Harsh J.

SHAH

To investigate the force on a conductor in a magnetic field

Results Table

Force on a conductor in a magnetic field

Current / A 1st Trial Force / N 2nd Trial Force / N Average Force / N

±0.1 A ±0.05 x 10-3 N ±0.05 x 10-3 N ±0.05 x 10-3 N
0.3 0.0 x 10-3 0.0 x 10-3 0.00 x 10-3
0.9 0.2 x 10-3 0.2 x 10-3 0.20 x 10-3
1.6 0.3 x 10-3 0.4 x 10-3 0.35 x 10-3
2.5 0.5 x 10-3 0.6 x 10-3 0.55 x 10-3
3.2 0.8 x 10-3 0.9 x 10-3 0.85 x 10-3
4.1 0.9 x 10-3 1.1 x 10-3 1.00 x 10-3
5.0 1.2 x 10-3 1.3 x 10-3 1.25 x 10-3
6.0 1.5 x 10-3 1.6 x 10-3 1.55 x 10-3
6.8 1.6 x 10-3 1.8 x 10-3 1.70 x 10-3
7.7 1.9 x 10-3 1.9 x 10-3 1.90 x 10-3
8.8 2.2 x 10-3 2.4 x 10-3 2.30 x 10-3
9.8 2.4 x 10-3 2.6 x 10-3 2.50 x 10-3

Length of wire – 3.9 cm

Force on a conductor in a magnetic field with double the length of wire

Current / A 1st Trial Force / N 2nd Trial Force / N Average Force / N

±0.1 A ±0.05 x 10-3 N ±0.05 x 10-3 N ±0.05 x 10-3 N
0.3 0.1 x 10-3 0.2 x 10-3 0.15 x 10-3
0.9 0.5 x 10-3 0.5 x 10-3 0.50 x 10-3
1.7 0.9 x 10-3 0.9 x 10-3 0.90 x 10-3
2.5 1.4 x 10-3 1.4 x 10-3 1.40 x 10-3
3.3 1.8 x 10-3 1.8 x 10-3 1.80 x 10-3
4.2 2.3 x 10-3 2.4 x 10-3 2.35 x 10-3
5.1 2.8 x 10-3 2.8 x 10-3 2.80 x 10-3
6.1 3.4 x 10-3 3.3 x 10-3 3.35 x 10-3
7.1 3.9 x 10-3 3.8 x 10-3 3.85 x 10-3
8.0 4.3 x 10-3 4.4 x 10-3 4.35 x 10-3
8.8 4.8 x 10-3 4.8 x 10-3 4.80 x 10-3
9.8 5.3 x 10-3 5.5 x 10-3 5.40 x 10-3

Length of wire – 8.3 cm (this is because there is a 0.5 cm gap between the 2 magnets. Look at the
diagram below to see what I mean)
Harsh J. SHAH

Diagram of “Force on a conductor in a magnetic field with double the length of wire”

Graph with Line of Best Fit for “Force on a conductor in a magnetic field”
Harsh J. SHAH

Graph with Min and Max Line for “Force on a conductor in a magnetic field”

Graph with Line of Best Fit for “Force on a conductor in a magnetic field with double the length of
wire”
Harsh J. SHAH

Graph with Min and Max Line for “Force on a conductor in a magnetic field with double the length of
wire”

Conclusion and Evaluation

Aspect 1 –Conclusion

As you can see from both the experiments, there appears to be a directly proportional relationship
between the amount of current used and the force created. I say this because it seems like the line of
best fit is going through the origin in both the experiments. We also see that the gradient doubles (from
0.26x to 0.54x) when the length of the wire doubles. This shows that . This relationship I have

found is valid and can be seen in the formula . In my first experiment, the line of best fit
doesn’t go through the origin. This is because of the random errors which I will discuss later. The total
systematic uncertainty value for my first experiment was ±1.9 x 10-4 N (this was found by using the
graphs). The total systematic uncertainty value for my second experiment was ±2.1 x 10-4 N (this was
found by using the graphs). I believe there are no anomalies in my experiment but I am pretty sure that
some of the points in the first experiment are a bit out of place again due to the random error.

Aspect 2 and 3 – Evaluation and Improvement

I thought that the quality of my results was reasonable to come to a conclusion with but there were
some anomalies in the experiment which made it inaccurate. This was partly because of the random
error caused throughout the experiment. One of the random errors was the air.
Harsh J. SHAH
Evaluation
Throughout the first experiment, there was constant
movement of the air because of the air condition
and people moving around. This affected the scale as
the movement of the air constant changed the force
put on. As the amount of force created by the
experiment was really small, the air movement really
was significant as even an increase of 0.0001N could
make the experiment very inaccurate. This can
clearly be seen in the first experiment where the line
is like a zigzag. The air fluctuation also made it hard
to record a final reading.
Another weakness in this experiment was the fact
that we needed to assume that the magnetic field is
only within the length of the wire that was
measured and not more. This was however
impossible, as you can from the diagram, the field
lines are effect more than just the length measured.
This can be a significant as it affects the gradient of
the graph. This could mislead us to thinking that the
length of the wire affects the force created more
than it actually does.
Limitation of equipment - Another weakness was the
range of values for current that were used. If the
range was bigger, it would make it easier to find the
anomaly and the line of best fit would possibly be
more accurate. However increasing the range wasn’t
possible due to safety reasons as the wire may get
too hot.
Improvement
This problem can be solved easily if the
experiment is done in a school lab where the air-
con is closed and there is no one except the
people that are conducting the experiment. This
could largely decrease the random error.
Another way of solving this problem is by
repeating the experiment a few more times. This
way the anomalies would be clearer and
therefore can be removed.
This problem could be solved by cutting the wire
to exactly the size that is needed so that the
magnetic field doesn’t affect the other length of
the wire and therefore no additional force. This
in turn will reduce random error caused by this
problem. This solution would also help reduce
the resistance cause by a long wire.
In order to increase the range of values for
current, we could use another metal wire that is
a good insulator.
Harsh J. SHAH

Limitation of equipment - If you look at my first A picoammeter can be used in order to get a
result for each of them equal to zero, which tells more accurate answer as it can measure
that there is no relationship between current and currents as small as 10-12
force. This is however very untrue. This error has
occurred due to the inaccuracy of the ammeter as it
only goes to 3 decimal places.

Repetition - I only repeated my experiment twice.

This meant that I couldn’t be sure whether or not my
experiment was precise or not. If I were to repeat
this experiment again I would definitely repeat at
least 4 or 5 times.