Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

International Baccalaureate Physics 4/PSOW

The Motion of a Magnet Falling in a Metal Tube


(by Gary Piech, modified at ISM)
IB Criteria Assessed
Aim: Data Collection and Processing,
1. To find the motion of a magnet in free fall in a metal tube. Conclusion and Evaluation
2. Use the data that you collected to Illustrate Lenz’s and Criteria Aspect Level
Faraday's Law. assessed 1 2 3 awarded
D
DCP
CE
ISM score

Diagram: Method:
1. Obtain a long aluminum or copper tube, which has
magnet
fixed coils attached to it.
2. Attach a wire from the top of the first coil to the
Logger Pro interface box leads.
3. Run a second wire from the bottom of the first coil to
the top of the second coil. Then run a wire from the
bottom of the second coil to the top of the third coil.
These coils Continue this until you have all the coils connected in
are in series series.
4. Connect the bottom wire of the last coil to the 2nd
lead from the Logger Pro.
Laptop collecting 5. Open the Logger Pro Software. Open the
voltage
and time data Experiments file. Open the voltage file.
6. Estimate the time that the magnet takes to fall through
the tube. Add about 5 seconds to this and set this as
your horizontal axis. Voltage will be your vertical
axis.
7. Hit Collect, then drop the magnet in the pipe.
8. Measure the distance from the first coil to all the other
coils
9. Construct a well labelled data table for you data.

Theory:
Lenz’s Law and Faraday’s Law both allow one to predict aspects of induced current when there is a changing
magnetic field.

Data Processing and Presentation:


• Collect appropriate data.
• Plot a suitable graph from which you can analyze the motion of the magnet as it falls through the tube.

Conclusion and Evaluation:


• Using your graph, analyze the type of motion of the falling magnet.
• Using your knowledge of the laws of electromagnetic induction, explain why this type of motion occurs.
• Evaluate the method, including any modifications you had to make to overcome problems. Include an
evaluation of the apparatus used.
• Suggest ways in which the procedure could be modified in order to improve it for the future.

The above information was given to the student by the instructor. What follows
immediately below is the student’s own work.

© Dickinson / Dingrando - ISM 4734836.doc


International Baccalaureate Physics 4/PSOW

Internal Assessment Marking Form

Criteria Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 Grade

Defining the Problem and Controlling the Variables: Developing a method for
selecting variables: collecting data:
Formulates a focused Designs a method for the Develops a method that
problem/research question effective control of the allows for the collection of
c=2
and identifies the relevant variables. sufficient relevant data.
variables.
Design (D)

Formulates a Designs a method that Develops a method that


problem/research question makes some attempt to allows for the collection of
p=1 that is incomplete or control the variables. insufficient relevant data.
identifies only some
relevant variables.
Does not identify a Designs a method that does Develops a method that
problem/research question not control the variables. does not allow for any
n=0
and does not identify any relevant data to be
relevant variables. collected.

Recording raw data Processing raw data Presenting processed data


Data Collection and Processing (DCP)

Records appropriate Processes the quantitative Presents processed data


quantitative and associated raw data correctly. appropriately and, where
qualitative raw data, relevant, includes errors
c=2
including units and and uncertainties.
uncertainties where
relevant.
Records appropriate Processes quantitative raw Presents processed data
quantitative and associated data, but with some appropriately, but with
p=1 qualitative raw data, but mistakes and/or omissions. some mistakes and/or
with some mistakes or omissions.
omissions.
Does not record any No processing of Presents processed data
appropriate quantitative quantitative raw data is inappropriately or
n=0 raw data or raw data is carried out or major incomprehensibly.
incomprehensible. mistakes are made in
processing.

Concluding Evaluating procedure(s) Improving the


investigation
Conclusion and Evaluation (CE)

States a conclusion, with Evaluates weaknesses and Suggests realistic


justification, based on a limitations. improvements in respect of
c=2
reasonable interpretation of identified weaknesses and
the data. limitations.
States a conclusion based Identifies some weaknesses Suggests only superficial
on a reasonable and limitations, but the improvements.
p=1
interpretation of the data. evaluation is weak or
missing.
States no conclusion or the Identifies irrelevant Suggests unrealistic
conclusion is based on an weaknesses and limitations. improvements.
n=0
unreasonable interpretation
of the data.

© Dickinson / Dingrando - ISM 4734836.doc

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen