Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May 2012
Kristian Ballabani
May 2012
Abstract
Electromagnetism is present everywhere in our everyday life. One of these
electromagnetic phenomena is Eddy currents. An interesting use of Eddy
currents in everyday life is what is called the Eddy current braking. This essay
investigates the relationship between voltage across a coil that is
producing a magnetic field, and the time it takes for an aluminium
sheet oscillating through the field to be brought to a stop.
In order to acquire accurate data, a lot of time measurements were taken at
different voltages. Pendulums made of aluminium, with slots cut on them were
used and their size was kept the same throughout the experiment. Lubricant oil
and a bearing were also used to reduce friction.
The analysed results and the graphs plotted from the data collected show a
decrease of the decaying time when the voltage increases. Secondly, an increase
of the decaying time is shown whilst an increase of the number of slots on the
aluminium sheets occurs. The decaying time decreases exponentially when the
voltage across the coil is increased. This statement was proven throughout the
investigation. Moreover, a slower brake arises when the number of slots
increases.
The decrease in the decaying time is due to stronger magnetic fields, inducing
stronger currents that oppose the motion of the pendulum. These stronger
magnetic fields occur at higher voltages. The slots do not allow the Eddy currents
to form, thus making the damping effects weaker- weaker damping means a
bigger decaying time.
My extended essay gives a full analysis of the data and presents two different
proofs to support my argument; it also presents a more detailed conclusion and
evaluation of the investigation.
May 2012
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Chris Vaudin, the Atlantic College laboratory technician, who
helped me with setting up the equipment for my experiment.
I would also like to thank Gabor Vincze, my Physics teacher, for all his support
and guidance throughout the development of my extended essay.
May 2012
Content
Abstract
..
Acknowledgements
Introduction
.
Theoretical
background
..
Experimental setup
a. The
equipment
..
b. The
variables
c. The experimental
procedure...................................................................................
Hypothesis
Analysis of raw
data
..
a. Theoretical
proof
..
b. The data-based
proof
Conclusion
.
Evaluation
.
Bibliography
Pa
ge
2
3
5
5
9
9
9
10
12
12
13
14
May 2012
..
Appendix
..
14
May 2012
1. Introduction
Electromagnetism is one of the most common phenomena in our everyday life. It
is found everywhere, in electric motors, sound systems, electromagnets,
computers and many other products. In 1831, a famous scientist called Michael
Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction. This discovery enabled
technology to expand in a new direction. His discovery stated that any change of
the magnetic flux through a loop will induce an emf and a current within the
circuit. Faradays discovery, however, did not determine the direction of these
currents.
In 1834, after much observation and experimentation, Heinrich Friedrich Lenz
discovered a simple rule. Lenzs law states that: The direction of any magnetic
induction effect is such as to oppose the cause of the effect1. Lenzs law is valid
for circuits, loops and wires, and also applies to currents which are set up on
sheets of a conductive material. The direction of the magnetic field created
around these currents opposes the change in magnetic flux. These currents flow
in either two or three dimensions, and resemble swirling eddies in a river- which
is the reason they are called eddy currents.
The presence of Eddy currents in the iron core of electromagnetic devices
reduces the efficiency of these devices by a considerable amount. Despite the
downside caused by this phenomenon, these currents can also be used
beneficially. Eddy currents are often used in metal detectors, as well as being
utilised as an efficient, and relatively low cost way to bring large vehicles such as
trains, trucks and Formula 1 cars to a braking stop. A very common experiment
in Physics, is investigating the Eddy current damping effect on a pendulum, this
is also known as the Waltenhofen pendulum- which is composed of a physical
pendulum made of a non-ferromagnetic, conducting material, such as aluminum,
which is set swinging between the poles of a strong magnet. What is interesting
is how the pendulum comes to a stop in a relatively short period of time.
However, when slots are cut from the pendulum, the damping effect becomes
much smaller, and is only detected in very strong magnetic fields and high
currents.
Although I have read about this experiment in many Physics books, I never
managed to gather further information about this phenomenon; and so I decided
that in this essay, I will investigate the relationship between voltage
across the electromagnet being used in the experiment, and the
stopping time of the pendulum.
