Koki Rupert 1

Analyzing the Relationship Between the Number of Magnet Stations on a Linear

Magnetic Accelerator and the Velocity of a Steel Ball

Derek Koki and Celeste Rupert

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Physics

11B

Mr. McMillan, Mrs. Cybulski, and Mrs. Tallman

June 8, 2016
 Koki Rupert 2

Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Review of Literature .. 3
Problem Statement ... 10
Experimental Design 11
Data and Observations . 14
Data Analysis and Interpretation . 17
Conclusion ... 25
Appendix A .. 28
Works Cited . 30
 Koki Rupert 3

Analyzing the Relationship Between the Number of Magnet Stations on a Linear

Magnetic Accelerator and the Velocity of a Steel Ball

Have you ever seen a roller coaster that shoots off at a very high velocity? Those

roller coasters use linear acceleration and the laws of conservation to achieve this.

Scientists have thought about using this same process to launch objects into space

without the use of rockets, which would lessen the amount of fuel these launched objects

would need. This is important because fuel is a non-renewable natural resource whose

supply is quickly diminishing. To turn this idea into reality, high velocities must be

achieved with linear acceleration. The purpose of this experiment was to determine

whether increasing the number of magnet stages in a magnetic linear accelerator would

increase the velocity of the launched object.

This experiment was done by creating a miniature linear magnetic accelerator. An

initial steel marble was rolled down a metal track and onto a second metal track where it

collided with a pair of magnets. This pair of magnets had a pair of steel marbles on the

opposite side (this was called a magnet station), and as the momentum from the first

marble traveled through the magnet station, the last marble in that station was launched.

This marble either then collided with another magnet station, repeating the process, or it

went through the photogates which measured its velocity in meters per second (m/s).

This experiment found that as the number of magnet stations went up, so did the

velocity of launched marble. This was supported by the p-value of 0.009, and the

confidence interval that stated that the real increase in velocity per station added was

between 0.087 and 0.530. This shows that as the number of magnet stations increases, so

does the linear velocity.

 Koki Rupert 4

Introduction

Have you ever been on a rollercoaster that takes off at an incredibly fast speed? If

you have not, the best known example of this is the Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point

located in Sandusky, Ohio. Instead of climbing a hill to use the gravitational potential

energy, like most rollercoasters do, these rollercoasters use magnetism and energy

conservation to attain great speeds. Magnets are used to push and pull on the rollercoaster

increasing the speed very quickly. Some engineers have thought about using this idea to

launch objects into space without using rockets ("Magnetic Linear Accelerator."). This

will greatly reduce the amount of fuel that the object launched will need, saving oil

whose supply is quickly diminishing. To make this idea a reality, a very high speed must

be achieved by using a magnetic linear accelerator.

The purpose of the experiment was to discover if there was a positive linear

relationship between the number of magnets in an accelerator and the velocity of the

object launched from the accelerator. To do this, a miniature magnetic linear accelerator

was created with electrical tape, neodymium magnets, metal tracks, and steel balls. In

initial steel ball was rolled down a metal track that acted as a ramp, and then onto a

second metal track where it was pulled towards a pair of magnets. The ball accelerated

due to the magnets pulling it, then collided with the magnets. Two additional steel balls

were sitting on the other side of the magnets (this combination of a pair of magnets and a

pair of steel balls was called a magnet station), and when the initial ball collided with the

pair of magnets the its momentum traveled through the magnet station and launched the

final steel ball in that station. The launched ball then went through the photogates where
 Koki Rupert 5

its velocity was measured. The average velocity of the launched steel ball was then

calculated; after starting with just a single station of magnets, a series of magnets was

added to the steel track one by one, with a final trial set of six magnet stations. When

additional magnets were added instead of the launched ball traveling through the

photogate, it was pulled towards another magnet station where the process started again.

After the data trials were performed, the average velocities were compared to one another

considering the various number of magnet stations distributed evenly on the surface of

the metal track. A statistical test was executed to justify if there was a true correlation

between the number of magnets on a linear magnetic accelerator and the velocity of a

steel ball.
 Koki Rupert 6

Review of Literature

Magnetic accelerators are used to shoot rollercoasters out of the gate at high

speed, and scientists think that using them to launch objects into space (without the use of

rockets) is possible. The power needed to do this comes from magnetism and energy

conversion. Magnets set up in a series push and pull on the object being accelerated,

which quickly increases the velocity of that object ("Magnetic Linear Accelerator"). The

purpose of this experiment was to determine if the number of magnets used in the

magnetic accelerator is directly related to the velocity of the object being accelerated.

