Posted by *vaughn* on April 14, 2011, 12:26 pm

*>>>*

*>>> E=IR, certainly *IS* Ohm's law. I and E are proportional. You can't *

*>>> increase*

*>>> I without increasing E.*

*>>Wrong. You CAN increase I without increasing E. You have 3 variables in that*

*>>formula, not just 2.*

*> Dumbass*

Names? Didn't your mother tell you how babyish that is?

*>, it's a fixed circuit.*

You never defined the circuit, except perhaps in your own mind. I was

responding to your statement about E=IR.

*>> >Get it? I suppose not.*

*>>*

*>>Apparently not.*

*> You've only proved that you're just as stupid as David.*

And you have proven yourself as a troll.

Bye

Vaughn

Posted by *krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz* on April 14, 2011, 11:36 pm

wrote:

*>>>>*

*>>>> E=IR, certainly *IS* Ohm's law. I and E are proportional. You can't *

*>>>> increase*

*>>>> I without increasing E.*

*>>>Wrong. You CAN increase I without increasing E. You have 3 variables in that*

*>>>formula, not just 2.*

*>>*

*>> Dumbass*

*>Names? Didn't your mother tell you how babyish that is?*

She taught me to tell the truth. I did.

*>>, it's a fixed circuit.*

*>You never defined the circuit, except perhaps in your own mind. I was *

*>responding to your statement about E=IR.*

You're illiterate, then. Not surprising either.

*>>> >Get it? I suppose not.*

*>>>*

*>>>Apparently not.*

*>>*

*>> You've only proved that you're just as stupid as David.*

*>And you have proven yourself as a troll.*

No, you insist on demonstrating just how stupid you really are, though.

Posted by *trader4@optonline.net* on April 14, 2011, 12:48 pm

On Apr 13, 9:07pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

*> wrote:*

*> >On 4/12/2011 9:06 PM k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz spake thus:*

*> >>> The current will only flow if there is a difference in voltage.*

*> >> Correct. Ohms Law.*

*> >That is *not* Ohm's Law. Where do you get that? Sheesh--you're trying to*

*> >lecture *me* on this stuff???*

I think he gets it directly from Ohms Law. V=IR.

Or, I = V/R

If V, the voltage is zero, then I, the current must be zero. Or, in

other words,

current will only flow if there is a difference in voltage.

*> E=IR, certainly *IS* Ohm's law. I and E are proportional. You can't increase*

*> I without increasing E. Get it? I suppose not.*

Posted by *David Nebenzahl* on April 15, 2011, 1:57 am

On 4/14/2011 5:48 AM trader4@optonline.net spake thus:

*> On Apr 13, 9:07 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" *

*> *

*>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:23:03 -0700, David Nebenzahl*

*>> *

*>>> On 4/12/2011 9:06 PM k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz spake thus:*

*>>> *

*>>>>> The current will only flow if there is a difference in*

*>>>>> voltage.*

*>>>> *

*>>>> Correct. Ohms Law.*

*>>> *

*>>> That is *not* Ohm's Law. Where do you get that? Sheesh--you're*

*>>> trying to lecture *me* on this stuff???*

*> *

*> I think he gets it directly from Ohms Law. V=IR.*

*> *

*> Or, I = V/R*

*> *

*> If V, the voltage is zero, then I, the current must be zero. Or, in *

*> other words, current will only flow if there is a difference in*

*> voltage.*

But that's not Ohm's Law (the statement "current will flow only if there

is a difference in voltage"). Actually, that is a *tautology* (look it

up). In other words, that's the very definition of current, which

requires a potential difference (voltage > 0) to flow. Ohm's law didn't

establish that, because it was already established by the time he came

along.

You've correctly stated Ohm's Law, but that's not what it says. Strictly

speaking, what Ohm determined was that the current flowing in a circuit

is proportional to the voltage and inversely proportional to the

resistance--but only for certain resistors. Specifically, his carefully

calibrated metal resistances, at a certain temperature. So "Ohm's

law"--what he determined experimentally and published--is only this:

I = E / R

and that only at fixed temperature. Turns out "Ohm's law" does *not*

hold for a lot of things that look like resistances in the real world

(for example, any humble tungsten filament fails to observe it).

But that's going waaaaay deeper into it than we need to here ...

--

The current state of literacy in our advanced civilization:

yo

wassup

nuttin

wan2 hang

k

where

here

k

l8tr

by

- from Usenet (what's *that*?)

Posted by *trader4@optonline.net* on April 15, 2011, 12:28 pm

*> On 4/14/2011 5:48 AM trad...@optonline.net spake thus:*

*> > On Apr 13, 9:07 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"*

*> >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:23:03 -0700, David Nebenzahl*

*> >>> On 4/12/2011 9:06 PM k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz spake thus:*

*> >>>>> The current will only flow if there is a difference in*

*> >>>>> voltage.*

*> >>>> Correct. Ohms Law.*

*> >>> That is *not* Ohm's Law. Where do you get that? Sheesh--you're*

*> >>> trying to lecture *me* on this stuff???*

*> > I think he gets it directly from Ohms Law. V=IR.*

*> > Or, I = V/R*

*> > If V, the voltage is zero, then I, the current must be zero. Or, in*

*> > other words, current will only flow if there is a difference in*

*> > voltage.*

*> But that's not Ohm's Law (the statement "current will flow only if there*

*> is a difference in voltage"). Actually, that is a *tautology* (look it*

*> up). In other words, that's the very definition of current, which*

*> requires a potential difference (voltage > 0) to flow. Ohm's law didn't*

*> establish that, because it was already established by the time he came*

*> along.*

I never said Ohm established it. Only that from Ohm's law for the

circuit

under discussion you can directly verify that with zero potential you

get

zero current.

*> You've correctly stated Ohm's Law, but that's not what it says. Strictly*

*> speaking, what Ohm determined was that the current flowing in a circuit*

*> is proportional to the voltage and inversely proportional to the*

*> resistance--but only for certain resistors. Specifically, his carefully*

*> calibrated metal resistances, at a certain temperature. So "Ohm's*

*> law"--what he determined experimentally and published--is only this:*

*> I = E / R*

And if E is 0, what does this say I will be? Zero. Yes, Ohm isn;t

the

first guy to discover that current only flows from a potential

difference.

But his law clearly reflects it and shows it to be true.

*> and that only at fixed temperature. Turns out "Ohm's law" does *not**

*> hold for a lot of things that look like resistances in the real world*

*> (for example, any humble tungsten filament fails to observe it).*

Total nonsense. Just because a filament changes resistance with

temperature

does not mean Ohm's Law doesn't apply. Ohms law applies at every

discrete

temperature/resistance point the filament has. If we followed your

logic

almost nothing would behave according to Ohm's Law. Even the

simplest resistor changes resistance slightly as current flows

through it and it's temperature rises slightly. That means the

resistance

has changed, not that Ohm's Law no longer applies.

*> But that's going waaaaay deeper into it than we need to here ...*

At least one step deeper than you should have gone.

>>>>>> E=IR, certainly *IS* Ohm's law. I and E are proportional. You can't>>> increase>>> I without increasing E.>>Wrong. You CAN increase I without increasing E. You have 3 variables in that>>formula, not just 2.> Dumbass