http://www.grassuk.com/2010/01/how-to-write-lab-report/
“做实验是很有趣的，写实验报告是很恶心的。” 这是我一贯的想法，相信这里很多理工科的会跟我有一样的想法。以前每次实验完都要写那恶心的实验报告，我真庆幸我现在没有实验了。
我最不爽的就是实验做的很不错，数据结果也很好，结果因为实验报告没写好被打回重写或者直接给低分。。。。
well，再恶心也总的写不是。。。 一份最标准的实验报告的格式：
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Method
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion
7. Reference
分别来分享下近来学到的。。
Abstract
摘要摘要，就是整篇文章摘出来的要。（废话？！） 通常就是简短的一段或，no罗嗦。
强烈建议整篇文章写完后再写摘要。（似乎也没有人一开始就写 -。-！） 把文章每个部分选一些句子出来就可以拼凑成一个abstract了。
一个abstract 的模板：
1 一两句话说明这个实验的主要理论依据，或者实验需要证明的假说。
2 一两句话说一下这个理论或者假说的相关的研究。
3 两三句话描述一下实验
4 两三句话概括一下实验结果
5 一句话说一个结论，解释一下这个实验的意义或结果的重要性
转一个别人的example:
Does a child’s focus correlate with barometric pressure? if so, does it correlate positively or negatively? Tucker (1999) hypothesized a negative correlation, but this assertion has never been tested. Our team used the MISHA CPT to measure the focus of a group of 150 third-grade students. we divided the students into three groups of 50 students. one group took the MISHA CPT when barometric pressure was low, another group took it when barometric pressure was neutral, and the final group took it when barometric pressure was high. the results found that children focused significantly better when barometric pressure was low than when barometric pressure was neutral or high. the results suggest that when diagnosing ADHD, practitioners should give the CPT when barometric pressure is neutral.
Introduction
Introduction以实验目的为开头，解释一下这个实验需要证明的东西。具体实验目的视全篇实验报告长度而定，几段到几页都有的。
实验目的写完后介绍实验基本理论。 介绍一下前人或者文献里的相近相关的实验，写一下他们的成果以及不到位的地方。（well, 如果是学校安排的每年都要做的实验就写写类似相关实验的优劣吧），这部分注意写reference。
然后介绍一下实验过程。 如果实验用了一些非常见的仪器，也可以在这个部分做一个简要介绍。
再转一篇我认为写得很好的Introduction example
Introduction
In this lab, we explore the theory of optimal foraging and the theory of central place foraging using beavers as the model animal. Foraging refers to the mammalian behavior associated with searching for food. The optimal foraging theory assumes that animals feed in a way that maximizes their net rate of energy intake per unit time (Pyke et al. 1977). An animal may either maximize its daily energy intake (energy maximizer) or minimize the time spent feeding (time minimizer) in order to meet minimum requirements. Herbivores commonly behave as energy maximizers (Belovsky 1986) and accomplish this maximizing behavior by choosing food that is of high quality and has low-search and low-handling time (Pyke et al. 1977).
The central place theory is used to describe animals that collect food and store it in a fixed location in their home range, the central place (Jenkins 1980). The factors associated with the optimal foraging theory also apply to the central place theory. The central place theory predicts that retrieval costs increase linearly with distance of the resource from the central place (Rockwood and Hubbell 1987). Central place feeders are very selective when choosing food that is far from the central place since they have to spend time and energy hauling it back to the storage site (Schoener 1979).
The main objective of this lab was to determine beaver (Castor canadensis) food selection based on tree species, size, and distance. Since beavers are energy maximizers (Jenkins 1980, Belovsky 1984) and central place feeders (McGinley and Whitam 1985), they make an excellent test animal for the optimal foraging theory. Beavers eat several kinds of herbaceous plants as well as the leaves, twigs, and bark of most species of woody plants that grow near water (Jenkins and Busher 1979). By examining the trees that are chewed or not-chewed in the beavers’ home range, an accurate assessment of food preferences among tree species may be gained (Jenkins 1975). The purpose of this lab was to learn about the optimal foraging theory. We wanted to know if beavers put the optimal foraging theory into action when selecting food.
We hypothesized that the beavers in this study will choose trees that are small in circumference and closest to the water. Since the energy yield of tree species may vary significantly, we also hypothesized that beavers will show a preference for some species of trees over others regardless of circumference size or distance from the central area. The optimal foraging theory and central place theory lead us to predict that beavers, like most herbivores, will maximize their net rate of energy intake per unit time. In order to maximize energy, beavers will choose trees that are closest to their central place (the water) and require the least retrieval cost. Since beavers are trying to maximize energy, we hypothesized that they will tend to select some species of trees over others on the basis of nutritional value.
Methods
这部分通常包括Material 和 Procedure两个部分。
Material：
详细的写出实验用到的材料，设备，器材。像下面这样是不够详尽的：
Chromatography
Light bulbs
Computer
比较一下下面的：
LC-10AVP Plus High-performance liquid chromatography
24 incandescent 60W light bulbs arranged in a 6*4 rectangular matrix (See Figure 2)
Dell Precision T7500 (Xeon X5550 2.66GHz, 6GB RAM, 64 bit Windows 7 Professional)
另外，如果实验对象中有人的话，介绍人数，群体背景。用Subjects 来称呼。比如
Subjects
We tested 150 third-grade students chosen at random from a pool of 346 applicants from eight London public and private elementary schools. the students represented a fairly wide range of economic backgrounds. all agreed to participate in our study in exchange for a 25 pounds gift certificate from a local toy store.
