A supplied resistor model is mistaken for a safe body current
A classroom exercise supplies an ideal 120-ohm resistor connected across a stipulated 24-volt source and asks only for current and power in that model. A learner calculates 0.2 ampere and 4.8 watts, then claims that the result proves a wet person can touch a real 24-volt installation safely. The exercise contains no human-body model, fault analysis, environmental assessment or actual safe-work authorization. A second learner confuses watts with watt-hours when considering a stated duration. The teacher asks the group to preserve what the arithmetic actually establishes, correct the unit distinction and explain why a simple component model cannot decide the real physiological or occupational risk of electrical contact.
1. Which conclusion is supported and which response follows?
Read the worked answer
The supplied resistor draws 0.2 A and dissipates 4.8 W; duration is needed for energy. These numbers do not model a person or authorize real contact.
2. What remains outside this written exercise?
Read the worked answer
Actual practical competence, medical judgment and electrical authorization have not been demonstrated. Use the current applicable French framework and employer’s qualified arrangements before any real work.