Date of Report: 25/02/2016

Date of Experiment: 11/02/2016

Electrical Measurements

Experiment conducted by Neeraj Tata.

Lab Partner was G. Riley

Abstract:
In this report, different electrical quantities were measured. These include the
Internal resistance of an Ammeter, which was found to be 10.16 0.27 , the
internal resistance of a battery comprising of three cells of each 1.5 V (stated
EMF) in series, which was found to be 1.55 0.05 and also the resistivity of
conducting putty shaped into a cylinder, which in turn was found to be 0.041
0.004 .m. Kirchhoffs and Ohms Laws were used to calculate the above said
quantities. A comparison between Analog and Digital Multimeters was also
made that shows that Analog Multimeters are more accurate but less precise
than Digital Multimeters.

Introduction:
Electrical Circuits are very crucial for any physical science, from biotechnology
to astronomy. As its importance is only slated to increase, it is important for
every scientist to understand the basics of electrical circuits. This experiment is
to help understand the basics of electrical measurements and show contrast
between two different instruments used for measuring them.
Firstly, let us see how an electrical circuit works. When charge moves from
one point to another point through a surface, we say that there is current
flowing through that surface. While in the circuits we use, the charge
responsible for the current is the electron, negatively charged, convention
dictates that we assume positive charges to move; hence the direction of
current shown will be opposite to the actual flow of charge.
To make the charge move we have to apply an electric potential across a
conductor, which allows the charge to pass through. This electric potential is
generally facilitated by batteries, which use chemical potential across the
electrodes that is known as Electro Motive Force (EMF). More formally, it can be
described as the potential difference across the terminals of a battery in an open
circuit. This potential can also be produced by photo-electric effects, as in solar
cells, and AC supply.
As soon as the circuit is completed and current starts flowing across the
battery, the voltage across the terminals drops since the battery, not being ideal
in nature, has some resistance. This is called the internal resistance of a battery
and its sources lie in the fact that the motion of charges within the battery is not
1

ideal and that they experience resistive forces due to the motion of other ions
and molecules in the electrolytic soup. In ideal cases, it is assumed that they
have no effect on the moving charges and hence a battery has no internal
resistance. But in reality such effects are overwhelming to ignore.
A more qualitative treatment to resistance would reveal that resistance
depends on both the geometry and nature of the material. This is because the
way molecules are arranged influences how electrons (charged particles) pass
through them; these effects are captured quantitatively by a physical quantity
called resistivity. Resistance also depends on the geometry of the substance
since charges physically flow through it and the dimensions of the width, which
can constrict the flow, and the length, which makes the charges move further,
affect its motion.
To measure resistance of a material, we apply a potential across it and
measure the current across it. Ohms law, which relates current and the voltage
difference to resistance1 can then be used
(1)

A component A in the circuit can either be connected to another

component B in series, wherein the current flowing through component A is the
same as the current flowing in the component B, or be in parallel to B, wherein
the potential difference across A is the same as B.
Current or Voltage difference is generally measured using a Multimeter.
A Multimeter is a device that can measure current flowing through a circuit or
the voltage difference between two points. It is usually a moving coil
galvanometer, which has a pointer that moves on a calibrated scale. The pointer
is connected to a spring coil and to a magnetic bar placed between two magnets.
The greater the current passing through the galvanometer, the more the
pointer rotates (twists).
The relation between them is given by
(2)

This galvanometer had two probes that can be attached to the circuit in
series to measure the current flowing through.

Fig 1.1: A figure showing an Ammeter (A) connected to a resistor, R1, in series

To measure the voltage, however, we connect the probes at the points

between which we are calculating the voltage difference, i.e. is it connected in
parallel.

Fig 1.2: A figure showing a Voltmeter (V) connected in parallel to a resistor, R1.

Since the ammeter measure current, whose value is very sensitive to

resistance, they have low resistances. But if the same meter is used to measure
voltage, it is easy to notice that much of the current would flow through the
voltmeter, since it has lower resistance. This would sabotage the measurements
since the circuit is changed hugely. To circumvent this problem, we introduce a
shunt resistance in series to the galvanometer and in parallel to the circuit. This
would make sure that the effective resistance is too high so that only minimum
current passes through it.
In general use, there are two types of Multimeters: Digital and Analog.
While the Analog Multimeter works in the way described above, the Digital
Multimeter has current and voltage sensitive ICs that are programmed to
display the values on an LCD Screen.
3

Some of the applications of the physics involved include making of

different electronic circuits and having a better understanding of the workings
of the components, which could be used in a range of fields from Electronics to
Biomedical Engineering, as mentioned earlier.
This investigation shall try to find the internal resistance of the Ammeter,
which would then be used to find the resistivity of conducting putty. This
investigation would also try to find the internal resistance of a galvanic cell.
Finally, a comparison is made between the efficiency, accuracy and precision of
Analog and Digital Multimeters.

