A DIGITAL THERMOMETER

PLAN Comment [k1]: P16 - Yes

Comment [k2]: P15 Plenty
AIM Comment [k3]: P14 Nothing horrible

While keeping the voltage constant using a variable resistor. Vary temperature and take readings of
the temperature and the current, from this a graph can be made which you can find e, the charge on
the electron.

APPARATUS Comment [k4]: P1 Yes

Comment [k5]: P2 No scale
Voltmeter Bunsen burner
Milliammeter Wires
Mercury thermometer Tripod
1 kΩ variable resistor Gauze
Battery supply Water
Diode

Circuit diagram and layout diagram for beaker & burner, thermometer & diode Comment [k6]: P3 Both diagrams
needed
METHOD

Heat will be applied to the water, reading will be taken of I and T when it increases by 5 0C
while stirring the water.

While varying the variable resistor to keep the voltage to 0.6 V record the current (I) by
using an ammeter set to mA as the readings will be low. Readings will not need to be Comment [k7]: P4 Appropriate
instrument
repeated as the ammeter is very accurate.
Comment [k8]: P5 need a number
The second measurement will be to measure the temperature (T) of the diode using a
thermometer. This will give me an accuracy to 1 0C, they will be taken every 5 0C along with Comment [k9]: P6 Easy mark
I. Comment [k10]: P7 This is not a reason
for choice
OTHER QUANTITIES Comment [k11]: P8 Nothing
mentioned
The main quantity to keep this a fair test will be to keep the voltage constant at all times Comment [k12]: P9 just
depending on what voltage you start on (eg 0.6 V) you will need to take a control which will
be the room temperature. Note the same apparatus should be used at all times.

REPEATS

As there is not any high uncertainties to be taken into account the reading should be
repeated only once. If there is a great margin then they could be repeated again. Comment [k13]: P10 Repeats are not
really valid with this method
SAFETY

There is no great danger that can come from this experiment but behaviour should be good
when taking the test. Comment [k14]: P11 Boiling water is
worth a mention
DATA

I = I0 exp ( -eV/kT) multiply this by ln Comment [k15]: P12 No

END OF PLAN Comment [k16]: P13 Fails to mention

uncertainty
IMPLEMENTATION & READINGS

READINGS

At room temperature 23 0C V = 0.67 V, I = 6.36 mA

Containing ice T = 1 0C, I = 2.37 mA when V = 0.67 V

T/ 0C I/mA ln (I/mA) Comment [k17]: M1 Table with 3 SF
0 2.37 0.863 Comment [k18]: M2 No mention of
15 4.09 1.409 uncertainty
20 5.46 1.697 Comment [k19]: M3 units good
25 6.20 1.825
30 7.74 2.046
35 9.43 2.244
40 10.84 2.383
45 12.70 2.542
50 14.92 2.703
55 18.07 2.894
60 22.0 3.091
65 24.4 3.195
70 30.1 3.405
75 35.0 3.555
80 39.1 3.666
85 48.0 3.871
90 56.6 4.036
95 61.8 4.124
100 71.2 4.265 Comment [k20]: A6 yes data is good
enough to plot

I made sure the beaker was stable and used a retort stand to keep the wires from melting. I Comment [k21]: M4 Much reference
used ice to get down to a low temperature. For every reading I removed the Bunsen at the
time of reading to improve accuracy.

I plotted a graph of my readings – (see attached hand drawn graph) Comment [k22]: M5 & 6 Plenty of data
Comment [k23]: Sadly, the wrong
graph

ANALYSIS

GRAPH – see attached Comment [k24]: Chooses to plot ln I vs

T but graph is ok so A1 – yes. Scales and
plots are ok for A2&3.
The graph shows that temperature is proportional to ln I, so as T increases so does ln I at the
same rate. Therefore the best line of fit is a straight one. Comment [k25]: A4 This does not fit
the data so no.
GRADIENT & RESULTS

I also used the equation

m = eV/2k to find a value for e.

