The Effect of the Number of Stages, Steel Balls, and Distance Between Stages on the

Final Velocity of a Magnetic Linear Accelerator

Michael McMain and Megan Richards
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
AP Physics
Mr. McMillan, Mrs. Cybulski, Mr. Acre, Mrs. Tallman
11 December 2015

The Effect of Number of Stages, Steel Balls, and Distance between Stages on the
Final Velocity of a Magnetic Linear Accelerator
It takes the same amount of electricity to run the New York City sub way system
as to light the entire city of Buffalo New York for a year (Pirmann). This is mainly due to
the electricity required to start up the cars and keep them going. Magnetic linear
accelerators, at a large scale, could be used to launch the cars and keep them moving
using a magnetic track. It would minimize the use of electricity and replace the system
with a cheaper, reusable source of energy to launch the cars.
The purpose of this experiment was to test the effect of the number of stages, steel
balls, and distance between stages on the final velocity on a magnetic linear accelerator.
To test this, combinations of 2, 3, or 4 stages with 2, 3, or 4 steel balls after each stage,
and 20, 27, or 34 centimeter distance between each stage, were randomly selected and
attached to a track. The track was then placed to face a foam pad, where a constant initial
velocity was used to start the system. Vernier photogates and a LabQuest were attached to
the end of the track to find the final velocity.
A 3-factor Design of Experiment (DOE) was used to analyze the results. The
results of this analysis indicated that the effect of number of stages, effect of number of
steel balls, and the effect of distance between stages were all significant. This means that
these were the effects that noticeably impacted the final velocity produced by the
magnetic linear accelerator. The combination from this experiment that generated the
highest final velocity was 4 stages with 4 steel balls after each stage that were at a
distance of 20 centimeters. The combination that produced the lowest final velocity was 2
stages with 2 steel balls after each stage at 34 centimeters apart.

Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................1
Review of Literature.......................................................................................................3
Problem Statement.........................................................................................................8
Experimental Design......................................................................................................9
Data and Observations...................................................................................................12
Data Analysis and Interpretation...................................................................................17
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................26
Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................31
Appendix A: DOE Sample Calculations.......................................................................32
Appendix B: Professional Contact.........................................................................34
Works Cited...................................................................................................................36

McMain Richards 1
Introduction
Every year, 1.8 billion kW hours are used to run just the New York City subway
system. That is enough power to light up the whole city of Buffalo, New Yorks fifth
largest city, for a year (Pirmann). This use of energy is extremely wasteful and costly and
can be easily circumvented. A magnetic linear accelerator could be implemented into the
subway as a way to launch and maneuver the car on a magnetic track without using
electricity. Magnetic linear accelerators are already used as rail guns and the concept has
been expanded into an MRI gun, a medical device that uses radio waves and magnets to
image organs and tissue (Becker), so the concept can go a long way.
A magnetic linear accelerator uses a series of magnets and steel balls to launch a
projectile. It does this by having at least two steel balls after each magnet, or stage
(Kagan). Having two balls lets the energy transfer through the magnet into the first steel
ball, then transferring that into the second and letting it launch. An initial ball rolls into
the first magnet, sending the last steel ball after that magnet into the next magnet,
launching the last ball on the next magnet, and so on, eventually leading to the final ball,
which continues off the track at a high velocity (Rabchuk). If this projectile was
connected to a track, it would follow the track at a high velocity. The collisions are
inelastic, so a small amount of the original kinetic energy is lost in each collision. When
the steel ball bearing strikes one side of the neodymium magnet, the momentum is
conserved due to the Law of Conservation of Momentum and transfer through to the ball
on the opposite side of the magnet, causing it to move. Despite the loss of kinetic energy
to friction, the total kinetic energy still increases when it is added with the force of the
magnetic attraction. This results in a domino effect of increasing velocity with each stage.

McMain Richards 2
The work done in the system increases with each steel ball, because the kinetic energy
increases at each stage. This process is all magnetic, so there would be little cost to
actually run the magnetic linear accelerator once it is implemented.
Running the subway on a magnetic linear accelerator would be relatively efficient
because magnetic force does not cost money to produce, but it is still important to know
what factors have an effect on the velocity of the subway car being accelerated. The
significant factors could then be manipulated in order to achieve the highest velocity
while having a low cost. In this research experiment, the goal was to find the most
effective way to set up a magnetic linear accelerator. The factors that were tested on a
small scale magnetic linear accelerator included the number of magnets (also called
stages), number of steel balls after each magnet, and distance between each stage (in
centimeters). To test this, a varying number of stages were placed at different distances
with a different number of steel balls were arranged on a track to create a magnetic linear
accelerator. Each configuration of the magnetic linear accelerator was tested with the
same initial velocity, and the velocity of the final steel ball was measured. Then, using a
three-factor Design of Experiment (DOE), each effect and interaction effect was tested
for significance. This test determined which factors had the greatest impact on the
velocity of the final steel ball, helping determine which factors should be manipulated in
order to change the final velocity of the system.

McMain Richards 3
Review of Literature
A magnetic linear accelerator is a device consisting of a track, neodymium
magnets, and steel ball bearings. Steel ball bearings can be launched off the track at high
speeds by rolling one ball into the first magnet, causing a chain reaction of balls being
shot into the next magnet (Field). The purpose of this system is to create a domino effect
of steel balls going into magnets, resulting in a gain of kinetic energy from the magnets.
The accelerator uses steel ball bearings because they are spherical (about to roll on the
track) and magnetic. Neodymium magnets are used because they have a strong pull force
and are affordable. Testing the effect of number of steel balls, number of stages, and
spacing of stages would find the optimum setup for a linear magnetic accelerator. Using
the values of the effects that resulted in the highest final speed would provide anyone
interested with the knowledge to launch the projectile the farthest.
When setting a magnetic linear accelerator up, after each neodymium magnet on
the track, there is a minimum of two steel ball bearings. This way, when a steel ball
bearing strikes the magnet from the opposite side, the energy from the moving ball is able
to transfer through the magnet and the steel ball bearing closest to the magnet in order to
launch the second ball along the track. This process occurs because of Newtons First
Law, which states that an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside
force, and the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created
nor destroyed, only transferred. This is because when the steel ball bearing is attracted to
the magnet and causes it to speed up, when it impacts the magnet the energy was
transferred through the magnet and steel balls on the opposing side. The last ball on the
opposing side, it could be the second, third, or fourth ball depending on the trial, stays at

McMain Richards 4
rest until the energy is transferred to it, causing it to be launched toward another magnet,
making it go faster, causing the next ball to go faster, and so on until the final ball of the
system. The Law of Conservation of Momentum is also key to this process. It states that
in a collision between two objects, the total momentum of the system before the collision
is the same as the total momentum after the system. While this is ideal in an isolated
system, it is still accurate in this system. Each collision is also an inelastic collision.
Some energy is lost when they collide. The ball that is launched starts at a slightly smaller
speed than the ball that hit its magnet. Its speed then increases due to magnetic attraction,
making the next ball launch at a higher initial velocity.
By adding more steel ball bearings, the last ball in the row becomes farther and
farther away from the magnet. When the ball is father away, it is farther away from the
magnets magnetic field (that temporarily pulled in the opposite direction it was trying to
move when launched) and therefore, according to the Inverse Square Law that states
strength of magnetic field is inversely related to distance, when it is launched, the last
ball will move faster along the track. Like most factors, there seems to be a limit as to
how many steel ball bearings can be placed after the magnet until it begins to hinder the
accelerators speed. According to previous research, it is believed that the limit is four
steel ball bearings (Barnaveli). The research done by Barnaveli was very similar to this
research. However, it focused on strictly the number of steel balls rather than a
combination of factors. The size of the marble must be close to the size of the magnet,
otherwise the energy would not be transferred enough to cause a launch. This is because
the size of the steel ball bearings effects the ability for them to accelerate because of
Newtons Second Law, which states:

McMain Richards 5
F=ma
In the equation, F is the force, m is the mass of the ball bearing (affected by size), and a is
the acceleration. Is the same force was being applied but the mass of the ball bearing
increased, the acceleration would have to decrease because acceleration is inversely
related to mass.
Another factor affecting the speed of the balls on the accelerator is the number of
magnets, known as stages, along the track. By adding more stages to the track, the speed
of the ball increases. As a steel ball approaches the magnets magnetic field, it gains
kinetic energy because the magnet is exerting a pulling force on the ball. Adding more
stages along the track increases the kinetic energy at each stage, and does so more often,
resulting in a higher final velocity. While there is eventually a limit for how fast the steel
ball bearings could physically reach, this limit would be impossible to approach. This is
because before that speed limit is reached, the balls will be traveling with such high speed
that upon contact with the neodymium magnet, it would break the magnet.
Along with the number of stages along the track, the spacing between stages on
the track also has an effect on the speed of the steal ball bearings. Each magnet has its
own magnetic field that reaches up to a certain point before its pull would become
negligible on the ball. This force of the magnetic field can be calculated using the
following equation:
F=

1
2
d

In the equation, F is the force of the magnetic field and d is the distance from the magnet.
Additionally, the steel ball bearings need a certain amount of distance after being
launched from the previous magnet to reach its max speed potential between magnets.

McMain Richards 6
However, leaving too far of a gap between the stages would cause the balls to lose kinetic
energy through friction across the track (McDonald).
The linear magnetic accelerator, also known as the gauss gun, has been the
subject of many papers, experiments, and even science projects. The concept of this
simple, energy efficient system, has grabbed the attention of everyone from professors at
Princeton to high school physics teachers. Many people have already taken this idea and
tried to use it for transportation and even just to test different variables on the final
velocity.
An experiment done by Min Hyuk, a high school student, tested the idea of
electromagnetic pulsed power accelerators for high speed transportation. His experiment
took the simple concept of a gauss gun and added electromagnets instead of just magnets.
The results showed that creating this system was a lot more elaborate than expected, but
if done correctly could be used. The only issue is the initial cost would seem huge, but the
entire system was solar powered and worked almost on its own. Another experiment done
by Bolonkin and Krinker wanted to develop a launcher that could launch rockets into
space, like what this experiment was inspired by. They also tried to incorporate electricity
and found that they were unable to create a realistic model that could work.
An experiment done by Alexander Barnaveli, a high school researcher, tested the
effect of the number of steel balls after the magnets and type of track on the final velocity
of the projectile. The experiment found that the number of balls that resulted in the
highest velocity was four balls on the rail track. This proved that the effect of the number
of balls at least seemed significant. Before this experiment, two balls was most
commonly used in linear magnetic accelerators, but the researcher showed that four balls

