Making sense of watts, amps and volts -- a typo?

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:22:08 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:03:02 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


John Fields wrote:


On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:39:37 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:



On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields wrote:



Watts is watts...

But ain't always Volt-Amperes.


---
Of course, but since the OP couched his problem in terms of watts,
then VA is irrelevant.


When I see the term "VA", I know we're dealing with "REACTIVE" power.

PF (Power Factors) denotes the difference between "REACTIVE" and
"RESISTIVE (True power)" So, using the term VA is assumed power.

Having AC in the equation has nothing to do with it actually, I can
put AC into a purely non reactive load and it would simply power.. There
difference being is, you need to take measurements along the vectors to
come with a sum of power with in a time frame. Normally, with a clean
sinusoidal wave, we just assume RMS power.


---
There's no such thing as "RMS power."
---

Oh really..

---
Yes, really.
---

if you look at this formula.

P = I+V*Cos(x), you'll notice that "I" is used as "Amperes" here.
This is a AC power formula but you don't see any distinction here with
the use of "VA" as would be in case of "REACTIVE" power.


---
You don't know what you're talking about.
Well excuse me, I slipped with the keyboard. I hope you really don't
think I intended it to be that way ? If so, you are naive.

---
Now that you've been shown the trick it's easy to back-pedal and claim
you knew it all along but "slipped" on the keyboard.

I'd be naive if I believed it _was_ a slip.
---

In the first place, it's not I+V*cos(x), it's I*V*cos(x) and, in the
second place, the cos(x) term is used to determine the actual power
dissipated.

And if you want to start punching at the bit,

---
"Punching at the bit?"

What's that supposed to mean?
---

from what I can see with
your last assertion, It seems that It's you that has a problem with
understanding this.

---
How so?

I pointed out both of your errors and fixed one, so I certainly have a
better understanding than you do of what you pretend to know.
---

Maybe you should brush up on Kirchoffs laws a little
on this subject.

---
You just can't seem to open your mouth without sticking your foot in
there, can you?
---

nuff said, And btw, there is such things as RMS power. How much in
the dark you are.

---
Again, there is no such thing as RMS power.
---

You know, I tried to actually help you but it seems obvious you have a
one way street and much of which have people going the wrong way, except
for you of course.

---
As far as help is concerned, the most you could do would be to learn
to shut the fuck up.

failing that, at least try to learn how to construct a sentence
properly.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:23:25 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

It shows.

---
Instead of trying to be defensively derogatory, why don't you admit to
your error and address the issue of why volt-amperes can never be less
than watts?

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:55:58 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:29:20 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:


On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:23:25 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I'm largely self-taught.

It shows.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in being self-taught. Lots of highly
competent people learned their skills on their own, without teachers.


I agree, as long as you did a good job. I've worked with some excellent
self-taught engineers. JF and "Jamie" clearly don't qualify as more than
hacks.

Still on the meds I see?

Putting all your bull shit aside, I don't see you as much of a prize
winner, unless you want to count on how much of ass you really are. And
take my word for it, you are an ass. I doubt very much there are many
here that would say otherwise in your behalf.

As far as JF being a hack? I've seen more material come out of him
that would actually work with plenty of help behind it to support those
that are interested. You on the other hand would rather sit there in
your natural domain and make an ass out of yourself. And you do that
very well. Must be one of your strong points.

Maybe JF hasn't had technical schooling in this subject, as "I" and
many others here, have however, I can say that his offerings are much
more interesting to look at rather than your material, which is most of
nothing.

As for myself, You may perceive me as a hack, most likely because you
yourself just assume it is safer that way. You know, just follow the
sheep. Well, you are one of the sheep. I doubt if you could even
truly be able to identify who is and what constitutes a hack/hacker.

I may not get along with every one here on a social level and there
are a few that come in now and then with bad attitudes, some of those
actually know a lot more that you and I am beginning to understand their
reason for being that way.

I've been doing this for 45 years, enrolled in many update courses
over the years, sat in on many interviews for EE positions, why?
because they trust my opinion. Must be a reason for it, do you think ?


Yes, a fine piece of work you are. If you only knew what you really
look like here.

I've seen a lot of bull shit over the years and I've seen many that
would appear to the academic world as being incapable, inadequate, not
qualified, does not know any, but, they can blow circles around those
passing judgment like that and leave them in the smoke with nothing but
a grin on their face as they look back. I am sorry to say, you aren't
one of those, Your just one of the sheep.

As much as I may disagree with JF's way of conducting business in his
attempt to get back at people. He does not deserve what he gets for his
help to those that are seeking help. When you become part of the gang
bang with out knowing who and what you're doing it for, you are then
just a sheep and worthless. Maybe you should step out of the herd and
see things for the way they really are.

Jamie

---
Hear, Hear!!!

