An approximate solution to the Van der Pauw equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter smithg86
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximate
smithg86
Messages
58
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


question: approximate the function f if the ratio R_1 / R_2 is about 1000.

given:
the van der pauw equation for resistivity:
\rho = ( pi * d / ln[2] ) * (R_1 + R_2})/2 * f(R_1 / R_2),

where f is a function of the ratio R_1/R_2 only and satisfies the relation:

(R_1- R_2)/(R_1+R_2) = f arccosh{exp(ln[2]/f) / 2}.

from van der pauw's 1958 paper:if R_1 and R_2 are almost equal, f can be approximated by the formula

f ~ 1 - [ (R_1 - R_2) / (R_1 + R_2) ]^2 * ln[2] / 2 - [(R_1 - R_2)/(R_1 + R_2)]^4 * {(ln[2])^2 / 4 - (ln[2])^3 / 12}.

Homework Equations


-

The Attempt at a Solution


I have no idea how to start this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
smithg86 said:
from van der pauw's 1958 paper: if R_1 and R_2 are almost equal[/color], f can be approximated by the formula

f ~ 1 - [ (R_1 - R_2) / (R_1 + R_2) ]^2 * ln[2] / 2 - [(R_1 - R_2)/(R_1 + R_2)]^4 * {(ln[2])^2 / 4 - (ln[2])^3 / 12}.

That approximation doesn't seem like it would be very accurate when R_1=1000R_2!:wink:


I have no idea how to start this.

What does \frac{R_1-R_2}{R_1+R_2} equal when \frac{R_1}{R_2}=1000?
 
What does \frac{R_1-R_2}{R_1+R_2} equal when \frac{R_1}{R_2}=1000?[/QUOTE]

It's 999/1001. But I don't know how to apply that to find an approximate solution. How do you go about finding an approximate solution to that, or any other function?
 
I can't seem to solve the equation explicitly for f (I think it's transcendental). Can I still use the Taylor series method?
 
Yes, it is transcendental, but I think you can still use a Taylor series. However, at the moment I can't think of exactly what expression your going to want to expand to make things easiest...I'll give it some more thought in the morning, but in the meantime hopefully someone else will jump in.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top