Difference between revisions of "Team:Exeter/Team/collab"

Line 591: Line 591:
 
</script>  
 
</script>  
 
<div class="container">
 
<div class="container">
−
<h1 style="text-align:center">Colaberations</h1>
+
<h1 style="text-align:center">Collaborations</h1>
 
<p id = "pp">Newcastle were doing an experiment which involved creating biological electronic components and asked our team  
 
<p id = "pp">Newcastle were doing an experiment which involved creating biological electronic components and asked our team  
−
if wecould help them by finding the thermal conductivity of growth media. With the help of our resident Biophysist  
+
if we could help them by finding the thermal conductivity of growth media. With the help of our resident Biophysist  
−
<a href="#">Ryan Edgeington</a>
+
<a href="#">Ryan Edgington</a>
 
we came up with a plan to measure the conductivity</p>
 
we came up with a plan to measure the conductivity</p>
  
Line 605: Line 605:
 
thermocouple in the centre to measure the sample temperature. We also ran 0.65m of thin plastic coated copper wire
 
thermocouple in the centre to measure the sample temperature. We also ran 0.65m of thin plastic coated copper wire
 
  (0.05m^2 in diameter) through the falcon tube
 
  (0.05m^2 in diameter) through the falcon tube
−
and attatched a thermocouple. This wire was hooked up to a current source which provided around 5 Amps.
+
and attached a thermocouple. This wire was hooked up to a current source which provided around 5 Amps.
 
  This wire was our heat source used to provide a temperature gradient. </p>
 
  This wire was our heat source used to provide a temperature gradient. </p>
 
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/8/88/T--Exeter--Home_collab_cond.jpg" style="float:right; width:40vw; height:60vh;">
 
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/8/88/T--Exeter--Home_collab_cond.jpg" style="float:right; width:40vw; height:60vh;">
Line 611: Line 611:
  
 
the temperature difference for 10 minutes a test and this produced the graph on the right.
 
the temperature difference for 10 minutes a test and this produced the graph on the right.
−
  Once this difference was recorded The first 50 seconds of data were extracted and the process reapeated.
+
  Once this difference was recorded The first 50 seconds of data were extracted and the process repeated.
−
  We did this at least 5 times per sample to obtain a more relyable result. </p>
+
  We did this at least 5 times per sample to obtain a more reliable result. </p>
 
   
 
   
 
  <p id = "pp"> From the data we found the difference in temperature  
 
  <p id = "pp"> From the data we found the difference in temperature  
Line 622: Line 622:
 
at time $\alpha$ and $T(t_{2})-T(t_{1})$ is our gradient. </p>
 
at time $\alpha$ and $T(t_{2})-T(t_{1})$ is our gradient. </p>
  
−
<p id = "pp"> As we were using plastic coated copper wire we had to ajust the result to find the correct value. To find the  
+
<p id = "pp"> As we were using plastic coated copper wire we had to adjust the result to find the correct value. To find the  
−
ajustment we set up the experiment to calculate the conductivity of water. Using the standard couductivity from  
+
adjustment we set up the experiment to calculate the conductivity of water. Using the standard conductivity from  
 
<a href="http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dturney/WebResources_13/WaterSteamIceProperties/PropOfWaterFrom0to100Celcius.pdf
 
<a href="http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dturney/WebResources_13/WaterSteamIceProperties/PropOfWaterFrom0to100Celcius.pdf
 
">here</a> We found that the conductivity value was roughly
 
">here</a> We found that the conductivity value was roughly
 
one fourth of the known value at that temperature so we could this correction to find our result for lb and m9 growth media.
 
one fourth of the known value at that temperature so we could this correction to find our result for lb and m9 growth media.
 
</p>
 
</p>
−
<p id = "pp">We reapeated the measurement for the lb 6 times, and for the m9 sample 5 times due to time constraints.
+
<p id = "pp">We repeated the measurement for the lb 6 times, and for the m9 sample 5 times due to time constraints.
 
Our value was taken from the average conductivity from all 6/5 tests.  
 
Our value was taken from the average conductivity from all 6/5 tests.  
 
Each testing session had its own water calibration taken. Our errors were taken as the standard deviation of the
 
Each testing session had its own water calibration taken. Our errors were taken as the standard deviation of the
Line 637: Line 637:
 
We found the conductivity of LB to be (605 $\pm$ 20) $\frac{mW}{Km}\text{ }$.
 
We found the conductivity of LB to be (605 $\pm$ 20) $\frac{mW}{Km}\text{ }$.
 
We found the conductivity of m9 to be (570 $\pm$ 30) $\frac{mW}{Km}\text{ }$.</p>
 
We found the conductivity of m9 to be (570 $\pm$ 30) $\frac{mW}{Km}\text{ }$.</p>
−
<p id = "pp"> These values were fairly reliable to what we experianced during the test. The lb media  
+
<p id = "pp"> These values were fairly reliable to what we experienced during the test. The lb media  
−
took the same time to cool down to equlibrium as the water controll test and thus the conductivitys should be the same.
+
took the same time to cool down to equilibrium as the water control test and thus the conductivities should be the same.
−
The m9 sample took a while to cool down so it made sence that the counductivity was lower.</p>
+
The m9 sample took a while to cool down so it made sense that the conductivity was lower.</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
  

Revision as of 13:38, 25 August 2016