Lab 2: What I liked
I liked the fact that the abstract was straightforward and direct. As soon as I read the first sentence, I knew what this lab was about and what the experimenter was trying to measure.
I also liked that the experimenter was honest in that he or she is uncertain of the values that were calculated or the way that the experiment was performed. Rather than reporting false values to make the lab report look better, the experimenter acknowledged that the outcome of the lab was not optimal. That is ultimately more useful for the people trying to learn by reading this report than faking results is.
Lab 2: What I disliked
The pictures in this report did not come with labels or explanations. These would help me understand what is being documented better.
Also, the way the data and the graph are presented could be better. The graph could use an explanation and a title, since it is not immediately obvious what the trace of the graph is measuring. The table of values could be neater. For example, the width of the columns could be adjusted so that the column labels fit better.
Lab 5: What I liked
Each section of this lab report, including the abstract, introduction, experimental design, results, analysis, and summary, contained enough descriptive detail for me to understand what the purpose of the experiment was, what was being measured, and how it was being measured. The introduction section provided relevant background information about the relationship of the magnetic field of a neodymium magnet to the magnetic field of the earth. This section it clear that the experiment would demonstrate an inverse proportionality between the strength of the magnetic field and the distance at which it is being measured. The abstract summarized the results of the experiment well and provided the experimental value of the variable being measured, which was the value for the rate of decrease in magnitude of the magnetic field of a neodymium magnet with distance. These sections enhanced my understanding of the physics, as well as the way the experiment is intended to demonstrate physical truths. The summary pulled together all of these details really well and showed the reader how the value of the measured variable was calculated from the experimental data. Overall this was all very well written.
I also liked the way the experimental data was presented. The table was neat, orderly, and arranged in such a way as to make obvious the relationship between deflection angle of the compass needle, distance of of the magnet, and strength of the magnetic field. The graph that was created from the table data was clearly presented as well. The graph included a descriptive title, appropriately labeled axes, a legend, and an equation for the trend line that was off to the side, so it was legible. The presentation for the data and the graph aided my understanding of the experiment.
Lab 5: What I disliked
The first figure, the picture of the experimental set up, was lacking in explanation. The picture came with no description or even a figure number. It's very hard to understand just by looking at it. The objects in the picture are not labeled, and there are no units for the distance measurements along the horizontal axis that the compass rests on. If I want to figure out what is going on in this picture I have to dig through the introduction and experiment sections first. I think that the picture would be much more effective if it contained labels, units, and an explanation of what is being shown.
The summary section, while descriptive, was rather brief, and could have focused more on sources of experimental error. In addition, there was no discussion of whether the measured value was accurate or not, and there was no comparison of the experimental value with an accepted, known value. This makes it hard for me to judge whether the experiment was successful at all, or if it was a failure. This information is very important and was omitted for some reason!
