Effects on a metal wire’s resistance by

length
– by Rafid Khan 10A
Rationale

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate how the factor of length affected the
electrical resistance of metals. Namely, there are 4 common factors, being: length, cross-
sectional area, temperature, and material (Admin, 2020). Length was chosen to be the main
variable to investigate in this report. Electrical resistance is the property of a material, that
describes how much it opposes the flow of electric current through it (Isaac Physics, n.d.). It
is symbolised by the omega symbol Ω, pronounced as “ohms” (fluke.com, 2021).

In theoretical measurement/s, the resistance of a wire varies according to its resistivity,

cross-sectional area, and length of it. This can be calculated by the formula (specifically for
resistance of a wire):
R=ρL / A

, where R is the resistance and ρ = resistivity, measured in Ω m; L = length, measured in m;

A = cross-sectional area, measured in m2 (HyperPhysics, n.d.). Here, common
misunderstandings can be made when identifying and interpreting resistance and resistivity,
hence, its differences should be further enunciated.
A clear way to distinguish between the two is to understand what of a substance’s physical
property each are exactly observing and how they are applied for experimental purposes. In
terms of a substance, resistance is focused on how it obstructs the flow of current, which
resistivity determines by focusing on so-called substance’s specific dimensions i.e., size and
shape (toppr.com, 2021).

One example of this is the thickness of a wire; if it is relatively thin, it makes little space for
electrons to flow though, resulting in many collisions with the ions in the metal, thus giving
it a high resistance (BBC, n.d.). A thicker wire will allow more space for electrons to travel
across, therefore decreasing its resistance (BBC, n.d.). The shape of a wire contributes to its
cross-sectional area; it does not matter how the shape is constructed but rather follows the
same theory as length – a larger cross-sectional area decreasing the metal’s resistance – and
1
vice versa (Cyberphysics, n.d.). This makes an inversely proportional relationship ( y ∝ ).
x

In the experimental field, resistivity is used in the resistance formula [of a wire] above. It
provides a generally accepted value; however, it is not designed for electric wires, making it
incompatible for the electrical circuit setup that was used. Because of this, a suitable
formula is required, one that calculates resistance of an electrical circuit which is in the form
of:

V =IR

, where V is voltage (potential difference), measured in V; I is current, measure in A; R is

resistance, measured in Ω. With substitution and re-arranging the formula, resistance can be
calculated with simple measures, while fitting the requirement of working with electricity.
Research Question

How is electrical resistance affected by an iron wire’s length, and how does it compare to
the theoretically measured counterpart?

Modifications to the methodology

To confirm that reliable, accurate and relevant data was obtained, the original experiment
was modified:

The experiment was extended to improve the reliability of the results by:
- Repeating the recording process to a total of 3 trials, the recommended amount.
- Including the ammeter in the circuit, to have an accurate current measurement.
- Providing a higher number of cables in the equipment list, in consideration that a
number of them may not work.

Secondly, the experiment was redirected by:

- Attaching a light bulb to the circuit, in order to have a substance for electricity to
flow through and a properly functioning setting.

Equipment
- A resistance board
- A multimeter
- Crocodile clip cables
- 2 lead cables (for multimeter)
- Ammeter
- Power supply
- Lightbulb

Risk Management

Table 1: The Potential hazards and Standard preventative measures of the Experiment
Potential hazards Standard preventative Risk level rating
measures
Iron wire Risk Level:
- Electric shock from - Ensure people keep
contact with charged distance from the 4
conductor circuit, only
- Burns from being in approaching it when
contact or proximity required With Safety Regulations:
of the wire - Keep grip on the 3
- Circuit may spark leads, the only
and cause body equipment that
injuries should touch the
wire
 - Apply eye protection
i.e., eyeglasses to
prevent damage
from potential
sparks
Power Supply Risk Level:
- Overcharging its - Limit the voltage
voltage limit may output to 6V, a 3
cause smoke and measurement found
overheat the circuit, to be safe
which may cause fire With Safety Regulations:
or explosion
2

Environmental issues Risk Level:

