The Effect of Varying Temperatures and Laser Treatment on the Effectiveness of

Diamagnetic Levitation Systems

Brian Nackoud and Matthew Polgar
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
AP Physics
12C
Mr. McMillan / Mr. Supal / Mr. Acre
18 December 2015

The Effect of Varying Temperatures and Laser Treatment on the Effectiveness of

Diamagnetic Levitation Systems
Research conducted in 2012 by Jiro Abe and Masayuki Kobayashi concluded that
a high-power laser can be used for optical motion control of a diamagnetically levitating
pyrolytic graphite disc. Since pyrolytic graphite is among the only materials that is
strongly diamagnetic at room temperature, and its magnetic susceptibility is dependent on
its temperature, heating up various points on a diamagnetically levitating disc can propel
it along a bed of permanent neodymium magnets. Such a system could be used to
implement light-based transportation; however, environmental temperature changes could
possibly affect the efficacy of these systems.
This experiment was designed to determine what effect, if any, the temperature of
a pyrolytic graphite disc, temperature of a bed of neodymium magnets, and laser
treatment have on the effectiveness of diamagnetic levitation systems. To test these
factors, a graphite disc and a bed of magnets were heated to varying temperatures
between 0 C and 40 C. Then the magnets were put on a slight incline and the pyrolytic
graphite disc was set at the top. A laser was placed at the end of the track and was aimed
at the edge of the pyrolytic disc as it traveled down the incline. It was determined that
none of the factors had a significant effect on the travel time of the graphite disc, though
there was a possible interaction between the magnet temperature and the laser treatment;
travel time seemed to decrease when magnet temperature was held low, but only if laser
treatment was also held high. More research would be necessary to explore this possible
interaction.

Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Review of Literature............................................................................................................3
Problem Statement...............................................................................................................8
Experimental Design............................................................................................................9
Data and Observations.......................................................................................................14
Data Analysis and Interpretation........................................................................................18
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................27
Appendix A: Professional Contact.....................................................................................31
Works Cited........................................................................................................................32

Nackoud Polgar
Introduction
Magnetic levitation is among the greatest modern advances in transportation. By
utilizing opposing magnetic fields to levitate a vehicle a train, for instance one
creates a transportation system that can be propelled without any conflicting frictional
forces. The Shanghai Maglev Train (the fastest commercial train in operation), for
example, can reach an incredible speed of 431 kilometers per hour using incredibly
powerful electromagnets to both suspend and propel (Li). But even with such impressive
results, electromagnetic propulsion is not the only form of maglev transportation; since
maglev is still a developing field, many systems are still being tested.
One such system involves diamagnetic levitation as opposed to ferromagnetic or
electromagnetic varieties. Diamagnetism is a property of all objects a natural
tendency to oppose magnetic fields. Pyrolytic graphite is one material that is highly
diamagnetic at room temperature; as such, it can levitate over a bed of permanent
magnets without any external energy, making it superior (in this respect) to
electromagnetic levitation. Research conducted by Jiro Abe and Masayuki Kobayashi
has shown that levitating graphite can be controlled through the use of lasers (Masayuki),
opening up exciting opportunities with respect to diamagnetic levitation propulsion.
Magnetism is highly dependent on temperature. When a laser is used for pinpoint
temperature changes of pyrolytic graphite, that pinpoint will have a different diamagnetic
susceptibility than its surroundings. This creates an unbalanced magnetic force, with
different parts of the graphite being more diamagnetic than others, forcing it to move in
the direction of the laser. In addition, permanent magnets tend to lose magnetism when
heated (and vice versa), so changes in magnet temperature would alter the force acting on

Nackoud Polgar
the pyrolytic graphite, causing it to interact with the magnets differently when in motion.
In this experiment, a bed of magnets was put on a slight incline and a pyrolytic graphite
disc was set at the top. A laser was placed at the end of the track and was aimed at the
edge of the pyrolytic disc. By varying the temperature of the graphite and the bed of
magnets, as well as the laser treatment, the optimal combination for the quickest travel
time of the pyrolytic graphite was found using photo gates.
Testing magnetic levitation systems under different conditions is beneficial to
show what is possible in real-life situations. By testing various temperatures, this
research can aid in understanding how diamagnetic levitation systems could be affected
by the environment. The laser treatment also shows that it may be possible to implement
light-based transportation systems extremely energy-efficient trains or automobiles,
for instance which could convert light energy directly into mechanical energy. With
such exciting applications, researching light-based and temperature dependent maglev is
a promising endeavor.

Nackoud Polgar
Review of Literature
A laser, which stands for Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of
Radiation, is a device which emits an extremely concentrated beam of light in a specific
wavelength and/or color. As shown in Figure 1, a basic laser typically consists of a pair
of mirrors one a total reflector and one a partial reflector to transmit light produced
by an excited medium, or active material. This medium must be excited by some form of
energy, and will always produce electromagnetic waves of a specific wavelength. Some
of the most common media are gasses, such as argon or a helium-neon mixture, and solid
crystals, like ruby (Frequently Asked . . .).

