See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231121516

Ohm's law and the definition of resistance

Article  in  Physics Education · August 1980

DOI: 10.1088/0031-9120/15/4/009

CITATIONS READS

16 28,064

1 author:

Colm O'Sullivan
University College Cork
84 PUBLICATIONS   414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Physics Education View project

Collisions with Springs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Colm O'Sullivan on 17 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Ohm's law and the definition of resistance

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

1980 Phys. Educ. 15 237

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/15/4/009)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 140.113.127.36
This content was downloaded on 13/03/2016 at 22:08

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

PhvS i n u c Vas t 5 1 9 8 0 Prlnred n Great Brltalq

lens aperture;and longenough to obtainthe real

image on the screen. The bestdistance is f < x < 2 A
wherefis a focal length of the lens. A sheet of paper
or mask with smallholes is positioned in theback
focal plane. The screen must be placed at a distance
where only two bright spots of light are seen. Its
distance y from the lens may be calculated by the lens
equation: (1 /f)= (1/x) -t (1 / y ) . The diameter of the
lens must also be rather big.
In our experiment we used lenses of focal lengths 10
and 15 cm.Thegratinghad 100 lines/mm. The
separation of thetwo parallel beamswas about
0.5 cm. The diameters of the beams were small enough
to consider them as two rays. It is of course a model
experiment,because in arealmicroscopethetotal
specimen (or grating) is illuminated and its image is
observedona screen. In this experiment only two
luminouspoints (or rather twoluminousspots) are
projected on to the screen. But the experiment may be
very helpful for explaining the wave phenomena in the
microscope.
Further reading
Abbe E 1873 ‘Beitrage zur Theorie des Mikroskops und der
mikroskopischen Wahrnehmung’ Arch. Mikr. Anat. 9
413
Ager AW and Keown S R 1978 ‘Measurements from
micrographs by optical diffraction’ R . Microsc. Soc.
Proc. 1313 147-58
Born M and Wolf E 1964 Principles of Optics (Oxford:
Pergamon)
Bragg W L 1939 ‘A new type of x-ray microscope’ Nature
143 678
DuttonD, Givens MP and Hopkins E R 1963 ‘Some
demonstration experiment in optics using agas laser’
Spectra-Physics Laser Technical Bulletin No. 3
Gabor D 1949 ‘Microscopy by reconstructed wavefronts’
Proc. R.Soc. A 197
Hecht E and Zajac A 1975 Optics (London: Addison
Wesley) ch. 14
Lipson S G and Lipson H 1969 Optical
Physics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) ch. 9
Lowenthal S and Bevaux J 1967 ‘Progress recents en
optique coherente: filtrages de frequences spatiales,
holographie’ Extrait de la Revue d’OptiqueNo. I
Meyer-Arendt J R 1972 Introduction to Classical and
Modern Optics (EnglewoodCliffs,New Jersey, USA:
Prentice-Hall)
Vienot J C, Smigielski P and Royer H 1971 Holographie
Optique:Developpement - Applications (Paris: Dunod)
Wolfke M 191 1 Ann. Phys., Lpz 34 227
0031-9120~80r040237+03$01 50 Q 1 9 8 0 T h e I n s l ~ l u t e oPhySlCs
f 237
Ohm’s law and the
definition of
resistance
Colm T O’Sullivan
In arecentarticle in thismagazine Johnstoneand
Mugho1 (1978) drew attention to the struggle many
pupils have in understanding the concept of electrical
resistance. Unfortunately such problems often persist
intointroductory physicscourses at university level
andare further compounded by confusioncreated
when attempts are made to give a precise definition of
electrical resistance and at the same time introduce
Ohm’s law. It is a common practice to express Ohm’s
law fora simple series circuit asamathematical
relationship such as
E = RI (1)
or
P = RI2 (14
where E, I and P are the sum of all the e.m.f.s, the
electric current flowing and the total (thermal) power
being generated in the circuit respectively. Of course,
the restrictions under which the law can be applied,
viz. metallic conductorsatconstant temperatures,
must also be stated as partof the law.
Problems may begin toappear when the student
goes on to look for a definition of the resistance R and
finds that this has been defined as ElIor P/12.It is not
surprising, therefore, thatstudents find themselves
forced to conclude that Ohm’s law is nothingmore
Colm Thomas O’Sullivan is a lecturer in physics at
University College, Cork, Ireland. He gained a BSc
and M S c at the National University of Ireland, and
then a P h D at the Catholic University of Ireland. He
has published numerous papers on cosmic ray
astrophysics and is currentlyengaged on along-
baseline cosmic ray experiment searching for gamma
ray bursts from supernovae explosions. Thisarticle
was written while the author was on sabbatical leave
atthe University of Cambridge where he wasa
visitingscholaratStJohn’s College anda senior
visitor in the Department of Applied Mathematics
and Theoretical Physics.
than a definition of resistance, while being aware atthe
same time that somehow it describes well the observed
behaviourof electrical circuits. This is just one
example of the manycases in introductory physics
where definition and physical law seem to coalesce. It
would appear that much pedagogical clarity is to be
gained if distinctions are made between definitions of
physical quantities on the one hand and relationships
between quantities (‘laws’) on the other. This article is
an attempt to investigate how such clarity might be
achieved in the case of Ohm’s law.
The work of Georg Simon Ohm
Ohm’s researches on the behaviour of electrical
circuits were mostlycarried out while hewas an
assistantmaster atthe Jesuit secondary school in
Cologne from 181 7to 1827. Helped, no doubt, by the
experience gained in his father’s locksmiths workshop
(Gaugain 1860), he performed a series of very skilful
experiments first using voltaic cells and later, on the
advice of Poggendorf (Hart 1923), using thermo-
electric sources. He published the results of his
investigations in a series of papers and letters
commencing in 1825 (Ohm1825a,1825b,1826a,
1826b, 1826c, 1827a,1829andmany subsequent
articles in the same journals). In 1827 he published a
250-page book, Die galvanische Kette mathematisch
bearbeitet (Ohm 1927b)in which he developed a
theoreticalformalismbased on the results of his
experimentalwork. For various reasons(Gaugain
1860, Taylor 1941), his workwasnot well received
and it was over 10 years before the importance of his
research began to be widely appreciated. He received
major internationalrecognition,however,in1841
when the Royal Society of London awarded him the
Copley medal. The citationforthis award,readat
their meeting on November 30 1841, is recorded in
Abstracts of the PhilosophicalTransactions of the
Royal Society of London (later Proc. R . Soc.) Vol. IV
p33 1, part of which is worth quoting here:
‘In theseworks Dr Ohm has established,forthe
first time, the laws of the electric circuit; a subject of
vast importance and hitherto involved in the greatest
uncertainty. . . . He has demonstrated, both theoreti-
cally and experimentally, that the action of a circuit is
equal to the sum of the electromotive forces divided by
the sum of the resistances. . . . He has also shown the
means of determining with accuracy the values of the
separate resistances and electromotiveforces in the
circuit . . . . Although the labours of Ohm were, for
more than ten years, neglected . . . within the last five
yearsGauss, Leng, Jacobi, Poggendorf, Henryand
many other eminent philosophers have acknowledged
the great value of his researches, and their obligation
to him in conducting their own investigations. . . . In
this country those who have the most experience in
researches in which the voltaic agency is concerned,
238
have borne the strongest testimony to the . . . accuracy
with which observed the phenomena
have
corresponded with the theory of Ohm’.
The first instance of formulation of Ohm’s law as a
mathematical expression was given by Ohm (1826a,
p 15 1) in the form
X = a/(b+x) (2)
where X is a quantity proportional to the current in
the circuit, a is a constant depending on the strength of
the battery used, x is the length of wire under
investigation and b is a constant length characteristic
of the rest of the circuit. Ohm found that themeasured
values of X corresponding to different lengths x of
copper wire could be fitted by equation (2) when
unique values of a and b were adopted. In the same
paper he also showed that when other metals (gold,
silver, zinc, brass, iron, platinum, tin and lead) were
used instead of copper the relationship (2) still held
good provided different values of a and b were
adopted for each metal used.
In anotherpaper published thesame year (Ohm
1826b, p462) and later in Die galvanische Kette (p36),
Ohm generalises the law so that it is valid for all
materials. This result he formulatesas
S = AIL (3)
where S represents the strength of the current (Grosse
des Stromes), A the sum of all the tensions (Summe
aller Spannungen), i.e. the total e.m.f., and L is called
the‘Reduzirten Lange’ (Ohm1826b, p463) of the
circuit which in turn is defined as the sum of the
‘Reduzirten Lange’ of all the individual parts of the
circuit. The ‘Reduzirten Lange’ is what we now call
the
resistance; indeed Ohm points out in Die
galvanische Kette (p37) that the‘Reduzirten Lange’ of
a circuit can be calculated by taking the ‘total sum of
the quotients obtained by dividing the actual lengths of
the different homogeneous parts of the circuit by the
products of their respective conductibilities (Leitungs-
vermogen) and cross-sectional areas’.
It is not clear when the term ‘Ohm’s law’ came into
common usage but it was certainly well established by
1859 when Faraday(1859) uses it ina letter to
W Thomson.
Definitions of resistance
It is clear from Ohm’s writings that the relationships
(2) and (3) are meant to beapplied to an entire circuit.
In addition, the resistance of part of a circuit is well
defined but the idea of applying similar relationships
to part of a circuit, i.e. the idea of potential difference,
does not appear explicitly anywhere. Ohm was very
well aware of andhad observed the variation of
resistance with temperature (Ohm 1826a), and insisted
that therelationships(2) and (3) hold only if the
temperature is held constant. Even more importantly
his investigations involved only metallic conductors
for which deviations from ohmic behaviour are, even
today, essentially undetectable. Within this framework
there can be no confusion: Ohm’s law states that the