Magnetism is a force of attraction or repulsion that acts at a distance, which is due

to a magnetic field which is caused by moving electrically charged particles. A magnet is

an object that has a strong magnetic field and will attract ferrous objects or metals

containing or made of iron-like steel and nickel. This is due to the fact that the force of

the magnets on the steel balls is inversely proportional to the square of the distance

1
F=
between them ( d ). By reducing this distance, there will be a greater force
2

attracting the steel balls to the magnets and a greater force releasing the steel balls

towards the next magnet station, thus creating more work on the steel ball. The pushes

and pulls represent positive work in the experiment, while the friction between the steel

balls and the metal track stand as negative work. When the distance between each magnet

station is reduced, the result is less kinetic friction on the steel ball, which reduces the

amount of negative work done on it, which creates a more efficient launching (faster

velocity) for the steel ball on the linear magnetic accelerator. An effect of a faster velocity

is a higher momentum for the steel ball, since the momentum is directly proportional to
 Koki Rupert 7

the product of its mass and velocity (p = m*v). Since the marbles being used for this

experiment are made of steel, the magnets are attracted to them. Because of this

attraction, the steel balls move toward the magnets; the closer to the magnets they get, the

faster they move (Kurtus). This can easily be seen when you place a magnet near a paper

clip. If you place the magnet close enough to the paper clip, the paper clip will move and

attach itself to the magnet due to the magnet's magnetic field.

"Is It Correct to Say "like Poles Attract, unlike Poles Repel" While Two Magnets Are
Placed Such That One Is inside Another?"Electromagnetism. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 May
2016. <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73953/is-it-correct-to-say-like-poles-
attract-unlike-poles-repel-while-two-magnets>.

Figure 1. Magnetic Field

Figure 1 shows a magnet and the magnetic field around it. The S and N

respectively signify the South and North poles of the magnet, and the curved lines around

the magnet represent the magnetic field. The curves show where the ferrous objects

would be attracted based on their position. If they were in front of the South pole, they

would be pulled directly to that side of the magnet; likewise, if they were on the side of

the magnet, they would move around the magnet to the South pole side and stick to that

side. If they were in front of the North pole, they would be pulled directly to the north
 Koki Rupert 8

side. The steel ball always switches its domain to be attracted to the magnets, similar to

electrons being attracted to a positively charged rod.

The theory of energy conservation states that energy is neither created nor

destroyed, but it can be converted from one form to another; therefore, the total amount

of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The same law also applies to

momentum. For example, when a stone falls from a cliff, the potential energyenergy

due to positionit had while sitting on the edge of that cliff is then converted to kinetic

energyenergy due to motionwhen it is falling. Moreover, the energy of collisions

before the before the objects make contact is equal to the energy after they collide.

In this experiment, the magnetic and gravitational potential energy of the marble

was converted to kinetic energy, assuming a perfect transfer of energy for each collision;

when the marble collided with a magnet, the two objects experienced an elastic collision.

In an elastic collision, momentum and energy must be conserved so the objects that

experience the collision move away from each other, as opposed to an inelastic collision

where the objects stick together as shown in Figure 2 below.

 Koki Rupert 9

"Collisions with Examples." Collisions with Examples. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.
<http://www.physicstutorials.org/home/impulse-momentum/collisions>.

Figure 2. Collisions of Two Different Objects

Figure 2 illustrates what happens with different situations of collisions when the

two objects colliding have the same mass. The first part shows an elastic collision that

happens when one object is at rest while the other one is moving, which is what happens

in the experiment. The second section shows an elastic collision when the two objects are

moving towards each other. The third portion shows what happens in an inelastic

collision when both objects are moving towards each other.

