difference in nanoseconds between the channel one and channel two waves (indicating how long it takes before the ray passing through the first scintillator reaches the second scintillator). We used four-minute trials and took measurements for a control, a large separation, and a series of smaller separations. From preliminary data, it seems that the experiment is confirming our initial hypothesis that the greater the distance between the scintillators, the smaller the number of cosmic rays that pass through both scintillators.
Lightbulb moment: Although we realized it relatively late, we responded, I believe, very well to the challenge of figuring out how to ensure that the scintillators always maintained their initial relative orientation to each other despite several trials of separation. To do this, we came up with a method of marking a string with relation to certain points on the separator and the scintillators which allowed a fairly quick and reliable adjustments.
Challenge moment: Time, specifically the amount in which we must conduct the experiment, is an issue. Our findings would have been much more conclusive had we been able to gather more data at different separations, or even run more than one trial at a specific separation. The difficulty, it seems, will now be to prioritize the procedures so that we get enough data to obtain some end result, even if the findings are only preliminary and general.
- You can find my section of the Experiment 1 report (Remarks)
3/16/06
On Tuesday, we carried out our second experiment, in which we looked at the effect that different materials would have on the rate of coincidences going through two scintillators when placed between the scintillators. The materials we worked with were sheets of aluminum and wood, blocks of lead, concrete slabs, and slate tiles. We wanted to determine if various materials would have any effect on the aforementioned rate, and if so, to what extent each material did so. We had two different setups to make things go a little more quickly, but there were differences between the two: the trial times for the groups were different (4 and 5 minutes) and the separation of the scintillators (the "control" separation) was different between the groups.
Lightbulb moment: We realized that instead of adjusting the control separation to coincide with the individual widths of the materials, we could simply set the scintillators apart a certain distance and leave it like that for all of the trials as long as we took the widths of the materials for analysis. Also, we figured out a good way to do the "angling" experiment, which involves setting the scintillators on a wheel so that their relationship to each other remains the same even as the angles of the two relative to the ground change.
Challenge moment: We weren't sure how much the differences between the trial methods of the two groups would affect the data. Also, it seems that the materials had very little effect on the rate of coincidences, which could be either the actual case or the result of not having the time to take multiple trials of each material to determine if there was a significant difference.
3/17/06
On Thursday, we carried out our third experiment, where we determined if setting the scintillators at different angles would affect the rate of coincidences. This was done by using a wheel-like device (pictures and details will be provided with the report) that was really quite clever (thanks to our instructors and Nathan!). The scintillators kept their relationship to each other but their angles to the ground were changed in 22.5 degree increments. Rough data are demnonstrating a trend where the larger the angle is set(between 0 and 90), the smaller the rate of coincidences through the scintillators. Also, data seems to support that an upside-down setup gets the same results as a right-side up setup.
Lightbulb moment: Seeing the device the instructors had made for this experiment really brought together most of the considerations for this lab. With the device, we could maintain the relationship between the two scintillators, which would allow for easy control of our variables. Also, when we couldn't decide if we wanted to do multiple trials at the same angles or continue collecting data at complimentary angles, I realized, shortly after we had decided on the latter, that it might apply to issues covered by both types of procedures.
Challenge moment: We still may want to account for the different directions in which the rays are coming in (there is a range at any angle), and I'm not quite sure yet what the best way would be to calculate that.
3/21/06
On Friday (a make-up for a snow day), we finished conducting our fourth and last experiment, which was centered around finding the rate of occurance of simultaneous coincidences by using two of the two-scintillator (top-bottom) setups that we had been using to determine if any coincidences went through both sets at the same time, and if they did, what the prevelance of those simultaneous coincidences were. The only variable we changed in this experiment was the lateral distance between the two sets of scintillators to see if that had any effect on the number of simultaneous coincidences observed. The data appears to support the relative rarity of the occurance of simultaneous coincidences as the amount recorded (vs the amount of coincidences through just one set of the scintillators, also measured) was very small. It became even smaller as the two sets of scintillators were moved away from each other, indicating that simultaneous coincidences may be more likely to occur close to one another, as opposed to far away, which makes sense with the information given to us by Dr. Forman on cosmic ray showers.
Lighbulb moment: The comparison of the simultaneous coincidences to single coincidences was probably the most relevant way to present the data, as it would give a kind of ratio of simultaneous to single coincidences that would be more easy to compare to error measures and other small phenomena. Dr. Forman's information also helped to illustrate the process that we were trying to study.
Challenge moment: We should probably determine if the amount of simultaneous coincidences is enough to be more significant than possible error measurements that could have arisen to give us incorrect data. If our number of assumed simultaneous coincidences is more likely to be composed of expected errors in the scintillators, our data will be much less conclusive than we would have liked. I'm not quite sure how to determine/where to find the statistics on error ranges of these scintillators.
- You can find my section of the Experiment 2 report (Remarks)
3/23/06
Tuesday was our last class for this session of WISE 187. We re-took the initial survey on cosmic ray knowledge and computing abilities (hopefully the scores improved) and wrapped up final directions for our assignments. We also brainstormed some ideas for new cosmic ray experiments/elaborations on experiments which we had already conducted. We came to the agreement that this class, due to its relatively short duration, was centered around the process of research and experimentation, with cosmic rays as the focus of otherwise open-ended experimentation. A final blog entry will be posted later, with the final report.
Lightbulb moment: Our experiments were largely preliminary in nature, and more significant research could be done in the same vein by expanding on the procedures. As was discussed in class, the possibility of a research-based course (a full semester) on cosmic rays (or other topics chosen by the instructors) might be a very appealing option to WISE students as well as science or research-oriented students in general, and it is an idea which I believe should be seriously considered.
Challenge moment: There are still a lot of things that I don't really know about cosmic rays. However, I do know people who are working with cosmic radiation exposure in pilots and flight attendants, so it may be something I could follow up on and get more information to see how cosmic rays tie into biology.
3/23/06...later!
Since the final blog is, in fact, supposed to be posted today (oops...), I will wrap it up with a few last things that my previous post didn't cover.
One of the things that I found unique and interesting about this class was the use of the wiki. I am not exactly a computer whiz, and many of the things that this site uses were new to me and I had to learn them on the fly. It was actually a very educational experience, and I have a better grasp now of some of these webpage skills.
I must also say that, considering the time restraints, the devices and set-ups that our instructors were able to provide with such short notice were very well-suited to our experimental ideas. Personally, I think that it might benefit everyone in general if these devices (especially Cosmic Chris and the Wheel of Cosmic Rays) were put to further use in later experiments (perhaps in conjunction with high school students?) to gather more data and obtain more precise results.
The biggest challenge in the course was finding a time and place so that all of us could meet as a group and put our ideas into a cohesive whole. It seemed, however, that despite these scheduling difficulties, we still managed to come up with fairly organized procedures and goals. This is the primary reason why I think that making this session into a semester-long course would be a good idea: with more time, students could get a more thorough background in cosmic rays, and they would also be able to conduct experiments that required more extensive planning, or repeat our previous experiments with more data points and greater precision.
Overall, this session was a very good introduction to research: although it could be rather fast-paced at times with the number of experiments to perform and write up in the few weeks of the session's duration, we all seemed to be thinking on our feet and getting things done as efficiently and precisely as possible.
With that said, I wish the best of luck to the girls in the next session, and I want to thank the instructors for giving us this opportunity to learn about cosmic rays and research in the physics department at Stony Brook!
