deletions | additions       diff --git a/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex b/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex  index a179b9c..673dafd 100644  --- a/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex  +++ b/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex 
...
As seen in Figure Figure:  Neon Refined Differences the intercept at $n=0.5$ is $12.5 eV$, which is quite different from the expect value of $16.619eV$. Because the data was inverted, the peaks are actually the dips. Still, the value is far off from the expected value of 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. Also, because the dips correspond to the loss of potential energy, it is more important to study their data. 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, the intercept at $n=0.5$ might have been closer to the expected value.