Chemical elements
    Physical Properties
      Mechanical Properties
      Plastic Flow
      Coefficient of Expansion
      Thermal Conductivity
      Molten Nickel
      Magnetic Power
      Thermal Properties
      Index of Refraction
      Radiation Energy
      Absorption Spectra
      X-ray Spectrum
      Emission of Electrons
      Photoelectric Effect
      Ionization Potentials
      Conductivity of Crystal Nickel
      Contact Potential
      Electrochemical Series
      Electrode Potential
      Salts Solutions
      Nickel-Iron Accumulator
      Thermoelectric Force
      Peltier effect
      Thomson effect
    PDB 1a5n-1g2a
    PDB 1g3v-1mn0
    PDB 1mro-1s9b
    PDB 1scr-1xmk
    PDB 1xu1-2cg5
    PDB 2cqz-2jih
    PDB 2jk8-2v4b
    PDB 2vbq-3c2q
    PDB 3c6c-3h85
    PDB 3hdp-3kvb
    PDB 3l1m-3o00
    PDB 3o01-4ubp
    PDB 8icl-9ant

Conductivity of Nickel

Electrical resistance of Nickel
Electrical resistance of Nickel.
A. Matthiessen and C. Yogt found that the electrical conductivity of what was thought to be pure nickel was 13.106 on the assumption that the values for silver and hard-drawn copper were respectively 100 and 99.75. L. Weiller obtained a conductivity of 7.89 (silver 100). J. Dewar and J. A. Fleming obtained 14.5×104 mhos at 0° for the conductivity of nickel; L. Holborn, 15.2×104 mhos; G. Niccolai, 8.3×104 mhos; and W. C. Ellis and co-workers, 0.966×105 mhos. J. A. Fleming calculated the electrical resistance, R, to be 12.357 microhms per cm. cube, but with electrolytic nickel he obtained a sp. resistance of 6.935 microhms per cm. cube at 0°. H. Masumoto gave R=0.00000858 ohm per cm. cube for the resistance of nickel at 30°. A. Campbell reported two commercial samples with the respective resistances 8 and 12 microhms per cm. cube at 0°; H. Copaux gave 6.4 microhms; R. Ruer and K. Kaneko, 7.7 microhms; H. Pecheux - curve 3, Fig., 9 microhms; P. D. Merica, 6.5 microhms; L. Jordan and W. H. Swanger, 7.236 microhms; F. Wenner and F. R. Caldwell, 7.236 microhms for annealed 99.94 per cent, nickel at 20°; and E. P. Harrison - curve 2, Fig. - 10.288 microhms per cm. cube of purified nickel. M. F. Angell obtained between 0° and 1200° a curve resembling 2, Fig. B. D. Enlund, C. M. Smith and J. C. MacGregor, J. MacGregor-Morris and R. P. Hunt, D. H. Browne and J. F. Thompson, W. Rohn, H. le Chatelier, F. H. Schofield, C. A. de Bruyn, and C. H. Lees also measured the electrical resistances of nickel. W. H. Stannard gave a table of the resistance of the metal. H. Pecheux reported four commercial samples with resistances 9, 10.24, 13.25, and 14.25 microhms per cm. cube respectively; and W. Jager and H. Diesselhorst obtained 8.50 microhms per cm. cube at 18°, and 6.37 at 100°, with a sample containing Co, 1.4; Fe, 0.4; Mn, 1.0: and Cu, 0.1.

M. A. Hunter and co-workers' results - curve 4, Fig. - are based on a resistance of 1 ohm at 20°, when the actual values were respectively 64, 84, and 117 for the three grades of nickel, A, C, and D.


The resistance decreases very much as the proportion of impurities increases. The transformation temp, for the three grades are respectively 350°, 320°, and 275°. V. A. Suydam gave for the resistance, R ohms at:


G. Niccolai gave for the ratio of the resistances at θ and 0°, R: R2 - curve 1, Fig.:

R: R00.1730.6001.6832.5373.5594.770
R: R00.1140.5811.6662.511--

where the data in the last line are due to L. Holborn. H. Schimank gave for the ratios at 0.09°, -78.6°, -122.6°, and -252.8°, respectively, R:R0=1.0000, 0.6722, 0.2904, and 0.2046, and R0=2.147 ohms. Observations were made by W. Giess and J. A. M. van Liempt, B. Svensson, C. Drucker, E. Horn, C. A. Hering, and K. Honda and Y. Ogura. K. Honda and T. Simidu gave for the resistance, R microhms per cm. cube:


