MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on May 12, 2012, 03:06:53 PM
The Wikipedia entries explain the difference between power and energy.  What is wrong with you?

You apparently don't understand how ridiculous you have made yourself look here.  I just don't know what to do.

The point of contention revolves around TK's entirely erroneous computation of wattage based on a small sample range of current flow during a small period of a duty cycle.  In order to SALVAGE attention from that error he has engaged his 'team' in a philosophical exercise related to power analysis.  I claim and will live and die by it - that power and energy are entirely synonymous terms as indicated in that WIKI extract.  This is based on the standard model requirement that NO amount of power can be made available to a system that is NOT first made available from a supply source.  In the same way that NO amount of energy can be made available to a system that is not first associated with the material from its source.  This conforms to Kirchhoff's requirements that the QUANTITY of POWER made available to a system also represents the AMOUNT or the QUANTITY that may not be exceeded.  In the same way that a given QUANTITY of ENERGY cannot be created but can only be TRANSFERRED - so it is that POWER cannot be created but can only be transferred.

POWER IS related to the rate of the transfer of that electric energy as is the measure of KINETIC energy or ANY FORM OF ENERGY is related to its rate of transfer.  This applies to all energy.  In whatever form.  And all energy and all power can ONLY be MEASURED in terms of their rate of transfer.  But ALWAYS with explicit or implicit reference to the material available for transfer in the first instance.  How else could one MEASURE IT?  BUT.  That amount of energy or that RATE OF TRANSFER is actually only a PART of the equation.  All energy and all power is only known by THAT measurement.  And that MEASUREMENT first requires a potential - or a quantity -  before one can determine any kind of quantity at all. And in the case of POWER - that QUANTITY is determined by 'watts' which are the FOUNDATIONAL UNITS of that POWER MEASUREMENT.  BUT NOTA BENE - to determine WATTS it is first required to compute the product of the quantity of power available at the SUPPLY VOLTAGE with the rate of current flow.  This is the UNIT which relates to the quantity that CAN be transferred - and then to rate at which it IS transferred.  But without reference to the quantity available - then it would be impossible to determine that rate and thereby impossible to determine anythijng at all about that actual POWER.

There is NO PART of any amount of POWER that is TRANSFERRED that can be DIVORCED from the AMOUNT of POWER MADE AVAILABLE.  The POWER measured in the transfer of energy from a battery supply source to a circuit is RELATED TO the rate at which that power was transferred - the amount of power that was dissipated and to the amount of power that was and is available at the supply.  You cannot complete that equation without consideration of all parts of that equation.  It is not enough to determine that the petrol in my tank can give me 520 kilometers to the gallon unless I know the QUANTITY of the petrol that the tank can hold.  IF the wiki definition of POWER is the measure of the rate of transfer - and if that definition EXCLUDES the amount transferred and IGNORES the potential available in the quantity at its supply - then that WIKI definition is WRONG.  But it is NOT wrong.  It specifically states '...the more power OR EQUIVALENTLY the more electrical ENERGY is used per unit time'.  Those are QUANTITIES and they're an inviolate requirement to the COMPUTATION OF POWER.  And POWER IS therefore a QUANTITY - which is - then - most assuredly - measured in terms of its rate of transfer.  Therefore Power is NOT exclusively the rate of transfer.  It specifically INCLUDES the quantity of power available from that source.  And it is always given as a QUANTITY being the sum of the Joules that are transferred over time.

And TK - that 'W' in that equation that I referenced most certainly DOES NOT relate to WORK.  It represents WATTS.  And Poynty - I don't give a tuppeny damn if Wiki or you or anyone at all tries to claim that the W in that equation is WORK.  It is NOT work.  It is WATTS.  WORK is represented as JOULES and it is a represented as a product over time.  Watts relate to the UNIT of work and it is determined OVER time.  We've already established that.

Rosie Posie

Guys some much needed editing.  My computer stopped co-operating with me.  I think it needed a rest.     

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 04:27:48 PM
And TK - that 'W' in that equation that I referenced most certainly DOES NOT relate to WORK.  It represents WATTS.

Rosie Posie

Rosemary,
What does Wiki actually say? See the highlighted text.

Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Glendower:
Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command
The devil

Hotspur:
And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devilâ€"
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.

--Wm. Shakespeare

@.99:
I think her computer must not be able to display images or something. Videos or spreadsheets either.

@Ainslie: try to use your conception of power and energy to explain my TinselKoil results. Just THINK about it for a moment, stop reacting.

How do you explain that I am drawing 3 or 4 amps at 120  VAC from the wall supply, yet I am making 30,000 VAC minimum at peak currents exceeding 10 amps, so hot it vaporizes COPPER and literally burns the very air gases in the plasma?

Rosemary,


Wikipedia makes reference to power and energy being synonymous by way of demonstrating that it is a common layman's fallacy to do so; that the term is used interchangeably in a way that is unacceptable when discussing these different concepts in a technical discussion.


The entry goes on to make that very point in the very next paragraph.


So I ask again, on that specific point, what level of non-anonymous qualification will you accept that they are not synonymous in the context of this current discussion?