See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280221945

Measurement reduction method for the Millikan oil-drop experiment

Article  in  European Journal of Physics · September 2015

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/36/5/055022

CITATIONS READS

0 290

6 authors, including:

Guanqiao Shan Ziyu Chen

University of Toronto Beihang University (BUAA)
7 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    104 PUBLICATIONS   841 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Frequency modulation atomic force microscope measurment techniques in deep space environment View project

high-precision positioning stage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Guanqiao Shan on 05 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Physics
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 (10pp) doi:10.1088/0143-0807/36/5/055022

Measurement reduction method for the

Millikan oil-drop experiment
Yingzi Li1, Liwen Zhang1, Guanqiao Shan1, Jin Li1,
Huaiyang Cui2 and Ziyu Chen2
1
Physics Experiment Center of BeiHang University, XueYuan Road No. 37, HaiDian
District, Beijing, Peopleʼs Republic of China
2
Department of Physics of BeiHang University, XueYuan Road No. 37, HaiDian
District, Beijing, Peopleʼs Republic of China

E-mail: yingzilee@163.com

Received 29 December 2014, revised 30 March 2015

Accepted for publication 20 April 2015
Published 17 July 2015

Abstract
To overcome the shortcomings of the measurement procedure used for the
Millikan oil-drop experiment course, this paper suggests a measurement
reduction method based on simplification of the conventional formula. In this
method, only the voltage and the fall time are required to be recorded. This
method can also simplify the analysis and the measurement error of the
experiment and give proper parameter intervals, which results in a small
measurement error. A solution is conducted to calculate the value of the
elementary charge, and this solution verifies the measurement reduction
method.

Keywords: Millikan oil-drop experiment, experimental course, experiment

improvement

1. Introduction

The Millikan oil-drop experiment is one of the best-known experiments in the history of
physics. It is therefore a meaningful step to bring this experimental course to undergraduate
students. Stephen’s review article [1], which discussed some aspects of the experiment in
educational purposes and addressed student difficulties with this experiment, gave a sig-
nificant summary of the articles about this experiment used in student experiment courses
prior to 2007. It has been reported [2] that, eyestrain, tedium, and poor results were the main
reasons why students did not enjoy the experiment. Indeed, in our practices, students always
complain that the experiment is tedious because of the need to repeatedly perform the
measurements and the bad experimental result. Some work has been undertaken to improve
these shortcomings. Müller-Hill et al [2] proposed a procedure to improve the experiment and
0143-0807/15/055022+10$33.00 © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 1
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

made some suggestions for the aim of obtaining low error results. To interest students in the
experiment, Eckert et al [3] built a remote laboratory to teach the experiment course using a
computer, and MacIsaac [4] used a simulation method to demonstrate the experiment to
students. Using these improvements, the teaching quality has been improved to some extent.
However, we believe that it is better for the students to do this experiment using their
own hands, because methods that use simulation and remote control can only give the
students a virtual experience of the experiment, and only using their own hands to operate the
instruments and do their calculation, can they learn experimental methods, proper error
handling or the stories behind this experiment deeply. In this paper, we use a method called
the floating method in some instructions to reduce the number of measurements required.
Unfortunately, we did not find any publications on this method, and therefore decided to
present it in this paper. This method reduces the measurements and alleviates the tedious
feeling during the experiment. Proper intervals for voltage and fall time measurements are
proposed which result in a low error margin under the analysis of partial differentials of
parameters, and then the conclusion that the result for small integer multiples of elementary
charge with low error margin is given. Finally, calculations based on the data from students
and experimental reports confirm our conclusions.

2. Theory

The fundamental formula for calculation of the charge on an oil drop is given by equation (1).
Because this experiment is very well known, its derivation is omitted in this section and the
ideas behind it can be found in [5].

⎛ ⎞3 2
18π ⎜ η ⎟ d V +V
Q=
2ρg ⎜1 + b ⎟ (U
g e )( Vg )1 2
⎝ pa ⎠

9ηVg
a= (1)
2ρg

In equation (1), Vg and Ve are the constant velocity of the oil drop when it falls and rises,
respectively, and U is the voltage applied on the parallel plates, ρ is the density of the oil drop,
g is acceleration of gravity, η is the viscous coefficient of air, a is the radius of the oil drop, b
is the Stokes’ law fixed constant, p is the atmospheric pressure and d is the distance between
parallel plates. To simplify the analysis of this experiment, all parameters other than Vg, Ve
and U, are considered to be constant. Thus equation (1) can be rewritten as

⎛ ⎞
K⎜ 1
Q=
U ⎝ 1 + AVg ⎟⎠
⎜ − 1 2
⎟ Vg + Ve
( )( Vg )1 2
18π
K= dη3 2
2ρg
b 2ρg
A= (2)
p 9η

Generally, a drop initially falls through air without the voltage applied to the parallel
plates. The velocity of the charged oil drop gradually reaches a steady state, and then students

2
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

Figure 1. Two processes of the Millikan oil-drop experiment.

