Session #A:

Charge and Its Distribution

on an Ordinary Object



Group:
Steven McCracken
Josh Fimbres
Justin Song




Date Performed: 9/3/14
Theory/Introduction (JF):
Scotch tape was used as a conductor to charge up (polarize) other strips of tape so that the
group could evaluate the behavior of electric fields. The lab demonstrates repulsion of particles
and how to estimate the additional charge on the Scotch tape to approximate the magnitude of
the charge on the strip of tape.
The common law used for this type of analysis is Coulombs Law. This law of physics
describes the electrostatic interaction between charged particles.

When two tapes are charged and approach each other they are expected to repel. If one of the
objects loses charge and neutralizes, then it is expected that the objects will attract. For the
purpose of this experiment the goal is to charge the tapes enough so that they visibly repel one
another.

Procedure (JF):





A strip of Scotch tape was taped onto the surface of the lab table
(adhesive side down). This base tape and was rubbed vigorously in
an attempt to charge the strip of tape as much as possible. A second
strip of tape was cut and curled at the edges to make a handle in the
shape of a U. This was called the U-tape and it is placed on top of
the first (adhesive side down). Both tapes (layered) were rubbed
vigorously once again. The U-Tape is then ripped off as fast as
possible, without touching any surface and it is quickly taped at one
end against the edge of a table. Shortly after, the base tape is
charged again and a second U-Tape is pasted on and charged as
well through rubbing. The U-Tape is then ripped from the base tape
and dangled in close proximity to the first U-tape hanging from the
table. The motion of the two tapes will help determine if the tapes
are positively, negatively or neutrally charged.

For the second part of the experiment, two wood blocks of the same size were
placed 13 cm apart from one another. The ends of a charged piece of tape were
attached to each wood block. A new strip of U-Tape was charged and quickly
ripped of the base. Holding the U-Tape at both ends, it was held over the piece of
tape that was bridged between the two wooden blocks. As the two tapes
approached, reaction due to the charges should visibly noted.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
c
m
)

Approach distance (cm)
Hanging strips of tape repulsion
Data (SM):
Table 1: Data obtained by bringing two charged, vertical strips of tape close together
Approach distance Deflection distance
1 1 cm 1 cm
2 1 cm 1.25 cm
3 1 cm 1.5 cm
4 1.5 cm 3 cm
5 1 cm 2 cm










Calculations (SM): (Measurements and calculations based on charged, horizontal piece of tape
being deflected upwards by another charged, horizontal piece of tape
1. What was the length of one of your pieces of tape?
Measured: 12.5 cm (12.5 cm)*(1 m / 100 cm) = 0.125 m
2. What was the mass of one of your pieces of tape?
Linear density for specific tape: 0.012 g/cm (0.012 g / cm)*(12.5 cm)*(1 kg / 1000 g) = 3e-5 kg
3. What was the distance between two tapes when one began to float above the other?
Measured: 1 cm Converted: 0.01 m
4. What was the magnitude of the gravitational force on the floating piece of tape?
Force = (mass)(acceleration due to gravity) = (3e-5 kg)(9.8 m/s
2
) = 2.94e-4 N
6.
a. What was the approximate charge on the floating tape?
F= kQ
2
/d
2
mg= kQ
2
/d
2
Q =

Q=

=1.8074e-9 C
b. How many electrons does this charge represent?
1.8074e-9 C * (1 electron / 1.6022e-19 C) = 1.1281e10 electrons
5. What was the magnitude of the electric force on the floating tape?
F
Electric
= kQ
2
/d
2
= (9e9 N*m
2
/C
2
)*(1.8074e-9 C) / (0.01 m)
2
= 1.63e5 N

Results/Analysis (JS):
The data recorded ultimately measures how many electrons were present in both charged
tapes. The amount of negatively charged electrons will vary due to our margin of error that may
occur within our procedure. These errors may include not pulling the tape fast enough from the
table, the time differences between getting the U-tape to the base tape, touching the tape too
much which neutralizes the charge, or the high humidity of the room. In our first trial, we had an
approach distance of 1 cm and a deflection distance of 1 cm. In our second attempt we again
started with an approach distance of 1 cm, but we got a deflection of about 1.25 cm. As we get
better and more used to the procedure, we eventually get better results with a higher increase in
deflection between the two tapes (more successful charged electrons in both tapes). With our
highest deflection distance of 3 cm in our fourth attempt, the electrons present in both tapes were
presumed to be exceptionally higher than previous trials. Both tapes were more charged resulting
in more electrons that pushed away from each other. However, most of our failed attempts
resulted with an attractive force within the two tapes. A charged tape can still move towards a
neutralized tape, therefore, we could not easily break down what tape was undercharged or
whether it was charged at all.
Conclusion (JS):
In conclusion, like charges repel and unlike charges attract. We obviously cannot see
charged particles with the naked eye, but we can tell what is going on within the experiment. If
one tape attracts and does not repel, there must be an inadequately amount of charged electrons
within one of the tapes. However, charged electrons can still attract neutral objects as well. By
observing these kinds of errors within our multiple attempts, we can fix accordingly which
procedure needs more thorough attempt and ultimately result with more accurate data.