Trend of Electromagnetic Temperature

AI Thread Summary
The experiment aimed to measure the temperature change of an electromagnet submerged in water over three minutes to analyze the relationship between voltage and energy transfer. The initial findings suggested a linear trend in joules exchanged against voltage, contrary to expectations of a parabolic relationship based on Joule's First Law and Ohm's Law. The discussion highlighted the need for more trials to validate the trend and pointed out potential sources of error, including variations in initial water temperature and heat loss to the environment. Concerns were raised about the methodology, particularly the calculation of energy transfer solely based on water temperature change. The overall conclusion emphasizes the necessity of refining the experimental design to accurately assess the relationship between voltage and temperature change.
Da Apprentice
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
In order to determine the temperature that an electromagnet reached after a 3 minute period the electromagnet was placed in a constant volume of water. After 3 minutes the change in temperature of the water was measured and from this using the equation Q=mcΔT the energy in joules transferred was calculated. This same process was repeated for the same electromagnet functioning at a different voltage. Graphing the joules exchanged for each experiment against the voltage that the electromagnet was run at produced what appears to be a linear trend.

Why this trend occurred is unknown. It was thought that the trend would be parabolic due to the following;

Joule's First Law: Q=k*I2*R

Ohms Law: V=I*R (hence I=V/R)

Substitution gives: Q=(k*V2)/R

I'm not sure if joules law is the correct law to use in this case and so this is most likely why I'm wrong. Can anyone explain why the result would be linear or confirm that it should in fact have been parabolic.

Thanks
Z.C
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you only run 2 trials? You won't be able to determine whether the trend is linear or not without more data points.
 
no in total we ran the experiment at 6 different voltages and an additional point was assumed (at 0,0) because with no voltage the magnet doesn't increase in temperature and therefore no energy would be exchanged between the two.

The graph is attached.

Thanks for the reply.

Z.C.
 

Attachments

  • Graph - Energy Exchange.png
    Graph - Energy Exchange.png
    4.6 KB · Views: 247
Well, to start off how did you determine that a line of the one you have drawn is the best fit for your date points?
For each voltage setting, one would do several runs to have multiple data points.

You have several sources of error to begin with.
There is the experimental temperature difference between initial and final - and you do not say whether all runs of the experiment started at the same initial water temperature.
Also there is the voltage setting error.
And of course the mass of the water.

Calculating Q, by only using the increase in temperature of the water does not allow for the temperature increase of your electromagnet nor any heat lost from the water to the environment.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
It may be shown from the equations of electromagnetism, by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860’s, that the speed of light in the vacuum of free space is related to electric permittivity (ϵ) and magnetic permeability (μ) by the equation: c=1/√( μ ϵ ) . This value is a constant for the vacuum of free space and is independent of the motion of the observer. It was this fact, in part, that led Albert Einstein to Special Relativity.
Back
Top