Scientifically, the energy that the marble had is transferred through the magnet

and to the marbles on the other side of said magnet, completing one sequence. Since the

last marble is far away from the magnet, it does not require much force to break free from

the magnet's potential energy. The difference between the work done by the magnet on

the incoming marble and the work necessary to break the final marble away from the

magnet determines the amount of kinetic energy of the final marble. A large amount of

work is done on the marble and only a small amount of work is needed to break the last

marble away from the magnet, so the kinetic energy of the final ball in each sequence will

be high and will shoot off at a rapid velocity. This sequence is repeated until there are no

more magnets for the marbles to collide with, and for each sequence the marble's kinetic

energy is greater than the previous marble at the previous magnet location ("Magnetic

Linear Dichroism Spectroscopy").

Velocity is a vector quantity that measures the speed and direction of an object.

This was an independent factor measured in the research experiment. Velocity is the
 Koki Rupert 10

change in displacement of an object over a period of time measured in meters per second.

The common equation for velocity is:

v = d / t

where v is velocity measured in meters per second, d is the change in displacement in

meters, and t is the in time measured in seconds. In this experiment the final velocity is

dependent on the initial velocity, so a ramp was set up with a constant starting point to

keep the initial velocity at the same constant speed.

One very relevant topic to this experiment is the concept of Newton's Cradle. As

seen in Figure 3 below, Newton's Cradle consists of five steel balls that are attached to a

frame so that the balls are off of the ground. When one of the outer balls is pulled away

from the others, it is then released, resulting in a collision with the adjacent ball. The first

ball that was pulled back stops moving while the ball on the far opposite side of the

cradle is now raised. The process of the "endless swinging" back and forth repeats until

the force of gravity settles the balls from moving and colliding with one another. The

science behind this subject matter is the conversion of gravitational potential energy to

kinetic energy and conserving that energy through a perfectly elastic collision.
 Koki Rupert 11

HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.

<http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/newtons-cradle.htm>.

Figure 3. Newton's Cradle

Figure 3 shows a diagram of Newton's Cradle, as explained in the previous

paragraph.

Friction has a negative effect on this experiment. Friction is the resistance that one

surface or object encounters when moving over another. Since the marble is rolling on a

metal track, friction will act on the marble and slow it down. If the experiment was being

done in a zero friction environmentlike an air hockey tablethe marble would have

rolled faster. Since the same amount of friction was applied to the marbles throughout the

experiment, it had no effect on the results found.

Previous research done by multiple scientists, including an experiment done

earlier this year, has found that the more magnets that are added, the faster the final

velocity will be, up to a point ("Magnetic Linear Accelerator"). Previous research has also

found that another way to increase the final velocity of the last steel ball is to reduce the

distance between each station of magnets, discussed at the beginning of this section. The

idea behind this method is to have the radii of the magnet stations barely touching the
 Koki Rupert 12

outer curve of the adjacent magnets. That way, as the steel marble exits the radius of the

magnetic field of one magnet, it will immediately enter the following magnetic field of

the next series of magnets. In other words, the steel marble will always be entering or

exiting a magnetic field, with no time for being slowed down by friction with the track

("Magnetic Linear Dichroism Spectroscopy").

 Koki Rupert 13

Problem Statement

Problem:

To determine how the number of magnets used in a magnetic linear accelerator

affect the velocity of the metal ball.

Hypothesis:

As the number of magnets used on the linear accelerator increases, the velocity of

the metal ball will also increase as a strong linear correlation.

Data Measured:

The independent variable was the number of magnets used on the linear

accelerator, which was counted in single units (one magnet is equal to one unit). The

dependent variable was the velocity of the metal ball, which was measured in meters per

second (m/s). This velocity was calculated by the LabQuest motion sensors, by dividing

the total time it took to pass through both windows of the sensor. This was done in 30

trials for each additional magnet, the statistical test that was performed was a regression

test, which determined if there was a correlation between the dependent variable, the

number of magnets, and the independent variable, the velocity of the ball.
 Koki Rupert 14

Experimental Design

Materials:

Metal track LabQuest Pro

(11) Steel Ball LoggerPro Software
(.625 in diameter) Foam Padding
(2) Metal Track (2) Photogate Sensor
Electrical Tape Wood Block
(12) Neodymium Magnets
(.47" diameter by .11")
 Koki Rupert 15

Procedure:

Preparation

1. Place one of the steel tracks (flat side down) on a table.

2. Lay one pair of magnets in the track groove, 2.5 from the start of the track. Use the
electrical tape to secure the magnets to the track.
3. Attach two steel balls to the left side of the magnet pair, so they face the opposite end of
the track.
4. Place a piece of tape on the ramp 12" from the bottom to mark a starting point. Rest the
far end with the tape on a block of wood, aligning the bottom of the ramp with the metal
track.
5. Connect the two photogates and record the distance between them in the LabQuest
Software.
6. Attach the photogate cords to the LabQuest and connect the LabQuest USB port to the
laptop. Place the first photogate sensor 2.5 from the first pair of magnets.
7. Place a piece of foam on a wall in front of the metal track.
8. Make sure the photogates and LabQuest are all ready for data collection.

