0
$\begingroup$

I am working on a experiment on finding the Earth's magnetic field strength. Using a Galvanometer and a constant power source of 5.1V and slowly adjusting the resistance, I was able to find the changes in angle in relation to the changes of current.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanometer#Theory

$$\frac{\mu_0nI}{2r}=B_H\tan\theta$$

Then I used the equation to find the $B_H$, the horizontal component BH of the Earth's magnetic field.

However, my calculation shows my $B_H$ is 5.62E-04, while the actual $B_H$ is 5.03E-05. There is a difference of factor of 10!!!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hard to say what it might be without actually being there and going over the setup and calculations in detail. Since, as you noted, the calculation is off by nearly a factor of 10 so I would start off by checking to make sure that there wasn't an accident or error in which a factor of 10 crept in. For example, N=50 turns but the spreadsheet says that the total coil is 500 turns. Sure that a partial and not total coil was used? Also, the magnetic inclination is a steep 70˚ in Denmark, so the field is far from horizontal there. Sure that the experiment was properly set up for that? $\endgroup$ – Samuel Weir Sep 3 '18 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ There are 2 settings on the device, 1 setting to turn on all 500 turns and 1 setting to turn on only 50 turns. I use the setting for 50 turns. If 500 turns is used in the calculation, the difference will be a factor of 100 instead of 10. μ (N/2r) I = Bh tan Bh = μ (N/2r) (1/slope) How did you get the 70˚ for the magnetic inclination? What would be a reasonable value? $\endgroup$ – Tom Sep 4 '18 at 6:14
  • $\begingroup$ I found out about the 70˚. Ignore that question:-) $\endgroup$ – Tom Sep 4 '18 at 6:23
  • $\begingroup$ There is possibly something inconsistent with your data. In your tabulated data to what does the resistance refer? Was it the resistance of a resistor in series with the tangent galvanometer? Was the supply voltage constant at $5.1\,\rm V$? If the answers are all yes then the extra resistance in the circuit (the resistance of the tangent galvanometer) varied from over $100 \Omega$ for low currents to below $30 \Omega$ for the higher currents. $\endgroup$ – Farcher Sep 4 '18 at 7:51
  • $\begingroup$ I will look into the volts/resistance/current issue by doing another experiment, if possible. I will take some photos next time so it is easier to double check the data. $\endgroup$ – Tom Sep 4 '18 at 10:40
1
$\begingroup$

Maybe magnetic field at the point where you measured it included some local magnetic field, say, from some metal structure.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I will try to do another experiment, if possible. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Tom Sep 4 '18 at 10:37
0
$\begingroup$

It seems to be the case that such a galvanometer is most accurate at around $\theta=\pi/4=45^\circ$. The optimum current for this defection (assuming the correct $B_h$ is present is given by

$I=\frac{2rB_h}{\mu_0n}\approx1.2amps$

I wonder if it is correct to operate your particular device, as you seem to have done, with a deflection under $\theta=\pi/20=10^\circ$ and at currents an order of magnitude less than 1.2amps? (Note that incorporating more turns would also reduce the optimum current).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the feedback. Let me know what I can do with that info:-) $\endgroup$ – Tom Sep 4 '18 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ To use this you'ld probably have to run the experiment again with more turns and/or more current. Also run it a different location (to dis-count local ferromagnets) was another suggestion. $\endgroup$ – JMLCarter Sep 4 '18 at 16:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.