"Ratch" wrote in message
news:bc2Sa.94711$N7.12100@sccrnsc03...
I'm piqued. I'd like to know why you think E=I*R is not "Ohm's Law".
My apologies, try this. I can also post a couple of snippets from two
good
physics books which back up the link. Ratch

http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online...ctric/resistnc
/Resistance.htm
http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node50.html

Try this :
http://voltaicpower.com/Biographies/OhmBio.htm

Pay particular attention to the part referring to George Ohm determining
that the current that flows through a wire is proportional to its cross
sectional area and inversely proportional to its length provided temperature
remains constant. This is refereed to as Ohm's Law.

In your reference you have :
His rule is "that the ratio of potential difference to the current flowing
through a conductor is constant, providing all other influences such as
temperature are kept constant."

While basically your reference is almost correct, it is not fully correct.
A more appropriate reference would have been : The potential difference of
the current flowing through the conductor is proportional to its cross
sectional area and inversely proportional to its length provided temperature
remains constant. However, this would negate the relative nonsense that
followed in your link. While you can snippet links to other references,
sit back and think about how the conductor's cross sectional area relates to
the length of the conductor verses the potential difference to allow energy
(electrons) to flow through the conductor with room temperature remaining
constant.
Once you invision it, you will have grasped Ohm's Law.

In your reference you have :
This particular formula, often written as V = IR is extremely useful. It
is often known (incorrectly) as "Ohm's Law".

Why ?