Lab C – Paul Trap

Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.07.2019

Instructor: Mr. Naftali Kirsch

Paul Trap – Stuck in the middle with You

Abstract: We use a Paul Trap setup, including several electrodes with varying voltage, in order
to trap charged particles in a confined space. We analyze the motion of a single particle and
the effects of different alternating and direct current voltage levels on the characteristics of its
dynamics in the trap. Furthermore, we examine the behaviors of multiple particles in the trap
and compare the dynamics to those of a single particle and to a numerical simulation.

Figure 1: Peter, Paul and Mary.

Theoretical background
A Paul trap is a well-known setup for trapping electrically-charged particles using changing
electrical fields. Although there are several different geometries which induce a state where
the charged particles (ions) stay in a confined space, the general shared principle is creating a
saddle-shaped potential (see illustration), which induces maximal electrical fields in the
center, in perpendicular directions, one pushing towards the center and the other pushing
outside of it. Since with this shape, the center point is not a stable equilibrium point, a
particle will not normally stay in it under small perturbations. However, spinning the saddle
allows for trapping the particle in an area around the center (the parameters of which are
determined by the rotation speed, the particle’s mass, the potential’s parameters and gravity
and more). The rotation of the potential saddle is done by applying an alternating current
voltage on our electrodes, which changes the electrical fields in the trap at a 50 Hz
periodicity.

In our experiment we used the same layout as used in [1], and described in section [b].
We get the equations:
2𝑧 2 +(𝑟0 2 −𝑟 2 )
Potential: 𝑉(𝑧, 𝑟) = (𝑉𝑑𝑐 − 𝑉𝑎𝑐 ∙ cos Ωt) ∙ 4𝑧0 2
Lab C – Paul Trap
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.07.2019
Instructor: Mr. Naftali Kirsch

With the parameters Vac which stands for the altermatic current voltage, Vdc which is the
direct current voltage applied to the spheres, and Omega the frequency of the altermatic
current, r0 the radius of the ring, and z0 the height of the centerpoint (distance from lower
and upper spheres). We can derive the following motion equations:
𝑑2 𝑧 𝑄 (𝑉𝑑𝑐 −𝑉𝑎𝑐 ∙cos Ωt)
1) −𝑀∙ ∙𝑧 =0
𝑑𝑡 2 𝑧0 2

𝑑2 𝑟 𝑄 (𝑉𝑑𝑐 −𝑉𝑎𝑐 ∙cos Ωt)

2) +𝑀∙ ∙𝑟 =0
𝑑𝑡 2 2𝑧0 2
Ωt
And we’ll define a unitless variable 𝑥 = , and write the equations as:
2
𝑄 (𝑉𝑑𝑐 ) 1
3) 𝑎𝑧 = −2𝑎𝑟 = 4 𝑀 ∙ 𝑧0 2 Ω2
𝑄 (𝑉𝑎𝑐 ) 1
4) 𝑞𝑧 = −2𝑞𝑟 = 2 𝑀 ∙ 𝑧0 2 Ω2

Which yields the Mathieu differential equation:

𝑑2 𝑢
+ (𝑎 − 2𝑞 ∙ cos x)𝑢 = 0
𝑑𝑥 2

Stability areas:

𝑄 0.908 𝑧02
< Ω2
𝑀 2 𝑉𝑎𝑐

The position along z is given by: 𝑧(𝑡) = 𝛿(𝑡) + 𝑧̅(𝑡), and assuming stuff we get:
𝑑2 𝑧 𝑑2 𝛿 𝑞𝑧
≈ 𝑑𝑥 2 = 2𝑞𝑧 𝑧̅(𝑡) ∙ cos 2x s.t. 𝛿(𝑡) = − 𝑧̅(𝑡) ∙ cos Ωt
𝑑𝑥 2 2

And averaging yields:

𝑑2 𝑧̅ 𝑞𝑧2
=− 𝑧̅(𝑡) with the solution: 𝑧̅(𝑡) = 𝑧̅0 cos ̅𝜔̅̅̅𝑡
𝑧
𝑑𝑥 2 2
𝑞𝑧 Ω
Where ̅𝜔̅̅̅𝑧 = ∙2
√2
Lab C – Paul Trap
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.07.2019
Instructor: Mr. Naftali Kirsch

4𝐹𝑧 8𝐹
Then, if we have gravity we get: 𝑧𝐹 = 𝑞2
and if we add a DC voltage: 𝑧𝐹 = 𝑚Ω2𝑧𝑞2 =
𝑚Ω2 ( 𝑧 ) 𝑧
2
𝑄𝑉𝐷𝐶
8(𝑚𝑔− )
2𝑧0
2 2 and we can write 𝑧̅(𝑡) = 𝑧𝐹 and hence the amplitude will be:
𝑚Ω 𝑞𝑧
𝑄𝑉𝐷𝐶
𝑞𝑧 𝑞𝑧 4(𝑚𝑔− )
2𝑧0
𝐴= 𝑧̅(𝑡) = 𝑧𝐹 = 2
2 2 𝑚Ω 𝑞𝑧

So we conclude: the average height should be linear to the DC voltage, and so should the
amplitude of the motion.

