Ideal Configuration of Gauge and Length in a Mass of Wire to Produce the

Strongest Magnetic Field

Raymond Cieslinski Michael LaBarbera
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Physics
11C
Mr. McMillan / Mrs. Cybulski / Mrs. Tallman
21 May 2015

Table of Contents
Introduction..............................................................................................................1
Review of Literature................................................................................................3
Problem Statement...................................................................................................7
Experimental Design................................................................................................8
Data and Observations...........................................................................................12
Data Analysis and Interpretation............................................................................14
Conclusion.............................................................................................................18
Appendix A............................................................................................................22
Appendix B............................................................................................................23
Appendix C............................................................................................................24
Works Cited............................................................................................................26

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Introduction
In modern times, technology is constantly advancing, especially in the area of
transportation. Automobiles that guzzle gasoline are now slowly being replaced with
electric vehicles and hybrids, such as the Chevy Volt. Another method of transportation
that has been arising throughout the world is magnetic levitation, or maglev. The basic
concept of maglev is that a train car is placed inside of a magnetic field that forces the
train forward at high speeds. Recently in Japan, maglev trains have been built to transport
people hundreds of miles in incredibly short times. While these trains use a magnetic strip
along of the bottom of the train, another way to implement this technology would be to
place a magnetic train car inside of a coil of wire. This coil would have an extremely high
current passed through it, and as the train moved forward, the first coil would turn off in
order to release it from that magnetic field, and another coil would turn on and repeat the
process. This method of transportation would not require fossil fuels because there are
many ways to generate electricity, from nuclear power to hydroelectric generators. Using
a coil maglev design would also accelerate the train inside very quickly, moving the train
at high speeds.
When making the coil, the choice of wire gauge, or thickness, is crucial because
as the wire gains thickness, less wraps around the coil can be done due to the increase in
volume of the wire. For this reason, a typical coil gun uses thinner wire and more coils in
order to induce a stronger magnetic field since the magnetic field strength is directly
proportional to the number of wraps around in the coil.
The purpose of this research was to determine if a thicker wire with less wraps
would produce a stronger magnetic field than a thinner wire with more wraps. In order to

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
test this, the same mass of wire was used between each coil; however, one coil was
composed of thin wire (26 gauge), and the other coil was composed of thicker wire (22
gauge). In order to accommodate for the thickness, the 26 gauge wire was much longer
than the 22 gauge, consequently having more wraps. The mass was kept constant because
the purpose of this experiment was to determine which configuration of the same amount
of copper wire would produce the strongest magnetic field. In order to test for a
difference in magnetic field strength between the coils, a capacitor charged at 31 volts
was discharged through each coil, inducing a magnetic field. The magnetic field
generated pushed a metal rod through the coil and the distance that it travelled was
measured. By comparing the distances achieved by each coil, the coil with the stronger
field could be determined because a greater magnetic field exerted a greater force on the
rod, moving it farther.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Review of Literature
When a strong electric current is moved through a coil of wire, a magnetic field is
induced perpendicular to the wire. The magnetic field generated by the coil can be in
either direction perpendicular to the wire and is dependent on the direction of the current
and the wrapping of the coil. Depending on the configuration of the wrapping, the
magnetic field will either be induced in the direction or in the opposite direction of the
current. This induced magnetic field can be strong enough to move magnetic objects,
such as ball bearings, and can make magnetic objects levitate if the field remains for a
period of time. The purpose of this research was to determine whether or not the gauge
of the wire had any effect on the magnetic field strength produced. The gauge of a wire
is an imperial measurement system that decreases in value as the cross-sectional area
increases.
In classical electromagnetism, Maxwells equations dictate that a varying current
density in an electrical circuit will induce a magnetic field. When a magnetic field is
generated around a wire, it is perpendicular to the wire and counter clockwise with
respect to the direction of the positive charge.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Figure 1. Direction of Magnetic Field Around a Wire
The above figure depicts the direction of magnetic field that is created when a
positive current travels through a wire. The Biot-Savart law dictates the mechanics of the
direction of the magnetic field created by a current. It states, An electric current
flowing in a conductor, or a moving electric charge, produces a magnetic field, a region
in the space around the conductor in which magnetic forces may be detected. ("BiotSavart Law | Physics.") The direction of the magnetic field will depend on the direction
that the current is traveling on the wire. In his textbook, titled Physics: Principles and
Problems, Paul Zitzewitz et al explains that to determine the direction of the magnetic
field the right hand rule can be used. The rule states that if the thumb of the right hand
were pointed in the direction of the current then the remaining fingers would be able to
curl in the direction of the magnetic field.

