Experiment 2: Resistance Measurements

Decena, Bernalyn A., Luzon, Joshua Reginal, Santos, Ramon Florentino L.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, University of the Philippines
Diliman, Metro Manila, NCR, Philippines
AbstractThe main interest of this experiment is to be familiar
with the different ways to measure resistances. The main goals of
the experiment are to study the different methods, knowing when
to use them, and to observe the accuracy of those different
methods. The subjects of this experiment are three resistors with
yet to be known values. The results seems to suggest that
technically, no one method is better than the other, provided that
the experimenter has an idea of the magnitude of the resistance
of the unknown resistor. Each method has its own advantages
and drawbacks, but can be very accurate if properly performed.

I. INTRODUCTION
Resistance, in everyday life, is like the proverbial middle
child between current and voltage: ignored, starving for
attention, yet very interesting. However, resistance is an
integral part of every circuit, with the exception maybe of
superconductor circuits, as it affects the general output,
whether power, current, or voltage, of the system. Not only
resistors have resistance, as almost every piece of electrical
element has it, one way or the other.
In this experiment we are going to study the different
ways to measure resistances and to know how much error
and/or accuracy each of those techniques have.
II. THE SERIES OHMMETER METHOD
The circuit in Figure 1 was set up. The voltage source was
equal to 10V and a 10k potentiometer was used as R2.

For Ra:
Da = .25mA/1mA = .25
Ca = V/(R2+Rm+Ra)
Ra = [V-Ca(R2+Ra)]/Ca
Ra = [10-.25mA(9850+200)]/.25mA
Ra = 29950
For Rb:
Db = .2mA/1mA = .2
Cb = V/(R2+Rm+Rb)
Rb = [V-Ca(R2+Rb)]/Cb
Rb = [10-.2mA(9850+200)]/.2mA
Rb = 39950
For Rc:
Dc = .095mA/1mA = .095
Cc = V/(R2+Rm+Rc)
Rc = [V-Cc(R2+Rc)]/Cc
Rc = [10-.25mA(9850+200)]/.25mA
Rc = 95213.15789
The calculated resistance values were calculated and the
deflections were tabulated in Table 1.
TABLE I
DEFLECTION READINGS FOR EACH RESISTOR

Resistance
Ra
Rb
Rc

Deflection
0.25
0.2
0.095

III. VOLTMETER AMMETER METHOD

The same resistances, Ra, Rb, Rc, were to be determined
again by using the circuit in Figure 2.

Fig. 1. Circuit design used to show the deflection from connecting a resistor

It was initially set to its maximum value. The terminals a

and b was shorted and R2 was adjusted until the 1mA
movement reads full-scale. The instructor gave 3 resistors, Ra,
Rb, Rc, of unknown resistance. Its resistance was determined
by connecting it to terminals a and b of our premade circuit 1.
The deflection of the 1mA movement, D = [ ImA/1mA], was
calculated for each resistor. The resistance of each of the
resistors was calculated using Ohms Law:

Fig.2. Circuit design combining an ammeter and a voltmeter to read a

resistor value.

An analog multimeter was used as the voltmeter and the

1mA movement was used as the ammeter. The digital
voltmeter was not used because the loading effects that were
intended to be seen would not be observed. Vs was set to 10V
and its value was tabulated in Table 2 and Table 3. For each
unknown resistances that were placed in Ru(Ra, Rb, Rc), the

readings of the ammeter and the voltmeter was recorded. The

results were tabulated in Table 2.
TABLE II
VOLTAGES MEASURED USING A POTENTIOMETER BRIDGE VOLTMETER

R() Theoretical Vx (V) Measured Vx (V)

1k
7.5
7.35
10k
7.5
7.21
100k
7.5
7

Using the ammeter reading, the value of each unknown

resistor was calculated using Ohms Law:
For Ra:
Ca = Vs/(Ra+Rm)
Ra = [V-CaRm]/Ca
Ra = [10V-(.44mA)(200)]/.44mA
Ra = 22527.27273

