Talk:Ohm's law

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Current Flows from Negative to Positive[edit source]

It's a matter of physics, not convenience. The diagram is misleading.208.114.179.58 (discuss) 00:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit source]

Hello. I've been correcting some of the spelling on this entry (hope you dont mind) and the sentence "Though individual parts may or may not be analysed by Ohm's law, their relationship to the circuit can be." doesnt make much sense. Is it just me?

Would something like "Though Ohm's law is not applicable to all circuit parts, .." be better?

Also, is this english english or american english? Ive used the english english version of analysed.

m.

Clarification[edit source]

I think it would be good to point out that Ohms law as stated in the article is just a special case of Ohm's Law and by no means it the complete Ohmd law.

There is a different form, true, but it would help if you would comment on what form (in one form, it also includes the definition of power... in another -the more general case- its use is sometimes hard to figure out). Simply put, I hope that the more general case will appear on this site somewhere, but to use it as an introduction to Ohm's Law would be a little over-the-top. Mo Anabre 04:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Topic to be merged[edit source]

I am currently Revamping EE 102: Electric Circuit Analysis which has the same name & to an extent content with this course. I will be merging this course soon after i have finished the re-vamp. Help wellcome - Thuvack 10:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I as about to merge Ohm's Law: Resistance and Ohm's Law (exactly the text), but I will wait a little bit more. Which title is more correct? There is another page: 'Ohm's Law, but I am not sure that the first ' is correct. --Gbaor 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think 'Ohm's Law is more correct, the two pages have exactly identical text If i looked at them correctly. A merger is compulsory. Thuvack 15:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"I think 'Ohm's Law is more correct..." You mean the definition or the page name? The thick (') at the beginning of the page title is grammatically correct? The other two pages are nearly identical, there are differences in categories and there is a non functional internal link in Ohm's Law: Resistance ("...in partnership with Kirchhoff's voltage and current laws.") fixed in the other page. If you will have some time, please do the merge all 3 pages to one with the best title. I am not physician, if you are, then you are more suitable for the job :). --Gbaor 11:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I will do the merger as soon as I get time, things have been hectcly busy in real life :-). I think this page could find a good home under this course. Thuvack 06:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what are you talking about :) Especially when lot of work comes in unexpectedly ;) --Gbaor 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have included this page as pre-requisite in Electric Circuit Analysis home page. I dont feel like putting on some fancy formatting yet. I am sure this page will soon find a descent home some where so I am happy to leave it standing for now. I have also requested for the double to be Deleted. Thuvack 10:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed the deletion request to a redirect in order not to break existing internal links. Or is the "Ohm's Law: Resistance" title incorrect? What about 'Ohm's Law? This page could be deleted IMO, but I am not an expert in this field, as I said before... --Gbaor 04:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You are spot on, I totaly missed that one. it should definetly go. I will tag it for deletion after making sure it has nothing extra. Thuvack 05:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)