deletions | additions       diff --git a/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex b/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex  index a0aa13a..8aea590 100644  --- a/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex  +++ b/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex 
...
As seen in Figure Neon Refined Differences the intercept at $n=0.5$ is $12.5 eV$, which is quite different from the expect value of $16.619eV$. For Because  the dips it data was inverted, the peaks are actually the dips. Still, the value  is a little bit better at a far off from the expected  value of $~19eV$. Neon. This may be because the data ionized before we were able to get more dips, we may have found a more accurate result. Our Neon data ionized earlier than expected and earlier than previous studies' data. This is most likely because our initial settings were not at the optimal values for most peaks and dips. I did not include the dips (actually the peaks) because there were only two data points, which did not produce an accurate fit.  It is unlikely that even with the inclusion of error, the measured value for the lowest excited energy would match the expected value.This may be because the Franck-Hertz curve collected only had 3 dip values and 2 peak values.  Had more dipsand peaks  been observed before ionization, the intercept at $n=0.5$ might have been closer to the expected value.