Materials unit project
In chemistry this semester, we have focused on how material's chemical structure affects its use and physical properties. Materials behave in different ways based on their chemical structure or bond, and all materials show unique characteristics specific to the the structural patterns. Some of the physical characteristics we see in materials that help us to understand its chemical structure are malleability, conductivity, strength, brittleness, heat conductivity, reactivity, ability to dissolve, and many others. For example, substances that are covalently bonded tend to have a lower melting point, little to no conductivity, and is very brittle. When compared to substances that are ionically bonded, their characteristics are almost the exact opposite. Materials will act differently based on the way they are formed, and there are several different ways they can be formed. Physical and chemical properties of a substance give us information as to what the intermolecular structure is, and this is helpful because we can manipulate the chemical structure of materials in order to create useful objects and devices in the world.
Chemistry has played an important role in shaping our past, influencing our present and in the creation of the future. When there is a clear understanding of how materials and substances works, it can be manipulated and utilized to help benefit us or improve the things that we use. For example, we see advancements in medicine everyday because when understanding the chemistry behind new medicines it can help us prevent unwanted side affects, and helps us improve practices that may be harmful. With advancements in technology, it has helps doctors and chemists to see clearer what chemical structures, bonds and reactions do what to the body. Because they can gain better understandings of this, I think that we could be headed towards a future in which we will find treatments for some of the world's worst sicknesses. If we look at our history and how much we have advanced in chemical engineering for medical purposes, we can predict that we will only continue to grow.
LETTER TO BROOKLYN MUSEUM
Dear Ken Moser,
My name is Hanna Martens and I am a junior at Animas High School in Durango, Colorado. Because of my deep passion for art, I would like to address the importance of preserving art pieces that may be deteriorating over time in your facility. I am aware that at your museum you have many paintings from all eras, and I felt this is a relevant concern. Due to your expertise you know that whether it is lighting or natural causes, paintings are bound to fade and fall apart as time progresses. Exhibits from the 18th century and earlier are the largest groups of art that are deteriorating at this point in time. Art gives us an insight to our past, and is necessary to learn from and admire, which is why I am concerned with the restoration of it. I am recommending the use of a newly designed urea-aldehyde retouching resin for this purpose.
Many products have been created to slow the aging process of art pieces and the most common product used, synthetic varnish, has not significantly enhanced paintings. As testing has progressed, scientists have found that synthetic varnishes are not ideal when preserving and restoring paintings because they yellow and become insoluble in hydrocarbon solvents (which are equivalent to oil based solvents) over time due to cross-linking and photo-oxidation. Cross linking is a bond that links one polymer chain to another and promotes differences in the polymers’ physical properties, which would cause distortion the original image. Photo-oxidation is the degradation of polymers when exposed to oxygen or ozone, which is the most significant factor of weathering polymers. It is a chemical change that reduces the polymer’s molecular weight, and this process occurs to the resins when applied to paintings. Synthetic varnishes also do not imitate the natural polymeric structure of the paint, therefore causing more potential damage and deterioration. Instead of synthetic varnishes, I would recommend the use of urea-aldehyde resins.
Urea-aldehyde resins can be understood by developing knowledge about the two components (urea and aldehyde) individually and how they combine. It is necessary for retouching materials to be versatile, stable, and suitable for a large array of artistic panaches and techniques. The urea-aldehyde resin is desirable for bringing paintings back to life because of its photochemical stability, good pigment wetting, permanency, and working properties similar to those of the original painting. Aldehyde resins are an appropriate painting medium because they have a low molecular weight and are slightly polar, so they wet pigment more easily. This happens because paint is also polar, and polar substances have the ability to combine due to its unequal sharing of electrons between atoms. Aldehydes have the capability to dissolve within the paint easily because its structure allows it to mix with other molecules. This helps the aldehyde resin to coexist with the hydrocarbons that make up the painting. Aldehydes are very similar to the type of hydrocarbon in oil paints that have a particular function group. However, their structural properties differ resulting in partially altered physical characteristics. Hydrocarbons are essentially non-polar and have a lower resistance to aging and deterioration, where aldehydes have a much better endurance to the elements because they contain stronger intermolecular bonds. This endurance not only allows for the painting to age slower, but also reacts well with the existing materials in the art piece.
