Introduction
Elena Muhs was contacted by the company Tantrum Toys to test a new bubble solution they had created to see if it would make bigger, longer lasting bubbles compared to other formulas. Her group was instructed to test six bubble solutions, one of which was Tantrum Toys new solution and another was Tantrum Toys currently marketed solution. Each solution was identically packaged and marked with only a solution number in order to eliminate the possibility of bias in the laboratory. Muhs and her group of scientist have been asked to find the best bubble solution.
Muhs was instructed to test the size of bubbles created from each solution in two tests, one was a dome bubble test and the other was a free-floating bubble test. The dome test was conducted by blowing through a straw into a pan of solution to create a domed bubble. In the free-floating bubble test, Muhs’s team created a bubble maker to create free-floating bubbles and they recorded the diameter. The data was collected, reviewed and sent to Tantrum Toys in order for the company to …show more content…
My group noticed that for Solution 1 the bubbles the were created were rather small and usually multiple were made. It was hard to make one large bubble and it usually lasted a short amount of time. The solution was also quite thin and sudzy. Solution 2 was a thin liquid and would also form multiple bubbles but there seemed to be an equal chance of making a small or large bubble. Solution 3 was a thick liquid and it usually made one large bubble but it was harder to blow a bubble. For Solution 4 multiple large bubbles were created but they would pop easily. Solution 5 would create one bubble or multiple bubbles which would not pop easily. Solution 6 was a thick substance that produced multiple bubbles that popped easily. These observations showed some positives and negatives of each
Elena Muhs was contacted by the company Tantrum Toys to test a new bubble solution they had created to see if it would make bigger, longer lasting bubbles compared to other formulas. Her group was instructed to test six bubble solutions, one of which was Tantrum Toys new solution and another was Tantrum Toys currently marketed solution. Each solution was identically packaged and marked with only a solution number in order to eliminate the possibility of bias in the laboratory. Muhs and her group of scientist have been asked to find the best bubble solution.
Muhs was instructed to test the size of bubbles created from each solution in two tests, one was a dome bubble test and the other was a free-floating bubble test. The dome test was conducted by blowing through a straw into a pan of solution to create a domed bubble. In the free-floating bubble test, Muhs’s team created a bubble maker to create free-floating bubbles and they recorded the diameter. The data was collected, reviewed and sent to Tantrum Toys in order for the company to …show more content…
My group noticed that for Solution 1 the bubbles the were created were rather small and usually multiple were made. It was hard to make one large bubble and it usually lasted a short amount of time. The solution was also quite thin and sudzy. Solution 2 was a thin liquid and would also form multiple bubbles but there seemed to be an equal chance of making a small or large bubble. Solution 3 was a thick liquid and it usually made one large bubble but it was harder to blow a bubble. For Solution 4 multiple large bubbles were created but they would pop easily. Solution 5 would create one bubble or multiple bubbles which would not pop easily. Solution 6 was a thick substance that produced multiple bubbles that popped easily. These observations showed some positives and negatives of each