proportionate to it. In section C, all of the domains had lined up. Section C was not drawn in on my graph because of the fact that there was not enough of a wide range of readings available to be taken with the apparatus that I was given.The graph was not what we had expected, as I wrote in my planning that I was expecting to be drawing a straight line graph. This prediction was wrongbecause we had not expected the domains to take time to line up. We thought that they would line up straight away.Evaluating EvidenceIn the experiment, the current changed quicker as it increased per centimeter we pushed the variable resistor. This made it fluctuate more, and it was therefore harder to be able to obtain accurate readings. After we had been carrying out the experiment for a while, the bar may have retained a bit of magnetism if a large enough current was put through. There was also a change in the temperature of the bar-it heated up.When doing the experiment we made sure that we turned it off after taking each reading so as we kept control of the temperature in the experiment and to avoid it heating up and affecting the experiment, making it unfair. There was less chance of getting an anomale in the experiment because we took an average of the three results. It was a reasonably accurate experiment, and if I repeated it I would get similar results. I can justify all but the third section on my graph (C) because I didnt go to a high enough voltage, but if I did I would have obtained the leveling off zone because other people using a high enough voltage did.If I wanted to make some improvements to the experiment, I would take the results five times, and to a greater degree of accuracy of current and weight loss (four decimal places or more). We also could have tried to keep the temperature more constant by not leaving the current on between the takings of readings and leaving it to cool. We should also have zeroed the balance before taking ea...
