another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here your terms, as ever are vague and confusing.  But let me see what I can make of them.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).[/qupte]Convention most certainly does NOT STATE THAT VOLTAGE 'DROPS' ACROSS A LOAD in the direction of current.

What NONSENSE. What do you even mean?  By drop?  By any of it?  Convention holds that a the applied current through a load generates a voltage across that load.  And that voltage is in antiphase to the applied voltage.  Since current flows relative to its applied voltage then the voltage established across that load must therefore be in antiphase to the applied voltage.  NOTHING TO DO WITH 'DROPPING' anything at all.  On the contrary.  It's value is RELATIVE TO ZERO - and relative to the flow of current.

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor.

Current and voltage where?  From the supply?  From the circuit you've drawn?  If you're referring ONLY to your circuit then the CURRENT IS NOT ONLY IN PHASE WITH THE SUPPLY IT'S IN LOCK STEP.  AND ITS PHASE RELATIONSHIP TO THE VOLTAGE INDUCED ACROSS THE RESISTOR IS IRRELEVANT.  The current from the battery will ALWAYS be greater than zero.  IT IS A FACT THAT the voltage established across that resistor is in ANTIPHASE TO THE FLOW OF CURRENT.  But that voltage across the resistor DOES NOT GENERATE CURRENT - NOT in that circuit.  Therefore - while the measured voltage across that resistor is NEGATIVE until it generates a current flow its POWER IS ZERO.  IF ANYTHING - what we ACTUALLY HAVE IS a POSITIVE current flow and a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE ACROSS THAT LOAD.  That's not SPECULATIVE.  That's FACT.  And that diametrically OPPOSES the conclusion in that adventurous little equation of yours.

P_RLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)

Which makes this little sum the single most extraordinary piece of illogical deduction that has ever been visited on science.  The POWER that is dissipated at the load is the product of the APPLIED VOLTAGE FROM THE SUPPLY which, in your circuit is your battery - and the rate of current flow through that load.  That's it.  The fact that there's an opposite voltage induced across the load resistor - is irrelevant to the power dissipated by that resistor.  That voltage CAN DO NOTHING - UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CIRCUIT IS OPENED.  You've shown us a standard circuit supplied by a battery.  NO SWITCHES.  When I proposed a switch you patiently advised that you WERE ONLY LOOKING AT THAT CIRCUIT.  Therefore?  There is no power whatsoever in the voltage that is induced across that load.  BECAUSE THERE IS NO CURRENT FLOW INDUCED BY THAT VOLTAGE.  IT IS only potential difference.  IT IS NOT POWER UNTIL THERE'S A FLOW OF CURRENT. P=VI 


R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hopefully we're nearing the end of your arguments.

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:

Franky this is just utter nonsense.  You INSISTED THAT WE ONLY REFERRED TO THAT CIRCUIT OF YOURS.  In that circuit THEREFORE, if the current flow from the battery was not in phase with the voltage from the battery then you have a unique and HISTORICAL event that has absolutely no bearing on known physics.  Which makes the balance of this post UTTERLY ABSURD and I'm only copying it here that it can stand for the record.

P_VBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)

So the answers to the question are:

a) Battery Power = -250W
b) R_LOAD Power = 250W

Understood? Agreed?

And I most certainly NEITHER UNDERSTAND THIS NOR AGREE.  You'd need to UPEND known physics to try and carry this rubbish.  I just hope to God that there are readers here who are aware of it.  But what I DO see is the dearth of understanding related to power computation. 

God help us all.  I wish I could get some glimpse into your motives Poynty Point.  Either you KNOW that the readers here are fools and able to believe this claptrap - or you HOPE they are.  Or - which is even more alarming - you actually believe all this.  I give up.  I really do.  It's one thing to plough through your earlier nonsense.  This is elevating it to the outer limits of reason and entirely out of reach of the standard model.

Regards,
Rosemary[/quote]

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Reference my previous post.  This is explained. It most certainly is dissipating energy.

a) Given that the battery voltage is 50 V and the resistor 10 - then amperage = 50/10 = 5 amps.  Therefore 50 volts x 5 amps = 250 Watts.
b) The dissipated energy at the load = i^2r.  Therefore the amount of energy dissipated at the load is 5 x 5 x 10 = 250 Watts.
c) or the dissipated energy can be calculated as V^2/r.  Therefore 50 x 50 / 10 = 250 Watts.

Where does polarity come into this? 

Rosemary 

added emphasis - and included ^'2' - which was a small oversight
And added another option because I'm getting bored waiting for a reply

HERE IS THE ACTUAL WATTAGE AS PER THE STANDARD MODEL.

[poynt99]

My my, you sure got yourself worked up into a tizzy there Rosemary. Kinda reminds me of the hissy-fits my sister used to have when she was a girl. 

You must be right about me and about what I've posted, after all, what chance of being correct would a person who has 27 years experience in electronics have against someone with no formal training at all?

What was I thinking? 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You must be right about me and about what I've posted, after all, what chance of being correct would a person who has 27 years experience in electronics have against someone with no formal training at all?

What was I thinking? 

My dear Poynty Point,
Perhaps you could advise me how my lack of training in electronics has anything, whatsoever, to do with elementary power analysis and fundamental physics.  And I really need to stress this.  I am MORE THAN HAPPY to concede to my IGNORANCE related to circuitry - circuit components - and the myriad complexities that are associated with electronic engineering.  What you guys do is mind boggling.  But DO NOT THEN ASSUME that you can UPEND known protocols in the analysis of SIMPLE POWER COMPUTATION.  If that hasn't been working as well as it has for the last century or so - then we would all be sorely BEREFT of those miracles that our electronic engineers have managed.  But PLEASE.  Do not presume that you can CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS. 

The joke of all this is that  I am widely accused of the most serious departures from the standard model.  And this has been the bases of those 'attacks' that have been personally abusive, unwarranted, inappropriate and even criminal - relying, as they do, on traducement and slander.  For some reason, best understood by yourself and your 'friends', there is this overwhelming need to INSIST that I am stupid.  Well.  I may not be that bright.  Actually I have no interest whatsoever, in disabusing you of my lack of intelligence or otherwise.  In fact.  I am PROUD to say that I believe my intellect is DECIDEDLY BUT BARELY AVERAGE.  Then I put it to you - that IT DOES NOT NEED AN ADVANCED INTELLIGENCE to wrap one's mind around the basics of physics.  And I rather suspect that those abstractions that you appear to indulge - are probably the result of a corruption resulting from too much unnecessary complexity - applied to SIMPLE CONCEPTS.  And this, I see as a real problem.  You and your friends are trying to appear to be 'clever'.  It's NOT RELEVANT.  Your level of intelligence, my own level of intelligence?  They're irrelevant.  The only thing that IS RELEVANT is SCIENCE.  And for some reason, best understood by yourselves, you have all tried to promote yourselves by indulging in these absurd abstractions - with the use of terms and arguments that are THAT OBSCURE that they're now OUT OF REACH.  It would be as well to get back to basics. 

Anyway. I need to wrap this up.  Or I'll just be boring you all with yet another rant.
Regards,
Rosemary