Talk:Electrical resistance and conductance

message: The article says resistivity varies "greatly" with salt concentration.   Would anyone care to quantify that?  There is math there and I think worth while mentioning ionic v. covalent bonding and how salt and dirt change the bonding properties of water.  How about a source?  Anyway I was just looking for the actual formula and dissapointed not to find anything.
Wiredrabbit (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Resistivity and Salt Water

message: My father wants to know what resistance have 5ppm of silver ions in water. He needs the number and the formula. Does anyone know how to calculate this? Thanks. --Eleassar777 17:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I think that by definition, measurement of the resistance of a conductor would assume that the proper terminations had been made from the measuring device (ohm meter, mutimeter etc) to the resistance under measurement. 
I therefore think that the statement about c'ompletly covering the ends' is superfluous.
Does anyone agree or disagee??Light current 20:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measuring resistance 

message: I removed the convertor links (including four to the same friggin' site), per WP:NOT.  I left this one, as it actually has some information that may add to the article, describing the magic triangle.  However, I won't cry if someone delete that one too. —johndburger 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Now how does temperature effect resistance? No math, just explain how it works. Pls and thx.207.63.251.215 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature? 

message: The negative resistance section refers to the U-I graph.  Shouldn't this be V-I graph? (voltage vs current)? Billgordon1099 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right, it should be a V-I graph. But even this is not good enough: In semiconductors (for example diodes) one typically uses the term I-V characteristics. TomyDuby (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The symbol for voltage is U, whereas the unit is V as abbreviation for Volt. Quite a few people use V also as symbol, but this causes misinterpretations, as the unit has the same letter. --Gunnar (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-I Graph? 

message: According to the NIST Guide to SI Units:
:6.1.2 Capitalization
:Unit symbols are printed in lower-case letters except that:
:(a) 	the symbol or the first letter of the symbol is an upper-case letter when the name of the unit is derived from the name of a person...
Since the unit for resistance (the Ohm) is taken from Georg Ohm, shouldn't the unit be capitalized in all Wikipedia articles?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarroll (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: I request that this page be removed from Wikipedia, or at least, merged into Ohm's Law or something of that nature. It hasn't got a single source and there are several other articles discussing the same facts about electrical resistance. I am more than happy to discuss this issue... I will reply to your thoughts more promptly if you leave your post on my talk page and this section. Destroyer000 (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to consider: Ohm's Law does not always apply.  For example, a device like a silicon diode has electrical resistance, but the relationship between voltage and current is not linear.  Both articles should remain.  CosineKitty (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: I am restoring this article to American spelling based on WP:ENGVAR.  This topic is not tied to a particular country.  Also, I went back through the entire edit history and the earliest conflict between British/American spelling was this one from 22 July 2005.  That predates the cited revision 41307060, which was made on 26 February 2006.  The revision that changed it back to American spelling was not explained, but it was correct based on WP:ENGVAR.  CosineKitty (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The earliest revision to feature the word metre/meter is this one by Icairns on 29 October 2004, in which the former spelling is used. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops!  You are right.  Sorry about that.  I will put it back the way you had it.  (Strike-out added above by myself.)  CosineKitty (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English variations 

message: This term is used twice, but never defined  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snirm (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out there is a Fermi level article.  I linked to it from the article text.  Maybe that will help some.  CosineKitty (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fermi Level 

message: I merged Electrical resistance and Electrical conductance into Electrical resistance and conductance, as well as Electrical resistivity and Electrical conductivity into Electrical resistivity and conductivity. While further merging is perhaps possible, I felt that this is not the current consensus, and that the resulting article could be overlong. Take it on from here.
There are probably more candidates for similar merging, such as Electrical impedance and admittance, or Electrical reactance and Susceptance. Later... No such user (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: Is it a good idea to include resistance matrix and conductance matrix in the article?--LaoChen (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is too specific subject. However, we do have an article Nodal admittance matrix, which is in a very poor shape, and should be more prominently linked. No such user (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Resistance matrix and conductance matrix

message: Somone pulled the template off at Electrical resistivity and conductivity. I very much doubt the treatment of the subject on Wikipedia will be subtle enough to need two articles covering the same material, and I suggest they be merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More merging

