# what is the ohms law ?

• posted
May i know the difference between V=R I and V = I R. Which equations
is correct for ohms law.
• posted
On 3/5/06 6:59 AM, in article snipped-for-privacy@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com, "raghu" wrote:
Because of commutativity (look that up), the two equations are equivalent. Before getting electrically involved with Ohm's law it would be to your benefit to understand the mathematics involved. In particular, the distributive and commutative laws of multiplication.
If you really want to learn something, understand why these mathematical laws apply to complex numbers. After that, look into situations which which commutativity is not true.
Bill -- Ferme le Bush
• posted
when talking about voltage drop in a conductor, if you want to be understood by the majority you will refer to I*R as the IR drop.
• posted
isn't you being naughty?
• posted
E = I times R is the original Ohm's law.
• posted
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:43:43 GMT, "Pop" Gave us:
Wrong!
TOFU retard! Learn to refrain from top posting in Usenet, IDIOT!

Ohm's Law is:
The amount of current flowing in a circuit made up of pure resistances is directly proportional to the electromotive forces impressed on the circuit and inversely proportional to the total resistance of the circuit.
THAT is the "original Ohm's Law!
• posted
----------------------------
So? E=IR is equivalent to I=E/R or R=E/I Same thing written different ways.
Ohm just stated a linear (constant R) relationship between E and I Why complicate it with differences that don't exist?
• posted
im too old for naughty.
• posted
I think you need to get away from behind your computer and mix with some real people again. your Interpersonal skills are on a sharp decline.
Tom
• posted
Both are correct for ohms law. (assuming V = voltage, I = current, and R = resistance)
And unless "R" has direction, both will give the same answer.
If R has direction, then the magnitude will be the same, but the direction of the voltage will reverse as R reverses.
(resistance rarely has direction)
• posted
IR=RI , Therefore, V=IR or V=RI, or V=IR=RI Shall we end with this conclusion?
hob wrote:
• posted
your syllogism has a faulty assumption of IR = RI. Therefore your conclusion is in error.
I x R = - R x I
and Ir = rI.
Therefore, V=IR = -RI and V = Ir = rI
You certainly can end with that conclusion.

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.