The second component that makes this retouching paint work properly is urea which is a water soluble compound made of Ester bonded to two amine groups. When urea is combined with aldehyde it causes a chemical reaction in which the two substances polymerize. This polymerization creates a thermosetting resin, which means that once the two materials have combined they form a shell-like substance that cannot be undone. With the properties that the aldehyde provides, and the function of the combined substances, this resin has been proven to guarantee a rise in overall quality of the existing art piece. This substance works for resisting deterioration and protecting the painting because the polymer layer on top of the paint is relatively unreactive, has a high heat distortion temperature, and is completely transparent. It has low water absorption, high surface hardness and volume resistance which opposes the flow of electric current. This polymer is chemically inert because, like most polymers, they are consistent of long chains of molecules that have very few reaction sites. The molecular chains created during the polymerization process are long, therefore leaving less open ended molecules for other substances to react with. The polymer’s transparency is similar to that of glass because it comes from its relatively loose structure. Like an amorphous solid, this polymer is in a state of matter in which the atoms and molecules are locked into place, but instead of forming orderly crystals they arrange themselves randomly, giving it the rigid feel of a solid while having the arrangement of molecules like liquids. The transparency and inertness of this specific polymer are ideal properties because it protects and revitalizes paintings, while capturing the essence of the original image.
I am recommending this pale, yellowing-resistant aldehyde resin that is soluble in almost all paint solvents and compatible with practically all coatings and raw materials to improve the deteriorating art you have in your facility. I would love to see you to look into products that exist with the explained physical and chemical properties, because preserving historic art, as you know, is so important. Not only will it brighten and improve the quality of the paintings existing in your facilities, but it will last for an extensive period of time. I appreciate your consideration of my idea and would welcome feedback. Feel free to contact me by the address provided in the letterhead or at my email address at [email protected].
Regards,
Hanna Martens
Chemistry has played an important role in shaping our past, influencing our present and in the creation of the future. When there is a clear understanding of how materials and substances works, it can be manipulated and utilized to help benefit us or improve the things that we use. For example, we see advancements in medicine everyday because when understanding the chemistry behind new medicines it can help us prevent unwanted side affects, and helps us improve practices that may be harmful. With advancements in technology, it has helps doctors and chemists to see clearer what chemical structures, bonds and reactions do what to the body. Because they can gain better understandings of this, I think that we could be headed towards a future in which we will find treatments for some of the world's worst sicknesses. If we look at our history and how much we have advanced in chemical engineering for medical purposes, we can predict that we will only continue to grow.
LETTER TO BROOKLYN MUSEUM
Dear Ken Moser,
My name is Hanna Martens and I am a junior at Animas High School in Durango, Colorado. Because of my deep passion for art, I would like to address the importance of preserving art pieces that may be deteriorating over time in your facility. I am aware that at your museum you have many paintings from all eras, and I felt this is a relevant concern. Due to your expertise you know that whether it is lighting or natural causes, paintings are bound to fade and fall apart as time progresses. Exhibits from the 18th century and earlier are the largest groups of art that are deteriorating at this point in time. Art gives us an insight to our past, and is necessary to learn from and admire, which is why I am concerned with the restoration of it. I am recommending the use of a newly designed urea-aldehyde retouching resin for this purpose.
Many products have been created to slow the aging process of art pieces and the most common product used, synthetic varnish, has not significantly enhanced paintings. As testing has progressed, scientists have found that synthetic varnishes are not ideal when preserving and restoring paintings because they yellow and become insoluble in hydrocarbon solvents (which are equivalent to oil based solvents) over time due to cross-linking and photo-oxidation. Cross linking is a bond that links one polymer chain to another and promotes differences in the polymers’ physical properties, which would cause distortion the original image. Photo-oxidation is the degradation of polymers when exposed to oxygen or ozone, which is the most significant factor of weathering polymers. It is a chemical change that reduces the polymer’s molecular weight, and this process occurs to the resins when applied to paintings. Synthetic varnishes also do not imitate the natural polymeric structure of the paint, therefore causing more potential damage and deterioration. Instead of synthetic varnishes, I would recommend the use of urea-aldehyde resins.
Urea-aldehyde resins can be understood by developing knowledge about the two components (urea and aldehyde) individually and how they combine. It is necessary for retouching materials to be versatile, stable, and suitable for a large array of artistic panaches and techniques. The urea-aldehyde resin is desirable for bringing paintings back to life because of its photochemical stability, good pigment wetting, permanency, and working properties similar to those of the original painting. Aldehyde resins are an appropriate painting medium because they have a low molecular weight and are slightly polar, so they wet pigment more easily. This happens because paint is also polar, and polar substances have the ability to combine due to its unequal sharing of electrons between atoms. Aldehydes have the capability to dissolve within the paint easily because its structure allows it to mix with other molecules. This helps the aldehyde resin to coexist with the hydrocarbons that make up the painting. Aldehydes are very similar to the type of hydrocarbon in oil paints that have a particular function group. However, their structural properties differ resulting in partially altered physical characteristics. Hydrocarbons are essentially non-polar and have a lower resistance to aging and deterioration, where aldehydes have a much better endurance to the elements because they contain stronger intermolecular bonds. This endurance not only allows for the painting to age slower, but also reacts well with the existing materials in the art piece.
The second component that makes this retouching paint work properly is urea which is a water soluble compound made of Ester bonded to two amine groups. When urea is combined with aldehyde it causes a chemical reaction in which the two substances polymerize. This polymerization creates a thermosetting resin, which means that once the two materials have combined they form a shell-like substance that cannot be undone. With the properties that the aldehyde provides, and the function of the combined substances, this resin has been proven to guarantee a rise in overall quality of the existing art piece. This substance works for resisting deterioration and protecting the painting because the polymer layer on top of the paint is relatively unreactive, has a high heat distortion temperature, and is completely transparent. It has low water absorption, high surface hardness and volume resistance which opposes the flow of electric current. This polymer is chemically inert because, like most polymers, they are consistent of long chains of molecules that have very few reaction sites. The molecular chains created during the polymerization process are long, therefore leaving less open ended molecules for other substances to react with. The polymer’s transparency is similar to that of glass because it comes from its relatively loose structure. Like an amorphous solid, this polymer is in a state of matter in which the atoms and molecules are locked into place, but instead of forming orderly crystals they arrange themselves randomly, giving it the rigid feel of a solid while having the arrangement of molecules like liquids. The transparency and inertness of this specific polymer are ideal properties because it protects and revitalizes paintings, while capturing the essence of the original image.
I am recommending this pale, yellowing-resistant aldehyde resin that is soluble in almost all paint solvents and compatible with practically all coatings and raw materials to improve the deteriorating art you have in your facility. I would love to see you to look into products that exist with the explained physical and chemical properties, because preserving historic art, as you know, is so important. Not only will it brighten and improve the quality of the paintings existing in your facilities, but it will last for an extensive period of time. I appreciate your consideration of my idea and would welcome feedback. Feel free to contact me by the address provided in the letterhead or at my email address at [email protected].