2. Theoretical Background2
May 2012
Where is the electromotive force and B is the magnetic flux. The next
question is the direction of the induced emf. Observations and experiments led
into a simple rule discovered Heinrich Friedrich Lenz in 1834. Lenzs law states
that: The direction of any magnetic induction effect is such as to oppose the
cause of the effect. The cause of the effect may be a changing magnetic flux in
a stationary conductor due to a varying magnetic field, changing flux due to
motion of the conductors that make up the circuit or any combination. If the flux
change is due to motion of the conductors, the direction of the induced current in
the moving conductor is such that the direction of the magnetic field force on the
conductor is opposite direction to its motion. Thus, the motion of the conductor is
opposed.
Many pieces of electrical equipment contain masses of metal moving in magnetic
fields or located in changing magnetic fields. Thus we have induced currents
that circulate through the metal. As mentioned before, these currents resemble
the swirling eddies in a river, we call them Eddy currents. Through Lenzs law, we
can determine the direction of Eddy currents. The direction of Eddy currents is
that it opposes the change in magnetic flux. Thus, the motion of conductors is
opposed. We call this phenomenon Eddy current damping. As an example we
can take a metallic disk rotating between the poles of a magnet with the
magnetic field being perpendicular to the plane of the disk.
2 Hugh D. Young, Roger A. Freedman, University Physics, Massachusetts: AddisonWesley, pp. 941-958
May 2012
Figure 13
Sector Ob is moving across the field and has an induced emf in it. Sectors Oa and
Oc are not in the field but provide conducting paths for charges displaced along
sector Ob. The result is the formation of Eddy currents in the disk as shown in
figure a. We can use Lenzs law to determine the direction of the currents. The
current must experience a force F=I x l x B that opposes the motion of the disk
so it must be to the right. Using the right hand rule we can find out that I has a
downward direction. (Figure B) The interaction between the Eddy currents and
the field causes a braking action on the disk. The motion is stopped very quickly.
However, when slots are cut from the disk the braking effect is smaller. This
happens because the slots do not allow the eddy currents to circulate in the
conducting material.
3. Experimental Setup
a.Equipment
In my experiment, I used the Waltenhofen pendulum, which is a piece of
equipment composed of an aluminium sheet (the pendulum itself), a coil and a
U-shaped iron core which is placed through the coil. On top of the iron core,
there are two cone-shaped conductors that concentrate the magnetic field- the
pendulum runs between these two conductors. In order to accomplish my
3 Hugh D. Young, Roger A. Freedman, University Physics, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley, pp. 957-958
8
May 2012
Figure 2
b.The Variables
May 2012
May 2012
well. It is hard to believe that cutting slots into an aluminum sheet would cause a
considerable difference in mass, but aluminum is a relatively dense material, and
the sheets used were quite thick, thus increasing the difference in mass
variation. In order to minimize friction, I used a bearing and lubricant oil;
however, this variable was ignored during the experiment since it does not affect
the strength of the Eddy currents.
4.Hypothesis
By looking at the graphs that I plotted from the raw data and their trend, I
formulated the hypothesis: The mathematical relationship between the
voltage across the coil and the decaying time is exponential. The
decaying time decreases exponentially while voltage across the coil
increases. I made the assumption that this relationship would be similar to the
one described by the following equation
decaying time=a nV
Where
and n are constants and V is the voltage across the coil. This
May 2012
F=qv B ,
where v is the velocity of the charge (assuming S.I. units) and B is the magnetic
field strength. This force is proportional to the velocity and perpendicular to the
magnetic field, and thus it is also perpendicular to the velocity.
Since the force is perpendicular to the velocity of the charge, it does no work on
the charge. Nonetheless, collisions between the accelerated charges and the
4 See Appendix
5 See Appendix
12
May 2012
surrounding material cause a transfer of kinetic energy of the metal into thermal
energy. Since the induced motion is proportional to the velocity of the plate with
respect to the applied magnetic field, Eddy currents cause a damping force that
is proportional to the velocity:
coefficient
dv
=bv , where m is the mass of the pendulum and
dt
dv /dt
is the
acceleration.
This equation can be rewritten as following:
dv
=v where is
dt
b/m . This
dv=v dt
1
dv= dt
v
1
v dv= dt
ln ( v ) =t
v ( t )=et
We now have the velocity as a function of time. These equations would perfectly
describe the motion of a conductor in a straight line through the magnetic field.
