J j thomson's previous experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter gnome
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
AI Thread Summary
J.J. Thomson's earlier experiment involved measuring the velocity of charged particles by analyzing the total charge and temperature change when a beam struck an insulated collector. The derived equation, relating charge-to-mass ratio (e/m) to energy loss, indicates that the measurements from this experiment were more accurate than those from his later, famous experiment. The discussion highlights the relationship between the equations governing the motion of charged particles in a magnetic field and the calculations needed to derive Thomson's results. A participant clarifies how to manipulate the equations to arrive at the desired outcome, emphasizing the importance of understanding the underlying physics. This exchange underscores the complexity and significance of Thomson's contributions to modern physics.
gnome
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
1
j j thomson's "previous" experiment

I thought I was going to like this book, but it's defying me.

I'm staring at pg 123 of Tipler's Modern Physics text (3rd ed.) This is talking about an experiment he says Thomson did before the "famous" J J Thomson experiment. It goes like this:

In his first measurement, Thomson determined the velocity from measurements of the total charge and the temperature change occurring when the beam struck an insulated collector. For N particles, the total charge is Q = Ne, while the temperature rise is proportional to the energy loss W = N(½mu2). Eliminating N and u from these equations, we obtain

\frac{e}{m} = \frac{2W}{B^2R^2Q}\hspace{200}eq.\hspace{5} 3-3
That's all he says about that experiment, except for a brief note later on that the measurements obtained from that one were actually more accurate than the measurements he obtained from the later, and more well-known, method.

Anyway, on the preceding page, he talks a bit about the circular path followed by charged particles in a magnetic field and gives

quB = \frac{mu^2}{R}

Obvious enough. (Here, little q is of course the charge on an individual particle, so it corresponds to e, not Q, in the other equations.)

But I don't see how that helps in getting to equation 3-3 above. All I get from the two preliminary equations is
\frac{e}{m} = \frac{Qu^2}{2W}
To get from that to his equation 3-3 I have to say
u^2 = \frac{4W^2}{B^2R^2Q^2}
and I don't see anything that let's me say that.

Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not familiar with Thomson's "previous" experiment, but if you look at the two equations:

quB = \frac{mu^2}{R}
and
\frac{e}{m} = \frac{Qu^2}{2W}

If you solve for u in the first equation you get

u = \frac{eBR}{m}

which you can then substitute into the second equation to get the desired equation.

cookiemonster
 
Hmmm...I hate to admit to how long I didn't see that.

Thanks for providing the requisite smack in the head.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top