See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315378990

A method for improving the generic undergraduate Millikan oil drop

experiment

Method · October 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26591.46247

CITATIONS READS

0 2,977

1 author:

Hash Ali
Massey University
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hash Ali on 18 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A method for improving the generic
undergraduate Millikan oil drop experiment
H.B.Y Ali
Institute of Fundamental Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Advanced Experimental Physics, 2016

Abstract

Following the discovery of the charge-to-mass ratio by J.J. Thomson, Robert Millikan had devised a way to measure the charge of
the electron. The use of a Pasco oil drop apparatus is employed to recreate this measurement. The apparatus has been modified to
utilize modern technology, gaining a more precise measurement of the electron charge. Three methods were compared, with the
hardware modifications increasing the experimental precision 10-fold ((1.60 ± 0.03) × 10−19 𝐶) compared to the traditional
technique results of ((1.6 ± 0.3) × 10−19 𝐶. Implementation of tracking software has been demonstrated as a proof of concept for
calculating the electronic charge.

I. INTRODUCTION In practice, when finding such a small value such as the

For years, the Millikan oil drop experiment has been a staple for
undergraduate studies in experimental physics to determine the
charge of an electron. One common laboratory setup is one
supplied by Pasco Scientific:
Figure 1 - Pasco Scientific Millikan oil drop apparatus as shown in the
Pasco manual for the experiment.
The manual provided with the equipment lays out the
methodology for students to view the oil droplets in the viewing
chamber as they are suspended by their buoyant force in the air
and by the charging plates, controlled by the user. While the
experimental setup is adequate for students to obtain accurate
values, its precision is lacking and it does have its drawbacks –
the biggest being the difficulty in obtaining consistent and
reliable data by viewing, with the eye through the viewing
scope. A further introduced error by this method is acquired
when two or more people are involved in the data collection
process.
charge of the electron, it is imperative that as many errors are
eliminated as possible. In this paper we substantiate this claim,
and offer a solution, making the following contributions:
 Using the stock Millikan oil drop experiment (§2) as an
example, we show the method described is only good to
a relatively low-precision value of the electronic charge.
 We take away the eye-stressing task of looking into the
viewing scope for long periods in a dark environment by
using technology that almost every undergraduate of a
modern university will have access to (§3). This is a
simple solution that, surprisingly, is difficult to find
similar methods for in the literature.
 We describe two methods for recording data – one live,
while the action is happening in real-time (§4); another
using Tracker, a modelling tool built on the Open Source
Physics framework to automatically gather data (§5).
Not only do these methods reduce such errors, it also has many
advantages:
 In physics laboratories that do use technology to enable
easier data gathering, the equipment often cost thousands
of dollars. The modifications made in this paper cost
little-to-no money;
 Students that wish to work alone on their projects no
longer require a separate recorder and can easily manage
their own recordings while monitoring the particle
positions;
 Time is of great importance to many students. This
experiment is very susceptible to losing time due to
particles lost, poorly chosen particles, and missed
recordings. Use of cameras reduces these weaknesses
and allows the students more time to gather more data
points and get onto writing the all-important papers.