Method:
Firstly, to find the internal resistance of the Ammeter, this investigation would
be using a circuit as shown below,

Fig 2.1: A circuit diagram showing a battery connected to an Ammeter (A), resistor (R1 =
10 ), variable resistor (R2) and a Voltmeter (V).

The voltage across the 10 Ohms+ Rv component given by Digital

multimeter (Vr) and the current through the circuit given by the Analog
multimeter (i) is noted.
With the voltage of the power supply set to Vs = 5 V and the variable
resistor set to 70 Ohm, the experiment is carried out and the readings are noted
down. This is then repeated for four times, with the variable resistance
increasing by 10 Ohm each time.
4

The Kirchhoffs laws are then used to find the voltage drop across the
Ammeter. Ohms law can then be used to relate the voltage, current and
resistance.1
(3)
(4)

This gives us the internal resistance of the Ammeter.

The second part of this investigation attempts to calculate the resistivity
of a conducting putty. This is done by shaping the putty in a cylindrical shape of
about 9 cm in length and 3 cm in diameter. Two electrodes are then inserted
fully into the putty and they are connected to the circuit in series as shown
below

Fig 2.2: A circuit diagram showing a conducting putty connected to a battery, Ammeter
(A), Resistor (R1 = 10) and a Voltmeter (V).

Then the power supply is varied and the readings of both the current and
voltage Vr are taken. The shape is then altered to make the length 8cm, keeping
the diameter the same and measurements are then taken. This is repeated three
more times decreasing the length by 1 cm each time.
The resistance of the putty in each case is measured using Kirchhoffs
1

law ,

(5)

This resistance, along with the length and the cross-sectional area, is then
used to calculate the resistivity which is given by the equation1 below,
(6)

The third part of this experiment involves finding the internal resistance
of a cell. The circuit constructed looks like the one below,

Fig 2.3: A circuit diagram showing a battery connected to an Ammeter (A),

resistor (R1 = 10 ), variable resistor (R2) and a Voltmeter (V).

Where the power supply is replaced by the battery and the voltmeter is
now placed across, i.e. parallel to, the battery to measure its voltage Vs.
As before, the variable resistors resistance is altered and the
corresponding circuit current, reading given by the Analog Multimeter, and the
voltage of the batteries, reading given by the Digital Multimeter, are measured.
This repeated until we have 10 readings.
Now, the internal resistance of the cell is found out using Ohms law1,
(7)

Where E is the EMF of the cell and can be measured by connecting the
probes of the voltmeter directly across the cell when it is not connected to any
other circuit. While, theoretically speaking, this shall give us the EMF of the cell,
the fact that the voltmeter draws on a current form the cell means that this is
just the terminal voltage of the cell and not the EMF.

Finally, we compare the AMM and the DMM by measuring the root mean
square voltage set up by an AC Function generator. This is done by connecting
the AMM and DMM to the AC Function generator as shown below,

Fig 2.4: A circuit schematic showing an AC Power supply connected to an Oscilloscope, a Digital Voltmeter and an
Analog Voltmeter.

It must be noted that while the AMM and DMM give the RMS Voltage, the
oscilloscope gives the Peak-to-peak voltage.
The AC supply is set to output a Peak-to-peak voltage of 5 V and a
frequency of 100 Hz. Then readings are taken from the AMM, the DMM and the
oscilloscope.
The output is then changed to get a frequency of 1000 Hz and the
corresponding readings are noted. The RMS Voltage from the AMM and DMM
is converted to peak-to-peak voltage using the formula1 below:
(8)

Some of the precautions that should be taken are as follows: Firstly, make
sure that the Ammeter is set at a suitable such that its needle isnt push past the
maximum level. This could result in damaging the coil and thereby destroying
the instrument. Also, care should be taken to ensure the cells are not short
circuited as this might result in the quick discharge of the battery, not to mention
the risk of overheating the cell to the point of an explosion or chemical leakage
from the cell. Other precautions that must be taken to ensure successful
experimentation is to ensure all the wires are connected perfectly and that
appropriate scales are used for accurate readings.
7

