Experiment 21: EMF and Internal Resistance of a Power Supply

Aim: The aim of this experiment is to determine the EMF, (V) and Internal Resistance, (Ω) of
a dry cell.

Design

Research Question:

How does total external load, ( ) on the electrical circuit affect the current, (A) drawn from
the power supply?

Hypothesis:

The reading on a voltmeter, when connected across a power supply such as a dry cell, is found
to be larger when it is passive, than when it is driving a current through an external load.
Theory suggests that the reason for this is the fact that the cell has an internal resistance, ,
which takes up part of the available EMF when current is flowing through the circuit. The
available EMF, , is therefore divided to the total external load, , and to the internal
resistance, of the power supply according to the equation;

, where is the available EMF of the dry cell

is the current drawn from the power supply
is the total external load on the electrical circuit
is the internal resistance of the power supply (dry cell)

1
 On comparing the above equation to an equation of a straight line, i.e., we get,

Hence, I believe that is directly proportional to , where and is a constant.

Variables:

Independent Variable Dependent Variable Controlled Variable

Total external load, ( ) on the Current, (A) drawn from the Available EMF, (V) of the dry
electrical circuit power supply cell
Internal resistance, (Ω) of
the power supply (dry cell)

Protocol Diagram:
Dry Cell

Multimeter
Resistor
Procedure:

The circuit was arranged as shown in the diagram above.

Connect one external load, of 1063 across the circuit.
The electrical circuit was switched on and the current, (A) flowing through the
electrical circuit was measured. This value was then recorded in the raw data table
under the heading current, (A) drawn from the power supply.
Three readings for total external load, ( ) on the electrical circuit were taken to
reduce random errors.
Different total external load, ( ) on the electrical circuit namely 2072 , 3060
4060 5090 6080 7070 and 8080 were used for each subsequent try and the
same procedure was repeated for the next 7 values of .

2
Data Collection and Processing

Raw Data Table

1. Table of Total external load, ( ) on the electrical circuit versus Current, (A) drawn
from the power supply

Total external load, Current, (A) drawn from the

( ) on the power supply ± 0.1 A
electrical circuit Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
1063 1310.0 1309.0 1311.0
2072 703.0 703.0 704.0
3060 484.0 483.0 484.0
4060 365.8 365.7 365.8
5090 293.3 293.3 293.3
6080 246.4 246.4 246.4
7070 212.5 212.4 212.5
8080 186.2 186.2 186.2

Available EMF, of the dry cell = 1.50 V

The true value of Internal resistance, (Ω) of the power supply (dry cell) was not known.

Data Processing

Statement of choice on uncertainties:

The smallest reading on the multimeter was 0.1 10-6 A. Since the instrument was digital,
therefore the absolute error was the smallest reading of the instrument.

Therefore,
Absolute error of the multimeter = The smallest reading on the instrument
= 1.00 10-7 A

However, the uncertainties used in the calculations were the residual effects of the average of
the 3 values of the current, (A) drawn from the power supply.

3
Overview:
Firstly, the average current, (A) drawn from the power supply was calculated by dividing the
sum of the three readings of current, (A) drawn from the power supply by 3.

Then, and were calculated.

was then calculated by dividing 1 by .

Then, and were calculated.

A graph of total external load, (Ω) on the electrical circuit versus (A-1) with and
as error bars was plotted.

Also, a line of best fit (black), line of maximum gradient (red) and the line of minimum gradient
(green) were also plotted, on the same graph, with their equation displayed.

Sample Calculations:

All the following calculations have been done using the value .

4
The following graph was plotted:

Graph of total external load, (Ω) on the electrical circuit versus (A-1) with and
as error bars was plotted.

