Metacelsus - 2-2-2014 at 12:40
This is a draft paper that I plan to submit to my local science fair in the next few days. My goal in posting it here is twofold: first, to expand
your knowledge about the topic, and second, to receive constructive criticism and suggestions.
I did the work at a University of Minnesota lab (no, I do not own a 500 MHz NMR
).
Attachment: Paper.docx (505kB)
This file has been downloaded 848 times
[Edited on 2-2-2014 by Cheddite Cheese]
Metacelsus - 2-2-2014 at 15:58
Latest revision:
[Edited on 3-2-2014 by Cheddite Cheese]
Attachment: Paper.docx (449kB)
This file has been downloaded 739 times
Brain&Force - 5-2-2014 at 10:20
This is some great work Cheddite! I've never written a research paper myself, but what you have is definitely worthy of top honors.
The only nitpick I have: replace "overpredicts" and "underpredicts" with "overestimates" and "underestimates." It just looks better. And why is "iso"
italicized?
[Edited on 5-2-2014 by Brain&Force]
Metacelsus - 5-2-2014 at 10:56
The models don't estimate, they predict.
Iso is italicized because it is a non-numerical prefix.
Final version (contains significant revisions):
[Edited on 6-2-2014 by Cheddite Cheese]
Attachment: Pierson_Smela_Paper.pdf (1.5MB)
This file has been downloaded 1007 times
smaerd - 8-2-2014 at 20:08
Gave this a quick read through the other night but forgot to post. Pretty nice I'll have to give it a more serious look over but quality work. Very
rarely are kinetic type experiments performed on an amateur-esque level.
Mildronate - 9-2-2014 at 07:18
Actually there are few errors like 0.620±0.032 L/(mol*s) must write as 0.62±0.03. And its possible to calculate it without wolfram mathematica in
excel using Runge-Cute method and excel plugin solver.