1

The Magnetic Field: Experiment 2-3

Lelia (Lala) Tolbert
Columbia Physics Department, Columbia University
538 W. 120th St., New York, NY, 10027, USA

(Dated: March 9, 2023)

I. Abstract
The properties of the strength of the magnetic field in the gap of an electromagnet has become a
great source for investigating the mathematical relationship between current and voltage. We
present data of this relationship through Faraday’s Law in describing the changing magnetic flux
through a coil that incudes an electromotive force (EMF). By looking at the force applied on a
current-carrying wire and measuring the effects of changing magnetic flux through a coil that is
being inserted and removed from the gap in between the magnet, a comparison of measured and
experimental values can be made based on the change in magnetic field and EMF to understand
complex interactions between magnets, voltage, and current found in current technology.

II. Introduction

Using a J.J. Thomson’s inspired experiment to measure e/m for the electron using electric and
magnetic fields, the mass of the electron can be found using the value of the electron’s charge.
As particles behave as “cathode rays,” the ratio of charge to mass can be expressed through e/m.
In order to visually see the path of the electron, the electrons are emitted at a very low velocity
from a heated filament, then accelerated through an electrical potential V to a final velocity v,
and then bent in a circular path of radius r in a magnetic field. With the presence of helium
vapor, the recombination of the ions occurs near the point where ionization takes place creating
the blue bean within the sealed glass tube.

As the coils produce a uniform magnetic field B perpendicular to the electron beam, the
magnitude of the field can be adjusted. The magnetic field produced at the position of the
electron beam by a current I flowing through the coils can be computed by observing a single
turn of wire of radius R given by:
2
' μ0 R I
B= 3 (1)
2 ( R 2+ x 2 ) 2

To understand the uniform field that occurs in the region at the center, the arrangement called a
pair of Helmoholtz coils can explain why the coils contribute equally to the field at the center
with that value of N=132 for the number of turns of each coil and R=14.75cm as the radius of
coils used:
B' =μ0 R2∋ ¿ ¿
( )
3
2 R 2
2 R+
2
(2)

As the electron charge e and mass m accelerate from rest then the potential difference V based on
a final velocity v can be found:

√
e
2× (3)
m
Velocity= .
V
As the electron enters a uniform magnetic field B that is perpendicular to its velocity, it moves in
a circular orbit of radius r. Using the values for velocity, the Magnetic field from the Earth can
be determined after finding the y-intercept:

1
r
= (√ me × 2V1 ) B −√( me × 21V ) B
I e
(4)

III. Methods
 2

In order to align the coils so that their axis is aligned with the ambient magnetic field, a compas
is placed near the setup. Rotating the setup, the axes of the coils must be parallel to the needle of
the compass so that the coil axis is aligned with the horizontal component of the ambient
magnetic field.

IV. DATA AND ANALYSIS

A. Force on a Current-carrying Wire

By closing the circuit and setting the range of the power supply initially to 4± Amps, we
measured 5 different weights on the balance (W1= 0.00019±0.00001kg, W2=
0.00023±0.00001kg, W3= 0.00013±0.00001kg, W4= 0.00041±0.00001kg, W5=
0.000125±0.00001kg.) to determine the value of the current i in the balance necessary to reach
equilibrium: W1:0.09±0.01A, W2:0.12±0.01A, W3:0.08±0.01A, W4:0.25±0.01A, W5:0.69±0.01A.
Using the same weights, we changed the current through the electromagnet to 6±1 Amps and
found that the values of the current i decreased with the increased current I through the
electromagnet: W1: 0.07±0.01, W2:0.10±0.01, W3: 0.05±0.01, W4:0.16±0.01, W5:0.40±0.01. As
the current I through the electromagnet was increased a third time to 8±1 Amps the current in the
balance i decreased even more W1: 0.03±0.01, W2:0.05±0.01, W3: 0.02±0.01, W4:0.10±0.01,
W5:0.30±0.01.

Table 1:Field Currents for Five Accelerating Voltages for Four Diameters
Accelerating Voltage (V): 100 V 200 V 300 V 400 V 500 V
Diameter of Beam ± Error 1/Radius ± Field Field Field Field Current Field
(m) Error (1/m) Current ± Current ± Current ± ± Error (A) Current ±
Error (A) Error (A) Error (A) Error (A)
0.06±0.05 33.33±0.69 1.08 ± 1.86 ± 0.04 2.36 ± 2.72 ± 0.05 3.00 ± 0.04
0.03 0.04
0.07±0.05 28.57±0.51 0.96 ± 1.60 ± 0.04 2.03 ± 2.34 ± 0.04 2.63 ± 0.03
0.01 0.03
0.08±0.05 25.00±0.39 0.85 ± 1.37 ± 0.03 1.75 ± 2.04 ± 0.03 2.30 ± 0.03
0.02 0.03
0.09±0.05 22.22±0.31 0.77 ± 1.23 ± 0.02 1.53 ± 1.83 ± 0.02 2.05 ± 0.04
0.01 0.03

Table 1: Weight Balancing Current (i) with electromagnet current (I) set to 4, 6, and 8 Amperes
based on 5 different weights measured in kilograms.

Using the weight used to balance the scale vs. the balance current i, the three current values
through the electromagnet were used to show the upward trend and positive slope of the balance
current. Using the LINEST function, the slope for the 4±1A current was
m=554.206216±18.4087489. The slope for the 6±1A current was m=306.67225±13/4841642.
For the final increase in current to 8±1A, the slope was m=249.860413±7.09928576. As the
current through the electromagnet increased the slope of the line decreased.
 3

FIG.1: Best Fit. On the y-axis, we display the values of the current measured in amperes. On the
x-axis, we display the values of the weight, with units measured in kilograms. The 3 lines are
differentiated by the three different electromagnetic currents of 4±1A, 6±1A, or 8±1A and are
approximately linear and so were fit with the slopes m=554.206, 306.67225, and 249.860413.

Using the slopes calculated from the LINEST functions, the magnetic field strength B was
determined using the following formula:
L× B g
m= → B= (4)
g L ×m
Using the formula for slope, we rearranged the equation to determine the magnetic field strength
B with error. The magnetic field increased as the magnetic current increased (4 ±1A,0.17±0.01T;
6±1A,0.31±0.01T; 8±A,0.38±0.01T).

Slope (1/cmA) e/m (C/kg) y-intercept Velocity (m/s) Be (T)

(1/cm)
35.6 ± 1.1 3.91E+11±2.50E+10 -5.264±1.048 8.84E+04±2.82E+03 1.19E-04±-3.80E-06
17.4 ± 0.5 1.86E+11±1.03E+10 0.958±0.740 4.32E+04±1.20E+03 4.44E-05±1.23E-06
13.4 ± 1.1 1.65E+11±2.81E+10 1.665±0.627 3.32E+04±2.82E+03 1.00E-4±8.53E-06
12.4 ± 0.1 1.90E+11±4.29E+09 -0.431±0.316 3.09E+04±3.48E+02 2.79E-05±-3.15E-07
11.6 ± 0.3 2.09E+11±1.25+10 -1.752±0.879 2.89E+04±8.67E+02 1.21E-04±-3.63E-06

Table 2: Magnetic Field Strength determined from the magnetic current of three different values.

B. Induced EMF in a Coil

In order to apply this change in magnetic field to the induction wand, we observed that when the
coil passed the gap between the magnet, the magnetic field and EMF were induced in the coil.
As the wand was released, the voltage vs. time graph where the coil passed through the magnet
determined the difference in time t (0.096±0.001s). Using Equation (3) and the B field measured
in Part A, we found the EMF value: 0.029404489±0.000000001V. The percentage error between
the calculated EMF value and the measured average voltage was found using the following
formula

Percentage Error=¿ Theoretical Value−Experimental Value∨ ¿

¿ Theoretical Value∨¿=¿ 0.05−0.029404489∨
¿0
(5)

Calculated EMF (V) 0.029404489±0.000000001

Measured Average Voltage 0.05±0.01
(V)
Table 3: Measuring sensor distance from the center of pole plates in relation to the mean
measured magnetic field (T). The calculated EMF (V) and Measured Average Voltage are also
displayed
 4

V. DISCUSSION

To observe the force on a current-carrying wire, the The HPE3610A power supply can operate in
either constant voltage or current mode. Using the voltage dial to set max voltage to supply the
circuit, the current dial sets the max current. These dials are used so that when the circuit tries to
draw more current, the power supply will reduce the voltage until it reaches the value needed to
maintain the maximum current (2). In our experiment we observed that the magnetic field
strength B value increased as the magnetic current I increased: (4±1A,0.17T; 8±1A,0.38T; Table
2). However, in contrast, the current in the balance i decreased as the magnetic current increased
(4±1A, W1:0.09±0.01A; 6±1A W1: 0.07±0.01; 8±1A W1: 0.03±0.01; Table 1). This can be viewed
in the following drawing based on Figure 3 from the lab manual. Based on this data there were
several potential sources of error such as the balance not being fully leveled, the ruler
measurements of the length of the wire not being accurate, adding too much weight on the
balance too quickly without letting the balance level out, and the location of mass on the balance
that all lowered the precision of our collected data.

When the coil passes the gap in between the magnet, it experiences a change in magnetic field
and EMF is induced in the coil. As we initially observed the sensor moving away from the center
of the pole plates in centimeter increments, we saw that the magnetic field decreases in strength
as a result of further distance from the center. The positions that we measured the magnetic field
in: 0cm, 1cm, 2cm were not entirely accurate because we did not use a ruler to measure distance.
This would change our ∆ B value from Equation (3). Which would ultimately change our
calculated EMF. This is why our calculated EMF was 0.029404489±0.000000001V and was
close to our measured average voltage of 0.05±0.01V based on our percent error being
0.41191022% . As Lenz’ Law explains the change in flux with respect to time and equals the
induced EMF, the EMF of the first peak was negative. This makes sense as Lenz’ Law is
negative because the EMF in the coil acts to oppose the charge of the magnetic field. The sign of
the first peak was opposite to the second peak because of the position of the wand had moved out
of the magnetic field. Furthermore, as the EMF moved from positive to negative on the graph, it
was because the wand was moving in and out of the magnetic field. As the coil passed through
the exact center of the magnet the EMF was zero because the change in the magnetic field ∆ B
was zero in the center. Based on Lenz’ Law (3), when the ∆ B was zero, the EMF was also zero.

VI. CONCLUSION

In the experiment, we attempted to discover the strength of the magnetic field in the gap of an
electromagnet based on two methods: measuring the force applied on a current-carrying wire,
and measuring the effects of changing magnetic flux through a coil that was being inserted and
removed from that gap. Using a current-carrying rod we discovered that the magnetic field
increases as the magnetic current increases. However, in contrast, the current in the balance i
decreases as the magnetic current increases. As the current i passed through the wire, it indicated
that there was a vertical force (1) on the wire rod. Using Lenz’ Law we were able to verify that
the area of the coil was constant and the magnetic field was uniform making the average EMF ε
positive (3). Based on our calculated EMF being 0.029404489±0.000000001V (Table 3) and our
Measured average voltage being 0.05±0.01 (Table 3), this verifies Faraday’s Law that a changing
magnetic flux through a coil incudes EMF and that voltage was being induced as the coil entered
and left the magnetic field based on the low percent error (5). This also allows us to understand
that when the coil passes from the center to a further distance away, the magnetic field gets
weaker.

Despite human error that occurred in measuring the force applied on a current-carrying wire when the
balance was not completely level, it is interesting to note that the values might differ based on our precise
measurements. If this experiment were to improve its accuracy it would be interesting to use a spirit level
to ensure that the balance is level so that the current that runs through the balance conductor i can be
measured effectively.

[1] Experiment2-3/The Magnetic Field. Columbia University. 03.09.23

Supporting Documentation
1. Excel Document