Phantom Resistors: Solving Mysterious Readings

  • Thread starter Thread starter zak8000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Resistors
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around measuring resistance on a PCB with an 8k resistor while submerged in tap water. Initially, the resistance measured 8k across the inner pads, but when a 100uA current was applied, the resistance dropped to 2-3k, suggesting a parallel resistance effect due to water conductivity. The resistance remained at 8k with a lower 10uA current, indicating that higher currents may be influencing the measurement. The presence of water likely introduces additional conductive paths, and electrolysis or electrolytic reactions could further complicate the readings. The variability in water conductivity due to impurities is also highlighted as a factor affecting the measurements.
zak8000
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
hi guys

I am attempting to solve a problem that has me scratching my head. I have a small connector PCB with one 8k resistor present. The connector is four way with the resistor terminals being the two inner pads. The outer two pads are short circuit together.

I solder two wires on the two inner pads(to the resistor) on the PCB. Then i apply a current of 100uA with a constant current source using a multimeter and measure 8k. Then I place the pcb in a container filled with tap water. After a few minutes I remove the pcb from the container. I measure a resistance of 8k between two inner terminals, and a resistance in the megaohm region between the outer terminal to the inner terminal( resistance of water present between pads) with 10uA.

Then i drive the circuit 100uA but now i measure a resistance of 2-3k, when measuring across the inner terminals.

so then i decided to let the pcb set in a oven for 30 minutes and took another measurement using 100uA and the value obtained was once again 8k.

so does this mean that with water present I was measuring 8k in parrallel with a phantom resistor, causing a lower resistance value read by the DMM?

The pads are really close to each other that i was expecting the water to short out the circuit and give me a value near zero not 2-3k and interestingly with 10uA it still measred 8k but with 100uA it measured 2-3k. I don't fully understand what happening here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The conductivity of water depends on impurities in it and can vary quite a bit.

It's also possible you were seeing some electrolysis (powered by the meter) or some other electrolytic action going on (dissimilar metals forming a "battery"?).
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top