Figure 1. Scheme of a Laser (Svelto)

Many things set laser beams apart from typical light sources. The most
fundamental of these properties are monochromaticity, coherence, directionality, and
brightness (Svelto). In short, laser beams are monochromatic (single-colored) because
the two-mirror arrangement forms a resonant cavity, in which only certain wavelengths
can oscillate. Waves are always in a structured phase, thus being coherent, and are nearly
perfectly parallel to one another, thus being directional. Because of the highly directional
properties of a laser beam, its brightness is incredibly high with regards to surface area.
Normal light intensity is directly proportional to the square of the distance it travels, as
depicted in Figure 2, but lasers maintain the same small cross-sectional area throughout
the entire beam. While these properties make lasers unique among light-emitting

Nackoud Polgar
devices, they also make them incredibly dangerous; laser beams do not increase in
diameter at a distance, presenting optical hazards both up close and far away (Frequently
Asked . . .).

Figure 2. Inverse Square Representation (Borb)

One of the three basic forms of heat transfer is radiation, and this is the method
through which a laser transfers energy through its beam. Radiation is the transfer of heat
through electromagnetic waves (Henderson), which dont need matter in order to
propagate. All objects radiate energy naturally, and all electromagnetic waves transfer
energy are energy, in fact; but lasers purposely focus large amounts of energy into a
very condensed space. Great amounts of heat transfer correlate to great temperature
changes in any object that the laser is pointed at, allowing lasers to heat up whatever
material they are directed towards.
Magnetism is among the fundamental forces of the universe; it results in both
attractive and repulsive forces between objects. In a way, every electron is a miniature
magnet, with the direction of its field lines depending on its spin (shown in Figure 3). In
a non-magnetized object, the spins of all of its electrons are oriented haphazardly,

Nackoud Polgar
cancelling each other out. A magnetized object, on the other hand, has the majority of its
electrons spins aligned with each other to produce a strong magnetic force in a specific
direction (Stern). Electrons will only align with each other if doing so will reduce the
overall electric repulsion energy in the system; in addition, heating an object will
introduce greater chaos into the magnetic alignment, decreasing its overall magnetism.

Figure 3. Electron Magnetic Field Diagram (Electron Spin . . .)

Magnetic levitation (maglev) is the process of levitating objects using opposing
magnetic fields. Some of the simplest forms of maglev are accomplished using
diamagnetism, which is magnetism which opposes a surrounding field. All materials are
diamagnetic to some degree, since the electrical charges of atoms partially shield the
interior of a material from the applied magnetic field (Kittel). Diamagnetism is perfect
for maglev, because a strong opposing diamagnetic force can levitate an object on a flat
bed of permanent magnets.
Unfortunately, the diamagnetic properties of most materials are too weak to be
detected. Most maglev involving diamagnetism is performed at extremely low
temperatures, where a select few materials can become perfectly diamagnetic due to the
alignment of the electron spins within them. These materials have the ability to
completely neutralize the magnetic field at their surfaces (Simon), but are not ideal for

Nackoud Polgar
general-purpose maglev due to the extremely low temperatures at which they must be
kept. However, there are a few materials that can demonstrate maglev at much higher
temperatures, such as bismuth and pyrolytic graphite. Such materials are naturally very
diamagnetic, particularly pyrolytic graphite (Simon).
Pyrolytic graphite is formed artificially by collecting decomposed carbonaceous
gas onto a hot mandrel. It is fairly brittle, making it quite difficult to handle, and has a
moderate thermal conductivity, which is a measurement of a materials ability to conduct
heat (Isaac). As previously stated, pyrolytic graphite has one of the lowest magnetic
susceptibilities among non-superconductors. When this material of low magnetic
susceptibility is put in the presence of a strong magnetic field, such as that of permanent
neodymium magnets, it is possible to display magnetic levitation at room temperature.
(Moser).
In 2012, Japanese researchers Masayuki Kobayashi and Jiro Abe showed that a
levitating disc of pyrolytic graphite can be guided using a medium-power laser. The laser
was used to heat up the pyrolytic graphite in certain areas, creating a local dis-alignment
of electron spins, reducing magnetic susceptibility, and thus causing it to move in the
direction of the laser. These researchers demonstrated a relationship between the
temperature of the graphite and the height at which it is levitated, and also showed that a
laser could also be used to spin a pyrolytic graphite disc at high speeds (Kobayashi).
Previously, researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology tested various
magnet configurations to determine which was optimal in terms of levitating the graphite.
They determined that an opposite 2D array of neodymium magnets was among the best
configurations when attempting to levitate diamagnetic materials. This 2D array is

Nackoud Polgar
shown in Figure 4, and is superior to some other tested arrays because it can be created
using non-cubic magnets (Moser). In the diagram, an arrow represents a directed
magnetic field, a cross represents a field directed into the magnet from the top, and a
circled dot represents a field directed outward from the top of the magnet. Due to its
supposed effectiveness, this array will be utilized in this research.

Figure 4. Opposite 2D Array (Moser)

Nackoud Polgar
Problem Statement
Problem:
To determine the effect that the temperature of a pyrolytic graphite disc,
temperature of a bed of neodymium magnets, and laser treatment have on the travel time
of the pyrolytic graphite on a track of neodymium magnets.

Hypothesis:
When using the lowest graphite temperature, lowest magnet temperature, and
greatest laser treatment, the travel time of the pyrolytic graphite disc over the bed of
neodymium magnets will be the lowest.

Data:
For each trial of the experiment, Vernier photogates were used to measure the
travel time of the pyrolytic graphite down the magnet track in seconds (s) in response to
various factors. These factors included graphite temperature, magnet temperature, and
laser treatment. Temperatures were obtained using a refrigerator and a hot plate, and
were measured in degrees Celsius (C). Laser treatment referred to the amount of time
that the laser was focused on the pyrolytic graphite for each trial, and was described
qualitatively. Eleven trials (including three standards) were executed per iteration of the
experiment, and two iterations were run in total. Since the purpose was to determine the
effect of three factors, a Three-Factor Design of Experiment was utilized to analyze the
data.

Nackoud Polgar
Experimental Design
Materials:
Laser (405nm; 100mW)
(100) NdFeB magnet (1/4in dia.
x 1/10in)
Pyrolytic graphite disc (20mm
dia. x 1mm)
Vernier LabQuest
Vernier Photogate
TI-Nspire Calculator
Metal 12 in. ruler

Meter stick
Hot plate
(2) Thermometer (0.1 C)
Stopwatch
Small C-clamp
Masking tape
Plywood ( in. thick)
Black foam (any size)
405nm laser safety glasses

Procedure:
1.

Ensure that all appropriate safety measures are taken. It is vital that laser safety
glasses be worn while operating the laser, as a high-power laser can easily cause
permanent eye damage without taking proper precautions.

2.

Using the TI-Nspire Calculator (or other randomization device), randomize the
order of the 8 DOE trials with respect to the high/low values of the 3 factors
(graphite temperature, magnet temperature, and laser treatment).

3.

Attach all 100 magnets to the metal ruler in a 4 x 25 checkerboard pattern, such
that the polarities are opposite for adjacent magnets and the collection of magnets
touches three edges of the ruler (see Figure 5).

4.

Secure the 0 cm end of the meter stick near the edge of a table using masking
tape.

5.

Prop up the opposite end of the meter stick with a scrap piece of plywood at the
65 cm mark; secure using masking tape.

6.

Place the black foam (or other form of obstruction) at the far end of the meter
stick, such that it will intercept a laser beam that is directed down the length of the
stick.

7.

Attach a small loop of masking tape to the pyrolytic graphite disc (see Figure 6).

8.

Prop the plywood 5 cm above the surface of the hot plate.

9.

Set up the photogates such that they will remain 10.5 cm apart throughout the
experiment.

10.

Set up the LabQuest to record in pulse mode for the photogates.

11.

Using the C-clamp, mount the laser to the end of the table such that it is directed
up the meter stick ramp 0.5 cm away from the surface.

12.

Set up a scrap of paper 15 cm from the end of the meter stick, and focus the laser
precisely on that scrap. Remove the scrap.

13.

Place one thermometer inside of the refrigerator; save one for use with the hot
plate.

14.

Turn on the hot plate to the lowest setting.

15.

Place the magnets on the wood above the hot plate, in the refrigerator, or in the
open as appropriate for the trial. Allow 3 minutes for temperature adjustment.

16.

Place the pyrolytic graphite on the wood above the hot plate, in the refrigerator, or
in the open as appropriate for the trial. Allow 2 minutes for temperature
adjustment.

17.

Record the temperature of both the pyrolytic graphite and the magnets.

18.

Transfer the magnets to the meter stick ramp such that the last row of magnets
lines up with the edge of the meter stick.

19.

Quickly position the photogates such that they straddle the magnet track and their
beams cross directly above the track.

20.

Quickly transfer the pyrolytic graphite to the top of the track such that it levitates
and the masking tape tube is parallel to the track.

21.

Begin recording data using the LabQuest.

22.

Apply the laser treatment for the trial as follows:

i.

If laser treatment is low, do not turn on the laser; simply hold the
graphite for 10 seconds before releasing.

ii.

If laser treatment is standard, hold the graphite for 10 seconds then turn
on the laser immediately before releasing.

iii.

If laser treatment is high, turn on the laser and wait 10 seconds before
releasing.

23.

Obtain the travel time of the disc from the LabQuest, and record.

24.

Repeat Steps 15 23 for the remaining trials.

Diagrams:

Figure 5. Magnet Configuration

As shown in Figure 5, the magnets were configured in a 4 x 25 block on top of the

metallic ruler. Polarities were opposite for adjacent magnets, such that the magnets
stayed on the ruler without offering resistance.

Figure 6. Graphite Tape Tube

The tape on top of the pyrolytic graphite should be positioned as shown in Figure
6. This ensures that the disc, which is otherwise incredibly thin, will be large enough to
be detected by the photogates from the side.

Figure 7. Collection of Materials

Figure 7 shows the materials that were used in order to conduct the experiment.
Note that the refrigerator is not pictured, as it is too large to fit into frame with the rest of
the materials.

Figure 8. Diagram of Experimental Setup

Figure 8 shows the general setup of the experiment. The scrap wood table served
as insulation between the pyrolytic graphite/magnets and the hot plate, as even the lowest
hot plate setting is too hot for the magnets to safely withstand. The magnet track is
composed of the 100 magnets and the metal ruler. Also note that the laser is not pictured;
it is just out of frame below the track, pointed up towards the black foam.

Data and Observations

A three-factor design of experiment (DOE) was utilized to analyze the effects of
graphite temperature, magnet temperature, and laser treatment on the travel time of a
pyrolytic graphite disc that is diamagnetically levitating over a bed of permanent
magnets. The low, standard, and high values for these factors are given in Table 1 below.
Table 1
DOE Factor Values
Factor
Graphite Temp. (C)
Magnet Temp. (C)
Laster Treatment

Low ()
0
0
None

Standard
20
20
During

High (+)
40
40
Before

The standard temperature for both graphite and magnets, 20 C, was selected
because it is close to room temperature. The maximum temperature that the magnets can
endure before sustaining irreversible losses in magnetization is about 60 C, so 40 C was
selected as the high temperature in order to have ample leeway. The laser treatment
refers to how much the pyrolytic graphite disc was exposed to the laser throughout the
course of the trial None denotes no laser; During denotes that the laser was turned
on immediately when the graphite disc was released from the top of the ramp; and
Before signifies that the laser was turned on 10 seconds prior to the disc being released.

Table 2
Three-Factor DOE Trial Results
Trial
Standard
+++
++
++
+
Standard
++
+
+

Standard

Travel Time (s)

Run 1
Run 2
3.6167
3.3598
3.6340
4.0097
3.3901
3.5017
3.3804
3.2185
3.4516
3.8705
3.4001
3.1312
3.4676
3.5603
3.2359
3.5039
3.4227
3.3252
3.4336
3.5932
3.3181
3.4384

Average
Time (s)

3.8219
3.4459
3.2995
3.6611

3.5140
3.3699
3.3740
3.5134

Table 2 displays the data from the two runs of the three-factor DOE. The trial
symbols represent the high/low values for graphite temperature, magnet temperature, and
laser treatment respectively. The average time for each trial was obtained by averaging
the two travel times from Run 1 and Run 2; these averages are used for further data
analysis.
As a general rule, it appears that the times from Run 2 of the DOE are slightly
longer than those from Run 1. There are some noticeable exceptions, including some of
the standards, but six of the eight factor trials exhibit this trait. Subtle differences in
setup could easily account for this variance, including magnet placement and slight
temperature differences. However, the effects of these differences should be negligible in
further data analysis, since only the average times are used.

Table 3
DOE Observations
Trial
Standard
+++
++
++
+
Standard
++
+
+

Standard

Run 1 Observation
Temperature: 20.6 C
Graphite: 39.5 C Magnet: 37.3 C
Normal graphite and magnet highs, no issues
Graphite: 38.3 C Magnet: 36.3 C
Normal graphite and magnet highs, no issues
Graphite: 40.4 C Magnet: 6.1 C
High graphite temperature
Graphite: 45.8 C Magnet: 7.3 C
Highest graphite temperature for repeat trial
Temperature: 21.1 C
Graphite: 5.4 C Magnet: 35.9 C
No issues
Graphite: 5.3 C Magnet: 42.5 C
Highest magnet temperature
Graphite: 7.1 C Magnet: 7.1 C
Normal graphite and magnet lows, no issues
Graphite: 5.9 C Magnet: 5.9 C
Normal graphite and magnet lows, no issues
Temperature: 21.6 C

Run 2 Observation
Temperature: 21.2 C
Graphite: 48.6 C Magnet: 35.1 C
Higher graphite temperature
Graphite: 41.7 C Magnet: 34.1 C
Higher graphite temperature
Graphite: 51.4 C Magnet: 6.7 C
Highest graphite temperature for repeat trial
Graphite: 41.7 C Magnet: 6.3 C
Higher graphite temperature
Temperature: 21.8 C
Graphite: 5.5 C Magnet: 33.8 C
Low magnet temperature; possibly cooled
Graphite: 7.3 C Magnet: 35.1 C
No issues
Graphite: 7.0 C Magnet: 7.0 C
Normal graphite and magnet lows, no issues
Graphite: 6.3 C Magnet: 6.3 C
Normal graphite and magnet lows, no issues
Temperature: 22.0 C

Table 3 contains the observations from the DOE, specifically pertaining to the
temperature of the pyrolytic graphite and the magnets for each trial. The temperatures of
the magnets and graphite were recorded just as they were removed from the hot plate or
refrigerator. The graphite tended to be at a higher temperature than the magnets when
they were moved from the hot plate this is probably due to its much lower volume.
Note that the highest recorded temperature (51.4 C for [+ +] in Run 2) corresponds to
the lowest recorded travel time in Table 2. This is most likely a coincidence, since other
graphite temperatures show no correlation to the travel times in the data table.

Figure 9. LabQuest Screen

As shown in Figure 9, the readout on the LabQuest for each experiment was
merely a time to the bottom right side of the screen. This value was recorded before
moving to a new trial.

Figure 10. Pre-Trial Preparation

Figure 10 shows the setup of each trial immediately before starting. The pyrolytic
graphite is held in place at the top of the ramp by one of the researchers, the photogates
are in position; this is the setup before beginning data collection on the LabQuest.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

As mentioned previously, a three-factor design of experiment (DOE) was used to
determine the effects of graphite temperature, magnet temperature, and laser treatment on
the travel time of a pyrolytic graphite disc that is diamagnetically levitating over a bed of
permanent magnets. To ensure that no external variables significantly affected the data,
the eight trials for each iteration of the DOE were executed in random order; this
increases the reliability of the data. Also, a standard trial was run after every four factor
trials, ensuring that any data trends could be recognized.

Figure 11. Standards Plot

In Figure 11, the results of the standard trials are given in order, and the vertical
line marks the division between Run 1 and Run 2 of the DOE. There does not appear to
be a strong correlation among the standards over time; the standards from Run 1 appear
to be decreasing steadily, but the standards from Run 2 vary just as greatly without
obvious order. Note that the range of standards is relatively large, at 0.4855 seconds, due

to the first and fifth standards being distinctly higher/lower than the rest. As a result, only
factors with relatively large effects will be deemed significant.
Table 4
Values for Graphite Temperature
()
(+)

3.5140
3.8219

Values
3.3699
3.3740
3.4459
3.2995

3.5134
3.6611

Average
3.4428
3.5571

To calculate the effect of a factor on travel time, the averages when the factor is
held high and when the factor is held low must be calculated. The difference between
these two averages is the factor effect. Table 4 contains the values necessary for
calculating the high and low averages for Graphite Temperature, which were obtained
from Table 2. The averages for the low () and high (+) values were calculated to be
3.4428 seconds and 3.5571 seconds respectively. The difference between these averages
is 0.1143 seconds.
3.70
3.65
3.60

3.5571

3.55
3.50

Travel Time (s)

3.4428

3.45
3.40
3.35
3.30

-1

Graphite Temperature

Figure 12. Effect of Graphite Temperature

Figure 12 above shows that, on average, as graphite temperature increases from
low to high, travel time increases by 0.1143 seconds. In other words, the effect of
Graphite Temperature on travel time is 0.1143 seconds.

Table 5
Values for Magnet Temperature
()
(+)

3.2995
3.8219

Values
3.6611
3.3740
3.4459
3.5140

3.5134
3.3699

Average
3.4620
3.5379

Table 5 displays all of the values necessary to calculate the high and low averages
for Magnet Temperature. The averages for the low () and high (+) values were
calculated to be 3.4620 seconds and 3.5379 seconds respectively. The difference between
these averages is 0.0759 seconds.
3.70
3.65
3.60

3.5379

3.55
3.50

Travel Time (s)3.4620

3.45
3.40
3.35
3.30

-1

Magnet Temperature

Figure 13. Effect of Magnet Temperature

In Figure 13 above, it is shown that, on average, as magnet temperature increases
from low to high, travel time increases by 0.0759 seconds. In other words, the effect of
Magnet Temperature on travel time is 0.0759 seconds.
Table 6
Values for Laser Treatment
()
(+)

3.4459
3.8219

Values
3.6611
3.3699
3.2995
3.5140

3.5134
3.3740

Average
3.4976
3.5023

Table 6 gives all the necessary values for calculating the high and low averages
for Laser Treatment. The averages for the low () and high (+) values were calculated to

be 3.4976 seconds and 3.5023 seconds respectively. The difference between these
averages is 0.0047 seconds.
3.70
3.65
3.60
3.55

3.5023

3.4976

3.50

Travel Time (s)

3.45
3.40
3.35
3.30

-1

Laser Treatment

Figure 14. Effect of Laser Treatment

In Figure 14 above, it is shown that, on average, as laser treatment increases from
low to high, travel time increases by 0.0047 seconds. In other words, the effect of Laser
Treatment on travel time is 0.0047 seconds.
Table 7
Averages for the Interaction between Graphite Temperature and Magnet Temperature
M (+)
M ()

G ()
3.4419
3.4437

G (+)
3.6339
3.4803

Table 7 displays the average values of travel time for the appropriate values of
Graphite Temperature and Magnet Temperature. As with the previous effects, these
averages are averages of all trials for which the values of Graphite Temperature and
Magnet Temperature were set appropriately. To calculate the interaction effect between
these two factors, one must subtract the slopes of the high and low Magnet Temperature
lines, which are graphed in Figure 5 below.

3.70

3.6339
3.65
3.60
3.55

3.4803
3.50

Travel Time (s)

3.4437
3.4419

Magnet Temp. (+)

3.45
Magnet Temp.
()
3.40
3.35
3.30

-1

Graphite Temperature

Figure 15. Interaction between Graphite Temperature and Magnet Temperature

In Figure 15, Graphite Temperature is represented by the x-axis and Magnet
Temperature is represented by the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the
high Magnet Temperature line is 0.0960 and the slope of the low Magnet Temperature
line is 0.0183. The difference between these is the interaction effect on travel time,
which is 0.0777. This value is moderate compared to the other effect values, and the line
segments in Figure 5 are clearly nonparallel, so there is a possibility of an interaction
between these factors.
Table 8
Averages for the Interaction between Graphite Temperature and Laser Treatment
L (+)
L ()

G ()
3.4440
3.4417

G (+)
3.5607
3.5535

Table 8 displays the average values of travel time for the appropriate values of
Graphite Temperature and Laser Treatment.

3.70
3.65
3.60

3.5607
3.5535

3.55
3.50

Travel Time (s)

3.4440
3.4417

Laser Treatment (+)

3.45()
Laser Treatment
3.40
3.35
3.30

-1

Graphite Temperature

Figure 16. Interaction between Graphite Temperature and Laser Treatment

In Figure 16, Graphite Temperature is represented by the x-axis and Laser
Treatment is represented by the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the
high Laser Treatment line is 0.0583 and the slope of the low Laser Treatment line is
0.0559. The difference between these is the interaction effect on travel time, which is
0.0024. Since the slopes of these lines are so close, there is almost no possibility for an
interaction between these factors.
Table 9
Averages for the Interaction between Magnet Temperature and Laser Treatment
L (+)
L ()

M ()
3.3367
3.5872

M (+)
3.6679
3.4079

Table 9 displays the average values of travel time for the appropriate values of
Magnet Temperature and Laser Treatment.

3.70
3.6679
3.65

3.5872

3.60
3.55
3.50

Travel Time (s)

Laser Treatment (+)

3.45()
Laser Treatment
3.4079
3.40

3.3367

3.35
3.30

-1

Magnet Temperature

Figure 17. Interaction between Magnet Temperature and Laser Treatment

In Figure 17 Magnet Temperature is represented by the x-axis and Laser
Treatment is represented by the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the
high Laser Treatment line is 0.1656 and the slope of the low Laser Treatment line is
-0.0897. The difference between these is the interaction effect on travel time, which is
0.2553. This is incredibly large compared to the other effects, and the lines in Figure 7
are extremely nonparallel; this is strong evidence in favor of an interaction between these
two factors.
Table 10
Summary of Effects
Factor
Graphite Temperature
Magnet Temperature
Laser Treatment
Graphite - Magnet
Graphite - Laser Treatment
Magnet - Laser Treatment

Symbo
l
G
M
L
GM
GL
ML

Effect on Travel Time (s)

0.1143
0.0759
0.0047
0.0777
0.0024
0.2553

Table 10 gives a summary of the effects of all the factors and interactions in the
experiment. The interaction between Magnet Temperature and Laser Treatment has by

far the greatest effect, at 0.2553 seconds. All other effects seem relatively insignificant,
though the effect of Graphite Temperatures is noticeably higher than the rest.
0.1143
0.0759
0.0047
0.0777
0.0024
0.2553
Y^ =3.4999+
G+
M+
L+
GM +
GL+
ML+noise
2
2
2
2
2
2
Figure 18. Prediction Equation
The prediction equation can be used to predict the travel time of a trial given
certain values for Graphite Temperature, Magnet Temperature, and Laser Treatment. The
equation is composed of a grand average of the trial results, 3.4999 seconds, plus half of
each of the factor effects times the appropriate variables. To determine which factors had
a significant effect on the travel time, a test of significance was performed.

