deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Discussion_The_neon_experiment__.tex b/section_Discussion_The_neon_experiment__.tex  index c33c910..6410285 100644  --- a/section_Discussion_The_neon_experiment__.tex  +++ b/section_Discussion_The_neon_experiment__.tex 
...
\section{Discussion}  The neon experiment seemed to have some sort of systematic error. error with the connections.  As mentioned, mentioned above,  the first excitation level was suppose to occur around 16.62eV. However, Our excitation level falls within  this never happened. And range; however, our error is quite large. Since we used a period of 500s, our measurements were not very precise.   The result of our argon experiment is not consistent with  the theoretical value within uncertainty. In order to figure out what went wrong, we analyzed our apparatus setup. The  accelerating voltage went all the way up to 80V, as expected, in our data files. That shows that the applied voltage is not at fault nor are the multimeters. We debugged the circuit to see if we were overloading any part of the circuit, and nothing seemed to be overloaded. There could be a very small extra resistance from the cables used but that would not have a drastic effect of a 3V difference between the actual energy level and the experimental energy level that we observed. So, we conclude that there must have been something wrong with the neon tube. There must have been some sort of extra resistance inside As a result,  the tube that we did not account for. This could only possible explanation seems to  be tested a systematic error caused  byswitching out  the tubes; however, we do not have these resources available to us. voltage amplification.  Therefore, our methods and analysis are correct; however, there seems to be a systematic error with the tube. \textbf{edit based on damage from the high voltage preamp}  As for the argon experiment, the data was more precise. For this part of the experiment, we debugged the whole apparatus and replaced all the equipment. In addition, we used a longer period so there would be more data points. Our methods seem to work out quite well for this experiment. Our experimental value seems to lie fairly close to the actual value of the first excitation level for argon.