A Qualitative Investigation on the Relationship Between the Pole Strength of a

Solenoid and the Magnetic Flux Density of the Magnetic Field it Produces
I EXPLORATION
Rationale
Although the most common function of solenoids is to act as a power switch due to their
ability to facilitate the conversion of electrical energy to mechanical energy even with small
currents (Kabib, Batan, Pramujati, & Sigit, 2016), they are also used to increase the
magnetic field strength of magnetic fields (Callaghan & Maslen, 1960).
A modern application of solenoids is in electro-pneumatic brakes, which has the potential to
revolutionise braking systems in the transportation industry (Najjari, Barakati, Mohammad,
Futohi, & Bostanian, 2014). As I wish to become an engineer after university, the invention of
this new technology and its potential utility has been stimulating to research and driven
curiosity to further investigate practical properties of solenoids. As a result, there is obvious
utility in determining how the magnetic field created by a solenoid increases.
Consequently, this investigation will explore the practical property of the magnetic flux
density created by the solenoid. This will be investigated through using the concept of
magnetic pole strength. Whilst magnetic pole strength is often used for bar magnets, it can
be applied to a solenoid to conceptualise the magnetising strength of the solenoid.
Research Question
What is the relationship between the pole strength of a solenoid, and the magnetic flux
density of the magnetic field produced by the solenoid, when the number of turns and length
of the solenoid are kept constant?
Background
Magnetic Pole Strength
To deduce how an increase in current will affect the pole strength of the solenoid, firstly, the
concept of a magnetic dipole moment must be introduced. Whereas pole strength is a scalar
quantity that describes the ability of one pole of a magnet to create a magnetic field, a
magnetic dipole moment is a vector quantity that describes the direction and ability of the
entire magnet to create a magnetic field (Dirac, 1948).
M =2 ml
Where M is the magnetic dipole moment, and 2l is the distance between the two poles of the
magnet. Unlike pole strength, the magnetic dipole moment is proportional to the distance
between the poles because the forces of the two magnetic poles of a magnet partially cancel
each other out as one repels while the other attracts. This cancellation is most effective at
close distance and decreases in effectiveness the larger the distance between the poles is.
The magnetic dipole moment for a solenoid can be represented mathematically using the
following equation (Arfken, Griffing, Kelly, & Priest, 1984):
M =NIA
Where N is the number of turns, I is the current, and A is the cross-sectional area of the
solenoid. This formula can be rewritten in terms of the pole strength of one of its poles:
NA
m= I ∴ m∝ I
2l

1
Coulomb’s Law for Magnetic Poles
Coulomb’s law of magnetism describes that the magnetic force between two magnetic poles
in a medium is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them and
directly proportional to the product of their pole strengths as demonstrated below (Majumdar,
2013):
μ 0 m1 m2 −2 −2
F= r F∝r
4π
Where the pole strengths of the medium are given by m1 and m2 which is a measurement of
the ability of a magnetic material to produce a magnetic field, where a larger pole strength
indicates that the material has the capacity to create a larger magnetic field. In addition, μ is
the magnetic permeability of the medium between the magnetic poles. The magnetic
permeability is the degree to which a material responds to a magnetic field. For this
investigation, Coulomb’s law of magnetism will only be explored in cases where the medium
is air, hence the magnetic permeability will be assumed to be vacuum magnetic permeability.
Ampère’s Law for Magnetic Poles
Ampère's circuital law describes that a magnetic field in space is generated by an electric
current and that the magnetic flux density is proportional to the current by the following
equation (Liang & Wang, 2015):