F. H. Schofield gave for the resistance, R ohms per cm. cube:


W. Meissner and co-workers measured the resistance at temp, down to -271.8°, and he obtained for the ratio, r, of the resistance, R, at the observed temp, to the resistance, R0, at 0°, and for the ratio, rred, of the pure metal when the observed resistance at 0° is 1.80×10-4 ohm:


J. C. McLennan and co-workers found the sp. resistance of nickel at 0° to be 6.93 and at –152.4°, 0.59. W. Meissner gave:


Temperature Coefficient of the Electrical Resistance of Nickel
The Temperature Coefficient of the Electrical Resistance of Nickel.
or, by extrapolation, 0.00502 at -273°. W. Tuijn and H. K. Onnes found that nickel did not show super-conductivity at low temp. J. Dewar and J. A. Fleming gave 0.00620 for the temp, coeff. of the resistance between 0° and 100°; L. Holborn, 0.00675; P. W. Bridgman, 0.00634; C. G. Fink and F. A. Rohrman, 0.0064; F. Wenner and F. R. Caldwell, 0.0067; W. Giess and J. A. M. van Liempt, 0.00667 for annealed nickel, and 0.00706 for nickel after heating 30 min. in vacuo at 1000°; and A. A. Somerville gave the results summarized in Fig. C. F. Marvin found that the relation between the resistance between three samples of nickel and the temp, could be represented by logR=1.08539+0.001699θ; logR=l.90045+0.001818θ; and logR=0.96145+0.00145θ. J. Kramer, Y. Maslakovetz, R. C. L. Bosworth, and A. Riede measured the resistance of thin films. J. Mtiller studied the resistance with direct and alternating currents; and A. T. Waterman, E. W. Hall, and K. Hojendahl, the electronic theory of conductivity with respect to the nickel.

C. G. Knott observed that the increase in the resistance per degree rise of temp, continues regularly up to about 200°, and it is then nearly constant up to 320°, when an abrupt change occurs, and after that there is a slow uniform rise. Thus, within 200° and 320°, the slope of the temperature-resistance curve is steeper than it is anywhere else. W. del Regno found a break in the resistance curve near 400°. A. Battelli represented the change in the resistance at 0, between 0° and 220°, to be 0.003981θ – 0.0522θ2; between 230° and 360°, 0.004352θ - 0.0518θ2; and between 380° and 410°, 0.003322θ - 0.0512θ2, when the resistance at 0° is 2.312. M. F. Angell observed a break in the form of the curve-at the magnetic transformation point, near 370°, and another break at about 700°, which was said to correspond with another allotropic change, but the critical point at 700° was not observed by K. Honda and T. Simidu. Both F. H. Schofieid, and M. Tuorneur observed points of inflexion in the curve near the temp, of the magnetic transformation. A. L. Williams and co-workers studied the electrical conductivity of mixtures of nickel and mica.

Effect of Hardness on the Electrical Resistance and Magnetostriction of Nickel
The Effect of Hardness on the Electrical Resistance and Magnetostriction of Nickel.
W. Broniewsky studied the relation between the specific volume and the electrical resistance. S. R. Williams and R. A. Sanderson obtained the results summarized in Fig. for the change in the resistance of strips of nickel of different degrees of hardness in a magnetic field of 75.3 gauss.

P. W. Bridgman found that the electrical resistance of nickel is modified by pressure ranging from 0 to 12,000 kgrms. per sq. cm.:

Press Coeff. 0-0.051581-0.051578-0.051586-0.051600-0.051631
Press Coeff. 12,000-0.051393-0.051428-0.051464-0.051499-0.051535

