Comments on: People who are good at science: is my lab report okay?

By: hono785

hono785 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:45:59 +0000

this is how my science experiments are setup.

The Objective: usually the question to your SWAG (scientific wild ass guess); something you can measure.
i.e. test strength, impact/scratch resisitance, plyability, flammability, paint cohesion, repair advantages, etc.

Information: fields of inquiry from background research.

Equipment list: what will be used to measure your test.
i.e. impact studies, controlled scratch test, impliments, scales, photo equipment, etc

Hypothesis: an explaination of how things will work and other possible observed phemomena. "If ______________i do this
_____________will happen, then ___________________this results."

Plans for observations: experiment design and how measurements will be taken to explain your original question. The experiment must be repeatable with consistant results, usually against a control.

Experimentation: test
I. Control
a. against these tests
b. sub catagory test
II. One composite formula (include all ingredients)
a. Findings
b. impact test
c. scratch test
d. tensil strength
III. hybrid formula
a.
b.
i.
ii.
c. flammibilty test

experimental studies: are these fair tests? observations true or false? repeatable by empirical evidence and measurements?

Analysis: results of data and reasoning collected from measurements. Numbers, figures, charts, and calculations.
Reliability of measurments, archive data… etc.

Conclusion: what was learned from experiment. Is hypothesis true. What are the facts. If not, what could be done in experiment to validate or invalidate experiment. Maybe construct new hypothesis to test and/or new ways to test. New theories may be bound by experimental test results.

Abstract: Final report to commuicate your results, journal/display to others. A full disclosure of verified and shared data to establish the presented results.
"it appears you have an abstract"

Of coarse, this is general, but this is the basic scientific method; without the examples i listed for you.

Hope this helps. @;)’
have a good day!
References :

By: Ro G

Ro G — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:19:59 +0000

A lab report should be less "marketing-prone" and more scientific. Present the facts with NUMBERS. Also the use of statistical tools will be nice. E.g. "strong" could be more reliable if you test the shell on a hundreds of stress-tests and you summarize the central tendency, the dispersion, etc of the "resistance until break" of the shell.

etc., etc.

bye!
References :

By: Dr Dave P

Dr Dave P — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:10:59 +0000

It sounds like you did some work and were committed in your actions, but I didn’t hear any numbers.

How much glue, polymers were used? How did you test whether it was inflammable? I’m not convinced of this fact. Perhaps it is just the PETE itself that is thermally resilient and has nothing to do with any of your modifications…

How did you test for scratch resistance – did you use calibrated laboratory apparatus that could be quantified and compared to industry standards? – Only then could you claim it was scratch resistant.

Did you test the stress-strain and breakage resistance, and by what method? – Did you use laboratory equipment?

How do the numbers of your stuff compare to PETE alone for all tests?

I hate to take the devils advocate position – I’m am just trying to get you to think of some unanswered questions I have about what I read.
References :