∮ B ⋅ d l=μ 0 I enc
closed
loop

The left-hand side of this equation represents the line integral valid for any closed loop in
space, of the dot product of an element of the length of the closed loop length vector (dl) and
the magnetic flux density vector (B) which follows the direction as ascertained by the right-
hand rule as a tangent to the closed loop. In this equation, the line integral represents the
sum of all the scalar products of the magnetic flux density vector and the infinitesimally small
length vector on the closed loop, where the number of turns will be equal to the number of
infinitesimally small length vectors. The magnetic flux density is a measurement of the
capability of a magnetic field to exert magnetic forces.
The right-hand side of the equation is the total current that flows through the cross section of
the closed loop multiplied by the magnetic permeability (μ) of the material that the cross
section of the closed loop is constituted by. Furthermore, current in a wire is a measurement
of the rate of flow of charge through a wire’s cross section, and, with regards to Ampère's
circuital law, it is the rate of flow of charge through the cross-section of the closed loop.

Figure 1: Ampèrian Loop for Solenoid (BrainKart, n.d.)

Using the Ampèrian loop in figure 1, Ampere’s circuital law for a solenoid according to the
literature can be represented by the following (Liang & Wang, 2015):
μ0 N
B= I B∝ I
L

2
Where I is the current through the wire, N is the number of turns of the solenoid included in
the closed loop and L is the length of the solenoid.

Ohm’s Law
According to Ohm’s Law, the voltage over an ohmic material, is proportional to the current
passing through it for a constant resistance. Mathematically (Tenny & Keenaghan, 2017):
V =IR V ∝I
Investigation
This investigation will investigate the research question through a methodology divided into
four parts. As the resistance will not change in this investigation, the examined relationships
will measure the voltage as an indicator of the current as they are proportional by Ohm’s law.
Part A is preliminary experiment that will determine the pole strength of a magnet using
Coulomb’s law for magnetic poles by finding the effect of the distance between two identical
magnets on the magnetic force. Part B will repeat part A’s experiment for the magnet, now of
known pole strength, and a solenoid, to determine the pole strength of the solenoid. The
pole strength calculations will be conducted over various current intervals to experimentally
verify that the pole strength of a solenoid is proportional to the current passing through it.
Part C will use the same current intervals will be used to experimentally verify the
relationship explained by Ampère’s law for magnetic poles between the current through the
solenoid and the magnetic flux density of the magnetic field created. Note, that this
investigation will conduct one trial using Ampère’s law for magnetic poles, where both the
current and magnetic flux density are measured to determine the percentage error of this
experiment by contrasting an experimentally calculated μ0 with the value accepted in
literature. Finally, Part D will use pole strength and magnetic flux density measurements for
the solenoid, at each of the intervals of current to investigate the research question. The
theoretical relationship of this investigation is as follows:
∵ B ∝ I ∝V ∩m∝ I ∝V ∴B∝m
Notably, the investigation of this relationship will be qualitative in nature, and hence, will
determine the proportionality of the variables but not the constant of their proportionality.
Variables
Independent Variable Dependant Variable
Pole strength of solenoid Magnetic flux density
The pole strength of the solenoid was The magnetic flux density values measured
calculated at each interval of voltage by at each interval of voltage
considering the gradient of the linearised
graph of magnetic force vs distance
between the magnet and solenoid, the pole
strength of the solenoid can be calculated
at each interval of current.
Controlled Variables
The properties of the
As the magnitude of magnetic flux density due
solenoid will be
Properties of to a solenoid is proportional to the number of
controlled by using the
the solenoid turns per unit length, altering these properties
same solenoid for all
of the solenoid will alter the dependant variable
trials
Properties of The pole strength of a magnet is altered by the The properties of the

3
 type of metal, and the size. As this experiment magnet will be controlled
requires the magnet to be of known pole in this experiment by
the magnet
strength, to calculate the pole strength of the using the same magnet
solenoid, all of these factors must be controlled. for all trials
Uncontrolled Variables
Temperature Impurities in the solenoid Impurities in the magnet
Equipment
Equipment Quantity Uncertainty
2 V – 12 V Electromotive force (emf) 1 ±1V
source
9 V Battery 1 -
Identical bar magnets 2 -
Solenoid 1 -
40 cm dual alligator clip wire 2 -
PASCO Magnetic Field Sensor 1 ± 1 x 10-5 T
Laptop with PASCO installed 1 -
1 m retort stand 1 -
Clamp 1 -
Mass balance 1 ± 1 x 10-5 kg
0.3 m ruler 1 ± 1 x 10-3 m

