Measurement of the Charge-to-Mass Ratio for the Electron

Argota, Hannah Lou

1
, Cabrera, Ezron John
2
* , Escaro, Archel
3
and Fernandez, Nestor
4

1
National Institute of Physics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
*ezron.cabrera@gmail.com

Abstract
In this experiment, using the Helmholtz coil setup, the measurement of charge-to-
mass ratio for the electron was done. It is inferred that the current setup is
inaccurate in determining the e/m of the electron. This resulted in experimental
values of e/m that deviates from its literature value by ~80% up to ~1000%. Due
to these high deviation all throughout the experimental data, the results were
deemed inconclusive and the setup to be incapable of achieving such objectives.
Possible sources of error are identified and explained.

1. Introduction
People of late 1800s thought that atoms were the smallest building blocks of matter. It was until J. J. Thompson
demonstrated that these atoms are composed of smaller charged particles which we now know as electrons. It was
by his time that people began to studying how atoms behaves inside an electric field. It is also with this experiment
that Thompson won the 1906 Nobel Prize.
In this experiment, we aim to obtain the ratio e/m as Thompson did and ultimately identify the mass of electron.
By observing the motion of a charged particle in a controlled magnetic field, we seek to find the e/m ratio.
A charged particle moving in a magnetic field is acted upon by a magnetic force

(1)
Where q is the charge of the particle, v its velocity and B as the magnetic field. Since in our case, the electron
gun is configured to eject electrons perpendicularly to the magnetic field, the equation can be simplified with a
scalar magnitude of
|

| (2)
where e is the charge of electron.
According to the right hand rule, the direction of motion is directed towards the z-axis creating a helical path of
electrons. With the electrons travelling in helical manner, we know that the electron also must experience a
centripetal force

(3)
where r is the radius of the circular path.
Combining the two equations, since they are the only forces experienced by the electron, we get the desired
relation of e/m
|

(4)

(5)
(6)
The general relation for the e/m, we can concern ourselves with identifying the velocity of the electron and the
magnitude of the magnetic field it will move.
For the magnetic field, we used a pair of Helmholtz coils, which gives a field almost uniform towards the axis.
For this setup, the field is given by

(7)
In the experiment, N=130 is the number of turns for each coil,

Henry/meter, I is the current

through the coils, a=15cm is the radius of the Helmholtz coils.
While we can obtain the velocity by accelerating the electrons with accelerating potential and convert it to
purely kinetic energy.

(8)
(9)
Now we can express the e/m ratio in terms of variables we can control. such as V, and r, giving

(10)

2. Methodology
In this experiment the researchers used two low power supplies, one high power supply, multi-testers, and the
E/M apparatus configured as shown in the diagram 2.1.


Figure 1. Experimental setup configuration and connections

While the researchers followed the setup configuration as shown in figure 1, sources of error includes the
individual mechanical errors of individual devices. Also, in the experiment, the ammeter used was not working
properly resulting to the removal of this device to the setup. The current values are read directly to the power supply,
adding to the error propagated. Additionally, the current was held constant to 1.90A, throughout the experiment.
With the setup properly configured and connections checked, the researchers adjusted the electron gun to 6 VDC,
electrodes initially set up to 150 VDC, and the Helmholtz coils 6 VDC and waited for the cathode to heat up. When
the cathode is heated enough, the electron gun starts to shoot electrons which will be evident due to a blue-green
path lighting up as electrons interact with some Helium gas inside the spherical containment of the E/M apparatus.
When the electrons are already visible to allow actual measurement of the diameter of the helix it creates, per 20
VDC increments of the cathode. The researchers did this process until the voltmeter reading in the power supply
reaches 300 VDC and repeated this for 3 repetitions. We calculated the theoretical voltage using the listed value for
e/m, which is equal to 1.76x10
11
C/kg, to account for possible errors.

3. Results and Discussions

The researchers plotted calculated the e/m ratio with changing voltage and radius of the helical path of the
electron and plotted Voltage vs e/m shown in figure 2. This sample plot of Voltage vs e/m shows that the e/m ratio is
not constant with varying accelerating voltages.
By the equation 10, we can see that in order for e/m to be constant, there should also be an increase of r as
accelerating voltage increases as shown by equation 11.

(11)

Figure 2. Plot of Voltage versus e/m for trial 1

As shown in Figure 2, as the accelerating voltage increases, the e/m ratio decreases. This clearly opposes
the our claim that e/m should be constant at any voltage values between 150V-300V. As shown in Table 1, the
calculated e/m for for each voltage and radius reading has %error ranging from 91.44576% to 359.6428%. For other
trials the %error exceeded 900% (See Appendix, Tables 2 and 3).

Table 1. Charge per Mass ratio (e/m)
Voltage (V) radius (cm) e/m (C/kg) %error
150 1.3 8.09E+11 359.6428
170 1.65 5.70E+11 223.6646
190 1.75 5.66E+11 221.582
210 2.25 3.78E+11 115.0149
230 2.45 3.50E+11 98.61401
250 2.45 3.80E+11 115.8848
270 2.65 3.51E+11 99.29033
290 2.8 3.37E+11 91.73269
300 2.85 3.37E+11 91.4456

From the data gathered, even though the radius and the voltage presents a direct proportionality with each
other as shown in figure 3, it does not follow our claim that the e/m ratio remains constant and thus making a trend
as shown in figure 2.

Figure 3. Plot of Voltage versus Radius

To address this problem, we calculated for the accelerating voltage the setup that is actually used by the
setup using the literature value for e/m (see Appendix, sample calculations and Table 4, 5,and 6). Comparing the
values presented by the power supply unit and the calculated accelerating voltage, we found that the theoretical
accelerating voltage is very much less than the voltage reading from the power supply. This findings reflect the high
percent error propagated throughout the experiment, otherwise, the e/m ratio is constant throughout the varying
calculated accelerating voltages.

3. Conclusion and Recommendation
In this experiment we can conclude that the setup is not ideal to get the charge per mass ratio of the electron.
The %error ranges from ~80% to ~1000% for all the three trials. Possible sources of error are the inaccurate
measurements of the electron beam path radius, built in voltmeter in the high voltage power supply along with
statistical errors. We therefore conclude that for this problems encountered, the experiment is inconclusive and we
highly recommend purchasing or acquiring more reliable apparatus for future repetition of this experiment,

References
1. http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_3/node1.html
2. Instruction Manual and Experiment Guide: e/m Experiment, NIP
3. Instruction Manual and Experiment Guide for the PASCO scientific Model SE-9638: e/m Apparatus, 1987















Appendix


Figure 4. Trial 1 voltage vs radius graph


Figure 5. Trial 2 voltage vs radius graph


Figure 6. Trial 3 voltage vs radius graph



Table 2. Calculated accelerating voltage per measured radius value and lietature values of e/m while holding other variables constant.
radius (cm) calculated accelerating
voltage (V)
literature e/m value
(C/kg)
0.85 13.9386785 1.76E+11
1.3 32.6039677

1.55 46.34972331

1.65 52.52325566

2 77.16915431

2.2 93.37467672

2.25 97.66721093

2.45 115.8019622

2.75 145.8979324




Figure 7. Computed accelerating voltage vs radius
2


Sample Calculations for Accelerating Voltage


Inserting the constants, and using the literature values for e/m the

is found per radius value.

Checking for consistency, the slope of the line

vs

is equal to the coefficient of

we can retrieve the literature values of the e/m.