Calculating Current in a Wire: Applying PD and Cross-Sectional Area

  • Thread starter Thread starter ravsterphysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Current Wire
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 3K views
ravsterphysics
Messages
57
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


1.JPG


Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I know I = nqvA

When the pd is applied the surface that is 8cm long, the cross sectional area is 32cm (8x4) but when the pd is applied across the 4cm side, the cross sectional area is now 16cm (4x4) so I has decreased by a factor of 2 so the new I is I/2 thus answer A? But the correct answer is D.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You've got the order of the faces backwards. The initial scenario has the PD applied across the ends of the rectangle (the 4 x 4 ends are separated by 8 cm).

Also, remember that resistance is proportional to path length as well as being inversely proportional to the cross sectional area. Look up the definition of resistivity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ravsterphysics
ravsterphysics said:

Homework Statement


View attachment 111643

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I know I = nqvA

When the pd is applied the surface that is 8cm long, the cross sectional area is 32cm (8x4) but when the pd is applied across the 4cm side, the cross sectional area is now 16cm (4x4) so I has decreased by a factor of 2 so the new I is I/2 thus answer A? But the correct answer is D.

I think that the relevant equation is: [itex]R \propto \frac{l}{A}[/itex] where [itex]l[/itex] is the length of the resistor and [itex]A[/itex] is the cross-sectional area. Switching from one face to the other changes both [itex]A[/itex] and [itex]l[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ravsterphysics
People are always very quick to use formulas ... much easier just to look at it ...the distance the current has to travel has halved so this alone will make the resistance halve ... but in addition the area the current moves through has doubled .. this will also halve the resistance ... so in total the resistance has dropped to a quarter of what it was ...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ravsterphysics
Simon Bridge said:
When comparing I=nqvA for each case, you assumed that only A changed. q stays the saem OK - but is v the same?
HInt: Ohms' law and resistivity.

gneill said:
You've got the order of the faces backwards. The initial scenario has the PD applied across the ends of the rectangle (the 4 x 4 ends are separated by 8 cm).

Also, remember that resistance is proportional to path length as well as being inversely proportional to the cross sectional area. Look up the definition of resistivity.

stevendaryl said:
I think that the relevant equation is: [itex]R \propto \frac{l}{A}[/itex] where [itex]l[/itex] is the length of the resistor and [itex]A[/itex] is the cross-sectional area. Switching from one face to the other changes both [itex]A[/itex] and [itex]l[/itex].

oz93666 said:
People are always very quick to use formulas ... much easier just to look at it ...the distance the current has to travel has halved so this alone will make the resistance halve ... but in addition the area the current moves through has doubled .. this will also halve the resistance ... so in total the resistance has dropped to a quarter of what it was ...

Yep, I totally disregarded the effects on the wire's resistance. It's clear now why current goes up by a factor of 4. thanks for the help.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Simon Bridge