Methodology

Figure 2: Experimental Apparatus for Part A and B (Left), and Part C (Right)
Part A and Part B
1. The experimental apparatus was set up as seen in figure 2, with a 2 V electromotive
force (emf) source, and, using the ruler to measure, the magnet was positioned so
that the bottom of the magnet was 0.01 m above the top of the solenoid by moving
the clamp on the retort stand.
2. Without turning the electromotive force (emf) source on, the mass balance was
zeroed
3. The electromotive force (emf) source was turned on and the mass was recorded,
then the electromotive force was turned off
4. Steps 1-4 were repeated 5 times for 5 trials
5. Steps 1-5 were repeated 8 times in total, and, each time, the distance between the
solenoid and magnet increased by 0.005 m
6. Steps 1-6 were repeated 8 times. For 6 of the times the electromotive force (emf)
was increased by 2 V to the maximum of 12 V, then a 9 V battery was used in series
with 2 V from the emf power source and finally a 9 V battery was used in series with
4 V from the emf power source

4
Part C
1. The experimental apparatus was set up following figure 2 with an EMF source of 2 V
2. The magnetic flux density was then measured by placing the magnetic field sensor
inside the solenoid and reading the value from PASCO software, then the
electromotive force (emf) source was then turned off
3. Steps 1-2 were repeated 5 times for the 5 trials
4. Steps 1-3 were repeated 8 times increasing the voltage identically to step 6 of the
methodology for part A and part B
Risk Assessment
Risk Description Action
Safety – Magnets Magnets can jump together Caution will be exercised to
and pinch the skin or cause ensure the magnets do not
injury jump together
Safety – Electronics Incomplete circuitry can The EMF source will be
cause sparks and electrical turned off whilst the
incidents experimental apparatus is
being set up

II ANALYSIS
Part A – Determination of Magnet’s Pole Strength
Quantitative Raw Data
Two identical magnets were used, so that the mass change due to the magnetic force of two
identical magnets could be found to calculate the magnet’s pole strength.
The mass change was recorded to be 4.56 g, when the magnets were placed 0.030 m away
from each other.
Determination of Magnet’s Pole Strength
Using the raw data collected for the trial between the two magnets, the mass change due to
magnetic force can be converted to magnetic force:
F=mg=4.56 ×9.81=44.7 N
As the magnetic pole strengths of the magnets were equal, this can be determined by using
Coulomb’s law of magnetism:
2
m
F=K 2
r

√
2
44.7 × 0.03
m= =635 A m
1 ×10−7
Therefore, the pole strength of the magnet, a constant throughout this investigation is
635 A m .
Part B – Determination of Solenoid’s Pole Strength
Qualitative Data
The mass change was quite sensitive to the centrality of the magnet to the solenoid. Hence,
time was taken before each trial to ensure that the magnet was positioned as centrally as

5
possible. Unsurprisingly, the magnet-magnet attraction felt stronger than the magnet-
solenoid attraction
Quantitative Data

Tables 1-8: Mass Change vs Distance at Each Interval of Voltage

In all trials, the uncertainty of the distance was ± 1.0× 10−3 m. This is because the ruler had

to be placed so that 0 m was in line with the solenoid and the other end recorded the
distance between the solenoid and the magnet, hence, the reading uncertainty of the
instrument, half the smallest graduation, (± 5× 10− 4 m ) was doubled.