Figure 2. Direction of the Magnetic Field through a Coil.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Shown above in figure 2 is the cross section of a coil of wire that has a charge
being pushed through it. The diagram depicts a metal coil with the closer half of the coil
cut away leaving the far half of the coil shown. Portions of the wire that are marked with
a circle and a dot are considered to be coming out of the page. Portions of the wire
marked with a circle and a cross are considered to be going into the page. Through the
center is a metal rod that is being pulled through the coil. When a coil of wire has a
charge pushed through it, the current density through the wire is altered, inducing a
magnetic field that is strongest in the center of the coil. The center of the coil has the
strongest field because there is the largest number of overlap from all other fields of coil.
Since the positive charge is moving through the coil from left to right, the direction that
the magnetic field curls is to the left along the coil, which will pull a metal rod.
To produce a magnetic field strong enough to pull a conductive object it must
meet certain requirements. The coil itself must be tightly wound. The magnetic field
cannot become strong enough to pull an object if the distance between the coils is too
great. The other major effect on the strength of the magnetic field generated is the
current that travels through the coil. As the current passing through the wire increases the
strength also increases. To achieve the high current required to produce a strong
magnetic field, most researchers will use a capacitor as their means of releasing the
energy into the system. A capacitor is a device that will store a charge for long periods
similar to a battery. Unlike a battery however, when the capacitor is set to discharge it
will release its energy very quickly. This is incredibly important when designing a
coilgun because as the rod moves through the coil, the capacitor needs to discharge
quickly in order to have the magnetic field dissipate and release the rod as it moves.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Barry Hansen, a software programmer in Washington and the administrator of Barrys
Coilgun Design Website, has experimented with and documented several tests to
optimize a coilgun. He explains, Have as much current as possible until the projectile is
halfway down the tube. Anything longer than that is not just a waste of energy, it actually
hurts performance! If some current is still in the coil when the projectile goes past the
middle it will actually pull the projectile backwards (Hansen).
In previous research conducted by Seog-Whan, Jung, and Haha, titled An
Optimal Design of Capacitor-driven Coilgun, a similar coilgun rig was used. SeogWhans experiment was funded by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(IEEE). His experiment was setup to find the optimal design for a capacitor-driven
inductive coilgun. Using the formulas associated with coilguns he determined the
theoretical optimal design for a coilgun. The results were confirmed by comparing the
numerical results with the experimental value. The rig used by Seog-Whan Kim is
similar to the rig used in this experiment. In Seog-Whans experiment a photogate was
used to find the force of the coilgun whereas in the current experiment the distance the
projectile traveled was used to determine the force.
In this research, the thickness of the wire used for the coil was tested to determine
whether or not the thickness, or gauge, of the wire had any effect on the magnetic field
produced when all other aspects of the circuit, including the voltage and current, were
held constant. The reason that changing the wire gauge was thought to possibly change
the magnetic field is because the thicker wire can carry more electricity with less
resistance in the circuit, which should induce a stronger magnetic field. This is because