- People may be at - Limit the power
risk in area with supplied to the 3
high-voltage circuit, to ensure
equipment that short circuits
- Experiment may be don’t occur With Safety Regulations:
conducted in - Ensure that the
hazardous environment is clear 2
flammable areas or of liquid and risky
wet setting resources (i.e., gas
pipe) are turned off

Original Experiment:
The original experiment explored the length/s of an iron wire and how that affected its
resistance. The following steps were followed to find the experimental results:
1) Equipment was setup and prepared, with the resistance board in front of the power
supply
2) The power supply was connected
3) It was set to an output of 6 volts
4) A cable was attached from the supply’s AC port to one end of an ammeter
5) A cable was attached from the other end of the ammeter to the lightbulb
6) The lightbulb was then attached to the iron wire of the board, using a cable
7) A cable was attached from the end of the iron wire to the other AC port of the power
supply. The power supply was turned on.
8) The leads were connected to the multimeter, then it was turned on
9) The leads were then placed on the wire, according to length and the reading on the
multimeter was recorded
10) Step 9 was repeated, each time increasing the length by 10cm, to ensure the correct
number of results was recorded; the leads were lifted off the wire for a short time,
and then put back on at a different length.
Raw data

Table 2 – Voltage of iron wire, varied by length (1st trial)

Length 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(m)
Voltag 0.026 0.056 0.083 0.113 0.143 0.172 0.208 0.236 0.273 0.301
e (V)

Table 3 – Voltage of iron wire, varied by length (2nd trial)

Length 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(m)
Voltag 0.021 0.055 0.085 0.119 0.147 0.179 0.207 0.234 0.271 0.300
e (V)

Table 4 – Voltage of iron wire, varied by length (3rd trial)

Length 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(m)
Voltag 0.033 0.052 0.083 0.118 0.144 0.175 0.208 0.235 0.269 0.296
e (V)

Throughout the experiment, the ammeter consistently presented a number of 0.26A.

The cross-sectional area of the wire was required to substitute into the R=ρL/ A formula,
hence the diameter was measured, leaving a result of 1.365mm.

Processed data

Table 5 – The electrical resistance of the iron wire, using experimental measures
Length (m) Average voltage (V) Measured resistance (Ω)
Rounded to 3 decimal places Using V=IR
Rounded to 3 decimal
places
0.1 0.027 0.104
0.2 0.054 0.208
0.3 0.084 0.323
0.4 0.117 0.450
0.5 0.145 0.558
0.6 0.175 0.673
0.7 0.208 0.800
0.8 0.235 0.904
0.9 0.271 1.042
1.0 0.299 1.150
Table 6 – Calculating cross-sectional area of the iron wire to determine theorised resistance
values
Material Iron
Diameter (mm) 1.365mm
Cross-sectional area Due to the wire being a circular shape: the formula for area of a
(m2) circle A=π r 2 is used -

Diameter = 2r

Therefore:
r = 1.365÷ 2
= 0.6825mm = 6.825×10-4m

Using the r value:

2
A=π 0.6825
¿ π ×(6.825 ×10−4 )2
−6 2
¿ 1.463 ×10 m

Sample Calculations
Theoretical result of resistance of 0.1m iron wire using R=ρL/ A

As mentioned in the rationale, ρ represents the resistivity of a material, and for this
scenario, the iron’s resistivity coefficient is 8.9×10-8 Ωm.

ρL
R=
A
−8
(8.9 ×10 ) ×0.1
¿ −6
1.463 ×10

¿ 0.00608 Ω
Experimental result of resistance of 0.1 iron wire using V=IR

V =0.027 V
I =0.26 A
Rearranging the formula:
V
R=
I

0.027
¿
0.26

¿ 0.104 Ω
 Percentage difference of the 0.1m iron wire, comparing theorised and experimental value

% difference= |accepted−experimental
accepted |× 100 %
|0.00608−0.104
¿
0.00608 |× 100 %
¿ 1610 %

Table 7 – Theoretical resistance values, according to the iron wire’s length

Length (m) Theoretical resistance (𝛀) Percentage difference (%)
Using R=ρL/ A between experimental to
theoretical value
0.1 0.00608 1610
0.2 0.0121 1620
0.3 0.0182 1670
0.4 0.0243 1750
0.5 0.0304 1740
0.6 0.0365 1740
0.7 0.0425 1780
0.8 0.0486 1760
0.9 0.0547 1800
1.0 0.0608 1790