Likewise, the mass change uncertainty was ± 1× 10−4 kg , as the reading uncertainty for a
digital instrument is the smallest graduation. As 1 ×10−4 kg was the smallest graduation for
the mass balance, this will also be the mass’ uncertainty.
Conversion of Average Mass Change to Average Magnetic Force
To determine the pole strength, the mass change as the result of the magnetic force must be
converted to the magnetic force to use Coulomb’s law for magnetism. As the mass change
was registered on a weight balance, this can be done by Newton’s second law and
accordingly propagating the uncertainty:

6
 Conversion of Mass Change to Magnetic Using the 2 V, 1.5 ×10−2 m
Force: −3
F m=0.62 ×10 × 9.81
F m=mg −3
F m=6 .06 ×10 N
Absolute Uncertainty of the Magnetic Force

( )
−3

( )
Δm 0.01 ×10
Δ F m=± Fm Δ F m=± 6 .06 ×10−3 ×
m 0.62 ×10−3
−3
Δ F m=± 0.10 ×10 N
Table 9: Average Magnetic Force vs Distance at Each Interval of Voltage
Linearisation: Finding the Inverse Square of the Distance
As the theoretical relationship between magnetic force and the distance is that of an inverse
square it is necessary to linearise this table to calculate the pole strength of the solenoid at
each point of voltage

Propagation of the Distances’ Uncertainty Using the 2 V, 1.5 ×10−2 m

When Linearising: 1.0 ×10
−3
−2
Δd Δ d =± 4400 × ×2
Δ d−2=± d−2 × ×2 1.5 ×10−2
d −2 −2
Δ d =± 59 m
Table 10: Magnetic Force vs Inverse Square of the Distance at Each Interval of Voltage
Figures 3-10: Magnetic Force vs Inverse Square of the Distance at Each Interval of Voltage
The shapes of figures 3-10 suggest that there is a linear relationship between the magnetic
force and the inverse square of the distance which corroborates with Coulomb’s law of
magnetism. Note that in figure 3-10, some horizontal and vertical error bars are too small to
be visible. The maximum and minimum lines of best fit were produced from respectively
adding and subtracting the inverse square of the distance’s uncertainties from the lowest

7
and greatest inverse square of distance values. The inverse square of distance’s uncertainty
was chosen over the uncertainty of magnetic force because the former had larger fractional
uncertainties which is evident as the horizontal error bars are significantly more visible than
the vertical ones. However, in all cases except 6 V, 8 V and 10 V, the minimum line of best
fit is greater than the line of best fit. Whilst this is not ideal, this is a result of the data points
not being perfectly linear in shape as the 3rd 4th and 5th data points are consistently above the
LOBF, and the rest below, suggesting that there is systematic error present.
Determination of the Solenoid’s Pole Strength
According to Coulomb’s law of magnetism, the trendlines in figures 3-10 should represent:
Fm −2
=gradient × r
1000
μ 0 m1 m2
=1000 × gradient
4π
Hence, m2, the pole strength of the magnet, which was calculated in part A, can be used to
calculate the pole strength of the solenoid m1 for each of voltages (which each have a
different gradient):

Table 11 and Figure 11: Magnetic Pole Strength of Solenoid vs Voltage

Using the 2 V Data:
Determination of Solenoid’s Pole Strength: 4 π ×1000 ×1. 29 ×10
−3

4 π ×1000 ×gradient m 1= −6
m 1= 1.257 ×10 ×635
μ 0 m2
Uncertainty of the Gradient: m1=20364 A m
gradient max −gradient min 0.0013493−0.0013055
Δ gradient =± Δ gradient =±
2 2
Uncertainty of the Solenoid’s Pole Strength Δ gradient =± 2.19× 10
−5
Δgradient −5
Δ m1=±m1 × 2.19 ×10
gradient Δ m1=±20364 × −3
1.29 ×10
Δ m1=±345 A m
Although the voltage uncertainties are very large, as the source voltage setting was used as
the measurement, figure 11 corresponds with the literature to suggest that the pole strength
of a solenoid is proportional to the current (m∝ I ) with the justified assumption that the
voltage is proportional to current as the solenoid is an ohmic material (V ∝ I ). This is
demonstrated by the high R2 value with demonstrates that figure 11 has a high degree of
linearity. However, the pole strength values for the solenoid, indicate that there is significant
systematic error as the pole strength of the magnet should be higher than the solenoid’s pole
strength values.

