cosmic ray detection n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Cosmic Ray Detection PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Cosmic Ray Detection

Cosmic Ray Detection

172 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Cosmic Ray Detection

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Cosmic Ray Detection By: The Purple Panthers Athena Ierokomos Lizzy Eisinger Patty McNinch (grouchy old lady) Mr. Lim Yongkyu Amanda Allen

  2. Our Goals • Our goal was to test the amount of cosmic rays in various locations with a cosmic ray detector. • In addition to the variable of location, we also tested cosmic rays detected twice in each location, once with the detector wrapped in aluminum foil and once without.

  3. Hypothesis • The data will reflect that the aluminum foil will have little affect on the amount of cosmic rays detected by the paddles. • There will be the most cosmic rays detected on top of the car garage. • The vault will have the least cosmic rays detected.

  4. Materials • Cosmic ray detector • Enough aluminum foil to completely cover the detector paddle openings • Thermometer • Stopwatch

  5. Procedure • Collect materials • Take materials to site of test • Plug in and turn on detector • Time for a three minute interval on infinite count • Record cosmic ray count • Repeat steps 4 and 5, four additional times • Wrap entire open area where scintillator paddles are exposed with aluminum foil • Repeat steps 4-6 • Record temperature • Repeat steps 2-9 for all locations • Average the number of counts for each location • Graph results

  6. Data Collection

  7. Comparison

  8. Results • When we tested in the vault, the average counts differed by one between the foil and no foil. • The basement also showed little difference between the average foil and no foil counts. • Even though there were no significant differences between the average counts on the roof of the car garage for foil vs. no foil, there were some unexplained spikes in the individual counts in the trials. • On the grass outside, we had a big difference between the average counts. With foil, the average was 290.6, while without foil, the average was 315.0. This discrepancy was partially due to the fact that one of the trials with foil had a count of 228 compared to a different trial of 312. This was a large range in counts.

  9. Conclusion • In conclusion, our hypothesis was correct in stating that the aluminum foil would have little affect on the number of cosmic rays detected. The average counts were very close for each location with and without foil. • Our prediction of detecting fewer cosmic rays in the vault than any other location was correct. • The garage, on the other hand, did not have the most cosmic rays detected. The highest count was recorded on the grass.

  10. The location of the detector did not affect the percent error. • We had the greatest percent error on the grass with foil. • We had the lowest percent error in the vault with foil. • The temperature might have had an affect on the number of cosmic rayswe detected.

  11. We feel that the cement played a greater part in blocking cosmic rays than we had first anticipated. This would explain why the grass had the highest count and the vault had the lowest. • The experiment ran smoothly considering the few minor problems we encountered.