Introduction

    A decent lab report accomplishes more than present information; it shows the author’s understanding of the ideas on the lab experiment or research that has just been performed. Merely recording the expected and watched results isn’t adequate; the report ought to likewise distinguish how and why contrasts happened, clarify how they influenced the investigation, and show the comprehension of the standards the analysis was intending to look. Also, A lab report is more than just something you turn in to (hopefully) get a good grade. It’s your opportunity to show that you understand what is going on in the experiment, which is the most important part of doing it. Besides, I think it’s actually very good practice for getting across your thoughts about the science you are doing in a manner that the reader can understand. I will refer to Helm, R. Hydrostatic Pressure on a Partially and Fully Submerged Vertical Rectangular Surface as LAB 1 AND Schmöle, J., Dragosits, M., Hepach, H., & Aspelmeyer, M. (2016). A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(12), 125031 as LAB 2. 

            The title of a lab report is one of the most important elements of a good lab. The title can usually draw the attention of the reader to your work. It should clearly represent the work presented. If the purpose of the experiment is to measure the Hydrostatic Pressure on a Partially and Fully Submerged Vertical Rectangular Surface, the title should be like “ Hydrostatic Pressure on a Partially and Fully Submerged Vertical Rectangular Surface”. Avoid “The” as the first word in the title for it will lead to misleading searches when one uses the database. In lab 1, the title of the investigation was demonstrated at the head of the main page. The report begins with an abstract which clarifies how Hydrostatic Pressure Systems consider the estimation and advancement of hydrostatic power and focus of weight conditions and qualities important to manufacture and assess liquid frameworks. Accordingly, in the two cases, the information gathered confirmed the connections of the focus of weight and hydrostatic power against stature introduced in the given conditions. Those given conditions are that when the mass was added to the Edibon Hydrostatic pressure system, the water level must be at zero lines. Since the second about the turn must be zero, the connection among mass and tallness further affirmed these discoveries. The hypothetical statues were contrasted with the trial estimations of tallness to survey the weight framework’s exactness. Since this relationship’s incline was almost one, the weight framework exactness affirmed, and no alignment was required. Also, in lab 2, The report begins with the abstract. It portrays a test plot dependent on micromechanical detecting to watch gravity. The abstract was clear and self-explanatory. The abstract in lab 2 made it clear that the paper addresses a simple question: how small one can make a gravitational source mass and still detects its coupling effect to a nearby mass (Schmöle, Dragosits, Hepach, Aspelmeyer, 2016).

        In the introduction section, a good lab report is meant to state the purpose of the experiment in general terms, review the existing information and supply a paragraph or a phrase about how the experiment or basic information about measurement. In both labs’ reports, the introduction was clear, straight forward, and explained what the experiment was all about. Both creators/authors bring up the objectives and hypothesis after the trial was based. In lab 1, the introduction gave a clear detail and definition of what a Hydrostatic pressure is. The introduction also went further and gave a detailed example of how an Edibon Hydrostatics pressure system device works; This device (fig. 1) is based on the principle that the sum of the moments about the pivot must be equal to zero. Thus, the moment due to the weight of the masses applied to the left end must be equal to the moment due to the hydrostatic force acting on the vertical rectangular quadrant (Humpherys, 1991). When known masses are applied to the end of the system, the pivot rotates. In order to balance the moment caused by the weight of the masses and return the pivot to equilibrium, water is added into the chamber of the pressure system (Helm, n.d). The introduction in lab 1 also gave and talked about the formula that can be used to calculate the mass applied to the end of a pressure system. Lab 2 also used a similar step and procedure just as lab 1. Lab 2 gave a detailed definition and explanation of how each device is being used and how to calculate certain parameters with the data found in the experimental procedure.

              The objectives of both lab 1 and lab 2 were clearly stated to allow the reader or examiner to have a clear idea about what the experiment looks like. Lab 1 did a perfect job of breaking down what the objective of the lab into three different parts. Part (a) was to determine and analyze the relationship of hydrostatics force and center of pressure with respect to the height of water in the pressure system chambers part(b) was to confirm that this relationship are represented in the given equation and finally part (c) To assess the accuracy of the measurement produced by the edibon hydrostatic pressure system (Helm, n.d). But for lab 2, the objective was put together in the same paragraph with the introduction, before a reader or an examiner can understand or find out the objective of the lab 2 report, he or she will have to take his or her time to read and figure out the objective on their own. Based on the way that both labs presented the objective of the lab, I would say that Lab one did a great job than lab 2. 

         As we all know that during lab experiments, there is no way we are not going to make use of equipment and material. The equipment that was used in Lab 1 was clearly stated and the step on how to use the equipment and material was explained in such a way that anyone in a different field other than engineering can start using the equipment and material after going through the step that was explained. In lab 1, the equipment used was not clearly stated and steps on how to operate the equipment were not mentioned. Even some engineering students will not be able to understand how to operate the device that was used in lab 2. Lab 1 materials were recorded in exposition structure, including the methodology that was followed. The chamber was loaded up with the liquid until the equalization connected arm was level and the stature. Realized masses were added to one side of the arm (Helm, n.d). Lab 1 also gave detail on how the water in the chamber was utilized in the experiment’s lab 1 made the reader know that to adjust the second about the turn, water was included in the chamber until the equalization connect arm was level once more but lab 2 did not go fully into how the equipment work and how the material was being used throughout the experiment.

           In lab 1, the results and discussion in the report were consolidated. There was a direct relationship with a slant of roughly one for an incompletely lowered plot of hypothetical tallness versus estimated stature of liquid for a given mass. In lab 2, Even though there is a well detailed and well-conducted explanation of the experiment, the result of the experiment was not explained. Lab 2 did not provide an image or graph to support the result of the experiment. Whenever an examiner or anyone is going through lab 2, he or she will find it too difficult to know what section of the report is discussing the result of the experiment. If finding the result of an experiment is proving too difficult to an examiner or a reader, such a lab report is missing one of the 8 elements of a good and decent lab report. Unlike lab 2, Lab 1 also provides graphs just to back the result Since the experiment was well conducted, Lab 1 gave a detailed explanation of what each graph represents. Also, Lab 1 expatiates more on each variable on the graph including the slope of each graph, area of the graph, the meaning of both the slope and area of the graph and how they were both calculated. Whenever a lab report comprises the breakdown of each component of the result, such a lab report is easy to read and understand, and a reader or an examiner will have no problem in reading or going through such a lab report. A Lab result must have all of the following;

• Provide tables showing your measurement with units.
• Describe the uncertainties: standard, instrument, random errors
• Provide graphs. Graphs should be neat, clear, and include the axis label and units.
• Computation of the final answer: slope calculation, averages, and standard deviations all in proper significant figures.

Lab 1 has all the attributes of a good result list above but lab 2 has just one or two of the attributes of a good result.

          As we all know, the conclusion is a short review of that which has been deduced or gotten from the experiment conducted. It is an opportunity to restate the aims or key questions and to summarize the key points raised in the results and discussion sections. No new information should be given in the conclusion that hasn’t been stated previously in the document. Lab 1 has a section that is dedicated to the conclusion of the experiment. The conclusion for lab 1 restated the purpose of the experiment, It also re-explains the connection and relationship between the graph and the experiment. Lab 2 also has a conclusion (written as a summary) in the report. The conclusion also discusses the aim, purpose, and objective of the experiment. Lab 2 also gives a brief summary of the procedure, step, and source of error that was encountered during the course of the experiment. so, a conclusion is reached. 

            In conclusion, the two reports are comparable in parts of abstract, introduction, procedure, and materials. Anyway, they are distinctive in the request through which references, examination conclusions, affirmations, and appendixes are introduced. With everything taken into account, lab 1 has all the 8 elements of a good lab report but lab 2 was missing 2 of the elements that a good lab report is meant to possess. Finally, as a recap, the eight elements of a good are abstract, introduction, equipment or material use, content discussion, result, acknowledgment, reference, and conclusion.

References

Schmöle, J., Dragosits, M., Hepach, H., & Aspelmeyer, M. (2016). A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(12), 125031

Helm, R. Hydrostatic Pressure on a Partially and Fully Submerged Vertical Rectangular Surface.