Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - mrsean and MileHigh are arguing that Power is NOT synonymous with energy.  This is diametrically contradicted by the standard model and by the definition of power in WIKI.  It is meaningless to continue this conversation when their denial is based on nothing more than denial.  Denial has NEVER constituted an argument.  They are both entirely wrong.  Power is ENERGY.  And it is represented as a QUANTITY.  And it is always wholly and completely CONSERVED.

For those of you who may well be confused about this - may I propose that you look up wiki's definition.  I'm simply too tired of this entire argument to bother with it further.

And mrsean.  I absolutely have NOT said that a watt is calculated over a second.  I have said that a watt is a unit that is applied in the computation of Joules.  Which Joules are determined as the product of those WATTS applied 'per second' which is OVER TIME.  You are now, together with MileHigh and TK making assumption as to my claims.  I have attempted to set you right.  Kindly take heed.  Unless, of course, you too are here to enjoy the 'tar Rosemary Ainslie' campaign.

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Now, since Ainslie cannot accept that an input AVERAGE POWER LEVEL of, say, one kW can result in output PEAK POWER LEVELS in the hundreds or even thousands of kW range.... perhaps she would like to explain my TinselKoil, which plugs into an American wall outlet of 120 VAC, has a 10 amp input fuse on it, and puts OUT over 30,000 VAC p-p at peak currents of 10 amps or more.

Here's an early LOW POWER trial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQAq0As9GQI

And one with an improved resonator using the same circuitry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFDjZ_Va9xg

[TinselKoala]

Guys - mrsean and MileHigh are arguing that Power is NOT synonymous with energy.  This is diametrically contradicted by the standard model and by the definition of power in WIKI.  It is meaningless to continue this conversation when their denial is based on nothing more than denial.  Denial has NEVER constituted an argument.  They are both entirely wrong.  Power is ENERGY.  And it is represented as a QUANTITY.  And it is always wholly and completely CONSERVED.

For those of you who may well be confused about this - may I propose that you look up wiki's definition.  I'm simply too tired of this entire argument to bother with it further.

And mrsean.  I absolutely have NOT said that a watt is calculated over a second.  I have said that a watt is a unit that is applied in the computation of Joules.  Which Joules are determined as the product of those WATTS applied 'per second' which is OVER TIME.  You are now, together with MileHigh and TK making assumption as to my claims.  I have attempted to set you right.  Kindly take heed.  Unless, of course, you too are here to enjoy the 'tar Rosemary Ainslie' campaign.

Regards,
Rosemary

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow?

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Guys, this is NOT spamming.  I am simply addressing these points to the wider audience as it seems that our vigilantes are not prepared to answer these points.  Clearly they CANNOT.  Therefore this argument carries and is ENTIRELY VALID.  It also goes to the heart of all that pretentious nonsense by TK with his rather amusing efforts related to power analysis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Spoke too soon.
I've been trying to think of an example where "Watts per second" would be a legitimate usage, both in everyday language and technical sense.
Imagine you have a heating element in a water-filled bucket, connected to variable power supply.

You start heating the water, with the dial set to 10 Watts. That's 10 Joules per second being converted from electrical energy into raising the temperature of the water.  Every second, you bump the dial up by another 1 Watt division. So that's 10 Watts during second #1, 11 Watts during second 2, 12 Watts during second 3. And so on, and so on, until you hit the maximum setting on your dial.

During the time when you were able to turn the dial, you could legitimately say that the rate of power increase was 1 Watt per second.  This is entirely different to a situation where a static value is applied. In that case, you are talking about a fixed quantity of energy in Joules being delivered in a fixed time period, usually a second. It is entirely incorrect to talk about 1 Watt per second. The energy transferred to the water is 1 Watt-Second. That is (1J / s) * 1 s = 1 J

Rosemary confuses these terms. It may be that she doesn't mean what she writes and expresses it poorly, but the way she applies these terms are not standard usage in either common parlance or in any technical sense.

Since you're now telling me what I think - then let me put in my tuppence worth.  If you are varying the rate at which the energy is applied to that bucket of water then CORRECTLY you would take the first 10 watts and then - over the next 10 seconds of the test under review, you would increase that wattage by 1 watt per second.  So that you would have 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 +18 +19 + 20 giving at total of 165 watts over a 10 second time period giving a total of 16.5 watts per second.  And then if you extended that time period and simply and continually applied 20 watts per second - then THEREAFTER - you could talk about a continual applied wattage.  At no stage during that 10 second period where you are adjusting that applied wattage can state that there is 10 watts of energy applied to that circuit.

To continue with this analogy.  IF you applied this 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds - and then stalled the application for a further 90 seconds - and then reapplied that EXACT same quantity of energy - and so on - repeatedly.  And you did this at each 100 second intervals, then the actual wattage would need be factored over that ENTIRE time period - being every 100 seconds.  Because during the 90 seconds when no energy is being applied then the water would NOT be heating at the rate of 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds.  If anything and without the required cladding to that bucket of water - IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE COOLING during 90 percent of that cycle.  Therefore CORRECTLY the ACTUAL wattage APPLIED to that element - in that bucket of water - would need to be factored as 16.5 watts per second for every 10 seconds.  And then zero watts for the next 90 seconds.  Which gives 16.5 watts every 100 seconds.  Which in turn makes the wattage delivered 0.165 watts per second and NOT 16.5 watts per second.  To EVER try and represent the wattage as 16.5 watts is ENTIRELY incorrect.

Watts is first and foremost a UNIT OF POWER OR ENERGY.  IF the term watt is defined as volts x amps - it is because that is correct.  But if the voltage varies or the applied current flow varies over time, that there is NO steadily applied voltage and amperage -  then that variation over time needs must be factored in.  And therefore the analysis of wattage explicitly and implicitly requires TIME.  Any attempt to determine wattage without factoring in TIME is also, by definition NOT therefore 'WATTAGE'.  IT IS THAT SIMPLE FOLKS. Watts and the concept of watts is defined as THE RATE at which energy is delivered or dissipated.  And if you apply a switched cycle - then you most certainly have a voltage that is varying over time.  And time is most certainly therefore required in the analysis of wattage. Instantaneous wattage analysis is ONLY appropriate to steady voltage and amperage values. 

If you are saying that I'm CONFUSED about this mrsean, then I BEG TO DIFFER.

Regards,
Rosemary
added

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And with reference to that post - you will recall how TK applied his computation of 20 watts to the power delivered during the 'on' time of that switched duty cycle.  Self-evidently his knowledge related to the computation of power is sadly wanting.

Regards again
Rosemary