mse 45L lab 6 discussion RAW
Electronic Properties of Materials
DISCLAIMER: i post this in hope it is a helpful guide/for desperate times when you need some guidance. remember our honor code. remember this trust i put in you.
if you wanna see my full report just drop me a dm. ill share it gladly one surviving bear to another.
Comments: Great work! Metals: Melting would increase resistance due to scattering. Semi: Nice, close! Ionic: Nice. Would be nice to see a final sentence on applications/implications
Part I (Metals/Conductors)
Rank the five (5) specimens in order of purity, and specify ρr for each specimen in micro-ohm-cm.
<table of sample no, α, ꭓ and ρr>
Impurity is directly correlated with the (residual) resistivity in the sample. Since sample 17 has the smallest ρr, it has the least impurities followed by 16, 18, 19 then 20 (most impurities, least pure).
To what precision can you verify Matthiessen's rule? To answer this question, consider how the resistivity changes with temperature for a fixed concentration of impurities, then how the resistivity changes with impurity concentration when the temperature is fixed.
Matthiessen's rule is usually used with data at liquid helium temperature (4.2 K), where the thermal component is effectively zero. Since the lowest temperature we could achieve in this lab was 77K, this was set as a baseline temperature for our calculation of resistivity by Matthiessen's rule, and resistance measured at this temperature was assumed to have no thermal resistivity component. Because resistivity increases as temperature/impurity concentration increases, our calculation with Matthiessen's rule is not the most accurate.
Would you expect ρ to increase or decrease as T is increased through the melting point? Why?
Resistivity should decrease slightly as T is increased through the melting point. Past the melting point, in liquid state, the electrons are able to move more freely without having to navigate the uniform solid structure. However, there is still a very large thermal component to the resistivity at such high temperatures, and the change in state will not affect the overall resistivity by a lot.
If you dope a metal A with another metal B where ρB < ρA, do you expect the resistivity of the alloy to increase or decrease? Why?
Doping is the introduction of a very small concentration of another substance. If a metal A was doped with another metal B where ρB < ρA, the resistivity would increase. Since the concentration is very small, metal B would still be considered an impurity and would increase the measured resistance. Unless metal B was introduced in significant quantities, it would not decrease the resistivity even though ρB < ρA.
Plot ln (G) versus 1/T for the semiconducting sample studied in this lab.
Over what temperature range, if any, does your sample behave as an intrinsic semiconductor?
When fitted with a best fit line, the R2 value of the line is very close to 1, with less than a 5 percent margin, indicating that the data can be fitted into almost a straight line. Temperatures above room temperature (range: 25˚C to 100˚C) where thermally generated carriers are numerous enough to dominate carrier concentration, were tested. However the graph does not exhibit an exhaustion range where the graph plateaus out and starts exhibiting extrinsic behaviour after. Along with the assumption that the germanium sample is sufficiently pure, we conclude that the semiconductor behaves intrinsically when between 25˚C to 100˚C.
What is the energy gap for your sample? Compare with published literature values and cite your sources.
With the understanding that the graph displays intrinsic behaviour, the slope of the best fit line then represents -Eg/2k, equating to -3810.3. Solving for Eg (taking k as 8.617e−5 eV/K) the energy gap of the sample is 0.657 eV. This compares well with the known band gap energy for germanium⁴, 0.67eV.
Predict the resistance at 150°C of your sample.
Assuming that the semiconductor continues to behave as an intrinsic semiconductor, the data can be extrapolated and resistance is predicted to be 37.42 Ohms at 150˚C.
Plot ln (G) versus 1/T for the insulator sample studied in this lab.
What is the temperature corresponding to the change in slope of the ln (G) vs 1/T plot? If you don't observe any change in slope, what does that mean?
A jump followed by a change in slope of the ln (G) vs 1/T plot is observed when the temperature is 529.9˚C. Below this temperature, the number of vacancies is due to impurities in the sample and is temperature independent. The conductivity is hence controlled by the migration energy, Em. Above the 529.9˚C, the steeper slope observed is due to the increase in anion-cation vacancy pairs (Schottky defects) and its effect on conductivity dominates that of vacancies due to impurities. The conductivity for this segment depends on the formation energy of Schottky pairs, W. If no change in slope is observed, it would suggest that there is an incredibly high amount of impurities in the sample and a large amount of thermal energy would be needed for conductivity due to thermally induced Schottky defects to dominate that of vacancies due to impurities.
From your plot determine both Em and W in eV.
The slope for the portion 1, at temperatures above 529.9˚C would equal to -(Em + W/2)/k, and the slope for portion 2 would be -Em/k. With the gradient of the best fit lines for the two graphs, we can solve these equations (taking k as 8.617e−5 eV/K) to get Em = 0.775 eV and W = 1.629 eV
Do you think that conductivity measurements could be used as an index of purity in ionic crystals? Discuss.
Conductivity measurements could be useful in determining the purity of ionic crystals for a given crystal lattice. For a known ionic compound, the impurity level can be determined relatively by comparing the critical temperature where the slope of the ln (G) vs 1/T plot changes, with that of the same compound with a known/different purity. However this cannot be done across different compounds and crystal structures as conductivity is different and cannot be attributed solely to differences in purity.
4. W. Callister, and D. Rethwisch, Materials science and engineering. 9th ed. Wiley. (2014)