Re: Proof of Ohms law
- From: Joerg <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:55:00 GMT
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:06:11 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:35:21 GMT, "Jon Slaughter"Then how about this rationale: Ohm's law has been applied several gazillion times and it always worked. The number of events where it reportedly hasn't jibed were zilch, I assume. Now in the medical world that would be considered bullet-proof clinical evidence.
<Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"noone." <harrytuttle777@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:foao1t024g6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThat's sort of circular. Maxwell's equations lead to "Ohm's law" onlyHas anyone ever proven Ohms law from first principals?It can be proved from maxwell's equations(and chances are any book on electromagnitism will drive it). Also there are a few assumptions that are made.
I mean is there any way to take the laws of electrostatics, and from the derive E = IR?
Just Curious
-Thanks
Heres the general idea:
J = -ne*v is the current density for a material with charge moving on average with speed v.
but v = - (e/m)E*tau
So J = g*E where g is called the conductivity. i.e., it depends on the material only and not the applied field E.
Hence there is a relation between the voltage and current(density) and it says they are proportional(For the assumption on the average velocity).
If you apply it to a "rod" or "wire" then you get the macroscopic version which is ohms law.
The main idea here is that applying an electric field produced a motion of charge.. e.g., a velocity of charge and hence v is a function of E. But current is just the motion of these charges and hence ultimately I is a function of E. For many materials its simply proportionate because v is proportionate to E. Its not always the case and of course fails for sufficiently large fields and even depends on frequency(which isn't taken into consideration for this simple analysis). (although the concept can be applied in those cases too by using it as a linear approximation)
if you assume that carrier velocity is proportional to field strength
in certain materials. So you get Ohm's law by assuming Ohm's Law.
Maxwell didn't actually know what a charge carrier is. He died in
1879.
John
No conductor exactly follows Ohm's Law, so it isn't a law. Lots of
conductors are seriously nonlinear. It only works for materials where
it works, again circular.
There are solid conductors that have bulk negative resistance.
Well, that would be further proof 'cuz that's how some tax laws are :-)
--
SCNR, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
.
- References:
- Proof of Ohms law
- From: noone.
- Re: Proof of Ohms law
- From: Jon Slaughter
- Re: Proof of Ohms law
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Proof of Ohms law
- From: Joerg
- Re: Proof of Ohms law
- From: John Larkin
- Proof of Ohms law
- Prev by Date: Re: Binary to BCD converter IC?
- Next by Date: Hex inverter question
- Previous by thread: Re: Proof of Ohms law
- Next by thread: Re: Proof of Ohms law
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading