Criterion C – Electromagne0sm Evalua0on Lab

Raw Data -

Charged Elapsed 6me taken for charged par6cle to exit a magne6c field in nanoseconds
Par6cle’s (±1)
Mass (amu) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trail 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
(±1)
3 511 509 512 506 509
6 985 987 993 984 995
9 1483 1481 1485 1485 1490
12 1980 1970 1976 1981 1989
15 2472 2468 2465 2464 2462

Processed Data Table –

Charged Par6cle’s Mass (amu) Average elapsed 6me over 5 Range of average elapsed 6me
(±1) trials (s) (±1) over 5 trials (s) (±1)
3 5.09 x 10-7 6 x 10-9
6 9.89 x 10-7 1.1 x 10-8
9 1.485 x 10-6 9 x 10-9
12 1.999 x 10-6 1.9 x 10-8
15 2.466 x 10-6 1.0 x 10-8

Percentage Error Calcula6ons –

Charged Average Theore6cal Maximum Percentage Error Calcula6on –

Par6cle’s Mass elapsed calcula6ons of the 6me taken by 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 − 𝑬𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍
𝑿 𝟏𝟎𝟎
(amu) (±1) 6me over 5 the par6cle to exit the magne6c 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍
trials (s) (±1) field aOer a 180° rota6on. (s) (± 0.01)
(±0.001)
3 5.090 x 10-7 !"($.&'() × (,!"# ) (4.884 x 10!" ) − (5.090 x 10!" )
T= X 100
((.),!(' × (,!$% )(,.!) (4.884 x 10!" )
T = (9.768 x 10-7) / 2 = 4.216 %
T = 4.884 x 10-7 seconds
6 9.890 x 10-7 !"(&.&).! × (,!"# ) (9.768 x 10!" ) − (9.890 x 10!" )
T= X 100
((.),!(' × (,!$% )(,.!) (9.768 x 10!" )
T = (1.954 x 10-6) / 2 = 1.248 %
T = 9.768 x 10-7 seconds
9 1.485 x 10-6 !"((.$&$/ × (,!"& ) (1.465 x 10!# ) − (1.485 x 10!# )
T= X 100
((.),!(' × (,!$% )(,.!) (1.465 x 10!# )
T = (2.930 x 10-6) / 2 = 1.365 %
T = (1.465 x 10-6) seconds
12 1.999 x 10-6 !"((.&&!) × (,!"& ) (1.954 x 10!# ) − (1.999 x 10!# )
T= X 100
((.),!(' × (,!$% )(,.!) (1.954 x 10!# )
T = (3.907 x 10-6) / 2 = 2.302 %
T = (1.954 x 10-6) seconds
15 2.466 x 10-6 !"(!.$&,' × (,!"& ) (2.442 x 10!# ) − (2.466 x 10!# )
T= X 100
((.),!(' × (,!$% )(,.!) (2.442 x 10!# )
T = (4.884 x 10-6) / 2 = 0.984 %
T = (2.442 x 10-6) seconds

Graph showing average elapsed 6me taken by the charged par6cle to exit the magne6c field.
Calcula6ng uncertainty error from graph –
(Maximum slope – minimum slope) / 2 = uncertainty error
(194.2 – 140.3) / 2
53.9/2 = 26.95

Therefore, the slope of the line of the best fit would be 163.5 ± 26.95.

