Re: R = V/I with real lightbulbs

[Doug Craigen <dcc@ESCAPE.CA>]

Leigh Palmer wrote:
> Parse it again...

After reading it I gave my head shake and read it again.  I concluded
that what it meant to say was:
".... Just because a material doesn't follow Ohm's law does not mean
that we still cannot define resistance as V_r/I."
            ^^^

In other words, we can choose to define R=V/I whether or not a material
obeys Ohm's law.  Its only a matter of what we choose.


> > Makes sense to me.
> >
> > Robert A Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > .... Just because a material doesn't follow Ohm's law does not
> > > mean we still can define resistance as V_r/I. The two expressions
> > > (1 and 2) are independent.  We can debate the utility of the
> > > definition in such a case, but I'd argue that it is nice if only to
> > > be able to say that the resistance of such a material is not constant
> > > given the operating conditions.
> > >
> > > I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.

--

()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()

Doug Craigen
          Latest Project - the Physics E-source
          http://www.dctech.com/physics/