Figure 19. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 19 plots all of the effects on a number line for comparison. An effect is
considered significant if its absolute value is greater than twice the range of standards; the
boundaries for this range (0.9710 s) are outlined with thick vertical lines. Using this
test, it appears that none of the factors were significant when considering their effect on
the travel time of a diamagnetically levitating pyrolytic graphite disc. Most of the effects
are clustered near zero, and none of them are anywhere close to the significance
boundary; this implies that none of them were significant.
However, recall that there were two standard trials that stood out from the rest.
Eliminating these gives a range of standards of only 0.1203 seconds; doubling this gives
significance boundaries that are outlined with thin vertical lines in Figure 9 (0.2406 s).

With these boundaries, the effect of the interaction between Magnet Temperature and
Laser Treatment would be significant. This implies that there could be a significant
interaction between these two factors; however, more experimentation would be
necessary to shrink the range of standards and confirm this hypothesis.
None of the factors Graphite Temperature, Magnet Temperature, Laser
Treatment, or any interaction between these were significant with the relatively large
range of standards produced in the experiment.

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect that graphite
temperature, magnet temperature, and laser treatment have on the travel time of a
pyrolytic graphite disc that is diamagnetically levitating over a bed of permanent
magnets. It was theorized that the lowest temperatures for both the graphite and the
magnets, in conjunction with the greatest laser treatment, would result in the lowest travel
time. This hypothesis was rejected, as none of the previously listed factors had a
significant effect on the travel time of the pyrolytic graphite; it never varied significantly
from the average time, 3.4999 seconds. In addition, the ( +) trials (low graphite
temperature, low magnet temperature, and high laser treatment) did not result in the
lowest travel times; both the (+ +) and ( + ) trials, with average travel times of
3.2995 seconds and 3.3699 seconds respectively were lower than the ( +) average of
3.3740 seconds.
When the temperature of a magnetic substance is changed, the magnetic
properties of the substance are changed as well. Typically, when the temperature
increases, the force of a magnets magnetic field is weakened, and vice versa. This is
because higher temperatures cause greater randomization of the magnetic moments in a
material, decreasing its overall magnetism (Classes of Magnetic Materials). The same
holds true for diamagnetic materials, such as pyrolytic graphite; increasing temperatures
cause an increase in magnetic susceptibility, making the graphite less resistant to
magnetic fields (Kobayashi).
However, despite expectations, none of the factors in the experiment were
determined to be significant. Upon further inspection, this is unsurprising. The pyrolytic

graphite disc used in experimentation was only 1 mm thick; as such, it could undergo
drastic temperature changes in very little time. It is theorized that, by the time the
graphite disc was released for each trial, the temperature of said disc had been altered to
reflect the temperature of the magnets below. This means that, in nearly all cases, the
graphite temperature was the same as the magnet temperature by the time each trial
began.
It was observed during experimentation that the pyrolytic graphite disc preferred
levitating over a two-by-two configuration of magnets; such a location kept it as far as
possible from nearby magnetic fields. Theoretically, stronger magnets (at lower
temperatures) should cause greater resistance to removal from this state, but a higher
diamagnetic property (also at lower temperatures) should result in a greater tendency to
escape the magnetic fields. These properties are appropriate vice versa for higher
temperatures. As such, since the magnet temperature and graphite temperature were
always approximately equal, any advantages/disadvantages from greater
magnetism/diamagnetism always cancelled out, resulting in a mere 0.0759 second effect
for magnet temperature.
The laser was meant to increase the temperature of the graphite at a refined point,
which would decrease the diamagnetism of the disc in that area. Doing this would tilt the
pyrolytic graphite disc in the direction of the heated area, causing the graphite to be
propelled by the magnetic force coming from the opposite direction. However, in the
experiment, the travel time of the disc was not affected by the laser whatsoever, as it only
had an effect of 0.0047 seconds. This is likely because the laser was not strong enough to
increase the temperature of the graphite enough that it would significantly affect its

diamagnetism. Otherwise, perhaps the laser heated too small a portion of the disc to
make a difference; however, based on previous research, this should not have been the
case (Kobayashi).
Therefore, the only time when there could be an appreciable difference between
the temperature of the graphite and the temperature of the magnets was when the magnet
temperature was low and the graphite was being heated by the laser. These conditions,
which could result in a drastically different travel time, can only occur through an
interaction between the magnet temperature and laser treatment; the graphite must be
constantly heated, albeit marginally, to counteract the cooling of the magnets below. This
could explain why, while still insignificant, the interaction between magnet temperature
and laser treatment had by far the greatest effect: 0.2553 seconds (more than double the
next greatest effect: 0.1143 seconds for graphite temperature). Further research may be
appropriate to explore this interaction.
The biggest issue with the experimental design was inconsistency in the angle at
which the track was inclined. The inclination of the track was a very critical factor that
needed to be constant; however it cannot be guaranteed that it actually stayed the same
throughout all trials. If the inclination were to vary even slightly, since there is no
friction being applied to the graphite, the speed at which it travels could vary
significantly. In future research, a more stable ramp could be used. Another issue was
the fact that the graphite was changing its temperature to be the same as the temperature
of the magnets below. It is likely that, had the temperatures been kept separate in some
way, the data collected from the trials would differ significantly from what was obtained
in this experiment.