Figure 2. Measurement processes of tg and te during the experiment.

measure Vg. After that, students pull the oil drop up again by applying the voltage to the plates
until the velocity of the drop becomes constant again, and Ve is obtained (see figure 1).
We first assume that the drop moves the same distance l when it rises and falls with
constant velocities Ve and Vg. The velocities can thus be rewritten as equation (3) where te and
tg are the time during which the drop moves through distance l with the constant velocities Ve
and Vg respectively (see figure 2).

l l
Ve = , Vg = (3)
te tg

Therefore, rather than measure velocities, only tg and te need to be measured, and the
distance l is a preset constant. This constant value of l can be guaranteed by the scales on the
microscope in operating the experiment practically. Then equation (2) can be rewritten again
as

3
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

Figure 3. Measurement process after measurement reduction.

K ′ ⎛⎜ 1 ⎞3 2 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞1 2
⎟ ⎜ + ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Q=
U ⎜⎝ 1 + A′tg1 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ tg te ⎠ ⎝ tg ⎠
18π
K′ = d (η l )3 2
2ρg
b 2ρg
A′ = (4)
p 9ηl

However, a large error exists when students measure the time of the drop through the
same distance l twice. If we let Ve → 0, which means te → ∞, and U is adjusted to ensure that
the drop remains static between the plates. Then the time needs to be measured only once and
Q in equation (4) therefore becomes
⎛ ⎞3 2
K′ ⎜ 1 ⎟
Q= (5)
U ⎜⎝ tg 1 + A′tg1 2
( ) ⎟
⎠
Equation (5) gives a concise form to enable the students to understand how the voltage U
and fall time tg influence the calculation of Q. In addition, this method reduces the mea-
surements in the experiment. Students only need initially to choose a specific voltage and find
a static drop in the container through the microscope and record U. Then the voltage applied
across the parallel plates can be removed, and the oil drop starts to fall. The oil drop falls
continuously with constant velocity Vg. The students then only need to record the time that the
drop moves through distance l. This measurement process is depicted in figure 3. However,
an oil drop is not static truly due to the leviation voltage, and this will lead to a large
∂Q
experiment error from ∣ ∂t ∣, because the coefficient is not zero if the drop is not static. To
e
reduce this error, students need to compare different oil drops in the scope and find some
approximately static drops. In practice, we find this error depends on the observation time and
resolution of length scale, and the students can always find a drop which is approximately
∂Q
static. Therefore, we assume that ∣ ∂t ∣ = 0 and the error is ignored in this paper.
e
For education purposes, this method simplifies the expression used for computing Q,
whereas equation (1) is so complex and long that students may find the calculation confusing.
The reduction in the number of measurements also saves the experiment time for students,
and they can consider other important aspects of this experiment, rather than repeat tedious
measurements.

4
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

Table 1. Values of the parameters in K′ and A′.

Parameters Values

ρ (kg m3) 981

d(m) 0.005
g (m s 2 ) 9.792
b 0.00822
P(Pa) 101330
l(m) 0.0015
η 1.83 × 10−5

With due consideration of the uniformity of the experiment course, teachers must provide
the initial parameter values for K′ and A′ for equation (4) before the experiment begins, and
then instruct the students to calculate K′ and A′. Though students could chose their own
values for these parameters, the use of fixed values for all students is better for the teachers to
evaluate the students’ performances in the experiment, and it is also beneficial when the
teachers analyze data that were collected from different students. Table 1 gives the values of
parameters that we use in our experiment for equation (4).

3. Method of selecting drops

In the work of Müller-Hill et al [2], they chose a specific voltage, such as 400 V and 450 V,
and chose an oil drop which moves slowly and falls deeply. Although they provided a good
error margin that was smaller than e0, no theoretical analysis was given. Generally, the
measurement error for equation (4) is given as

⎛ ⎞2 ⎛ ⎞2 ⎛ ∂Q ⎞2
⎜ ∂Q ⎟ ∂Q
ΔQ = ⎜ Δt g ⎟ + ⎜ Δte ⎟ + ⎜ ΔU ⎟
⎝ ∂tg ⎠ ⎝ ∂te ⎠ ⎝ ∂U ⎠

∂Q K ′ ⎡⎣ te 6 + 9A′tg1 2 + 2 + 5A′tg1 2 tg ⎤⎦
( ) ( )
=
∂tg 52
((
4Ute 1 + A′tg1 2 tg ) )
∂Q K′
= 32 12
∂te
(
Ute2 1 + A′tg1 2 ) tg
∂Q K′
= (6)
∂U (
U 2 1 + A′tg3 2 tg1 2 )
where the Δtg , Δte and ΔU are related to the experiment setups. Therefore, for a specific
setup, they are constant. The error for Q is therefore determined using the coefficients
∣∂Q ∂tg ∣, ∣∂Q ∂te ∣ and ∣∂Q ∂U ∣, and low values of these coefficients indicate the low error
values. Thus, from the analysis of these coefficients, the choices of these three parameters
which lead to low measurement error can be found. However, these coefficients are affected
by three parameters tg, te, and U, and therefore the relation among them is complicated. It is
hard to figure out the proper selection of these parameters and may confuse students’
understanding of this analysis method. Hence we use the measurement reduction method
again (let te → ∞) to simplify those coefficients and get the simplified results as equation (7).

5
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

Figure 4. The plots of coefficients ∣∂Q ∂tg ∣ and ∣∂Q ∂U ∣.

In this section, the simplified results will be used to analyze the value of measurement error.
12
∂Q 3K ′ 2 + 3A′tg
=
∂tg 4U t + A′t 3 2 5 2
g ( g )
∂Q
=0
∂te
⎡ ⎤3 2
∂Q K′ ⎢ 1 ⎥
= 2 (7)
⎢ ⎥
∂U (
U ⎣ tg 1 + A′tg1 2 ) ⎦

First, the plots of coefficient ∣∂Q ∂tg ∣ are given for some specific voltages in figure 4(a).
Obviously, the value of the coefficient is small when the tg is large. Similarly, for some
specific fall time, the plots of coefficient ∣∂Q ∂U ∣ are depicted in figure 4(b) and its value
becomes small when the voltage is high. This indicates that selecting a drop of a large fall
time and a high voltage will produce a low error result. According to equation (5), Q
decreases as U or tg increases and, however, it is integer multiples of elementary charge e0,
thus the Q is not smaller than e0. Therefore, maximum values of U and tg exist, and no oil
drop will be measured if U and tg exceed these maximum values. Thus, the feasible intervals
for these parameters must be studied. To do this, we let Q = Ne0 where N is the positive

6
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

Figure 5. Relationship between voltage U and fall time tg. Each curve with integer n
indicates that the points on the curve result in an integer multiple of elementary
charge e0.

Figure 6. (a) 207 groups of data placed on figure 5, and (b) and (c) two partially
enlarged views of (a).

integer. Then the relationship between voltage and fall time can be determined by
equation (5) of different N. These relations are shown in figure 5.
Note that only the points that are on the curves in figure 5 result in values of Q that are
integer multiples of e0. Practically, the experiment uncertainties will cause a deviation from
the curve. Using figure 5 with figure 4 allows feasible intervals to be determined. In addition,
small errors occur where N is small, because large U and tg lead to small multiple N,
according to figure 5. In other words, ΔQ increases when N increases.

7
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

Figure 7. Average error margin of each integer n. The black dashed horizontal line
shows the value of elementary charge e0, and the red dashed vertical line indicates the
intersection of the black dashed line and the error margin curve.

To demonstrate this conclusion, we collected 207 groups of data from the student
experiment reports. As mentioned earlier, these data were recorded using the same instru-
ments under the same experimental conditions. Thus, the values given in table 1 can be used
for computation of equation (5). Besides, these students operated this experiment without
knowing the measurement reduction method. Therefore, the recorded data of U and tg are
random. After we draw up the 207 points on figures 5 and 6 are obtained.
In figure 6(a), the points on the curve underscore values of Q that are integer multiples of
elementary charge, and the points that are close to a curve of n underscore a value which is
close to the n multiplies of elementary charge. After all the Q are calculated, we can then
calculate the multiple n for e0 of each point approximately using

