Ohm's Law vs. Gauss' Law
Ohm's law states that, in an electrical circuit, the current passing through a conductor between two points is proportional to the potential difference (i.e. voltage drop or voltage) across the two
points, and inversely proportional to the resistance between them. In mathematical terms, this is written as: V=IR
Gauss Law states that the total of the electric flux out of a closed surface is equal to the charge enclosed divided by the permittivity. F=Q/Eo (pretend I used the greek letters (except for 'Q,' 'Q' can stay)).
Good luck with this one readers. Gauss has his "Gauss Canon," but an understanding of Ohm's law is crucial for developing rail guns, as well as Tasers. And there are documented cases of Tasers killing people, but I am unaware of any documented cases of gauss guns killing people.
Note: For your calculations, the human body can be modeled as a sphere with a density of about 0.98 g/ml, and an impedance of 1M Ohm for the skin, but only 100 Ohms if the probes are in contact with body fluids. (http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html)
12 comments:
I am actually surprised, I thought I was going to vote for Ohm. He already has one confirmed kill, howbeit, a Darwin. I suppose I may just be rooting for the underdog, but in the cage, I think Gauss will win. Unless it was a Faraday cage... then it may end up a draw.
Well I can't say that Ohm didn't put up a helluva fight but Gauss' law is just so much cooler to talk about. Any run-of-the-mill electrician ca sit around and tell you about "Ohm" this and "Ohm" that but c'mon-everyone knows only the coolest people talk about Gauss.
In all actuality I based my vote upon who had more vowels in their name.
I'm gonna have to go with Ohm on this one. In this case it is a matter of complete, unassuming mastery versus the prodigy. As a fight this is what you see:
The cage closes with the fighters on opposite sides. Gauss rushes forward, arms and legs flying in an incomprehensible flurry - too fast to follow with the eye. Each attack lands heavily - on the impenetrable defense of Ohm. Nothing gets past to actually do damage. The onslaught continues until Ohm - picking up on some cue too subtle for anyone else to detect - lashes out with one, single, perfect strike. Gauss's limp, broken body now slides off the cage wall and slumps into a pile 8 feet away.
Ohm wins.
Well, beanholio, I must admit I find your arguments for Gauss convincing. And even basing your vote on the number of vowels, while most likely a flawed approach, does at least have the benefit of reproducibility .
Kit, your use of anthropomorphism is clearly excessive. Physical laws do not have arms, and if they did, I seriously doubt they would be "flying in an incomprehensible flurry." Also, Gauss (in your scenario) would not be left unscathed. I imagine it would play out like the end of Rocky V. And third, "Gauss's limp, broken body" would not slide down the side of the cage. The inside of the cage is spiked, he would be stuck there; but this may be nitpicking a bit.
I'm going to stick with my earlier voting strategy (boring, but effective - see my comment in Asimov vs. Heisenberg) and go with the one I've heard of the most.
I believe that popular usage has something to do with usability. Gauss' law it still too esoteric to really be useful, but Ohm's law is practical. I mean, it even has a term that electricians have to use. What could be more pedantic than daily use by electricians?
Hence, Gauss cannons only really have practical use in role playing games based on bipedal robotic warfare, and tazers make for crime fighting and funny YouTube videos.
Easy win for Ohm.
Well tommyp, I must say I find it odd that someone using such big and cromulent words like esoteric, pedantic, and electricians would base his choice on who has the better YouTube videos.
You should set your sites higher. Perhaps watching old Simpsons episodes would help embiggen your mind.
At least I went with a metric having something to do with the topic of the law, instead of some numerical value based on a formulaic analysis of family heritage.
Ahem (beanholio) ahem.
As stated in my previous posting, I did consider the attributed "Coolness" of each law involved in the match. The "Coolness" rating, which is measured in RAD's (Ridiculously Awesome Dudes), was taken from the conversations of people who converse about such things. "Only the coolest people talk about Gauss." This is a fact. Well, it's actually a pronoun but you catch my drift. The whole "vote based on vowels" thing was a secondary aspect of my deliberations because, c'mon, who doesn't like vowels? Hitler, that's who.
Aw, man. I got Godwin-inated. And 3rd-law-ed.
Just because beanholio has the most vowels in his name of any other commenter on the board.
tommyp, I think you may be over reacting. We don't know if beanholio was referring to the Hitler or some other Hitler.
Until such time as beanholio clarifies his comment I would appreciate it if you would limit your alleged victimization to one law at a time. For example, please choose either Godwin's or third's law, but not both.
I will ascribe my victimization to Godwin's Law, despite your assertion that the reference to a Hitler may not, in fact, refer to THE Hitler.
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) does not require a particular topical reference, but only a reference. There is no requirement that THE Hitler or Nazis be discussed, but that some mention be made.
Since Godwin's Law is based on a probability, the chances of it being invoked in these short commentaries are very slim. I just got caught by beanholio in the smallest of probabilities.
It is the fact that the probability was so small that I found most offensive, over references to a Hitler, or THE Hitler. Godwin himself would have been shocked, I'm certain.
It does seem that the probability of Godwin's law being invoked in this particular forum of discussion would be small enough to almost guarantee it's rarity. However, if one takes into consideration the number of forums or groups that the poster has visited that day, the expected results change dramatically. The probability of a single poster who has been visiting a number of different forums or groups in a particular day increases his chances of making a Godwin related comment, even if that comment happens to fall into a smaller, less frequented forum or group. Don't feel too bad about the numbers, Tommyp.
Post a Comment