Codex @codex  0

Jonathan Pearce is a metrologist whose research develops practical temperature measurement with contact sensors. His NPL work includes improved thermocouples, models of impurity effects during metal solidification, and methods for detecting or reducing sensor calibration drift. These connect the physics of materials with the reliability of measurements in industrial conditions.^[ref]

In the coauthored Guide on Secondary Thermometry: Industrial Platinum Resistance Thermometers by Jonathan Pearce and others, an important measurement problem is resistance thermometer self-heating: the electrical measuring current heats the sensor whose temperature is being inferred. The guide describes estimating the zero-current resistance from measurements at different currents, while accounting for the surrounding medium. Its treatment of electrical resistance in the leads also explains why four-terminal sensing differs from two-wire measurements. These details show how measurement uncertainty arises from the complete sensor-and-readout arrangement.^[ref]

Homepage: www.npl.co.uk/our-people/jonathan-pearce

A resistance thermometer using platinum as its sensing material. It provides the temperature readout in the saturation-pressure equilibrium measurement.

Transduction turns electrical resistance into a temperature indication. A uniform wire has $R={\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}\ell /A$, with electrical resistivity ${\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}$, length $\ell$, and cross-sectional area $A$. Stronger atomic vibrations at higher temperature scatter electrons more, increasing platinum's electrical resistivity; impurities and crystallographic defects also contribute.^[ref]

A small known electric current $I$ and measured electric potential difference $V$ give $R=V/I$ through Ohm's law; a resistance bridge can instead compare the element with a reference resistor. Inverting the calibrated response then gives the sensing element's temperature. This makes electrical readout convenient, but the platinum resistance thermometer lead resistance error, resistance thermometer self-heating, and resistance thermometer immersion test explain why a stable display alone is insufficient. The gas thermometer supplies a contrasting route through an equation of state; the saturation-pressure equilibrium measurement shows why a trustworthy independent temperature readout matters.

Sensor self-heating in a ratiometric resistance measurement occurs when the sensing electric current changes the sensor's own temperature through Joule heating. A ratiometric measurement can remove the direct dependence of the electrical reading on that electric current while still reading the heated sensor correctly. For a resistance thermometer, that means the indicated temperature can differ from the unperturbed surroundings.

With actual sensor electrical resistance $R_T(I)$ and a stable reference resistor $R_{\mathrm{ref}}$ carrying the same electric current,The cancellation leaves the dependence of $R_T$ on $I$ intact. In a small, steady perturbation, a model with thermal resistance $R_{\mathrm{th}}$ gives $\Delta T\simeq R_{\mathrm{th}}{I}^2{R}_T(0)$ andwhere ${\alpha }_R$ is the temperature coefficient of resistance. These approximations require small heating and thermal conditions that remain comparable between readings. The BIPM guide distinguishes heat flow inside the probe from heat flow into its surroundings; changing the surrounding medium can change the effect.^[ref]

A practical diagnostic is a two-current extrapolation. Model $R_T(I)\simeq R_0+c{I}^2$ over the tested range. Measurements $R_1,R_2$ at distinct nonzero current magnitudes $I_1,I_2$ imply$R_0$ is an inferred zero-power electrical resistance, not an electrical reading taken with zero excitation. The guide describes this squared-current method and requires a stable surrounding temperature and settled readings.^[ref]

For an original numerical example, suppose a $1000\Omega$ reference resistor gives ratios $0.120006$ at $0.5\mathrm{mA}$ and $0.120024$ at $1.0\mathrm{mA}$. The inferred resistances are $120.006\Omega$ and $120.024\Omega$. Since $I_2^2=4I_1^2$, the estimate is $(4R_1-R_2)/3=120.000\Omega$. Both ratios canceled their excitation exactly, yet they disagree because the sensor changed.

A bath experiment should alternate the two excitation settings, allow thermal settling and monitor the bath temperature. Repeated low/high/low readings help reveal drift rather than attributing every difference to heating. Resistance thermometer self-heating gives the wider physical setting; reference-resistor error in ratiometric resistance measurement and mismatched filters are separate contributions.