8
Part C – Determination of Magnetic Flux Density
Qualitative Data
The magnetic flux density reading was quite sensitive to the position of the magnetic field
sensor inside the solenoid. The magnetic field sensor was positioned by hand as centrally as
possible for each reading.
Quantitative Data

Table 12: Magnetic Flux Density vs Voltage

The uncertainty for the magnetic flux density for all trials is ± 0.01× 10−3 T . This is because
the reading uncertainty for a digital instrument such as for the magnetic field sensor is equal
to its graduations.
The uncertainty for the voltage is ± 1 V because the EMF source was in increments of 2 V.
As this is not a digital measuring device, the reading uncertainty of the instrument was set at
half the graduation of the instrument which is ± 1 V .
The solenoid used throughout this investigation had 710 turns and was measured to be
(0.1350 ± 0.0001) m in length.
To determine the percentage error for this experiment, the current was recorded for the 12 V
trial. It was measured to be 1.08809 A.
Determination of Magnetic Flux Density

Table 13 and Figure 12: Average Magnetic Flux Density vs Voltage

Some vertical error bars are too small to be visible. Figure 12 also corresponds to Ampère’s
law for magnetic poles to suggest that the magnetic flux density created by a solenoid is
proportional to the current passing through it ( B∝ I ), and, with the justified assumption that
the voltage is proportional to the current ( V ∝ I ) as a solenoid is an ohmic material. This is
evidenced by the clear linear shape of the data in figure 12, which corroborates with the high
R2 value of 0.9994. However, according to the trendline, there is a significant y-intercept

9
value of 0.6943, which demonstrates that there is systematic error present as according to
Ampère’s law for magnetic poles, the trendline should pass through the origin.
Part D – Relationship Between Magnetic Flux Density and Pole Strength of a Solenoid
Finally, the results of part B and part C can be combined to provide an answer to the
research question by graphing the average magnetic flux density and the pole strengths of
the solenoid with an increasing current (which was achieved by increasing the voltage):

Table 14: Average Magnetic Flux Density vs Pole Strength of Solenoid

Graphing the magnetic flux density for each value of magnetic pole strength:

Figure 13: Average Magnetic Flux Density vs Pole Strength of Solenoid

Figure 13 supports the literature in suggesting that the magnetic flux density of the magnetic
field created by a solenoid is proportional to the solenoid’s pole strength ( B∝ m). This is
demonstrated by the three lines of best fit all passing through every point’s error bars,
meaning that the trendline is a valid representation of the data and the high R 2 value of
0.9994, suggesting the data very closely follows the linear trendline. Notably, the maximum
and minimum lines of best fit were produced with respect to the uncertainty in the pole
strength as it had a larger fractional uncertainty represented by the larger horizontal error
bars. Nevertheless, figure 13 suggests there was little random error present as the error bars
are very small, however, there is a significant y-intercept value of 0.43 suggesting systematic
error.
Percentage Error
The percentage error for this investigation will be calculated through determining the
percentage error of the theoretical and experimental values for the magnetic permeability of
air. The experimental value was calculated by using the current and magnetic flux density
measured for the 12 V trial as listed in part C and the other constants:

μ0 =
BL
=
( 100 ) =1.96 ×10
( 11.23 ×10−3 ) × 13.5
−6
NA
2
¿ 710× 1.08809

10
 % Error = |
Theoretical−Experimental
Theoretical |
×100 %= |
1.26−1.96
1.26 |
× 10−6 ×100 %=55.74 %

