Reviewed by Rohan

Millikan’s Oil Drop Experiment

Introduction

In 1897, J.J. Thompson conducted a study of electrical discharges in gases.

He discovered the charge to mass ratio of the electron by using magnetic fields. Thompson found that if he made
the magnetic field act on the moving electron in a way that the magnetic force on the electron was equal and
opposite to the gravitational force, he could determine what the charge to mass ratio was for the electron.
However, he was unable to determine either quantity independently from each other.
Later, in 1910, Millikan conceived of a new method to measure the charge of the electron alone.
He attached (removed) electrons to (from) oil droplets. The mass of these droplets could be determined
independently. If Millikan found out how many charges were on the oil droplet and if he could determine the mass
of the oil drop, then charge to mass ratio could easily be calculated and hence determine the charge of the electron.
To do this,
Millikan would send the charged oil droplets through a parallel plate capacitor, turned on an electric field and
observed how their motion would be affected. The droplet, which would normally fall downward due to gravity,
could now “fall” upward. Millikan used this interesting technique to figure out a value for the charge that is very
close to the accepted value today (he did not correctly account for the viscosity of air, which made a very small
difference in the algebra). Before the correction, Millika’s value for the electron’s charge was 1.5924(17) x 10−19
coulombs. Today, after properly accounting for the viscosity of air, the accepted value is 1.60217653(14) x 10−19
coulombs.
The purpose of this experiment is to determine the charge of the electron. An attempt will be made by
analyzing the motion of charged oil drops through electric fields and observe how their motion is affected with the
addition of an electric force. By observing the change in the motion, the charge on the oil droplet the velocity of the
oil droplet can be measured, and from that, the charge on the electron itself can be determined.

Data:
Temperature vs. Resistance

45

40

35

30
Temperature (Celcius)

25

20
y = 117.96e-0.7659x
2
R = 0.9983
15

10 2
y = 7.4996x - 50.97x + 97.369
2
R = 0.9968
5

0
1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
Resistance (Mega ohms)

Figure 2. Graph shows the corresponding temperature for a measured resistance.

 Step Chart: Charge vs. Drop #
(with measured uncertainty)

2.08E-18

1.92E-18

1.76E-18

1.60E-18

1.44E-18

1.28E-18
Charge (Coulombs)

1.12E-18

9.60E-19

8.00E-19

6.40E-19

4.80E-19

3.20E-19

1.60E-19

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Drop #

Figure 3 Graph shows the measured charge of each drop with an uncertainty determined by the measured values.

Step Chart: Charge vs. Drop #

(with statistical error bars)

2.08E-18

1.92E-18

1.76E-18

1.60E-18

1.44E-18

1.28E-18
Charge (Coulombs)

1.12E-18

9.60E-19

8.00E-19

6.40E-19

4.80E-19

3.20E-19

1.60E-19

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Drop #

Figure 4 Graph shows the charge of the drop as well as the uncertainty determined statistically.

Conclusion:

The objective of this experiment was to determine the charge of an elementary charged particle (e). Based
on the data collected, two values were determined which deviated by 4.28% from each other. The values
determined were: 1.627x10-19 ± 6.50x10-20Coulombs and
1.557x10-19 ± 6.50x10-20 Coulombs which deviated from the accepted value of 1.60217646x10 -19 Coulombs by 1.6%
and 2.8% respectively. The accuracy of the determined value could have been improved if the time allowed to
perform the experiment was extended. With more time, better technique could have been attained and a larger
statistical sampling of data could have been gathered. Another factor that could have affected the results was the
lack of stability in the apparatus. The apparatus had a weak support system, which could have altered the direction
in which the droplet was moving. Consequently, the measured values for time and radius may have been affected.
This experiment could be improved by enlarging the view screen of the apparatus. This would minimize the
uncertainty in the measurement of the displacement of the droplet. Also, an increase in stability for the apparatus
would prevent droplets from moving horizontally.
The instructions could be improved by including more specific instruction on how to use the ionization
switch and the procedure of taking measurement. For example, the instructions should explain that the ionization
of a droplet must be changed while the electric field on. The lab packet should also include that once the ionization
of the droplet has been observed to have changed the switch should then be turned off to prevent continual
changes in the ionization of the droplet. The packet should also emphasize the importance of taking multiple
measurements of the same drop. This statement is given in the last sentence of the packet and could be easily
overlooked. Instead, this fact should be placed somewhere toward the beginning of the procedure.
Overall, the experiment was a good method of confirming the accepted value of an elementary charge.

1. Is the purpose of the paper clearly established? What is the audience?

Yes, the purpose is clearly established. The audience can be high school physics students.
2. Is there an adequate structure to the paper? If not, how can this be improved?
The paper structure is adequate.
3. What do you see as the writer’s main point?
The main point is how the experiment can be improved by allowing more time, better stability,
and an enlarged view screen of the apparatus.
4. Which parts of the paper interest you the most? Why?
The introduction part is most interesting as it explains the history of the initial study of the
discharge of gases.
5. Where do you feel you would like more detail or explanation? Where do you need less?
The introduction can be shortened by a few lines. The conclusion can be shortened by
removing the factors affecting the result and putting it under a note section to make the
conclusion more precise.

6. Do you find any parts unclear, confusing, or undeveloped? Add a comment to address each
instance.

The factors mentioned in the conclusion can be mentioned as a separate note to avoid
confusion.

