As the temperature

Phy__ia_na_en_1d upskilling SSS increases, the magnetic

1
domains gain more
energy and become less
Magnets and Temperature: My Physics IA aligned."

Magnetic fields are created by a number of magnetic domains; the degree of

alignment of the domains is the major factor for the strength of the magnetic field.
At low temperature where the domains are able to have less internal energy, they
align themselves and are stable, which results in a greater strength of magnetic
field. As the temperature increases, however the domains are given additional
internal energy and so are able to move somewhat randomly and the alignment
becomes less stable. The magnetic field then get weaker because of this.1

In this scientific investigation (for my physics IA) I will study how temperature
affects magnets. I will detect that a change in temperature changes the strength of
a magnet, and I will quantify this change. My Research Question asks: What is the
relationship between the strength of a magnet and its temperature? RQ needs re-phrasing for
providing more specificity
There are various ways to talking about magnetics and magnetic fields. Magnetic
flux density, symbol, , is measured in units of telsa, denoted T. The magnetic
field, symbol B, is measured in units of webers (denoted Wb). The telsa is defined
as the magnetic flux in a unit area that is perpendicular to the field lines, where
area A is measured in units of metres square. There's a minor mistake in the unit explanation.
Magnetic flux density (B) is measured in teslas (T),
Magnetic Flux Desnity = F = BMagneticwhile Amagnetic flux (Φ) is measured in webers (Wb).
Field Perpendicular Surface Area
The relationship between them is B = Φ/A, where A is
the area.
The tesla then is equal to one weber (Wb) per square meter (m2). Also, one telsa
produces a force of one newton on a charge of one coulomb moving at one metre
per second at a right angles to the direction of the magnetic field. This is
confusing,2 but for this investigation I will measure the magnetic flux density as
detected on a Gauss meter.

Method
My investigation is straight forward. Under standardized conditions I will use the
Gauss meter to measure the magnetic flux density of a magnet, and I will measure
the temperature of the magnet at the same time using an infrared thermometer. I
heated the magnets and repeat the measurements overall a reasonable

1
See the following resources for this information at:
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/tesla-T
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/fluxmg.html
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/electromagnetism/magnetism.html
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/magnetic-forces-and-magnetic-fields/magnetic-
flux-faradays-law/a/what-is-magnetic-flux
2
See the footnote about there being no general agreement about how to denote magnetic fields on
page 735 in Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Krane, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Phy__ia_na_en_1d upskilling SSS 2

temperature range of temperatures. Each measurement was done three times and
an average was used for analysis.

Equipment
• Hot plate with a capacity to heat up to 160°C
More details on the exact set up of the
• 3 ceramic block magnets
equipment would have been beneficial
• Stand
• Gauss Meter Probe ±0.005 mT
• Infrared Thermometer ±0.05°C
• Gloves
• Ruler

Equipment Set Up

Experimental Variables

The independent variable is the temperature of the magnet measured in °C. After
heating the magnet up to about 150°C by means of the hot plate, I allowed it to
Phy__ia_na_en_1d upskilling SSS 3

cool down and made measurements in 10-degree intervals. The final temperature
was room temperature, around 20°C.

The dependent variable was the magnetic flux density, measured in mT units,
units of milli-tesla as this is the readout on the Gauss meter. I put the Gauss meter
in to the magnet as it magnet cooled and kept the probe at a fixed distance. The
measuring surface of the Gauss meter always faced directly toward the magnet.

There were some controlled variables too.

• The distance between the magnet and the Gauss meter was fixed to
3.0 cm. This controlled was essential. How did you manage this?
• The surrounding room temperature was kept constant in order to maintain a
reasonable cooling rate that slowed collection of data.
• The point on the magnet where the infrared thermometer measured was
always fixed. I made a small mark so as to assure the consistency.

Scientific Method
1. Mark a point where the infrared thermometer measure on each magnet.
2. Put the magnets on a hot plate and make sure they do not overlap.
3. Fix the Gauss meter probe vertically using a stand.
4. Mark the position of 3 cm from the Gauss meter to where the magnets are
placed
5. Turn on the hot plate and heat the magnets; start measuring temperature
with the infrared thermometer.
6. Take the magnets off of the hot place when the temperature reaches
160°C.
7. Turn on the Gauss Probe meter and get ready to make measurements.
8. Record the magnetic flux for every 10°C interval until the temperature no
longer changes.
9. Repeat the process 7 and 8 above with the other magnets.

Safety Issues
Of course, I had to be very careful with this investigation. The hot plate got very
hot. I used gloves. The magnets exerted strong forces on each other, so this was
controlled by keeping distance between them. I was very careful in handling
magnets.
Phy__ia_na_en_1d upskilling SSS 4

Data: Repeated Trials, Averages, Uncertainties

Plotting the data and using the best fit linear line generated by the software, my
data revealed the following statistical results.

