Independent Lab Report

By: Jeremy Lwin

Student Number: 43236280
Partners: Tim Shaw, Liam Williams
Date of Experiment: 9/4/13

Introduction
The aim of this experiment was to test and observe the relationship between the changes in
(radius) of a sphere that exhibits the properties of an induced dipole. To do this the Van de Graff
generator was used to create a uniform electromagnetic charge on a sphere and a measure its effect
on a nearby smaller neutrally charged sphere by measuring mass.
It was hypothesised that by increasing the radius of the test sphere (B) there will be an increase in
the attractive polarization force between the two spheres. This increase in attractive force would
take the form of some proportionate relationship between the radius increases.
Theory:
Using Gausses law we can prove that the electric field outside of a charged sphere with absolute
symmetry is the same as the electric field of a point charge at the centre (Knight, 2013).
The electric field outside of the sphere or charge is given by

Where Q is equivalent to the total charge and is the radial distance to the point of measurement.
The electric field of an induced dipole can be given by the equation

Where the vector is identifies the orientation of the dipole and the dipole moment. Magnitude p =
qs determines the electric field strength and has SI units of Cm where q is charge of the dipole and s
is distance across. is the distance from the centre of the dipole this equation for the dipole is only
valid along the axis of the dipole.
The charge total electric field in this situation is just the sum of the electric field of both the sphere
and the dipole.

And the total force on the dipole can be calculated by adapting the equation for force on multiple
charges

Method
The Van de Graaff generator was taken and placed on the table about 30cm away from the rest of
the apparatus and a wire was connected into the top of its sphere (Fig A). A hollow conducting ball
with a radius 6cm(A) was placed clamped to an insulating rod which is connected vertical rod that
allows for adjustment of the height. The other end of the wire was then connected into the
conductor creating a link between the two. Then a
high accuracy scale with and stand for the test ball
(B) is placed directly under the conducting ball
equidistant from it on all axis. The first ball is then
placed on the stand and the scale is set to 0. Each
test took place over 30 seconds of generator
winding and the change in mass was recorded
every 5 seconds. After each test the conducting
sphere(A) is raised upward by the difference in
diameter between the previous and the next
sphere(D) to keep the distance from the centre of
both balls the same as the last test. This process
was then repeated until all of the spheres had been tested and the results were compiled.
Results and Observations
The table shown below (Fig B) gives the results that were recorded over a period of 30 seconds for
ball radius sizes
(Fig B) Change in Mass of the Test Ball (B) Over 30 Seconds
Time(sec) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tube -0.025 -0.065 -0.108 -0.134 -0.151 -0.171
Sphere 1 0.01g -0.074 -0.094 -0.092 -0.082 -0.081 0.076
Sphere 2 0.01g -0.056 -0.091 -0.12 -0.165 -0.188 -0.198
Sphere 3 0.01g -0.078 -0.117 -0.151 -0.175 -0.213 -0.245
Sphere 4 0.01g -0.043 -0.071 -0.081 -0.1 -0.108 -0.111
Sphere 5 0.01g -0.005 -0.006 -0.04 -0.005 -0.005 -0.005
From the raw results the upward force was calculated by applying (Change in mass) x (Gravity )
Upward Force in (N). Table shown below (Fig C)
For example the test of ball 2 at t = 15s gave us a result of, F = -0.151g * 9.8M/s = -1.47*10^-3N
(Fig C) Change in Electromagnetic Force on the Test Ball (B) Over 30 Seconds (N)
Time(s) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tube -0.000245 -0.000637 -0.0010584 -0.0013132 -0.0014798 -0.0016758
Sphere 1 -0.0007252 -0.0009212 -0.0009016 -0.0008036 -0.0007938 -0.0007448
Sphere 2 -0.0005488 -0.0008918 -0.001176 -0.001617 -0.0018424 -0.0019404
Sphere 3 -0.0007644 -0.0011466 -0.0014798 -0.001715 -0.0020874 -0.002401
Sphere 4 -0.0004214 -0.0006958 -0.0007938 -0.00098 -0.0010584 -0.0010878
Sphere 5 -0.000049 -0.0000588 -0.000392 -0.000049 -0.000049 -0.000049







Fig A. Experiment apparatus for measuring the change in mass of a
induced dipole in the form of a sphere.
Connecting
Wire
Ground
B
A
D

The graph shown in (Fig D) shows a graphical representation of the change in mass that was
recorded over the 30 seconds of testing.









By averaging the change in mass over the 30 seconds it is possible to obtain a line of best fit -
between the change in sphere radius and the change in mass shown below in (Fig E). The same
relationship can be shown as upward electromagnetic force vs. change in radius shown (Fig F).







