Electrodynamics

Experiment #5: Resistivity of Water

PH-2020-11

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the resistivity of water by creating a novel
experimental technique of the group’s own creation. The resistivity was measured by measuring the
resistance of the oxide layer over a metal plate and subtracting that from the resistivity measured
between two plates at various distances between the two. Due to the systematic error added by the oxide
layer, its resistance was found through graphing the measured resistances of the water over the length
between the plates. The resistance of water was found by subtracting the intercept of the graph, in which
the factor of water was removed. The resistivity was found from the area of the plates, the corrected
resistances, and the distance between the plates. It was found that the calculated resistivity of water
varied from 1500 Ωm at close distances to around 500 Ωm at far distances. However, these
measurements were made in a container that was not conducive to accurate measurements due to the
impeded fringing of the current. When the geometry was corrected and the current was allowed to
fringe, the measured resistance decreased by nearly 1/3rd , which signifies that external conditions can
have a large effect on the uncertainty of measurements. Compared to the accepted value of the resistivity
of water, ~1.8x105 Ωm, these lower calculated values are a result of the fringing of the currents into a
larger area, which contributed to the erroneous values.

Submitted by: Ibrahim Vazirabad

To: Professor Dieball
Partners: Cory Respalje, Andrew Przybylski
Date Submitted: 10/13/10

Purpose: The purpose of this experiment was to apply learned problem-solving skills to create a
procedure to measure the resistivity of water, while trying to account for the fringing of the current and
the added resistance of the oxide barrier.
Theory: All objects have a quantifiable quality called resistivity, which is a measure of how strongly a
material opposes the flow of electric current. It is defined as:

(1)

which depends on the resistance of the material, the cross-sectional area of the material(in this case the
area of the slab of water touching the plates), and the length of the material(the distance between the
plates). When the current between the two plates is allowed to fringe and expand, there is more cross-
sectional area for the current to flow and therefore the measured resistivity is lower than if the fringing
was prevented from spreading out by the container walls.

Finding the resistivity of a non-solid such as water is difficult as it has neither a cross-sectional area nor
a length. So, indirect methods such as measuring the flow of current (or lack thereof) through
conducting metals partially immersed in water become feasible, but also bring their own intricacies to
the table. Many metals become at least partially oxidized by atmospheric oxygen, which produces a thin
insulating barrier over the otherwise conducting metal, which complicates this indirect technique.

The ohmmeter used to produce resistances uses Ohm’s Law, which relates current, potential, and
resistance:
(2)
V
R=
I
Hence, a higher current will produce a lower resistance and vice versa.
An analogous equation for resistance derived from Equation 1 is listed below:

(3)
If the current of the plates is allowed to fringe, it is able to “sweep out” a larger cross-sectional area, and
as the relationship of Equation 3 stands, a larger cross-sectional area will decrease the resistance.

Procedure: In order to find the resistance of water through the use of conducting metal plates, the
resistance of the oxide barrier needs to be found. Because a metal is usually conducting, its internal
resistance should read as zero when measured. Any deviation from this ideal condition would be
attributed to insulation from the oxide barrier. So, the resistance of the oxide layer was found by finding
the resistance of the plate using the multi-meter. Or so was thought. Indeed, this method of finding the
oxide resistance does not work, since the plate is in a charged state when in the water. What must be
done is to record the resistances of the water with the oxide layer and then graph them over the length
associated with the resistance. The y-intercept of this graph is the resistance of the oxide layer during the
experiment, which is subtracted from the measured resistances to find the corrected resistances, which
are used to find the resistivity of water at different lengths.

Figure 1 below explains the set up of the experiment.

 Figure 1

The area of the two identical metal plates was found. The two plates were placed in the water and were
connected to the multi-meter to create a closed loop. The resistance through the water to create the
closed loop was measured multiple times as Δx between the plates was increased. After being graphed,
the intercept was taken as the resistance found for the oxide barrier and subtracted from each raw
resistance, and the path towards a value for resistivity can be found. As Δx= , equation 1 can be used to
find an average value for the resistivity of water ρ. These values are not close to the accepted value for
the resistivity of water. The accepted value is ~1.8x105 Ωm, which can be found from the L term in
Figure 2 and 3. The calculated values for ρ are artificially low due to the extra fringing currents which
were factored into the calculations.

Data

H 2O Plate
Depth[m] length[m] A[m2]

1.60E-
0.009 0.178m 03
 R(Ω) A[m2] L[m] ρ(Ωm) R(Ω)(cor) ρ(Ωm)(cor)
17740 1.60E-03 0.005 5.68E+03 4697 1.50E+03
19270 1.60E-03 0.01 3.09E+03 6227 9.98E+02
22840 1.60E-03 0.02 1.83E+03 9797 7.85E+02
34010 1.60E-03 0.03 1.82E+03 20967 1.12E+03
40900 1.60E-03 0.05 1.31E+03 27857 8.93E+02
45130 1.60E-03 0.07 1.03E+03 32087 7.34E+02
50490 1.60E-03 0.1 8.09E+02 37447 6.00E+02
53430 1.60E-03 0.11 7.78E+02 40387 5.88E+02
52450 1.60E-03 0.13 6.46E+02 39407 4.86E+02

Results
Figure 2 is the length of the two plates’ spacing graphed over the resistance. It should ideally be a linear
plot. However, the data collected makes a quadratic fit. This fit was ignored to keep the linearity, and a
linear regression was performed on the first four points, where any fringing would be not affected by the
container walls. Through the linear regression, the value of the resistivity was found (ρ=632610Ωm).
As the separation between the plates became wider, the fringing currents hit the sides of the container,
stopping the current from making a complete loop in the water. From equation 2, when I decreases, R
increases, which fits with the collected data.

Figure 2-Length vs. Measured Resistance

Figure 3-Length vs. Corrected Resistance

Analysis: Effect on Fringing

As suspected earlier, the orientation of the plates has an effect on the measured resistance of the water,
as at a far enough distance, the current lines are not able to travel through in a complete loop as they hit
the edges of the container which unnaturally raises the measured resistance. This can be eloquently
expressed by measuring the resistance of the water between two plates spaced equally, but changing the
orientation of the plates in the container at each trial. I will call the orientation expressed in figure 1 as
the vertical orientation and the orientation expressed in figure 4 below as the horizontal orientation.
 Figure 4

Table 1 below shows the effect of fringing on the measured resistance.

Orientation Resistance (Ω) Resistivity (Ωm) Length[m]

Horizontal 23150 1236 0.03
Vertical 34010 1814 0.03
Table 1

As can be seen from the data, the horizontal resistance is nearly 1/3rd less than the vertical value, which
can be attributed to the horizontal current having enough room to fringe around the edges which allowed
more current to pass through the water to each terminal of the multi-meter.

Sample Calculations:

Using Equation 1: ρ=R(A/ )

ρ=34010 Ω(1.60E-03m2/0.03m)
ρ=1814 Ωm