Gradient and Statistical Error m = -0.0206 ± 0.0003 mT / °C

y-Intercept and Statistical Error y = 9.7583 ± 0.0260mT

Statistically, the gradient is good to ±1.5% and the y-intercept is good to ±0.3%,
rather good and confident results.
Phy__ia_na_en_1d upskilling SSS 5

Graph #1: Data Averages, Uncertainties, Computer Best-Fit Line

Graph #2: Data, Error Bars, Minimum and Maximum Gradients by Eye
Phy__ia_na_en_1d upskilling SSS 6

Summary of information from Graph #2.

Minimum Gradient by Eye mmin - 0.01904 mT / °C

Maximum Gradient by Eye mmax - 0.02096 mT / °C
Minimum y-intercept by eye y min = 9.631mT
Maximum y-intercept by eye y max = 9.758 mT

The following is a determination of experimental error using minimum and

maximum gradients estimated by eye to find the values.

Dm = ±
mmax - mmin
=±
(
-0.02096 - -0.01904 )
= ±0.00096
2 2

m ± Dm = -0.0206 ± 0.00096 = -0.021± 0.001mT / °C

y max - y min 9.758 - 9.631

Dy = ± =± = ±0.0635mT
2 2

y ± Dy = 9.7583 ± 0.0635 mT = 9.76 ± 0.06 mT

Using error bars for estimating uncertainties, the gradient is good to about ± 4.8%
or just under 5%; and the y-intercept is good to about ± 0.6%.

Looking at the statistical analysis alone, the gradient is good to about ± 1.5% and
the y-intercept to about ± 0.3%. Although the statistical analysis is noticeable less
than the experimental uncertainties, I will accept the experimental uncertainties in
my investigation.

Interpretation

The graphs show that the magnetic flux density decreases as the temperature
increases. The best-fit line is a linear line and both the statistical analysis and error
analysis reveals excellent fit. The rate of change is seen to be proportional which
means that the strength of the magnetic flux density is varied inversely by the
temperature at a constant rate. In my case, this was –0.02 mT per °C.

I was unable to find any established theory for the proportionally constant, and no
doubt this value is dependent on the particular magnetic, the particular setup
situation, and so on.
 Phy__ia_na_en_1d upskilling SSS 7

Consistent with Known Theory

As far as I can tell, my conclusion is consistent with established scientific

knowledge. However, my temperature range is limited. A university textbook has a
graph3 that shows a linear function between the ratio of the magnetic field to
temperature on the kelvin scale to the ratio of magnetism to the maxim
magnetism. The linear line is for a limited range, but the range include my
experimental range. Moreover, the meaning of this illustration is that as
temperature increases, magnetism decreases. In another university textbook4 we
see that for increasing temperature the ratio of magnetism to maximum magnetism
increases linearly. Again, due to the ratios this means as temperature increases
magnetism decreases. Although for a large temperature range the graph is
curved, the text states that “The small curve is approximately linear.”

Limitations and Improvements

Thermometer. It was not perfect. It was difficult to measure the dependent

variables at a precise and accurate moment. For example, when the thermometer
measured the magnet the temperature was decreasing from 100°C I was looking
for 90°C. However, the reading did not show 90°C; rather the reading suddenly
changed from 94°C to 88.7°C, thus, measured the value of magnetic flux density
at 88.7°C for 90°C. This gives a higher degree of error of about 1.5%.

To resolve the thermometer issue, I could use a thermocouple which responds

faster than the infrared thermometer. More accurate data would be made.

Uniform heating. Perhaps the heating of the magnets was not uniform. The
infrared thermometer showed slightly different temperature as I pointed it toward
different parts of the magnet. I did turn the magnets over while heating, but this did
not solve the problem. So, energy on the magnetism was not uniformly distributed.
Hence the magnets may not have generated uniform magnetic fields.

To resolve the heating issue, I could put the magnet into an oven. The oven is
insulated and has a high temperature range. This would give me a wider range of
data and hopefully a more uniform heating of the magnets.
IA WRC 2504

3
Figure 11.26 on page 361 of Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Stephen Thornton and Andre
Rex, Saunders College Publishing
4
Figure 29-7, page 806 in Physics, Volume 2 by Paul Tippler, Worth Publishing, Inc.
Research Design = 3- The Research Design needs more clarity and specificity
Overall 13/24
Data analysis = 4- Inclusion of more raw tables and clearly labelled graphs needed in some places
Conclusion = 3- Implications of findings in practical application is missing
Evaluation =3- Brief descriptions regarding limitations and improvements are present.