Regards,
Hanna Martens
Energy & Place Project
1. HOW DOES ENERGY PRODUCTION IMPACT PLACE?
2. HOW DOES YOUR SENSE OF PLACE, ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC AND UNDERSTANDING OF OUR ENERGY NEEDS INFLUENCE YOUR
PERCEPTION AND DECISIONS REGARDING ENERGY PRODUCTION
To view the Nuclear Joint Scientific Statement, click HERE
Opening & Closing StatementOpening-
No, I will not deny that our world is in crucial need of a clean and efficient energy source. We need an energy system that can provide homes throughout the world with sufficient power, and that takes into account environmental risks associated with waste and human health effects. Though nuclear power may seem like the best option to power our communities, the risks and ramifications that are associated with nuclear energy are not worth the risk of pursuing. My opponents may discuss the minimal waste that is produced by nuclear power, however, though the amount is lesser than some other sources of energy, the damage that it is capable of doing to human health and the environment is something worth considering. Currently there is no permanent storage for radioactive waste, and we are struggling to find a place where this waste will not pose a threat to the human race. For some isotopes, the waste will pose a threat for another 15 million years, until it has fully decayed and is no longer radioactive. Not many will take into consideration the next 15 million years when making decisions about what a safe energy source is, but if we want to create a better future for generations to come, it’s something that should cross our minds. Personally, not knowing what the future holds for our planet is nerve racking. There is no way of knowing if a natural or man-made disaster will disrupt nuclear storage areas and expose surrounding areas to radiation. Not only must we worry about the waste, but also the current nuclear power plant sites. In the past 40 years, 400 nuclear power plants have been developed. Out of those 400, 3 have already experienced extreme nuclear meltdowns. We have seen the struggles, heath issues, and economic declines as a result of nuclear disasters. After Fukushima’s meltdown in 2011, Japan is still recovering from the economic disadvantage they faced as well as many other hardships. We have also seen health issues associated with exposure to radiation, such as cancer, birth defects, chronic illnesses, and cognitive disabilities. Compensation for nuclear meltdowns cannot fully be met, and its effects on the environment & human population are insatiable. Now the question I wish to engrain into your minds when deciding if nuclear power is necessary is: Is it worth the risk of having clean energy in turn for the possibility of greater damage to our surroundings? We have nothing but this world, shouldn't we be treating it as such?
Closing-
My credible opponents, my partner, and I have all questioned not whether we need energy, but what an efficient way to go about producing it is.
What my opponents pointed out was valid, and I will not argue the fact that there are positive components associated with nuclear energy. There will always be pros and cons to any energy source, however, I would like to see more efforts and funding being placed into the research of a renewable energy source that does not elicit such harmful byproducts. I have discussed the ramifications and risks associated with the waste produced by nuclear power. I have also shown how much damage a nuclear meltdown can do to our planet. Not only is it economically taxing, but it also has harmful effects to human health. Our future is unpredictable, and no compensation can be met with the radioactive material produced by nuclear power. It is not worth the risk of pursuing.
No, I will not deny that our world is in crucial need of a clean and efficient energy source. We need an energy system that can provide homes throughout the world with sufficient power, and that takes into account environmental risks associated with waste and human health effects. Though nuclear power may seem like the best option to power our communities, the risks and ramifications that are associated with nuclear energy are not worth the risk of pursuing. My opponents may discuss the minimal waste that is produced by nuclear power, however, though the amount is lesser than some other sources of energy, the damage that it is capable of doing to human health and the environment is something worth considering. Currently there is no permanent storage for radioactive waste, and we are struggling to find a place where this waste will not pose a threat to the human race. For some isotopes, the waste will pose a threat for another 15 million years, until it has fully decayed and is no longer radioactive. Not many will take into consideration the next 15 million years when making decisions about what a safe energy source is, but if we want to create a better future for generations to come, it’s something that should cross our minds. Personally, not knowing what the future holds for our planet is nerve racking. There is no way of knowing if a natural or man-made disaster will disrupt nuclear storage areas and expose surrounding areas to radiation. Not only must we worry about the waste, but also the current nuclear power plant sites. In the past 40 years, 400 nuclear power plants have been developed. Out of those 400, 3 have already experienced extreme nuclear meltdowns. We have seen the struggles, heath issues, and economic declines as a result of nuclear disasters. After Fukushima’s meltdown in 2011, Japan is still recovering from the economic disadvantage they faced as well as many other hardships. We have also seen health issues associated with exposure to radiation, such as cancer, birth defects, chronic illnesses, and cognitive disabilities. Compensation for nuclear meltdowns cannot fully be met, and its effects on the environment & human population are insatiable. Now the question I wish to engrain into your minds when deciding if nuclear power is necessary is: Is it worth the risk of having clean energy in turn for the possibility of greater damage to our surroundings? We have nothing but this world, shouldn't we be treating it as such?
