"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Hi Ratch,

It is not as simple as all that. E = Ri has been called "Ohm's" law for
as far back as my reference library goes, which is 1907. I cannot
verify, but I would presume that the origin of the the alleged misuse
goes even further back.

The publication that gets it wrong first should not be the one to
follow.


In any case, this relation has been called Ohm's law for so long, that
regardless of its origin, it *is* Ohm's law. To try and change the
common usage at this late date would just needlessly confuse the issue.

Calling R=V/I the resistance formula does not seem confusing. What are
you going to call the resistive linearity property of a material as
explained in
http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online...Resistance.htm
if you insist on hijacking its name for something else?

By the way, I can quote a couple of snippets from two good physics books
that back up what the above site contends.


As a possible explanation for the term Ohm's law, consider that the unit
of resistivity has been called the ohm, as a tribute to Georges Ohm.

The equation that describes the relationship of resistance, voltage,
and current would naturally be called the law of resistance, or the
law of the ohm. It wouldn't take much to morph that to ohm's law.

-Chuck, WA3UQV



Good. You finally gave a valid reason for your gripe and did not
deny
my "factoid". I can understand and appreciate your concern and
irritation.
However, these threads are not just read and appreciated by you , I, and
a
select few. There are plenty of lurkers who don't mind learning
something,
and inserting ancillary facts into a discussion is not beyond what is
normally done here. Look at how some of the other threads have morphed.
Anyway, I don't think I was out of line in pointing out that Ohm's law
is
usually used as a misnomer. The choice to keep on doing so is up to the
individual. Ratch