message: The beginning of the article calls the conductance the "the inverse quantity" of the resistance.
Later it is written that:
"For purely resistive circuits conductance is related to resistance R by G=1/R. For practical reasons, any connections to a real conductor will almost certainly mean the current density is not totally uniform. However, this formula still provides a good approximation for long thin conductors such as wires."
How is the conductance defined, if not by G=1/R? Why should this depend on whether the circuit is purely resistive (if you think about capacitors and inductances: Admittance is _defined_ as the inverse of the impedance)? How is a non-uniform current density related to this definition (R is by definition an average quantity. Can one even define a "local" resistivity?)? Is the relation G=1/R wrong for "thick" conductors?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.181.11 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This must be referring to the expresion of resistance in terms of resistivity and not the the formula R=1/G.  Probably got separated in the process of merging resistance and conductance articles. SpinningSpark 22:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conductance 

message: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Titles containing "and"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.80.19 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please tell us why you just posted this link? Do you object to the name of this article? Can you elaborate a bit? --Steve (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: Security and norm applications of a resistance in an electrical network: 
necessity of a such resistance between the electrical network and turned on devices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninterruptible_power_supply for computer technics and TV display (because voltage fluctuations possible) and a rectifier for a fridge. Protection against magnetization is needed, because a biological organism accumulates a static charge and PC accumulates it from an electrical network. If there is an UPS, it isn't felt by human. Eyes don't stick on the monitor, in other words, and a person reacts to its contents another way. Between a network and PC there are a lot of asynchronous events. UPS suppresses their excessive intensity (in relation to impact on a live organism). I.e. charges on a body and on the computer can strongly interact statically, if there is this resistance. I think that if electric conducting old, it can be felt more, than on new, but effect in fact the same. For the fridge - the rectifier is necessary (the rectifier will transform alternating current to constant, the UPS leaves alternating current as is, alternating current is used in networks most for transfering of the electric power to long distances. It is easier to transport it on long distances, transforming in transformers. Probably, because fridges main objective - to maintain temperature, but not online to interact with the user. Also, as far as I know, other kitchen devices (a teapot, a plate) don't recommend to include through UPS/rectifier/network filter. The standard UPS for them will have rather high electricity 
consumption a little therefore it is better to include them directly, but essentially and they can be included via the UPS/rectifier, simply in this case it is impractical. About network security see Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us. Seagateups (talk • contribs)  00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical aspects of the electrical resistance as a part of the electrical network 

message: SI  dimension of resistance is not given in the above section of the article or the right side of the article .Every physics related topics have SI dimension . The SI dimension of resistance is M^(1)L^(2)s^(-3)
:The ohm and Siemens (unit) articles both have "in SI base units" easy to find in the little box on the top-right. My feeling is that that's good enough; I don't think this article would benefit from having either or both of those "in SI base units" expressions in the article. I don't feel very strongly though. I'm curious: Would you mind telling me what you were in the middle of doing, or trying to do, when you started looking for the "in SI base units" expression here? --Steve (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  SI dimension needed fast 

message: Although V is often used as symbol for voltage, the official voltage symbol is U. V is the abbreviation for the unit volt, and this may cause misunderstandings. This can be shown easily with the so called USB equation:
 V = 5 V
Subtract 1 V on both sides:
 0 V = 4 V
Divide by V:
 0 = 4 (false)
This is the mathematical proof that using V as a unit abbreviation and as a symbol is problematic. Besides, V as potential energy is used not only for electric potentials, but for other potentials as well. --Gunnar (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  U as symbol for voltage 

message: Are the terms electrical resistance & electrical conductance more common or electric resistance & electric conductance? What are the fine details in the different meanings of electric and electrical in this context? --Gunnar (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  electric vs. electrical 

message: Value corrected in the illustration.
The resistance value shown is 75 Ohm, not 65. The value 65 does not correspond to any of the E series (from E3 to E192). The author probably confused blue with violet. 179.36.79.111 (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value corrected in the illustration 

message: In the 19th century, many symbols for electrical quantities were derived from the initial letter of a name. However, the letter G for conductance is an exception. In 1893, at the International Electrical Congress (IEC) held in the city of Chicago, a proposal on nomenclature and symbols was adopted. It was explicitly stated that the letter G was chosen as symbol for conductance because "it was about the only letter of the Latin alphabet that would not cause confusion". (The letter C was already in use for capacitance.)   Ceinturion (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the letter G was chosen as symbol for conductance