Procedure
详细写出每一步步骤。 不要虚构理想化实验， 不要夸大某个过程
如实叙述即可。如果步骤比较多就用数字标出每一步。
example:
The test performed on the potentiometer was accomplished by winding a string around the potentiometer shaft, attaching a mass to the string, and letting the mass fall. The change in resistance of the potentiometer with time indicated the acceleration of the mass. In this experiment it was assumed that the constant Coulomb friction torque was the only friction affecting the potentiometer. If this assumption were true, the friction force from the torque would be Ff = T/r (where T is the torque and r is the radius of the potentiometer’s shaft). Likewise, the gravity force would be Fg = mg (where m is the mass tied to the string and g is the gravitational acceleration). A force balance then gives
T = mr (g-a),
where a is the acceleration of the mass. If the assumption holds that the only friction affecting the potentiometer was constant Coulomb friction, then each mass would undergo a constant acceleration.
The potentiometer measured voltage versus time for the masses as they dropped, but the measurement of interest to us was position versus time. For that reason, a ‘calibration’ was performed before we measured any data. In the calibration, the potentiometer’s initial voltage was measured. Then the string was pulled a set distance (2 inches), and the voltage was recorded. This process of pulling the string a set distance and recording the voltage continued another two times (see Appendix A for the results). To determine the relationship between voltage and position, the differences in the voltages were averaged and divided by the length. The resulting relationship was 0.9661 volts/inch.
Five different masses were used to test the assumption of constant acceleration. For each mass, the string was rolled up on the shaft, the oscilloscope was triggered, and the shaft was released. As each mass dropped, the oscilloscope collected the potentiometer’s voltage versus the time. After obtaining plots for each mass, we used the voltage-position relationship, mentioned above, to convert the data from the form voltage versus time to the form position versus time squared.The residuals of the data determined whether the assumption of constant acceleration was valid.
Results
实验的数据，公式，图表，计算过程，用一种对读者最友好的形式展示出来。
实验的原始数据通常都是放在附录的，这里都是放处理过的数据。
如果有大量的计算，至少要列出其中一个sample calculation.
Results部分的开头最好重复一下实验目的。
如果结果很多，最好分成不同的section
example:
Results
Overall, beavers showed a preference for certain species of trees, and their preference was based on distance from the central place. Measurements taken at the study site show that beavers avoided oaks and musclewood (Fig. 1) and show a significant food preference (x2=447.26, d.f.=9, P<.05). No avoidance or particular preference was observed for the other tree species. The mean distance of 8.42 m away from the water for not-chewed trees was significantly greater than the mean distance of 6.13 m for chewed trees (t=3.49, d.f.=268, P<.05) (Fig. 2). The tree species that were avoided were not significantly farther from the water (t=.4277, d.f.=268, P>.05) than selected trees. For the selected tree species, no significant difference in circumference was found between trees that were not chewed (mean=16.03 cm) and chewed (mean=12.80 cm) (t=1.52, d.f.=268, P>.05) (Fig. 3).
Discussions
对于results中描述的实验数据，在这个部分中进一步诠释，解释每个结果的含义，为后面conclusion做准备。
discussions 的开头把实验的理论或者假说重复一遍，然后说明其中一个观点
1 The experiment’s results prove (recommend) the theory (hypothesis).
2 The experiment’s results disprove the theory (hypothesis).
3 The experiment’s results were inconclusive.
然后几个方面说明这个观点
What results confirm the opinion
is there reasonable doubt for your opinion? any possible flaws in the experimental design or holes in the results?
how do your results compare with similar experiments, why might your results differ.
Example:
Our team attempted to determine whether barometric pressure influences children’s ability to focus. in particular, we tested Tucker’s (1999) hypothesis, which states that children’s focus correlates negatively with barometric pressure.
The result show partial support for Tucker’s hypothesis. In particular, children focus significantly better when the barometric pressure is low than they do when the barometric pressure is neutral or high. however, children focused only slightly worse during high pressure than normal pressure. the unusually high standard deviation on the high -pressure day (Thursday) suggests that high barometric pressure might affect some children greatly and others very little.
the results suggest that, when diagnosing ADHD, practitioners should give the CPT when barometric pressure is neutral.
The experiment covers only three different days. A more comprehensive experiment should sample at least 10 different days.
Conclusion
概括一下results and the discussion的最主要最精华的部分。因为abstract和conclusion是被最常看的部分。 discussion 和conclusions 永远是两个不同的部分。
通常的：
1 the theory (hypothesis)
2 the results
example:
Conclusion
The purpose of this lab was to learn about the optimal foraging theory by measuring tree selection in beavers. We now know that the optimal foraging theory allows us to predict food-seeking behavior in beavers with respect to distance from their central place and, to a certain extent, to variations in tree species. We also learned that foraging behaviors and food selection is not always straightforward. For instance, beavers selected large branches at any distance from the water even though cutting large branches may increase energy requirements. There seems to be a fine line between energy intake and energy expenditure in beavers that is not so easily predicted by any given theory.
References
不多说-。-
随便一种通用格式就可以了。
推荐Endnote http://www.verycd.com/topics/2754923/
和 mendeley http://www.mendeley.com/
其中一篇example的全文：http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/labreport/res-sample-labrep1.html