Experiment

1. Place the remaining steel ball under the tape on the metal track so the back of it
touches the tape, and let the ball go so that it rolls down the track. (Caution: keep
all body parts off of the metal track. The magnets will launch the steel ball at a
very high velocity!)
2. Record the velocity of the final steel ball as displayed by the LoggerPro Software.
3. Repeat steps 1-2 for twenty-nine more trials and record data into observation
tables.
4. Repeat 'Preparation' steps 2-3 and 'Experiment' steps 1-3, adding one magnet pair
2.5" inches from the previous one and moving the photogates to be 2.5" from the
last magnet.
 Koki Rupert 16

5. Repeat 'Experiment' step 4 until you reach the desired number of magnets. Keep
in mind to record observations as the number of magnets increases.

Diagram:

Figure 4. Diagram of Lab Set-Up

Figure 4 above shows a diagram of the experiment. The diagram of this

experiment features a metal track placed at a specific angle (for constant velocity

purposes) attached to one end of a wooden meter stick. A series of magnets was placed

strategically along the groove in the center of the meter stick, with an even amount of

distance between each magnet. A pair of marbles was assigned to each station of magnets,

in which they were launched to the forward magnet set in front of them. At the other end

of the ruler laid the LabQuest photogate sensor (which was attached to a laptop) that

calculated the final velocity of the last marble, followed by a piece of foam padding

secured against the wall, so there was no damage to the wall when the marbles hit it after

accelerating to a high speed.

 Koki Rupert 17

igure 5. Picture of Set-Up

Figure 5 above displays a snapshot of the lab set-up used in this experiment. The

purple against the wall is foam that protects the wall from damage caused by the ball, and

the piece of technology resting against the back wall is the LabQuest Software. The rest

of the set-up, as shown in Figure 4, features a pair of steel balls on each of the magnet

stations. The photogate sensors at the end recorded the final velocity of the steel ball.
 Koki Rupert 18

Data and Observations

Table 1
Raw Data
Trial Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity
for 1 for 2 for 3 for 4 for 5 for 6
Magnet Magnet Magnet Magnet Magnet Magnet
Stage Stages Stages Stages Stages Stages
1 1.704 2.685 2.858 3.295 3.459 3.478
2 1.796 2.736 2.999 3.306 3.665 3.446
3 1.860 2.452 3.087 3.218 3.594 3.423
4 1.821 2.730 3.041 3.146 3.676 3.461
5 1.856 2.775 3.000 3.341 3.643 3.486
6 1.816 2.778 3.084 3.408 3.628 3.500
7 1.830 2.750 3.051 3.395 3.616 3.487
8 1.848 2.760 3.107 3.408 3.681 3.498
9 1.885 2.754 3.076 3.233 3.701 3.495
10 1.727 2.657 3.086 3.346 3.633 3.442
11 1.832 2.762 3.133 3.248 3.624 3.421
12 1.841 2.738 3.133 3.299 3.495 3.311
13 1.842 2.748 3.062 3.382 3.655 3.418
14 1.867 2.765 3.124 3.367 3.711 3.400
15 1.853 2.733 3.111 3.350 3.716 3.402
16 1.865 2.718 3.126 3.361 3.624 3.394
17 1.852 2.757 3.083 3.367 3.697 3.409
18 1.843 2.763 3.127 3.347 3.721 3.414
19 1.880 2.759 3.082 3.362 3.611 3.376
20 1.855 2.780 3.137 3.346 3.699 3.402
21 1.879 2.798 3.151 3.390 3.680 3.469
22 1.868 2.806 3.143 3.358 3.517 3.389
23 1.884 2.777 3.118 3.373 3.730 3.432
24 1.852 2.809 3.077 3.317 3.568 3.416
25 1.876 2.822 3.129 3.327 3.745 3.386
26 1.858 2.816 3.106 3.393 3.610 3.344
27 1.881 2.788 3.109 3.371 3.595 3.401
28 1.852 2.795 3.154 3.388 3.640 3.343
29 1.859 2.788 3.162 3.358 3.639 3.395
30 1.870 2.801 3.153 3.408 3.751 3.393
Averages 1.845 2.753 3.094 3.340 3.644 3.421

