I began my matlab experience by prerusing through the "Getting Started with Matlab" handout using the computer. Next I followed Professor Lockhart's writeup. The writeup guided me through a problem of two point charges. - Find the potential and the electric field and then graph the results in various ways. I then placed the commands into a file called matlabex.m for which I could modify at the slightest whim and then rerun the program to see the results of the changes. Through the combination of using the help command (similar to the man command in UNIX), and the trying out modifications in my program I learned my interesting things. Diverging for a moment, I will compare the Lockhart program results using Matlab and the Dancing Gaussian from Mathematica. Both Mathematica and Matlab have good and bad points. Which one that you use depends upon what you are doing. Mathematica can easily do computation of functions but Matlab is more user friendly in the area of adding finishing touches to a graph and looking at it from different view points. Anyways, each program requires a different technique towards the common goal of finding the best resulution of the spike of a given function. Returning the to the topic at hand, I decided upon the mesh graph style to use for this next part. Here I increased the resolution of the potential function by increasing the x and y arrays used in creating the meshgrid from 0.1 to 0.014. This seemed to yield the best visual results. To view the graph refer to graph1. I wanted a better view and thus rotationed it from the default position of: azmuthal angle = -37.5 and elevation = 30 to 30 and 0 (a side view). To view the graph refer to graph2. Wow! Notice that the first graph shows the potential plane with a spike at the positive charge and a dot due to the negative charge. The second graph (due to rotation) reveals not only a spike due to the positive change but one can clearly see that there's a spike in the opposite direction from the plane due to the negative charge. The color changes also add to an easier interpretation of the results. I also went through the above process for the gradient of the potential. The graph is labeled the electric field but it's actually the negative of the electric field to be more precise. If you are interested the first graph, graph3, is the graph using the default settings. Again, notice the spiking of the electric field at the charge points. The last graph, graph4, reveals not only a spike similar to the potential but an added "bump" on each. Something that I noticed in both the graph of the potential and the electric field, one spike is "longer" than the other. Off hand that seems incorrect - a glich in the program. If I have more time before this is due, I'll put some thought into it. There must be more to it.