Lab Report: Centripetal Force - Should I Round or Extend?

  • Thread starter Thread starter melchisio
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lab
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the appropriate handling of significant figures in a lab report on centripetal force. The user grappling with the issue faces a dilemma between rounding numbers for significant figures and maintaining the integrity of the graph's correlation. The consensus suggests that extending the figures for accuracy is preferable, with a clear explanation in the conclusion regarding the impact of significant figures on the graph's appearance. This approach ensures that the report reflects true data trends while acknowledging potential sources of error.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of significant figures in scientific reporting
  • Familiarity with graphing data in lab reports
  • Knowledge of centripetal force concepts
  • Experience with writing scientific conclusions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research best practices for presenting significant figures in scientific reports
  • Learn how to effectively graph data points while maintaining accuracy
  • Explore methods for explaining sources of error in lab conclusions
  • Study the principles of centripetal force and its mathematical representation
USEFUL FOR

Students conducting physics experiments, educators teaching lab report writing, and anyone involved in scientific data presentation and analysis.

melchisio
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
lab report--quickie!

im drawing up the graphs for my "centripetal force" lab report by hand, and we are instructed to use sig figs.

problem is, if i use sig figs and round my numbers, the graph's points are in a straight line with one other point that looks like an outlier. It isn't an outlier, and i know what the graph is supposed to look like... my points would follow that exact correlation if i extended the numbers one more digit.

Should i keep my figures rounded, however messed up my graph looks, or should i just leave it and explain the "lack of" trend in my conclusion??

HELP SOON!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How about mentioning as a source of error.I meam,u know how it looks like with accurate no-s and how it doesn't with the no-s rounded.How about you do it as it should come out (namely precision) and the end of the paper mention the reason for doing it:if u had used less sign.dig-s,your graph would have looked differently,possibly incorrect.

Daniel.
 
yea thanks, i wouldn't have thought of that. I think it'll work into my report really well!
 

Similar threads

Uncertainty Error and Significant Figures in this Force Tables Lab
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Centripetal Lab- finding the mass from the slope
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
How does radius affect frequency in uniform circular motion?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K
How Should Time and Distance Uncertainties Affect Calculations in Physics Labs?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Do Lab Report Graphs Need to Include the Origin Point?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Finding the slope of a log-log graph?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
Help Needed with Franck Hertz Oscillation Lab Report Analysis
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Archived Should Labs Be Written in Pen?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
How Many Significant Figures Should Be Reported in Lab Calculations?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Hello, I need some clarification with my lab report
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K