Computer Engineering
Where the future is in the palm of your hands
Dillon Romney
City College of New York
ENGL 21007: Writing for Engineering
Professor C. Rodwell
March 08, 2023
Engineering is the reason for most of our machines and automated technology we use in
our daily lives. But then we ask ourselves how can we test the validity of our
technology/experiments to get results? By conducting a lab report of all your findings and
summarizing all of your info in a few paragraphs. A large study of information was gathered on
these 3 lab reports, Philippine banknote counterfeit money, beam tracking method using
unscented kalman filter and the study of computer engineering students between Turkey and
Kyrgyzstan. The comparison of these 3 lab reports will ultimately show their strengths and
weaknesses on what was gathered and how their information was presented.
Lab report #1 “Philippine banknote counterfeit money” conducted their experiment by
first elaborating on the problem they had which is counterfeit money, and how they were going
to resolve that issue using a transformer network which can accurately pinpoint counterfeit
money. Lab report #2 “Beam tracking method using unscented kalman filter” conducted their
experiment by doing the same thing lab report #1 did; explaining their issue which was limited
5g wireless communication coverage and how they were going to resolve that issue by using a
UAV to spread the coverage off from one person to multiple people in the same area. Lab report
#3 “the study of computer engineering students between Turkey and Kyrgyzstan” started off their
experiment in the same way both Lab reports #1 and #2 did, and that was explaining the issue at
hand being the lack of experience both countries had of engineering. While also having a way to
solve this by conducting a survey of the 2 countries seeing what they actually knew about
computer engineering. Lab report #1 had much more to say on the intro of their topic compared
to labs #2 and #3 but didn’t necessarily have to put all their info in this section. One example
being “their transfer learning method achieved a validation and training accuracy of 99.86%,
99.98%, 100%, 99.97% and 99.86% respectfully.” something like this could be kept in the results
section.
Lab report #1 decided to conduct their experiment by using transformer networks to
accurately depict real money from counterfeit money. By doing so they used models, one being a
ResNet-18 to do a scan of counterfeit and real money and have a percentage of how well they
can depict this being well above 90%. Lab report #2 decided to conduct their experiment by
using hybrid beamforming which can connect multiple antennas together to amplify the signal
strength, boosting the strength of the 5g wireless communication systems. Lab report #3 did their
experiments by asking college students from both Turkey and Kyrgyzstan the same questions
about computer engineering and if they had prior experience as internships. Lab report #2 had
the biggest amount of information during the method section compared to lab reports #1 and #3
but that was only because they stretched out their information using graphs and tables and having
a description for each line.
Lab report #1 had very interesting results from this experiment; the actual experiment
itself took 11 mins and 44 seconds to actually do and complete but since all it was, was
comparing real and counterfeit money using a transformer network scanning both it’s to be
expected. Lab report #2 had a very surprising low results section considering that its method
section was over a page and a half long. This section also had graphs and tables to accurately
show their findings and again explain each line and table with a paragraph. Lab report
#3 had the longest results section compared to both lab reports #1 and #2. However, all they
really did was explain each of the questions they asked and the results of their findings from the
students’ answers in multiple paragraphs; ultimately dragging the report making it longer than it
should have. Sometimes cutting straight to point when showing test results would be a good
thing to keep your reader interested in your report.
Only lab reports #1 and #3 have a discussion section so lab report #2 will be left out. Lab
report #1’s discussion was put in the same area as its results and it was very hard to conclude
whether or not the authors meant to have it there simultaneously. Lab report #3’s discussion
section was definitely bigger than lab report #1 and at the same time just dragged on the
conversation inserting their own logic and not getting straight to the point with what they
received from the results. Lab report #2 most likely never got a discussion section because it was
most likely integrated in either the results or in the conclusion. Needless to say, everything was
explained in very fine detail so it’s natural that they could’ve left it out on purpose.
Ultimately, lab reports #1, #2, and #3 all had their pros and cons when it came to
approaching all of their reports. Some pros being the accuracy of information and key details
when it came to explaining to the reader. Some cons being the abundance of language being
directed at the reader and the word choice of some of the things each lab report described. When
it comes to creating a lab report you have to think about the audience of who will be reading this,
will they understand all this technical language being hurled at them?
References:
Philippine Banknote Counterfeit Detection:
Beam Tracking Method:
Computer Engineering Students:
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
