deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Discussion_All_of_our__.tex b/section_Discussion_All_of_our__.tex  index 045f974..f79e293 100644  --- a/section_Discussion_All_of_our__.tex  +++ b/section_Discussion_All_of_our__.tex 
...
All of our data was taken from the oscilloscope, which means that we were quite limited in our methods of data collection. For example, as described in our Methods, we found the precession frequency by averaging the frequency over ten cycles and dividing by ten. Although this method is more accurate, we determined that we could only measure frequency to a precision of 18 Hz, and likewise we could only measure the amplitude to a precision of 0.08 V. Had we been using different equipment or an oscilloscope with finer resolution, we might have obtained more precise results. As such, our main sources of error were likely due to the limitations of using the oscilloscope. For example, finding exact values of peak or dips in the data was not always possible. There were occasionally points where the exponential decay may not have quite flattened out yet, but the oscilloscope resolution was too coarse to measure a difference in amplitude between the points we were using to take data.   According to the \href{http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?gammap}{NIST website}, the gyromagnetic ratio has a value of $(2.675221900 \pm 0.000000018) \cdot 10^8 \frac{1}{s\cdot T}$, which agrees with our measured value of $(2.65 \pm 0.04)\cdot 10^8 \frac{1}{s\cdot T}$. This does speak somewhat to the accuracy of our experiment, as the gyromagnetic ratio is a constant.\textbf{discuss further}  %Additionally, we estimated that we were using 125 mL of water, as that is the volume of the bottle which was used, but we cannot be sure that we had exactly 125 mL of water.