Charge to Mass Ratio Experiment

John Freeman
Department of Undergraduate Physics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah

The charge to mass ratio of an electron can be approximated using a cathode-ray tube
centered in a Helmholtz coil. The electron’s radius of curvature is commonly measured
by aligning a slide ruler with a mirror to reduce parallax. However, we implemented a
data collection strategy that is both quicker and more precise, without adding expense.
We used a smartphone to take photos of the electron’s radius of curvature, and used
NIH’s ImageJ software to find the pixel/distance ratio. Consequently, perspective
distortion must be considered. We obtained a percent error of 1.81%.

Introduction

A Helmholtz coil utilizes two identical coils, rotated about the same axis, separated a
distance that is equal to their radius, R. By the Biot-Savart Law (Eq 1), when a current is applied
through both the coils then the nonuniformity of the magnetic field between the coils is
minimized; it is most minimized in the center, R/2. The Lorentz force exerted on a moving
charge due to the magnetic field created by the Helmholtz coil is equal to its centripetal force (Eq
2). The velocity of the electrons is orthogonal to the magnetic field. The kinetic energy of the
electrons is the product of electron charge q and the voltage of the accelerating anode (Eq 3).
Substitution of the velocities in Eq 3 into the force equations (Eq 2) gives a function of electron
radius with respect to the current in the coils and the anode voltage. For each trial, we varied
either the anode voltage or the current in the coil. We recorded the radius of the electrons circular
path by analyzing the images taken from the iPhone XR in ImageJ. A linear least square fit
analysis (see appendix) will determine the value of the charge to mass ratio (Eq 4).
−3
𝑅 1 2 2 𝑅2 2 32𝜋𝑁𝐼∗10−7
(Eq 1) 𝑩 (2) = 𝜇 𝐼𝑅 (𝑅 + 2 ) = = 𝑘𝐼 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑙𝑎
2 0 5√5𝑅
𝑚𝒗2
(Eq 2) 𝑭 = 𝑞𝒗 × 𝑩 = 𝑟
Newtons
1
(Eq 3) 𝐾𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 = 𝑞𝑉 = 2 𝑚𝒗2 Joules
1 𝑒 𝐼2 2 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑏 𝑎𝑚𝑝2
(Eq 4) = 𝑚 𝐶𝑉 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 −2 where 𝐶 = 𝑘 ≈ 3.654 ∗ 106 𝑚2
𝑟2 𝑘𝑔 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑡

Experiment

A low pressure (~1.6 𝑃𝑎) cathode tube with a heated cathode filament electron gun, an
anode electric field generator, and a Wehnelt cylinder is centered inside the coils. The equipment
specifications:
• Coil radius: 158 mm
• Number of coil turns: 130
• Leybold DC Power supply (for heating the cathode and polarizing the anode)
• Current source for Helmholtz current: Sorensen Q Nobatron QRB15-2
• Voltmeter to measure Anode Voltage: Keithley 178 DMM
 Along each of the coils horizontal center is a bar. The bar nearest to the observer has
adjustable slides to determine the diameter of the electrons circular path. A mirror is placed on
the bar furthest from the observer so that the error caused by parallax can be minimized.
Traditionally the data is collected by a human observer. However, we propose a digital photo is
quicker to conduct and it results in greater accuracy.

An iPhone XR was placed ≈ 180 𝑚𝑚 from the nearest coil as shown in Figure 1. A ruler
was placed over the mirror along the far coil. ImageJ, created by the NIH, is a software that
allows us to find how many pixels are in a given length of an image. For each of the 63 images,
we found how many pixels were in 1 cm and then found how many pixels were in the diameter.
1 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 (𝑚) = 2 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙 .

Figure 1: A screenshot of process of determining the pixel/diameter

ratio using ImageJ. Note the length of this particular trial is 1431, that
the ruler aligned with the electron gun, and the ruler is clearly visible.

Notice the length, notice how I chose the outside of the beam width.

Photography can contribute a greater perspective distortion than the human eye alone.
Objects that are closer appear to be bigger. We expect the radius of the beam to be smaller than
𝑀
what is measured with ImageJ. The ratio of axial magnification, 𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 , can be calculated by
𝑎𝑥 𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑟
1 1 −2 −2
(Eq 5) |− (𝑓 − ) 𝑠0 | = 𝑀2 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥 .
𝑠0
 The focal length of the iPhone XR camera = 28 𝑚𝑚. Accounting for the approximate
object distance from the phone to the beam (Eq 6), and again to the ruler (Eq 7), we find the ratio
1
to be 1.5.
𝑅
(Eq 6) 𝑠0_𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 ≈ 180 𝑚𝑚 + 2
(Eq 7) 𝑠0_𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑟 ≈ 180 𝑚𝑚 + 𝑅

To compare, we observed the radius length from a few random trials by eye. Our
observed radius values were 1.4 times smaller than the values found using ImageJ. To account
for perspective distortion, we will multiply all our radius values obtained from the software by a
1
scalar = 1.4.

