Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Feeding solar power back into municipal grid: Issues and finger-pointing - Page 13

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by vaughn on April 14, 2011, 12:26 pm
 


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


You never defined the circuit, except perhaps in your own mind.  I was
responding to your statement about E=IR.

And you have proven yourself as a troll.

Bye
Vaughn



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


She taught me to tell the truth.  I did.


You're illiterate, then.  Not surprising either.


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"

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.






Posted by David Nebenzahl on April 15, 2011, 1:57 am
 On 4/14/2011 5:48 AM trader4@optonline.net spake thus:


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
 
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.




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.




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.




At least one step deeper than you should have gone.





This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread