Originally posted by: Eli
BTW, what are you using to log the data and make the graphs?
It would be cool to graph out the temperature characteristics vs. power consumption of the huge peltier-cooled cooler I'm building.. lol
Ouch.Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: Eli
BTW, what are you using to log the data and make the graphs?
It would be cool to graph out the temperature characteristics vs. power consumption of the huge peltier-cooled cooler I'm building.. lol
They gave me a program called Test Point. It's like Visual Basic for digital sourcemeters. I program the machine through a serial cable, tell it what I want, it takes the readings and sends them back to me and I auto export them to Excel. It's neat, but the sourcemeter costs $5,000, so I can't have one at home.![]()
Originally posted by: tikwanleap
On graph #3:
Now it looks like the resistance is more like a linear constant again.
Except after it is exposed to higher voltages it has a higher resistance by the time it returns to 300. (I'm assuming the path goes from top to bottom instead of bottom to top.)
It seems there is confusion in the term "negative resistance" here. We're really talking about a change in the value of the resistance. In ideal resistors, it should be constant and unchanging, but we are seeing the resistance change at high voltages.... This latest graph seems to confirm that the changes are being caused by heat and changes in the physical structure/properties of the graphite.
Originally posted by: Eli
ouch.
I need to win the fscking lottery. lol
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I don't know how you calculate resistance, etc, but on the graph the line is labelled as "detector resistance' which never becomes positive anyway. If that is correct, isn't slope of the line just change in resistance, meaning that the resistance of the graphite/clay goes down at about 300v and then stays at some low point at 400v?
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why didn't you just say that the change in resistance was negative in the first place? Did you fail calculus??
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why didn't you just say that the change in resistance was negative in the first place? Did you fail calculus??
Nope, I passed Calculus 1, 2, and 3 with A's and a B in Calc 4. Maybe you failed it, since you think dV/dI is the change in resistance.![]()
Originally posted by: tikwanleap
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why didn't you just say that the change in resistance was negative in the first place? Did you fail calculus??
Nope, I passed Calculus 1, 2, and 3 with A's and a B in Calc 4. Maybe you failed it, since you think dV/dI is the change in resistance.![]()
I must have failed it, because I thought dV/dI is the change in resistance too.
Originally posted by: tikwanleap
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why didn't you just say that the change in resistance was negative in the first place? Did you fail calculus??
Nope, I passed Calculus 1, 2, and 3 with A's and a B in Calc 4. Maybe you failed it, since you think dV/dI is the change in resistance.![]()
I must have failed it, because I thought dV/dI is the change in resistance too.
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: tikwanleap
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why didn't you just say that the change in resistance was negative in the first place? Did you fail calculus??
Nope, I passed Calculus 1, 2, and 3 with A's and a B in Calc 4. Maybe you failed it, since you think dV/dI is the change in resistance.![]()
I must have failed it, because I thought dV/dI is the change in resistance too.
No, dV/dI is the slope of the line, which is resistance. The change in resistance is the second derivative.
Originally posted by: JohnCU
yeah, it's confusing because the graph really shows conductance, since i'm sourcing voltage, making the current the dependent variable. I think it's easier for us to source voltage and measure current than the other way around, not sure.
Originally posted by: tikwanleap
Originally posted by: JohnCU
yeah, it's confusing because the graph really shows conductance, since i'm sourcing voltage, making the current the dependent variable. I think it's easier for us to source voltage and measure current than the other way around, not sure.
yeah, it's easier to build a constant voltage source than a constant current source.
Originally posted by: tikwanleap
Originally posted by: tikwanleap
Originally posted by: JohnCU
yeah, it's confusing because the graph really shows conductance, since i'm sourcing voltage, making the current the dependent variable. I think it's easier for us to source voltage and measure current than the other way around, not sure.
yeah, it's easier to build a constant voltage source than a constant current source.
I love it when I kill threads... dar dar dar.
Originally posted by: JohnCU
electricity rocks, someone needs to start a friday night EE thread.
Originally posted by: cressida
Originally posted by: JohnCU
electricity rocks, someone needs to start a friday night EE thread.
I nominate you, the cocky EE guy
