Investigating the half-life of bubbles

Data presentation
Qualitative data
The empty cylinder is totally transparent, allowing the level of solution to be clearly observed. As the coke solution is
poured in, there is immediately a layer of white bubbles forming on top of the water layer. Over the first few seconds, the
height of the bubble layer increases, yet it decreases quickly after reaching a maximum height. While the bubble layer
decreases in height, height of the liquid coke increases. In the end, there are only some leftover bubbles remaining on the
surface of the column of coke.
When the soap solution and mentos are added into the cylinder of coke, bubbles start to form again. Yet, it was observed
that this layer of bubbles form slower with smaller diameter of each bubbles. This allows the bubbles to build up slowly
and also diminish slowly, thus the decaying of bubbles takes place over a longer time period here than previously. The
height of the layer of bubbles in this time, however, is shorter than the height of bubbles when the coke was poured in.
Thus, I suspect that adding soap solution and mentos makes the bubble more stable, thus expanding slower and lesser than
when those materials are not added.
Quantitative data
Raw data
Time t/s Lower boundary h1/cm Upper boundary h2/cm
(±0.01s) (±0.1cm) (±0.1cm)
0.00 6.2 15.6
30.00 6.3 14.2
60.00 6.3 12.0
90.00 6.3 10.6
120.00 6.3 9.4
150.00 6.3 8.7
180.00 6.4 8.2
210.00 6.4 7.8
Figure 1. Table of raw data of time of reading and measured lower and upper boundary of the column of bubbles
The uncertainty of time is taken as the instrumental uncertainty of the stopwatch ±0.01s. The uncertainty of the heights is
taken as the instrumental uncertainty of the ruler, which is ±0.001m
Processed data
Time t/s Height h/cm ln(h) Uncertainty of ln(h)
(±0.01s) (±0.2cm)
0.00 9.4 2.24 0.04
30.00 7.9 2.07 0.05
60.00 5.7 1.74 0.07
90.00 4.3 1.46 0.09
120.00 3.1 1.13 0.13
150.00 2.4 0.88 0.17
180.00 1.8 0.59 0.22
210.00 1.4 0.34 0.29
Figure 2. Table of processed data giving the values of height of the bubble column and natural logarithm of h

1
Calculations
1. Height of the layer of bubbles = Upper boundary – Lower boundary
Example calculation for 𝑡 = 0.00s: h = 15.6 – 6.2 = 9.4 (cm) (1d.p.)
2. Uncertainty of value of h: Uncertainty of upper boundary + Uncertainty of lower boundary
Example calculation for 𝑡 = 0.00s: ∆h = 0.1 + 0.1 = ±0.2 (cm) (1d.p.)
3. Natural logarithm of h, ln(h):
Example calculation for 𝑡 = 0.00s: ln(h) = ln(9.4) = 2.24 (3s.f.)
4. Minimum possible value of height h = Height - Uncertainty of value of h
Example calculation for 𝑡 = 0.00s: Minimum h = 9.4 − 0.2 = 9.2 (1d.p.)
5. Minimum possible value of ln(h) = ln(minimum possible value of height h)
Example calculation for 𝑡 = 0.00s: ln(minimum h) = ln(9.2) = 2.22 (3s.f.)
6. Maximum possible value of height h = Height + Uncertainty of value of h
Example calculation for 𝑡 = 0.00s: Maximum h = 9.4 + 0.2 = 9.6 (1d.p.)
7. Maximum possible value of ln(h) = ln(maximum possible value of height h)
Example calculation for 𝑡 = 0.00s: ln(maximum h) = ln(9.6) = 2.26 (3s.f.)
8. Uncertainty of value of ln(h) = ln(maximum possible value of height h) - ln(minimum possible value of height h)
Example calculation for 𝑡 = 0.00s: ∆ln(h) = 2.26 – 2.22 = ±0.04 (2d.p.)
Graphs
First, plot a graph of height of bubbles h against time t

Figure 3.
Graph of ℎ/cm
against t/s

From the graph, an inverse exponential pattern can be observed as height of bubbles h varies while time t progresses. This
pattern seems to agree with the inverse exponential function appearing in the governing equation h = 𝒉𝟎 𝒆−𝝀𝒕 . Therefore,
this confirms the relationship suggested by the governing equation that the height of the bubble column i.e. number of
bubbles decays exponentially as time progresses.
The graph in figure 3 is non-linear, so the gradient of the graph changes along it and is not constant. Thus, I cannot obtain
the value of decay constant 𝝀 from the gradient of this graph. Therefore, I linearised the graph by first modifying the
governing equation:
h = h0 e−λt
ln(h) = ln(h0 e−λt )
ln(h) = ln(h0 ) - λt
Thus, plot a graph of ln(h) on the y-axis against t on the x-axis to obtain a constant value of gradient for further calculations.
Plot one best fit straight line and two maximum and minimum line of best-fit.
2
 Figure 4.
Graph of
Graph of
ℎ/cm against
t/s

The equation of the best-fit straight line is ln(h) = 2.290 - 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟗𝟑𝟔𝟗t

The gradient of the best-fit straight line is - 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟗𝟑𝟔𝟗
The y-intercept of the best-fit straight line is y = 2.290
Correlation between two variables = - 0.9987
The equation of the maximum line of best-fit is ln(h) = 2.265 - 0.01055t
The equation of the minimum line of best-fit is ln(h) = 2.200 - 0.007477t

Discussion
Deriving the value of decay constant
According to the equation of the graph ln(h) = 2.290 - 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟗𝟑𝟔𝟗t, the gradient of the graph would give the value of
decay constant λ .
Hence, λ ≈ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟗𝟑𝟕 (3 s.f.)
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒−𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒
Uncertainty of the gradient = 2
2.265−2.200
= 2
≈ ±0.03250 (5d.p.)
0.03250
Percentage uncertainty of the calculated value of λ = 0.00937 × 100 = 346.85165% ≈ 346.9% (1 𝑑. 𝑝. )
This large percentage uncertainty of the calculated value of λ suggests presence of random error that causes the wide
distribution of the data points. The sources of error leading to such variation shall be discussed in the section below.
Determining the value of half-life of the bubbles
The half-life of the bubbles can be deduced using the equation:
t1/2 = (ln 2)/ λ
Hence, the half-life of the bubbles is:
ln 2
t1/2 =
0.00937
ln 2
t1/2 = 0.00937
t1/2 ≈ 𝟕𝟒. 𝟎s (3s.f.)
The uncertainty of the obtained value of half-life of the bubbles is:
Δλ 0.03250
Δt1/2 = λ × 𝑡1/2 = 0.00937 × 74.0 = ±256.7s（1d.p.）
Therefore, the half-life of bubbles is determined to be 74.0 ± 256.7s. This means the time taken for the original amount of
bubbles to decay by half is 74.0s (Kirk, 2014).
3
Due to the large percentage error in the derived of the decay constant λ, the calculated value of half-life of the bubbles has
a large value of uncertainty. This does not mean bubbles does not follow the Law of Exponential Decay, as the trend of the
graph and the strong absolute value of correlation (0.9987) among the data points prove that number of bubbles still vary
closely and exponentially with time.
Therefore, the large percentage uncertainty more likely arises from the extremely small value of the decay constant, which
any errors during data collection can cause significant deviation from the actual value. Such errors and improvements to
minimize them will be discussed below.

Evaluation
Strengths
The results in ‘Discussion’ are reliable and accurate due to several strengths of this experimental design. Firstly, there is
intentional use of materials to create a controlled experiment to allow decay of bubbles to be observed. For example, liquid
soap is mixed with the coke so as to increase the stability of the bubbles produced, so that they would decay more slowly
compared to pure coke bubbles. This allows the time over which the bubbles decay to be longer, thus the percentage
uncertainty in measured time due to uncertainty of the stopwatch could be minimized.
Moreover, a menthol sweet is also dropped into the solution. Due to the rough surfaces with tiny particles of the candy, the
candy allows the bond between carbon dioxide gas and water in the solution to break more easily, thus creating carbon
dioxide bubbles at a higher speed (Kirk, 2014). This allows the column of bubbles to build up quickly so that it also starts
to decay shortly afterwards, thus increasing the efficiency of the experiment.
In addition, there is a clear method of fixing the controlled variables, such as the time interval at which the height of the
bubbles column is taken. This ensures any variations in the height of bubbles h is solely accounted for by progression in
time.
Weakness & Improvements
The data was manually collected using human-operated stopwatch and visually observed height of the column of bubbles
against a metre rule. This may give rise to random human error such as delayed reaction time or parallax error during the
collection of data. Hence, to improve, technology such as tracker software may be employed to allow more accurate
collection of time stamps and the exact height of the bubbles column.
Moreover, the upper and lower boundary of the column of bubbles are actually not even, as the level of bubbles form a
meniscus rather than a straight line. This may cause random errors in taking the reading of the height of the level of bubble
column, thus decreasing the accuracy of the measured height of the bubbles column. To improve, a convention can be made
to measure the boundary of the bubbles at the minimum points on the menicuses, so that the difference between the two
boundary is closer to the actual height of the bubble column.

Extension
The same experimental set-up and procedure can be repeated for bubbles formed in other types of solutions, such as beer
and soda solution; and compare the derived half-life of the bubbles to investigate whether varying the type of solution has
an effect on the rate of decay of the bubbles formed. Additionally, the decay constant calculated from this experiment can
further be extrapolated to determine the original amount of bubbles and the remaining amount after a particular time in
seconds.

Conclusion
Based on the data obtained from measuring the height of the bubbles formed on top of coke solution, it appears that coke
bubbles decay at a rate similar to radioactive material. The equation h = h0 e−λt is a product of the Exponential Decay Law
and can be rearranged so that the value of the decay constant of coke bubbles can be derived from the gradient of the best-
fit straight line, to be 0.00937. With this, the half-life of the coke bubbles has also been determined to be 74.0 seconds
using the relationship t1/2 = (ln 2)/ λ. The large percentage uncertainty of the derived values has been explained
according to possible sources of errors with suggestion for improvements. The experiment can be expanded for
other types of foaming solutions, and the decay constant can be used in further calculations.
4
Bibliography
Kirk, T. (2014). IB Physics Study Guide: 2014 edition: Oxford IB Diploma Program (Study Guide ed.). Oxford
University Press.