McMain Richards 7
is actually the best for the purposes of final velocity. This is because the energy that goes
into the first steel ball transfers into the second and increases, therefore increasing the
number of balls increases the final velocity. However, five balls did result in a lower final
velocity because at a point, the system actually loses energy from drag and the normal
force from the stationary balls back onto the moving. Four seems to be the perfect
number that gains enough energy to make up for the energy lost.
Because there are so many variables that can be manipulated, most previous
research involving magnetic linear accelerators did not test the same factors. However,
one common conclusion among all research is that most of the factors have a specific
limit, at which the speed of the ball bearings is no longer increasing by a significant
amount or the speed of the ball is being hindered. To expand off the previous research
found, this research tested the effect of number of steel balls, number of stages, and
spacing of stages on the final speed of the ball being launched off the accelerator. A 3factor DOE was used to test the relationships among the variables.

McMain Richards 8
Problem Statement
Problem:
How will a different number of stages, spacing of stages, and number of steel ball
bearings affect the speed that a steel ball bearing is launched off a magnetic linear
accelerator?
Hypothesis:
If a different number of stages, spacing of stages, and number of steel ball
bearings are used to create a magnetic linear accelerator, then the high number of steel
ball bearings and high number of stages at low distance between stages will result in the
highest final velocity.
Data Measured:
The dependent variable is final velocity of the last ball bearing, measured in
meters per second (m/s). The independent variables are the number of steel ball bearings
after each stage (2, 3, or 4 steel ball bearings), number of stages (2, 3, or 4 magnets), and
the distance between stages (20, 27, or 34 centimeters). There were 33 trials run. To run a
three factor DOE, three runs of eleven trials were run, where three out of each set of
eleven trials were standard runs while the rest were randomized by using the random
integer function in the TI NSpire Calculator. The data was analyzed using a three factor
DOE to test the significance of the effects and interaction effects.

McMain Richards 9
Experimental Design
Materials:
(17) Steel Ball Bearings
(4) 24 lb Pull Force Neodymium Magnets
Meter Stick
Electric Tape
Aluminum C-Channel 5 ft.
Aluminum C-Channel 3 ft.

Verner Photogate
TI Nspire calculator
Safety Goggles
Verner LabQuest
Acoustic Foam 30 cm x 17 cm x 2 cm
Wooden Block 8 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm

Procedure:
*Be sure to wear safety goggles while conducting the experiment.
1.

Using the TI Nspire calculator, randomize the order of the trials, making sure the
first, fifth, and eleventh trial are the standards.

2.

Repeat step 1 for the remaining runs.

3.

Screw the alignment poles into the photogate and place them one after the other,
using the wooden stabilizer to keep them in line with each other.

4.

Turn on the LabQuest and connect the photogate.

5.

Change the setting on the LabQuest to pulse.

6.

Measure the distance between the center points of both arches of the photogate
using the meter stick and enter the value into the LabQuest.

7.

Use electric tape to secure the appropriate number of neodymium magnets at the
appropriate distance apart along the indention of the ruler (for number of stages: 2
magnets for low, 3 for standard, 4 for high; for spacing between stages: 20 cm for
low, 27 for standard, 34 for high). See Table 1 for values.

8.

Place the appropriate number of steel ball bearings after each magnet (2 ball
bearings for low, 3 for standard, 4 for high). See Table 1 for values.

9.

Create a ramp by securing the 3 ft aluminum C-channel to the wooden block at

approximately a 20o angle using electric tape (see Figure 2). Secure it to the track
using electric tape so that the ball bearing that is rolled down the ramp will hit the
opposite side of the neodymium magnets from the steel ball bearing that were
already placed on the track.

10.

Place the photogate 6 cm after the end of the track, opposite from the side that the
ramp was set up.

11.

Place the acoustic foam against the wall after the photogate.

12.

Place and hold a steel ball bearing at the top of the ramp.

13.

Start data collection on the LabQuest.

14.

Release the steel ball bearing.

15.

Stop data collection after the steel ball bearing hits the foam and stops.

16.

Using the data collected on the LabQuest, record the velocity of the launched steel
ball bearing.

17.

Repeat steps 7-16 for the remaining trials.

18.

Repeat steps 7-17 for the remaining runs.

Diagrams:
Aluminum
C-Channels

Neodymium Magnets

LabQuest

Tape

Meter Stick
Photogate

Foam

TI Nspire Calculator

Wooden
Block

Steel Ball
Bearings

Figure 1. Diagram of Materials

Figure 1 shows the materials needed to run the experiment. The most crucial
materials are the aluminum C-channels, the steel ball bearings, the neodymium magnets,
the LabQuest, and the photogate. The safety goggles are not pictured but were used when
running trials.

Foam
Initial Ball

Neodymium Magnet

Track
Ramp

Steel Ball

Photogates

Electrical Tape
LabQuest

Figure 2. Experimental Setup

Figure 2, shows the setup for the experiment. The inclined track is the ramp that
was used to create a consistent initial velocity, the photogates at the end of the track were
at a consistent distance away, and the foam at the end was placed to stop the ball and
absorb the kinetic energy from the ball. The initial ball was held in place by tape on top
of the ramp. In this specific picture the stages were evenly spaced, there are two balls
after the magnets, and four magnets.