--
JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:11:46 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:10:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

Then your comments about what first-year engineering students would
have been taught, and people not making it that far, are absurd.

---
In your intense desire to insult, you seem to have glossed over the
fact that it was krw - not I - who claimed that the effects of
reactance were taught to first-year engineering students.

I merely followed his lead, assuming that he was familiar with
first-year engineering course work, so your insult was clearly
misdirected.
---

I don't recall learning about reactive power first-year; that was more
like year 2 or 3, when I took the electric machinery courses.

---
Well, now I'm in a quandary in that you and krw seem to have different
opinions on what is taught when, so I don't know who to believe.

It's just barely possible that we went to different universities.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:27:57 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:11:46 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:10:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

Then your comments about what first-year engineering students would
have been taught, and people not making it that far, are absurd.

---
In your intense desire to insult, you seem to have glossed over the
fact that it was krw - not I - who claimed that the effects of
reactance were taught to first-year engineering students.

I merely followed his lead, assuming that he was familiar with
first-year engineering course work, so your insult was clearly
misdirected.
---

I don't recall learning about reactive power first-year; that was more
like year 2 or 3, when I took the electric machinery courses.

---
Well, now I'm in a quandary in that you and krw seem to have different
opinions on what is taught when, so I don't know who to believe.


It's just barely possible that we went to different universities.

---
Then your comments about what first-year engineering students would
have been taught, at his school, were absurd.

--
JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:51:24 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:27:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:11:46 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:10:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

Then your comments about what first-year engineering students would
have been taught, and people not making it that far, are absurd.

---
In your intense desire to insult, you seem to have glossed over the
fact that it was krw - not I - who claimed that the effects of
reactance were taught to first-year engineering students.

I merely followed his lead, assuming that he was familiar with
first-year engineering course work, so your insult was clearly
misdirected.
---

I don't recall learning about reactive power first-year; that was more
like year 2 or 3, when I took the electric machinery courses.

---
Well, now I'm in a quandary in that you and krw seem to have different
opinions on what is taught when, so I don't know who to believe.


It's just barely possible that we went to different universities.

---
Then your comments about what first-year engineering students would
have been taught, at his school, were absurd.

Having trouble with logic again, I see.

Speaking of which, where is the improved zero-crossing hairball you
promised us?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[Jamie]

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:22:08 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


John Fields wrote:


On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:03:02 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:



John Fields wrote:



On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:39:37 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:




On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields wrote:




Watts is watts...

But ain't always Volt-Amperes.


---
Of course, but since the OP couched his problem in terms of watts,
then VA is irrelevant.


When I see the term "VA", I know we're dealing with "REACTIVE" power.

PF (Power Factors) denotes the difference between "REACTIVE" and
"RESISTIVE (True power)" So, using the term VA is assumed power.

Having AC in the equation has nothing to do with it actually, I can
put AC into a purely non reactive load and it would simply power.. There
difference being is, you need to take measurements along the vectors to
come with a sum of power with in a time frame. Normally, with a clean
sinusoidal wave, we just assume RMS power.


---
There's no such thing as "RMS power."
---

Oh really..


---
Yes, really.
---



if you look at this formula.

P = I+V*Cos(x), you'll notice that "I" is used as "Amperes" here.
This is a AC power formula but you don't see any distinction here with
the use of "VA" as would be in case of "REACTIVE" power.


---
You don't know what you're talking about.

Well excuse me, I slipped with the keyboard. I hope you really don't
think I intended it to be that way ? If so, you are naive.


---
Now that you've been shown the trick it's easy to back-pedal and claim
you knew it all along but "slipped" on the keyboard.

I'd be naive if I believed it _was_ a slip.
---


In the first place, it's not I+V*cos(x), it's I*V*cos(x) and, in the
second place, the cos(x) term is used to determine the actual power
dissipated.

And if you want to start punching at the bit,


---
"Punching at the bit?"

What's that supposed to mean?
---

from what I can see with

your last assertion, It seems that It's you that has a problem with
understanding this.


---
How so?

I pointed out both of your errors and fixed one, so I certainly have a
better understanding than you do of what you pretend to know.
---


Maybe you should brush up on Kirchoffs laws a little
on this subject.


---
You just can't seem to open your mouth without sticking your foot in
there, can you?
---


nuff said, And btw, there is such things as RMS power. How much in
the dark you are.


---
Again, there is no such thing as RMS power.
---


You know, I tried to actually help you but it seems obvious you have a
one way street and much of which have people going the wrong way, except
for you of course.


---
As far as help is concerned, the most you could do would be to learn
to shut the fuck up.

failing that, at least try to learn how to construct a sentence
properly.

You're starting to take on the traits of Phil A.
Now it's only a toss up as to who knows more.

Please be more realistic..

And btw, Your still in the dark about this.

Jamie

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:24:16 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:51:24 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:27:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:11:46 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:10:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

Then your comments about what first-year engineering students would
have been taught, and people not making it that far, are absurd.

---
In your intense desire to insult, you seem to have glossed over the
fact that it was krw - not I - who claimed that the effects of
reactance were taught to first-year engineering students.

I merely followed his lead, assuming that he was familiar with
first-year engineering course work, so your insult was clearly
misdirected.
---

I don't recall learning about reactive power first-year; that was more
like year 2 or 3, when I took the electric machinery courses.

---
Well, now I'm in a quandary in that you and krw seem to have different
opinions on what is taught when, so I don't know who to believe.


It's just barely possible that we went to different universities.

---
Then your comments about what first-year engineering students would
have been taught, at his school, were absurd.

Having trouble with logic again, I see.

---
How so?
---

Speaking of which, where is the improved zero-crossing hairball you
promised us?

---
Hairball to you, perhaps, because of your fear of asynchronous
circuitry, but to me its a finely crafted work in progress comprising
asynchronous and synchronous elements.

When will I present the "finished" version?

Time will tell...

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:48:21 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

Moron, reading between the lines, anyone with as much as half a brain, would
understand that he was talking about an INVERTER, which is *NOT* resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

What a dumbass.

---
Ah...

As usual and, as expected, an ad hominem attack instead of a logical
rebuttal.
---

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

What a stupid twit. "<>" == NOT EQUAL TO

---
Again, since no logical rebuttal is possible, an ad hominem attack is
launched.

In truth, your "I * V <> W" does equate to "not equal to", but doesn't
account for the fact that IV can never be less than W, but can be
greater than or equal to W and should be written: "I * V >= W".
---

I guess you never made it that far, though...

Like I said, you're as dumb as AlwaysWrong. Keep proving it.

---
Ad hominem attack again?

You certainly have a penchant for insult but, alas, a paucity of the
delivery skills required to make the insult stick.
---

Go back to your 555s.

---
Interesting that those of you who haven't been able to get a handle on
how to use a 555 efficaciously, for any purpose, try to use your
ignorance to make us, who use them with delight, seem inferior.

Like AlwaysWrong, you insist on proving that you're *always* wrong.

---
How so?

Prongy isn't always wrong, and I think it's shameful that the likes of
you have vilified him for your own vainglory instead of helping him
along.

I've been here for over 15 years and have provided many hundreds - if
not thousands - of pro-bono solutions which just work, so your
scurrilous claims to the contrary are, like you, contemptible.
---

I have nothing against the 555, just one-trick-ponies, like you.

---
So says the lout who's horsemanship consists of nothing more than
hollow ad-hominem attacks.
---

You're as dumb as DimBulb.

---
See what I mean?
---

Perhaps, but it seems you still have a long way to go before you get
here.

AlwaysWrong.

---
Just can't help yourself, huh?

Lucky for you that your intellect is so puny, otherwise you might get
a sidewise glance at yourself and put a wakizashi to good use.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:49:32 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:46:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:39:37 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields wrote:

Watts is watts...

But ain't always Volt-Amperes.

---
Of course, but since the OP couched his problem in terms of watts,
then VA is irrelevant.

No, he was talking about volts and amps. You can't get to watts from there.

---
Watts, in this instance, is merely the product of volts and amperes
so, interestingly, it seems you _do_ have a chronic case of
foot-in-mouth disease.

Here's the OP's first post:

<BEGIN QUOTE>

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters
(DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

1000 watts at 120VAC is about 8.3 amps.
1000 watts at12VDC is about 83 amps. <--typo? Shouldn't it still
be 8.3?

<END QUOTE>

Notice that he nowhere mentions reactance or impedance and, instead of
volt-amperes, identifies the _power_ being dissipated by the load as
watts. Clearly, under those conditions, the load is resistive,

This is further borne out by the fact that he states: "Volts x Amps =
Watts" instead of "Volts x Amps = Volt-Amperes."

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:23:25 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

It shows.

---
You seem to have been taught that you can catch more flies with
vinegar than with honey.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:38:27 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:47:42 -0500, John Fields wrote:

There's no such thing as "RMS power." ---

As I try to follow along through this thread, I find myself having to
wade through more and more bullshit just to get to some facts - and even
then, I am never clear whether the fact is accurate.

I don't see why there couldn't be something called RMS power, though I've
never heard of such a thing. A cite would be very helpful.

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square
---

The continued exchange of insults, while amusing, doesn't do much to help
someone learn.

---
Except, perhaps, to hone one's flaming skills?

--
JF

 

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:27:27 -0500, John Fields wrote:

You seem to have been taught that you can catch more flies with vinegar
than with honey.

You seem to have been taught that there is some benefit to catching flies.


--
We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.

 

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:44:48 -0500, John Fields wrote:

Except, perhaps, to hone one's flaming skills?