Table 1 above shows the raw data that was collected during this experiment. For

the sake of organization and space, the trials were organized based on the number of
 Koki Rupert 19

magnet stages each one had. The velocity of the marble was recorded for each trial, and

the average velocity for that number of stages was found. As the number of magnet stages

increased, so did the final velocity of the steel ball until the sixth station of magnets.

Table 2
Abnormal Observations
Number Trial Observations
of Stages
Date:4/26/16
1 8 Celeste performed the trial, Derek recorded the data
Redid since the ball did not release
Date:4/26/16
3 4 Celeste performed the trial, Derek recorded the data
Redid since the ball did not release
Date:4/27/16
4 6 Celeste performed the trial, Derek recorded the data
Redid since the ball did not release
Date:4/27/16
5 5 Celeste performed the trial, Derek recorded the data
redid since the ball bumped on end of ramp and fell off of it
Date:4/27/16
5 14 Celeste performed the trial, Derek recorded the data
redid since the ball bumped on end of ramp and fell off of it
Date:4/27/16
5 20 Celeste performed the trial, Derek recorded the data
redid since the ball bumped on end of ramp and fell off of it
Date:4/27/16
5 28 Celeste performed the trial, Derek recorded the data
redid since the ball bumped on end of ramp and fell off of it
Date:4/27/16
6 26 Celeste performed the trial, Derek recorded the data
redid since the ball bumped on end of ramp and fell off of it

Table 2 above shows the abnormal observations that happened during data

collection. All of these observations revolve around the ramp. The ramp would not be in

place, and because of this the ball would not transition onto the track well causing it to

loose velocity. Since the velocity of the final ball is not independent from the velocity of
 Koki Rupert 20

the first ball, this negatively affected the data. To minimize this influence, the ramp and

track were taped together, but the track still moved. This happened as a result of resetting

the balls. When they were reset they had to be pulled from the magnets, which needed a

lot of force making the track move. An additional observation is that, when removing the

magnets after the experiment was completed, one of the magnets at the last stage was

broken. It was not broken before the trial started, so the impact from the marble hitting it

at such a high velocity must have broken it.

igure 6. Lab Set-Up

Figure 6 shows the set up for the experiment when there are six magnet stations,

for other trials though there were fewer stations, but all of the other materials in the

experiment remained the same.

 Koki Rupert 21

Data Analysis and Interpretation

During this experiment, the data collected was the velocity of the final marble

which was done in meters per second (m/s). These final velocities were calculated by the

photogates connected to the LabQuest Software. All of the steel marbles were released on

a slanted ramp with a consistent starting point and a steady angle relative to the

countertop it laid on, which was the control of this experiment and ensured that the

number of magnet stations was the only variable affecting the data. The collected data

included 6 different categories containing different amounts of magnet stations which

each consisted of 30 trials, so in total 180 trials were conducted. The order in which the

number of magnet stations were tested was randomized, and each of the 30 trials were

conducted together to maintain efficiency. This means that the trials were not completely

randomized, and because of this there was a possibility of lurking variables which may

have affected the data. The reason why each individual trial in the experiment was not

randomized is the fact that nothing was being changed after adding or taking away a

station of magnets to the metal track, so the only variable that could be randomized in

this experiment was the order of magnet stations on the surface of the track (1-6 stations).

One hundred and eighty trials were conducted to ensure that there was very little

variability among the trials, and the repetition of trials help control the experiment by

making sure there is no bias in the collected data and that the chance for variability was

minimized. Because of this the effect of the trials not being fully randomized was most

likely very small. To check the variability of the trials, the standard deviations of the

average velocities for each of the 30 trials were calculated for each category. The six

categories included: one magnet station, two magnet stations, three magnet stations, four
 Koki Rupert 22

magnet stations, five magnet stations, and six magnet stations. The standard deviations

for these trials were 0.041, 0.068, 0.061, 0.061, 0.061, 0.071, and 0.048 respectively.