The high percentage error demonstrates that that this investigation’s quantitative results are
not reliable. As figure 13 would suggest that the qualitative nature of the proportional
relationship is reliable, the high percentage error suggests that the measured data has
significant systematic error, and no quantitative conclusion can be drawn.
III EVALUATION
Conclusion
Ultimately, this investigation corroborates with physics literature to suggest that there is a
linear relationship between the pole strength of a solenoid, and the magnetic flux density of
the generated magnetic field (figure 13). Firstly, part A experimentally deduced the pole
strength of a particular bar magnet to be 635 A m . Coulomb’s law for magnetism was used
again with a solenoid and the bar magnet of known pole strength to calculate the solenoid’s
pole strength at increasing voltages. As a solenoid is an ohmic material, Ohm’s law was
used to justify the assumption that increasing the voltage would proportionally increase the
current (V ∝ I ). Through calculating the pole strength of the solenoid, part B produced figure
11 which suggests that the pole strength is proportional to the voltage, and hence, by Ohm’s
law, the current (m∝ V ∝ I ). Proceeding this, part C used Ampère’s law for magnetic poles to
experimentally verify that the magnetic flux density of the magnetic field created by the
solenoid is proportional to the voltage, and again by Ohm’s law, the current ( B∝ V ∝ I ),
which is indicated by figure 12.
Finally, part D combined these two relationships to answer the research question,
suggesting that as m∝ V ∝ I and B∝ V ∝ I , then ∴ B ∝ m. This relationship was corroborated
by figure 13, as the linear lines of best fit were determined to be accurate representations of
the data demonstrated by the R2 value being very high and the lines of best fit containing all
the data points. However, there was likely significant systematic errors present in this
investigation demonstrated by the percentage error and the very high pole strength values
for the solenoid, when qualitative data collected suggested that the magnet-magnet
attraction felt stronger than the magnet-solenoid attraction. Nevertheless, this investigation
has validly supported the qualitative relationship between the pole strength of a solenoid and
the magnetic flux density of the solenoid’s created magnetic field, but only for smaller
solenoid pole strengths caused by smaller currents and a smaller voltage. For its application
into industry, further research should be conducted to determine whether this relationship
also exists for very large solenoid pole strengths due to larger currents passing through it,
which unfortunately, were not examined in this investigation due to practical considerations.
Evaluation
Error Evidence of Error Reliability and Validity
1. Circuitry Heat This is a random error, as This decreased the reliability
As the current increases the heat would only affect of the investigation as the
(because of voltage trials completed later in labincreased circuitry heat
increasing), there are more sessions, decreasing the increased the resistance.
collision of electrons with precision of data collected at
Hence, this would affect the
the wire which generates these times or trials
Ohm’s law assumption used
heat. Consequently, this completed when the lab was throughout this investigation
increases the internal at a higher temperature. depending on the
resistance of the circuit. temperature of the circuit.
2. Measurement of Voltage This is a random error as it This significantly decreased
The voltage measurements would lead to imprecise the reliability of this
in this investigation were not voltage readings. This is investigation, as the voltage

11
 measured and were evident in figures 11 and 12, error bars in figures 11 and
assumed to be that where there are very large 12 were so large that the
specified by the EMF error bars for the voltage. higher voltage readings had
source. This was most likely overlapping error bars,
not an accurate suggesting they were not
representation of the statistically significant.
voltages, as a proper
measuring device was not
used.
Error Evidence of Error Reliability and Validity
3. Weak Magnet This is a random error which This would somewhat
As a relatively weak magnet is evidenced by the distance decrease the reliability of
was used for part A and part uncertainty and the the investigation as smaller
B, the distance between the imprecision of the mass distance measurements with
magnet and solenoid had to change readings. the same instrument
be kept small. decrease the imprecision.

