Voltage and Current lab report help

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics lab report focusing on the relationship between voltage and current using Ohm's law. The experiment involves measuring current through a resistor and a light bulb, with the expectation that the resistor will show a linear relationship while the light bulb, being nonohmic, will not. The participant notes discrepancies between their graph of the light bulb and the one presented in their textbook, leading to confusion about the expected shape of the graph. It is clarified that the light bulb's resistance varies significantly with temperature, affecting its behavior, and that while it is considered nonohmic, it can exhibit ohmic characteristics under certain conditions. The conversation highlights the complexities of interpreting graphs for nonohmic materials and the importance of temperature in resistance behavior.
ajenkin9
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm working on a basic physics lab report (not homework) and I'm trying to understand something better. We're establishing a relation between voltage and current using Ohms law. It goes as follows:

We apply different voltages to two materials and record the current in order to determine the resistance. The two materials are a resistor and a light bulb. My problem has occurred when graphing though.

I know that the relationship for an ohmic material is linear, therefore it's simply (1/R). This would be true for the resistor. The lightbulb however is a nonohmic material, therefore it's not a linear relationship.

The way my graph looks is not the same as in the book though. The book shows a graph which looks like an exponential function (x^2), approaches a verticle asymptote. My graph for the lightbulb though looks opposite (looks more like a sqrt function) and approaches a horizontal asymptote. When looking online I saw a V versus I graph for a filament and it looked the same as mine.

My question is, why is this? Why do I have a different graph than what the book shows for a nonohmic material, but I see other "filament" graphs look the same as mine.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Light bulbs have a low resistance at room temp. This resistance increases as much as 15 times at operating temperature. So the resistance is proportional to the applied voltage.
From Wikipedia
"The cold resistance of tungsten-filament lamps is about 1/15 the hot-filament resistance when the lamp is operating. For example, a 100-watt, 120-volt lamp has a resistance of 144 ohms when lit, but the cold resistance is much lower (about 9.5 ohms)"
 
map19 said:
Light bulbs have a low resistance at room temp. This resistance increases as much as 15 times at operating temperature. So the resistance is proportional to the applied voltage.
From Wikipedia
"The cold resistance of tungsten-filament lamps is about 1/15 the hot-filament resistance when the lamp is operating. For example, a 100-watt, 120-volt lamp has a resistance of 144 ohms when lit, but the cold resistance is much lower (about 9.5 ohms)"

I understand that it's a nonlinear relationship because R=R0(1+\alpha(T-T0)). My confusion is why does the relationship differ for two, nonohmic materials. The book depicts a graph that shows a horizontal asymptote, yet my graph looks as though I have a vertical asymptote, as well does a graph from wikepedia for a filament depict the same thing. So why does one slope approach zero while the other slop approaches 1?
 
You say 'nonohmic' yet the tungsten filament is absolutely ohmic. It's just different resistance at different temperatures, as are most ohmic resistors. Since it's designed to work at about 1000C the temp variation is large. Note that the typical coiled filament, when unrolled is about 20inches long.
Varistors are non-ohmic. I suggest you google Wiki for a description.
 
Last edited:
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