7. Does the paper end with a good conclusion? How can it be improved?
The conclusion overlaps with the factors affecting the result. Making a separate note of the
factors can improve the conclusion.
Reviewed by Rohan

Past Projects: Sputter Coater Analysis

Vinny Nguyen

CHE 200: Research Methods

Dr. Yanika Schneider

February 3, 2023
Introduction:

Scanning electron microscopes or SEMs are versatile metrological instrumental tools that can
provide nanoscale-level information about a wide range of samples. Including but not limited to,
ceramics, metals, alloys, polymers, semiconductors, and even biological samples. However,
some samples have low conductivity and thus have a low signal-to-noise ratio during SEM
imaging. Therefore a sputter coat is needed to increase the signal-to-noise ratio increasing the
conductivity albeit at the cost of applying a thin film layer on top of the sample.

These samples that would require such a need would be beam-sensitive samples like biological
samples or plastics but also would be non-conductive materials. Sometimes silicon wafers need
to be sputter coated as the surface of the material acts like an electron trap. As seen in Fig. 1a.
the accumulation of electrons on the surface causes extra-white regions on the sample causing
the measurements of layer features of something like a silicon coupon to be unable to be
measured or imaged. Therefore, sputter coating is used to act as a channel that allows the
charging electrons to be removed from the material allowing then for the silicon coupon to be
image as seen in Fig. 1b.

Figure 1. (a) An uncoated sample displaying the “charging” layer or otherwise the extra-white
regions that distorts the imaging capabilities of the SEM.
(b) The same sample in the same region coated with iridium shortly after showing a distinct
pattern.

As mentioned before, a thin film layer will be applied on top of the sample’s surface mitigating
the effects of these charging electrons. However, how thick that layer is varies from sputter
coater machine to sputter coater machine and the target (the material used to coat the sample)
will change that level of thickness as well. Therefore, the goal of this laboratory project is to
understand how thick of a layer is being applied to a silicon coupon. Allowing then engineers to
more accurately measure their intended features.

Methods:

The main goal of this laboratory project was to see the level of thickness a set of three sputter
coaters (as seen in Figure 2) were giving on a day-to-day operational basis. Denton, the
manufacturer of the sputter coater, does not provide or test the thickness of their machines thus
can vary widely from machine to machine. In this case a Denton Desk V, a Denton Desk IV, and
a Denton Desk II was used. Using a standard operating condition of 30mA and for a duration of
30 second blank silicon coupons were coated. Each coater has their respective “target” or sputter
coat material used, namely iridium and a 60:40 gold palladium mix. Both have their intended use
case scenario with iridium being more commonly used as it gives a lighter coat. To compensate
for general mechanical wear of the coater, three sets of blank coupons were coated on a week
apart from each other. Blank silicon coupons were cut into the general dimensions of 5mm by
5mm +/- 1mm from the same base silicon wafer.

Figure 2. The three Denton Coaters used for iridium and gold/palladium coating of silicon
coupons.

After the coating of the blank coupons were performed, imaging of these silicon wafer samples
was performed with a Hitachi Regulus SEM machine. Certain properties like the Hitachi’s cold
trap were not used in this experiment as the beam is already ran on a cold field emission.
Conditions such as a 5 mm working distance (the distance between the sample and the beam
interaction), SE(U) detector (the upper secondary electron detector), and at 5kV (the beam
energy) were all set to this parameter throughout to give a consistent reading. The silicon
coupons were then imaged at a horizontal base angle at 200kX magnification and then tilted to
90 degrees in order to achieve a profile view 200kX and 300kX magnification. Measurements of
the layer coats were done with the manual functionality recording by Quartz PCI at multiple
points primarily in profile views of the coated blank coupon as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The measurement of layer thickness of the gold/palladium coat at different coating
parameters of 50 mA and 30 seconds.
Results and Discussion:

Two of the three coaters tested, both used an iridium target. However, shared different results in
thickness of coats. Iridium coater 1 had a layer thickness average of 4.233nm, iridium coater 2
had a layer thickness of 3.440 nm. The last coater having a gold and palladium target had an
average thickness of 4.762 nm.

The experimental values were analogous to the theoretical predictions of the iridium coatings to
be lighter than that of the gold and palladium. However, the discrepancy between iridium coater
1 and iridium coater 2 showed that difference in efficacy of the sputter coater machine models.
The experimental layer thickness increase between the iridium coater 2 to iridium coater 1
though showing a large increase from one to other, still was not a large enough concern to
warrant stopping the usage of the tool for future coatings of any customer related coupons.

Another added aspect of this project was also to see the ease of imageability in the SEM imaging
of the silicon coupons. The thicker the coating tend to give more visual clarity for imaging and
thereby further decreasing lead times in imaging these coupons as well.

Future projects were to be conducted on the basis of changing the coating parameters such as
varying the current and the time spent coating. This would theoretically showcase initially a
parabolic effect in the thickness of the coat but later would be more of a stagnant line due to the
efficacy of the coat being lessened as the results of a high current coat would display the same
efficacy as a lighter coat ran on a longer period of time.

1. Is the purpose of the paper clearly established? What is the audience?

Yes, the paper of the paper is clearly established. The audience is physics researchers.
2. Is there an adequate structure to the paper? If not, how can this be improved?
The structure is adequate, but it is difficult to understand.
3. What do you see as the writer’s main point?
The higher thickness gives more clarity for imaging and reduces the lead time in
imaging.
4. Which parts of the paper interest you the most? Why?
Changing the current and time spent on coating. Initially, the curve is parabolic w.r.t
thickness and then becomes stagnant.

5. Where do you feel you would like more detail or explanation? Where do you need
less?
I think a more detailed explanation is required for the methods used for a general
audience.
6. Do you find any parts unclear, confusing, or undeveloped? Add a comment to address
each instance.

More explanation is needed for the method section as it is too technical to understand.

7. Does the paper end with a good conclusion? How can it be improved?
The conclusion is good but the method explained is a bit short and difficult to
understand.