deletions | additions       diff --git a/FloatBarrier_For_thi.tex b/FloatBarrier_For_thi.tex  index 004f86b..a3387ae 100644  --- a/FloatBarrier_For_thi.tex  +++ b/FloatBarrier_For_thi.tex 
...
\end{equation}  Once the measured spacings, ($\Delta E_{n}$), between the maxima and minima of the Franck-Hertz curve were plotted against the minimum order (n) of the peaks and dips, and analyzed using a linear fit in order to see if they were consistent with the expected equation for the difference in energy gained.\\  Due to poor resolution in some of the acquired data, it was very difficult to determine the minimum order (n) of the peaks and dips. The presumed true value of n was found via trial and error, thus we expect there to be some uncertainty on it.   The lowest excitation energy of Neon was determined from the graph by finding the intercept of the linear fit at $n=0.5$. The value of the excitation energy found from the linear fit was then compared to the known value of the lowest excitation energy for Neon I ($16.61906936eV$ - taken from NIST ASD data).  The fits for the peaks and dips are:  \begin{equation}  E_n [eV] (Peaks) = (4.510\pm0.00)n + (9.950\pm0)  \end{equation}  \begin{equation}  E_n [eV] (Dips) = (-0.170\pm1.0)n + (19.45\pm3.2)  \end{equation}  As seen in Figure 4 the intercept at $n=0.5$ is $12.5 eV$, which is quite different from the expect value of $16.61906936eV$. For the dips it is a little bit better at a value of $~19eV$. 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 dips and peaks been observed before ionization, the intercept at $n=(0.5)$ might have been closer to the expected value.