Data and Observations

Table 1
Variable Values
Variable
Number of Stages
Number of Steel Ball Bearings
Spacing Between Stages (cm)

Low (-)
2
2
20

Standard
3
3
27

High (+)
4
4
34

Table 1 shows the values for the three variables being tested. The three variables
being tested were the number of stages, spacing between stages, and number of steel ball
bearings being used on a magnetic linear accelerator. The high value for the number of
stages was 4 stages, the standard was 3 stages, and the low was 2 stages. The high value
for the number of the steel ball bearings was 4 balls, the standard was 3 balls, and the low
was 2 balls. The high value for the spacing between stages was 34 cm, the standard was
27 cm, and the low was 20 cm.
Table 2
Raw Data and Averages
Number of
Number of
Steel Ball
Stages
Bearings
Standard
Standard
+
+
+
+
+
+
Standard
Standard

Standard
+
+
Standard

Space
Between
Stages (cm)
Standard
+
+
Standard
+
+
Standard

Run 1
4.908
5.054
5.605
4.45
6
4.907
4.898
4.051
4.598
3.632
3.986
4.867

4.863
4.934
5.534
4.358

4.916
5.042
5.579
4.474

Average
Velocity
(m/s)
4.896
5.010
5.573
4.429

4.885
4.866
4.135
4.611
3.502
4.077
4.891

4.895
4.883
4.010
4.619
3.644
4.082
4.840

4.896
4.866
4.065
4.609
3.593
4.048
4.866

Run 2

Run 3

Table 2 shows the raw data collected for each run on the DOE, as well as the
averages. The highest velocity was produced when four stages were spaced 20 cm apart
with four steel ball bearings on the far side of each magnet, producing a velocity of 5.605

m/s2 in Run 1. The lowest velocity was produced when two stages were spaced 34 cm
apart with two steel ball bearings on the far side of each magnet, producing a velocity of
3.502 m/s2 in Run 2. The averages were calculated by adding up results produced by the
same trial type and dividing by 3.
Table 3
Data Observations
Ru Trial
Observations
n
1
Reasonable standard velocity produced
2
Trial re-run with new acceleration photogate
3
Trial re-run with new acceleration photogate
4
Trial re-run with new acceleration photogate
5
Trial re-run with new acceleration photogate
Run
6
Trial re-run; Reasonable standard velocity produced
1
7
Trial re-run with new acceleration photogate
8
Trial re-run ; Highest velocity produced out of all trials
9
New acceleration photogate was used
10
Reasonable velocity produced
11
Reasonable standard velocity produced
1
Reasonable standard velocity produced
2
Acceleration photogate fell over; Trial re-run
3
Reasonable velocity produced
4
Lowest velocity produced out of all trials
5
Reasonable velocity produced
Run
6
Reasonable standard velocity produced
2
7
Ramp set up incorrectly; Trial re-run
8
Reasonable velocity produced
9
Trial re-run
10
Reasonable velocity produced
11
Reasonable standard velocity produced
1
Highest standard velocity recorded
2
Reasonable velocity produced
3
Reasonable velocity produced
4
Acceleration photogate fell over; Trial re-run
5
Trial re-run
Run
6
Reasonable standard velocity produced
3
7
Reasonable velocity produced
8
Reasonable velocity produced
9
Reasonable velocity produced
10
Trial re-run
11
Lowest standard velocity recorded

Table 3 shows the observations taken during each trial. Trial 4 in Run 2 produced
the lowest recorded velocity out of all the trials. Trial 8 in Run 1 produced the highest
velocity out of all trials. Also noted are the trials that were re-run or restarted due to
various reasons, such as skewed results, failure of the photogate to calculate the velocity
due to the high speed of the ball, and incorrect ramp set up.
Acoustic
Foam

5 ft
Aluminum
C-Channel
Neodymiu
m
Magnets
Photoga
te

Electrica
l Tape
Meter
Stick

LabQues
t
Figure
3. Setup Data Collection

Figure 4. Tape Down Magnets

3ft
Aluminum
C-channel

Woode
n Block

Neodymiu
m Magnet

Meter
Stick

Figure 5. Setup Ramp

Steel Ball
Bearings

Figure 6. Place Steel Ball Bearings

LabQuest

Acoustic
Foam
Photogate

LabQuest

Steel Ball
Bearing

Figure 7. Run Trial

Final
Velocity

Figure 8. Data Collection

Figure 3 through Figure 8 show how each trial was run. First, the LabQuest and
photogate were set up, as seen in Figure 3. The neodymium magnets were then taped
down to the track at appropriate intervals using electrical tape and a meter stick, which is
shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows the setup of the ramp. In Figure 6, the appropriate

number of steel ball bearings were placed after each stage. Then, the trial was run by
releasing a steel ball bearing from a predetermined spot on the ramp, as shown in Figure
7. Finally, Figure 8 shows the velocity reading on the LabQuest that was recorded.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

