October 31, 2009
LA01 Mather, Olson, Sharples, and Merfield
- First Run: (no title given)
- Second Run: Mather, Merfield, Olson, and Sharples
by Mather, Olson, Sharples, and Merfield
Reviewers:
- Chang
- Zhang
- Freedman
- Toth
Filed under AY2010, labs, updated by on Oct 31st, 2009. Comment. 
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Login.
Comments on LA01 Mather, Olson, Sharples, and Merfield
This is from Michael Toth:
Clarity of procedure: 4. Repetition of word “object”. What object? This is randomly introduced. Instead of “an object”, on line 19 say ‘grouping’ or ‘experiment’ or ‘test’. Not entirely sure what is intended to be said.
- “Object” is repeated on lines 19, 20, 25, 27
Line 27: ‘we recorded the maximum velocity’, maybe say terminal velocity instead. Maximum velocity does not necessarily mean terminal velocity in this case (it could still be accelerating after sample /record window).
Clarity of Results: 4. Conclusions are made based off of the data collected and seems correct. The reasoning is clearly stated and can be confirmed in the graph.
Validity: 4. This paper supports the experiment’s results. The purpose of the lab and the paper was to determine if the drag constant was linear or quadratic and this is clearly shown to be linear with a graph and matching equations.
Figures: 4. The graphs and tables clearly show the data and explain it visually, however the line fitted to the data is not completely linear, and the experiment is based off of the assumption that the graph is in fact linear. Perhaps one or 2 more trials would cement these results and make the graph more accurate.
Overall I think the experiment was executed well and nothing should be changed other than more trials to produce a more linear (or quadratic I suppose) graph.
This is from Zach Freedman
Categories
Clarity of Procedure
Is it clear what was done in the lab? 5
Clarity of Results
Does the paper present in a clear, easy-to-assess manner the results achieved and the reasoning that led to them. 4
Validity Does the paper support the results it offers? In other words, do you believe what is said? This requires intellectual honesty: Even if the results disagree with your conception (or your results!) the paper can still be valid. 4
Figures Do the figures/graphs/tables in the report serve to “tell the story” well? Things to consider: Are they formatted well (clear title, axes, caption)? Were they chosen well? Are there graphs, etc. that you think should be there but aren’t? 4
Comments
Append your comments here, using the line numbers in the submitted paper.
Although this group did form a graph of the data, I feel that it would be very helpful to a reader who had never done this lab before if a linear regression was provided. That is, if you provided two graphs. The first and most accurate representation of the data would be the graph of the mass of the filters vs. the terminal velocity. The second graph should be the linear regression, in which a best fitting line would be assigned to the given data points. The primary graph does closely resemble a linear equation, but it would help if you provided a graph that included a best fitting line, and then an equation of that line, to provide even further proof of the fact that this is a linear function.
Clarity of Procedure: 4
– How did you measure the terminal velocity? Did you use the velocity graph shown in the UMD? Or did you use the position graph and took the slope in order to get the velocity? This clarification is important. These two options may give you some error depending on which one you use.
Clarity of Result: 4
– If you started out by comparing with quadratic case, you also need to specify why the quadratic form is not valid in order to strengthen your assertion.
Validity: 4
– The data and procedure well supports the result that the report concludes. The graph and data table clearly illustrates the linear relationship between terminal velocity and time.
Figures: 4
– The graph and datatable quite well supports the result, but not spectacularly. The graph is not linear completely. Although error is inevitable in the physical real world, there may be some doubt that the result might be different. Several more runs may give a different result.
Clarity of Procedure 4
Clarity of Results 4
Validity 4
Figures 4
In this lab report, the procedure and result are clear. The proper facility and data has provided lots of useful information; therefore, support the conclusion. However, some explains are so general and not specific. For example, there is no theory part. It is not following the direction and hard for reader to understand the entire progress. Also, the analysis looks like that is all about data. It would be better to add an analysis so that can convince people easily that your graph makes sense. Furthermore, adding a title can provide a frame and help people to target your idea.
Responsiveness: 5
– The report well managed to respond to all reviews. No review was left unresponded.
Improvement: 4
– The result apparently is different from that from the first run. This altercation resulted from the successful response to a comment: taking more data to ensure whether the best fit graph is linear or quadratic.
Incorporation: 1
– The report critically fails to manage this section. Nothing was mentioned about the previous report, and the new report simply replaces the previous one.
Figures: 4
– The graph improved much more from the first report graph. The error has significantly decreased, and this eventually led to the different result.
Responsiveness 4
It has a good responding to all reviews. Many parts are much better than first one.
Improvement 4
The figure and conclusion have improved a lot. The graph looks better and the answer is more accurate.
Incorporation 4
The changing is obvious but I think it would be better to build on some new ideas rather than just replacement
Figures 4
The figure is much better than previous one. Not only has more analysis, but also has more relations to the conclusion.
Responsiveness: 4
-Fixed wording errors in procedure and throughout the lab to make it more clear as reccomended.
Improvement: 4
-Overall clarity and information has been improved greatly. The data now appears much more accurate and well explained.
Incorporation: 3
-Improvement and built on previous report but no specific mention as to what has changed or what has been reccomended by reviewers.
Figure: 4
-Figures seem more believable, accurate and well explained with data tables and graphical analysis. Graph is well made with best fit line and supports conclusion.
Just to be clear: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with repeating an experiment without radical changes, if you believe the methodology to be sound.
This is for Zach Freedman, who is going to learn how to post his comments directly instead of sending them to Mr. Gilroy, from now on…
Clarity of Procedure 4
Clarity of Results 3
Validity 3
Figures 4
The lab is presented in an easy to comprehend manner. Aside from some tense changing from past tense to conditional in the theory, there was only one problem that stuck out when reading over the lab. In lines 10-11, the lab states “The data set produced a linear graph, indicating that drag coefficient of an object is determined by a linear function.” However, in lines 45-56, the procedure reads “We examined the data, confirming that the sample followed a quadratic
trend.” Again, this discrepancy exists in lines 64-66: “Plotting m versus the terminal velocity for the five sets of trials for various masses results in a curved graph, and the info-box on the graph shows the fit line is of the form Ax2 + bx + c.” At one point in the lab, the exponent’s power is said to be (1), and at other points, the power is said to be (2.) This is very confusing, and although your graph displays a quadratic correlation of data, it is said to be linear in the abstract.