100% found this document useful (2 votes)
835 views2 pages

Penny Lab Experiment Answer Key

Uploaded by

Carina DiToro
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (2 votes)
835 views2 pages

Penny Lab Experiment Answer Key

Uploaded by

Carina DiToro
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Penny Lab Answer Key - A

7th Grade Environmental Science


Mrs. Krempa

#1. The independent variable in this experiment was the side of the penny.

#2. The dependent variable in this experiment was the number of drops on a penny.

#3. Surface tension is what makes water dome on the penny.


OR…
Water domes on the penny because of surface tension

#4. This lab was a controlled experiment because we only changed one variable which was the side of the
penny. We tried to keep all other variables like water temperature, dropper height etc., the same.
(Other variables could be-year/condition of the penny, dirty/clean penny, design on the penny)

#5. Wallace’s answer… Three trials were taken because if I only did the lab once, I could have made a
mistake that gave me a wrong answer. More trials would let me compare my data and rule out the
mistake.

#6. My group fit __ drops on the Heads side of a penny in trial #1. In trial #2 my group fit __ drops.
(Data Table #1). The results don’t match. We had __ more (less?) drops in trial #1. One reason why the
results don’t match is drop size. A second reason could be the height the eye dropper was held away
from the penny. (other reasons – penny not dry between trials, sponge on a tilt, warm water (not cold),
air bubbles, miscounting drops…)

#7. A. My group average for the heads side of the penny was __ drops. (Data Table #1). The class
average was __drops. (Data Table #2). My group had __drops less (more?) than the class.

B. My group average for the tails side of the penny was __ drops. (Data Table #1). The class
average was __ drops. (Data Table #2). My group had __ drops less (more?) than the class.

C. Overall, both my heads results and my tails results were lower than the class by only a little bit (a
lot?). (Graph #2).
Or …
Overall, my heads results were higher (lower?) than the class by a lot (a little?) and my tails
results were lower (higher?) than the class by a lot (a little?). (Graph #2).

D. Overall the __ side of the penny held more drops for my group. The class however, had more
drops on the __ side of the penny. Our data did not match the class. Overall there was only a __
drop difference between heads and tails for the class on average. (Data Table #2). I’m
surprised! I thought there would be a larger (smaller) difference in the sides. I thought the __
side had way more detail and would hold a lot more water than the __ side.
Or …
Overall the __ side of the penny held more drops for my group and the class. (Data Table #2).
Our data did match the class. I’m surprised! I thought there would be a larger (smaller)
difference in the sides. I thought the __ side had way more detail and would hold a lot more
water than the __ side.
#8. The problem of this lab was to see if the heads side or tails side of a penny would hold more drops of water.
We did this lab because we are studying the steps of the scientific method.

#9. During the Penny Lab, we were required to count the maximum number of drops of water each side of a
penny could hold. We placed a dry penny on a piece of damp sponge and used a pipette to drop water
on the heads side of the penny until the water spilled over. The results were recorded on a data table.
We dried the penny and repeated the trial two more times. We then flipped the penny and repeated the
procedure three times on tails side of the penny.

#10. My hypothesis was that the ___ side of a penny would fit more drops of water. My group’s data
supported my hypothesis because the ___ side of the penny had ___ drops and the ___ side of the penny
had ___ drops. (Data Table #1). I think the __ side fit more drops because it had more detail (or was
cleaner or… whatever you mentioned in your hypothesis!)
Or …
My hypothesis was that the ___ side of a penny would fit more drops of water. My group’s data did not
support my hypothesis because the ___ side of the penny had ___ less drops than the ___ side of the
penny (Data Table #1). I think the __ side fit more drops because it had more detail (or was cleaner
or… other variables that may have affected drop count!)

#11. Problem: Explanation:

1. Drop size Larger drops fit less on the penny, small drops = more
2. Miscounting drops Counting bubbles or missing multiple drops will make your
final count wrong

3. Sponge on slant A slant or tilt to the sponge would make the water spill to
one side easier
Fixes:

1. Use a machine (flowmeter) that makes a specific drop size

2. Count very carefully

3. Make sure sponge is level and not on the paper towel

*Other problems- hot not cold water (surface tension), not drying penny between trials,
air bubbles, not filling pipette all the way, height of pipette…

Common questions

Powered by AI

Controlling variables like dropper height ensures that the potential energy affecting drop formation is consistent, impacting how drops accumulate on the penny. Similarly, preventing any tilt in the sponge ensures uniform gravitational influence on the droplet accumulation, avoiding spillover due to uneven surface inclination. These controls help isolate the independent variable's effect, which is the penny side, ensuring that variations in results are due to that independent variable alone and not extraneous factors .

Miscounting drops can lead to inaccurate results because an incorrect drop count will skew the data, making it difficult to determine the true capacity of the penny to hold water. Likewise, variability in drop size can significantly impact outcomes, as larger drops will lead to fewer drops fitting on the penny compared to smaller, more uniform drops. Ensuring precision in drop size and accurate counting helps maintain data integrity .

Estimating the number of drops each side of a penny can hold involves addressing methodological challenges such as maintaining consistent drop size, avoiding surface tension interference, and controlling external conditions like temperature. Overcoming these challenges enhances the scientific rigor of the experiment, ensuring that conclusions drawn are based on accurate, reliable data. These methodological improvements allow for a clearer understanding of physical properties like surface tension and aid in teaching fundamental scientific principles like control and variable management .

Conducting multiple trials in the Penny Lab is vital to ensure reliability and accuracy of the results. It aids in identifying any anomalies or errors in a single trial, such as miscounting or drop size inconsistencies, and provides data that can be averaged to present a more accurate overall result. Multiple trials enable comparison across different conditions and help in ruling out random errors, thereby increasing the validity of the experimental conclusions .

Discrepancies between group and class averages in the Penny Lab might occur due to variability in experimental execution, such as inconsistent drop size, miscounting, or partial adherence to controlling conditions among different groups. These differences can highlight potential areas for investigation into procedural adherence and error sources, offering educational opportunities for refining experimental techniques and understanding variance in scientific research .

Surface tension plays a critical role in the Penny Lab as it allows water to dome on the penny because the cohesive forces between the water molecules are stronger than the adhesive forces between the water and the penny. Factors such as water temperature and the presence of air bubbles can influence surface tension; warmer water may decrease surface tension, while air bubbles can disrupt the cohesive forces, both affecting how many drops a penny can hold .

A creative alteration to the Penny Lab setup could involve introducing various liquid viscosities to study their impact on the number of drops each side can hold. By using liquids like saltwater, syrup, or oil, the experiment could extend into exploring how different fluid dynamics affect surface tension and droplet formation. This variation would broaden the scientific inquiry beyond water and allow for comparisons across different fluids, deepening understanding of liquid properties and their interactions with solid surfaces .

A hypothesis might state that the tails side of a penny would hold more drops of water due to its smoother surface. Experimental outcomes supporting this hypothesis would show consistently more drops on the tails side across multiple trials. Conversely, if the heads side holds more or an equivalent amount of water, the hypothesis is refuted. Variations in detail, cleanliness, and surface texture of each side could significantly affect these outcomes .

In the Penny Lab experiment, the independent variable is the side of the penny, while the dependent variable is the number of water drops held by the penny. This setup is essential because the independent variable is what the experimenter changes to observe how it affects the dependent variable, ensuring the experiment is a controlled one by keeping all other factors constant. Controlling these variables helps in establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between the variables .

Using tools like flowmeters can significantly enhance the accuracy of the Penny Lab by ensuring consistent drop size, which is a critical variable affecting the number of drops a penny can hold. By automating drop delivery, a flowmeter reduces human error and variability in drop size, leading to more reliable and repeatable data. Such precision tools can validate hypotheses more robustly and diminish data discrepancy caused by manual dropper variability .

You might also like