Conclusion –
This experiment was conducted in an online simulaLon where a charged parLcle of masses of 3, 6, 9,
12 and 15 amu were fired at 200 km/s into a magneLc field with a strength of 200 mT to determine
how long it takes to exit the magneLc field aOer compleLng a semicircle pathway. From the data
collected it can be said that when the mass of the parLcle is smaller, the Lme taken for it to exit field is
also lower. As it can be seen when the mass is 3 amu it took an average of 509 ns compared to 2466 ns
when the mass was set to 15 amu. When the parLcle is lighter, it is able to travel the circular path at a
greater velocity which causes it to exit the field faster and the opposite when the parLcle is of greater
mass. This data supports the hypothesis made that when the charged parLcle has a greater mass it
exits the magneLc field slower compared to a parLcle with lower mass as there is a clear difference in
the Lme taken between a parLcle with 3 amu and 15 amu (“21.4: MoLon of a Charged ParLcle in a
MagneLc Field”). There are two main trends that can be observed from the average Lme taken for
each mass. Firstly, there is a gradual and almost equal increase from each increment meaning that the
Lme taken for each mass increases by almost 470 to 490 ns, this means that the mass and Lme taken
increase proporLonally. With every 3 amu of increase of the charged parLcle there is a 470 to 490
increase in the Lme taken for the next parLcle to exit the magneLc field. Another trend that can be
observed is that when the atomic mass doubles from 6 to 12 the elapsed Lme also doubles but not
accurately as it increases from 988.8 to 1979.2, as it can be that the elapsed Lme for 12 amu is a bit
more than double the elapsed Lme of 6 amu. This same trend can be seen for 3 amu to 6 amu as the
elapsed Lme increases from 509.9 to 988.8. The increment with the highest percentage error was
found out to be for the trials of the increment of 3 amu this is mainly because of the high difference
between the actual Lme taken and the theoreLcal Lme taken and from this a pa[ern can be seen that
when the amu is lower, the percentage error is the highest at 4.216% and as the amu becomes higher
the percentage error is the lowest for 15 amu at 0.984%. A percentage error of 2.023% is seen as
favorable since it shows that the measured or observed value is fairly close to the predicted or
theoreLcal value. The overall average percentage error is 2.023%. The measurement or observaLon
was likely accurate and exact if there was only a small percentage error. AddiLonally, it shows that the
predicted value is well-established and founded on trustworthy facts and hypotheses (BYJU’s). The
dataset has an average range of 11 ns which is excellent for this experiment as most of the data values
are in the thousands which makes it a really small range. In this data set, a narrow range denotes
values that are not considerably different from one another and are located close to one another. This
is advantageous as it indicates that the measuring or observaLon method was accurate, and that the
data is consistent and reliable. A small range can also make it simpler to spot pa[erns or trends in the
data since there are fewer outliers or extreme numbers to skew the study (TechTarget Contributor).
The graph's linear model displays an upward trend that is consistent with the theory, with an increase
in the y values (Elapsed Time) as the x values (Charge's Mass) grow. Given that the difference between
the minimum and maximum lines, which is approximately 26.95 which is moderately low when it
compares to the slope of the line of best fit as it is only about one-seventh of the slope. Because it
shows that the measurement or observaLon is more accurate and precise, this experiment benefits
from the low uncertainty error. When a measurement or observaLon has a low uncertainty error, it
suggests that there is a relaLvely narrow range of possible values for that measurement or
observaLon. Uncertainty is the degree of doubt or error that occurs in a measurement or observaLon
(“Pages - Advice for Teachers - Physics - Measurement in Science - Experimental Uncertainty and
Error”). As a result, it is more likely that the true value will fall within a small range surrounding the
measured value, increasing its reliability and usefulness for making predicLons or drawing inferences.
There are no anomalies in the data collected as it was collected through a simulaLon which provide
with very close results, and this can also be observed from the small range which was calculated. In
conclusion, the data gathered from the online simulaLon experiment is consistent with the hypothesis
that a charged parLcle's Lme to leave a magneLc field is longer for a parLcle with a higher mass than
for a parLcle with a lower mass. The experiment's limited range and minimal uncertainty error suggest
that the outcomes are precise, dependable, and consistent. The pa[erns in the data indicate that the
mass-dependent rise in the Lme required for the parLcle to leave the magneLc field. AddiLonally, the
percentage of error in the data set was low, demonstraLng the accuracy of the measurements or
observaLons and the reliability of the anLcipated values.

Evalua6on –

Source of Uncertainty Impact on the reliability of the Improvements to avoid this

results
The simulaLon gives results The simulaLon was
based on a computer algorithm programmed with different
and not on actual formulas parameters to provide the most
related to the mass, magnitude accurate results, but this causes
and speed of the charge or the it to give some random results
strength of the field. as not all the results provided
by it are close to the theoreLcal
maximum that is calculated.
This makes the results
unreliable as they are not true
to their actual value and will be
oOen incorrect values
(“ChatGPT”).
Clicking the stop bu[on by When the stop bu[on is clicked
mistake or too early without before the simulaLon is
allowing the charged parLcle to actually completed, it forces
exit the magneLc field on its the simulaLon to stop which
own aOer compleLng the path. gives an incorrect Lme as the
parLcle has not completely
exited the field. This will make
the data unreliable as the
results which should be
collected are that when the
parLcle completely leaves the
field, and the Lme stops
automaLcally.
uncertainty
I simulaLon could be used
which not only has visual aid of
the parLcle exiLng the
magneLc field but also provides
accurate results of the Lme the
parLcles takes to exit based on
the theoreLcal formula and not
based on computer algorithms
which are random and
unreliable.
I should wait paLently unLl the
simulaLon ends automaLcally
and I can make sure to remove
my mouse from the ‘Stop’
bu[on to ensure that the I
don’t click it by mistake
unknowingly.
 Changing the parameters by
clicking on the arrows by
mistake.
Since each click on the arrows
can easily change the
parameter that will cause a
difference in the Lme the
parLcle takes to exit the field it
will impact the reliability as the
results will be incorrect as the
parameters would be wrong.
Before each trial I would just
make sure that all the
parameters are set properly
and I will refrain from using my
cursor too much or clicking too
much.