current in a circuit is directly proportional to the total
e.m.f., i.e. equation (1) above is applicable where R is
defined as being the appropriate constant of propor-
tionality.
Complications necessarily arise, however, as a
result of a desire to understand the behaviour of
circuits containing nonmetallic elements, e.g. electro-
lytes,thermistors,semiconductor devices, etc. The
concept of resistance as defined above is not directly
applicable to suchsystems. But the idea of the
resistance of such components can be a very useful
concept and so a more general definition of resistance
is required. Three equivalent approaches are evident in
modern textbooks.
(1) Where electric charge is treatedas afunda-
mental quantity it isusual to define electric current
Z (the rate of flow of charge) and potential difference
V between two points (the work done per unit charge
when a charge is moved between the two points) as
derived quantities.Theresistance between anytwo
points in a circuit can then be defined by
R = VIZ. (4)
The total resistance of a circuit is similarly defined as
the ratio of the total e.m.f. (work done per unit charge
when charge is moved once around the circuit) to the
current in the circuit (EIZ).
(2) Where electric current is takenas a base
quantity, as in SI, it is more convenient to define the
resistance between any twopoints in a circuitby
R = PIZ’ (5)
where P is the (thermal) power generated between the
two points when a current Z is flowing. Obviously this
definition also holds forthe resistance of an entire
circuitwithoutresort to any particular definition of
e.m.f. Infact, when this approach is adopted, it is
convenient to define the e.m.f. of a source of current as
E = Pc/Z
where P, is the totalpowergenerated in the circuit
when a current Z is drawn from the source. It is the
experimental fact that the value of E, thus defined, is
independent of Z that enables e.m.f. to be sensibly
considered as anintrinsic property of a source.
(3) In somewhat moreadvancedtreatments it is
usual to define the conductivity Q (or its reciprocal,
resistivity) of a material by the relationship
j=aE (6)
where j and E are the currentdensity and electric field
strength, respectively, at a point in the material. The
resistance of a component made from a homogeneous
material can be defined in terms of Q and will depend
only on Q and certaingeometrical factors which
depend on the shape and natureof the component.
Ohm’s law
It is clear that the relationships (4), ( 5 ) and (6), being
simply definitions, cannot any longer be considered as
expressionsfora ‘law’ in thesense of being a
View publication stats
description of the behaviour of a physical system.This
point has been emphasised, for example, by Resnick
and Halliday (1966, $3 1-3). Nevertheless thecon-
clusions drawn by Ohm from his investigations
obviously remain valid, i.e. the electric current Z
measured by Ohm was proportional to the total e.m.f.
E of the source. But the ratio E/Z has already been
defined as the resistance of the circuit and so the
conclusion is that, forthecircuits investigated by
Ohm, thetotal resistance was constant.
While in itsoriginalform Ohm’s law is only
considered to be applicable to a circuit in its entirety,
we know that a similar result can be applied to any
part of a circuit provided that thetotal e.m.f. is
replaced by the potential difference between the
extremities of that part of the circuit. Thus, once the
concept of resistance has been defined as indicated in
the previous section, one is led inevitably to a
statement of Ohm’s law along the following lines: the
resistance of a metallic conductorat
constant
temperature is constant (i.e. independent of the current
flowing through it and, hence, also independent of the
potential difference across it). Alternatively,Ohm’s
law can be looked upon as a summary of a property of
certain materials: such materials can be called ‘ohmic’
andare characterised by the propertythat their
conductivities are constant at constant temperature,
i.e. do notdepend o n j (or E ) anywhere in the material.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank St John’s College and
the Department of Applied Mathematics and
TheoreticalPhysics of theUniversity of Cambridge
for the hospitality extended to him while this article
was being written.
References
Faraday M 1859 Letter to W Thompson 28 October. British
Museum, Add. mss 48983. Quoted in L Pearse Williams
197 1 The Selected Correspondence of Michael Faraday
Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p392
Gaugain J M1860 ThPorie Mathematique des Courants
flectriquepar G S Ohm Notice 19-23, Hachette Paris
Hart I B 1923 Makers of Science (London: Oxford
University Press) p238
Johnstone A H and Mugho1 A R 1978 Phys. Educ. 13 46-9
Ohm G S 1825a J. f i r Chemie und Physik (later J. f i r
praktische Chemie)44 110-8; 245-7; 370-3
-1825b Ann. Phys., Lpr80 79-86
-1826a J.fCr Chemie und Physik 46 137-66
-1826b Ann. Phys., Lpz82 459-69
-1826c Ann. Phys., Lpz83 45-54
-1821a J. f i r Chemie und Physik 49 1-8
-1827b Die galvanische Kette mathematische bearbeitet
(Berlin: Reiman)
-1829 J . f i r Chemie und Phvsik 55 1-64
Resnick R and Halliday D 1966 Physics (New York: John
Wiley) p780
Taylor L W 1941 Physics: The Pioneer Science
(Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton, Mifflin) ~ 6 6 3 - 9
239