nb94 Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 So I know the thing teachers warn against in languages and social sciences is being too narrative/descriptive, and not being analytical enough. Is that also a concern in physics labs? Thing is, I came up with my lab on my own not from a book or an existing equation or anything, so I can't really derive a law from my data. Which means that my conclusion is largely me explaining laws of physics and why I got the results I got, making little reference to the actual data. Is this a problem? Any advice? Thank you! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timtamboy63 Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 Don't do that. Here's what you should do for the CE section:a) State your result. State what your result shows (eg as the radius increases, the time taken to rotate the mass increases).b) State how much your result varied from the expected. Do a percentage error. State whether this error was primarily random or systematic. State the weaknesses of your method.c) Suggest REALISTIC improvements to the weaknesses you identified (doing it in a zero-gravity environment, etc isn't realistic)That's it. Don't discuss the theory or physics behind it, just follow those steps. That's what the CE is marked against. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.