MHB :Calculating $k$ to Find Wire Length

  • Thread starter Thread starter karush
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Length Wire
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the constant $k$ to determine the length of a wire based on its resistance and diameter. It is established that electrical resistance varies directly with the length and inversely with the square of the diameter. Given a wire that is 432 feet long with a resistance of 1.24 Ω and a diameter of 4 mm, the value of $k$ is calculated as 0.04592. The formula used is R = k(L/D²), which helps in finding the resistance for a different wire with a resistance of 1.44 Ω and a diameter of 3 mm. The importance of using consistent units in calculations is also emphasized.
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
$\tiny{2.5.1}$
Electrical Resistance of a Wire
The electrical resistance of a wire varies directly with the length of the wire and inversely with the square of the diameter of the wire.
If a wire 432 feet long and 4 mm in diameter has a resistance of 1.24 $\Omega$
find the length of a wire of the same material whose resistance is 1.44 $\Omega$ and whose diameter is 3 mm

y varies inversely with x $\quad y=\dfrac{k}{x}$
y varies directly with x $\quad y=kx$

OK not real sure how to set this up think we need to get the value of $k$ first
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Well, by the problem statement [math]R \propto L[/math] and [math]R \propto \dfrac{1}{d^2}[/math]. Thus
[math]R = k \dfrac{L}{d^2}[/math]

Is this what you were asking about?

-Dan
 
yes,
 
Last edited:
$1.24 = k \dfrac{L}{d^2}=k \dfrac{432}{(4)^2}$

$k=0.04592$

so far hopefully

added to Google calendar
 
Last edited:
karush said:
$1.24 = k \dfrac{L}{d^2}=k \dfrac{432}{(4)^2}$

$k=0.04592$

so far hopefully

added to Google calendar
Units! (They are really weird units.) This is a Physics problem. All quantities with units must be stated with what they are.

So far so good. So use [math]R = k \dfrac{L}{d^2}[/math] again to find R.

-Dan
 
karush said:
$\tiny{2.5.1}$
Electrical Resistance of a Wire
The electrical resistance of a wire varies directly with the length of the wire and inversely with the square of the diameter of the wire.
If a wire 432 feet long and 4 mm in diameter has a resistance of 1.24 $\Omega$
find the length of a wire of the same material whose resistance is 1.44 $\Omega$ and whose diameter is 3 mm

y varies inversely with x $\quad y=\dfrac{k}{x}$
y varies directly with x $\quad y=kx$

OK not real sure how to set this up think we need to get the value of $k$ first
Do you understand that you need ONE equation, not two? And of course you don't want to use "x" for both length and diameter.

Letting "R" be electrical resistance", L be the length, and D the diameter of the wire, since R varie directly with L and inversely with the square D,
$R= k\frac{L}{D^2}$.

Now, yes, you need to find k. For that you need to know every thing except k.
You are told "a wire 432 feet long and 4 mm in diameter has a resistance of 1.24 Ω".
So $1.24= k\frac{432}{4^2}$. Solve that for k.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top