City College of New York

English 21007

Professor. Sara Jacobson

March One, 2023

‎

---

Abstract

‎

There are certain limitations and proceedings on writing lab reports as they are to inform, convince, or convey information; however, they are vague, and as such different styles of lab reports can exist. This paper will compare and contrast two lab reports that tackle a similar subject question: how to improve CPU cooling but does so with varying differences. Two lab reports, Shang et al. (2022) and Ba et al. (2022) were used in this paper, Shang et al. (2022) were more detailed in their explanations, experimentations, and data models, whereas Ba et al. (2022) did have the correct components but were less detailed.

‎

---

Introduction

‎

Lab reports are, as stated in the textbook, documents created by engineers that describe and record data, experiments, and any other information about their study. Such reports are published in journals and used by many to gain and spread discoveries, findings, and new relevant information in their respective fields. The textbook details that a lab report consists of different elements: the title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, data analysis, and conclusion (Markel et al., 2020). This paper will compare and contrast those elements from two articles in the same field: CPU cooling and the thermodynamics of heat dissipation.

‎

---

Title

‎

Both articles state relevant titles with respect to their fields. The first article by Ba et al. (2022) states keywords like experimental, thermosyphon radiator, and CPU cooling. Likewise, the second article follows this trend, Shang et al. (2022) also use words like experimental, pulsating heat pipe radiator, horizontal CPU cooling, and wind speeds. Both articles use effective words to title their papers in their respective sub-field of study/experimental subjects. Such titles are also specific in their subject matter: allowing engineers to quickly ascertain what the article is about and what it will give them.

‎

---

Abstract

‎

The article by Ba et al. (2022) has a shorter abstract, in length, as opposed to the one by Shang et al. (2022). Ba et al. (2022) detail the relevance of the article by stating their novices, results, and overall findings, while Shang et al. (2022) give more details about the composition of their paper: writing about the different wind speeds used, the data and data analysis, and the conclusions they came to the base on the data. Shang et al. (2022) overall included more information about their paper when compared to Ba et al. (2022) in terms of short-hand details given in the abstract, although they roughly followed the same outline: report the article introduction, methods, results, and findings.  

‎

---

Introduction

‎

As once seen in the abstract, Ba et al. (2022) once again has a shorter introduction when compared to Shang et al. (2022). Ba et al. (2022) wrote their introduction in a simple format. They introduced a problem, proposed background information on a novel method that stops/reduces this issue, and then stated that this new method was their paper’s purpose. Although they did include enough information and background research so the reader can digest everything; however, compared to Shang et al. (2022)’s introduction, they were less informative with their research and background history, such as details on the past and background work done on the topic. Shang et al. (2022)., on the other hand, followed a similar format but did so with more details: stated a problem, reported why the current method is ineffective, and purposed a novel method, like Ba et al. (2022), giving background studies on this method, showing that there is a gap within that method, and finally stating the purpose of the current article. Both articles follow the general guidelines: they were informative on their respective subject and field, they defined key terms, and gave an outline of the research, present and past, and what is to come.

‎

---

Materials and Methods

‎

Both the articles: by Ba et al. (2022) and Shang et al. (2022) discussed their respective methods for their experiments in detail. Ba et al. (2022) and Shang et al. (2022) talk about their main component first: their novel equipment and all its modules. They define their modules with detail as to the specifics of their makeup and describe how the module would run/work. They go in-depth about which parts would work for what, the reason behind every element, and its purpose. They both include a figure of the system, Ba et al. (2022) with a picture, and Shang et al. (2022) with a diagram. They then transition to their experimental design/where they talk about the placement and function of every part: every thermocouple, power supply, heat source, et cetera. They both discuss their reasoning and why they placed each part goes where. Since the two articles are not experimenting on the same subject, this is the part where they differ: Ba et al. (2022) use a program, a server, to simulate a CPU being used and heated. However, Shang et al. (2022) supplied heat to the copper box, in which their CPU was, and simulated different wind speeds as an independent variable. Aside from those differences, both Ba et al. (2022) and Shang et al. (2022) effectively described and documented the materials, procedure, and their respective modules, with enough detail to be recreated in future experiments in a chronological and sensible order.

‎

---

Results and Data Analysis

‎

Both articles combined their results and data analysis section into some paragraphs/sections. Ba et al. (2022) and Shang et al. (2022) again follow a similar format: they first discuss their experimental procedure, stating what and how they were testing and how they were doing collect and analyzing the data from those tests. However, Ba et al. (2022) were slightly vaguer with their approach: they introduced how they were going to conduct the experiment, using what systems and powers for their experiment, and how they were going to analyze the data between heat pipes and their novel system, the thermosiphon. They continue to state how their novel system works, breaking its core elements down and explaining it. They go on to show data for comparison. Ba et al. (2022) detailed and explained why the data turned the way it did: why the system’s temperature started to increase after 400 W and why the heat power consumption after 400W gradually stopped working. They went on to conclude more experiments, included graphs and explained their results and what they meant. Afterward, they stated if their system was appropriate for using 400 W of power, how they determined it, and what further experiments were needed to improve their novel system. While Shang et al. (2022) first list their experimental procedure in chronological order, with more detail than Ba et al. (2022). They discussed the amount of power used, the time between trials, and the wind speed used as air flow in each trial. They also state why these values were picked and how they came to determine what quantitative value to test. They included more detailed figures, graphs, and tables to better explain their data. They explained the outcome of every trial, why those conditions were either effective or ineffective, and how that translates to their novel system in improving heat resistance. In summation, both Ba et al. (2022) and Shang et al. (2022) stated their results and data analysis in an orderly format and were extensive in their understanding of the data and respective systems, both following the ideal layout. However, Shang et al. (2022) had more details and information and included a better understanding for the reader when compared to Ba et al. (2022)’s results and data analysis section. Both authors may have combined their results and data analysis sections because it may have allowed them to be more concise with their information and data, i.e., they can present the data and comment on it afterward.

‎

---

Conclusion

‎

Both papers concluded their experiment with a short summary of the overall study, data, data analysis, and future works. However, they did so in different formats, although the outline was the same for both: Ba et al. (2022) wrote there in the format of a paragraph, whereas Shang et al. (2022) wrote theirs in the form of bullet points. Although both serve the same purpose of creating a summation, Shang et al. (2022)’s paper seemed more concise: they listed out topics of discussion, such as the results, issues/problems that arose about the system, and the implications of the data. While Ba et al. (2022) listed their conclusion in the form of a paragraph with how their system worked, the results of their system, and future implications or work that this may have/need. Both articles wrote a conclusion that fits the one labeled in the textbook, with the only difference being their outline.

‎

---

Conclusion

‎

When systematically and analytically looking at both papers’ elements for their formatting, style, outline, and way of writing: they show little difference in structure aside from formatting and being vague/concise. This notion is displayed throughout the two articles, wherein the abstract, introduction, methods, results, data analysis, and conclusion, the authors did not differ in what they put but rather in how much and how detailed they were. Both of the authors also followed the same format displayed in the textbook for all the elements; however, they combined their results and data analysis into one section, likely due to the design choice and how they presented their data.

‎

---

Bibliography

‎

Markel, M., & Selber, S. A. (2020). Technical communication. BEDFORD BKS ST MARTIN’S.

‎

---

Lab Reports

‎

Lab Report One:

---

‎

---

Lab Report Two:

---