Graph 1 – Effects of length (m) on the electrical resistance (Ω) of iron wire, using Ohm’s law
1.4

1.2 1.15

f(x) = 1.1710303030303 x − 0.0228666666666668 1.042

R² = 0.999597782974099
Average resistance (Ω)

1 0.904
0.8
0.8
0.673

0.6 0.558
0.45
0.4 0.323
0.208
0.2 0.104

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Length (m)

Graph 2 – The results of iron wire’s length (m) affecting its electrical resistance (Ω), utilising
the R=ρL/ A formula
 0.07
0.0608
0.06 0.0547
f(x) = 0.0608109090909091 x − 2.80000000000002E-05
Calculated resistance (Ω)

R² = 0.999997816390944 0.0486
0.05
0.0425
0.04 0.0365
0.0304
0.03
0.0243
0.0182
0.02
0.0121
0.01 0.00608

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Length (m)

Analysis and Interpretations

The plotting of Graphs 1 and 2 suggest that as the length of the iron wire increased from
0.1m up to 1.0m, so did its resistance, thus making a directly proportional relationship ( y ∝ x
). Evidence of this is present in examples such as between the lengths of 0.2m and 0.3m.
In Graph 1, these equated to 0.208Ω and 0.323Ω respectively, supporting the trend. Graph 2
also corroborates this with the measurements of 0.0121Ω and 0.0182Ω, also supporting the
trend found.
However, when both sets of results were compared, they were substantially high in
difference. Hence, this was justified by plotting the percentage difference:

Graph 3 – The relationship of percentage difference (%) between theoretical and

experimental values
1850

1800
1800 f(x) = 207.272727272727 x + 1612 1790
R² = 0.835146945420273 1780
Percentage difference (%)

1760
1750
1750 1740 1740

1700
1670

1650
1620
1610
1600
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Length (m)
Graph 3 generally demonstrates that the percentage difference between theoretical and
experimental values, reflected in Table 5 and 7, increases because of the wire length
increasing, thus also making a directly proportional relationship ( y ∝ x ). However, it fell into
a consistent outlying pattern, which can be observed to continually repeat as the line
follows, evident in the graph above. This could have been due to a systematic error because
the pattern repeated. For example, at the length of 0.5m, the two results differed by about
1740%, but at 0.4m, it was higher at 1750%. With the same number in 0.5m and 0.6m, the
difference rose to 1780% at 0.8m. Throughout this graph, the pattern is present that; at a
certain point the percentage difference lowered, but then continued rising and following the
trend identified.

With the presence of these trends, it can be determined that both the experimental and
accepted values are similar when analysing them individually. When considering the
equation of the data in Graph 1 and Graph 2, they follow the y=mx+c equation in a similar
manner, with both having a constant m value and a negative c value.

A way to determine the precision of these results was to use a simple multiplication
method: if a resistance measurement would double when the length was twice as long.
Examples of these are listed below, firstly considering the experimental value/s, referring to
Table 5:

Sample Calculations
Multiplication method applied to experimental result at 0.1m length

Result: Length – 0.1m, Resistance – 0.104Ω

New length = 0.1 ×2=0.2m

New resistance = 0.104 × 2=0.208 Ω

Result for resistance at length of 0.2m – 0.208Ω

Multiplication method applied to experimental result at 0.3m length

Result: Length – 0.3m, Resistance – 0.323Ω

New length = 0.3 ×2=0.6m

New resistance = 0.323 ×2=0.646Ω

Result for resistance at length of 0.6m – 0.673Ω

Multiplication method applied to experimental result at 0.5m length

Result: Length – 0.5m, Resistance – 0.558Ω

New length = 0.5 ×2=1.0m

New resistance = 0.558 ×2=¿ 1.116Ω
 Result for resistance at length of 1.0m – 1.150Ω

The same method was then applied to the theoretical value/s, referring to Table 7:

Sample Calculations
Multiplication method applied to theoretical result at 0.1m length