The method provided reliable and accurate results that answered the research quesLon that ‘To what
extent does increasing the charged parLcle’s atomic mass (3, 6, 9, 12, 15 amu) with charge of 1e which
is fired at 200000 m/s affect the Lme taken (seconds) for it to exit a magneLc field with a charge of (+)
and field strength of 200 mT?’. There are various benefits to employing this simulaLon in this research,
which is one of the strengths of the experiment because it uses a simulaLon to get the results. First of
all, this simulaLon enables a controlled and repeatable environment, which can be challenging to
establish in a physical experiment due to outside factors that can easily affect the results, lowering the
accuracy and reliability of the data that would have been gathered. Second, by simulaLng a complex
phenomenon of a charged parLcle in a magneLc field, which is difficult or impossible to see in actual
experiments, this simulaLon is able to provide insight into the phenomenon. Last but not least, the
simulaLon is automaLc and computer algorithm based, allowing for quick findings in contrast to a
real-world experiment (“Advantages and Disadvantages - Modelling and SimulaLon - KS3 ICT Revision -
BBC Bitesize”). However, simulaLons of charged parLcles in magneLc fields have some limitaLons. The
same outcomes are not always produced by simulaLons due to computaLonal constraints. This is
owing to limitaLons in simulaLon soOware, which might not be able to accurately reproduce all of the
complex behavior of charged parLcles under actual circumstances. As a result, the simulaLon's
accuracy might be constrained in some circumstances. The simulaLon parameters could
unintenLonally change, which is another issue with simulaLons. When running simulaLons,
researchers must take care to ensure that the parameters are consistent because this can result in
significant volaLlity in the results obtained. An unstable simulaLon might result from any deviaLon
from the parameters that have been set. There is a limit on the number of parameters that can be
employed in simulaLons. This is because simulaLons use a lot of computer resources, and the longer it
takes to calculate anything, the more complex the simulaLon is. This limits both the complexity of the
simulaLons that can be done as well as the number of parameters that can be employed in them. This
is a limitaLon because it prevents the experimenter from obtaining more diverse data and from having
more opportunity to learn about any pa[erns that could be present in the data. Consequently, there
are a variety of benefits and drawbacks to simulaLng charged parLcles in magneLc fields. Even though
they are oOen easy to use and produce reliable results if the serngs are carefully managed,
simulaLons can be limited by algorithmic restricLons, inadvertent parameter changes, and compuLng
constraints. In conclusion, charged parLcle simulaLons are a useful tool for understanding the
behavior of charged parLcles in magneLc fields since their advantages exceed their disadvantages.
owing to the educaLonal potenLal of this research, which enables instructors to instruct pupils in the
fundamentals of physics while explaining parLcle accelerators and their funcLoning (“ChatGPT”).

Extension –
The length of Lme it takes for the charged parLcle to leave the field could be affected by changing the
magneLc field's strength, which could be done as an extension of this experiment. The charged
parLcle's velocity, trajectory, and exit Lme may all be changed by varying the magneLc field's
strength. This also affects how long it takes for the charged parLcle to leave the field. A fuller
comprehension of the connecLon between the strength of the magneLc field and the acLons of
charged parLcles in the field can be gained by extending this idea. This can also be a helpful inquiry for
applicaLons like magneLc confinement fusion or parLcle accelerators, where magneLc fields are very
important for the behavior of charged parLcles. The design and opLmizaLon of applicaLons like
magneLc confinement fusion and parLcle accelerators, where magneLc fields are essenLal to the
behavior of charged parLcles, can be done with the use of this knowledge. The creaLon of novel
magneLc storage systems, magneLc levitaLon systems, and medical imaging technologies can all
benefit from an understanding of how magneLc field strength affects charged parLcles.
 Works Cited

“21.4: Motion of a Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field.” Physics LibreTexts, 3 Sept. 2018,

phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_Physics_(Boundless)/21%3A_

Magnetism/21.4%3A_Motion_of_a_Charged_Particle_in_a_Magnetic_Field. Accessed 9 Apr.

2023.

Admin. “Percent Error - Definition, Formula, and Solved Examples.” BYJUS, BYJU’S, 6 Jan. 2020,

byjus.com/maths/percent-

error/#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20calculating%20the,a%20positive%20or%20negative

%20value. Accessed 9 Apr. 2023.

“Advantages and Disadvantages - Modelling and Simulation - KS3 ICT Revision - BBC Bitesize.”

BBC Bitesize, 2023,

www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zyqfr82/revision/3#:~:text=A%20model%20or%20simulation%

20is,aren’t%20the%20real%20thing. Accessed 9 Apr. 2023.

“ChatGPT.” Openai.com, 2023, chat.openai.com/chat/4bb7c1bf-c65a-4587-8d43-1d1975ab484e.

Accessed 9 Apr. 2023.

“Force on a Moving Charge in a Magnetic Field: Examples and Applications | Physics.”

Lumenlearning.com, 2023, courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/22-5-force-on-a-

moving-charge-in-a-magnetic-field-examples-and-applications/. Accessed 9 Apr. 2023.

“Pages - Advice for Teachers - Physics - Measurement in Science - Experimental Uncertainty and

Error.” Vic.edu.au, 2019, www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/curriculum/vce/vce-study-

designs/Physics/advice-for-

teachers/Pages/MeasurementinScienceExperimentalUncertaintyandError.aspx#:~:text=Error%2

C%20from%20a%20scientific%20measurement,associated%20with%20a%20measurement%2

0result. Accessed 9 Apr. 2023.

TechTarget Contributor. “Statistical Mean, Median, Mode and Range.” Data Center, TechTarget,

2023, www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/definition/statistical-mean-median-mode-and-

range#:~:text=Range%2C%20which%20is%20the%20difference,if%20the%20range%20was%

20small. Accessed 9 Apr. 2023.