Temperature vs resistance

Fig. 2. Typical pen etration resistance vs temperature data from laboratory procedure (305 x 305-mm laminates, 0.76-mm PVB 2.27-kg ball impact).

Fig. 6. Calculated siUcon resistivity vs temperature for the impurity (doping) levels shown, where (—) is -type, (------), n-ty e. Left of the peaks is the...

In general, manufacturers do not report the cahbrations of iadividual sensors to the purchaser, except upon request, but instead pubUsh tables of resistance vs temperature and tolerance charts for each class. Deviation here means departure from a nominal set of values of resistance versus temperature given in a manufacturer s Hterature. 

Typical positive temperature coefficient (PTC) device behavior for a doped polycrystaHine BaTiO thermistor is presented in Figure 4. At temperatures below - 100° C and above - 200° C the material shows the expected negative resistivity vs temperature associated with semiconductors as expressed by ... 

Figure 4.8. Plot of resistivity vs temperature for a AI-I2.6at%Li alloy (Costas and Marshall 1962).

Fig. 12 (a) Temperature dependence of the magnetoresistance for the junction shown in Fig. 10. The inset shows the corresponding junction resistance vs temperature with no applied magnetic field, (b) Magnetoresistance as a function of applied DC bias at 11 K for the same device in (a). Taken from [50] with permission...

Data analysis in the normal state of the superconductor is relatively straightforward, measurements of I, V, and T together with sample geometry are used to obtain resistivity vs temperature. 

Figure 3 Resistivity of a single crystal Bi-Sr-Ca-Cu-O. (a) Averaged a,b plane resistivity and the ratio of c to a,b plane resistivity vs temperature, (b) Three components of the resistivity tensor. Ref. 4.

Fig. 2. Resistivity-vs.-temperature transition curves for some C j based superconductors. (A) Variation of the hole doping from 1.3 to 3.2 holes per C o molecule. Inset the field-effect transistor geometry used in the experiment. (B) Comparison of optimum hole-doped C ). as grown and intercalated with CHCI3 and CHBrj)...

Fig. 3. Resistivity-vs.-temperature transition curve and crystal structure of MgB2 (after Nagamatsu et al. 2001).

Fig. 6. Resistance-vs.-temperature curves of a GdMO(,Sg sample for different values of the applied magnetic field, indicating near-reentrant superconductivity i.e. reentrant behaviour at finite field only (nominal composition...

Fig. 38. (a) Resistivity vs. temperature measured at different magnetic fields H on a polycrystalline HoNi2B2C sample. Tc is the superconducting transition temperature at H = 0. A near-reentrant behaviour occurs around a temperature Tn. (b) Temperature dependence of the specific heat Cp of a HoNi2B2C single crystal (2 mm x 3 mm x 0.1 mm in size), measured at zero magnetic fiekL Above the main peak of Cp(T) at Tn. two additional features appear (marked by arrows). Samples prepared by I. Freudenberger. 

Fig. 18. Resistivity vs. temperature for a polycrystalline sample of GdRujP synthesized using high pressures and temperatures (Sekine et al., 2000a).

Fig. 32. The resistivity vs. temperature for Lao.7-(Cai -ySr-y)o.3Mn03 crystals with varying y. The anomaly at ca. 370 K for y = 0.45 is due to the orthorhombic-rhombohedral transition. Inset shows inverse susceptibility vs. T/Tq, after Tomioka et al. (2001).

Fig. 45. (a) Resistivity vs. temperature for melt-grown single-crystal samples of I.a xSrxMn03. Critical points = Tjy where Ap/AT is a maximum A -- 7f or Tq where Ap/AT is a maximum O = Tqo where p(T) is a local minimum. Tqr = midpoint of thermal hysteresis below 1 for 0.17 x 0.19. Arrows indicate heating and cooling at thermal hysteresis loops, after G.-L. Liu et al. (2001). 

FIGURE 38 (a) Resistivity vs. temperature measured at different magnetic fields H on a... 

FIGURE 43 (a) and (b) Resistivity vs. temperature curves for polycrystalline HoNi2B2C and... 

Avila et al., 2004). A quadratic temperature dependence of the resistivity was found below 1.5 K, which is a characteristic feature of strong electron correlation (Yatskar et al., 1996). Figure 49 shows that the resistivity-vs.-temperature curves can be drastically modified by annealing the YbNi2E>2C samples, which has been explained by ligand disorder leading to local distributions of Tk (Avila et al., 2004). 

Fig. 24 Resistance vs. temperature curves of the NbSe2 nanostructures, (2) and (3), are compared with the behavior of the bulk sample in (1).

Fig. 74. Anisotropic resistivity in nonstoichiometric rutile Ti02 x, where p and pc are a- and c-axis resistivities, respectively, (a) Anisotropy ratio p /ptf at —60°C vs. pat where p and Rtt decrease with increasing oxygen deficiency X. Rtt(c axis) < Rc(Ti) for pa < approx. 10 ohm-cm. The sharpness of the breakdown in pa with Rtt(a axis) is not apparent from this type of plot, (b) The o-axis and c-axis resistivities vs. temperature for composition G, a nonstoichiometric rutile. (Adaoted from Hollander and Castro (278).)...

This reproduces the shaip break of the metallic superconduction shown in Fig. 7.1. The absence of the sharp break in the cuprate resistance vs. temperature plot has been attributed to their short coherence lengths which give rise to large thermal fluctuations at the critical temperature. 

The supporting evidence for this kind of band model, in which W03 has been called an eleotronless metal which is populated by electron donors M, comes from various kinds of measurements, some of which are given below. These include resistivity vs. temperature, Hall voltage, thermoelectric power, and magnetic susceptibility measurements. 

Figure 3. Electrical resistivity vs. temperature for a semiconducting lithium bronze...

Fig. 10 Device structures with (a) serpentine and (b) rectanguiar geometry and corresponding resistance Vs. Temperature characteristics of a diamond thin fiim thermistor. The serpentine structure was doped with o.1 ppm or 1.0 ppm diborane whereas the rectanguiar structure was doped with 0.1 ppm diborane. ...

Fig. 5. Characteristics of thallium cuprate TlCuO(OH) electrosynthesized by anodic electrocrystallization [348] (a) structure calculated on the basis of X-ray crystal analysis (b) resistivity vs. temperature of the deposit on a copper substrate measured by the two-probe technique.

Figure 3. Resistance vs. temperature, normalized to 50 K, showing the superconducting transition for six values of strontium concentration, x. As x deviates from the optimum value of 0.15, the transition decreases and broadens. Vertical line is drawn at 40 K.

It is risky, of course, to generalize from one oxide to another, but in the absence of adequately completed studies with anyone of the oxides, the assumption concerning the density of carriers seems justified. All of the superconducting oxides display R(T)fs similar to those cited above. In the case of strontium titanate, SrTiOg.., Schooley et al. (15) have shown that the critical superconducting temperature determined from the midpoints of the abrupt decreases in the resistance vs temperature and the magnetic susceptibility vs temperature depend on the density of carriers determined from measurements of Hall coefficients. Thus the results of Tc vs density of carriers is shown in Figure 4. Therein, one observes that the Tc s from both R(T) and x(T) increase to maxima near 10 carriers cm 3 and thereafter they decrease. 

---