Despite the few design flaws, the results of the experiment are telling. Since,
overall, the temperature of the magnets and the graphite had no noticeable effect on the
graphites ability to travel down the track, this means that diamagnetic levitation forms of
transportation would be resistant to changes in temperature. The temperatures used in
this experiment, ranging from 0 C to 40 C, are a good representation of the range of
temperatures that a maglev transportation system may face in more temperate climates.
Since the graphites motion was not influenced by temperature, this means that maglev
transportation could be implemented with no regard to climate. With this information,
light-based maglev, as demonstrated by Masayuki Kobayashi and Jiro Abe (Kobayashi)
could become a reality throughout the world.

Appendix A: Professional Contact

Figure 20. Professional Contact Sample E-Mail

The professional who was contacted regarding this research was Michael Savage,
a physicist, former employee at NASA, and current chemistry and physics teacher at
Sterling Heights High School. Mr. Savage specialized in magnetic systems, especially
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and was thus well suited to aid in the design of the
experiment. Most contact was conducted face-to-face, wherein Mr. Savage offered
guidance; however, he also financed the purchase of the laser necessary for this
experiment. An excerpt of the corresponding exchange is included in Figure 16.

Works Cited
Borb. Inverse Square Law. Digital image. Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 12
Dec. 2015. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversesquare_law#/media/File:Inverse_square_law.svg>.
"Classes of Magnetic Materials." Hitchhiker's Guide to Magnetism. University of
Minnesota, 9 May 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.irm.umn.edu/hg2m/hg2m_b/hg2m_b.html>.
Electron Spin Diagram. Digital image. What-When-How. The-Crankshaft Publishing,
22 Aug. 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2015. <http://what-when-how.com/wpcontent/uploads/ 2011/07/tmp8350_thumb.jpg>.
"Frequently Asked Questions About Lasers." U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 3 Nov. 2014. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsand
Procedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/LaserProductsandInstruments/ucm11
6362. htm>.
Henderson, Tom. "Methods of Heat Transfer." The Physics Classroom. The Physics
Classroom, 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015. <http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/
thermalP/Lesson-1/Methods-of-Heat-Transfer>.
Isaac, Bonad. "Thermo-mechanical Characterisation of Low Density Carbon Foams and
Composite Materials for the ATLAS Upgrade." Thesis. University of Glasgow,
2011. Glasgow Theses Service. Web. 24 Sept. 2015. <http://theses.gla.ac.uk/
3341/1/2011Bonadphd-1.pdf>.
Kittel, Charles. "Diamagnetism and Paramagnetism." Introduction to Solid State Physics.
5th ed. John Wiley & Son: New York, 1986. 297-320. 25 Aug. 2004. Web. 25
Sept. 2015. <http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/~marx/ph355/Kittel_Solid%20State%
20Physics/c11.pdf>.
Kobayashi, Masayuki, and Jiro Abe. "Optical Motion Control of Maglev Graphite."
Journal of the American Chemical Society 134 (2012): 20593-0596. A.G.O. Fuel
Cells. Web. 24 Sept. 2015. <http://www.agofuelcells.com/images/diamagnetic
%20controll%20system.pdf>.
Li, Tianyu. "Shanghai Maglev Train." Sites at Penn State. Pennsylvania State University,
2 June 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2015. <https://sites.psu.edu/tol5187/shanghai-maglevtrain/>.

Moser, Roland, Franois Barrot, Jan Sandtner, and Hannes Bleuler. "Optimization of
Two-dimensional Permanent Magnet Arrays for Diamagnetic Levitation."
Laboratory of Robotic Systems. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 2002. Web.
24 Sept. 2015. <http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hannes_Bleuler2/
publication/228770522_Optimization_of_two-dimensional_permanent_magnet_
arrays_for_diamagnetic_levitation/ links/0912f50ea9899d078b000000.pdf>.
Simon, M. D., L. O. Heflinger, and A. K. Geim. "Diamagnetically Stabilized Magnet
Levitation." (n.d.): n. pag. UCLA Physics. American Association of Physics
Teachers, 5 Apr. 2001. Web. 24 Sept. 2015. <http://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/
diamag/ajp601.pdf>.
Stern, David P., and Mauricio Peredo. "Magnetism." Goddard Space Flight Center.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 25 Nov. 2001. Web. 01 Oct.
2015. <http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Imagnet.html>.
Svelto, Orazio. Principles of Lasers. Trans. David C. Hanna. 5th ed. New York: Springer,
2009. Print.