A wire with a resistance R is lengthened to 1.25

  • Thread starter Thread starter discoverer02
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Resistance Wire
AI Thread Summary
A wire with resistance R is stretched to 1.25 times its original length, prompting a calculation of its new resistance. The initial approach incorrectly assumed a direct proportionality between the decrease in radius and the increase in length. The correct relationship considers that volume remains constant, leading to a proportional decrease in cross-sectional area. This results in the new resistance being R2 = 1.56R1, aligning with the textbook answer. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between length, area, and resistance in conductive materials.
discoverer02
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
My answer for this problem doesn't agree with the answer in the back of my textbook book:

A wire with a resistance R is lengthened to 1.25 times its original length by being pulled through a small hole. Find the resistance of the wire after it has been stretched.

R = pL/A

p = resistivity
L = length
A = area of a cross section perpendicular to the length
r = radius

R1 = pL1/A1

L2 = 1.25L1 so r1/r2 should equal 1.25 right.

The decrease in radius should be proportional to the increase in length.

So r2 = r1/1.25

Therefore R2 = p(1.25L1)/[pi](r1/1.25)^2 = R1(1.25*1.56) = 1.95R1

The answer in the back of my textbook is R2 = 1.56R1

Where have I gone wrong?

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The decrease in radius should be proportional to the increase in length.

Should it? How would you go about proving this?
 
I'm assuming it's proportional. If it's not then I'm lost
 


Originally posted by discoverer02

L2 = 1.25L1 so r1/r2 should equal 1.25 right.


Volume is constant, and volume is L*A, not L*r
 
You're right. Stupid me!

The area would have to shrink proportionally: A2 = A1/1.25 so R2 = 1.25*1.25R1 = 1.56R1.

Thank you very much for the help. :smile:
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top