Name: Emily Gatlin

Partne r: Whitney Heaston

Date Perform ed: 11 t h February 2009
Date: 18 t h February 2009
T.A. John Caruth

Re s is tance Ve rs us Te mpe ra ture

OBJECTIVE
The objective of the experiment uses the principle that temperature
This demonstrates how to apply a conceptual theory to produce quantitative results that reflect the respective
expected predictions particularly regarding the resistance of a material using resistivity. Lastly, the experiment
uses a mastery of a temperature-sensor in order to measure the temperature to calculate its effect upon the
resistance of a given material.

INTRODUCTION
The Re s is t iv i ty of Con duc t in g M ate rial s
The net flow of charge flowing through a given area A per unit time t or current is shown by the following
equation:

Q where Q=charge that passes through the sp ecified area

I ,
t t =time the charge takes to pass through t he area

Charge carriers each possess a charge q and density n that move with an average drift velocity vd , which

makes the current within a given area A to be:

Q  nqvd At Q
I   nqvd A
t

I
Assume that the current density J is the amount of current I flowing per unit area A and J  then
A
E
the current density is J  nqvd . Resistivity is the ratio of the electric field strength E expressed   .
J
Within a current, electrons move and give up energy due to collisions and lose kinetic energy transferred to
the material in the form of heat energy. The movement of electrons is completely random unless direction by
the presence of an electric field. In an electric field, the electrons have a net movement in the opposite

[1]
 Resistance vs. Temperature Emily A. Gatlin

direction to the electric field. Thus, the acceleration of the electrons in the presence of an electric field is

eE
a
m
Consequently, the average drift-velocity is vd  a where   t or the average time between collisions.

Thus, the formula arises from the subsequent substitutions:

eE ne 2 m
vd    J  E  2
m m ne 

The resistivity is directly proportional to the mass of the electron and inversely proportional to the number

density of the conduction electrons, their respective charge squared and the average time between collisions.

Moreover, the electric field strength E is the change in electric potential V per unit length l

V
V
E  V A V
l  l   and Ohm's law states R 
I l I I
A
A l
   R R 
l A
The changes in temperature produce a proportional change in resistivity of the material   T . Thus, if the

initial temperature is T0 the resistivity is 0 at the initial temperature. The change in resistivity from temperature

creates a function where resistivity exists as a function of temperature (T )  0 1  (T T0 ) across a length

of wire with a given area.

Area

Length

Thus, this enables the expression of resistance as a function with the dependent variable, temperature
l l
R  0 1  (T T0 ) R  0 1  (T T0 )
A A

[2]
Resistance vs. Temperature Emily A. Gatlin

 R  R0 1  (T T0 ) where R0  resistance at T0

The Re s is t iv i ty of Se m i - Con duc t in g M ate r ial s

In a non-conducting material, electrons remain confined to an energy state called the valance band and stay restricted

from the conduction band that allows free movement of electrons. Raising the temperature of the material can allow

electrons to move from the valance band to the conduction band. Thus, in semi-conducting materials, the band gap

or the energy gap to move from the valance band to the conduction band is much smaller than for non-conductors.

The number density of electrons in the conduction band is a function of absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin (K )

3 E gap E gap
 kT 2 ml
ne  2 me  e 2kT  R  R0e 2 kT If R0 
 2 2  N c e 2 A
me  mass of the electron
Taking the natural logarithm of both sides yields
Planck's constant E gap
  6.63 1034 J/s or
2 ln R  ln R0  ln e 2 kT
E gap  band gap energy E gap 1
ln R  ln R0 
2k T
k  Boltzmann's constant 1.3810-23 J/K  8.617 10-5 eV/K
Using an individual thermistor, the calculation of the
For small changes, the power component allows the temperature uses the Steinhart-Hart equation
3
use of constant N c so that N  2 kT m 2 then
 e 1
2 2 
c
 A  B ln R  C (ln R )3
E gap T
nc  N c e 2 kT
T  temperature K , R  resistance of thermistor ,
A, B , C  curve fitting constants
E gap
m
 e 2kT
N c e 2

PROCEDURE
The apparatus in the experiment is a coil of copper wire, a thermistor, a temperature controlled water reservoir, the
apparatus for the Wheatstone bridge measurements, digital volt-ohm meter, a digital thermometer and banana leads.

[3]
Resistance vs. Temperature Emily A. Gatlin

The Pasco temperature controlled water reservoir allows the samples to be in a uniform temperature bath. The
Wheatstone bridge apparatus is set-up.
After the Rx Rs apparatus is set-up, the data for
+
resistance at each v temperature beginning at
―
room R1
v
R2
temperature to the boiling
point of water. The heat switch on the heater for
the water is the control for the temperature manipulation of the apparatus. Microsoft Excel® analyzes the
collected data.
In the next section of the experiment, the resistance versus temperature for a
thermistor the following apparatus allows the measurement of the 0.00

resistance versus temperature for the thermistor: the thermistor and digital
multimeter replace the Wheatstone bridge and copper coil sample.
Microsoft Excel calculates resistance of the thermistor in a separate
spreadsheet.