Improvements
Improvement to Error 1: Turn the circuit off for a period after every trial so that circuitry heat
does not accumulate or use multiple identical solenoids to decrease time consumption. The
investigation could also be conducted in a temperature-controlled room, to further decrease
the effects of temperature on resistance.
Improvement to Error 2: Use the PASCO current sensor to measure the current. This is
beneficial because it is a more direct measurement (rather than measuring voltage and
assuming that voltage and current is proportional by Ohm’s law), and it is a more precise
measuring instrument than a power source.
Improvement to Error 3: A stronger magnet should be used as the greater magnetic force
would allow larger distance increments to be measured at. Furthermore, the greater
magnetic force would allow for more precise mass change reading.
Extension
To extend on this investigation, the magnetising ability of solenoids could be further
investigated by considering the effects of the medium on the magnetic flux density of the
field produced. In particular, as different mediums would also react differently to increased
heat, a potential investigation may explore the relationship between the medium of a
solenoid and the magnetic flux density of the created magnetic field at a constant, high
temperature. This extension would be of high utility because its findings may further
revolutionise electro-pneumatic brakes as they must operate at high temperatures of up to
600 °C (Günay, Erdi Korkmaz, & Özmen, 2019), and finding the most optimal medium for a
solenoid would assist in the optimisation of the braking system through increasing the
solenoid’s potential magnetic field strength and efficiency.

IV REFERENCES
Arfken, G. B., Griffing, D. F., Kelly, D. C., & Priest, J. (1984). MAGNETIC PROPERTIES OF
MATTER. International Edition University Physics.
BrainKart. (n.d.). Magnetic field due to a long current carrying solenoid. Retrieved May 11,
2022, from BrainKart: https://www.brainkart.com/article/Magnetic-field-due-to-a-long-
current-carrying-solenoid_38470/
Callaghan, E. E., & Maslen, S. H. (1960). THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF A FINITE SOLENOID.
Washington, United States of America: NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

12
 ADMINISTRATION. Retrieved January 4, 2022, from
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19980227402/downloads/19980227402.pdf
Dirac, P. A. (1948, October 1). The Theory of Magnetic Poles. Physical Review, 74(7), 817-
830. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.817
Günay, M., Erdi Korkmaz, M., & Özmen, R. (2019, July 9). An investigation on braking
systems used in railway vehicles. Retrieved from ScienceDirect:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221509861931496X
Kabib, M., Batan, I., Pramujati, B., & Sigit, A. (2016, February). MODELLING AND
SIMULATION ANALYSIS OF SOLENOID VALVE FOR SPRING CONSTANT
INFLUENCE TO DYNAMIC RESPONSE. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, 11(4). Retrieved January 4, 2022, from
www.arpnjournals.org/jeas/research_papers/rp_2016/jeas_0216_3722.pdf
Liang, M.-L., & Wang, T. (2015, October 8). Calculating the magnetic field of the infinite
solenoid and understanding the Ampere circuital law from the magnetic field of
moving charges. European Journal of Physics, 36(6).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/36/6/065043
Majumdar, P. (2013). EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF COULOMB’S LAW IN
MAGNETISM USING THE CONCEPT. The Experiment, 13(3), 847-852. Retrieved
January 9, 2022, from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Priyadarshi-Majumdar/publication/
259692788_EXPERIMENTAL_VERIFICATION_OF_COULOMB'S_LAW_IN_MAGNE
TISM_USING_THE_CONCEPT_OF_STATIC_FRICTION/links/
00b7d52d58dd179232000000/EXPERIMENTAL-VERIFICATION-OF-COULOMBS-
LAW-IN-MAGNET
Najjari, B., Barakati, M., Mohammad, A., Futohi, M. J., & Bostanian, M. (2014). Position
control of an electro-pneumatic system based on PWM technique and FLC. ISA
Transactions, 53(2), 647-657. doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2013.12.023.
Tenny, K. M., & Keenaghan, M. (2017, July 20). Ohms Law. Retrieved from Europe PMC:
https://europepmc.org/article/NBK/nbk441875

13