Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Section: _L51_
References
Others
2. Table of Results
u ( cot ( θ ) )
I (A) u(I) (A) u ( θ ) ( rad ) 1/I (1/A) u(1/I) (1/A) cot ( θ ) ( rad ) ( rad )
θ ( rad )
1
3. Graph of cot () vs.
I
1
Plot cot () vs in Excel
I
2.0
f(x) = 0.0835436459520721 x − 0.0625823132940662
R² = 0.990692966880926
cot(Ѳ)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
1/I (1/A)
4. Data analysis
1
4.1. Uncertainties on and cot()
I
1
Show how you calculate u( ) and u(cot())
I
√( () )
2
1
∂
()u
1
I
=
∂I
I
×u ( I )
() u
1
I
1
= 2 ×u ( I )
I
u ( )
1
=
0.04 0.04
1
2
×u ( 0.005 )=3.1
1
A
1
u ( cot θ )= 2
× u (θ )
sin ( θ )
1
u ( cot θ )= 2
× u ( 0.03 )=0.2
sin ( 0.45 )
Bh=4.041× 10−5 T
(√ ( ) )(( ) )
2 2
μ0n μ n
∂ × slope ∂ 0 × slope
2R 2R
u ( Bh )= ×u ( R ) + ×u ( slope )
∂R ∂ slope
√( )( )
2 2
−μ 0 n slope μ0 n
u ( B h )= × u( R ) + × u ( slope )
2 R2 2R
√( )( )
−7 2 −7 2
−4 × π ×10 × 154 ×0.083 4 × π ×10 × 154
u ( B h )= ×u ( 0.001 ) + ×u ( 0.004 )
2(0.2)
2
2(0.2)
u ( Bh )=0.000002T
Bh%: = |0.00000.000
0 3−0.0000 0 4
0 03 | x 100 = 18.6%
5. Discussion of the result.
Bh=0.00004 T T was a good figure that was somewhat close to the actual value, which was
18.6%, which was kind of acceptable in this experiment.
Since the quality of our gazing wasn't great enough, we may say that the angel reading was the
primary cause of the significant error rate. Overall, we can say that our experiment had
reasonable quantities.
6. References
Phys 194 lab manual