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.
Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org on April 14, 2011, 11:36 pm
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 email@example.com 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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:
- from Usenet (what's *that*?)
Posted by email@example.com on April 15, 2011, 12:28 pm
I never said Ohm established it. Only that from Ohm's law for the
under discussion you can directly verify that with zero potential you
And if E is 0, what does this say I will be? Zero. Yes, Ohm isn;t
first guy to discover that current only flows from a potential
But his law clearly reflects it and shows it to be true.
Total nonsense. Just because a filament changes resistance with
does not mean Ohm's Law doesn't apply. Ohms law applies at every
temperature/resistance point the filament has. If we followed your
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
has changed, not that Ohm's Law no longer applies.
At least one step deeper than you should have gone.