Good point; though it seems these skills are sufficiently developed in
this NG.


--
I have gained this by philosophy:
that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the
law.
-- Aristotle






--
Life is not for everyone.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:27:57 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:11:46 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:10:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

Then your comments about what first-year engineering students would
have been taught, and people not making it that far, are absurd.

---
In your intense desire to insult, you seem to have glossed over the
fact that it was krw - not I - who claimed that the effects of
reactance were taught to first-year engineering students.

I merely followed his lead, assuming that he was familiar with
first-year engineering course work, so your insult was clearly
misdirected.
---

I don't recall learning about reactive power first-year; that was more
like year 2 or 3, when I took the electric machinery courses.

---
Well, now I'm in a quandary in that you and krw seem to have different
opinions on what is taught when, so I don't know who to believe.


It's just barely possible that we went to different universities.

Quite possible. I hear there are more than a handful that have EE programs.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:55:58 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:29:20 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:


On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:23:25 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I'm largely self-taught.

It shows.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in being self-taught. Lots of highly
competent people learned their skills on their own, without teachers.


I agree, as long as you did a good job. I've worked with some excellent
self-taught engineers. JF and "Jamie" clearly don't qualify as more than
hacks.

Still on the meds I see?

Meds? Why yes, I've said a few times that I take Metopolol. It wouldn't help
your condition, though.

Putting all your bull shit aside, I don't see you as much of a prize
winner, unless you want to count on how much of ass you really are. And
take my word for it, you are an ass. I doubt very much there are many
here that would say otherwise in your behalf.

Of course you don't; too stupid.

As far as JF being a hack? I've seen more material come out of him
that would actually work with plenty of help behind it to support those
that are interested. You on the other hand would rather sit there in
your natural domain and make an ass out of yourself. And you do that
very well. Must be one of your strong points.

If you thing that zero-crossing hairball was "help", well, you would.

Maybe JF hasn't had technical schooling in this subject, as "I" and
many others here, have however, I can say that his offerings are much
more interesting to look at rather than your material, which is most of
nothing.

Same as you, right? Since you're defending him instead of denying that you're
just another hack...

As for myself, You may perceive me as a hack, most likely because you
yourself just assume it is safer that way. You know, just follow the
sheep. Well, you are one of the sheep. I doubt if you could even
truly be able to identify who is and what constitutes a hack/hacker.

You are clearly a hack. No denying it.

<self-serving crap deleted>

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:44:16 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:23:25 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

It shows.

---
Instead of trying to be defensively derogatory, why don't you admit to
your error and address the issue of why volt-amperes can never be less
than watts?

I never said otherwise, moron. Only a real moron uses strawman tactics like
you, moron.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:27:27 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:23:25 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:40:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:18:16 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:53:38 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:59:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:18:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:02:40 -0700, "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com
wrote:

Could the following be a typo. Written by someone to me on inverters (DC
to AC).


Volts x Amps = Watts so as the voltage goes down, the amperage goes up
to maintain the same number of watts.

This isn't strictly true for AC.

---
P
How does I = --- manage to not work out for AC?
E

PF, dumbass.

---
Watts is watts...

But, as any first-year engineering student knows, I * V <> W, where AC is
concerned.

---
If you had perspicacity, and could read between the lines, you'd have
noticed that the OP couched his query in terms of watts, implying the
load was resistive.

But, since you don't, you missed that the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current - in the resistive load he alluded to -
would be 1, and volt-amperes would be precisely equal to watts.

And, by the way, any first-year engineering student would have been
taught that, in a reactive circuit, your: "I * V <> W" is nonsense
since volt-amperes can be greater than - but never less than - watts.

I guess you never made it that far, though...


What engineering school did you graduate from?

---
None.

I'm largely self-taught.

It shows.

---
You seem to have been taught that you can catch more flies with
vinegar than with honey.

Well, you do draw files.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:30:39 -0500, amdx <amdx@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

LOL! What a loser.

---

I have
nothing against the 555, just one-trick-ponies, like you.

---
Geez, I guess you haven't perused my posting history.

555 after 555. Silly pedantic argument after silly pedantic argument.
What a moron.
---


You're as dumb as DimBulb.

---
Perhaps, but it seems you still have a long way to go before you get
here.

AlwaysWrong.

---
Indeed.

At least you now accept the truth, AlmostAlwaysWrong.

What's up, KRW?
You seem unusually contentious this evening.
It's unusual.

Ask Fields. He's the asshole who started this shit.

This whole thread got out of hand pretty quickly for
a subject that could have been handled with one sentence.
Then a couple more if phase angle needed to be addressed.

Fields has no interest in facts or communication. He's all about his ego and
to boost his he has to tear his betters down.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 01:35:07 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:09:52 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Does voltage squared ever go negative? ;-)

No, but the voltage can.

Indeed. That's the point. Voltage squared => power.