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
the resistance of a wire is inversely proportional to the cross sectional area. It was thought
that by increasing the thickness of the wire, a higher current would run through it.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Problem Statement
Problem:
To determine which configuration of the same mass of copper wire will produce
the greatest magnetic field.
Hypothesis:
The shorter and lower gauged wire will produce the strongest magnetic field.
Data Measured:
The gauge of the wire was varied between 22 gauge and 26 gauge wire. Since the
wire was much thinner as the gauge increases, the 26 gauge wire was longer than the 22
gauge wire in order to achieve the same mass of wire between coils. The magnetic flux
was measured indirectly by measuring the distance, in centimeters (cm), that a steel rod
travelled when a capacitor is discharged through the coil of wire. Since the flux affects
the force applied to the rod, any change in distance that the rod travels indicated a change
in flux. A two sample t-Test was used to determine if the results from the trials of each
coil were statistically significant.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Experimental Design
Materials:
9500 F Capacitor at 75V
31V power source
22 gauge Copper wire coil (40 ft)
26 gauge copper wire coil (75 ft)
Coil Rig (Appendix B)
(9) Alligator Clip Copper wires
Steel Rod (2.1mm diameter, 20mm long)

(2) Electrical Push Button

Sand Pit (1 ft by 1 ft)
Small Flat Piece of Wood
Meter Stick
Breadboard
(2) Tables with four-inch difference in
height

Procedure:
1.

Assemble wiring according to wiring diagram (Appendix C) and set the voltage on the
power source to 31V.

2.

Align the two tables.

3.

Place the sand pit next to the taller table on the shorter table, aligning it to the bottom of
the taller table.

4.

Put the coil to be used for the current trial onto the rig.

5.

Set the steel rod into the back end of the rig, aligning the rod with the back end.

6.

Place the rig at the edge of the table perpendicular to the edge.

7.

Smooth the sand pit out, removing any craters.

8.

Press and hold the button connected to the positive lead of the battery to charge capacitor
for 3 seconds to insure a fully charged capacitor.

9.

When the power supplys current reading drops to 0 amps and the capacitor is fully
charged, release the first button and press the second button to discharge the capacitor.

10.

Allow the steel rod to hit the sand.

11.

Record the distance of the rods initial impact crater holding the ruler perpendicular to the
taller table. Measure the distance in centimeters.

12.

Repeat steps 4 11 until all trials are completed.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Diagram:

Figure 3. Diagram of Experiment

The above figure shows the setup of the experiment. The coil was placed on the
rig, which was aligned against the edge of the table toward the sand pit. The capacitor
was used to deliver a charge to the circuit which will generate the magnetic field. The
rod was used to measure the strength of the magnetic field generated by the wire coil.
The distance between the edge of the table and the initial impact of the rod (not including
10

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
skips) was recorded in centimeters. The distance the rod traveled is directly proportional
to the strength of the magnetic field.

11

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Diagram of Procedure:

igure 4. Loading Rod

igure 5. Clearing Sand

igure 6. Charging and Firing

igure 7. Measuring Distance

Figure 4 displays step 5 of the procedure. The metal rod was loaded into the back
end of the coil gun rig. The edge of the rod was pressed until it fully in the rig. Figure 5
displays step 7 of the procedure. Using the wooden paddle, the surface of the sand is
smoothed. Figure 6 displays steps 8 and 9 of the procedure. The first button was pressed
for 3 seconds to ensure the capacitor was fully charged. The second button, shown at the
bottom of the picture, was then pressed to discharge the capacitor. Figure 7 shows step

12

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
11 of the procedure. The meter stick was used to measure the distance the rod traveled
perpendicular to the bottom of the table. The measurement was taken from the initial
crater left by the rod and estimated to the nearest centimeter.

