![]() In this experiment, we assumed that the constant Coulomb friction torque was the only friction affecting the potentiometer. The change in resistance of the potentiometer with time indicated the acceleration of the mass. The test performed on the potentiometer was accomplished by winding a string around the potentiometer shaft, attaching a mass to the string, and letting the mass fall. Given to the right is such a procedure-this one for an experiment devised to determine whether the frictional torque associated with a multi-turn film potentiometer is strictly the Coulomb friction between the slider and the film. When the procedure is not standard, the audience would expect more detail including theoretical justification for the steps. Should you have any anomalies, such as unusual ambient temperature, during your measurements, you would want to include those. Such details would include the model number of the pressure transducer and the pressure range for which you calibrated the transducer. What you would want to include, then, would be those details that might cause your results to differ from those of your audience. Because calibrations are considered standard, you can assume that your audience will have access to many details such as possible arrangements of the valves and tubes. Consider as an example the procedure for using a manometer and strain indicator to find the static calibration of a pressure transducer. For that reason, you should include those details that affect the outcome. In general, you should give the audience enough information that they could replicate your results. Because your audience expects you to write the procedures as a narrative, you should do so.Īchieving a proper depth in laboratory procedures is challenging. ![]() Historically, laboratory procedures have been written as first-person narratives as opposed to second-person sets of instructions. Documenting the procedures of your laboratory experiment is important not only so that others can repeat your results but also so that you can replicate the work later, if the need arises. The "Procedures," often called the "Methods," discusses how the experiment occurred. Its optimum length will vary somewhat with the nature and extent of the paper, but most abstracts do not exceed 200 words. The abstract should be typed as one paragraph. For new methods, the basic principle, range of operation, and degree of accuracy should be given. ![]() In the case of experimental results, the abstract should indicate the methods used in obtaining them. Otherwise, attention should be drawn to the nature of such data. It should contain new numerical data presented in the paper if space permits. The body of the abstract should indicate newly observed facts and the conclusions of the experiment or argument discussed in the paper. The opening sentence or two should, in general, indicate the subjects dealt with in the paper and should state the objectives of the investigation. In particular, it should not cite figures, tables, or sections of the paper. Thus, the abstract should be intelligible and complete in itself. The author should assume that the reader has some knowledge of the subject but has not read the paper. ![]() The abstract should be written concisely in normal rather than highly abbreviated English. Note that although your instructor may define the term "abstract" differently, these guidelines still give you a sense of the stylistic issues, such as whether to include numerical data, that distinguish abstracts: The following guidelines for preparing an abstract arise from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). The abstract (or summary) presents a synopsis of the experiment. In special cases such as proposals or instructions, the title also identifies the purpose. In scientific writing, the title is generally a phrase that identifies the scope of the document.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |