Finding the Temperature

Coefficient for Copper Wire and

a Semiconducting Thermistor

Created by Brian Hallee

Partnered by Joseph Oxenham

Performed September 8th, 2010

Historical Background

The idea of a thermistor, or thermally sensitive resistor, has been

around for over 150 years. Although one of his lesser-known discoveries, the

first documented use of an NTC, (Negative Temperature Coefficient,

something to be returned to in the theoretical basis section), thermistor

came from Michael Faraday in 1833. 1

After the initial discovery, it was

quickly realized that thermistors could be separated entirely into two

different categories: NTC and PTC thermistors. Interestingly, the

classification didn’t solely depend on metallurgical properties due to the fact

that at certain temperatures some types can actually switch categories!

Silicon is one such example that exhibits NTC properties until 250K, where a

positive temperature coefficient sets in. 2

All thermistors are made using

semi-conducting metallic compound oxides such as manganese, copper,

cobalt, and nickel, as well as single-crystal semiconductors silicon and

germanium.3 Many different types of thermistors exist for different uses. The

coated lens type, while not utilized in this experiment, is one example as

seen in Fig. 1 on page 2. While Faraday was first to discover the thermistor

properties of semiconductors, Samuel Ruben was quickest to perfect it and

seal it under a U.S. patent. Almost a century after Faraday’s breakthrough,

Ruben released his “Electrical Pyrometer Resistance” findings in which he

used a special technique to “cook” a copper base in an oxidizing atmosphere

to create a cuprous oxide. After being cleansed in hydrochloric and nitric

acid, a thin film of this oxide remained that gave his thermistor a negative

Page |1
 temperature coefficient without the

drawbacks of standard semiconducting

materials.4 He explains in his patent that as

he experimented with adding heat to the

device, its resistance dropped noticeably

and reproducibly. As a final notable

Example Coated Lens-Type NTC Thermistors mention, Rueben explains similar

(FIG. 1)

http://www.patarnott.com/atms360/pptATMS3 phenomena occurred when mixing the

60/CircuitLabThermistors.ppt

cuprous oxide with cuprous sulphide, or

melting antimony sulphide with cuprous sulphide. The practicality of this

intricate thermistor was widespread, as it drove applications in voltage

protection, temperature control, and calorimitry to name a few.

The notion of resistance increasing with temperature in regular

conducting materials, however, is not a new one by any means. A. E.

Kennelly and Reginald A. Fessenden write in 1893 in the Physical Review

about the linear relationship between increased temperature and resistance

in a sample of copper. In their testing between the ranges of -69⁰C and

123⁰C, the same range we have worked in, they explain how copper’s

temperature coefficient is a positive 4.18% per degree Celsius.5 Thus, they

seem to have proven very early on that, unlike semi-conductors, well-

conducting metals do not exhibit strong, or any, fluctuations in R vs. T

linearity. We will prove in later sections that this century-old value for the

coefficient of copper (alpha) is quite reproducible.

Page |2
 Although not explored in this lab, it was only a few decades later when

physicists made perhaps the most astonishing discovery relating to electrical

conductivity. On April 8, 1911, Kamerlingh Onnes and his cohorts

experimented with vapor pressures of liquid helium to drop the temperature

of mercury to a level where resistance “practically” disappeared.6 Today, we

denote this phenomenon as superconductivity and it involves similar

quantum effects explored in the theory section of this report on thermistors.

Thus, historical experimenting has proven to us that the relationship

between resistance and temperature can take wildly different turns given the

circumstances and materials used.

Theoretical Basis
In order to better understand the results presented here, the

underlying physical workings of the materials must be grasped. The idea of

a negative or positive temperature coefficient is simple. It is the deciding

factor as to whether resistance increases with increasing temperature, or

decreases. Like Faraday, in this experiment we utilized a negative

temperature coefficient thermistor and attempt to grasp the type of curve

drawn out over a 10⁰C-90⁰C range. We start by assuming that 150+ years of

semiconductor engineering is correct in assuming thermistors exhibit a

relationship with temperature as such:

RT=k*T (eqn. 1)

Page |3
R is naturally the resistance, T is temperature, and k is an unknown

“temperature coefficient of resistance”. This k value can, at face value, be

either negative or positive depending on whether we are using an NTC or

PTC. A significant problem with this simple equation is the fact that most, if

not all, thermistors do not wield a simple linear, quadratic, power, or other

pre-determined relationship between its resistance and temperature

imposed. Thus, naturally, equation 1 above breaks down when large

temperature ranges are used. To resolve this, two geophysicists John S.

Steinhart and Stanly R. Hart developed a 3rd power logarithmic equation with

four coefficients to solve for the inverse of temperature in all

semiconductors. The equation is as follows: 7

1 T=a+b*lnR+c*ln2R+d*ln3 (eqn. 2)

The lowercase letters are individual Steinhart-Hart temperature coefficients.

While in most professional cases, a, b, c, and d can be solved using four data

points to solve four simultaneous equations, we can exploit the fact that our

thermistor has a negative temperature coefficient and simplify the

coefficients. Both c and d will practically fade into insignificance, and we can

set a= 1To-1βlnRo and b= 1β to arrive at the β parameter equation:

1T= 1To-1βlnRo+1βlnR

Finally, we use logarithmic properties to achieve

1T= 1To+1βlnRRo (eqn. 3)

Page |2
where β is the new temperature coefficient of resistance. Before moving on,

the final equation used for determining resistance must be derived:

1T= 1To+1βlnRRo → Toβ=Tβ+ToT*lnRRo →

β*To-T= ToT*lnRRo → β*1T- 1To= lnRRo

Place both sides as the exponent of e and multiply by R0 to get resistance as

a function of temperature:

RT= Roeβ(1T- 1To) (eqn. 4)

Ro =Resistance at lowest temperature

To=Lowest temperature data point
e=The Naperian base: 2.781

Equation 2 can be deceiving. As I previously mentioned, we have taken the

Steinhart-Hart equation and modified it to work succinctly for negative

temperature coefficient thermistors. Thus, in our case, beta will actually

come out to be positive. Now, this experiment enabled us to compare a

thermistor to an actual conducting wire made from copper. The electro-

chemical properties of conducting metals such as copper have been fairly

well understood for many years now. Excluding the strange nature of semi-

conductors, most metals exhibit a linear increase in resistance with

increasing temperature. To fully appreciate this fact, we have to understand

copper at the atomic level. Electric current is simply the passage of

electrons through a wire over time somewhat analogously to the flow rate of

water passing through a pipe. When we introduce the concept of resistance,

you can picture driving thick nails into the pipe to impede the flow of water

Page |3
through it. At the atomic level, these “nails” are actually nuclei vibrating

around their mean position. The electrons passing through the wire are

either smashed into these nuclei, impeding their progress, or deliberately

thrown off course due to the strong electric forces present between the

positively charged protons and the electrons’ own negative charge. It is

fairly simple to visualize and conceive the notion that if these nuclei were to

vibrate back and forth quicker and quicker, and with larger ranges, the

electrons’ chances of hitting nuclei increases dramatically. This is precisely

the phenomenon that occurs when the temperature of the wire is increased.

Thus, we can appreciate why conducting metals increase resistance with

temperature, and why NTC semiconductors can be labeled as “strange”. The

math behind regular conducting metals is a bit simpler relative to

thermistors. We expect the temperature coefficient of these metals to be as

close to zero as possible, thus we define it as such:

α= 1Ro*(dRdT) (eqn. 5)

We can easily form a function R(T) by separating variables and integrating

demonstrated in the following steps:

α*dT= 1Ro*dR → α0TdT= 1RoR0RdR → αT= 1R0 R- R0

Multiply and subtract by R0 to get resistance as a function of temperature:

RT= R0αT+ R0 →

Page |4
 RT= R0(aT+1) (eqn. 6)

The physics behind the strange phenomena exhibited in this experiment on

thermistors is somewhat convoluted. Semiconductors exhibit conduction

band energy states at the very high energy end. Most electrons in semi-

conductors are stuck in the low energy band bound by the valence band.