Since these standard deviations are all small and have little variability it was determined

that the measurements taken provided an accurate representation of the expected

velocities.

Table 3
Data Plotted
Number Average
of Stages Velocity
(m/s)
1 1.845
2 2.753
3 3.094
4 3.340
5 3.644
6 3.421

Table 3 above shows the data that was plotted in order to determine the linearity

of the relationship between the number of magnet stages and the velocity of the final steel

marble.
 Koki Rupert 23

Figure 7. Scatterplot of Average Velocities

Figure 7 shows the data from table 3 plotted as a scatter plot which shows the

relationship between the number of magnet stages and the average velocity (m/s) of the

final marble. It also shows the least squares regression line (LSRL) of the data, which

appeared to have a linear trend.

The LSRL equation for this scatter plot is 1.93627+0.308543x. The 1.93627

shows where the line intersects the y-axis. Since this value is not zero, it can be inferred

that the marble has a velocity of zero. This makes sense because the marble was rolled

down a ramp before hitting the first magnet stage. The 0.308543x represents the slope of

the LSRL. Since it is positive it shows that as the number of stages increases, so does the

velocity of the final marble. It also shows that for each magnet stage added, the final

marble's velocity increases by 0.308543 meters per second on average.

To find the correlation coefficient, r, of the LSRL, the formula shown below was

used. In the equation n represents the number of samples, x and y represent corresponding

data points for the categories and velocity respectively, x and y represent the

means of the categories and velocities respectively, and sx and sy represent the standard

deviations of the x and y values respectively. A sample calculation of r can be found in

Appendix A.
n
x ix y i y
r=
1

n1 1 ( )(
sx sy )
In a linear regression test r shows how much the LSRL accounts for the values of

x that the points in the scatterplot have. In this experiment r has a value of 0.889, which
 Koki Rupert 24

means that the LSRL accounts for approximately 88.9% of the values of x. This high

value for r means that there is a high linear correlation between the number of magnet

stations and the velocity of the steel ball.

The r 2 value also helps to determine if the data in linear, since it shows how

successful the LSRL is at explaining the variation of the data in the y-direction. The

equation for r 2 is shown below. SSM is the sum of the squares about the mean of the

measured velocities, SSE is the sum of the square errors from the LSRL, y represents

the velocity expected for a particular mass estimated from the LSRL. A sample

calculation of this can be seen in Appendix A.

SSM SSE
r 2=
SSM

In a linear regression test r 2 shows how much the LSRL accounts for the values

of y that the points in the scatterplot have. In this case it has a value of 0.790. This means

that the LSRL accounts for approximately 79.0% of the values of y.

The relatively high r and r 2 values imply that there was a linear relationship

between the number of magnet stages and the velocity of the final marble. To further test

this theory a Linear Regression t-Test was conducted. To conduct this test, a null and

alternative hypothesis was made. The null hypothesis was that there was no slope ( = 0),

meaning that there was no relationship between the number or magnet stages and

velocity. The alternative hypothesis was that the slope of the relationship was positive (

> 0), meaning that as more stages are added, the velocity will increase. This hypothesis

was based on the previous results which shed a strong positive trend. The two hypotheses

can also be seen as symbols below.

 Koki Rupert 25

H0: = 0

H: > 0

Before conducting this t-Test, the conditions had to be checked and met. The first

condition that was met was that the data appeared to have a linear trend. This linear trend

could be seen in the scatter plot, and in the relatively high values of r and r 2. The second

assumption was that the responses of velocity were independent from trial to trial. This

independence was ensured by the re-taping of the magnets between each trial, which

ensured that the magnets did not move when hit by the steel marble. This eliminated the

possibility of the trials affecting one another. The third assumption is that the data

collected was fairly normal. Since there were thirty data points for every average, by the

central limit theorem the data meets this assumption since it comes from a normal

sampling distribution.

The fourth assumption was also checked by plotting the residuals. They were

plotted to determine if the standard deviations of the velocities were roughly the same. To

do this, a residual plot was created, as shown in Figure X on the next page.

Figure 8. Residual Plot

 Koki Rupert 26

Since there does not appear to be a pattern, and the points do not fall far from the

zero line the assumption was met.

The fifth, and final, condition that was checked was the randomization.

