deletions | additions       diff --git a/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex b/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex  index 15b9e66..cf37819 100644  --- a/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex  +++ b/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex 
...
As seen in Figure: Neon Refined Differences Figure 4  the intercept at $n=0.5$ is $19.4 eV$, which is quite different from the expected value of $16.619eV$. Our error in our data is $14.19 \%$, a high error. This may be because the data ionized before a sufficient amount of dips have been recorded. Another very likely possibility is that the mean free path $\lambda$ was not significant, and thus it was unnecessary to use the long mean free path limit. Using the short mean free path limit might better approximate the lowest excitation energy of Neon. In this case, the graph of the spacings $\Delta E$ between the minima versus the minimum order $n$ should be fit to a horizontal line in order to extract the value $E_{a}$. It is unlikely that even with the inclusion of error, the measured value for the lowest excited energy would match the expected value. Had more dips been observed before ionization, or had the short mean free path limit been used, the intercept at $n=0.5$ might have been closer to the expected value.