Scribd
Upload
65 views2 pages

Lab Report Checklist: - Conclusion & Evaluation

The predicted and experimentally observed number of cycles were different, as expected, due to approximations in the predictive method used and errors inherent in the physical experiment. Several sources of error are discussed, including the material composition, hardening processes, imperfect apparatus, and gradual loading during early cycles. The conclusion evaluates whether the results support the theory and calculates an accepted value from the gradient to compare. Suggestions for improving the investigation are made by addressing sources of error mentioned in the evaluation.

Uploaded by

Joshua D'Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views2 pages

Lab Report Checklist: - Conclusion & Evaluation

The predicted and experimentally observed number of cycles were different, as expected, due to approximations in the predictive method used and errors inherent in the physical experiment. Several sources of error are discussed, including the material composition, hardening processes, imperfect apparatus, and gradual loading during early cycles. The conclusion evaluates whether the results support the theory and calculates an accepted value from the gradient to compare. Suggestions for improving the investigation are made by addressing sources of error mentioned in the evaluation.

Uploaded by

Joshua D'Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SPH3U1 LAB REPORT CHECKLIST The report must include provide reasons to explain the similarity or discrepancies between

n the predicted and experimentally observed number of cycles The predicted and experimentally observed number of cycles were different. This is as expected as we know that the ________ method used for the predicted number of cycles is conservative compared to other methods. We also know that the values used for Ka, Kb, Kc, Kd, Ke, and Kf, in this method are approximations and are not intended to be exact as each of them is designed to add to the conservative nature of the entire process. Error is also attached to the physical experiment itself, as the material used could have a different composition than which we assumed, and at the atomic level, there are inconsistencies. The part also could have undergone a hardening process in terms of how the steel itself was prepared. The apparatus used in not perfect and the rpm listed is precise but not completely accurate which either means that the number of cycles displayed were above or below their actual value. In this case, it would make sense that the number of cycles displayed were higher than what they were in actuality. In terms of procedure, the loading of the shaft was gradual and occurred during the a large amount of time, meaning that the early cycles were not at the intended loading which increased the overall number of cycles the part underwent.

LAB REPORT CHECKLIST Conclusion & Evaluation


Aspect 1: Conclusion State whether your graph supports the theory. E.g. Is the relationship between the quantities linear? This is only true if the line touches all error bars, dont say it is if it isnt. Are there any points on the graph that appear to be due to mistake (outliers), maybe its best to remove these and plot the line again? Normally the data will be arranged so that the gradient will give you some value. Calculate this value from the gradient. Compare your result with an accepted value, say where this value is from and quote uncertainty if known. Dont forget units. Aspect 2: Evaluation This is where you say if the conclusion is reasonable or not, you must have evidence for anything you write here, this can be from your results (the graph) or the observations you made during the experiment. You shouldnt say friction was a problem withou t evidence. It might help to do a small experiment to show that something was a problem. Comments do not have to be negative. Comment on whether your graph shows a trend; is it clearly a curve even though the line passes through the error bars? Are the errors reasonable, are they obviously too big or too small Comment on whether the intercept tell you anything, if it is supposed to be (0,0) and isnt it might suggest a systematic error. Comment on whether you manage to keep the controlled variables constant? Comment on the equipment used and the method in which you used it. Comment on the range of values and the number of repetitions. Comment on time management Aspect 3: Improving the Investigation List ways of improving the investigation (I.e. reducing the uncertainties). Anything you write here must be related to something you mentioned in the evaluation. This in turn should be linked to the results. Think like a detective, look for evidence. If possible do a calculation or a small experiment to show how the improvement might improve the accuracy of the result. If you had a more reading (wider range or more repetitions) would it improve your result? Is there any modification to the apparatus or to the original method that would make the results better?

SPH3U1 LAB REPORT CHECKLIST

You might also like