In the conducted experiment, each of the three different materials showed different results, as well as the control which was the pizza box without any materials. The aluminium showed fluctuations in temperature, where it increased to 520C before decreasing. This is because aluminium foil is a metal which possesses free-moving electrons, so when the light hits the material, it is reflected. This is why the insulation is not the highest as the reflection is stronger than its levels of absorbance. The materials displayed a significant rise in the first five minutes because the pizza box was brought from the shade and into the sun, where there is a greater potential for the heat to increase because the temperature was previously at a low. The newspaper showed the most consistent heat gain and insulation, growing at 0.9 degrees per minute. It is most likely because newspaper has a similar absorption and reflection rate, meaning that is able to reflect light rays while absorbing enough light rays that get transformed into heat.
This is why the newspaper was the best insulator – apart from the control – and not the aluminium foil. The bubble wrap displayed unprecedented results in the time elapsed, dropping from a high temperature of 490C to 44.50C, before continuing to decrease. This was because the shade hindered the pizza box before it was moved back into the sun. The material was the weakest insulator, signifying that it reflected more than it absorbed. This could be because the air bubbles in the bubble wrap prevented the light rays to be fully absorbed before escaping out of the lid and into the open. The control showed the highest temperatures, with only a dip during the testing before continuing to rise. It may have been because temperature have been transferred to the grass as there was no barrier between the bottom of the box and the grass.
The results confirm the hypothesis because it is proved by the conducted experiment. The hypothesis claimed that the material newspaper would be the best insulator despite being exposed to the open environment, testing both its ability to insulate, absorb and reflect.However, interferences did hinder the experiment and is evident in the graph for unexpected fluctuations. When timing each interval, the elapsed five minutes that were to see the temperature would be accidentally extended to no longer than one minute. Another error was due to the environmental factors.
During the bubble wrap test, the wind rate increased, and the shade of the tree had reached the area where the box with the material was. It was only around a minute later when the group had realised it was in the shade with no exposure to the sun, and the error can be seen in the graph between the five to ten-minute mark. The differences in day one and two may be the cause for the results of the materials of day two. Also, after testing the control, it was forgotten that the box was never cooled before testing for the aluminium foil.To prevent future error, a timer should be used instead of stopwatch for easier accessibility to time, as well as more focus on the time and pizza box to prevent the environment from interfering with the experiment. Also, the box and thermometer need to be cooled after changes in material to allow the temperature for the next material to have its greatest potential.