13

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Data and Observations
Data:
Table 1.
Data Collected
Trial

Coil

3
5
6
9
10
11
12
14
18
22
23
24
25
29
30
36
37
38
39
44
46
47
49
51
52
53
54
58
59
60
63
64
67
68

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Distance
(cm)
46
59
48
59
41
45
66
50
59
47
62
49
56
48
43
55
51
52
62
58
59
62
51
56
61
50
56
50
55
55
63
51
65
59

Trial

Coil

70
75
76
77
78
82
83
84
87
90
91
96
97
98
99
100
1
2
4
7
8
13
15
16
17
19
20
21
26
27
28
31
32

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Distance
(cm)
56
59
54
52
57
59
58
54
42
57
61
57
57
54
60
52
21
16
20
21
17
25
23
26
27
25
24
23
28
13
23
22
26

Trial

Coil

33
34
35
40
41
42
43
45
48
50
55
56
57
61
62
65
66
69
71
72
73
74
79
80
81
85
86
88
89
92
93
94
95

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Distance
(cm)
28
18
25
26
26
15
28
23
32
24
25
30
14
20
13
15
11
31
14
22
27
24
24
24
27
24
21
25
23
31
28
28
18

Table 1 shows the data collected for the experiment in the order they were taken.
In this experiment, coil 1 was of 22 gauge wire and coil 2 was of 26 gauge wire. The

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
average distance coil 1 produced was 54.76 cm. The average distance coil 2 produced
was 22.88 cm. The standard deviation for coil 1 and coil 2 was 5.91 cm and 5.14 cm
respectively. The trials were randomized between coil 1 and coil 2 to reduce bias in the
experiment. The result of each trial was recorded in centimeters.
Observations:
Over the course of the experiment many observations were taken. It was noticed
that coil 1 had a noticeably greater distance than coil 2. On some rare occasions, the
capacitor did not fully discharge, which resulted in a shorter distance for the given trial.
Coil 2 was also found to pull back the rod sometimes, which is due to the electricity not
being fully through the coil when the rod was past it. These trials were removed from the
data and redone in order to remove outliers that could bias the results. Some trials were
also redone due to the sand pit not being correctly aligned with the coil, making the
distance that the rod travelled impossible to measure.

Figure 9. Coil 2 Result

Figure 8. Coil 1 Result
Figure 8 and 9 above show the common results from each coil, with the rod
circled. It should be noted that the sand pit had to be adjusted for each coil due to the
significant difference between their results.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Data Analysis and Interpretation
In this experiment, the distance from the coil that the rod traveled was measured
in meters. In order to reduce possible bias in the experiment, the trials were ordered
through randomization of a calculator. This helps by reducing the effects of possible
changing conditions in the environment by running the trials in a random order. To ensure
normality, 50 trials for each coil were ran. Repetition of this experiment allowed for a
distribution of results from each coil to be created. This was important because the
distribution created showed the data to be normally distributed and consistently different.

Figure 10. Box plots of distances

Figure 10 above shows a box plot of the distances that the rods traveled from each
coil. From the box plots, it can be seen that the data is fairly normally distributed with
little skew. It should also be noted that coil 1 has a much higher distance than coil 2, with
absolutely no overlap between plots and a 9 cm difference between the lowest distance of
coil one (41 cm) and the highest distance of coil 2 (32 cm).

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
The statistical test chosen to determine whether or not the data collected was significantly
different was the two-sample t-Test. The two-sample t-Test compares sample means from
independent distributions for which the standard deviation is not known in order to
determine whether or not the samples could come from the same population. The
accepted level of significance for the test, or the -level was 0.05.
Assumptions:
In order for a two-sample t-Test to be safely used, the samples need to be
normally distributed.