Result: Length – 0.1m, Resistance – 0.00608Ω

New length = 0.1 ×2=0.2m

New resistance = 0.0608 ×2=0.01216Ω

Result for resistance at length of 0.2m – 0.0121Ω

Multiplication method applied to theoretical result at 0.3m length

Result: Length – 0.3m, Resistance – 0.0182Ω

New length = 0.3 ×2=0.6m

New resistance = 0.0182 ×2=0.0364Ω

Result for resistance at length of 0.6m – 0.0365Ω

Multiplication method applied to theoretical result at 0.5m length

Result: Length – 0.5m, Resistance – 0.0304Ω

New length = 0.5 ×2=1.0m

New resistance = 0.0304 × 2=¿ 0.0608Ω

Result for resistance at length of 1.0m – 0.0608Ω

Displayed in the calculations above, the multiplication method used provides very close
results to the ones listed in Table 5 and 7, the difference usually caused by rounding or a
very small amount, hence justifying the precision of both sets of results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the iron wire’s electrical resistance is affected by it increasing because of a

raising length. When compared to the accepted value/s, the experimental area of electrical
resistance led to highly different results, though both supported the main conclusion
assumed. Also, the percentage difference between the two showed an interesting outcome
of consistently increasing alongside length, thus also making a directly proportional
relationship ( y ∝ x ). Considering this, it is important to note that the formulae used have
different purposes, the V=IR formula focusing on electricity and R=ρL/ A on the material
itself. Therefore, further investigations as outlined later are recommended.

Evaluation of methodologies

There were several limitations throughout the experimental process, which degraded the
accuracy and reliability of the processed results. These include:
- The cross-sectional area for the iron wire was determined beforehand, meaning that
it could be an inaccurate result and make the results unreliable.
- The board’s wires were found to be faulty, due to being years old and accumulating
lots of rust and wear over time, which increases resistivity and therefore makes
unreliable results. Though it provided precise data; however, it is not accurate,
making it a systematic error throughout the experiment.
- Human errors may have been caused, from either interpreting the result or attaching
the wire at an uncertain length.
- The reading from the multimeter were recorded without the addition of an
uncertainty factor for convenience, affecting the clarity of the results.
- Due to a severely limited time to conduct the experiment, the leads may have not
been applied at the intervals correctly, which could have caused [a] random human
error/s.
- Values in tables 6 and 7 were rounded according to significant figure rules, which
slightly decreased their accuracy and therefore reliability of the results.
- The voltage limit applied to the power supply may have been incorrect.
- The raw data was rounded to 3 decimal places, and then significant figure rules were
utilised when listing the percentage difference, making results inaccurate.

Suggested improvements and extensions

The experimental process could be improved by:

- Replacing the resistance board or fix the wire/s, which would cater the issue of
wear/rust increasing resistance unintentionally.
- Measuring the diameter for each wire, to allow more variant and reliable results.

The experimental process could be extended by:

- Applying the original experiment to test other materials, to extend knowledge on
research question.
- Measuring with a larger variety of lengths, in order to either further justify or
potentially contradict the patterns observed, which could open up to further
analysis.
Reference List
- Admin. (2020, June 9). Factors affecting resistance. Ox Science – Enter To Learn "
What is Physics About". https://oxscience.com/resistance/

- Isaac physics. (n.d.). Isaac Physics. https://isaacphysics.org/concepts/cp_resistivity?

stage=all

- Fluke.com. (2021, January 12). What is resistance? Fluke Corporation: Fluke

Electronics, Biomedical, Calibration and
Networks. https://www.fluke.com/en-au/learn/blog/electrical/what-is-resistance

- GSU. (n.d.). Resistance and

resistivity. https://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/resis.html

- Toppr.com. (n.d.). Difference Between Resistance and Resistivity.

toppr.com. https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics/difference-between/resistance-
and-resistivity/

- Resistance - Current, voltage and resistance - GCSE physics (Single science) revision -
Other - BBC bitesize. (n.d.). BBC
Bitesize. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z9sb2p3/revision/3#

- Cyberphysics - Factors that affect the resistance of a wire. (n.d.). Physics revision |
GCSE and A Level Physics Revision | Cyberphysics, the revision
website. https://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/topics/electricity/higher_electricity/
resistance.htm