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

  • Thread starter Thread starter melchisio
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lab
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about a lab report on centripetal force, the main concern is whether to round numbers for significant figures or extend them for accuracy in graphing. Rounding leads to a misleading graph with an apparent outlier, while extending the figures aligns the data points correctly. It is suggested to maintain precision in the report and address the rounding issue in the conclusion as a source of error. The importance of accurately representing data for clarity and correctness is emphasized. Ultimately, using precise figures while explaining the implications of rounding is recommended for a more accurate representation of results.
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!
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top