Randomization of the order of the categories containing different numbers of magnet

stages was done to help eliminate the possible bias that can occur when the trials are done

in a selected order. Since it was not randomized trial by trial, it could be said that the

results of this test may have slight bias, and be unreliable. An example of possible bias

that may have happened in this experiment is the loosening of the tape holding the

magnets still on the metal track. Because of the nature of this experiment, the magnets

needed to stay completely still, but since they were being hit repeatedly by the steel balls,

the tape holding them still could have loosened resulting in movement of the magnets.

Since the trials were repeated to ensure that there was minimal bias, this assumption

could be said to be met for the purposes of the statistical test. The t-test represents the

standardized version of the LSRL slope, or b. This was found by using the standard error,

SE. The equation used for a linear regression t-test can be below, and a sample equation

can be seen in Appendix A.

b
t=
S Eb

The value of t in this situation was 3.875, which made the p-value equal to 0.009.

Since this p-value is less than the alpha level of .05, the null hypothesis, which states that

there is no relationship between the number of magnet stages in a magnetic linear

accelerator and the velocity of the final marble in the accelerator, was rejected. There is

evidence to support the alternative hypothesis which states that there is a positive

linear relationship between the number of magnet stages in a magnetic linear accelerator
 Koki Rupert 27

and the velocity of the final marble in the accelerator. There is only about a 0.9% chance

of getting these results by chance alone if the null hypothesis was true.

A 95% confidence interval was conducted in order to determine where the true

slope was between the number of magnet stages and the velocity of the final marble. This

was done to provide more evidence that the true slope was greater than zero. The

equation used to calculate the confidence interval is shown below. The CI represents the

confidence interval, b represents the unbiased estimator of the true slope calculated by the

LSRL, and t* is the level of confidence there is with the number one standard deviation

out and is the value that SE, the standard error, was multiplied by. A sample calculation of

this can be seen in Appendix A.

CI =b t(S Eb )

The results of the confidence interval show that the experimenters are 95%

confident that the true slope of the relationship between the number of magnet stations on

the metal track and the final velocity of the steel ball is between 0.087 and 0.530 meters

per second. This further proves that there is not only a slope between the number of

magnet stages and the velocity of the final marble, but also that the slope is positive. The

positive slope means that as the number of stages goes up, so does the velocity.
 Koki Rupert 28

Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to determine whether increasing the number of

magnet stages in a magnetic linear accelerator would increase the velocity of the

launched object. The hypothesis, as the number of magnets used on the linear accelerator

increases, the velocity of the metal ball will also increase as a linear correlation, was

accepted. After computing a linear regression test, the resulting r value of 0.889, and r2

value of 0.790 implied that there was a linear correlation to the number of magnet stages

on a linear magnetic accelerator and the velocity of the steel ball. After performing a

linear regression t-Test on the average velocities, the t-value of 3.875 and a p-value of

0.009 illustrated that the likeliness of receiving results in this experiment this extreme by

chance alone was only about 0.9% if no difference existed.

From a scientific standpoint, the results of the experiment are easily understood.

By adding more magnet stations to the linear magnetic accelerator, there were more

magnetic fields present on the surface of the track. When more magnetic fields were

added, the magnets attracted the steel ball, which increased the velocity of the steel ball

as it traveled down the track. With an increasing frequency of magnet stations, the

amount of work done on the steel ball also increased; after the steel ball attracted to and

collided with the magnets, the magnets had an increasing force pushing on the next steel

ball of the opposite side of the magnets. Since the magnets did not move when the balls

collided them, the collisions that occurred were elastic. Since momentum is conserved in

elastic collisions, all of the momentum from the collision moved through the magnet and

balls on the opposite side. This resulted in the last ball in the station to be launched at

relatively the same velocity the initial ball was moving when it collided with the magnet.
 Koki Rupert 29

With a greater force acting on the steel ball than the previous one, it is logical to conclude

that there was a smaller time deficit between the attraction of magnets and steel marbles

and a larger amount of work done on the steel balls as the number of magnet stages

increased. This reduction in time resulted in a faster velocity of the steel ball as it traveled

down the metal track.