Figure 11. Normal Probability Plot of Coil 1

Figure 12. Normal Probability Plot of Coil 2

Cieslinski - Labarbera
Figure 11 and 12 shown above show the measured distances for each trial
compared to its z-score on the y-axis. By looking at the plot, it can be seen that the data
collected has a fairly linear relationship with the z-scores. This indicates that the data is
normally distributed. This combined with the sample size of fifty trials per distribution
gives sufficient evidence showing that the samples come from a normally distributed
sampling distribution. The Central Limit Theorem states that as the sample size of a
distribution increases, the more normal the sampling distribution becomes.
Each sample was independent from one another through experiment
randomization. Each trial was placed into a random order using a calculator. This helped
to eliminate the chance of having effects that would come with possible deviations from
the procedure in time that could occur if the trials were ran in a specific order. The
randomized order in which trials were run reduces the possibility that one experiment
was run differently from the other.
Hypothesis:
H0: 1=2
Ha: 12
Figure 13. Null and Alternative Hypothesis
Shown above are the null and alternative hypotheses that were used to test the
data for significance. The null hypothesis of no change suggests that the true mean of
distances between coil 1 and coil 2 are the same, while the alternative hypothesis
suggests that they are not equal, meaning the data is statistically significant.

Cieslinski - Labarbera

Figure 14. Two-sample t-Test results

Figure 14 above shows the results from the test to determine if the data was
significantly different. This t-Test yielded a t value of 28.76, resulting in a p-value of
5.26 x 10 . For the math behind this test, see Appendix B.
-49

Based on the p-value of 5.26 x 10 , the null hypothesis was rejected on the alpha
-49

level of 0.05. This shows that there was an extremely significant difference between the
means of the two coils. If the null hypothesis was true, there would be approximately
zero percent chance of getting data this extreme by chance alone; therefore, the data is
likely to be significantly different. This is further supported by the 9 cm gap between the
box plots and the fact that the trials yielded visually different results consistently.

Cieslinski - Labarbera
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to determine which configuration of the same
mass of copper wire will produce the greatest magnetic field. It was hypothesized that a
thicker, shorter wire will have a stronger magnetic field than a thinner, longer wire. Two
different thicknesses of wire were used, being 22 and 26 gauge. In order to account for
the mass per unit length difference between the two types of wire, the 26 gauge wire was
longer. The strength of the magnetic field was tested by sending a current through a
solenoid made of each wire and measuring the distance that a metal projectile was
launched. It was hypothesized that the shorter and lower gauge wire will produce the
strongest magnetic field. Through a statistical test, it was concluded that the magnetic
fields generated by each coil were significantly different, resulting in a p-value of nearly
zero. This provided strong evidence towards the magnetic fields being different. Along
with the statistical results the boxplots of the results had no overlap with one another,
reinforcing the statistical tests result. As the coils were proven to produce significantly
different fields, the stronger field could be determined. The lower gauge coil launched
the projectile farther as it produced a mean distance of 55 cm which is 32 cm further than
the mean of the higher gauge coil, which was 23 cm.
When a strong electric current is moved through a coil of wire, a magnetic field is
induced perpendicular to the wire. This fundamental principle of electromagnetism is best
described by Amperes law, which describes how the curl of the magnetic field is directly
proportional to the current density through the wire (Farris, M. H., and C. T. Russell).
When a current-carrying wire is wrapped into a coil, the direction of the field produced
will be parallel to the coil. According to the formula for calculating magnetic field

Cieslinski - Labarbera
strength through the center of a solenoid, the strength is directly proportional to the
number of wraps in the coil, directly proportional to the current flowing through the wire
and inversely proportional to the length of the coil itself. According to Ohms law, the
current flowing through the wire is directly proportional to the voltage and inversely
proportional to the resistance of the wire (Ohms Law). This is important to note
because the resistance of the wire is directly proportional to the length of the wire and
inversely proportional to the cross sectional area of the wire. This means that the 22
gauge wire, which was thicker and shorter than the 26 gauge wire, had a considerably
lower resistance than the 26 gauge wire. This allowed for a higher current to flow through
the 22 gauge wire, which, in this setup, overcame the difference in wraps between each
coil, making the 22 gauge coil with fewer wraps have a stronger magnetic field.
Though these results immensely supported the hypothesis that using a thicker
wire that was shorter would produce the strongest magnetic field, there were some
weaknesses in this experimental design. As it was mentioned previously, the resistance on
the wire is inversely proportional to the cross sectional area of the wire. If this experiment
was tested with different gauge wires, especially with two lower gauge wires, the results
might not have reflected the same conclusions that these results did. This is due to the
nature of an inverse relationship, which does not change linearly. If two lower gauge
wires were used (such as 8 and 12 gauge wire), the wires would be much thicker than the
ones used in this experiment, both resulting in much lower resistances. This would result
the current in each coil having closer currents than what the 22 and 26 gauge wires had,
and might show that the number of wraps that each coil had a more significant effect than
the wire gauge.