From the graph for the gradient calculation (4.32 – 1.13)/ 100 = 0.0319 0C-1 Comment [k26]: A7 Large triangle
Comment [k27]: A8 with correct units
It turns out that e = 5.56 x 10-21 C, which is a lot smaller than the actual value of 1.6 x 10 -19 C. Comment [k28]: A9 SF appropriate
This must be down to m as all the others are constant. here and elsewhere, although calculation
wrong
UNCERTAINTIES Comment [k29]: A12 Good

0
In this test the main error was reading the thermometer which gave an error of ± 1 C . I
notices that at the coldest the temperature still read 1 0C despite the ice – I took this as a
sign of the uncertainty and called it 0 0C.

The reading for I was uncertain but I had no idea by how much and the scale division is so
small, 0.01 mA, that this is too small to make a difference. Comment [k30]: A12 Shows
appreciation of scale of uncertainty

I think my reading for T is pretty accurate since I removed the Bunsen when taking readings
so the temperature stopped rising. I also changed R at this time to keep V constant at the
new temperature.

There was probably some contact resistance in the plugs but this had very little effect I
expect.

MODFICATION FOR FUTURE

The main uncertainty was in the temperature so I would use a datalogger. This could be Comment [k31]: A15 No
used to give a constant reading of T and make it more accurate. It is also more precise than Comment [k32]: A11 Appreciates
precision, accuracy conflicts with remark 6
the other thermometer. lines above but he has the right idea. So
ignore wrong statement in plan - method
CONCLUSION

From my results it clearly shows that a diode can show a rise or drop in temperature in its
surroundings. However e was a lot smaller. Comment [k33]: A16 Basic, but valid

From the equation V = IxR the voltage is a constant and the resistance you are decreasing as
temperature increases, therefore the current must increase to keep the voltage the same
because more current is needed to keep the same voltage as the diode increases in
temperature. Comment [k34]: A10 Rather rambling
and not much better than AS but not
wrong.
This shows that for the range 0 0C to 100 0C in space this specific diode can be used to show
Comment [k35]: A10 This is good,
the temperature of a space probe while adding little weight to the probe. appreciates that conclusion only valid in
data range
FURTHER WORK Comment [k36]: A16 Amplifies basic
conclusion
Try different types of diode or increase the range of temperature to see if a slope occurs or
Comment [k37]: A18 Feeble
try having a smaller or larger voltage.
Comment [k38]: A18 better
Comment [k39]: A18 addresses physics
EXAMINER’S COMMENTARY
There is much here that is good, it is better than an AS candidate could produce.
There is much here that is poorly judged, incoherent or wrong, which is why the
mark is mid range. So the mark reflects the work of a C/D grade but successful A level
candidate. If he had mastered the theory of log graphs and plotted the right one he
would have shown some cracking results (see below) and probably a B grade.
The marks reflect what the candidate is showing they can do rather than penalising
mistakes every time. Some marks are achievable by most candidates whilst some
have a distinctly high demand.

T 1/T I/mA ln I
0 0.00366 2.37 0.863
15 0.00347 4.09 1.409
20 0.00341 5.46 1.697
25 0.00336 6.20 1.825
30 0.00330 7.74 2.046
35 0.00325 9.43 2.244
40 0.00319 10.84 2.383
45 0.00314 12.70 2.542
50 0.00310 14.92 2.703
55 0.00305 18.07 2.894
60 0.00300 22.0 3.091
65 0.00296 24.4 3.195
70 0.00292 30.1 3.405
75 0.00287 35.0 3.555
80 0.00283 39.1 3.666
85 0.00279 48.0 3.871
90 0.00275 56.6 4.036
95 0.00272 61.8 4.124
100 0.00268 71.2 4.265
Gradient of 3523 = eV/2k gives e = 1.45 x 10-19C. Well done