The results for this experiment agree with research done previously this year by

another group that focused on the topic of linear magnetic acceleration. Although this

other experiment targeted the changing of the number of steel balls as well as a stronger

magnetism and distance between magnet stations, their overall results still agreed with

the outcome of this experiment: as the number of magnet stations increases, so does the

linear velocity of the steel ball. The results of this experiment were also supported by the

online article "Magnetic Linear Accelerator" which stated that you can add magnet

stations to get the ball to move as fast as desired, up to a point. At this point the magnets

would begin to break, which happened in this experiment when there were six magnet

stations.

There were some imperfections throughout the experiment, those of which played

a minimal role in the process of collecting the data. During the steps of resetting the steel

balls on the metal track, there were some ramp consistency issues; the force from

separating the steel balls from the neodymium magnets most of the time resulted in a

small shift of the track from the ramp. In response, the metal track was lined back up to

the ramp with precise eyesight before performing any future trials. Another note worth

mentioning is the fact that the roles of recording the velocity for one trial and physically

dropping the steel ball were switched halfway through the method of data collection;
 Koki Rupert 30

however, this again played almost no influence in the results of the experiment, for the

steel ball was still dropped at a consistent point marked on the ramp.

To build on top of this research experiment, there are a few points to cover to

further enhance the knowledge in the linear magnetic acceleration area. Increasing (or

decreasing) the strength of magnetism at each individual magnet station could have a

different outcome for the velocity of the steel ball; each magnet would have a different

push and pull on the steel balls, resulting in a different velocity for the steel ball. Another

way to further expand research in this topic is to reduce (or increase) the distance

between each magnet station to change the amount of time the ball is in and out of

magnetic fields. A higher awareness and a vast familiarity of the topic of magnetic linear

acceleration will help scientists launch objects into space without the use of rockets; this

will contribute to the conservation of non-renewable natural energy, a quickly

diminishing fuel source in today's economy.

 Koki Rupert 31

Appendix A: Linear Regression Test Calculations

r:
n
x ix y i y
r=
1

n1 1 sx ( )( sy )
6
1 13.500
r=
61 1 (
1.879 )( 1.8453.016
0.650 )
r = .889

Figure 1. r Calculation

Figure 1 above shows the calculations used to find the value of r.

r 2:

SSM SSE
r 2=
SSM

2.8690.444
r 2=
2.869

r 2=0.889

Figure 2. r 2 Calculation

Figure 2 above shows the calculations used to find the r 2 value. The SSM and

SSE values were found by using the TI-nSpire CX Calculator.

Linear Regression:

b
t=
S Eb

s
SE b=
(x x )2
 Koki Rupert 32

0.33
SE b= 2
( ( 13.50 ) + ( 23.50 ) + ( 33.50 ) + ( 43.50 )+ (53.50 ) + ( 63.50 ) )

SE b= .079

.309
t=
.079

t=3.875

PVal=0.018

Figure 3. t-Test Calculation

The figure above shows the calculations used to find the t-value. The p-value

shown was reached using the statistics function on the TI-nSpire CX Calculator.

Confidence Interval:

CI =b t(S Eb )

CI =0.309 t(0.080)

CI =0.087 0.530

Figure 4. Confidence level Calculations

Figure 4. above shows the calculations used to find the confidence interval. The b

and SEb values were found by using the linear regression test function on the TI-nSpire

CX Calculator.
 Koki Rupert 33

Works Cited

Kurtus, Ron "Basics of Magnetism." N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2016. <http://www.school-

for-champions.com/science/magnetism.htm#.VxeuONQrIdU>.

Browne, Kerry, and David P. Jackson. "Simple Experiments to Help Students Understand

Magnetic Phenomena." Physics Teacher Oct. 2007: 425-29. Print.]

Huggins, Elisha. "Note on Magnetism and Simultaneity." Physics Teacher Dec. 2009:

587-89. Print.

Kagan, David. "Happy Balls, Unhappy Balls, and Newton's Cradle." Physics Teacher

Mar.2010: 152. Print.

"Magnetic Linear Accelerator." Experiment. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/magnetic-accelerator/>.

"Magnetic Linear Dichroism Spectroscopy." Mason/MCD Spectroscopy A Practical

Guide to Magnetic Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy(2006):188201.

<http://www.flinnsci.com/media/1167890/ph11177.pdf>
 Koki Rupert 34

Rabchuk, James A. "The Gauss Rifle and Magnetic Energy." Physics Teacher Mar. 2003:

158-61. Print.