2022
Physics
[Document subtitle]
Collins, Codey (ccoll208)
Table of Contents
1.0 Rationale..........................................................................................................................................2
2.0 Original Experiment.........................................................................................................................2
3.0 Modified Experiment.......................................................................................................................2
4.0 Research Question...........................................................................................................................3
5.0 Risk Assessment...............................................................................................................................3
6.0 Raw Data.........................................................................................................................................3
7.0 Processing of Data...........................................................................................................................4
8.0 Processing of Data...........................................................................................................................6
8.1 Vertical Distance..............................................................................................................................7
8.2 Horizontal Distance.........................................................................................................................8
9.0 Interpretation..................................................................................................................................9
9.1 Vertical Distance..........................................................................................................................9
9.2 Horizontal Distance......................................................................................................................9
10.0 Analysis........................................................................................................................................10
10.1 Vertical Distance......................................................................................................................10
10.2 Horizontal Distance..................................................................................................................10
11.0 Limitations...................................................................................................................................10
12.0 Improvements and Extensions....................................................................................................11
13.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................11
1.0 Rationale
This report will aim to determine the relationship between magnetic field strength and distance by
varying the distance of a bar magnet from a Hall sensor and recording the results. A magnetic field is,
a vector field in the neighbourhood of a magnet, electric current, or changing electric field, in
which magnetic forces are observable (Britannica, n.d.). When drawn graphically, the strength of the
field is proportional to the closeness of the lines. It is exactly proportional to the number of lines per
unit area perpendicular to the lines (called the areal density) (Lumen, n.d.). Magnetic fields
propagate radially outward, will the strongest part of the field being closest to the magnetic pole.
The strength of a magnetic field decreases the further away from the magnetic pole you go. These
magnetic fields exert magnetic force. Using semiconductors (such as silicon), Hall effect sensors work
by measuring the changing voltage when the device is placed in a magnetic field. In other words,
once a Hall effect sensor detects that it is now in a magnetic field, it is able to sense the position of
objects (RS, Everything You Need To Know About Hall Effect Sensors | RS Components, n.d.).
2.0 Original Experiment
The aim of the original experiment was to determine the magnetic force produced by two magnets
when the horizontal distance between them is changed. To do this one magnet was held in a clamp
on a retort stand, and the other was placed bellow it on a scale. Then the magnets were
incrementally brought closer together using a ruler to measure the distance between each of the
magnets. The force that was exerted was then recorded. The data recorded from the experiment
was of low reliability, as great variation within trials was seen. However, high validity was seen in the
results, as the results showed that an inversed square relationship was evident, confirming the initial
hypothesis.
3.0 Modified Experiment
Redirected to determine the relationship between magnetic field strength at various horizontal and
vertical distances. This redirection will show how the magnetic field strength can change, not just
vertically but horizontally, whilst providing more information about the magnetic field's behaviour at
various positions around the magnet.
Refined to use a hall effect sensor to measure the magnetic field strength directly, instead of the
solving for the magnetic force exerted by measuring the change in mass.
This extension will improve the reliability of the investigation, by providing consistent magnetic field
results. The number of trials was refined to five trials to increase the reliability of the experimental
results. The reliability will be increased, as the more data you have, the more confident in your mean
you can be.
Modification Justification
Refined – Refined to use a hall effect sensor to
measure magnetic field strength and reduce
background magnetic strength.
Extended – Extended to test eleven different
distances with five trials each.
Redirected – Redirected to figure out how
magnetic field strength relates to horizontal
and vertical distance.
4.0 Research Question
How does changing the distance of a circular magnet in both the horizontal and vertical distances
(0.35m to 0.05m) from a hall effect sensor, affect the magnetic field strength recorded?
5.0 Risk Assessment
Hazard Risk Control
Retort Stand Injury from objects falling Ensure all equipment is securely in place. Be
from retort stand. cautious when adjusting retort stand. Place
retort stand safe distance from edge of bench.
Boss Head Injury from pinch points. Ensure that when positioning the clamps on the
retort stand that all body parts are away from all
pinch points.
Boss Head Clamps Injury from pinch points. Ensure that when positioning the clamps on the
retort stand that all body parts are away from all
pinch points.