The press, coeff. at 0° is thus -0.05158 against the value -0.05138 obtained by E. Lisell. P. W. Bridgman found the press, coeff. At 0°, -78.4°, and -182.9°, with 7,000 kgrms. per sq. cm., to be respectively 0.05185, -0.0520, and -0.05188. E. D. Williamson gave 0.9823 for the ratio of the electrical resistance with 1 kgrm. per sq. cm., and with 12,000 kgrms. per sq. cm. Observations on the effect of press, on the resistance were made by K. Honda and co-workers, S. Arzibischeff adn Y. J. U. Juschakoff, A. W. Smith, A. Schulze, H. Tomlinson, W. E. Williams, M. Cantone, G. Ercolini, A. Nobile, J. B. Seth and C. Anand, R. S. Bedi, L. W. McKeehan, and F. Skaupy and O. Kantorowicz. According to S. Arzibischeff and Y. J. U. Juschakoff, the resistance of a nickel wire under tension decreases at first, reaches a minimum at 0.05 elongation at room temp., and then increases. There are discontinuities between 343° and 360°. The inflexion point occurs at about 353°, which is near the Curie point for nickel, so that the phenomenon appears to be related with the magnetic transformation of the metal. The minimum is less pronounced at higher temp., and disappears at the critical point; beyond that, the effect of stretching is to increase the resistance almost linearly. P. W. Bridgman observed the percentage change in the electrical conductivity of nickel, in tension with a load of 1900 kgrms. per sq. cm., to be 0.48, or 0.05252 per kgrm. per sq. cm. R. S. Bedi, L. W. McKeehan, and S. Arzibischeff and V. J. U. Juschakoff studied the effect of tension. H. Tomlinson observed that the decrease in the electrical resistance per unit produced by a stress of a gram per sq. cm. is 3216×10-12. F. Gredner observed that the decrease in the resistance of metal wires under tension as the temp, is raised to about 500° is quicker and greater the higher is the temp. The minimum resistance with nickel occurs at about 550°. The change is not due to a change from an amorphous to a crystalline state, but rather to the formation of spaces between the crystallites, and depends also on the gliding surfaces of the metal, as well as to the alteration under tension from an irregular to a suitably arranged system of crystallites; J. B. Seth and C. Anand noted that the resistance of a nickel wire decreased on stretching, reaching a minimum value when the extension was 15 per cent, of that of fracture, and thereafter it increased continuously. The initial part of the extension-resistance curve down to the minimum value of the resistance exhibited a hysteresis effect when the wire was subjected to a cycle of values of extension. R. S. Redi observed that the minimum attained in the resistance curve when nickel is stretched corresponds with the elastic limit.

The preliminary stretching was not observed with copper, iron, or steel. T. Ueda studied the effect of torsion on the resistance of nickel; W. Brown, the effect of an electrical current on the subsidence of torsional oscillations; and H. L. Brakel, the effect of vibration on the resistance of nickel.

K. Honda and T. Hirone, and S. de Negri studied the effect of press, on the resistance of nickel; F. Skaupy and 0. Kantorowicz, the resistance of compressed powdered nickel; 0. Jaamaa and Y. E. G. Leinberg, and L. Reichardt measured the resistance of powdered nickel; and J. Kramer and H. Zahn, A. Riede, H. B. Peacock, and R. Riedmiller, the resistance of thin films of nickel. L. R. Ingersoll and J. D. Hanawalt observed that the electrical resistance, at 0° to 450°, is greater with films spluttered in argon at 0.5 mm. press, than it is with films obtained by the evaporation of nickel; and the resistance of evaporation films is greater than it is with nickel en masse. A. Sie verts discussed the effect of occluded gases on the conductivity of nickel; and T. Skutta observed that the resistance of nickel increases in an atm. of hydrogen and nitrogen at press, up to 30 atm. It was supposed that an unstable solid soln. of nickel and hydrogen is formed in the presence of hydrogen. The theory of the electrical conductivity was discussed by K. F. Herzfeld, K. Hojendahl, M. von Pirani and A. R. Meyer, and F. Simon.

Although M. F. Angell observed that the resistance of nickel, in the range 200° to 800°, is not changed by heat treatment, H. Wedding said that the electrical resistance of cast nickel is not changed by forging. M. Maclean found the resistance of drawn and undrawn nickel to be respectively as 0.2287: 0.0480. H. Tomlinson obtained analogous results. P. Kapitza said that the physical changes produced in nickel by hardening and annealing have a marked effect on the electrical resistance. A. Krupkowsky gave for the resistance of quenched nickel 8.84×l0-6, which becomes 8.03×10-6 when annealed; the corresponding temp, coeff. were, respectively, 0.00577 and 0.00622. L. Guillet and M. Ballay found that as a result of cold-work, the resistance of nickel was increased 2.70 per cent. G. Tammann and co-workers studied the subject.