Closing-
My credible opponents, my partner, and I have all questioned not whether we need energy, but what an efficient way to go about producing it is.
What my opponents pointed out was valid, and I will not argue the fact that there are positive components associated with nuclear energy. There will always be pros and cons to any energy source, however, I would like to see more efforts and funding being placed into the research of a renewable energy source that does not elicit such harmful byproducts. I have discussed the ramifications and risks associated with the waste produced by nuclear power. I have also shown how much damage a nuclear meltdown can do to our planet. Not only is it economically taxing, but it also has harmful effects to human health. Our future is unpredictable, and no compensation can be met with the radioactive material produced by nuclear power. It is not worth the risk of pursuing.
To watch the debate, click HERE
Project Reflection
During this debate, we were contemplating if nuclear power was a clean source of energy and if the United States should further it's efforts in developing new nuclear power plants throughout the U.S. including in the 4 Corners region. I was arguing on the side that we should not be developing new nuclear power plants. My initial position followed the NIMBYism approach because I believed that nuclear power was an extremely efficient and green source of energy, but in case of disastrous situations I would not like a power plant in "my back yard." Out of all the energy sources I think that nuclear is the most controversial because the pros and cons of it are relatively balanced, and if we spent more time developing safe technologies, then the only real concern would lie in waste disposal. My final position is still undecided, but I strongly disagree with developing a nuclear power plant in the 4 Corners region mostly because of astronomic water consumption as well as waste disposal on site. If anything, I lean towards the side in which I debated because there are huge risks and repercussions associated with nuclear power. My position has swayed beck and forth because the green aspect of nuclear power is extremely appealing when comparing it to other sources of energy, and it helps when trying to compensate for the greenhouse crisis that is becoming more and more relevant to this day. The statistics and facts that made my argument more reliable, and persuaded me to think that nuclear power should not be developed was the aftermath of nuclear meltdowns in both Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Elijah had some very interesting perspectives as to why we should pursue nuclear energy, and one argument I thought was strong (and maybe not totally justified) was that the storage of nuclear waste is mostly political. Though I do not agree with this argument I think it is an interesting point, because NIMBYism plays a huge part in deciding where nuclear waste should be stored. Isaac, who argued on my team also made strong arguments about how private insurance will not take on nuclear power plants because it is such a costly risk. He also argued about how there is a reason why no new nuclear power plants have been built in the past 40 years. I would like to further research breeder reactors, and how those work because I spent no time looking into it and it was brought up in our debate multiple times. I enjoyed arguing with someone on the opposite side of what my perspective was because I was able to counter their arguments to the best of my abilities and was able to expand my knowledge on the subject. It was interesting to hear all the perspectives taken when intellectually engaging in a debate with them, and I am walking away from the debate with a great deal of insight on the subject of nuclear energy.
My environmental ethic and sense of place did not play a large role in my debate, but it was present when thinking about the places that are special to me and how it can influence my perception of energy production. In the place that I talked about in my humanities essay, my connection was so strong to my surroundings that I could never imagine it being disrupted by the development of a nuclear power plant. In preparing for this debate, I was definitely selfish in the sense that I would not be able to tolerate a nuclear power plant in my back yard, therefore I was bias about where and how we could go about solving our motion. I think it is very common to hear support for nuclear power, but when it affects you directly and the places that you are living, your perspective changes. After watching the debate, I am somewhat dissatisfied with my performance. Though I was able to say everything I wanted in the opening statement, I was unable to make strong arguments during the open debate because the subjects we discussed were not in my area of research. I thought I had done a sufficient job preparing for the debate and covering issues that were necessary to argue, however, during the actual debate I did not get a chance to fully demonstrate my knowledge. It was frustrating not being able to skillfully counter an argument made by the other team. If I had the chance to do it again, I would have prepared more facts to use as evidence during the debate, as well as have a clear understanding of what to expect from the other team and from the moderator. There was not a lot of communication in my group which effected not only my performance, but the performance of the entire group. More time would have been extremely helpful, so I could have the chance to execute my debates, arguments, and counters, with ease and comfort.
After fact checking the cost of recovery in Japan after Fukushima, I found that 300 billion dollars is the newest estimate of recovery costs. This is relatively accurate to what I had found earlier, which was between 250 and 500 billion dollars. I also fact checked when the last nuclear reactor was built because there were multiple time stamps that people claimed were accurate in the debate. I found that the average age of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States was 32 years old. This is the average though, the newest nuclear reactor in the United States was actually built in 1996, meaning it is only 17 years old.
To see my humanities project regarding energy and place, navigate the tabs above and click on the humanities link.
Elijah had some very interesting perspectives as to why we should pursue nuclear energy, and one argument I thought was strong (and maybe not totally justified) was that the storage of nuclear waste is mostly political. Though I do not agree with this argument I think it is an interesting point, because NIMBYism plays a huge part in deciding where nuclear waste should be stored. Isaac, who argued on my team also made strong arguments about how private insurance will not take on nuclear power plants because it is such a costly risk. He also argued about how there is a reason why no new nuclear power plants have been built in the past 40 years. I would like to further research breeder reactors, and how those work because I spent no time looking into it and it was brought up in our debate multiple times. I enjoyed arguing with someone on the opposite side of what my perspective was because I was able to counter their arguments to the best of my abilities and was able to expand my knowledge on the subject. It was interesting to hear all the perspectives taken when intellectually engaging in a debate with them, and I am walking away from the debate with a great deal of insight on the subject of nuclear energy.
My environmental ethic and sense of place did not play a large role in my debate, but it was present when thinking about the places that are special to me and how it can influence my perception of energy production. In the place that I talked about in my humanities essay, my connection was so strong to my surroundings that I could never imagine it being disrupted by the development of a nuclear power plant. In preparing for this debate, I was definitely selfish in the sense that I would not be able to tolerate a nuclear power plant in my back yard, therefore I was bias about where and how we could go about solving our motion. I think it is very common to hear support for nuclear power, but when it affects you directly and the places that you are living, your perspective changes. After watching the debate, I am somewhat dissatisfied with my performance. Though I was able to say everything I wanted in the opening statement, I was unable to make strong arguments during the open debate because the subjects we discussed were not in my area of research. I thought I had done a sufficient job preparing for the debate and covering issues that were necessary to argue, however, during the actual debate I did not get a chance to fully demonstrate my knowledge. It was frustrating not being able to skillfully counter an argument made by the other team. If I had the chance to do it again, I would have prepared more facts to use as evidence during the debate, as well as have a clear understanding of what to expect from the other team and from the moderator. There was not a lot of communication in my group which effected not only my performance, but the performance of the entire group. More time would have been extremely helpful, so I could have the chance to execute my debates, arguments, and counters, with ease and comfort.
After fact checking the cost of recovery in Japan after Fukushima, I found that 300 billion dollars is the newest estimate of recovery costs. This is relatively accurate to what I had found earlier, which was between 250 and 500 billion dollars. I also fact checked when the last nuclear reactor was built because there were multiple time stamps that people claimed were accurate in the debate. I found that the average age of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States was 32 years old. This is the average though, the newest nuclear reactor in the United States was actually built in 1996, meaning it is only 17 years old.
To see my humanities project regarding energy and place, navigate the tabs above and click on the humanities link.