1
The results of the methods above are compared (§6) and validate
our claims that our modifications far exceed the results of those
described by Pasco.
None of the methods described are new methods; we review
related work in §7; however, it is remarkable the few citations
that could be gathered describing such a setup considering its
ease and advantages.
II. THE FAMILIAR EXPERIMENT
A. Materials
A Pasco AP-8210A Millikan oil drop apparatus is used for this
experiment. The apparatus is set up as described in the Pasco
manual. An LED is used as a backdrop light source, with
adjustable thumbscrews to modify the focal area of the light. A
mineral oil provided with the Pasco apparatus is used as the
𝑘𝑔
material to observe, having a stated density of 886 3 .
𝑚
The viewing chamber is composed of several components
which house the oil during experimentation. The area of
observation lies between two capacitor plates. A transparent
plastic spacer, measured to be 7.62 ± 0.02 𝑚𝑚 thick, separates
the two capacitor plates. The charge difference of the capacitor
plates is changed with a plate charging switch, allowing the
droplets, charged with thorium-232, to rise and fall. This
charging switch is attached to the platform via a cable to prevent
vibration during experimentation. A high voltage DC power
supply, set to 356.6 ± 0.8 𝑉, provides the capacitor plates with
the required charge.
The viewing scope is mounted to focus between the two
capacitor plates and has a grid embedded into the viewing scope
to measure the distances travelled by the oil droplets. Generally,
the experimenter would observe the droplets through the
viewing scope as they travel and time the droplets over a certain
distance. While viewing the particles, the user has the option of
attempting to record times themselves or call out significant
points for a recorder to take note of times.
An atomizer, provided with the apparatus, was used to
disperse oil into the viewing chamber. Once appropriately filled,
a small hole in the upper capacitor plate would allow a small
number of droplets to enter the observation area. In order to
prevent too many droplets in this area, a cover was placed over
the hole. This cover has a hole in the side and through to the
bottom which would allow only a small number of droplets to
subsequently enter the observation area, and only when
additional pressure was applied by the atomizer.
B. Calibration
As droplets enter the observation chamber, they rise and fall
depending on the position of the plate charging switch. It is
important that they have as little lateral movement as possible.
Some lateral movement will be unavoidable due to Brownian
motion of the particles, but to reduce unnecessary movement,
the entire platform is levelled using adjustable footpads. A
bubble level is attached to the platform to make any adjustments
before experimentation begins. On the topic of Brownian
motion, when calculating the electronic charge, the viscosity of
the air must be taken into account, in this case using Stokes’
2
equation. Due to the particle being similar in size to its mean
free path, a correction factor
𝜂
𝜂𝑒𝑓𝑓 =
𝑏
1+
𝑝𝑟
Where 𝑏 = 8.2 × 10−3 Pa ∙m, 𝑝 is the atmospheric pressure and
𝑟 is the radius of the droplet.
Within the viewing scope, a grid is embedded. Each major
gridline has been stated by the manufacturer as 0.5 mm apart.
This was verified by comparing the gridline separation with the
thickness of a focusing wire, measured using a micrometer. The
grid is focused by adjusting the reticle focusing ring on the
viewing scope. The focusing wire is placed into position,
through the hole in the upper capacitor plate, and focused to a
sharp line using the droplet focusing ring. This focusing ring is
required to be adjusted throughout the experiment as needed to
ensure the droplets being observed remain in focus.
C. Challenges
The Millikan experiment has proven itself to be a great way for
undergraduates to make measurements of forces of such a small
magnitude. Millikan himself was able to determine the value of
the electronic charge in his experiments to within 1% of today’s
accepted value. Many setups have systems that integrate
technology well. For example, experiments involving Brownian
motion incorporate CCD cameras to precisely measure positions
of particles in a solution. When it comes to Millikan’s oil drop
experiment, there is no reason the similar techniques cannot be
used. In doing so can reduce or eliminate errors such as:
 In §2A it was noted that an experimenter would generally
view the particles through the viewing scope. An
important factor in ensuring visibility is to perform the
experimentation in a dark room. After watching a
particle for several minutes or longer, it becomes
difficult to see the particles, let alone keeping focus to
make accurate recordings.
 Having one person view the particles and call out
significant points for another person to record times
introduces timing errors from reaction times of both
experimenters.
 Slow moving particles are better candidates to track as it
allows the experimenter time to react to the significant
points in the system. However, slow moving particles
indicate less massive particles which are more
susceptible to Brownian motion. This would increase the
error in measuring the true velocity of the particle.
 When a particle transits the entirety of the viewing scope
within less than four or so seconds, it is easy to lose track
of it or miss recording points. Particles moving this
quickly have a high number of charges on them, and are
good data to have to compare with the slow particles.
 Ionizing particles more than once using the on-board
thorium is not an easy task when only one person is
performing the experiment. When two or more people
are involved, the task does become easier and faster,
however the person looking into the viewing scope does
need to ensure the particle is not lost during this
recharging phase.
By employing modern hardware and software, it is possible to
reduce some of the issues listed above. The methods work
consistently and surprisingly well, and is done so at minimal
cost to the university or to the user.