Results:
The results of the investigation can be seen in the tables and figures below. Table
1 shows the measurements taken to calculate the internal resistance of the
ammeter. They include the voltage reading from the voltmeter, the current
reading from the ammeter, and the variable resistance set up.
Voltage (Vr)
(in Volts)

Current (I)
(in Amps)

Resistance of the
Uncertainty in
Ammeter
Resistance
(in Ohms)
(Ohms)
4.27
0.067
10.84
1.69
4.36
0.062
10.27
1.80
4.42
0.057
10.12
1.96
4.48
0.053
9.75
2.10
4.52
0.050
9.60
2.22
Table 1: A table showing the voltage, current readings and the calculated resistance of the
Ammeter and their corresponding uncertainties

The average value of internal resistance was found to be 10.16 Ohms and
the error, calculated using the appropriate error formulae from small data sets
was found to be 0.27 Ohms. The errors on the individual measurement were
calculated using error propagation formulae.
Table 2, given below, shows the measurements taken to calculate the
resistivity of the putty.
Vs
(Volts)

I
(mAmps)

Resistance
(Ohms)

Resistivity
(units)

Uncertainty
Shape
In
Length Radius
Resistivity
(cm)
(cm)
( .m)
3
1.25
5.78
352
3.05
0.050
0.006
4
1.25
5.76
400
3.51
0.043
0.005
5
1.25
5.75
410
4.02
0.040
0.005
7
1.25
5.74
425
4.40
0.031
0.004
8
1.25
5.74
440
6.42
0.040
0.005
Table 2: A table showing the dimensions of the cylindrical putty and its resistivity, along
with the uncertainty in it, in addition to the voltage and current readings

The average resistivity was found to be 0.041 .m and the error on it was
0.004 .m. The error on it was found using the error formula of small data sets.
8

The errors listed in the table were found using appropriate error propagation
formulae.
Some information helpful to find the error is the least count of the Power
supply was 0.2 V, the least count of the Ammeter was 5 mA and the error on the
ruler was 0.07 cm, calculated using error propagation formulae.
Table 3 gives the measurements for the internal resistance of the battery.
The stated value on the battery was not taken and instead the reading from the
voltmeter was considered to determine the EMF of the cell. The average
resistance was found to be 1.55 Ohms and the error on it, calculated using the
appropriate error formulae of large data sets, was found to be 0.05 Ohms.

Resistance (Ohms)
Current
Voltage across Internal resistance Uncertainty
(Variable Resistor)
(mAmps)
battery (Volts) of battery (Ohms) In Resistance
50
67.34
4.22
1.78
0.06
60
65.34
4.23
1.68
0.07
70
60.00
4.24
1.67
0.07
80
54.00
4.25
1.67
0.08
90
50.34
4.26
1.59
0.09
100
47.34
4.27
1.48
0.10
110
45.00
4.27
1.56
0.10
120
42.67
4.28
1.41
0.12
130
42.34
4.28
1.42
0.12
140
38.67
4.29
1.29
0.14
Table 3: A table showing the measurements for the internal resistance of a battery along
with the uncertainty in it.

It would be helpful to note that since the EMF was measured using the
voltmeter, the error on it was the same as that of the voltmeter, i.e. 0.005 V.
Uncertainty in the internal resistance was found using error propagation
formulae.

Fig 3: A graph showing the results from Table 3. Included is the line of best fit, calculated using the weighted least
squares method. The line of best fit was found to be y= 2.31x -0.038.

Given above is the graph of the Voltage across the battery and the current
flowing in the circuit. The line of bit was found to be Vres= 2.31i -0.038. The
internal resistance of the battery according to the graph is hence 2.31 Ohms.
The line of best fit was found using the function polyfit from Matlab, which
uses the weighted least squares method to evaluate the best fit.2
Finally, Table 4 shows the measurements for the voltages measured by
the Analog Multimeter and the Digital Multimeter. The errors on the
measurements are given as follows: Error on the Digital Multimeter was 0.005
V, error on the readings of Analog Multimeter was 0.5 V and the error on the
oscilloscope was 0.005 V.
Frequency
Voscilloscope
VAMM
VDMM
(Hz)
(Volts)
(Volts)
(Volts)
99.3
5
5.09
4.86
1045
5
5.09
4.86
Table 4: A table showing the voltage readings from an Analog and a Digital Voltmeters, of
an AC power supply

