...London School of Engineering and Materials Science Laboratory report writing instructions DEN101 - Fluid Mechanics 1 Flow Rate Measurement Experiment A. Student Student Number: 1234567 Version 2.0, 27 November 2010 Template for Word 97-2003 Abstract This document explains what is expected in your Fluids 1 lab report. The sections that should be covered are outlined and a structure you could follow is proposed. Detailed advice on how to edit the report is given. The document concludes with the marking criteria for this lab report. Table of Contents Abstract 2 1. Introduction 3 1.1. Writing 3 1.2. Editing and formatting 3 1.3. Content of the introduction 4 2. Background and theory 4 3. Apparatus 4 4. Test 4 5. Experimental procedure 4 6. Results 5 7. Discussion 5 8. Conclusions 5 9. References 5 10. Appendix A: Marking criteria 6 Introduction Before starting to write a report, you should think about what is your audience. Am I writing for colleagues who want a lot of detail how it is done, or am I writing for my boss who just wants an executive summary as he has no time for details? In general, there is not a single type of audience and we have to make our writing suitable for the detailed read, as well as the fast perusal. To understand what is required from you in this report, please have a look at the marking criteria in the Appendix. 1 Writing To limit...
Words: 2017 - Pages: 9
...The Discussion should be written after the Results section so that you have a good idea of what the experiment has demonstrated. The discussion section should definitely have a statement of your expected findings (Pechenik, 86). This should include your hypothesis and a brief statement about why these types of results are expected. There should also be a comparison of how your actual results related to your expected findings (Pechenik, 86). Here, you should state whether or not your results supported or didn't support your hypothesis. In addition, the degree to which the evidence supported your hypothesis should be stated. For example, were the results completely supportive, or were there variances? There should be an explanation of unexpected results (Pechenik, 86). When looking for possible explanations, consider the following: Was the equipment used adequate for the task? Was the experimental design valid? Were the working assumptions made correct? A common mistake that many writers make is to blame themselves for the unexpected results. Unless you actually made a mistake following the methods of the experiment, and could not go back and correct it, do not make up such errors to explain the variances you observe. Think about and analyze the methods and equipment you used. Could something different have been done to obtain better results? Another possibility to consider is if the experiment was conducted under factors that were considerably different from those described...
Words: 1314 - Pages: 6