Cieslinski - Labarbera
The magnetic field could have also be affected by the number of coils. When the
gauge of wire is high, the length of the entire wire will be longer if mass is held constant.
For example, if 5 inches of wire were removed from both the lower and higher gauge coil
the lower gauge coil would lose a greater mass. If the precision on measuring each wire
was more accurate, the overall length of each wire could be more precisely estimated.
Each wire would vary in the accuracy in which the length can be calculated due to the
different distribution of mass. With a higher gauge coil more mass is distributed over a
longer distance. This means that by slightly altering the mass of the higher gauge coil, the
number of loops would change extremely, causing inaccuracies in the number of loops.
Another possible weakness in the design of this experiment was the lack of a
photogate to turn off the current through the coil once the rod passed the center of it. This
may have affected the results due to the fact that the 26 gauge wire had a lower current
than the 22 gauge. Since current is the rate of movement of a charge (Electric Current),
the 26 gauge wire took more time to move the charge from the capacitor, which could
have hindered the initial impulse from the magnetic field by pulling the rod back slightly
as it passed through the coil. There is reason to think that this may have affected the
results because on some rare occasions with each coil, the rod would be pulled back into
the coil and the trial would be redone. Through use of a photogate, any possibilities of the
magnetic field pulling the rod back into the coil would be eliminated because the current
would be turned off once the rod passed the center, stopping any pull from the magnetic
field.
With that in mind, further research of this topic should include the use of a
photogate to eliminate any possible drawback from the lingering magnetic field. Testing a

Cieslinski - Labarbera
wider range of wire gauges would also help further support these conclusions because it
would show whether or not this trend of shorter and thicker wire generating a stronger
magnetic field would continue as the wire ventured off to more extreme ends of wire
gauge (being extremely low gauge or extremely high gauge). Along with that, counting
the number of loops would also improve the overall accuracy of the results.
Testing different gauges of coils on a larger scale in succession with each other,
such as to move a larger object greater distances, would provide insight into which wire
configuration is more efficient at performing the same task. This is important because the
purpose of this research was to determine which configuration produced a stronger
magnetic field so that the materials at hand could be used more efficiently.
In many fields of engineering, solenoids are often used to generate a magnetic
field. The cost of the solenoids can be quite steep as many uses require that they be very
large. By changing the gauge of wire used in the solenoid, less material can be used to
generate the same strength magnetic field. One such employment of solenoids is maglev
trains. Maglev trains use solenoids to suspend the train above the tracks. The train is the
propelled down the track only slowed by air drag. The overall cost of production for the
maglev train lines could be reduced by using less material in the solenoids that generate
the magnetic field b.
Overall, while it may appear at first that the amount of wraps around a coil plays
the most significant role in determining the strength of the magnetic field produced by a
solenoid, this experiment demonstrated that if the gauge of the wire is varied, the
magnetic field may be strongly altered by simply changing the configuration of the
copper around the coil between a thin wire that is long and a thick wire that is short.