III. EXPERIMENT UPGRADES

One of the biggest issues identified in this experiment is the

difficulty in maintaining focus on the particle for long periods
of time. Nearly every report written by an undergraduate taking
part in this experiment, or one similar to it, that had talked about
experimental issues, had mentioned the difficulties that had
come about because of vision problems causing headaches, lost
particles and frustration amongst students. These are discussed
in §7.
Several papers have advocated for the use of cameras and Figure 2 - Experimental setup with the inclusion of a smart phone with
lasers [5, 6], yet for the average student, the time, cost and effort camera. The feed can either be analysed live or recorded for later
to produce laser systems, buy a camera and set up the viewing analysis.
system will likely offset any gained benefit for this experiment.
In the modern day, nearly every student of a modern physics the timer at the significant points. Say, for example, that the user
laboratory has access to a high-quality camera in their pocket. decides to time every major reticle line. They have direct visual
With a little bit of setting up, a phone camera can be mounted to interaction with the viewing screen and just by tapping, say, the
the instrument and reduce the frustration in a matter of minutes. spacebar on a laptop, the time is recorded. A major advantage
By accident it was found that by using the camera the of this is that continuous measurements can be made with no
environment no longer needed to be dark. The contrast of the interruption. The user does not need to take their eyes off the
phone allowed for full-light, making note-taking much easier. screen and, so, there is less likelihood of losing the particles. If
With the hardware firmly in place, camera aligned to the the user was recording the rise of the droplet, they then can copy
viewing scope of the apparatus, further improvements can be the data to a workbook in just a few short clicks, to analyze at a
made to the Pasco method of introducing the oil droplets into later time.
the chamber. Others have shown the method used is to hold the An alternative to using stock software, is to make a short
atomizer above the plate, place the atomizer tip into the hole of program that allows the user to input key strokes that not only
the chamber lid, give it a few sprays and place the atomizer back records the time, but whether the particle was rising, falling or
on the table. With efficiency in mind, it begs the question – why changing direction. This allows for even faster recording time,
move the atomizer? By placing a small mounting table on the so more data can be taken.
platform and holding the atomizer tip in place with some
adhesive tape, all the user needs to do is spray the atomizer and V. POST-EXPERIMENT TRACKING
leave it in place. While live tracking has the advantage of getting the work done
While this may seem like a trivial thing to do, it actually has efficiently and quickly, post-experiment tracking does take
a noticeably important effect. Often, when spraying the more time and effort. The bonus? Post-experiment tracking has
atomizer and removing it, it knocks the apparatus. Any particles the ability to be an estimated ten times more precise than live
that were intended to be analyzed are no longer in the viewing tracking and one hundred times more precise than without the
area and a new particle needs to be selected. By no longer additional hardware.
having the atomizer as an additional moving part in an already
complex system, the results are easier to gather.
Now that the apparatus is complete, the question of how to
record data becomes apparent. One could take a regular
stopwatch and take note of the time as the particle passes the
chosen reticle, however this is inefficient to write the details
after each pass and stopwatches hold limited information. Many
particles are lost attempting to complete the timing this way. We
suggest two methods: Live tracking with computer timer and
post-experiment tracking. Each has its advantages and
disadvantages.

IV. LIVE TRACKING

Taking advantage of modern technology, many computers have
the ability to store many lap times at the push of a button.
Viewing the particles on the screen allows the user to activate
Figure 3 - One of the major disadvantages of the tracking system is in
how easy it is to automatically lose a particle. While the particle can
still be tracked manually during these periods, it does increase the
analysis time.

