Faraday Lenz lab - My calculations are Way off and I'm not sure why

AI Thread Summary
The lab aimed to measure the induced current in a disconnected coil caused by a second coil connected to a power supply, involving magnetic and electric fields. Key calculations included the magnetic field created by the first coil and the induced current in the second coil, which was found to be significantly higher than expected, leading to confusion. The induced current should have been around 0.1mA based on theoretical calculations, while the experimental result was 0.6mA. Issues were identified in the calculations, particularly regarding the induced voltage and the change in magnetic flux. The setup involved two parallel coils, each with a radius of 10.5cm and a resistance of 18Ω, positioned 10.5cm apart.
uterii
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The purpose of the lab was to measure, and also calculate, the induced current in a disconnected coil, due to a second coil connected to a power supply. Involved magnetic fields and electric fields (I think.



For the purposes of this lab, the magnetic permittivity is 1.26*10-6, the number of turns is 500, and the radius of the coil is 10.5cm.

B=N (μ_0 I)/2R
ϕ=B∙A
=N*(u0*I)/2 * R2 /(R2 +x2 )3/2




Magnetic Field Created by the First Coil
I_left=18Ω/18V=1 Amp
B_left=500*((1.26*〖10〗^(-6) )*1Amp)/2*(.105m)^2/〖〖〖((.105m)〗^2+(.105m)〗^2)〗^(3/2) = 0.0010 Tesla
Current in Second Coil when Voltage in First Coil is Constant
In this situation, there is no induced current in the second loop. For an induced current to exist, there must be a change in flux over time. This is impossible when current is held constant.
Current in Second Coil when Voltage Linearly Increased over 10sec
ϕ_initial=0 Wb
ϕ_final= 0.0010 Tesla*(π*(10.5cm)^2 )=3.464*〖10〗^(-5) Wb
ε=-((3.464*〖10〗^(-5) Wb-0 Wb))/10s=3.46*〖10〗^(-6) V
I_induced=18Ω/(3.46*〖10〗^(-6) V)=5196896 Amp


My TA has told us that the induced current should be calculated as ~0.1mA, and experimentally the induced current was found to be 0.6mA. Obviously I am WAY off, but I'm honestly not sure what I'm doing wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I_induced=18Ω/(3.46*〖10〗^(-6) V)=5196896 Amp is weird. Wasn't Ohms law a little different ?

Any measurement results for the induced voltage ?
I must say I find a change of 1 A in 10s rather slow, so maybe these low values can be expected.
I do find the ##\Phi_{\rm final}## value you found rather low. Can you check ?

Is there a drawing of the setup ? How far apart are the two coils ? Orientation ?
 
BvU said:
I_induced=18Ω/(3.46*〖10〗^(-6) V)=5196896 Amp is weird. Wasn't Ohms law a little different ?

Any measurement results for the induced voltage ?
I must say I find a change of 1 A in 10s rather slow, so maybe these low values can be expected.
I do find the ##\Phi_{\rm final}## value you found rather low. Can you check ?

Is there a drawing of the setup ? How far apart are the two coils ? Orientation ?

The two coils are 10.5cm apart, and they are parallel to one another. Each has a radius of 10.5cm, and the resistance of each coil is 18Ω.

We did not measure the induced voltage, just the induced current.

Ohm's law is V=IR. Ah, I see a mistake! So that was part of my problem, but something before that step is still off.

I've checked my calculation of ##\Phi_{\rm final}##, and I'm getting the same answer, so I'm worried it is an algebra error.

When inducing a current into the second coil, we had the power source increase linearly from 0V to 18V in 10seconds
 
Last edited:
Good. Now I use your first formula and get B=N (μ_0 I)/(2R) and get 0.003 T.

What do you do to get ##\Phi## ?

Do you now see why the rules and guidelines force using the template ? Saves time, yours and ours... Gets you better help too.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top