As we can see, we get that the motion equations are governed by the AC voltage as well as
by the DC voltage. In the first part of the experiment we’ll examine the validity of these
equations.

System setup:
An illustration of the setup used in the experiment is given in figure (4).

As depicted, we used a camera which to capture images of the particles, which were
subsequently analyzed to extract the particle’s location in space. We used laser pointers to
light the particles, and due to the locations of the electrodes, the camera had to be located in
an angle relative to the system’s horizon; Therefore, we measured this angle using a level and
transformed the perceived coordinates of the particles accordingly. In order to transform the
coordinates to actual lengths, we used a millimeter paper, which was placed roughly at the
center between the electrodes and photographed, in order to allow a calculation of pixels/mm
conversion. To decrease the error, we took an average of several close millimeters to find the
Lab C – Paul Trap
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.07.2019
Instructor: Mr. Naftali Kirsch

average number of pixels per millimeter (separately for the horizontal and vertical axes, in
order to make up for the angle of photographing).
Each of these conversions and measurements added an error – the angle had a 0.1 degrees
accuracy, the distance between the camera and the electrodes had a 1-millimeter accuracy,
and the placing of the millimeter paper contributed an error of about (idk) millimeters.
Additional measurements were needed to calibrate the voltage parameters – we used an AC
voltage source emitting voltage of up to ~300 volt and used a power multiplier in order to
raise it up to a gazillion volts. In order to measure the voltage accurately, we had to use a
voltage divider, so we can use a multimeter; the use of both apparatuses was calibrated
beforehand to account for non-linearity of the multiplier.
All in all, quite fascinating stuff. Really.

First Part – A Particle all on its Own

Experiment process: we isolated a particle in the trap and measured its frequency of motion.
In addition, we applied varying DC and AC voltages and measured the particle’s motion
amplitude, and center point.
Results: First, as shown in figure 4 we find that the particle moves with a periodicity of 50±1
Hz, matching the frequency of the electrical grid.
Lab C – Paul Trap
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.07.2019
Instructor: Mr. Naftali Kirsch

Furthermore, we apply different DC voltages and measure the center point of the motion. As
presented in figure 5, we can see that the height of the center point changes linearly with the
applied DC voltage, matching the equations above. In addition, changing the DC voltage also
changes the motion’s amplitude, but in a nonlinear fashion, in contrast to the equations.

The errors were calculated according to

the standard error in the location algorithm per image, while averaging over several images
per voltage; the error in pixel-mm conversion was also taken into account.
The nonlinearity of the motion amplitude is consistent among several particle measurements;
our theory as to why it doesn’t match the equations is that in these measurements, the particle
changes its location in relation to the spheres, and since our setup is not ideal, there may be
Lab C – Paul Trap
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.07.2019
Instructor: Mr. Naftali Kirsch

large differences to the electric field between these locations, which differ from the
theoretical field used to derive the equations.
When comparing the particle’s motion to the numerical simulation, we find that…

Part 2 – All Together Now

Experiment process: we isolated 2 or 3 particles in the trap and measured their frequency of
motion. In addition, we applied varying DC and AC voltages and measured the particles
motion amplitude, and center point. We compared the observed motion patterns and
compared them to a numerical simulation.
Results: The first observation when examining several particles together is that there are
several motion patterns which can occur – regular motion (similar to a single particle),
rotations (around a shared axis), precession, and more. Following are examples:
Precession:

Left: 1800 Volt of AC, right: 1980 Volt of AC. We can see that changing the voltage changes
the motion of the right particle, although not changing its periodicity.
Lab C – Paul Trap
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.07.2019
Instructor: Mr. Naftali Kirsch

Furthermore, we measured the movements of two particles together, and then changed the
AC voltage of the system in order to remove one of them, and later returning to the original
voltage:

Both measures at 2100 AC voltage.

In this measure we don’t see any precession. However, we do see that after removing one
particle, the motion became less slanted; however, since we’ve observed many different
motion patterns for a single and pairs of particles, this can’t be generalized. With several
Lab C – Paul Trap
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.07.2019
Instructor: Mr. Naftali Kirsch

tries, we couldn’t find a meaningful relationship between the number of particles and the
pattern of motion observed.
When comparing this to the simulation, we find:

Summary & Discussion

In this experiment we looked into the dynamics of particles in a Paul trap. We examined the
motion characteristics of a single particle in a trap and compared it to theory and simulation.
In addition, we examined the behavior of 2 and 3 particles in a trap and compared it to the
behavior of a single particle, and to theory and simulation.
We found that there are many different possible patterns of motion for particles in the trap –
precession, orbiting and more. In our numerical simulations we didn’t find these kind of
asymmetrical behaviors; possible contributors to these are:
1. The electrodes’ geometry and inner structure is different than in the simulation, causing a
different field than estimated.
2. Disturbances in the force – there are many operating electrical appliances in the room
with the system, including the voltage suppliers themselves, which may create
electromagnetic fields which affect the charged particles in their motion.