The motion of the pendulum is complicated to describe mathematically for two
reasons: first, the velocity of the pendulum is constantly changing sinusoidally,
and second, the pendulum moves because of gravity. In order to simplify my
problem, I will have to ignore these two facts. It is crucial to notice that the
decaying time (the time I am investigating) and the time appearing in the
equations above are not the same. The decaying time is the time it takes for the
pendulum to be brought to a rest, and the time appearing in the equation is the
time during which the charges move in the magnetic field. Following the
assumption above, lets continue the proof.
The velocity decreases exponentially as the time increases. As I want to prove
that the decaying time decreases exponentially as the voltage increases, I am
going to differentiate the velocity equation with respect to time. The derivative of
the velocity with respect to time expresses the acceleration as a function of time
and .
13
May 2012
dv
= et
dt
The crucial argument in attempting to prove my hypothesis is displayed as
follows:
We can deduce from the previous equation, that the acceleration changes
exponentially, and that the larger the negative acceleration, the faster it will take
for the aluminium sheet to be brought to a rest- therefore the decaying time will
be smaller.
The acceleration is directly proportional to , with this in mind we can deduce
that is proportional to the voltage; and therefore, the higher the voltage, the
larger the negative acceleration and the smaller the decaying time. The fact that
acceleration changes exponentially and is proportional to the voltage implies
that the graph of voltage vs. time will be exponential. This brings us to the
conclusion that: The decaying time decreases exponentially with the
increase of the voltage going through the coil.
I did not find this proof to be enough to fully support my argument due to the
assumptions made, and so I used the data that I collected to further support my
hypothesis:
going to use to prove this relationship is called the logarithm analysis method.
To accomplish this, I am going to take the logarithms of both sides of the
equation as shown below:
log ( T ) =log ( a nV )
log ( T ) =log ( a ) +V log ( n )
I then plotted a voltage V vs. log (T) graph. The condition now becomes: If this
graph is a straight line, then it means that this relationship is exponential. After
plotting the graphs6, I analyzed them, drew the best-fit lines, and calculated the
gradients and the constants for each of the graphs. It is obvious that all the
graphs are straight lines showing linear functions with a negative gradient, this
proves my hypothesis that: The relationship between the voltage across
the coil and the decaying time is an exponential relationship. However,
this does not give a full mathematical description of this relationship.
6 See Appendix- these graphs are displayed in the appendix under the name:
Transformed graphs used for log analysis
14
May 2012
6.Conclusion
According to the data collected alongside the graphs and observations made,
one would conclude the following:
7.Evaluation
I would say that in general, my investigation went quite well. I had to make my
own pendulums and create my own methods of collecting and analysing the data
I collected. Furthermore, I managed to prove my hypothesis concerning the
exponential relationship between voltage and decaying time, unfortunately, I did
not find an exact mathematical relationship between these variables.
I encountered problems and faced difficulties throughout my investigation,
mostly during the experimental procedures. While writing this essay, I described
these issues, and the methods I explored to solve them, so to carry on with my
investigation, a summary of these issues can be found in the following
paragraphs.
Some of the practical difficulties I experienced include:
The unequal frictional forces between the steel axle and the pendulums I usedtechnically the decaying time when no magnetic force is applied, should be the
same for all the pendulums. However, the difference of the decaying time of the
pendulum no. 1, with zero slots, and pendulum no. 4, with 5 slots, is quite
significant. This occurrence was due to the variation of the mass of the
aluminium strips I used- based on the number of slots they had. Since mass is
directly proportional to frictional force, the frictional force was bound to change.
In theory, the frictional force should have decreased when using the pendulums
with smaller masses; however, the decaying time when the voltage is zero, is
actually decreasing. This led to me to believe that the mass affects the motion
of the pendulum, but ultimately it does not. I did not concentrate on this issue,
since my focus was to find the relationship between voltage and decaying time.
If I was to redo the experimental stage of my investigation, I would use light15
May 2012
weight pendulums that consist of a metallic rod connected at the end, to a small,
thin, metallic sheet which would have facilitated the practicality of my
experiment.
The theoretical issues I experienced include:
A significant theoretical issue I encountered was following a method which was
incorrect, while trying to find the relationship between voltage and decaying
time. I was also using a graphing program to find the function that fit the points I
had graphed, without realizing that the software automatically fits every function
with the points, not necessarily giving the correct equation.