A three-factor design of experiment (DOE) was conducted to determine which
effects and interaction effects of the factors were significant. Standards were run
throughout trials in order to ensure that there was no bias occurring overtime, thus
providing validity for the results. Standard trials consisted of three steel balls, three
stages, and 27 centimeters between each stage. To further eliminate any bias that may
have occurred, trials were randomized by using the random integer function of a TI nspire
calculator. Finally, three runs of the experiment were conducted, and the averages were
used to conduct significance tests on the effects and interaction effects. Repetition helps
to ensure data is accurate because it helps reduce variability and determine if there are
outliers. Because standards, randomization, and repetition were used, the results of the
DOE can be deemed valid and reliable.
5.4
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
0

10

12

Figure 9. Plot of Standards

Figure 9 displays the graph of the nine standard trials. There is no visible pattern
in the data, showing that there was no bias during the trials over time. The points look to
be relatively linear with a low range. The range of standards is found by subtracting the

smallest standard value from the largest standard value. In this experiment the largest was
4.916 m/s and the smallest was 4.84 m/s. All of the values above and in future tables and
figures regarding effects are in m/s. The range of standards in this experiment was 0.076.
In order for the effect to be significant, it must be more than 0.076.
Table 4
Effect of Stages Averages
(-) Values:
4.065
4.609
3.593
4.048
Average:

(+) Values:
5.01
5.573
4.429
4.896
Average:

4.079

4.977

Table 4 above shows the values found when stages was held high compared to
when it was held low. The average values in the last row were used in the graph of the
effect.
5.4
5.2
4.98
5
4.8
4.6

Velocity

4.4
4.2
4.08

4
3.8
-1

Stages
Figure 10. Effect of Stages

Figure 10 shows the values used to calculate the numerical effect of stages. It is
easy to tell that as the number of stages goes up so does the velocity. The effect of stages
can be found by subtracting the low value, 4.079, from the high value, 4.977. The
difference between these numbers is 0.898 which is also known as the effect of stages. As
the number of stages goes up by one, the average velocity should go up 0.898 m/s.
Table 5
Effect of Number of Steel Balls Averages
(-) Values:
(+) Values:
4.429
5.01
4.896
5.573
3.593
4.065
4.048
4.609
Average:
Average:
4.242
4.814
Table 5 shows the values of when steel balls were low compared to when it was
high. The average values in the last row were used in the graph in the next figure.
5.4
5.2
5
4.81
4.8
4.6

Velocity

4.4
4.24

4.2
4
3.8
-1

Number of Steel Balls

Figure 11. Effect of Number of Steel Balls

Figure 11 shows the effect of the number of steel balls. The slope of the line being
positive shows that as the number of steel balls increases the velocity increases as well.
To find the numerical effect, subtract the low value from the high value. Using this the
effect of number of steel balls is 0.573. As the number of steel balls goes up by one, the
average velocity should go up by 0.573 m/s.
Table 6
Effect of Distance between Stages
(-) Values:
(+) Values:
4.896
5.01
5.573
4.429
4.609
4.065
4.048
3.593
Average:
Average:
4.782
4.274
Table 6 shown above shows the averages when the distance between stages was
high compared to when distance between stages was low. The increments used for
distance between stages were seven centimeters.
5.4
5.2
5
4.8

4.78

4.6

Velocity

4.44.27
4.2
4
3.8
-1

Distance Between Stages

Figure 12. Effect of Distance Between Stages

Figure 12 shows the effect of the distance between stages. Unlike the previous
effects, as the distance between the stages increases, the velocity actually decreases, as
shown by the negative slope. The effect can be found by subtracting the low value from
the high value. The effect of distance between stages is -0.507. So as the distance
between stages increases by seven centimeters, the average velocity goes down by an
average of 0.507 m/s.
Table 7
Interaction Effect Between Stages and Steel Balls
Average Values Stages (-) Stages (+)
Steel Balls (+)
4.337
5.292
Steel Balls (-)
3.821
4.663
Table 7 above shows the averages for the interaction effect of stages and steel
balls. Steel balls are at the left and stages are across the top.
5.45.29
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.66
4.4

Velocity 4.34

Steel Balls (+)

Steel Balls (-)

4.2
4
3.8

3.82
-1

Stages
Figure 13. Interaction Effect of Steel Balls and Stages
Figure 13 displays the interaction between stages and steel balls. The solid line,
which represents when steel balls were held high, looks to be about parallel with the

dotted line, which represents when steel balls were held low. The actual effect can be
calculated by subtracting the slope of the dotted line from the slope of the solid line. The
slope of the solid line was found to be 0.478 and the slope of the dotted line was found to
be 0.421. The two lines have almost identical slopes. This implies that there is no
interaction. The actual interaction effect between steel balls and stages is 0.057, which is
relatively small compared to the other effects so far.
Table 8
Interaction Effect of Spacing and Stages
Average
Values
Stages (-)
Stages (+)
Spacing (+)
3.829
4.72
Spacing (-)
4.329
5.235
Table 8 shows the averages found for the interaction effect of spacing and stages.
This data was used to calculate the interaction effect of these two variables.
5.4
5.24

5.2
5
4.8

4.72

4.6

Velocity

Spacing (+)

4.4

4.33

Spacing (-)

