Calculating mass and charge independently in a Paul Trap

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bravus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Mass
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the charge-to-mass ratio of dust particles trapped in a Paul trap, utilizing a DC voltage for gravity compensation. The formula provided allows for this ratio to be determined by varying the compensation voltage and observing the particle's displacement. However, participants note that this method does not facilitate the independent determination of mass and charge. A proposed solution involves using two particles, which share the same charge, enabling the calculation of charge through their Coulomb interaction, thus allowing for the determination of mass as well. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of the calculations and the need for innovative approaches to separate mass and charge measurements.
Bravus
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Trapping dust particles in a Paul trap, in air, at 50 Hz (similar to Winter & Ortjohann, 1991).

Gravity compensation is achieved using a DC voltage across top and bottom electrodes.

Given the features of the trap, the charge-to-mass ratio of the trapped particle can be calculated as follows:

<br /> \frac{Q}{M} = \frac{z_0^3Ω^2ΔV_z}{4V_{ac}^2Δz_F}<br />

where Q = charge (C), M = mass (kg), z0 is half the height of the trap (m), Ω = frequency (rad/s), Vz = applied compensation voltage (V), Vac = is the amplitude of the oscillating trapping potential (V) and zF = displacement of the particle from the trap centre (m).

OK, so that allows me to find the ratio of charge to mass, by varying the compensation voltage and measuring changes in the 'sag' from the centre of the trap. I'm not sure it allows me to separately determine the mass and charge, though...

As I'm writing this it occurs to me that graphing ΔVz vs ΔzF will give me intercepts that might be relevant...

Will keep thinking on it myself, and share any fruits if I make progress, but thought I'd turn your collective minds loose on it too...Reference

H Winter and H W Ortjohann. Simple demonstration of storing macroscopic par-
ticles in a "Paul trap". American Journal of Physics, 59(9):807-813, May 2004.
5
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Not sure why the TeX is failing me on the equation, but hopefully you can see what is top line and what is bottom line.

Edit: fixed that

Second edit: I missed something on my earlier look. There is no c^2 term. It should have read V_{ac}^2 - as it now does.
 
Last edited:
113 views, no replies. It's OK. Here's what I just tweeted:

Work through physics problem I was stuck on. Reassured to discover it's impossible. Grinning supervisor confesses to being 'mean'.​

As far as I can tell, there's no way to do it with one particle.

The hint and key, that we got to eventually (but I had to be told), is to use two.

They'll have the same charge (sign, not necessarily magnitude), and the Coulomb force between them is independent of mass, so it allows calculating charge (or, at least, combined charge). Since we can already find Q/M, if we can find charge we can find mass.
 
I was using the Smith chart to determine the input impedance of a transmission line that has a reflection from the load. One can do this if one knows the characteristic impedance Zo, the degree of mismatch of the load ZL and the length of the transmission line in wavelengths. However, my question is: Consider the input impedance of a wave which appears back at the source after reflection from the load and has traveled for some fraction of a wavelength. The impedance of this wave as it...

Similar threads

Back
Top