- #1
homeworkhelpls
- 41
- 1
- TL;DR Summary
- for NTC semiconductors?
Why is resistivity inversely proportional to resistance for NTC semiconductors?
I Why is resistivity inversely proportional to resistance for NTC semiconductors?
- I
- Thread starter homeworkhelpls
- Start date
AI Thread Summary
Resistivity is inversely proportional to resistance in NTC (Negative Temperature Coefficient) semiconductors due to their temperature-dependent conduction properties. As temperature increases, the charge carriers in NTC materials become more mobile, leading to lower resistivity and, consequently, lower resistance. This relationship is critical for applications in temperature sensing and circuit protection. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding these properties in the context of thermistors and their conduction models. Overall, the inverse relationship plays a significant role in the functionality of NTC semiconductors.
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire.
We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges.
By using the Lorenz gauge condition:
$$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$
we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations
If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Is it true that in any mechanical set-up, it is possible to predict the nature of Normal Reaction ( magnitude, direction, etc. ) without solving through the dynamical equations of motion and constraints for the set-up as Normal Reaction is completely unknown? I mean is it true that we can explain NR intuitively beforehand?
Similar threads
Hot Threads
-
I Explain Bernoulli at the molecular level?
- Started by user079622
- Replies: 251
- Classical Physics
-
B Simple mass/scale puzzle
- Started by DaveC426913
- Replies: 206
- Classical Physics
-
I Solving a momentum problem where masses change after the collision
- Started by rdemyan
- Replies: 35
- Classical Physics
-
I Topic about physics axioms, theory, laws etc..
- Started by user079622
- Replies: 93
- Classical Physics
-
I Two kinds of pressure
- Started by Demystifier
- Replies: 24
- Classical Physics
Recent Insights
-
Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 11
- Quantum Physics
-
Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 3
- General Math
-
Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 1
- Special and General Relativity
-
Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers
- Started by PAllen
- Replies: 7
- General Math
-
Insights Fermat's Last Theorem
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 105
- General Math
-
Insights Why Vector Spaces Explain The World: A Historical Perspective
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 0
- General Math