User:Ryan P. Long/Notebook/Physics 307L/2009/10/26: Difference between revisions
Ryan P. Long (talk | contribs) |
Ryan P. Long (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
As in the first experiment, I calculated my value of Atmospheric pressure, using [http://earth.google.com Google earth] to find the elevation near campus (5187 ft.), and then calculated the pressure with an excellent converter that can be found [http://www.turblex.com/altitude/index.cfm here]. | As in the first experiment, I calculated my value of Atmospheric pressure, using [http://earth.google.com Google earth] to find the elevation near campus (5187 ft.), and then calculated the pressure with an excellent converter that can be found [http://www.turblex.com/altitude/index.cfm here]. | ||
My value below for q is calculated using the equations on pages 2 and 9 of the pasco manual, my partner, Tom deserves credit for this great spreadsheet below. | |||
Equation for q from page 10: | |||
[[Image:Formulamillikan.png]] | |||
For my value of Atmospheric pressure, I used [http://earth.google.com | google earth] to find the elevation near campus, and then calculated the pressure with an excellent converter that can be found [http://www.turblex.com/altitude/index.cfm | here]. | |||
{{ShowGoogleExcel|id=t5BlD1hP29ElloydD8ZLVsw|width=1020|height=300}} | |||
According to our calculations with our recorded data, our mean charges for each drop are as follows: | |||
'''Drop 1''': 1.17 C | |||
'''Drop 2''': 1.24(3)E-15 C | |||
' | |||
The accepted value of the charge of a single electron is (from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge wikipedia]): | The accepted value of the charge of a single electron is (from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge wikipedia]): | ||
Revision as of 01:12, 9 November 2009
 Millikan Oil Drop Experiment Round 2
|
<html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page <html><img src="/images/c/c3/Resultset_previous.png" border="0" /></html>Previous entry<html> </html>Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html> | ||||||
|
Note: My partner Tom and I share the same lab notebook up to the Analysis section EquipmentPictures from the Original Experiment
Pictures from the Continuation
Equipment used in both the original experiment and the followup
New equipment
Note: We forgot to write down the model numbers of the Logitech, Creative, and CCD cameras, but we will get this information the next time we are in the lab Week 1- No CameraSetupFirst, we tried using the Creative and Logitech webcams to see the droplets and take data. Then we ended up just following the procedure we used in the original experiment. DataFirst, we set up the Logitech camera. The focusing wire was easily seen, but the gridlines were hard to make out due to the camera's low resolution. We tried the same thing with the Creative camera, but again, the gridlines were hard to distinguish from one another. After putting the drops in for both cameras, the light was not bright enough to see anything, despite changing cameras' integration times, contrast, and brightness settings. After our attempts with the cameras yielded no data, we took data in a similar fashion as the original experiment: we squirted some mineral oil into the chamber with the ionization source set to the spray droplet position. We then turned it off, played with the capacitor plates until we found a suitable drop, and proceeded to time it as it rose with the force of the electric field and fell due to gravity. We did not repeat our previous mistake of measuring the fall time of the droplet WITH the electric field on. Raw data sheet: {{#widget:Google Spreadsheet |
key=tdqXMh97xXnU0W-obvdhVEA | width=650 | height=300
}} I decided to name our droplets for added excitement AnalysisAlthough the cameras did not work as well as we had hoped, it was still rather interesting to set up each camera and experiment with each. Perhaps they did not work properly because of the optics on the Millikan apparatus, since they are in fact designed to be used with the eye instead of a camera. Another problem could've been with resolution of the cameras we used, the web cams seemed to be too low of resolution to resolve the tiny droplets. As in the first experiment, I calculated my value of Atmospheric pressure, using Google earth to find the elevation near campus (5187 ft.), and then calculated the pressure with an excellent converter that can be found here. My value below for q is calculated using the equations on pages 2 and 9 of the pasco manual, my partner, Tom deserves credit for this great spreadsheet below. Equation for q from page 10:
For my value of Atmospheric pressure, I used | google earth to find the elevation near campus, and then calculated the pressure with an excellent converter that can be found | here. {{#widget:Google Spreadsheet |
key=t5BlD1hP29ElloydD8ZLVsw | width=1020 | height=300
}} According to our calculations with our recorded data, our mean charges for each drop are as follows: Drop 1: 1.17 C Drop 2: 1.24(3)E-15 C '
e = [math]\displaystyle{ 1.602176487(40) \cdot 10^{-19} }[/math]C Week 2- CameraSetupFor the second week we intended to use a camera to make the data taking process easier to see, and possibly more precise due to the use of recording and the ability to analyze the data frame by frame instead of using a stop watch. First, we set up my video camera to look at the droplets. Before moving to the next camera, we removed the lamp housing with the incandescent bulb in it and replaced it with LED light. We tried to view it again with my camera. Finally we set up the 2" lens behind the eyepiece and put the CCD camera at a distance about 10 cm away (we moved it until it looked to be most in focus).
| |
