Resistance in case of non Ohmic current voltage relation.

AI Thread Summary
In a non-Ohmic current-voltage relationship described by I=α(exp(eV/kT)-1, incremental resistance can still be defined despite not adhering to Ohm's law. Incremental resistance refers to the small-signal resistance calculated using the derivative (dV/dI), which allows for linearization around a specific operating point. For example, a resistor may exhibit different resistance values at different voltages, demonstrating that it can have both a large-signal resistance and a small-signal resistance simultaneously. This concept emphasizes that resistance is fundamentally a ratio (V/I) rather than a fixed physical property. Understanding this allows for clarity in analyzing non-linear circuits without violating the principles of voltage and current relationships.
Mitadru Banik
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
A non Ohmic relation of current and voltage is I=α(exp(eV/kT)-1). Where α,K,T,e are constant. What will be the incremental resistance?

My question is if it don't follow the Ohmic equation then how it possible to find the resistance?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Mitadru Banik said:
A non Ohmic relation of current and voltage is I=α(exp(eV/kT)-1). Where α,K,T,e are constant. What will be the incremental resistance?

My question is if it don't follow the Ohmic equation then how it possible to find the resistance?

Incremental resistance refers to small signal resistance. This means that when you take a non-linear load line like the one described by your equation, and vary your position along that line very small by changing the voltage or current respectively small, you will be operating along an -approximate- linear region, since the tangent along this curve at any point is a straight line, which will be an ohmic relation in the sense that it is linearized on this small increment.

Incremental should give you the clue to use a derivative (dV/dI) which is in units of ohms.
 
Last edited:
Ok understand it but however it never violets the relation V=IR.
 
Mitadru Banik said:
Ok understand it but however it never violets the relation V=IR.
When speaking of incremental resistance, written as small r, then Ohms Law is written v=i·r
to distinguish 'r' from the DC or large signal resistance seen in V=I·R

Example: If you apply, say, 10 volts DC to an nonlinear resistor and a current flows of 1 ampere, you conclude that that resistor, at 10 volts, seems like a 10 ohm resistor. However, if you increase that 10V to 10.1V and find the current increases to 1.05A, you can say that for small changes near 10V, that resistor appears as a 2 ohm resistor because ∆V/ ∆I = 2Ω.

So at the 10V operating point the resistor simultaneously has two values of resistance, R=10Ω and r=2Ω.
 
Mitadru Banik said:
Ok understand it but however it never violets the relation V=IR.

Don't worry about that. There is no violation.
It may be better if you don't feel that the 'Resistance' actually has to mean anything, other than V/I. If you don't insist that there must be some physical significance then there is no problem. Likewise, the 'small signal' resistance (ΔV/ΔI) needs to be no more than what it says on the tin.
There are enough really important things to get in a stew about so why worry about what something really 'means'?
One of the first things we have to get over in 'electrics' is to realize that descriptions of Resistance like "It's how hard you need to push electrons through a circuit" are no use to anyone. Resistance is just a RATIO - period.
 
Thanks to all of u...
 
Very basic question. Consider a 3-terminal device with terminals say A,B,C. Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff Voltage Law (KVL) establish two relationships between the 3 currents entering the terminals and the 3 terminal's voltage pairs respectively. So we have 2 equations in 6 unknowns. To proceed further we need two more (independent) equations in order to solve the circuit the 3-terminal device is connected to (basically one treats such a device as an unbalanced two-port...
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Back
Top