4.2
4
3.83

3.8
-1

Stages
Figure 14. Interaction Effect of Spacing and Stages
Figure 14 displays the interaction between steel balls and velocity graphically.
The lines look to be parallel, like in Figure 13. The slope of the solid line, when spacing
was positive, was found to be 0.446. The slope of the dotted line, when spacing was

negative, was found to be 0.453. To find the interaction effect, subtract the slope of the
dotted line from the slope of the solid line. This was found to be -0.008, which is very
small compared to all of the other effects. This suggests there is no interaction effect
between these two variables.
Table 9
Interaction Effect of Spacing and Steel Balls
Average
Steel Balls
Steel Balls
Values
(-)
(+)
Spacing (+)
4.011
4.538
Spacing (-)
4.472
5.091
Table 9, shown above, shows the average values to find the interaction effect of
spacing and steel balls.
5.4
5.25.09
5
4.8

Velocity

4.6

4.47

4.44.54

Spacing (+)
Spacing (-)

4.2
4

4.01

3.8

-1

Steel Balls
Figure 15. Interaction Effect of Steel Balls and Spacing Between Stages
Figure 15 above shows graphically the interaction effect of steel balls and spacing
between stages. Like the previous two interaction effects, the two lines look to be nearly
the same, implying that there is no interaction. The slope of the solid line, representing
when spacing was held high, was found to be 0.264. The slope of the dotted line,
representing was spacing was held low, was found to be 0.310. To find the interaction

effect, subtract the slope of the dotted line from the slope of the solid line. This
interaction effect was found to be -0.046, which is the second lowest effect value found.
0.898
0.573
0.507
0.057
0.008
0.046
Y^ =4.528+
S
B+
P+
SB
SP
BP+noise
2
2
2
2
2
2
Figure 16. Prediction Equation
Figure 16 shows the prediction equation of the effects and interaction effects. This
equation allows a prediction of the velocity produced based on the value plugged in for
each factor (see Appendix A).

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Figure 17. Significance Plot

Figure 17 shows a plot of all the effects and interaction effects, which are labeled
accordingly. To test which effects and interaction effects were significant, the range of
standards (0.076) was multiplied by two to get 0.152. This range is denoted by the thick
lines on the plot in Figure 9. Any effect outside of two times the range of standards is
deemed significant. This means that the effect of stages (S), the effect of steel balls (B),
the effect of spacing between stages (P), were all significant, while the interaction effect
of stages and steel balls (SB), the interaction effect of stages and spacing between stages
(SP), and the interaction effect of steel balls and spacing between stages (BP) are not.
0.898
0.573
0.507
Y^ =4.528+
S
B+
P
2
2
2
Figure 18. Parsimonious Prediction Equation

Figure 18 shows the parsimonious prediction equation of the effects and

interaction effects. The parsimonious prediction equation only includes the effects and
interaction effects deemed significant by the plot shown in Figure 9. This equation is also
used to predict the velocity based on the value plugged in for each factor (see Appendix
A). The parsimonious prediction equation resulted in almost the exact value found in the
data, showing the correct factors were deemed significant.

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to test the number of stages, steel ball
bearings, and distance between stages on the final velocity of a steel ball bearing being
launched from a magnetic linear accelerator. It was hypothesized that four stages, four
steel ball bearings, and a 20 centimeter distance between stages would result in the
highest final velocity. This hypothesis was accepted, as these levels resulted in the highest
final velocity, 5.573 m/s. The combination that resulted in the lowest final velocity, 3.593
m/s, was two stages, two steel ball bearings, and a 34 centimeter distance between stages.
This makes sense because it is the opposite level of effects that resulted in the highest.
Also, the results of the DOE showed that the effect of number of stages, steel ball
bearings, and distance between stages were all significant, but none of the interaction
effects were deemed statistically significant.
There is scientific justification behind why these effects were significant. The
effect of number of stages directly affects the amount of kinetic energy the steel ball
bearings have. The equation to find an objects kinetic energy is as follows:
1
KE= mv 2
2
Each time a steel ball bearing approached a new stage, the magnetic pull from the magnet
does work on the steel ball bearing, causing the ball to accelerate toward the magnet.
However, the collision is inelastic because some energy in the system is being lost to
sound and heat (from friction), meaning the kinetic energy is constantly changing. Even
though not all kinetic energy is maintained, momentum is still conserved due to the law
of conservation of momentum. Acceleration is always in the direction that work is being
does so the following equation can be used to find the sum of the work done:

 W = KE
The sum of the work is equal to the change in kinetic energy. When the magnet pulls on
the approaching steel ball bearing, it is increasing the ball bearings velocity and therefore
is doing positive work. This means the sum of the work being done is positive, so
acceleration is increasing. Acceleration has a direct relationship to velocity, meaning as
acceleration increases, so does velocity (and therefore kinetic energy), which is a direct
effect upon the dependent variable measured, velocity (Field). In order to maintain
consistency in the initial kinetic energy, the initial velocity was kept constant between
each trial, as suggested by professional contact Brian DuBay (see Appendix B for
credentials). Each time another stage was added, the steel ball bearing had more
opportunities to accelerate, therefore it makes sense that a higher number of stages would
produce significantly higher velocities, as the results showed. This is also consistent with
previous research regarding number of stages.
The effect of number of steel ball bearings was also significant. By adding more
steel ball bearings to each stage, the distance between the final ball (the ball that would
be launched into the next magnet or off the accelerator, depending on which stage) and
the magnet it was attached to increased. Even when the steel ball bearings were not
directly attached to the neodymium magnets, as in there were other steel ball bearings
between it and the magnet, the balls still felt a magnetic pull from the magnet. This is
because each magnet has a magnetic field that stretches to a certain distance away from
it. The pull of the magnet is inversely proportional to the distance the ball bearing is from
it, meaning as the distance increases, the pull of the magnet upon the ball bearing
decreases. However, the pull force may eventually become negligible, but it will never