Results for the changes in mass at t = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 included in appendix (See Apendix)
Uncertainties
3 Uncertainties were obtained in measurements during the lab a table of these uncertainties is given
below (Fig G)
(Fig G) Table of Uncertainties
Change in Mass (m) 0.05g
Sphere Radius (r) 0.02mm
Raising of Sphere Height 0.02mm

-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
M
a
s
s

(
M
g
)

Time(s)
Change in Mass (mg) of Test Spheres Over
Time
ball 1
ball 2
ball 3
ball 4
ball 5
Fig D
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 5 10 15 20
M
a
s
s
(
g

+
-

0
.
0
5
g
)

Sphere Radius (mm)
Average Change in Mass vs
Radius
Fig E
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0 5 10 15 20
F
o
r
c
e

(
N
)

Sphere Radius (mm)
Average Electromagnetic Upward
Force vs Radius
Fig F
The calculation of the raise height is dependent on the accuracy of the previous calculation of the
diameter of the sphere. The raise height is the difference in radii between the two test balls. The
propagation of uncertainties for the values raised can be calculated using the standard relation for
handling powers of uncertainties. The worst case scenario relationship between the changes in
height is the sum of the two uncertainties in the measurements.

Leaving us with an uncertainty in the raise height of

Therefore an uncertainty in the constant distance between the two spheres of charge

The distance between the midpoints of the two spheres 50mm so this constant parameter of the
experiment was at worst case out by 0.05%.
Calculations

Discussion of Results
The results that were obtained in this experiment supported the model of the induced dipole where
the attractive force can be measured by a negative change in mass. For the first 3 trails supported
the hypothesis that as the radius of the conducting sphere increases an increase in the change in
mass would be exhibited. The final two trails support the opposite conclusion and we cant draw a
definite relationship from this data. Disregarding the two final trails the relationship between the
first 3 trails shows a linear relationship be between the upward electromagnetic force and the
sphere radius.
Error Analysis
Notes from Lab:
During the process of conducting our first test of sphere 1 the results we obtained seemed plausible
and consistent with our hypothesis. The following tests had results that were in direct contradiction
to the previous test so we decided to regroup and reset our apparatus to run the trail again. We
proceeded to obtain results for all 5 testing spheres but noticed that there we major discrepancies in
the data. After this we ran a test without any sphere on the stand and got an interesting result. It
appeared that the plastic insulating stand still created a great amount of polarization force from the
charged sphere. It would seem that the scale was experiencing some interference and that the
results that we got were likely inaccurate.
Analysis u
After a preliminary analysis of the
accuracy of the experiment it was
concluded that the discontinuity found in
the results were due to critical design
errors. These errors in testing come in
the forms of human and apparatus error.
When designing the experiment
apparatus the aim was to achieve as
accurate electromagnetic isolation as p-
ossible, so that any other external forces
had negligible effects
A form of human error could have been that inaccuracies in the measurements that were taken for
the distance between the two spheres caused the results to be inconsistent. Also the rotation of the
generator was may have been different for each test affecting the magnitude of the electric field
that originated from the sphere above the test sphere. This seems more unlikely than the idea of
electromagnetic interference because some of the observations we made before resetting the
apparatus showed a downward force that was inconstant with the polarization model. These human
errors while possible still dont explain the major discrepancies we observed.
The more likely cause of error was the scale was showing inaccurate readings due to some
electromagnetic interaction between both the generator and it or the charged sphere. This was
evident from the control test that we ran (Fig where the stand had no ball placed on top of it and
was still producing an reduce in weight on the scale in the same order as the previous sphere tests.
This observation is inconsistent because the stand was mad of an insulator that should have received
negligible polarization effects. From this observation a conclusion can be made that the scale
needed to be further isolated to get a more accurate result and that in a redesign of the experiment
this should be taken into account.
Conclusions
In conclusion after an extensive error analysis it can said that the proportionate relationship that
was found between the induced electromagnetic force experienced by the conducting sphere and
the change in radius supported the hypothesis that an increase in r would amount to more
electromagnetic force. The data showed major discrepancies as discussed in the error analysis
section of the report and it can be concluded that no accurate data was obtained from this lab
session. It is recommended that in a rerun of the test more design focus be on electromagnetic
isolation of the electronic instruments and that the uncertainties be reduced where possible
References:
1. Knight, R (2013), Physics For Scientists And Engineers, 3
rd
Ed , Pearson Education, ISBN-
13:978-0321-74090-8


-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
M
a
s
s

(
M
g
)

Time(s)
Change in Mass (mg) of Tube
Tube
Fig D
Appendix

5s
Sphere 1 6 -0.094 -0.092 -0.082 -0.081 -0.076 -1.1302
Sphere 2 7.5 -0.091 -0.12 -0.165 -0.188 -0.198 -1.3872
Sphere 3 11 -0.117 -0.151 -0.175 -0.213 -0.245 -2.0688
Sphere 4 13.5 -0.071 -0.081 -0.1 -0.108 -0.111 -2.628
Sphere 5 18 -0.006 -0.04 -0.005 -0.005 -0.005 -3.5888