Resistance change under temperature

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the change in resistance of an aluminum rod as temperature increases from 20 degrees Celsius to 120 degrees Celsius. Participants are considering the effects of both resistivity and dimensional changes on the resistance value.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are sharing their calculations and methods for determining the new resistance, with some expressing uncertainty about their approaches. Questions about the use of coefficients for thermal expansion and resistivity are raised, along with discussions on the complexity of using LaTeX for formulas.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of different methods to calculate resistance changes, with some participants questioning the accuracy of their calculations and the assumptions made. Guidance is offered regarding the need for constants and clarity in the problem setup, but no consensus has been reached on the correct approach.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the need for specific constants such as thermal expansion coefficients and resistivity dependence on temperature, indicating that these values are crucial for accurate calculations. There is also a recognition of the potential for errors in calculations due to assumptions about dimensions and resistivity.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
Ok so we got an aluminum rod that has a resistance of 1.234 ohms at 20 degrees Celsius. I need to calculate the resistance of the rod at 120 degrees by accounting for hte changes in both the resistivity and the dimensions of the rod.

I calculated the resistance would be 1.238 ohms.

Can someone verify this for me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pengwuino said:
Ok so we got an aluminum rod that has a resistance of 1.234 ohms at 20 degrees Celsius. I need to calculate the resistance of the rod at 120 degrees by accounting for hte changes in both the resistivity and the dimensions of the rod.

I calculated the resistance would be 1.238 ohms.

Can someone verify this for me?

There is a chance someone would verify your approach if you stated how you did the problem and provided the needed constants such as the thermal expansion coefficients and the resistivity dependence on temperature.
 
ok here we go, at 20 degrees C...

expansion coeffecient: 24 * 10-6 C^-1 (yah my book says 24, not 2.4)
resistivity coefficient: 3.9 * 10-3 C^-1

Is there a simpler way to use that latex programming? I could show my work but it seems like it would take an hour to type up the formulas correctly.
 
Pengwuino said:
ok here we go, at 20 degrees C...

expansion coeffecient: 24 * 10-6 C^-1 (yah my book says 24, not 2.4)
resistivity coefficient: 3.9 * 10-3 C^-1

Is there a simpler way to use that latex programming? I could show my work but it seems like it would take an hour to type up the formulas correctly.

So the new length and cross sections of the rod for a temperature change of 100 degrees C are

[tex]L = L_0(1+24*10^{-4})[/tex]

[tex]A = A_0(1+24*10^{-4})^2[/tex]

and the new resistivity is

[tex]\rho = \rho_0(1+3.9*10^{-1})[/tex]

The new resistance is

[tex]R = \frac{\rho_0(1+3.9*10^{-1})*L_0}{A_0(1+24*10^{-4})}[/tex]

[tex]R = R_0\frac{(1+3.9*10^{-1})}{(1+24*10^{-4})}[/tex]

[tex]R = 1.238\Omega*1.387 = 1.717\Omega[/tex]

One of us did it wrong. I think some people have tools for converting to LaTex. I don't have one, and it is a bit tedious.
 
We did it in radically different ways too... someone throw me something that will allow me to do it in less then 5 hours and ill show you lol.

I was looking at it conceptually and thought ok, put a arbitrary number in for A and you can figure out how long a piece of wire would be (I used a wire of 1mm each side so its 1mm^2) and figured the wire would be some 45 meters long or so. I then plugged the length into the length expansion formula and got like a .1 meter expansion and then i plugged in the length into resistance formula using the new p from the resistance-temperature dependence and the resistance change was very small so i figured 2 very small changes should result in a much smaller change and thought my answer could very well be right.

If i just plugged in A = 0.00001m^2 and did all the calculations correctly, would i still get the right answer (kind of a cheating way of checking your answer?)?

Added: ah crap, i just plugged in 0.001m as the side value (so 1x10^-6m^2) and got 1.717 ohms... crap, wonder where i went wrong.

Ah double crap! I didnt account for the expansion in both directions. Crap crap crap, i hate my life... good thing i did this a day in advance :D
 
Last edited:
Any combination of area, length, and resistivity that gives you the original resistance will work. You can make up any starting numbers you want as long as rho*L/A is 1.238 ohms. My calculation shows that all those numbers are replaced in the end by the original resistance.
 
Yah i think leaving A alone screwed me up because it along with the resistivity coefficient just dissappeared in my equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K