equal zero. While this pull is essential to keeping the steel ball bearings lined up in a way
that the energy from the impacting ball can transfer through to the end ball, too much pull
from the magnet on the final ball as it attempts to launch affects the velocity of the ball
bearing. When the distance between the end ball bearing is shorter (fewer number of steel
ball bearings), the ball is closer to the magnet, and therefore the magnet is able to have a
stronger pulling force upon the ball. When there are more steel ball bearings present,
creating a longer distance between the end ball bearing and the magnet, the pulling force
upon the ball is present but much weaker. When the magnet had a weaker pull on the
final steel ball bearing, there was less negative work being done when transferring energy
to the launched ball, allowing it to better maintain the velocity of the kinetic energy that
was transferred into it by the impacting ball. Momentum was transferred completely in
the collisions and total momentum stayed consistent. Because of this direct effect on
velocity, it makes sense that the number of steel ball bearings was significant.
The effect of the distance between stages was also significant, which is consistent
with previous research. This makes sense because as the steel ball bearing traveled along
the aluminum C-channel track, friction acted upon the ball. To keep the ball firmly on the
track, a C-channel was used. This means there were two separate points of contact
between the ball and the track at all times (one on either side of the bottom half of the
steel ball). With two points of contact on the steel ball bearing, there is even more friction
working on the ball, especially because the contact is on either side of the lower half of
the ball as opposed to being directly on the bottom of the ball. Because friction is a force
acting against the ball bearings motion, it decreases the velocity (McDonald). Friction
occurs as the ball travels along the track, so by increasing the distance the ball has to

travel on the track, the ball is given a greater period of time to be affected by friction.
Therefore, when the distance between stages increases, so does the time friction has to act
on the ball bearing, diminishing the balls velocity by more than if the ball had to travel a
shorter distance to get to the next stage. Because of the direct influence distance has on
the time for friction to act on the ball, and friction influences velocity, it creates a greater
average force in the system, resulting in a greater final velocity.
The results of this experiment can be used to manipulate the factors potentially
used in a larger scale to implement into transportation or even a system of launching
satellites into space. By using the values of the variable that resulted in the highest final
velocity, the most effective apparatus can be constructed to use the least amount of
electricity. For instance, in running a subway system, the electricity to power the system
would drop significantly and building a large scale magnetic linear accelerator could
reduce these costs significantly. Using the most effective level of variables would be a
necessity for such a high scale, and this research found the highest of the tested variables
tested and which variables were statistically significant.
While the experiment ran smoothly, there were still some design flaws and errors
that occurred. On the first day of trials the photogates would occasionally not recognize
the steel ball bearing passing through and not give a velocity. This was fixed by placing a
thin notebook underneath the photogates to lift them to be closer to the level of the
magnetic linear accelerator. Another error was that when the ramp was moved after every
trial to account for the changing variables, the angle of the ramp and the distance away
from the first stage was attempted to be consistent, however it was placed on a piece of
tape to assume that it would maintain the same angle. Because the ramp was moved by

humans and where it should be in relation to the tape was estimated, the initial velocity
could have varied from trial to trial, which could have skewed the data. The last issue was
the limit on the distance of the track. The experiment was run right next to another
experiment, so the track could only be so long. This limited the distances between the
stages to what was available at the time. This limit resulted in the experimenters having
to improvise the different distances based on availability.
Future research that can be done on this topic is changing the tracks position so
that it launched vertically rather than horizontally to simulate a space-launch-type
experiment. Similarly, different shaped tracks, such as curves, could be used so simulate
an experiment that could more realistically be implemented into a subway system (since
subways do not just move linearly). Addition research could be to create a small scale
subway system using a magnetic linear accelerator and test the forces the riders would
feel as well as the distance the subway would go. Eventually this research could be done
on full scale subways so that it can be safely implemented around the country.

Acknowledgments
A special thank you to Mrs. Rose Cybulski for assisting with revisions to the
research paper. A special thank you to Mr. Greg McMillan for providing materials needed
to conduct the experiment and for scientific explanation backing the results. A special
thank you to Mrs. Tallman and Mr. Acre for assisting in the mathematical analysis of the
results. A special thanks to Brian DuBay for answering any research questions via e-mail
and in-person conversation. His answers helped guide the procedure and analysis of this
research.

