Contents

 Abstract
 Introduction
 Experimental approach
 Data analysis
 Results
 Error analysis
 Discussion and conclusion
 References

Abstract
Be brief: state the conceptual goal of the experiment, the approach, the result and the conclusion.
The purpose of an abstract is to provide enough information to the reader that he or she can decide
whether to read the rest of the article.
We used the classical method of Millikan to measure the charge of the electron. Small charged oil
droplets were observed to move with constant velocities under the influence of gravity and of
applied electric fields of known values. From the measured velocities of the droplets, the charge on
each drop was deduced. From the resulting charges a common quantum of charge was found. The
resulting value for the electronic charge was found to be (1.53 +/- .2) x 10 -19 C, lower than the
accepted value of 1.6 x 10 -19 C by 9.5 %. We conclude that the electronic charge has changed its
value over the past hundred years.

Introduction

The introduction should be abstract, not concrete: describe the background of the experiment and
possibly the principle of its operation. Do not include concrete details about the structure of the
apparatus, the temperature of the room, etc. For example, do not write: “The apparatus was set up
in the corner of the room. It was connected to a 300 V power supply, and to an intense light. We
took twenty readings for different conditions, 10 by Sam and 10 by me. We used a voltage meter to
get the voltage we used an electronic clock for timing. “

The discovery that electrical charge is quantized was one of the first indicators that matter is made
up of charged particles, each of which bears a well-defined charge. Today all known constituents of
matter which appear as free particles, including not only the stable electron and proton, but also all
“elementary particles” are known to possess charge which is a multiple of this quantum.
Determination of the fundamental quantum of charge was first carried out by Millikan [1] in 1607.
His approach was to measure the charge on the electron by measuring the charges on small droplets
of oil produced by atomizing oil in a simple sprayer. The charges so obtained were found to be
integral multiples of a single quantum, from which he could deduce the value of this quantum. While
this basic method has today been supplemented by numerous other approaches to obtaining this
value, it remains a classic method not only because of its simplicity but also because the resulting
charge is independent of the knowledge of other natural constants. So classic is the approach that,
even within the last two decades, it has been used to seek fractionally charged particles such as
would result from the existence of free quarks in the physical world.
Since Millikan’s experiments were carried out by undergraduates at a relatively unknown institution
(Caltech), one must question whether these students really knew what they were doing at that time.
Thus the original experiments demand renewed examination. Furthermore, there has been
considerable question raised in recent years as to whether the constants of nature are really
constant in time [2,3,4]. For these reasons we have undertaken to revisit the Millikan oil drop
experiment and to investigate whether the value of the elementary charge has changed since
Millikan’s measurements were carried out and whether Millikan really knew how to do experimental
physics.

Experimental Approach

In this section you should start with a conceptual description of how the experiment works before
you go into concrete detail, unless you already covered the principle of the experiment in the
introduction. Do not begin this section with “The density of the oil was 0.89 gm/cm2. We first
grounded the cable to the wall socket and then connected the high voltage lead to the lower plate.
We adjusted the light and took measurements . “
The charge on small droplets was determined by measuring the velocity with which small oil
droplets fell (or rose) in air, with and without the application of an electric field of known value.
Using Newton’s Laws and a knowledge of how small objects experience viscous drag from their
motion in air, we were able to deduce the charge on each drop. By noticing that all charges were
found to be an approximate multiple of a single “quantum” value, we were able to determine how
many elemental charges were on each drop and the value of that elemental charge.
The basic apparatus is shown in figure 1.
Insert a figure of the apparatus, with the components labeled. This does not have to be a work of
art, but it must be clear enough so that the reader can see how the main components of the
apparatus work.

Schematic of apparatus

Small oil droplets were produced by spaying a fine mist of oil into a pre-chamber, from which they
drift into a smaller chamber located between the plates of a parallel plate capacitor. This region was
illuminated by a strong lamp and can be viewed by a magnifying telescope where the forward
scattering of light by the droplets provides a clear image of them against a dark background. The
capacitor plates were attached to a DC power supply to which voltages up to +/- 300 V can be
applied. The plates were separated by 0.8 cm.
Charged droplets were isolated by manipulating the applied electric field to retain only the charged
ones within the field of view. Using a calibrated reticule mounted within the telescope, the times
required for these droplets to move a known distance were recorded under three conditions: field-
up, field-free, and field-down. From these times, values of the corresponding velocities, denoted v+,
vo and v_ were deduced. The velocity set was measured at least ten times for each droplet, and the
average value was used in the calculation. And so forth.. Explain how you calibrated the reticule,
how you did the timing, etc. It is often a good idea to break a section into sub-sections with specific
headings.