3
 Post-experiment tracking involves recording the particle
movement. This frees up the user to focus only on keeping the
particle in screen. A major advantage of this is being able to
track more than one particle at a time. How? With the help of
tracking software.
Tracker, a project of Open Source Physics, is a free piece of
software that has the ability to track a particle throughout a field.
While it is not as good at keeping track of the particles as other
software, for example the Poly Particle Tracker of IDL Particle
Tracking, it is very user friendly. Once the program has been
calibrated to the correct scale, a particle can be tracked
automatically. This has the added effect of being able to track
fast moving particles that previously would have to be
discarded. Figure 5 - Data gathered using a smart phone camera and a generic
One major disadvantage of this solution discovered while laptop timer. This data is much more precise than previous.
completing this experiment is due to the reticle lines in the
viewing scope. The particles travel behind these reticles, so if Secondly, the use of a smart phone with a camera was
the particle is too dim or out of focus, the tracker may not be employed. Again, a single person was recording the data with
able to find its target. To get around this, the user either has to the help of a computer timer. Each press of the space-bar would
accept an automatically found possible target, choose the target record the time that a particle passed a chosen distance in the
themselves, or skip the attempted frame. field. The data collection period was a total of four hours over
While these disadvantages may seem like major points lost two days.
on this method, the time put into it was arguably worth it. With A total of 16 oil droplets were observed with up to five
a little bit of refinement, this method can change the way different charges applied to the droplets. From these 16 oil
students see this experiment. droplets, 401 readings were taken. Each charge and droplet had
their velocities averaged while in freefall (𝑛 = 92), while rising
VI. RESULTS (𝑛 = 220), and while falling with the plates charged (𝑛 = 89).
We first show the results from the techniques described in the These values were averaged for each droplet and calculated to
Pasco manual. No additional hardware or software was used, give the mass of the electronic charge of each oil droplet. Seen
and the data collection was completed by a single person. The in fig. 5, the average charges are closer to the mean line.
data collection took place over several days, each day taking Figure 6 shows the relationship between the number of
about three hours to collect the data. estimated charges on the oil drop and the calculated charge of
14 droplets were observed, with several being charged by the the electron. It can be seen that the charges more-or-less lie on
thorium a maximum of two times. Of these oil drops, 137 charge lines (y-axis) and close to integer multiples of the
readings were taken. Many particles were discarded, mostly due estimated number of charges (x-axis). This representation
to inappropriate particle choice. This includes particles moving implies the quantized nature of the electronic charge.
out of the field of view on their own, equipment being bumped
and moving the particles out of view, only one or two
measurements being taken etc. Even with the culling of data, it
can still be seen that the mean the particles (red line, Fig. 4) is
not very well established.

Figure 6 - The data points are plotted showing the calculated charge
on the particle against the estimated number of charges on the droplet.
The graph shows a tendency for the points to gather on horizontal lines,
showing that it is likely that the electric charge is quantized in nature.

Figure 4 - Data gathered with no additional technological assistance.

The methodology follows that stated in the Pasco manual. The data
shows a somewhat accurate mean but very imprecise. This is later
exemplified in figure 7.

4
 Figure 7 - Plot showing the uncertainties in the data. The blue section depicts the use of technological enhancements to the experiment, thus
reducing its error margin.

In order to directly compare the data in figures 4 and 5, figure 7
shows the calculated mean charge of an electron and its
calculated uncertainty. The red background and points indicate
no use of additional technology while the blue indicates the live
data recording. This graph does not show the recorded and
tracked data as there were not enough points to make a proper
comparison. The bands describe our experimental results as
(1.6 ± 0.3) × 10−19 𝐶 (red band) and (1.60 ± 0.03) × 10−19 𝐶
(blue band).
In place of data, figure 8 shows the motion of the particles as
they moved throughout the field of view. The separation
between data lines is from the movement of the particle. The
data lines have over 1000 data points and occur over about 35
seconds each. A slight inadvertent movement can be seen
halfway through the red line, caused by the loss of the object
behind a reticle as discussed in §6.

Figure 8 - Recorded motion of a single particle over three time periods. The blue line is moving down at free-fall speed, while the red and
yellow lines are being forced upward with the help of the charged capacitor plates.

