Physics 141, Fall 2016.

Department of Physics and Astronomy | University of Rochester
General Information | Time Table | Course Calendar | Grade Policy | Reading List | List Server | Download/Links | Video Clips
Streaming Lectures | September 2016 | October 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016
Exam 1 | Solutions Exam 1 | Exam 2 | Solutions Exam 2 | Exam 3 | Solutions Exam 3 | Final Exam | Solutions Final Exam
WeBWorK | set 1 | set 2 | set 3 | set 4 | set 5 | set 6 | set 7 | set 8 | set 9 | set 10 | set 11 | Solutions
Software | General Information | Lab 1 | Lab 2 | Lab 3 | Lab 4 | Lab 5
WeBWorK | Software | Lecture Demos | The Wolfs Song | Society of Physics Students Yankees | KLM | My favorite 747 | YJWF Apps
Exam 1 | Solutions Exam 1 | Exam 2 | Solutions Exam 2 | Exam 3 | Solutions Exam 3 | Final Exam | Solutions Final Exam
subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link

Lab 04: Point Distribution

The maximum number of points for the lab report is 100. The following list shows how these 100 points are distributed:

  1. 10 points: overall layout. See http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY141/Laboratory/WritingInformation/Write_Report.htm for a description of the layout of a good lab report.
  2. 10 points: overall style of the writing. Can the reader follow the story? Does the writing make sense from a logical point of view?
  3. 15 points: description of the experiments. Is sufficient detail provided to determine what you actually did? For example: Did you describe the tools that were used in the measurements? Did you include other relevant details of the experiments (e.g. band spacing, mass of the cart, height of the track)?
  4. 40 points: data analysis. We will check for the following details:
    1. Did you describe how you determined the spring constant for both techniques?
    2. Did you describe how you determined the errors in the measurements you made?
    3. Did you describe how you determined the errors in the spring constant for both techniques?
    4. Did you draw the appropriate conclusions? How do the spring constants obtained with both techniques compare?
  5. 20 points: supporting materials. Quality of data tables. Did you include your data in table format? Use of proper number of significant figures in data tables. Are data tables numbered and referred to in the text? Did you include a table captions that explains what is included in the table? Quality of figures/graphs. Are the x and y axes labelled? Do the axes labels include units? Are there error bars shown when appropriate? Are the figures numbered and referred to in the text? Did you include a figure captions that explains what is shown in the figure?
  6. 5 points: Quality of the summary and the conclusions.

Last updated on Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:21

Instructor Home Page | Instructor Contact Information | Email the Instructor | Home | © 2016 University of Rochester