6.0 Raw Data
Table 1: Measured magnetic field strength when changing vertical distance
Background magnetic field strength: 113.89 83.49
Table 2: Measured magnetic field strength when changing horizontal distance
Background magnetic field strength: 90.26
7.0 Processing of Data
Table 3: Vertical magnetic field strength minus background field strength
Table 4: Horizontal magnetic field strength minus background field strength
Table 5: Processed Data
Distance (± Average Field Average Field Inverse Squared Inverse Cubed
0.005m) Strength (Vertical) Strength (Horizontal) Distance Distance
(T ± %) (T ± %) (T ± %) (T ± %)
0.35 -8.91667 ± 20 51.214 ± 4 8.163 23.324
0.3 -14.79 ± 9 53.318 ± 0.6 11.111 37.037
0.25 -22.5733 ± 5 63.532 ± 1 16 64
0.2 -25.28 ± 6 78.602 ± 1 25 125
0.15 20.0233 ± 9 102.526 ± 4 44.444 296.296
0.1 246.905 ± 8 190.264 ± 2 100 1000
0.09 301.653 ± 13 172.882 ± 3 123.46 1371.74
0.08 393.648 ± 7 210.902 ± 2 156.25 1953.13
0.07 366.81 ± 21 258.404 ± 4 104.072 1915.45
0.06 429.632 ± 2 333.564 ± 7 277.78 4629.63
0.05 993.73 ± 12 431.228 ± 3 400 8000
8.0 Processing of Data
Table 2: Sample Calculations
FORMULA USED SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
0.422 m+ 0.422m+0.417 m+0.423 m+0.427 m
x=
5
Σ results
Average=
number of results 2.11m
x=
5
x=0.422 m
0.427 m−0.417 m
Uncertainty =±
2
max value−min value
Uncertainty =±
2 0.01 m
Uncertainty =±
2
Uncertainty =±0.005 m
absolute uncertainty
Percentage Uncertainty =± ( 0.422
0.005
m
×100 ) %
Percentage Uncertainty =± ×100
measurment Percentage Uncertainty =± ( 0.01× 100 ) %
Percentage Uncertainty =±1 %
8.1 Vertical Distance
Figure 2: Magnetic Field Strength VS Vertical Distance
1200
1000
Magnetic field Strength (T)
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
-200
Vertical Distance (m)
450
400f(x) = 0.409559711352054 x + 29.2409594517734
R² = 0.948304640375455
Magnetic Field Strength (T)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Inverse Square of Vertical Distance (m)
Figure 3: Magnetic Field Strength VS Inversed Square of Vertical Distance
Figure 4: Magnetic Field Strength VS Inversed Cube of Vertical Distance
9000
8000
7000 f(x) = 7.99293285609897 x + 2.60065825126367
Magnetic Field Strenght (T)
R² = 0.929892358361701
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Inversed Cube of Vertical Distance (m)
8.2 Horizontal Distance
Figure 5: Magnetic Field Strength VS Horizontal Distance
500
450
Magnetic Field Strength (T)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Horizontal Distance (m)
Figure 6: Magnetic Field Strength VS Inversed Square Horizontal Distance
Figure 7: Magnetic Field Strength VS Inversed Cube Horizontal Distance
9.0 Interpretation
9.1 Vertical Distance
Figure 2 shows that vertical distance increases, the magnetic field decreases. This is as when
distance is increased from 0.05m to 0.35m, the magnetic field decreases from 993.73T to -8.91666T.
Therefore, this trend infers that the further away from a fixed point a magnet is placed, the weaker
its field is at that point. Given that magnetic fields are radial in nature, and that their intensity
theoretically reduces as distance from the magnet increases according to a factor of the inverse of
the distance squared, it was inferred that perhaps Figure 3 may display this trend also. To investigate
this hypothesis, Figure 3 was developed.
450
(T) Strength (T)
400
9000
350 f(x) = 1.0106001120653 x − 54.6166743919967
R² = 0.986768917318184
8000
300
StrengthField
250
7000
200 f(x) = 19.3283917930946 x − 1564.17018386673
6000
Magnetic
R² = 0.929298310597519
150
5000
100
Magnetic Field
4000
50
3000
0
20000 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
1000
Inversed Square of Horizontal Distance (m)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Inversed Cube of Horizontal Distance (m)
Figure 3 shows that as the vertical distance increases, as does the magnetic field, linearly.
Additionally, this trend appears to be a directly proportional trend, due to having a r 2 value of
0.9483. Given that when the inverse square of the distance was taken, a linear, proportional trend
was produced, this ultimately corroborates that magnetic field strength is inversely proportional to
the square of the distance. Thus, proving the hypothesis proposed in the interpretation of figure 2.
Figure 4 shows a steep linear relationship present between the inversed cubed distance and the
magnetic field strength, which showed that as the inversed cube increased the magnetic field
strength also increased, linearly. This linear trendline was represented by an r 2 value of 0.9299, this
indicates that it is a valid representation of the data. However, given the r^2 value is lower than that
of figure 3, this suggest that figure 3’s inverse squared representation of the data is more valid
representation of the data.
9.2 Horizontal Distance
Figure 5 shows that horizontal distance increases, the magnetic field decreases. This is as when
distance is increased from 0.05m to 0.35m, the magnetic field decreases from 431.228T to 51.214T.
Therefore, this trend infers that the further away from a fixed point a magnet is placed, the weaker
its field is at that point. Given that magnetic fields are radial in nature, and that their intensity
theoretically reduces as distance from the magnet increases according to a factor of the inverse of
the distance squared, it was inferred that perhaps Figure 5 may display this trend also. To investigate
this hypothesis, Figure 6 was developed.