Concerning the method, there are certain issues I encountered in my theoretical
proof that I feel need mentioning. My equations did not adequately describe the
motion of a pendulum, and I also ignored the force of gravity and its effect on the
pendulum. Therefore, I had to think of an alternative way to support my
argument- and I made use of the logarithm analysis method in order to prove the
relationship I was investigating.
Ideally, I would have had access to more modern equipment, but as my supplies
were limited to what was available to me in my schools laboratory,
unfortunately, I had to make due with slightly out-of-date equipment. I would
have also benefitted from having more time to further investigate this topic,
through further experimentation in order to find an exact mathematical
relationship between voltage and decaying time. I hope I will have the
opportunity to complete my investigation into this topic later on in university.
8.Bibliography
UNIVERSITY PHYSICS HUGH D. YOUNG ROGER A. FREEDMAN ADDISONWESLEY PUBLISHING COMPANY INC. 1996 USA
http://www.ussdiscovery.com/30_16_Eddy_currents.jpg 07/10/2011
07:47
http://www.physics.hmc.edu What makes things tick? 07/10/2011
07:47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiometer
Experiments with eddy current: the eddy current brake Manuel I Gonz
alez
Departamento de Fsica, Universidad de Burgos, 09006 Burgos, Spain
Published 20 April 2004
Online at stacks.iop.org/EJP/25/463 (DOI: 10.1088/01430807/25/4/001)
16
May 2012
9. Appendix
a. THE RAW DATA COLLECTED FROM THE EXPERIMENT
Voltage 5V
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
41.54
38.73
33.60
31.82
28.25
25.62
24.04
20.12
18.67
17.25
15.66
14.37
42.63
36.72
32.78
31.78
28.49
26.47
24.17
21.00
18.69
16.62
16.03
14.17
43.15
35.52
33.78
31.59
28.85
26.48
23.97
21.35
18.99
17.25
15.57
14.39
Average time
1s
42.44
36.99
33.39
31.73
28.53
26.19
24.06
21.00
18.78
17.04
15.75
14.31
17
260
12.59
12.84
May 2012
12.76
Voltage 5V
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
38.62
37.76
36.73
34.84
32.73
31.44
28.59
26.28
24.45
22.35
20.19
18.50
17.66
16.36
Voltage 5V
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
37.33
36.24
36.51
35.19
33.90
33.78
31.78
29.43
27.33
26.75
26.19
25.01
22.16
20.64
Voltage 5V
0
20
38.06
37.97
36.35
34.68
33.21
31.53
28.56
26.43
24.31
22.57
19.82
18.57
17.68
16.35
37.26
37.16
35.46
35.36
34.79
33.11
29.04
29.83
28.44
27.19
26.40
23.55
23.02
20.19
38.56
36.85
36.59
35.15
32.68
30.92
28.63
26.31
24.28
21.42
19.97
18.70
17.31
16.56
36.85
37.76
36.10
34.67
34.00
33.46
29.57
29.38
27.82
27.49
25.62
23.68
22.56
19.64
33.25
33.11
33.04
32.37
12.73
Average
time1s
38.41
37.52
36.56
34.89
32.87
31.30
28.59
26.34
24.35
22.11
19.99
18.59
17.55
16.42
Average
time1s
37.15
37.05
36.02
35.07
34.23
33.45
30.13
29.55
27.76
27.14
26.07
24.08
22.58
20.16
Average time
1s
33.17
32.76
18
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
32.04
31.84
32.10
31.50
31.05
31.32
28.34
28.74
28.16
27.09
26.63
26.09
32.56
32.44
31.53
31.59
31.16
29.01
29.03
28.26
27.78
27.19
26.38
25.92
May 2012
32.56
32.18
31.75
31.63
31.47
29.48
28.94
28.50
27.60
27.02
26.82
26.09
32.39
32.15
31.79
31.57
31.23
29.94
28.77
28.50
27.85
27.10
26.61
26.03
19
May 2012
20
May 2012
21
May 2012
22
May 2012
Pendulum
nr.
1
2
3
4
Nr. of slots
Mass (gr)
0
1
3
5
75.09
74.06
75.12
72.96
Height
(mm)
170
170
170
170
Length
(mm)
50
50
50
50
Width (mm)
3
3
3
3
23