Presentation

Processed Data Table

2. Table of Total external load, ( ) on the electrical circuit versus (A-1)
Total external load,
(A) (A) (A)
( ) on the
( ) ( ) ( ) (A-1) (A-1) (A-1)
electrical circuit
1063 1310.000 1.000 1.000 763.359 0.5832 0.5823
2072 703.333 0.667 0.333 1421.801 0.6742 1.3464
3060 483.667 0.333 0.667 2067.540 2.8537 1.4239
4060 365.767 0.033 0.067 2733.983 0.4984 0.2491
5090 293.300 0.000 0.000 3409.478 0.0000 0.0000
6080 246.400 0.000 0.000 4058.442 0.0000 0.0000
7070 212.467 0.033 0.067 4706.621 1.4773 0.7383
8080 186.200 0.000 0.000 5370.569 0.0000 0.0000

5
 Graphs:

1. Graph of total external load, R ( ) on the electrical circuit

versus 1/I (A-1)
6000

5000

y = 0.6570x + 62.5281
4000 y = 0.6567x + 64.745
1/I (A-1)

3000

2000
y = 0.6565x + 66.087

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Total external load, R ( ) on the electrical circuit

Note:
The vertical error bars were really small as compared to the value of

The y-intercept of the line of best fit, rather than being a value between the y-intercept of line
of minimum gradient and the y-intercept of line of maximum gradient, was outside the range.

The gradient of the line of best fit, rather than being a value between the gradient of line of
minimum gradient and the gradient of line of maximum gradient, was outside the range.

6
Conclusion and Evaluation

Conclusion:

From the graph of total external load, (Ω) on the electrical circuit versus (A-1), it was
concluded that as increased, increased. This supports the hypothesis.

From the graph of total external load, (Ω) on the electrical circuit versus (A-1) , the gradient
was .

From the graph, the equation of the line of best fit (black) was y = 0.6570x + 62.5281

The value of was determined.

From the graph, the gradient was 0.6570

Therefore,

The equation of the line of maximum gradient (red) was y = 0.6567x + 64.745

The value of was determined.

From the graph, the gradient was 0.6567

Therefore,

7
The equation of the line of minimum gradient (green) was y = 0.6565x + 66.087

The value of was determined.

From the graph, the gradient was 0.6565

Therefore,

The range of found from the experiment was

The value of found from the line of best fit did not lie in the range however, for calculation
purposes this value was used.

From the graph of total external load, (Ω) on the electrical circuit versus (A-1), the y-
intercept was .

From the graph, the equation of the line of best fit (black) was y = 0.6570x + 62.5281

The value of internal resistance, (Ω) of the power supply (dry cell) was determined.

From the graph, the y-intercept was 62.5281

Therefore,

8
From the graph, the equation of the line of maximum gradient (red) was y = 0.6567x + 64.745

The value of internal resistance, (Ω) of the power supply (dry cell) was determined.

From the graph, the y-intercept was 64.745

Therefore,

From the graph, the equation of the line of minimum gradient (green) was y = 0.6565x + 66.087

The value of internal resistance, (Ω) of the power supply (dry cell) was determined.

From the graph, the y-intercept was 66.087

Therefore,

The range of found from the experiment was

The value of found from the line of best fit did not lie in the range however, for calculation
purposes this value was used.

The plotted points were in strong positive co‐relation. The error bars were quite small which
shows that there was a really small random error in the readings. Since the value of the random
error was so small, they were not visible in the graph.

9
Since the true value of Internal resistance, (Ω) of the power supply (dry cell) was not known
therefore, it was difficult to evaluate the value and existence of systematic error.

The literature value of was . But, the value of found from the experiment was
.

Therefore the error in the reading of was, = 1.4733 %

This showed that there was a really small error in the value of

This showed that the experiment was precise.

Limitations of the Experimental Design:

The experiment was designed to determine the EMF, (V) and Internal Resistance, (Ω) of a
dry cell.

The EMF, (V) of the dry cell may not be exactly the value mentioned on the dry cell. It may be
higher or lower than the value mentioned.

The temperature at which the experiment is carried out is not constant. This fluctuation affects
the resistance because temperature and resistance are directly proportional.

The EMF, (V) of the dry cell is not constant because the cell is run down (Since it is switched
on for the whole experiment.) This influences the readings of the variables of the experiment.

Suggestions for Improvement:

The systematic error can be prevented from occurring by ensuring the multimeter did not have
a zero error.

The temperature can be kept constant by keeping the AC switched off and the windows shut.

The EMF, (V) of the dry cell can be kept constant by switching off the battery at regular
intervals. This will also stop the battery from running down.

The actual EMF, (V) of the dry cell was 1.535 V when measured. It was higher than the value
mentioned on the cell. This, thus, influences the calculations done.

10