Rc = [10V-(.075mA)(200)]/.075mA
Rc = 133133.3333
The results were taken noted in Table
TABLE II
VOLTAGES MEASURED USING A POTENTIOMETER BRIDGE VOLTMETER

Resistance
Ra
Rb
Rc

V reading (V)
10
10
10

I reading (mA)
0.43
0.28
0.075

IV. WHEATSTONE BRIDGE METHOD

The Wheatstone Bridge Method is a popular method of
measuring resistance particularly in the field of
instrumentation. The Wheatstone Bridge in Figure 4 was set
up.

For Rb:
Cb = Vs/(Rb+Rm)
Rb = [V-CbRm]/Cb
Rb = [10V-(.28mA)(200)]/.28mA
Rb = 35514.28571
For Rc:
Cc = Vs/(Rc+Rm)
Rc = [V-CcRm]/Cc
Rc = [10V-(.08mA)(200)]/.08mA
Ra = 124,800
The calculated values were noted. The same procedure was
repeated for the circuit in Figure 3.

Fig. 3. Circuit design combining an ammeter and a voltmeter to read a

resistor value.

The resistances were again calculated using Ohms Law:

For Ra:
Ca = Vs/(Ra+Rm)
Ra = [V-CaRm]/Ca
Ra = [10V-(.43mA)(200)]/.43mA
Ra = 23055.81395
For Rb:
Cb = Vs/(Rb+Rm)
Rb = [V-CbRm]/Cb
Rb = [10V-(.28mA)(200)]/.28mA
Rb = 35514.28571
For Rc:
Cc = Vs/(Rc+Rm)
Rc = [V-CcRm]/Cc

Fig. 4. Circuit design combining an ammeter and a voltmeter to read a

resistor value.

The resistances R1 and R2 were let to be equal to 10k and

20k, respectively and R3 was a potentiometer. The source
was allowed to be 20V after verifying the rating of the two
resistors R1 and R2. The analog multimeter was used as the
voltmeter. The potentiometer with the highest possible
resistance value was used (1M) for maximum power
dissipation and it was initially set to its maximum possible
value.
Two measurements were made for each unknown
resistance, one with Vs = 5 volts and the other for Vs = 10
volts. The voltmeter was initially set to read the maximum
imbalance of the bridge, which is Vs. The objective was to
calculate the value of Ru from the value of R1, R2, R3 when the
bridge is balanced. The bridge was balanced by decreasing the
potentiometer resistance until the voltmeter has read 0V. Then,
for each resistors unknown for each case above, the value of
R3 was measured using a digital voltmeter and the results were
tabulated in Table 4.
TABLE IV
VOLTAGES MEASURED USING A POTENTIOMETER BRIDGE VOLTMETER

Resistor
under test
Ra
Rb
Rc

R3 () setting R3 () setting
Vs=5V
Vs=10V
9.2k
9k
14.96k
14.18k
45k
45k

For Vs = 5V:
For Ra:

For Rb:

For Rc:

For Vs = 10V:
For Ra:

For Rb:

Now, Connecting the Ru,

R3 = 9200
Ra = R2R3/R1
Ra = [(20k)(9.2k)]/10k
Ra = 18400

R3 = 43k
Rc = R2R3/R1
Rc = [(20k)(43k)]/10k
Rc = 86000

R3 = 14.18k
Rb = R2R3/R1
Rb = [(20k)(14.18k)]/10k
Rb = 28360

R3 = 45k
Rc = R2R3/R1
Rc = [(20k)(45k)]/10k
Rc = 90000
The results were noted.
V. REQUIRED DISCUSSIONS
Show that the relationship between unknown resistance
Ru and deflection D for the series ohmmeter circuit of
Figure 1 is given by:
Ru = Ro(1-D)/D,
where Ro = Rm = R2 where D = (I mA)/(1mA)
In our case, what is the value of Ro? Why was it not
necessary to measure the value of R2 to be able to
determine the value of R0?
Computing for the current, which measures to 1mA,
I=

Ro Ro = Ru
D
Ro ( 1 D) = Ru
D
Seeing that the value of Ro is equal to the input
voltage multiplied by 1000, we do not need to know the value
of R2.
2.

R3 = 9000
Ra = R2R3/R1
Ra = [(20k)(9k)]/10k
Ra = 18000

V
= 1mA
R2 + Rm

(1000)(V) = (R2 + Rm)

Since Ro = R2 + Rm,
(1000)(V) = Ro

= I2 = D

Ro = Ro + Ru
D

R3 = 14.96k
Rb = R2R3/R1
Rb = [(20k)(14.96k)]/10k
Rb = 29920

For Rc:

1.

Ro
Ro + Ru

Use the equation given in 1 above to determine the values

of Ra,, Rb and Rc. Treat these as your experimental
results. Compare these with the actual values of Ra, Rb
and Rc given by your instructor. Account for any
differences. Extend Table 1 to show your results.
Seeing that the value of Ro is equal to the input
voltage multiplied by 1000, we do not need to know
the value of R2.
Ra = Ro (1 D) = (10,000)(1 0.25)
D
0.25
Ra = 30 k
Rb = Ro (1 D) = (10,000)(1 0.2)
D
0.2
Rb = 40 k
Rc = Ro (1 D) = (10,000)(1 0.095)
D
0.095
Rc = 95263.157
Computing for Percentage Error:
Ra = Actual Theoretical x 100%
Theoretical:
Ra = 30150 22000 x 100% = 37%
22000
Rb = 40200 33000 x 100% = 21.8%
22000
Rc = 95000 100000 x 100% = 5%
100000
Errors are due to the loading effects from the
1mA movement and because of the resistor readings
from Rm and R2. The voltage supplied was not exact,
thus human error plays a vital role in these errors.

The extended table is shown below:

TABLE V
PREDICTED RESISTOR VALUE VS. ACTUAL VALUES OF THE UNKNOWN
RESISTORS

Resistance Deflection
Ra
Rb
Rc

3.

0.25
0.2
0.095

Calculated
Resistance ()
30.15k
40.2k
95.73947k

Actual
Resistance ()
22k
33k
100k

From the voltage and current readings obtained in

Procedure II (part IIIof this paper), compute the
corresponding resistance values of Ra, Rb, and Rc both
for the cicuit of Figure 2 and the circuit of Figure 3.
Neglect the loading effects of the meters. Compare these
with the actual values of Ra, Rb, and Rc. Tabualte your
Results. Account for any differences obtained.
Without the loading effects it is easily seen that
Figures 2 and 3 are actually the same circuits, as the
voltmeter has no effect whatsoever on the circuit
being evaluated. So the general equation is just

For Ra:
Ru = 22,727.27273 or about 22.727 k
For Rb:
Ru = 35714.28571 or 35.714 k
For Rc:
Ru = 125 k

effect of the meters. How do these compare with the

previously computed values with the actual values of Ra,
Rb and Rc?
For the Figure 2 method, we use Rvoltmeter =
500,000, which we found by multiplying the
typical sensitivity of 10,000 / V with the range (we
used the 50V range) we used to measure the value of
10V.[1] Also, Rammeter = 200 . By basic circuit
analysis and finding the total resistance of the system,
we get the following expression which we then solve
for Ru. Take note that the voltmeter and the unknown
resistor are in parallel, and those two are in series
with the ammeter:

Where X = V/I.
We wont show the calculations anymore as it is
too long, but by substituting the known values and Ra,
Rb, and Rc, for Ru, we get:
Ra = 24, 008.98671
Rb = 38,660.26942
Rc = 166, 844. 23497 .
For the Figure 3 method, we use the same values
for Rvoltmeter and Rammeter. Now it is much simpler,
because the ammeter and the unknown resistor are on
the same branch, therefore the same current passes
through them. Also, we need to find the voltage
across that resistor, but it is easily known as the
voltage source is in parallel to that branch. Then we
can use Ohms law to find Ru:

In tabular form:
TABLE VI
PREDICTED RESISTOR VALUE VS. ACTUAL VALUES OF THE UNKNOWN
RESISTORS

Resistor
under test
Ra
Rb
Rc

Predicted

Actual

22.727 k
35.714 k
125 k

22 k
33 k
100 k

The difference lies in the obvious: we neglected the

loading effect of the internal resistance of the voltmeter in
the computations. And of course the misjudgement on the
values from the measuring devices of the experimenters
can be a source of errors too.
4.

From the voltage and the current readings obtained in the

Procedure II, re-compute the corresponding resistance
values of Ra, Rb, and Rc. taking into account the loading

Substituting the known resistances and Vs = 10V,

we get:
Ra = 22,527.27273
Rb= 35,514.28571
Rc = 124,800 .
Now here comes the analysis: between these two
methods, the latter one is much more accurate.
Accuracy, however, decreases with the increase in
the value of the unknown resistance (look at the
computed value for Rc) as more power is drawn by
that resistor, thus affecting current and voltage values.

But still these two values are still more accurate

than by just blindly ignoring the loading effects. The
discrepancies can also be explained by realizing that
it is very difficult for a human observer to distinguish
between markings in an analog multimeter. Also, not
all of the known resistances are very accurate,
taking the tolerances into account.

must pass through that branch. Therefore, since the

voltages are equal for both branches at the top,
middle, and bottom nodes, the current through R1 and
R2 must be equal, and the same can be said the
rightmost branch.
Now the voltage across R1 and R3 must be:
i1 R1 = i2R3
And at the lower half:
i1R2 = i2Ru
Now divide the second equation by the first equation:

Here is a table of values for an easier

comparison. Note the increase of deviation from the
true value as the value of the unknown resistor
increases.
TABLE VII
PREDICTED RESISTOR VALUE VS. ACTUAL VALUES OF THE UNKNOWN
RESISTORS

Value found
from the method
in Figure 2

Value found
from the method
in Figure 3

Actual Value

Ra

24, 008.98671

22,527.27273

22,000

Rb

38,660.26942

35,514.28571

33,000

124,800

100,000

Rc

5.

6.

166, 844. 23497

And then it is obvious to solve for the

relationship between the three known resistances
with the unknown resistor:

7.

Given the two possible arrangements for making

resistancce measurements using the voltmeter-ammeter
method, when should one method be used instead of the
other if the resistance is to be taken as the voltage
reading divided by the current reading?
For the given situation, it is best to use the
method in figure 3, because the reading at the
ammeter is the amount of current that is also passing
through Ru, and since the ammeter-resistor branch is
parallel to the voltage source, the unknown value
could be calculated approximately by just dividing
the voltage by the current.
However, the voltage across Ru is not really
equal to the voltage of the source but is found by
voltage division (remember that the two elements are
in series). The approximation will be reasonably
accurate if the internal resistance of the ammeter is
small enough or if the unknown resistance is large
enough.
Derive the relationship between R1, R2, R3 and Ru for the
Wheatstone Bridge Circuit of Figure 4 under balanced
conditions.
First take note that branches R1-R2 and R3-Ru are
in parallel with the voltage source. Also, since the
voltmeter reads zero at the balance point, no current