Appendix A: DOE Sample Calculations

To predict the final velocity produced, the following prediction equation was
used:
0.898
0.573
0.507
0.057
0.008
0.046
Y^ =4.528+
S
B+
P+
SB
SP
BP+noise
2
2
2
2
2
2
In this equation, all effects or interaction effects are divided by two and multiplied by the
value of their respective factor(s). In this equation, the 4.528 is the grand average, S
stands for number of stages, B stands for number of steel ball bearings, and P stands for
spacing between stages. The last three variables are interaction effects. Noise is added to
the end to account for and minor fluctuations that occurred in the experiment. For the
prediction equation, all effects and interaction effects were accounted for.
0.898
0.573
0.507
0.057
0.008
0.046
Y^ =4.528+
(1)
(1)+
(1)+
(1)(1)
(1)(1)
(1)(1)
2
2
2
2
2
2
Y^ =4.528+0.449+0.2860.254+ 0.02850.0040.023
Y^ =5.011 m/ s
Figure 19. Prediction Equation Sample Calculation
Figure 19 shows a sample calculation for the prediction equation. The value 1 was
plugged in for all of the variables. This means that all factors were held at their high
values. The equation predicted that all high values would produce a final velocity of
5.011 m/s, which is very close to the actual value produced when all variables are held
high (5.010 m/s).
Additionally, the parsimonious equation can also be used to predict the final
velocity.

0.898
0.573
0.507
Y^ =4.528+
S
B+
P+ noise
2
2
2
This equation uses the same principles as the prediction equation, but only includes
effects and interaction effects that were deemed significant by the DOE significance test.
Because of this, all the interaction effects were removed.
0.898
0.573
0.507
Y^ =4.528+
(1)
(1)+
(1)
2
2
2
Y^ =4.528+0.4490.254+0.286
Y^ =5.009 m/s
Figure 20. Parsimonious Prediction Equation Sample Calculation
Figure 20 shows a sample calculation for the parsimonious prediction equation.
The value 1 was plugged in for all of the variables. This means that all three factors were
held at their high values. The equation predicted that all high values would produce a
final velocity of 5.009 m/s, which is very close to the actual value produced when all
variables are held high (5.010 m/s). This prediction is the same distance from the true
value as the prediction equation, indicating that both are very accurate predictions.

Appendix B: Professional Contact

Figure 21. Professional Contact Email

Figure 21 shows the initial email sent to Brian DuBay to ask if he would be
willing to help with the experiment. After he confirmed that he was willing to help, the
researchers met with him in person and talked about the experiment. When meeting with
him, he stressed the importance of maintaining a consistent initial velocity to ensure all of
the trials were kept consistent and reduce bias. Brian DuBay is finishing his PhD in
geology and starting his PhD in astronomy.

Figure 22. Second Professional Contact Email

Figure 22 shows the second email conversation between the researchers and their
professional contact. After receiving a video of a trial, he stated that the procedures used
were consistent enough to provide usable data.

Work Cited
Barnaveli, Alexander. "1. Gaussian Cannon." IYPT Solutions. ODPO, n.d. Web. 22 Sept.
2015. <http://solutions.iypt.org/uploads/2012_GE_Gaussian_cannon_Alexander_
Barnaveli_1343816982.pdf>.
Becker, Aaron T., Ouajdi Felfoul, and Pierre E. Dupont. "Toward Tissue Penetration by
MRI-powered Millirobots Using a Self-Assembled Gauss Gun." 2015 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Washington State
Convention Center, 26-30 May 2015. Web. 22 Sept. 2015. <http://robotics.tch.
harvard.edu/publications/pdfs/becker2015toward.pdf>.
Bolonkin, Alexander, and M. Krinker. "Magnetic Space Launcher." Cornell University
Library. Cornell University, 28 Feb. 2009. Web. 22 Sept. 2015. <http://arxiv.org/
ftp/arxiv/papers/0903/0903.5008.pdf>.
DuBay, Brian. "Linear Magnetic Accelerator." Message to the author. 23 Oct. 2015.
E-mail.
Field, Simon Q. "Chapter 1: Magnetism." Sci-toys.com. Sci-Toys, 2015. Web. 22 Sept.
2015. <http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss.html>.
<http://physics.anu.edu.au/education/_files/Gauss%20Rifle.pdf>.
Hyuk, Min. "Design and Control Optimization on Electromagnetic Pulsed Power
Accelerator Systems for High Speed Transportations." Design and Control
Optimization on Electromagnetic Pulsed Power Accelerator Systems for High
Speed Transportations 6.2 (n.d.): 258-80. APEC Youth Scientist Journal. Web. 22
Sept. 2015. <http://amgs.or.kr/New/common/journal/vol6/vol6_no.2-22.pdf>.

Kagan, David. "Energy and Momentum in the Gauss Accelerator." The Physics Teacher
42 (2004): 24-26. California State University, Chico. California State University,
Jan. 2004. Web. 22 Sept. 2015. <http://phys.csuchico.edu/kagan/professional/
papers/GaussAccelerator.pdf>.
McDonald, Kirk T. "A Magnetic Linear Accelerator." Antennex. Joseph Henry
Laboratories, Princeton University, 3 Mar. 2003. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.
< http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/lin_accel.pdf >.
Pirmann, Robert. "New York Transit Museum." Bringing Back the City: Mass Transit
Responds to Crisis (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.
<http://bringingbackthecity.com/press/BBC_ Fast_Facts.pdf>.
Rabchuk, James A. "The Gauss Rifle and Magnetic Energy." The Physics Teacher Phys.
Teach. 41.3 (2003): 158-61. HarvardKey. Harvard University, Mar. 2003. Web. 22
Sept. 2015. <http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1032465.files/Final%
20Projects/Gauss%20Gun/Gauss%20Rifle.pdf>.