Cieslinski - Labarbera
Appendix A: Coil Rig Setup

Figure 15. Construction of Coil Rig

Figure 16. Diagram of Coil Rig

In figure 15 the construction of the coil is shown. The Rig is broken down into 3
different parts. Both the front and back supports, shown at the two ends of the diagram,
have an inner diameter of 25mm and an outer diameter of 36mm. The height of the piece
is 48mm tall and 5mm thick. The wire holder is shown in white and an item that is not
printed instead it is what the wires were bought in. The inner diameter is 25mm with a
thickness of 10mm. The center tube piece shown on the left side is placed inside the
supports and wire holder. The overall length is 60mm and is made of 3 subsections. The
first section is 20mm long with a diameter of 24mm. The second section is 10mm long
and has a diameter of 35mm. The last section is 30mm long and has a diameter of 24mm.
All three sections have a small hole through the center with a diameter of 3mm Figure 2
shows how all 4 pieces should be assembled. All four pieces slide together as they would
be slid together in figure 16.

Appendix B: Wiring Diagram

Figure 17. Wiring Diagram

The above figure shows the wiring schematic used in the experiment. A power
supply with 31 VDC must be connected in series with the capacitor and a button. The
button must be rated for at least 31 VDC. The Coil and a second button also rated for at
least 31 VDC must be connected in parallel to the capacitor.

Appendix C: Statistical Calculations

Two-Sample t-Test:
A two-sample t-test was run on the results to decide if the means of two samples
differ significantly. The mean of coil 1,

x 1 , minus the mean of coil 2,

x 2 , over the

square root of the sample deviation of coil 1, s 1 , squared over the population of coil 1,
n1 , plus the sample deviation of coil 2, s 2 , squared over the population of coil 2,
n2 , equals t . Units differ based on the experiment.
t=

x 1x 2

s 12 s 22
+
n1 n2

The variable t

is the number of standard deviations away from 0 that ( x 1x 2 ) is on

a t-distribution with degrees of freedom equal to (n-1) where n is the lower of the two
sample sizes. Shown below is a sample calculation using the above formula. The data
used in the calculation is from the experiment.
t=

t=

t=

x 1x 2

s 12 s 22
+
n1 n2
54.76 c m22.88 cm

(5.91974 cm)2 ( 5.13746 cm )

+
50
50
54.76 c m22.88 cm
35.0393 cm 26.3935 cm
+
50
50

t=

31.88 cm
0.700786 cm+0.53787 cm

t=

31.88 cm
1.10845 cm

t=28.76
Figure 18. Statistical test sample calculation
Figure 18, above, shows a sample calculation for a statistical test. To correlate a
t-value with a p-value, a t-table or a more sophisticated calculation tool must be used.
Using a table with 49 degrees of freedom, a t-value of 28.76 would correspond to a pvalue less than 0.0005 (tables can only be so accurate). Using a more sophisticated
calculation tool, a t-value of 28.76 can be associated with a p-value of 5.26 x 10-49.

Works Cited
"Biot-Savart Law | Physics." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica,
n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66216/Biot-Savart-law>.
"Electric Current." Electric Current. The Physics Classroom, n.d. Web. 14 May 2015.
<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circuits/Lesson-2/Electric-Current>.
Farris, M. H., and C. T. Russell. "MAXWELL THEORY." Maxwell Theory. N.p., n.d.
Web. 14 May 2015. <http://wwwssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/max_mag/>.
Hansen, Barry. "Capacitors."Barrys Coilgun Design. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
<http://coilgun.info/theorycapacitors/home.htm>.
Kim, Seog-Whan, Hyun-Kyo Jung, and Song-Yop Haha. "An Optimal Design of
Capacitor-driven Coilgun IEEE Transactions of Magnetics." vol 30.2 March
1994. Web. Docstoc.com.16 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42810389/An-optimal-design-of-capacitordriven-coilgun---Magnetics_-IEEE>.
"Ohm's Law." Ohm's Law. The Engineering ToolBox, n.d. Web. 14 May 2015.
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ohms-law-d_1658.html>.
Zitzewitz, Paul W., Todd George. Elliott, David G. Haase, Kathleen A. Harper,
Michael
R. Herzog, Jane Bray. Nelson, Jim Nelson, Charles A. Schuler, and Margaret K.
Zorn. "24." Physics: Principles and Problems. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill,
2005. N. pag. Print.