Resistivity of a stretched wire VS unstretched state

AI Thread Summary
When a wire with a resistance of 6.0Ω is stretched to three times its original length, its resistance increases due to the change in length while maintaining constant resistivity. The resistance formula R = ρL/A indicates that if length (L) increases, resistance (R) will also increase, but the cross-sectional area (A) decreases as volume remains constant. The correct new resistance is 54Ω, not 18Ω, because the decrease in area significantly impacts the overall resistance. This discussion highlights the importance of understanding how stretching affects both length and area in electrical resistance calculations. Clarifying these concepts is crucial for solving related physics problems accurately.
SpecialMen
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
1. A wire of a 6.0\Omega resistance is stretched to three times its original length. Assume the diameter and resistivity have stayed the same, what is its new resistance?



2. R=\stackrel{\rho L}{A}



3. Since the only thing that's changed in the equation is L, having tripled, I was obviously thinking the resistance would now be 18\Omega, but the books answer is 54\Omega. What am I doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi SpecialMen, welcome to PF. When metals are plastically deformed, it's usually assumed that the volume remains constant, not the cross-sectional area. Know what I mean?
 
Mapes said:
Hi SpecialMen, welcome to PF. When metals are plastically deformed, it's usually assumed that the volume remains constant, not the cross-sectional area. Know what I mean?

Thanks, I appreciate the welcoming!
And yes, I know exactly what you mean. This is what I told myself when I first read the question, thinking it was strange to neglect the change in diameter of the cable...I reread the question a couple times, and then realized that what the book really said was we were assuming the same resistivity and density, not diameter as I had originally read. Brain freeze, I've been doing these problems for the past 6 hours, literally! Still, thanks for yor input! Would have gotten me out of my hole had I not reread the question!
 
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