D A T A/ A NA L YS IS
Par t I.
Resistance versus Temperature for Copper Wire
O
T ( C) n1 Rs R
23.30 6.61 1.00 1.949852507
31.10 6.70 1.00 2.030303030
35.10 6.67 1.00 2.003003003
40.20 6.74 1.00 2.067484663
45.40 6.77 1.00 2.095975232
50.80 6.81 1.00 2.134796238
55.10 7.13 1.00 2.484320557
60.50 6.86 1.00 2.184713376
65.50 6.99 1.00 2.322259136
70.20 6.90 1.00 2.225806452
75.70 7.98 1.00 3.950495050
80.80 6.80 1.00 2.125000000
84.10 6.90 1.00 2.225806452

[4]
Resistance vs. Temperature Emily A. Gatlin

90.98 6.87 1.00 2.194888179

96.07 6.91 1.00 2.236245955
99.70 7.00 1.00 2.333333333

Theoretical Calculated %
R = AT + B 0.0061x + 1.9034
R0 = 1.94985251 Error = 18.71%
R0 1.909500000
= 0.00393000
A=R0a 6.10E-03
A= 7.66E-03
B= 1.9034
B= 0.00
a= 0.003194554

4.500000000
Resistance vs. Termperature
4.000000000

3.500000000

3.000000000
y = 0.0061x + 1.9034
2.500000000 Resistance vs.
Termperature
2.000000000

1.500000000

1.000000000

0.500000000

0.000000000
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

The major sources of error during this section of the experiment probably originate from the human error of time
differentiation as the temperatures in the water bath continually increased. In order to get the best data, we had to
attempt to record the resistance at the exact instance of the corresponding temperature. Additionally, the standard
resistances could contain error by presenting resistances that deviate from these values. Moreover, the calibration set-
up might be a little offset producing error. Additionally, the mechanical error present could also be a possible source of
error in the experiment. Of course, the potential for human error always exists in addition to the aforementioned
sources of error.

[5]
Resistance vs. Temperature Emily A. Gatlin

Par t II.
Resistance Versus Temperature for a Thermistor
O
T ( C) R T (OK) 1/ T (OK) ln(R)
20.10 30.60 293.10 3.41180E-03 3.4210000
25.10 21.60 298.10 3.35458E-03 3.0726933
30.10 18.30 303.10 3.29924E-03 2.9069011
35.10 15.30 308.10 3.24570E-03 2.7278528
40.10 13.20 313.10 3.19387E-03 2.5802168
45.10 11.20 318.10 3.14367E-03 2.4159138
50.10 9.50 323.10 3.09502E-03 2.2512918
55.10 8.20 328.10 3.04785E-03 2.1041342
60.10 7.00 333.10 3.00210E-03 1.9459101
65.10 6.00 338.10 2.95770E-03 1.7917595
70.10 5.30 343.10 2.91460E-03 1.6677068
75.10 4.80 348.10 2.87274E-03 1.5686159
80.10 4.50 353.10 2.83206E-03 1.5040774
85.10 3.70 358.10 2.79252E-03 1.3083328
90.10 3.30 363.10 2.75406E-03 1.1939225
95.10 3.00 368.10 2.71665E-03 1.0986123
99.30 2.60 372.30 2.68601E-03 0.9555114

k= 8.62E-05
Theoretical
egap= 0.622
0.594
Calculated
m = Egap/2k = 3205.6
egap= 5.53E-01
% Error 11.15%
6.96%
As in the first part of the experiment, the same errors within the apparatus are possible along with the improper

calibration of the apparatus initially along with the inability to collect the instantaneous data with the corresponding

[6]
Resistance vs. Temperature Emily A. Gatlin

temperature. Another possible source of data is the water bath still possessing excess heat from the previous section and

producing skewed results. Overall, the error was significant, but the concepts still existed in the predicted relationships.

ln (R) Versus (1/T)

4.0000000

3.5000000

3.0000000
y = 3205.6x - 7.6468

2.5000000

2.0000000
ln (R) Versus (1/T)

1.5000000 Linear (ln (R) Versus (1/T))

1.0000000

0.5000000

0.0000000
0.000E+005.000E-04 1.000E-03 1.500E-03 2.000E-03 2.500E-03 3.000E-03 3.500E-03 4.000E-03

CONCLUSION
The experiment provided a highly effective experiment to display the relationship between temperature and resistance.
Although the data collected presented significant data, the overall pattern still existed as expected. The use of
temperature as the independent variable allowed its manipulation to produce an effect on the resistance. In this
experiment, the resistance graduation increases as the temperature increases. The comparison of the resistance of the
thermistor showed the effect of temperature on a semiconductor. The resistance increases in a semiconductor with
temperature, but at the direct correlation seen in the conductor. Clearly, both cases show that there is a relationship
between the temperature and resistance of an object.

[7]