5
 VII. RELATED WORK
Robert Millikan initially used water droplets in his quest to
find the elementary charge on the electron. Indeed, his pursuit
was in finding this charge, letting his presupposition of the
quantized nature of the electronic charge direct him, and not
working through the inductive scientific method to see where
investigations led him. His preconceived notions about this
were apparent in his work [3] while another scientist,
Ehranhaft, working in the same field at the same time found
that not only did the mean electron charge have a lower value
than that presented by Millikan, but he was unable to
substantiate Millikan’s claim of the charge being quantized
in nature [4]. This led to a great controversy lasting decades.
In his 1978 results, Holton [5] used Millikan’s original
records revealing that Millikan had not used all his data as he
had said so [3]. Holton had shown that Millikan had omitted
more than 75% of his droplets, possibly due to his
preconceptions of the charge of the electron. The omitting of
data has been defended by several people including Franklin
[6] and Goodstein [7], who claim that Millikan had only
omitted those droplets that were deemed unusable for
scientifically valid reasons. Segerstale [8] gives a good
review of both sides of this argument.
While Ehranhaft’s work was important, Millikan’s
conclusion is now seen as the correct view of the electronic
charge. Whether Millikan was correct or not in omitting his
results, the experiment was worthy of the Nobel Prize and of
refinement for use in university experiments. Millikan’s
original setup took an entire room whereas these days,
students can recreate a similar experiment in less than a few
square meters of space.
Many students face trouble in completing this experiment
[9, 10, 11, 12], while others have attempted to change the
experiment to reduce these frustrations. Some changes
employ the use of pre-recorded data collection [13] or
simulations [14]. Others suggest taking Millikan’s original
published data and just completing the mathematics on those
records [15].
Whatever method is chosen, the experimental setup and
theory is required to understand the complications met by
Millikan and others that have worked on atomic theory
throughout the years. The students will hopefully be able to
determine whether or not the nature of the electronic charge
is quantized and, if so, what the value of that electronic
charge is.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Undergraduate courses that introduce Brownian motion often
use high-tech, high-spec, high-cost setups involving
advanced computer imaging software, optical tweezer setups,
expensive microscopes and lenses and CCD cameras. These
setups can cost upwards of several thousand dollars – far
outside of the realm of reasonability for an undergraduate
student, and likely not worth the investment for a university
for use on a single experiment. The method used for the
current paper to modify the Pasco apparatus cost NZ$15 in
additional materials, though by searching around any
6
laboratory, the apparatus can be modified with absolutely no
additional costs while increasing results by at least an order
of magnitude.
The advantages outlined in this paper make it clear that the
generic Millikan oil drop experiment needs to be updated to
meet the modern times and modern technology. Historically,
the experiment has been a great success, but also a great
headache for students the world over. Students should
constantly be looking for ways to enhance their experimental
procedures to make their lives easier and the data more
accurate.
IX. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges Simon Murphy and
Bronwen Comrie-Evans (Massey University) for providing
support and knowledge in the use of experimental equipment.
Thanks also goes to Harjinder Pal and Ben Westberry for
their assistance in collecting the experimental data.
REFERENCES
[1] D.-L. Cheng and Y.-C. Hsu, “A better illumination
system for Millikan’s oil-drop experiment,” Physics
Education, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 498-499, 2005.
[2] K. J. Silva and J. C. Mahendra, “Digital video
microscopy in the Millikan oil-drop experiment,” Am.
J. Phys., vol. 73, pp. 789-792, 2005.
[3] R. A. Millikan, “On the elementary electrical charge
and the Avogadro constant,” Phys. Rev., vol. 2, pp.
109-143, 1913.
[4] M. Niaz, “An appraisal of the controversial nature of
the oil drop experiment: is closure possible?,” Br J
Philos Sci, vol. 56, pp. 681-702, 2005.
[5] G. Holton, “Subelectrons, presuppostitions, and the
Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute,” His Stud Phys Sci, vol.
9, pp. 161-224, 1978.
[6] A. Franklin, “Millikan’s published and unpublished
data on oil drops,” Hist Stud Phys Sci, vol. 11, pp.
185-201, 1981.
[7] J. R. Goodstein, Millikan’s school: a history of the
California institute of technology, New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1991.
[8] U. Segerstrale, “Good to the last drop? Millikan
stories as ‘canned’ pedagogy,” Sci Eng Ethics, vol. 1,
no. 3, pp. 197-214, 1995.
[9] B. Westberry, Millikan oil drop, [Unpublished], 2016. [13] X. Zou, E. Dietz, T. McGuire, L. Fox, T. Norris, B.
Diamond, R. Chavez and S. Cheng, “Millikan
[10] J. Martineau, The Millikan oil drop experiment, movies,” Phys Teach, vol. 46, pp. 365-368, 2008.
Unpublished, n.d..
14] D. MacIsaac, “Websites for teaching high schooland
[11] S. Klassen, “Identifying and addressing student introductory college modern physics topics:teaching
difficulties with the Millikan oil drop experiment,” about the Millikan oil drop experiment,” Phys Teach,
Science & Education, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 593-607, vol. 45, p. 124, 2007.
2009.
[15] E. F. Pearson, “Revisiting Millikan’s oil-
[12] P. Heering and S. Klassen, “Doing it differently: dropexperiment,” J Chem Educ, vol. 82, pp. 851-854,
Attempts to improve Millikan's oil-drop experiment,” 2005.
Physics Education, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 382-393, 2010.

View publication stats