⎡ Q⎤
n=⎢ ⎥ (8)
⎣ e0 ⎦

In equation (8), the brackets [•] round the • to the nearest integer. We then calculate the
average error ΔQ for each n using equations (6) and (7), and then the average error margin is
obtained and shown in figure 7.
Figure 7 shows that the error margin 2 × ΔQ increases when n increases. The black
dashed line shows the value of e0, and a suitable error margin should be smaller than e0.
Therefore, oil drops for which the electric charge is smaller than approximately seven times
that of e0 are appropriate for students to measure. Practically, the intersection may be different
for different setups which has different Δtg and ΔU .
Based on figures 6 and 7 and the analysis made before, we can present the theory of this
measurement reduction method to students in the class, and suggest they measure the oil
drops where tg and U satisfy the feasible intervals, such as the following intervals. Note that
these intervals are chosen empirically according to the analysis of the coefficients in
equation (7) before, and teachers can adapt it in different experimental environments.

tg ∈ [17s , 27s], U ∈ [120V , 270V ] (9)

8
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

4. Verifying the value of the elementary charge

As a result of the experimental course, students would certainly be keen to compute the
elementary charge using the data recorded from their experiments and then find the result that
is approximately equal to the elementary charge. To do this, first we need to select the points
which satisfy the intervals in equation (9).
Figure 6(b) is the enlarged view whose voltage and fall time satisfy the feasible intervals
in figures 6(a), and (c) is the enlarged view which is of the same size as figure 6(b) but the
values of voltage and fall time are smaller than it. There are 62 points in figure 6(b) which
satisfy the intervals to calculate equation (5). These points in figure 6(b) can be classified into
different groups according to the value of n. Let Qi = q∼i ni , where the index i indicates the
number of points, then every point can generate a specific q∼i using

q˜i =
(
Qi U , t g ) (10)
n
Therefore, the problem of using q∼ to evaluate e0 can be expressed as
2
min ∑ ( e͠ 0 − q∼i) , s. t. e͠ 0 > 0 (11)
i

Equation (11) is an optimization problem and many computer tools are available for it.
We used the Scipy package (an open-source Python package) to solve the problem because it
is easy to learn and straightforward to use. After the minimisation, the obtained result with
measurement error is

e͠ 0 = (1.569 ± 0.176) × 10 −19C (12)

On the other hand, we selected 62 points randomly in figure 6(c) and the obtained result with
measurement error is

e͠ 0 = (1.593 ± 1.105) × 10 −19C (13)

Obviously, the measurement error in equation (13) is larger than that in equation (12).
Although the 62 randomly selected points suggest a possible systematic error, all the points
are recorded in the same experimental environment and the systematic error is assumed to be
the same. Therefore this comparison confirms the conclusion made in section 3.

5. Conclusion

This paper provides a method to reduce the experimental measurement required in the Mil-
likan oil-drop experiment based on simplification of the formula used to compute Q, and this
simplification reduces the experimental time required by the students. The students can focus
on processing the data obtained from the experiment. Based on an analysis of the simplified
formula, we have provided a method for selection of the parametric intervals for oil drops to
provide low error margin data. Two intervals in which the oil drops have low error margin are
given, and students should collect the oil drop based on these two intervals when performing
the experiment. To demonstrate that this method can produce a correct result with low
measurement error, we used 62 out of an available 207 groups of data to compute the
elementary charge via an optimization problem, and the other 62 groups of data which do not
satisfy the proposed interval to do the same calculation. The measurement error of the former

9
 Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 055022 Y Li et al

62 groups of data is smaller than the latter, which confirms the conclusion we proposed in this
paper.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the students who provided their data for this paper and the BeiHang University
Major Education Reform Project (2013), which funded this paper.

References

[1] Klassen S 2009 Identifying and addressing student difficulties with the Millikan oil drop experiment
Sci. Educ. 18 593–607
[2] Müller-Hill C and Heering P 2011 Control and stabilization: making Millikanʼs oil drop experiment
work Eur. J. Phys. 32 1285
[3] Eckert B, Gröber S, Vetter M and Jodl H-J 2012 Millikanʼs oil-drop experiment as a remotely
controlled laboratory Eur. J. Phys. 33 1227
[4] MacIsaac D 2007 Websites for teaching high school and introductory college modern physics
topics: Teaching about the photoelectric effect Phys. Teach. 45 124–124
[5] Jones R C 1995 The Millikan oildrop experiment: making it worthwhile Am. J. Phys. 63 970–7

10

View publication stats