deletions | additions       diff --git a/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex b/As_seen_in_Figure_Neon__.tex  index ef512c6..6e0fd65 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 $19.365 eV$, which is quite different from the expect value of $16.619eV$. Our error in our data is $14.19 \%$, a high error. This may be because the data ionized before we were able to get more dips, we may have found a more accurate result. Our data has a negative slope, this is unexpected and most likely a result of our lack of data. 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 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. Had more dips been observed before ionization, the intercept at $n=0.5$ might have been closer to the expected value.