Taking into account the tolerances of the resistances used

in the bridge, compute for the range of possible values of
Ra, Rb and Rc from the values of R3 obtainedin Procedure
III (part IV of this paper). Do the actual values of Ra, Rb
and Rc fall within the computed ranges?
Calculating the range of values, we get:
For Vs = 5V:
For Ra:
R3 = 9200
Tolerance of R1 and R2 = 5%
Higher Range:
Ra = (R2+0.05R2)R3/R1-0.05*R1
Ra = [(20k+0.05*20k)(9.2k)]/10k-0.05*10k
Rahigher = 20336.84211
Lower Range:
Ra = (R2-0.05R2)R3/R1+.05*R1
Ra = [(20k-0.05*20k)(9.2k)]/10k+0.05*10k
Ralower = 16647.61905
Ra = 18400
Ralower<Ra<Rahigher, Ra falls in the range.
For Rb:
R3 = 14.96k
Tolerance of R1 and R2 = 5%
Higher Range:
Rb = (R2+0.05R2)R3/R1-0.05*R1
Rb = [(20k+0.05*20k)(14.96k)]/10k-0.05*10k
Rahigher = 33069.47368
Lower Range:
Rb = (R2-0.05R2)R3/R1+.05*R1
Rb = [(20k-0.05*20k)(14.96k)]/10k+0.05*10k
Rblower = 27070.47619
Rb = 29920
Rblower<Rb<Rbhigher, Rb falls in the range.
For Rc:
R3 = 43k
Tolerance of R1 and R2 = 5%

Higher Range:
Rc = (R2+0.05R2)R3/R1-0.05*R1
Rc = [(20k+0.05*20k)(43k)]/10k-0.05*10k
Rchigher = 95052.63158
Lower Range:
Rc = (R2-0.05R2)R3/R1+.05*R1
Rc = [(20k-0.05*20k)(43k)]/10k+0.05*10k
Rclower = 77809.52381
Rc = 86000
Rclower<Rc<Rchigher falls in the range.

8.

TABLE VIII
RESISTOR VALUE COMPARISON BETWEEN INPUT VOLTAGES (POWER
SOURCE)

For Vs = 10V:
For Ra:
R3 = 9000
Tolerance of R1 and R2 = 5%
Higher Range:
Ra = (R2+0.05R2)R3/R1-0.05*R1
Ra = [(20k+0.05*20k)(9k)]/10k-0.05*10k
Rahigher = 19894.73684
Lower Range:
Ra = (R2-0.05R2)R3/R1+.05*R1
Ra = [(20k-0.05*20k)(9k)]/10k+0.05*10k
Ralower = 16285.71429
Ra = 18000
Ralower<Ra<Rahigher, Ra falls in the range.
For Rb:
R3 = 14.18k
Tolerance of R1 and R2 = 5%
Higher Range:
Rb = (R2+0.05R2)R3/R1-0.05*R1
Rb = [(20k+0.05*20k)(14.18k)]/10k-0.05*10k
Rahigher = 31345.26316
Lower Range:
Rb = (R2-0.05R2)R3/R1+.05*R1
Rb = [(20k-0.05*20k)(14.18k)]/10k+0.05*10k
Rblower = 25659.04762
Rb = 28360
Rblower<Rb<Rbhigher, Rb falls in the range.
For Rc:
R3 = 45k
Tolerance of R1 and R2 = 5%
Higher Range:
Rc = (R2+0.05R2)R3/R1-0.05*R1
Rc = [(20k+0.05*20k)(45k)]/10k-0.05*10k
Rchigher = 99473.68421
Lower Range:
Rc = (R2-0.05R2)R3/R1+.05*R1
Rc = [(20k-0.05*20k)(45k)]/10k+0.05*10k
Rclower = 81428.57143
Rc = 90000
Rclower<Rc<Rchigher falls in the range.
As seen in the results, all figures fall in the ranges.