10

Analysis:
The biggest source of error was different for each task.
For Task 1 the largest error was the error in readings of the Ammeter. As
a wrong scale was chosen to read the currents, whereby the change in the value
of the current did not produce accurate readings as the pointer moved very
little. An improvement that can ensure better results is to choose a better scale
that can display the changes more accurately. The other considerable error were
the instrumental errors of the voltmeter and the resistor, which despite having
a very large error was taken to be error-free. The relative error of this
experiment is 2.7%, which shows that the results are quite precise.
Task 2, however, had huge error due to geometry. It was very difficult to
mould the said shapes with probes. Current through the putty might also be
influenced by varying degrees by factors such as the materials in contact with
the conducting putty. Even though precaution was taken by placing the putty on
a clean plastic surface, it might also have been influenced but the cross section
of the input and output probes, and the fact that inserting the probe itself
deforms the shape into a rather complex one. A way to improve this might have
to use a mould or use much better tools to shape the putty. This error would
have been much more than the stated error, which was just the error in
measuring the dimensions using a ruler. Despite all the precautionary measures
of making sure the probe being inserted fully and the shape being as regular as
possible, errors were inevitable. It is interesting to note that errors were more
or less constant (neither were they increasing nor decreasing). This can be
attributed to the fact that higher resistance due to longer putty gave higher
error in resistance while showing drop of similar magnitude in the relative error
of length. As predicted it can be seen that the resistance increases as the length
increases.
As for the internal resistance of the cell, one noticeable trend in Table 3 is
that the internal resistance calculated decreases with increase in the variable
resistance.
This is due to fact that since the changes in the current were too small,
the Digital Multimeter could not distinguish between the changes (change in
current was less than the precision of the instrument) and these are not
captured by the readings of the Voltmeter, resulting in this error. Other factors
that might contribute to this fact are electrolytic diffusion, surface polarization
11

and other counter-EMF. These are, more or less, given by the resistance
overpotential of the battery, whereby a considerable voltage loss is produced
due to activation losses.
A more careful treatment to the graph shows that the line of best fit gives
a resistance of about 2.31 Ohms, which is comparable to the average resistance
calculated (1.55 Ohms). Since three cells of equal stated EMF (1.5V each) were
connected in series, the total expected EMF is 4.5V and the internal resistance
of each cell is about 0.51 Ohms, which is highly reasonable.
Comparing the error (0.05 Ohms) with the resistance (1.55 Ohms) to
quantify the success of this task, we get a relative error of about 3.22%, which is
a fair indicator of the precision of this experiment.
One more considerable observation is the stark difference between the
stated EMF and the actual EMF of the cells. While the stated EMF was 4.5 V, the
actual EMF stood at 4.34V. This might be due to fact the batteries might have
discharged and that the potential (voltage output) has reduced, amongst other
factors.
As for the comparison between the Analog Multimeter and Digital
Multimeter, the values of the voltages measured by both the AMM and DMM
reveal that while the Analog Multimeters give a more accurate reading, since
5.09 V is more closer to 5 than 4.86 V is, Digital counterparts are usually more
precise, since they have lower error (0.005 V) when compared to the errors of
the Analog meter (0.5 V), and come with fewer errors like parallax, etc.

12

Conclusions:
This investigation measured the internal resistances of different components
such as a cell and an Ammeter, and also compared the efficiency of Digital
Multimeter and an Analog Multimeter in a more quantitative manner. It used
the principles of Ohms laws and Kirchhoffs laws and in a way established their
validity too. The value of internal resistance of the Ammeter was found to be
10.16 0.27 , while the internal resistance of a battery comprising of three
cells of each 1.5 V (stated EMF) in series was found to be 1.55 0.05 . The line
of best fit for the internal resistance of the battery was found to be Vres= 2.31i 0.038 and plotted accordingly. The above stated laws were also applied in order
to find the resistivity of a conducting putty shaped into a cylinder. This value was
found to be 0.041 0.004 .m. A very brief comparison between the Analog and
Digital Multimeters was made and it was thus revealed that the Analog meters
were more accurate but less precise than their Digital counterparts.
Further extensions of this experiment may focus on the various aspects of
electrochemical cells and measuring different physical quantities related to
them, such as over-potential, or maybe even try to analyse the magnetic effects
of current.
In summary, the errors stated above for each quantity show that the
experiment was quite precise in its calculations and was therefore quite
successful. Improvements have been suggested and areas of further research
have been included too.

References:
1 R. Resnick, et al., Fundamentals of Physics, (Wiley Publishers, 1970).
2 H. Moore, MATLAB for Engineers, (Pearson Publishers, 2007)

13