Data analysis

In this section you give details. Just describe it clearly enough that another student could be
expected to be able to read it and understand it, without having read the laboratory writeup. The
actual information written below is not intended to be factual.
The charge on each drop is found from its v+,vo and v- values, using vo to determine the radius, and
thus the mass, of the droplet, and v+ and v- then to deduce the charge. Here, v+, vo and v- are the
measured velocities with which the droplet moves in the presence of an upward directed electric
field, no field, and a downward directed electric field, respectively.
From Newton’s equations, we have
F=Ma which becomes
F=mg F=mg-Ee/h F=mg+Ee/h
field-free field up field down
For a droplet subjected to a constant force , a terminal velocity is reached , given by
V= 3.6x1019 (F/m) (1+T/To)
where F and m are the force on and mass of the droplet respectively and T the temperature of the
moon’s surface. To is the sun’s surface temperature, taken to be 6000 degrees Kelvin. For a freely
falling droplet, the radius a of the droplet can then be determined from vo.

Results

Give the results, in a table, graph or image format. Do not require that the reader have access to the
data book to see what your data is.
The data for the measured flight times are shown in table 1, and the resulting velocity sets for each
droplet are shown in table 2. The green points in table 2. were taken during the first phase of the
moon, and thus should be multiplied by 1.1, whereas those taken during the final quarter are
divided by the same factor.
Etc. You should include a table showing the actual data. NOTE: Be sure you give the units for EVERY
physical quantity in both your report and your data book!
From these values, mean values of the velocities were deduced. Substitution of these values into
equations 1-3 above results in values for e.
The results are shown in Table 2.

Droplet V+ (cm/s) V- (cm/s) e(up) e(down)

1 0.3 0.03 1.54+/-0.2 1.4+/-0.25
2 0.3 0.8 1.67+/-0.2 1.6+/-0.27
3 0.6 0.56 1.5+/-0.28 1.5+/-0.26
 4 0.6 0.34 1.7+/-0.23 1.7+/-0.28
5 0.98 0.55 1.4+/-0.24 1.4+/-0.25

Plot of charge (in units of 10 –19 Coulomb) versus drop number.

A display of the resulting e values is shown in figure 2. It is clear that for this set of fabricated data,
each droplet had only a single electronic charge. Your data will not look like this. The final value of e
is obtained from a weighted average of the data in table 2. The result is
e=(1.53 +/- .03) x 10 –19 C.

Error analysis
Explain how you got the error bar(s) you placed on your value(s).
The error bar cited above comes from the following sources:
Random error: Error due to human reaction times on the timer, reading the scale, etc., are taken
into account by the use of standard deviations of the mean of several time measurements.
Systematic errors: Errors on the following parameters entering into equations 1-3 above are
estimated to be:
Electric field: 1% on the meter, .05% on the plate separation Viscosity of air:.001 %
Temperature of the moon: 40 %
Density of the oil: 50%
The final error cited above is the quadratic combination of the random and the propagated
systematic errors.

Discussion and Conclusion

Draw a conclusion. If you wish to be speculative , here is the place to do it.
The value found is 9.5 % lower than the accepted value of 1.6 x 10 –19 C and lies outside the quoted
error bar.
Before addressing the impact of this finding, we first discuss the precision of the present experiment.
The largest factors contributing to the cited error are the temperatures of the moon and the density
of the oil. Fortunately the temperature of the moon enters only weakly into equation 3, and when
the correct equation is used instead, drops out entirely, so this will not be considered further. The
rather large error in the density of the oil drop results from the fact that half of the droplets were
not oil at all but styrefoam balls introduced into this laboratory some years ago by a pernicious elf.
These balls, which have a density quite different from that of oil, have now infiltrated all the oil in
the universe, leading to a decrease in motor longevity nationwide as well as questionable results
from Millikan oil drop experiments everywhere. Thus one must add to the error bar cited above the
qualification “if true at all”.
Nevertheless, we conclude that there either a serious problem with Millikan’s value, or that the
value has changed since 1911. Because it is more exciting to think that the universe is not static than
that the freshmen at Caltech could possibly have made a mistake, we prefer the latter
interpretation. From this result we deduce that e is decreasing by about 2% per century. Linearly
extrapolating this rate results in the prediction that the value of e will go to zero in the year 7000, at
which time atoms will fall apart completely. This time is significantly less than the lifetime predicted
for the sun using current values of the natural constants, although it probably does not call for an
immediate revision of either vacation or retirement plans.

References
 Oil drop experiment by jeseal rusel ronal lohn first edition
 Www.hyperphysics.com
 Www.scribd.com
 Volume 3 by RA Milkikan