What was the actual effect of varying the power supply

voltage on the resistance measurements made using the
Wheatstone Bridge method? What should the actual
effects have been?
Increasing the voltage (and thus power supply)
seems to lower the readings on most of the unknown
resistors, based on our calculations from the raw data:

5V

10 V

Ra = (9.2 k) x (2)
Ra = 18.4 k

Ra = (9 k) x (2)
Ra = 18 k

Rb = (14.96 k) x (2)
Rb = 29.92 k

Rb = (14.18 k) x (2)
Rb = 28.36 k

Rc = (45 k) x (2)
Rc = 90 k

Rc = (45 k) x (2)
Rc = 90 k

Ideally, there should have been no effect

whatsoever on the values obtained because only the
voltages, and thus the currents are changed.
According to Nilsson and Riedel, lower resistances
are difficult to measure in real life because of
thermoelectric effects on dissimilar metal junctions
in the circuit and higher resistances are difficult to
measure too because of the leakage currents in the
insulations at high currents[2]
9.

Compare the three methods making resistance

measurements taking into consideration simplicity, cost,
speed, accuracy of measuring equipment, tolenrance of
resistances used and any other points that may be of
interest.
The first method is obviously the simplest one.
We are also inclined to believe that given that the
observer very accurately reads the value off the
ammeter, and also that the resistances of the
potentiometer and ammeter be accurately known.
Solving for the unknown resistor is a fairly
straightforward application of the evaluation of the
total resistance of the resistors in series and Ohms
law. The circuit needed is also fairly easy to
construct, with no parallel connections at all, just a
circle of circuit elements. However, based from
our observations, the lower the resistances you
measure, the less accurate it becomes.
The methods in Procedure 2 (part III of this
paper) are more accurate than in the previous one,
but the pattern in the accuracy is in reverse: the

higher the resistance you measure, the less accurate accurately known, and one uses the method appropriate for the
(though still pretty accurate as compared to that in predicted magnitude of the unknown resistance, one can get a
Procedure 1) it becomes. Unfortunately, it can be a very accurate answer.
bit challenging to construct, with the branches,
REFERENCES
containing elements in series, in parallel to each
[1] Wikipedia,
(2013,
July
10),
Multimeter,Retrieved
from
other. Also, the loading effects can have a more nonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimeter
negligible effect than in the previous method, as
[2] J. Nilsson and S. Reidel,Electric Circuits 9th Edition,Prentice Hall:
there are now two measuring devices in use, the
New Jersey, United States of America, 2011,9 th ed.
ammeter and the multimeter. Multimeters can have a
very high internal resistance depending on the
voltage range you are using. However, when
approximations are good enough for your application,
it can be a much easier method, especially the circuit
in Figure 3, as you can just divide the reading in the
multimeter by the reading in the ammeter, unlike in
the first one where you need to solve for a variable.
Lastly, we have the Wheatstone bridge. Its
superiority lies in the fact that internal resistances
have virtually no effect on the value that you will
compute, as the voltmeter, the only measuring device
present, is not really very important to the circuit; its
just there to know that both its ends are at the same
potential. Also, a universal relationship can be
obtained from the three known resistances to
compute for the one unknown resistor. Assuming that
the values of the resistances can be very accurately
known, you can get a very accurate anwer. The
drawbacks are extreme(low or high) values of
resistances can be difficult to measure due to
thermoelectric effects and leakage currents[2], and
that it constructing the circuit necessary can be
challenging.
VI. CONCLUSION
The three methods tested above vary in their accuracy
depending on the application. The first one can be accurate for
higher resistances and is simple to construct. The second
method is more accurate for lower resistances, though it is
more accurate than the first one in general. When approximate
values are good enough, this can be an easy method. However
the circuit necessary can be difficult to construct.
Lastly, the Wheatstone bridge significantly decreases
the amount of loading effects from measuring devices, but the
known resistances in the circuit must be accurately known;
otherwise it could affect the value arising from the easily
derived universal formula for the unknown resistor. The
bridge can be a bit difficult to construct. This method is best
for medium-ranged resistors, as it becomes less accurate for
lower or higher values.
In general, no method is superior to another, and as
long as the constant values (like the voltage at the source, or
the resistance of the adjusted potentiometer) are very