R. Kikuchi, and H. M. Barlow compared the electrical and thermal conductivities of nickel; and K. Honda and T. Simidu found that the product of the sp. resistances with the thermal conductivities is not constant, but ranges between 1.58 at 26° to 4.30 at 400°. This is in agreement with observations on other ferromagnetic metals. M. F. Angell found a steady region in the value of the product kRT, with a rise of temp., and K. Honda and T. Simidu, and F. H. Schofield observed that the product tends to become constant at about 2.6 from 300° upwards. A. Eucken and K. Dittrich also studied the application of Wiedemann and Franz's rule. C. Drucker studied the relation between the specific heat and the electrical resistance; A. Stein, the relation between the melting-point and the resistance; N. F. Mott, the relation between the latent heat and the m.p.; and A. Farkas and H. H. Rowley, the loss of heat by heated wires. C. E. Guye and A. Schidloff estimated that the raising of the electrical resistance of nickel by an electric field will probably be greater than is the case with iron. R. Holm and W. Meissner studied the contact resistance of nickel.

D. Goldhammer measured the change in the electrical resistance of nickel in a magnetic field; L. Grunmach and F. Weidert observed a decrease of -1.4 per cent, by a field strength of 10,000 gauss, W. E. Williams gave -1.2 per cent., and G. Barlow, 1.4 per cent., whilst N. d'Agostino observed a decrease of 1.0 per cent, with a field-strength of 6000 gauss; and G. Berndt, a decrease of 0.60 per cent, with a field-strength of 3040 gauss. C. G. Knott observed that in a field of 3800 gauss, the percentage change in the resistance with rise of temp, becomes smaller up to 260°, it then passes through a minimum, and afterwards rises rapidly to a maximum at 310°, and then falls to a proportionally low value at 344°. C. G. Knott also measured the relation between the magnetization and the electrical resistance of nickel at elevated temp., and he found that when a nickel strip is conveying a current its conductivity is diminished in a longitudinal magnetic field, and increased in a transverse magnetic field. Reversal of either magnetic field does not change the accompanying effect on the conductivity. When a cyclic longitudinal field is superposed upon a steady transverse field of magnitude less than a certain critical value, the diminution in the conductivity is less marked as the transverse field increases and practically vanishes when this critical value of transverse field is reached. When the steady transverse field exceeds this critical value the superposed cyclic longitudinal field causes an increase in the conductivity, and this increase becomes more marked as the longitudinal field is made greater. When a cyclic transverse field is superposed upon a steady longitudinal field the increase in conductivity is augmented. Not only does the increase of conductivity grow greater with the stronger transverse field but it also grows greater as the steady longitudinal field is increased. H. Tomlinson obtained similar results.

F. C. Blake obtained the following changes of electrical resistance, 8R per cent., by a transverse magnetic field of H gauss, at different temp.:


Effect of a Magnetic Field on the Electrical Resistance of Nickel
The Effect of a Magnetic Field on the Electrical Resistance of Nickel.
C. W. Heaps represented the effect of a transverse field on the electrical resistance by Fig. C. G. Knott gave for the change of resistance, δR, of 100,000 ohms of nickel wire when subject to transverse magnetic field of e.g.s. units:


and for the change δR per 10,000 due to cyclic longitudinal and transverse fields, H=50 c.g.s. units:

δR long.61271.8-7.2-11.4-148-15.6
δR Trans.--83-142-164-175-183-185

Longitudinal Magnetic Field and Electric Resistance of Nickel
The Effect of the Strength of the Longitudinal Magnetic Field on the Electric Resistance.
W. Gerlach's curves for the percentage changes in the resistance of nickel as a function of the longitudinal field strength at different temp, below the Curie point, are shown in Fig. These changes are approximately proportional to the external field. The lower curves refer to the lower temp. The curves, Fig., for the change in the resistance with magnetization are linear from about the beginning of the knee of magnetization Up to saturation for about 20° and 200°. When the linear part of the curve is extrapolated (dotted line) to furnish a magnitude whose product by the absolute temp, is constant, "the change in the resistance with field-strength represented by continuous line, Fig., shows a hysteresis which is smaller than the hysteresis of magnetization represented by the dotted line, Fig.

Effect of a Magnetic Field on the Electrical Resistance of Nickel
The Effect of a Magnetic Field on the Electrical Resistance of Nickel.
Hysteresis of Electrical Resistance with Magnetization
The Hysteresis of the Change in the Electrical Resistance with Magnetization.

© Copyright 2008-2012 by