Lab 1, Electric Fields and Equipotentials

Cuong Nguyen, ctnguyendinh@wpi.edu

PH 1121, Section D01
March 28, 2015

Objectives

For this lab, we inspect the the equipotential lines between two parallel plate
conductors and concentric cylindrical electrodes. From these equipotential lines,
we can infer the direction and estimated magnitude of the electric fields.

2
2.1

Procedure
Parallel plate electrodes

This configuration consists of two straight plates as electrodes placed in parallel

on a conducting paper. The two electrodes are then connected to a power supply
of 8 volts. After that, we measure the potentials at a set of points and marked
them with white pen.

Figure 1: Parallel plates configuration.

2.2

Concentric cylindrical electrodes

This configuration consists of a ring and a disc as electrodes. They are placed
concentrically on a conducting paper. The two electrodes are then connected
to a power supply of 8 volts. After that, we measure the potentials at a set of
points and marked them with white pen.

Figure 2: Concentric cylindrical configuration.

Data

After measuring the electric potential at various points, we mark them with
white pen and connect the points on the same equipotential lines. The direction
of the electric field in both configurations can be determined from these lines.

3.1

Parallel plate electrodes

Figure 3: Equipotential lines and electric field vectors for the parallel plates
configuration.

Figure 4: Electric potential and estimated electric field acquired from parallel
plates configuration. The uncertainty of s and x is obtained by halving the
smallest division of the ruler. The uncertainty of E is obtained by finding the
range of E from the range of s.

3.2

Concentric cylindrical electrodes

Figure 5: Equipotential lines and electric field vectors for the concentric electrodes configuration.

Figure 6: Electric potential and estimated electric field acquired from concentric
electrodes configuration. The uncertainty of r and x is obtained by halving the
smallest division of the ruler. The uncertainty of E is obtained by finding the
range of E from the range of r.

4
4.1

Result
Parallel plate electrodes

In order to assess the accuracy of the measured electric potential and electric
field values shown in figure 4, we compare them to the results of the following
equations:
8
V (s) = 8 s
(1)
d


 V (x)  8
=
|E(x)| = 
(2)
x  d
In which, d = 0.214 m, s is substituted with values in the first column, and x is
substituted with values in the last column in figure 4.

Figure 7: Result calculated using equations (1) and (2).

In the following graphs, the measured values in figure 4 are plotted as points
and the predicted results in figure 7 are plotted as a smooth curve.

Figure 8: V versus s graph for parallel plate configuration.

Figure 9: E versus x graph for parallel plate configuration.

4.2

Concentric cylindrical electrodes

In order to assess the accuracy of the measured electric potential and electric
field values shown in figure 6, we compare them to the results of the following
equations:
8
r
(3)
V (r) = 8 RB ln
RA
ln RA


 V (x) 
= 8 1
|E(x)| = 
(4)
B
x  ln R
x
R
A

In which RA = 0.02 m, RB = 0.06 m, s is substituted with values in the first

column, and x is substituted with values in the last column in figure 6.

Figure 10: Result calculated using equations (3) and (4).

In the following graphs, the measured values in figure 6 are plotted as points
and the predicted results in figure 10 are plotted as a smooth curve.

Figure 11: V versus r graph for concentric electrodes configuration.

Figure 12: E versus x graph for concentric electrodes configuration.

Discussion

Next, we will discuss about the agreement between the experimental data and
the predicted results in both configurations.
The graph V versus s of the first configuration (figure 8) shows that the
experimental values follow the linearity of the predicted line. However, the graph
E versus x (figure 9) does not show a smooth match between the experimental
data with the constant line of electric field. This might be due to the fact that
the those electric field values are estimated roughly from the rate of change
between two discrete equipotential line with respect to their distance, instead
of taking derivative on a continuous set of equipotential lines. Nevertheless, the
avarage of these estimated points are actually pretty close to the constant line
(37.5 V/m).
In the second configuration, both of the graph V versus r (figure 11) and E
versus x (figure 12) shows a high degree of agreement between the experimental
data and the predicted curves. However, taking a closer look to the latter graph
shows that there are some large inaccuracies in the first few points. The best
explanation for this is that when using our estimating method at the points
closer to the disc, a small change in the distance may cause a big difference
in the electric field. To illustrate, for r = 0.003 m, the estimated electric field
will be 333.3 V/m. For r = 0.002 m, the estimated electric field will be 500
V/m. Given that the instrument for measuring distance is not very precise and
there are always small human errors in reading the values, this inaccuracy is
inevitable.