Calculating B:I for Helmholtz coils

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of the magnetic field strength ratio (B:I) for Helmholtz coils, where an experiment yielded a linear relationship between magnetic field strength (B) and current (I). The analytical formula derived for B:I is approximately 0.048 T/A, but experimental results show about 0.004 T/A, leading to confusion over a factor of 12 discrepancy. A key point of contention is the radius value used in calculations, with one participant noting a discrepancy between the code and stated values. This highlights the importance of accurate input data in calculations, as errors can significantly affect outcomes. The conversation emphasizes the need for careful verification of experimental parameters.
Ryaners
Messages
50
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


I've completed an experiment where the dependence of magnetic field strength ##B## on current ##I## is measured at the midpoint along the axis between two Helmholtz coils (separation distance = coil radius ##r##). I got the expected linear relationship from the data but am having trouble calculating the result analytically.

##N## = number of turns per coil = 320
##\mu _0## = vacuum permittivity constant = ##4\pi \times 10^{-7}##
##r## = radius of coil = ##61.06 \times 10^{-3} m##

Homework Equations


The ratio of ##B:I## at a point halfway along the axis between the coils (i.e. where ##x = \frac r 2##) is given by:
$$ \frac {B}{I} = \left( \frac{4}{5}\right)^{\frac 3 2} \frac {\mu _0 N}{r} $$
This is derived as follows: the field from a single coil at distanct ##x## along the axis is:
$$ B = \frac{\mu _0 N I r^2}{2 \left(x^2 + r^2\right)^{3/2} } $$
Adding a second coil in series with this doubles the field between them, and setting them at a separation of ##r## gives a uniform field. Setting ##x = \frac r 2##, i.e. at the midpoint, and dividing through by ##I## gives the expression above for ##\frac B I##.

The measurements were taking by positioning a probe at ##x = \frac r 2## and measuring ##B## for a range of ##I## values.

The Attempt at a Solution


So from a graph of B against I, I get the expected result - about ##0.004 T A^{-1}##. BUT when I put the numbers into the above formula, I get something about 12 times bigger: ##0.048 T A^{-1}##. I can't see where I'm going wrong so I thought I'd see if someone here could shed some light on it. The derivation of the equation I'm using seems correct, & I'm not sure where a factor of 12 could be coming from - even if the number of turns in the coil is wrong, it would seem a bit excessive to be given coils with 3,840 turns for this experiment! (This is something I can confirm tomorrow when I get back to the lab.)

Any feedback is most welcome - thanks in advance.

If it makes things easier, here is some Python code for the above:

Python:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np

###
# Calculate the constant coefficient analytically.
###

# vacuum permittivity constant:
mu_0 = 4.0 * 10.0**(-7) * np.pi
# no. of turns each coil
N = 320.
# radius of coil ( = separation distance between coils)
r = 0.00601

#equation for ratio of B:I for Helmholtz coils with this spacing
analytic = ((4/5)**(3/2)) * mu_0 * N / r

print("Analytical Result: ", analytic)

###
# Experimental Data. Plot a graph, fit a line & print the slope.
###

# measurements:
I = np.array([0.,0.025,0.051,0.074,0.099,0.125,0.150,0.175,0.201,0.299,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.801,0.901,0.999])
B_mT = np.array([0.,0.11,0.21,0.3,0.42,0.5,0.61,0.69,0.81,1.19,1.6,1.9,2.3,2.8,3.22,3.63,4.03])

# convert B measurements from milliTesla to Tesla
B = B_mT * 10**(-3)

# linear regression
p = np.polyfit(I, B, 1)
m = p[0]
c = p[1]
line = m * I + c

print("Result from Graph: ", m)
print("Ratio of Analytical : Experimental Result = ", analytic / m)

xerr = 0.01
yerr = 0.00005

# plot graph
fig1 = plt.figure()
plt.grid(which='both', axis='both', linestyle='-')
# label axes, set axis limits
plt.xlabel('Current [A]')
plt.ylabel('Magnetic Field Strength [T]')
plt.xlim(0.0,1.05)
plt.ylim(0.0, 0.00425)
plt.errorbar(I, B, yerr, xerr, '.', capsize=3)
plt.title('Dependence of Magnetic Field on Current (in Helmholtz Coil)')
plt.plot(I, B, '.')
plt.plot(I, line, 'r')

plt.show()
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your code says r = 0.00601, I assume the number is in meters. That's 60.01×10-4m.
You say
Ryaners said:
r = radius of coil = 61.06×10−3m
Which is it? As we say in the trade, "Garbage in, garbage out." :smile:
 
kuruman said:
Your code says r = 0.00601, I assume the number is in meters. That's 60.01×10-4m.
You say

Which is it? As we say in the trade, "Garbage in, garbage out." :smile:

Ah, yes, that does make a quite a bit of a difference alright, whoops :redface: Thank you for pointing out the mistake! Fresh pair of eyes etc.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top