Why Does Segmenting Thermistor Data Create a Linear Relationship?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Large dwarf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relationship
AI Thread Summary
Segmenting thermistor data into smaller temperature ranges can create a linear relationship due to the consistent behavior of charge carriers at those intervals, contrasting with the overall exponential relationship observed over larger ranges. The discussion highlights the difference in conductivity mechanisms between thermistors and metals, noting that while metals experience increased resistance due to collisions of charge carriers, thermistors increase conductivity by releasing more charge carriers at higher temperatures. The participant expresses a desire to enhance their coursework grade, acknowledging the need for a more detailed explanation of their findings. They also consider the importance of understanding the mathematical principles behind exponential relationships to improve their analysis. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need for deeper scientific reasoning and mathematical comprehension in physics coursework.
Large dwarf
16
0
Apologies for not using the provided template, the help I require is not spoon-fed, more a method of directing me in the right direction hopefully.

For my Physics coursework, I chose the rather simplistic thermistor experiment rather than being bold and going for a slightly more adventurous type of rotary potentiometer experiment. Anyway, I understand the basic principles of the thermistor, like it's negative coefficient of temperature etc, but I'm having trouble reaching the top grade boundary. I've noticed that dividing the graphs into segments (such as 10 degrees centigrade) causes the relationship to become linear and not exponential, yet I cannot explain why. I've worked out it's equation of ΔR = kΔT, I just don't understand why it happens (if indeed there is any worthwhile Physics behind it).

Another problem is my explanation of why the thermistor differs to a metal with an increase in temperature. I've got the whole collision of charge carriers in metals causes resistance to increase, whilst in a thermistor it just releases more charge carriers, but am struggling to delve into it in more detail.

I'm not expecting spoon-fed answers, but any help that can be provided will be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not much help, but have you read the level of detail in this introductory wikipedia.org page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermistor

Are there specific things on that page that are confusing you?
 
berkeman said:
I'm not much help, but have you read the level of detail in this introductory wikipedia.org page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermistor

Are there specific things on that page that are confusing you?
Everything bar Steinhart I have included it appears (never thought to check Wiki admittedly). However, Steinhart is already out of the question as I don't know the specifications of the thermistor required (as it was an old one not found in the catalogue). My solution would be to find the equation of the exponential curve, but that's too mathematical for someone like me who doesn't do Maths!

The problem I have is that by doing a thermistor experiment, I automatically forfeited 2 marks as it wasn't interesting enough. I am now struggling to get those extra marks to boost me into an A. So far, my entire scientific theory is based on more thermal energy=an increase in charge carriers so therefore, an increase in conductance. This has resulted in quite a short explanation and diagram, which apparently needs more detail and expanding (quite how, I am not sure).

Also, for my analysis, I found that when using smaller temperature ranges, the relationship between temperature and resistance is linear and not exponential, but I can't understand why that's the case. As far as the Wiki page is concerned though, I understand it all.
 
Well, again, I won't be of a lot of help, but I can offer a couple thoughts:

-- If learning some of the math of exponentials will help your grade significantly, it's probably worth a couple hours of reading/study. Exponentials are a fairly simple area of math.

-- You mention the increase in conductivity due to more free charge carriers at higher temperatures, but that's only half the story, right? Remember that the normal collision-related reduction in conductivity is going on still, so the increase in the number of free carriers has to contribute more conduction capability over and above that lost to increased collisions. Is that accounted for in your model?

-- You might look at other devices that use this thermistor effect. Like, how is a thermopile related to thermistors?
 
berkeman said:
-- You mention the increase in conductivity due to more free charge carriers at higher temperatures, but that's only half the story, right? Remember that the normal collision-related reduction in conductivity is going on still, so the increase in the number of free carriers has to contribute more conduction capability over and above that lost to increased collisions. Is that accounted for in your model?
Seems so obvious now you've mentioned it, can't believe I missed it out. It makes relatively little difference in the actual conductance model, though of course, it adds a little more substance science wise. Cheers.

Thanks for the other points too, the reading up on Maths bit, it's something I have considered, but as lazy as it may sound, I'm hoping to compensate for it in other areas.

Any other points will still be appreciated, but I reckon it's shaping up quite nicely at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Back
Top