Figure 6 shows that as the horizontal distance increases, as does the magnetic field, linearly.
Additionally, this trend appears to be a directly proportional trend, due to its linearity being 98.68%.
Given that when the inverse square of the distance was taken, a linear, proportional trend was
produced, this ultimately corroborates that magnetic field strength is inversely proportional to the
square of the distance. Thus, proving the hypothesis proposed in the interpretation of figure 5.
Figure 7 shows a steep linear relationship present between the inversed cubed distance and the
magnetic field strength, which showed that as the inversed cube increased the magnetic field
strength also increased, linearly. This linear trendline was represented by an r 2 value of 0.9293, this
indicates that it is a valid representation of the data. However, given the r^2 value is lower than that
of figure 6, this suggest that figure 6’s inverse squared representation of the data is more valid
representation of the data.
Analysis – numbers, uncertainty, error, outliers, are there overlapping error bars talk about
statistical significance of that (except r^2) (numbers and effect on reliability and validity)
10.0 Analysis
10.1 Vertical Distance
Percent uncertainty ranged from 0.55328% to 4.6201% in figures 2, 3 and 4, indicating that the
experimental results retained high reliability. Additionally, the lack of overlapping error bars also
indicated the results were of high statistical significance.
Furthermore, the r^2 values of __ show that __% of the magnetic field strength occurred due to the
change in distance.
OUTLIERS IN HERE, outliers are going to reduce validity and reliability.
10.2 Horizontal Distance
Percent uncertainty ranged from __ to __ in figures __, __ and __, indicating that the experimental
results retained high reliability. Additionally, the lack of overlapping error bars also indicated the
results were of high statistical significance.
Furthermore, the r^2 values of __ show that __% of the magnetic field strength occurred due to the
change in distance.
OUTLIERS IN HERE, outliers are going to reduce validity and reliability.
11.0 Limitations
Limitations Reliability and Validity
A limitation that was present The use of a ruler to measure The random errors due to the
when completing the the distances of each point rulers inaccuracy decreases
experimental process was the was shown to be an inaccurate the accuracy of the results, as
use of a plastic ruler, which method of measurement. Due the changes in distance could
was used to measure the to the ruler being attached to have caused the variation and
distances between the magnet the retort stand by a boss uncertainty of the data. This
and the sensor. clamp it meant that the ruler causes this investigations
was able to move freely as it reliability to decrease.
was not attached securely. The
rulers precision was also
proved to be very. This may
have caused the distance
between the magnet and the
sensor to be to be incorrect for
each trial.
A limitation that was present Due to the hall effect sensor The random errors due to the
when competing the not being fixed into one hall effect sensors inaccuracy
experimental process was the position, it could move from decreases the accuracy of the
sensor moving between trials. one position to another. This results, as the changes in
caused the magnetic strength distance could have caused
that was being measured and the variation and uncertainty
the background magnetic of the data. This causes the
strength to change investigations reliability to
considerably. decrease.
A limitation that was present The environment that the The random errors due to the
when competing the experiment was undertaken in environmental changes
experimental process was the had constant changes in it. decrease the accuracy of the
change in the environment This was due to there being results, as changes in the
that the experiment was different devices and magnets environment caused variations
conducted in. being around interfering with and uncertainty of the data.
the sensors. This causes the investigations
reliability to decrease.
Yeah 12.0 Improvements and Extensions
Improvements and Extension Reliability and Validity
The use of vernier calipers will help reduce the This would provide a more secure technique of
errors and uncertainties caused by measuring measuring because the proper distance would
with the inaccurate ruler. be provided for each trial separately. It would
also provide more precise measurements,
which would reduce distance uncertainty. This
would eliminate the random mistake
introduced by measuring with a ruler and
improve the report's reliability.
Fixing the hall effect sensor in position will get Fixing the sensor in place would avoid the
rid of any error caused by the hall effect sensor considerable shift in magnetic field intensity
moving. caused by the sensor moving, ensuring
consistency across experiments. The
background and measured magnetic field
strength would be more accurate and exact as
a result. This would increase the report's
accuracy and reliability while also reducing the
random mistake caused by the moving sensor.
Keeping the strength and amount of magnetic Maintaining a constant level of magnetic fields
fields to a minimum or at a consistent level in in the area in which the experiment was
the environment that will interfere with the hall conducted, will ensure consistency across
effect sensor. experiments. The data recorded will be more
accurate and reliable as a result. This would
increase the report’s accuracy and reliability
while also reducing the random errors caused
by the changes in the environment.
13.0 Conclusion
This report investigated “How does changing the distance of a circular magnet in both the horizontal
and vertical distances (0.35m to 0.05m) from a hall effect sensor, affect the magnetic field strength
recorded?”. The research question was answered by changing the horizontal and vertical distances
between the hall effect sensor and magnet, and by linearizing the graphs.