Hence, very few charge carriers are available at low temperatures. However,

when temperature is increased and heat energy is bestowed to the metal,

many of these lower energy electrons begin making the jump to the

conducting band and free holes in the valence band. This occurrence

overrides the fact that atomic vibrations are increasing simultaneously, and

the end result is decreased resistance. 8

Apparatus

This experiment was carried out utilizing a relatively simple set of tools

and apparatuses. The central piece of this experiment was a tripod-

supported, insulated canister used to house the copper coil and thermistor.

This canister was electrically supplied by a two-prong wall plug to operate its

internal resistance source. This source involved a simple resistance heater

with a coefficient of performance = 1. It was hand operated and spring

loaded to return to the off state in order to avoid a boiling water or fire

Page |5
hazard. Next, the copper coil and thermistor units were both coupled to a lid

engineered to seal off the canister and minimize heat loss. These lids came

equipped with a sealed access point for a thermometer, and a stirring

apparatus to enable uniform heat dissipation throughout the canister.

Lastly, the lids were electrically coupled to the thermistor and copper

wounds and were subsequently equipped with positive and negative

terminals on the top. We utilized these terminals through alligator clips and

color-coated wires (Red: positive, Black: negative) that were fed into a

Keithley 197 Amp Multimeter. This multimeter allowed us to simultaneously

feed current into the copper or thermistor coils and determine the resistance

through one device. This multimeter was stated to have an accuracy of

1mΩ.9 Lastly, we had five medium to large beakers at our disposal in order

to achieve water just above the freezing point to cool down the canister. As

an effort to cut down on unnecessary reproduction, we utilized an HP Pavilion

laptop with Excel formulas pre-loaded in order to visualize our trend lines on

the spot.

Procedure

We began this experiment by acquiring roughly 1/2 pound of ice (1

large beaker) and mixing it with tap water. The instruments necessary for

Page |2
the procedure were conveniently laid out beforehand, and thus we were able

to begin immediately. Before connecting the canister to the wall outlet, we

brought the metal inside down to roughly 5⁰C by flushing it with ice-cold

water from the large beaker. Another pre-experiment task was to determine

the lead resistance on the wires we had for use. This was determined by

inserting them into the multimeter, ensuring the multimeter was on and

reading resistance on a 2Ω scale, and rubbing the leads together to remove

a bit of corrosion. While the actual lead resistance was rather “jumpy” and

hard to measure, we averaged the value over a roughly ten-second interval.

Once satisfied, we left the water inside the canister, plugged in the

resistance heater, and opted to begin with the copper coil apparatus. We

placed it snugly onto the canister, inserted the thermometer, connected the

alligator clips to the terminals, and observed the multimeter to ensure a

proper connection had been made. The temperature was brought up to 10⁰C

for the first data point, and the data collection was underway. We divided the

remaining tasks as such: Joseph Oxenham operated the resistance heater

and ensured the temperature was brought up slowly to the next data point. I

maintained the homogeneity of the heat in the liquid via the stirring

apparatus and inserted the data points into Microsoft Excel. As previously

mentioned, the tables, formulas, and graphs were created prior to the

experiment. Thus, we were able to observe the linear relationship between

Resistance and Temperature on the fly during the copper experiment to

ensure all equipment and procedures were optimal. We attempted, and

Page |2
mostly succeeded, in taking data points for every 10⁰C increase in

temperature. Therefore, a total of nine data points were taken ending with a

90⁰C data point. Once this portion of the lab had concluded, the copper lid

was removed and ice-cold water was again flushed in and out of the canister

until the water maintained a temperature of 5⁰C. The thermistor device was

housed by the same type of lid as the copper device, ergo the same

procedures applied. Again, we acquired data points for every 10⁰C increase

in temperature beginning with 10⁰C and culminating with 90⁰C. We were

able to observe the relationship between (1/T-1/Td) and ln(R/Rd) in real-time

to ensure the experiment was correct. As the lab concluded, we dumped out

the water, removed all the components, turned off/unplugged electronics,

and cleaned beakers in order to prepare for the next usage.

Results

From our experimentation, we gathered data in the form Ohms (Ω),

Temperature (⁰C and ⁰K), and unit-less values of (1/T-1/Td) and ln(R/Rd) for

the thermistor.

Rd = Resistance at lowest temperature

Td = Lowest temperature: In our case 12⁰C (Thermistor)

As far as resistance is concerned, we noted both the raw measured

resistance and the actual resistance with the lead resistance taken into

account. All of these values can be viewed in the appendix section of this

report. We found the lead resistance to be 0.258Ω, thus the actual value of

Page |3
resistance was determined via Rmeasured- Rlead=Ractual. With the Ractual

and T values in hand, we were able to make a graph demonstrating the

linear relationship between the two in copper wire demonstrated below.

Now, as we derived earlier, eqn. 6 represents the change of resistance vs.

temperature for copper.

RT= R0aT+1 → α= 1T*RRo-1= (R- R0)(T-0)R0= SlopeIntercept

We can use Excel’s built in algorithms to calculate alpha as follows:

α=SLOPE(C6:C14,A6:A14)INTERCEPT(C6:C14,A6:A14).10 This automatically

gives us the value α=0.00473112 1℃. This is acceptable, as it closely

matches the value given in the lab handout: α=0.00433 1℃.11 However, we

wish to verify that excel is indeed performing the calculation correctly. We

take the first two data points (10℃ and 20℃ respectively) and use them

simultaneously to solve for the slope and intercept as such:

3.577Ω=m*10 ℃+b and 3.691Ω=m*20 ℃+b

Subtract Equations → 0.113Ω =m*20℃-10℃ → m=0.0113 Ω℃

Plug in m → 3.577Ω=0.0113 Ω℃*10 ℃+b →

b= 3.577Ω-0.0113 Ω℃*10 ℃ = 3.465Ω

α= SlopeIntercept = 0.0113 Ω℃3.465Ω= 0.00329 1℃.

Page |2
This value of α is fairly close, so we are comfortable with our calculation. As

shown in the graph above, our coefficient of determination is practically

100%, so we can again be sure our experimental process was not flawed.

Next we deal with our calculations pertaining to the thermistor

apparatus. We were informed from our handout that, in this case, R vs. T

would not be linear. Instead, what we got seemed to represent an

exponential decay as shown below:

The important concept to take away from this graph is the notion that

resistance did indeed decline with increased temperature. Temperature was

displayed in Kelvins for the reason that an absolute scale was necessary for

generating the logarithmic resistance ratio graph to solve for β. To achieve

this, all Celsius data points were converted using this formula:

T0K=T℃+273.15

We previously derived the relationship for resistance vs. temperature of a

thermistor culminating with eqn. 4. Our goal is to solve for β, (the negative

temperature coefficient), and that is found via the following two steps:

lnRR0=β1T-1To → β= lnRR01T-1To

Therefore, we need a graph demonstrating the relationship between lnRR0

and 1T- 1To to solve for β. The graph below exhibits just that.

Page |3
Armed with the knowledge that β is a constant, we expect this graph to be

perfectly linear (or close to it). Excel tells us we have a coefficient of

determination of practically 100%. Thus, our data can be viewed as highly

precise. In this case, our slope is our β, and it is rather close to the lab

handout’s expected range of 3530⁰K ± 80⁰K. It was acquired using the

formula β= SLOPEM6:M14,L6:L14.10 We perform a sample calculation using

the first and ninth data points to ensure the quality of Excel’s algorithms:

β= ln⁡(4.132Ω52.242Ω)(1363.150K- 1285.150K) = 3,368.27⁰K

This value is very close to our experimental value, so we can ensure the

calculation is correct.

Discussion

Overall we are very satisfied with the results of our experimentation.

Reviewing our coefficient of determination value (0.996) acquired for the

copper coil (0.996), we had a very precise set of data points. Knowing the

accepted value for copper from the lab handout, we can calculate the

percent approximation error using the following formula:

δ= αaccepted- αexpirimentalαaccepted*100% = 0.004331℃ -

0.004731121℃ 0.004331℃*100%=9.26%

While small, an almost ten-percent error has to be accounted for. This is

most likely due to the inexperience in working the resistance heater. While it

was stressed in class that a gradual increase in heat over the few degrees

Page |4
preceding the data point would garner the best results, we may have acted

overly ambitious on this first run. Consequentially, we were not allowing for

uniform heat dispersion throughout the entire canister. This, in turn, caused

resistances to vary throughout the copper coil and subsequently cause our

readings to vary. Another problem we ran into on this first run is variance in

the multimeter itself. When the time came to take note of a resistance, the

multimeter would frequently jump over a range of roughly 0.3Ω. Thus, we

were forced to quickly average this value in order to gather a data point. In

hindsight, this too may have been caused by the hastily controlled resistance

source and non-uniformly resisting copper wire. Returning to the work of

Kennelly and Fessenden, we did, however, demonstrate similar values to

their experiments dating over a century ago. Their value being 0.004181℃ ,

we experienced a 13.2% approximation error relative to this α.

We had a bit more luck with in determining the temperature coefficient of

the thermistor apparatus. The lab handout states that the manufacturer of

this thermistor already accepts an absolute error of ±80 ⁰K. Thus we can

begin by computing the percent error of the manufacturer’s value, and

compare that to our percent approximation error of the experimental value.

% Relative Error Manufacturer= errormeasurement*100%=

800K35300K*100%=2.27%

δ= |35300K-34220K|3530⁰K*100%=3.06% error

Page |2
Thus, our experimental error is less than one percent greater than

manufacturing error, so we can be very comfortable with this value acquired.

For the error that we did happen to obtain, this, again, is likely due to

ambitious resistance heating and other minute issues such as lead corrosion,

terminal corrosion, etc. We were, however, intrigued by the fact that our β

value came out to be only two ⁰K off from the attempt from the writers of the

lab handout. While they were forced to utilize a slide-wire Wheatstone bridge

and we were blessed with a digital multimeter, the 0.053% error from their

attempt gave us something to further ground our own attempt.

While most of the theories behind the behavior of conducting and semi-

conducting metals have been well understood for, at the very least, decades,

this experiment does its job at solidifying certain concepts and implications

of these technologies. First, copper’s positive temperature coefficient

demonstrates why it makes such a useful tool for widespread use among our

communications and energy infrastructure. It self-protects itself from

thermal runaway. In layman’s terms, copper and other conductors will

“sense” that extra or unruly current is passing through via heat generation

and will automatically increase the resistance to this current. While this is

not applicable to, say, replacing a fuse, it does function optimally for the

uses for which it is designed (e.g. local telephone or power cables). On the

other hand, NTC thermistors such as the one experimented on in this lab are

vulnerable to such a runaway. However, these units are not exploited for

their load carrying capacities so much as they are for their sensitivity. In this

Page |3
lab we observed a change in almost fifty Ohms in our thermistor versus

roughly 1.2 Ohms in the copper coil. Our conclusion on this device is that it

would be very useful in application settings centered on temperature control

and compensation. When coupled to a simplified Ohmmeter and computer

chip, this devices change in resistance could immediately be relayed to the

computer chip and the temperature could be changed according to the

algorithm set in place by the software engineer. To no surprise, the

thermistor is very heavily used in all areas of temperature control such as

thermostats, ovens, refrigerators, A/C units, fire alarms, fever thermometers,

coffee makers, and more.5 In summary, both conducting wires and semi-

conducting thermistors have very practical uses for their R vs. T properties

that will likely leave them around for decades, if not centuries, to come.

Page |4
 APPENDIX – RAW DATA

Copper Coil
α = 0.00473112 (1/⁰C) )
Lead Resistance = 0.258Ω

T (⁰C) R-meas. (Ω) R-s (Ω)

10 3.835 3.577
20 3.949 3.691
30 4.090 3.832
40 4.329 4.071
50 4.487 4.229
60 4.645 4.387
70 4.790 4.532
81 4.942 4.684
Thermistor Apparatus
90 5.085 3421.988
4.827
β= (⁰K)
495
Lead Resistance = 0.258Ω

T (⁰C) R-meas. (Ω) T (⁰K) R-s (Ω) (1/T-1/Td) ln(R/Rd)

12 52.500 285.15 52.242 0 0
20 41.347 293.15 41.089 -9.6 x 10-5 -0.24015
30 27.530 303.15 27.272 -0.00021 -0.65003
40 19.300 313.15 19.042 -0.00031 -1.00924
50 13.206 323.15 12.948 -0.00041 -1.39495
60 9.735 333.15 9.477 -0.00051 -1.70702
70 7.390 343.15 7.132 -0.00059 -1.99130
80 5.794 353.15 5.536 -0.00068 -2.24461
90 4.390 363.15 4.132 -0.00075 -2.53713

Page |1
Page |2
 APPENDIX – DISC FILES
• Root Directory

○ Lab Report_Brian Hallee_Lab 1.doc

 Official digital copy of “Finding the Temperature Coefficient

for Copper Wire and a Semiconducting Thermistor” lab

report.

○ Lab1_Temperature Coefficient_9-8-10.xls

 Comprehensive spreadsheet containing all raw data

entered during the experiment, all three graphs presented

in this report associated with the copper wire and

thermistor, and calculated values for α and β.

Page |3
ENDNOTES

Page |3
1 Cornerstone Sensors. (n.d.). A Brief History of NTC Thermistors. Retrieved
September 18, 2010, from Cornerstone Sensors:
http://www.cornerstonesensors.com/?
LinkIn=http://www.cornerstonesensors.com/About.asp?PageCode=Brief

2 Radio-Electronics. (n.d.). Thermistor. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from Radio-

Electronics.com: http://www.radio-
electronics.com/info/data/resistor/thermistor/thermistor.php

3 Arnott, P. (n.d.). Thermistors: Thermal Resistors. Retrieved September 19, 2010,

from PatArnott.com:
patarnott.com/atms360/pptATMS360/CircuitLabThermistors.ppt

4 Ruben, S. (1930, March 19). Electrical Pyrometer Resistance. Retrieved

September 19, 2010, from FreePatentsOnline:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2021491.pdf

5 A. E. Kennelly and Reginald A. Fessenden. (1893). Some Measurements of the

Temperature Variation in the Electrical Resistance of a Sample of Copper. The
Physical Review, 260-273.

6 Kes, D.v. (2010). The Discovery of Superconductivity. Physics Today, 38-43.

7 John S. Steinhart, Stanley R. Hart, Calibration curves for thermistors, Deep Sea
Research and Oceanographic Abstracts, Volume 15, Issue 4, August 1968, Pages
497-503, ISSN 0011-7471, DOI: 10.1016/0011-7471(68)90057-0.

8 Nave, R. (n.d.). Band Theory for Solids. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from
HyperPhysics: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/band.html#c5

9 ValueTronics. (n.d.). Keithley 197A Autoranging Digital Multimeter. Retrieved

September 19, 2010, from ValueTronics International Inc.:
http://www.valuetronics.com/Used_Keithley_197A.aspx

10 See Lab1_Temperature Coeffieicient_9-8-10.xls on accompanying CD-ROM

11 Instructions for the Use of NO. 2836. Thermistor Temperature-Coefficient

Apparatus. (n.d.).