Results
1 𝑒 𝐼2
We performed a linear least square fit on 𝑟 2 = 𝑚 𝐶𝑉 (Eq 4). A graph of our model is
shown in Figure 2. Our calculated value for the charge to mass ratio,

𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑏
= ±1.8814 ∗ 1011 ± 1.119 ∗ 1010
𝑚 𝑚
𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑏
The theoretical value is = 1.7588 ∗ 1011 𝑚 . The percent error is 6.97%. The
uncertainty of a function is calculated using error propagation (Eq 8). The uncertainties in our
𝑒 𝑒
variables are given in Eq 9. The uncertainty in 𝑚 given is the average of all individual 𝑚
uncertainties for each of the 63 trials (Eq 11). A complete table of all 63 trials is given in Table
1 𝑒 𝐼2
1. The proper proportionalities in 𝑟 2 = 𝑚 𝐶𝑉 hold true for varying current and anode voltage.

𝜕𝑦 2
𝜕𝑦 2
(Eq 8) 𝛿𝑦 = √(𝜕𝑥 𝛿𝑥1 ) + ⋯ + (𝜕𝑥 𝛿𝑛 )
1 𝑛

(Eq 9) 𝛿𝑉 = ±0.1 𝑉; 𝛿𝑟 = ±10−3 𝑚; 𝛿𝐼 = ±10−3 𝐴

𝐶2 𝛿 2 4 𝐶 2 𝛿𝐼2 𝑉 2 4 𝐶 2 𝛿𝑟 2 𝑉 2
(E10) 𝛿 𝑒 = ±√ 𝐼4 𝑅𝑉4 + + 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑏 𝑘𝑔−1
𝑚 𝐼6 𝑅4 𝐼4 𝑅6

𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥 2
∑ √( 𝛿 ) +( 𝛿𝐼 ) +( 𝛿𝑟 )
𝜕𝑉 𝑉
(Eq 11) 𝛿 𝑒 𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝑟
≈ 1.119 ∗ 1010 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑏 𝑘𝑔−1
𝑚 𝑁

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
(Eq 12) 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | ∗ 100 = 6.97%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
Figure 2: A linear least square fit model of equation 4. The slope is the charge to mass ratio. The error bar lines are given by
1
4𝐼 2 𝛿𝐼2 2
𝐼 4 𝛿𝑉 2 2𝛿𝑟
𝛿𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 = ( + ) 𝑘𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑏 −1 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 −2 ; 𝛿𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = ± 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 −2
𝐶 2𝑉 2 𝐶 2𝑉 4 𝑟3

Figure 3: Error bar lines are the Root Mean Square Error = 58.64 1/m^2
Current (A)Voltage (V)Radius (m) Current (A)Voltage (V)Radius (m)
+/- .001 +/- .1 '+/- .001 +/- .001 +/- .1 '+/- .001

2.2530 225.20 0.0306 1.5060 131.40 0.0340

2.1000 225.20 0.0310 1.5060 141.00 0.0346
1.8300 225.20 0.0344 1.5060 148.20 0.0354
1.7419 225.60 0.0386 1.5060 159.00 0.0352
1.5794 225.50 0.0414 1.5060 170.60 0.0370
1.3402 225.70 0.0435 1.5060 180.80 0.0377
1.1500 225.70 0.0576 1.5060 187.50 0.0380
2.2524 200.40 0.0280 1.0045 89.00 0.0391
2.0995 200.10 0.0297 1.0000 103.70 0.0431
1.9543 199.60 0.0319 1.0069 120.00 0.0462
1.8600 199.70 0.0336 1.0069 136.70 0.0519
1.6423 200.00 0.0373 1.0069 156.70 0.0515
1.4580 200.10 0.0420 2.0056 157.60 0.0263
2.2530 174.80 0.0257 2.0056 180.70 0.0294
2.1060 174.50 0.0274 2.0052 204.10 0.0318
1.9920 174.90 0.0297 2.0048 218.70 0.0325
1.6852 174.70 0.0346 2.0046 233.00 0.0325
1.4822 175.00 0.0387 2.0046 254.50 0.0345
1.2600 175.00 0.0459 1.2506 122.30 0.0379
1.0353 175.00 0.0562 1.2506 143.10 0.0404
2.2537 150.00 0.0238 1.2511 158.80 0.0421
2.1165 150.10 0.0254 1.2511 198.50 0.0480
1.9013 150.00 0.0311 1.2511 220.20 0.0507
1.4800 150.30 0.0353 1.2513 234.40 0.0518
1.2034 150.20 0.0428 1.7573 143.90 0.0305
1.0489 150.30 0.0512 1.7566 161.90 0.0325
1.5062 75.10 0.0238 1.7564 180.70 0.0336
1.5059 85.80 0.0254 1.7562 198.70 0.0346
1.5059 97.10 0.0275 1.7560 221.10 0.0352
1.5059 104.20 0.0289 1.7559 240.30 0.0384
1.5059 115.10 0.0314 1.7556 256.10 0.0388
1.5059 124.20 0.0324

Table 1: The anode voltage, coil current, and beam radius of all 63 trials.

Analysis

We observed that decreasing the current through the wire gives the beam a thicker
outline. Alternatively, increasing the anode voltage gives the beam a thicker outline. The beam is
broadened due to thermionic emission broadening and collisional broadening. The velocity of the
electrons contributes significant error. The actual velocities are less than the theoretical values
due to the non-ideal homogenous magnetic field and collisions with the low-pressure gas that
also reduce the momentum of the electrons. The centripetal force (Eq 2) shows 𝑟 is proportional
to 𝑣 2 . Therefore, the exterior of the beams thickness gives a more ideal radius.

We can calculate the highest achieved velocity by substituting our highest attempted
voltage, 300 𝑉, into using Eq 13. We can calculate the Lorentz factor to see if any relativistic
adjustments need to be applied. Eq 14 shows that the Lorentz factor 𝛾 ≤ 1.3. Relativistic effects
can be safely ignored.
𝑒𝑉 2 𝑚
(Eq 13) 𝑣=√ ≈ 1.3 ∗ 108
𝑚 𝑠
1
(Eq 14) 𝛾= 2
≈ 1.1
√1−(𝑣)
𝑐
The earths magnetic field is also contributing to the magnetic field inside the Helmholtz
coil. The magnitude of the earth’s magnetic field at the University of Utah is 5.127 ∗
10−5 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑙𝑎. However, the angle between the earth’s magnetic field and the normal angle of the
coils is 45° as shown in Figure 3.
𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ ≈ 5.127 ∗ 10−5 (cos(θ) 𝑥̂ + sin(𝜃) 𝑦̂) 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑙𝑎
𝐵𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑙 ≈ 1.06 ∗ 10−3 𝑥̂ 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑙𝑎

We can rerun our linear least square fit program with 𝐵𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝐵𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑙 + 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ . That is,
2
1 𝑒 𝐵𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
=
𝑟 2 𝑚 2𝑉

The calculated slope with the earths contributing field,

𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑚𝑏
= 1.7907 ∗ 1011 ± 3.55 ∗ 109 𝑘𝑔
𝑚
𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑚𝑏
This is closer to the theoretical value of 1.7588 ∗ 1011 . The percent error is now 1.81%.
𝑘𝑔

Figure 4: A magnetic compass placed perpendicular to the coil’s radius. No current is running through the wire. North is
approximately 45 degrees off plane. The earths magnetic field adds to the field inside the Helmholtz coil.
Conclusion

Utilizing ImageJ software for data analysis enabled us to quickly and accurately determine the
charge to mass ratio within a percent error of 1.81%. Although perspective distortion is a major
contributing factor to the accuracy of the experiment, a scalar multiple sufficiently accounts for
magnification when the object distances of both the beam and the ruler are fixed. The charge to
mass ratio experiment conducted by J.J. Thomson in 1897 has many important consequences
such as the implementation of the cyclotron, and an explanation for the Van Allen Belt. It is a
fundamental experiment for undergraduate students, and it can be conducted easily and with
great precision.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by the University of Utah Physics Department under
the supervision of Dr. Orest Symko. Luis Rufino and Dalton Rasmussen participated in data
recording and resulting analysis.

References
Rasband, W.S., ImageJ, U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA,
https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/, 1997-2018.

Taylor, J. (1982). An Introduction to Error Analysis: The study of uncertainties in physical

measurements. University of Colorado

Appendix

𝛼 = 𝑁 ∑ 𝑥𝑖2 − (∑ 𝑥𝑖 )2 Constant
1
𝐴 = 𝛼 (∑ 𝑥𝑖2 ∑ 𝑦𝑖 − ∑ 𝑥𝑖 ∑ 𝑥𝑖 𝑦𝑖 ) y-intercept
1
𝐵= (𝑁 ∑ 𝑥𝑖 𝑦𝑖 − ∑ 𝑥𝑖 ∑ 𝑦𝑖 ) Slope
𝛼
𝜎2
𝜎𝐴 = √ 𝛼 ∑ 𝑥𝑖2 Uncertainty in y-intercept
𝜎2
𝜎𝐵 = √𝑁 Uncertainty in slope
𝛼
[𝑦𝑖 −𝐴−𝐵𝑥𝑖 ]2
𝜎2 = ∑ Standard Error
𝑁−2
[𝑦𝑖 −𝐴−𝐵𝑥𝑖 ]2
√𝜎 2 = ∑ Root Mean Square Error
𝑁−2
𝑌𝐹𝐼𝑇 = 𝐴 + 𝐵𝑋 Linear Least Fit Equation
𝑌𝑅𝐸𝑆 = 𝑌 − (𝐴 + 𝐵𝑋) Residual