Presentation by Robert Mines

PH 202 Lab
VERIFICATION OF FARADAYS LAW OF
INDUCTION USING CONCENTRIC SOLENOIDS
In this experiment, the induced
electromotive force (E) and the
time rate of change in current (

)
were measured directly.
Using equations derived from
Faradays law,

was used to
calculate E.
Then, using propagation of errors
the measured and theoretical
values were tested for consistency
to verify Faradays Law.
INTRODUCTION
In 1831, Michael Faraday noticed
unusual behavior between magnets
and coils of wire:
If a magnetic field passed through
a loop of wire, an EMF would be
induced.
If the field passed through the
wire in the opposite direction, an
EMF of equal magnitude but
opposite sign would be produced.
If the current in a coil of wire was
changed, an EMF could be
induced in another wire.
QUALITATIVE EXPLANATION OF FARADAYS LAW
QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF FARADAYS
LAW
Based off his qualitative experiments, Michael Faraday derived the following
result:
=

N = The number of turns in wire coil.

= The time derivative of magnetic flux.

= ()
B = The Magnetic Field Vector Magnitude
A = Area through which B passes.
= The angle between the area and field vectors.
In other words, a magnetic flux induces an EMF and a current that serve as an
electromagnetic inertia to resist changes in the circuits environment.
In this experiment, a current was applied to a
solenoid, and this induced a magnetic field in a
smaller coaxial solenoid.
The magnetic field of any current can be
determined using Amperes Law:
=
0

DETERMINING THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF A
SOLENOID

=
0

=
0

=
0

=
0

where
0
= 4 10
7

2
, I is the applied current, and n is the number of wire coils per
unit length.


INDUCED EMF DUE TO A CHANGING CURRENT

= ()
Inside of the solenoid the area vectors and field vectors are
essentially parallel at every point, so

= =
0

Setting the number of coils in the secondary solenoid as N
2
and
applying Faradays Law, we find
=
2

Science Workshop 750
Interface (CI-6565 A)
Voltage Sensor (CI-6503)
Primary and Secondary
Coil (SE-8653)
Patch Cords with Banana
Plugs
Personal Computer
Power Amplifier II (CI-
6552A)
Digital Multi-Meter (1 )
Digital Caliper (0.01
mm)
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Using the digital multimeter, the resistance
across the outer solenoid was measured.
Uncertainty for this value was taken to
be 1%.
Using the digital caliper, the length of the
outer solenoid was measured.
Uncertainty was estimated since
electrical tape obscured the end of the
solenoid.
The inner and outer diameter of the
secondary solenoid were measured using
the digital caliper.
A separate value for uncertainty was
calculated later.
Number of turns was specified by the
manufacturer.
Quantity Measurement
Resistance (R) 77.1 0.771
Length (L) 108.05 4
Outer Diameter (D
out
) 17.38
Inner Diameter (D
in
) 11.01
N
1
2920
N
2
235
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOLENOIDS
SOFTWARE SETUP AND DATA COLLECTION
Secondary solenoid was inserted into the primary.
Voltage sensors and circuit connected to data studio and power amplifier.
In Data Studio, a voltage ramp up wave was generated with an amplitude of 9.60 V and a
frequency of 260 Hz.
The resulting induced EMF in the secondary coil was measured by the voltage sensor.
Using the oscilloscope tool, Data Studio plotted the applied voltage and induced voltage.
The data was separated into two plots.
On the applied voltage plot, a linear fit of voltage vs time was generated.
The measured voltage/EMF was taken as the average of the points that
asymptotically approached the maximum possible induced voltage. Statistical
uncertainty was calculated.

DETERMINING THE THEORETICAL EMF
The slope of the linear fit is equal to

, and from this

and its uncertainty can be

calculated:

= 5170 .34

= 5170

77.1 = 67.1

= 67.1

0.34
5170
+
0.771
77.10
= 0.675

= 67.1 0.675

DETERMINING THE THEORETICAL EMF
Now, the number of turns per unit length of the primary solenoid n and its uncertainty must be
calculated:
=
1
=
2920
108.05

1000
1.00
= 2.70 10
4

= 2.70 10
4

4 mm
108.05 mm
= 1000
turns

= 2.70 0.1
10
4

Next, the average diameter and uncertainty of the secondary solenoid must be calculated:

2
=
17.38+11.01
2

17.3811.01
2

1
1000

= 1.420 .3185 10
2



17.38 + 11.01
2

17.38 11.01
2

1
1000

DETERMINING THE THEORETICAL EMF
Now the area of the secondary solenoid must be calculated:
=

2
=
0.01420
2
= 7.098 10
3

=

2
=
0.003185
2
= 1.593 10
3

= 7.098 1.593 10
3

=
2
= 7.098 10
3

2
= 1.583 10
4

2

=
2

= 2 1.583 10
4
1.593 10
3
7.098 10
3

2
= 7.105 10
5

2

= 1.583 0.7105 10
4
^2

DETERMINING THE THEORETICAL EMF
Now, we can calculate the theoretical EMF form the data presented:
=
2

= 235 1.583 10
4

2
4 10
7

2
2.70 10
4

1
67.1

= 0.0847
=

= 0.0847
0.7105
1.583
+
1000
27000
+
0.675
67.1
= 0.0420
= 0.0847 0.0420
\S
MEASURING EMF FROM DATA
The last graph shows the induced EMF compared to time.
Using the data selection tool, a series of points asymptotically approaching the maximum
induced voltage was selected.
The statistical package in Data Studio determined that this constituted 27 data points with
a mean E = 0.060 V and a standard deviation of 3.970 X 10
-3
V.
Statistical uncertainty was calculated for the measured E:

=
3.970 10
3

27
= 0.0007460

= 0.060 0.0007460

COMPARISON OF ERRORS
Now, the theoretical and measured values was tested for
consistency using comparison of errors:
|

|
+

3
| 0.0847 + 0.060|
0.0420 + 0.0007460
3
0.577 3
Since the values agreed within 3 standard deviations, the values
are consistent.
CONCLUSION
= 0.0847 0.0420

= 0.060 0.0007640
These values were consistent at 0.577 standard deviations.
Accordingly, this result verifies that:
=

SOURCES OF ERROR: LIMITATIONS OF
MEASURING EQUIPMENT
The caliper could not be used to measure the exact length of the solenoid
since electrical tape used as insulation obscured the location of the end of
the wire.
The Digital Multimeter fluctuated substantially when measuring the
resistance across the solenoid depending on how much force was applied
and where the contact occurred.
Also, measuring the inner diameter was hindered by the support structure.
Last, we assumed that there was no uncertainty in the number of coils
provided by the manufacturer.
SOURCES OF ERROR: THEORETICAL ISSUES
First, we assumed that all of the magnetic field lines were parallel to the area vector:
The field actually has a slight curvature in the solenoid, so it may have actually been
less than we theoretically predicted as is consistent with the measured value being
less than the theoretical value.
Second, we assumed that there was no external magnetic field.
In all reality, the solenoid produces an external magnetic field, and we cannot go
infinitely far from it when in a real situation.
This external magnetism would be opposite in sign to the first portion of the path
decreasing the observed field vector accordingly decreasing the observed induced
EMF.
REFERENCES
Experiment 6: Faradays Law. Physics Experiments for PH 201
and 202. 4
th
ed. University of South Alabama Department of
Physics. Mobile, AL: Department of Physics, 2010. 152-159.
Print.