In our D.E.E.P. experiment, we tested Henry’s Law. Henry’s Law states that as pressure increases, more gas dissolves into liquid. This law applies to humans, as we are scuba diving. Decompression sickness, also known as “The Bends”, is explained by of Henry’s Law. You can get decompression sickness by diving at a deep depth for a long amount of time, or you ascend too quickly from a deep depth. The biggest variables for getting the Bends is the amount of time you spend at deep depths, and how quickly you ascend. As you get deeper, as Henry’s Law states, nitrogen bubbles dissolve into your bloodstream, due to the amount of pressure you are under. As you ascend, the pressure you are under decreases, causing the nitrogen bubbles to expand. Once these bubbles expand, they block your capillaries, joints, or other tissues in your body, which is very dangerous. The main way you can avoid the Bends is by ascending slowly, giving the bubbles time to escape your body before they block your capillaries, joints, or other tissues.

We measured the amount of carbon dioxide gas that were released from a sparkling water bottle that was opened under water at different depths. The final results that we obtained were: at zero feet the average volume of gas released was 280mL, at five feet the average was 235mL, and finally at eight feet the average was 200mL. As you can see, starting at zero feet and going down to eight feet, the amount of carbon dioxide gas released from the bottle decreases. This shows that as the depths increased, the volume of gas released from the bottle decreased. This proves Henry's law, which indicates that as pressure increases more gas dissolves into liquid.

The results that we got from our dive at the Palisades High School Pool is where the most error was shown. This error was easily seen in the results that we obtained because in our hypothesis the equation showed the amount carbon dioxide gas should decrease as the depth increased. In the results that we got from Pali the amount of gasses that were released were the opposite.

Our results were: at zero feet the average was 283.3mL, and at five feet the average was 287.5mL, then finally, the average for ten feet was 325mL. We concluded that the results were so different from the hypothesis because when we were testing our experiment, we brought the water bottles down in a mesh bag. During the time that the bottles were in the mesh bag, before they were used to test, they were being bumped around and shaken. We believed that this is why the results were so different, and inconsistent.

We planned to retest again at the St. Matthews pool. When we re-tested, we left the water bottles at the top on the land and were very careful not to shake them and we brought them down one at a time. Then, after we finished our normal experiment, we tested shaking some of the bottles before we tested them, to prove that our results from Pali were awire because of the bottles shaking. As we predicted, the shaken water bottles caused more gas to be released, and therefore was the factor that caused major error to occur in our first testing at Pali. The results from the shaken bottles were about 200 mL more gas than the hypothesis predicted, and the correct results we obtained.

Our results were: at zero feet the average was 283.3mL, and at five feet the average was 287.5mL, then finally, the average for ten feet was 325mL. We concluded that the results were so different from the hypothesis because when we were testing our experiment, we brought the water bottles down in a mesh bag. During the time that the bottles were in the mesh bag, before they were used to test, they were being bumped around and shaken. We believed that this is why the results were so different, and inconsistent.

We planned to retest again at the St. Matthews pool. When we re-tested, we left the water bottles at the top on the land and were very careful not to shake them and we brought them down one at a time. Then, after we finished our normal experiment, we tested shaking some of the bottles before we tested them, to prove that our results from Pali were awire because of the bottles shaking. As we predicted, the shaken water bottles caused more gas to be released, and therefore was the factor that caused major error to occur in our first testing at Pali. The results from the shaken bottles were about 200 mL more gas than the hypothesis predicted, and the correct results we obtained.

Our results could be used to predict the volume of carbon dioxide gas released at different depths by using the formula that we used for our hypothesis.

First, we would use the equation to find how many atmospheres the amount of feet we want to test is. To do this we would plug the amount of feet into the equation we found which is A= 1/33f+1. A= how many atmospheres it is, and F= how many feet you are testing.

After doing this, we would plug the atmosphere, found above, into Henry’s Law equation, to find the concentration of the gas at that depth. This equation is C=P/29.76. C= concentration of gas, P= pressure you are under, which we found already, and 29.76 is the constant for CO2.

After finding the concentration at the certain depth, we would plug it into our inverse variation equation. The equation is (volume of bubbles at 0 feet) (concentration at 0 feet)=(volume of bubbles at x feet) (concentration of gas at x feet). We are solving for the volume of bubbles at x feet, since we have found the concentration at x feet above. Instead of using the control we tested for our hypothesis for the volume at x feet, we would use our average for 0 feet for our real experiment, which is 280 mL. The equation would now be: (280)(.0336)=x(concentration at certain depth). After solving, we would know the volume of gas released at that depth.

This could be useful for a diver, because they could plug in whatever depth they are diving at, and use the nitrogen constant, instead of the carbon dioxide constant, and calculate the volume of gas that would dissolve into their bloodstream. This would be difficult because they would need to find a way to test how much nitrogen is released at 0 feet. For our experiment, we were able to test opening the water bottles at 0 feet, then plug that into the equation, but they could not do that because carbon dioxide was released, not nitrogen.

First, we would use the equation to find how many atmospheres the amount of feet we want to test is. To do this we would plug the amount of feet into the equation we found which is A= 1/33f+1. A= how many atmospheres it is, and F= how many feet you are testing.

After doing this, we would plug the atmosphere, found above, into Henry’s Law equation, to find the concentration of the gas at that depth. This equation is C=P/29.76. C= concentration of gas, P= pressure you are under, which we found already, and 29.76 is the constant for CO2.

After finding the concentration at the certain depth, we would plug it into our inverse variation equation. The equation is (volume of bubbles at 0 feet) (concentration at 0 feet)=(volume of bubbles at x feet) (concentration of gas at x feet). We are solving for the volume of bubbles at x feet, since we have found the concentration at x feet above. Instead of using the control we tested for our hypothesis for the volume at x feet, we would use our average for 0 feet for our real experiment, which is 280 mL. The equation would now be: (280)(.0336)=x(concentration at certain depth). After solving, we would know the volume of gas released at that depth.

This could be useful for a diver, because they could plug in whatever depth they are diving at, and use the nitrogen constant, instead of the carbon dioxide constant, and calculate the volume of gas that would dissolve into their bloodstream. This would be difficult because they would need to find a way to test how much nitrogen is released at 0 feet. For our experiment, we were able to test opening the water bottles at 0 feet, then plug that into the equation, but they could not do that because carbon dioxide was released, not nitrogen.