Date:         Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:01:32 -0600
Reply-To:     tom ring <taring@TARING.ORG>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         tom ring <taring@TARING.ORG>
Organization: Tippen Ringware
Subject:      Re: Fwd: RE: "Green" solar battery charger
In-Reply-To:  <E1AKmNg-0003iW-Pu@taring.org>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Hmm, despite the "failure" of ohms law, we were able to use it in my 500 level
(that would be graduate level to non engineers) radio frequency non-linear
transistor design course, we were still able to get answers better that 1
percent accurate.  Guess we were just lucky.

I'm done with this topic on the list.  Let's take it offline folks.

On 14 Nov 2003 at 17:22, Daniel L. Katz wrote:

> tom and david:
>
> i thought you guys were believers in ohm's "law". if 1 MV is applied
> across an ideal ohms law resistor with a value of, say, 500,000 ohm (100
> ohm), characteristic of a very dry (soaked with salt water) human being,
> the current would be 2 A (10,000 A), and the corresponding thermal power
> would be 2 MW (10 GW). note that the average hydroelectric output of the
> entire bonneville power administration is some 6 GW. of course, ohm's law
> fails in such unfortunate circumstances.
>
> my absolutely final word on ohm's law:
>
> given an ordinary resistor we can accurately predict current for any given
> applied voltage (using ohm's law); if we don't know the resistance before
> hand, we can measure the current for one particular voltage and we have
> completely solved the resistor problem (obviously, to some finite level of
> precision). now, however, suppose the cuurent is measured for a given
> applied voltage across a diode. as suggested, one could always use ohm's
> law to compute an effective resistance at these particular values of
> current and voltage.  that same effective resistance, however, cannot be
> used in ohm's "law" to accurately predict the current at another,
> arbitrary applied voltage. ohm's law is a valid in the appropriate regime,
> but fails otherwise.
>
> dlk
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:15:53 -0600, tom ring <taring@TARING.ORG> wrote:
>
> >You missed a 0, it's 100 KW!  Really woohoo!
> >
> >On 14 Nov 2003 at 15:31, David Beierl wrote:
> >
> >> At 05:56 AM 11/13/2003, Andrew Grebneff wrote:
> >> >battery... or an electrocution! (a 100mA current of 1,000,000V will
> >> >not even be felt).
> >>
> >> Woo-hoo -- wanna bet?  That's ten kilowatts...
> >>
> >> ;)
> >> d
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Beierl -- dbeierl@attglobal.net
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------
> >
> >``If I had all the money I've spent on cars ...
> >  I'd spend it all on cars'' -- Scott Fisher
>


------
Tom Ring K0TAR, ex-WA2PHW  EN34hx
85 Westphalia GL Albert
96 Jetta GL The Intimidator
taring@taring.org

"It is better to go into a turn slow, and come out fast, than to go into a turn fast
and come out dead." Stirling Moss