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

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:43:38 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:24:29 -0700, Bob Myers wrote:

On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:57:45 PM UTC-6, Chiron wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:24:27 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

What is the meaning of power squared?

What is the meaning of voltage squared?

I'm not trying to claim that there *is* any such thing as RMS power;
just wondering why such a thing would be impossible.

Obviously it's not - "RMS" (root-mean-square) is simply a mathematical
means for getting a meaningful "average" value, particularly for cases
where the actual "average" would be zero (as in the case of a
zero-offset sinusoid). You can most certainly square any function,
average it over a suitable period, and then take the square root of that
mean value, which would be the "RMS" value of that function. The only
remaining question is whether or not it's useful to do so in any given
case.

So you could certainly calculate an "RMS" value for power, or for
voltage, or for the Dow Jones average over the past year if you like.

But to get back to the original question - I've also heard the term "RMS
power" intended (rather sloppily, but it was at least understood) to
mean "true power." Not exactly the best use of that term, but generally
no one gets too bent out of shape about it other than the sorts of
pedants we see exemplified in this thread.

Bob M.


Actually, that was what my vague wonderings were trying to get at. I
remembered that RMS had *something* to do with values going negative; but
I couldn't remember the details. Of course, what I was groping for only
applied to the values that tended to average out to zero, so I was still
pretty wide of the mark... Oh, well.

It's kind of strange to find pedantry in an electronics group. Back in
the day (late seventies, early eighties) we were happy if we were within
10% of reality.

Some use pedantry to attempt to show how "brilliant" they are. It's one of
Field's trademarks.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:08:04 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

---
Of course you did.

If you think you didn't, then it's clear that you don't understand
conventional mathematical notation.

By writing: "I * V <> W" you stated, explicitly, that I * V can be
less than, or greater than, but never equal to W.

Using a more sophisticated eye, we find that the criterion for
determining power dissipated in a load with a reactive component is
described by:

P = EI cos phi,

where phi is the difference in the phase angle between the voltage
across, and the current through, the load.

If that difference in phase doesn't exist and is, therefore, equal to
zero, the cosine of that angle will be 1 and the power dissipated in
the load will just be EI.

If the difference in phase _does_ exist it'll always be less than one
so, in a reactive circuit, P will always be less than EI.
---

Only a real moron uses strawman tactics like
you, moron.

---
I've not set up imaginary instances which can easily be cut down, so
your critique is ingenuous.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:08:31 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

---
Clever.

--
JF

 

[m II]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I * V does equal W in AC, since in AC work that HAS to be a
vector calculation.


Absolute nonsense. ...as to be expected from dumbass Myers.

He's right and you are wrong. It all depends on the load. In an AC
circuit, with a purely resistive load, VA = Watts. The power factor is
one Hundred percent.

That power factor percentage is just another name for the cosine of
the angle between VA and Watts. No angle = Cos (0) = 1 = 100 percent.

If it were a purely inductive load, the power factor would be Cos (90)
= 0

It's when the load gives you a reactive power triangle that you get
watts on the bottom, VAR (reactive) going vertical and VA on the
hypotenuse.

You may be confusing RMS values for PF.

mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPhOZhAAoJEDTMN7GV3zbXm5gIAKIBo6yFDSBQmmChFkpxuapS
JTIqi7PiY7klERGgBwd7KMIeDl7u+W6IyPwLO0bIE9kYUummSvrm991708G5Lol2
22R9zkBQEME9cTmRnnOWodgljpbSgsMpxTx2dHXjyHNpIZXmubcw98GEHbiMYTEx
zUMaxKo88ZlO6yllmZRfdBufe6UkoTxITvZ1pG9430ixS1bsOTqYMRPHWXHP+hDP
nXLxaiiUrxVloBXHOGhKaIKYVyaXFqdUByZct4Mpygu855FcTEof2Q5PzbpHG7li
rBy4Wlf3kBMa40VVUtyP7n3Riq0xZeSSAxfUmYfXK4+Yk+yiJvHojlhWUHdLGsc=
=1wMX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:03:34 -0600, m II <C@in.the.hat> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I * V does equal W in AC, since in AC work that HAS to be a
vector calculation.


Absolute nonsense. ...as to be expected from dumbass Myers.

He's right and you are wrong. It all depends on the load. In an AC
circuit, with a purely resistive load, VA = Watts. The power factor is
one Hundred percent.

What a dumbass. When was the last time your multimeter gave you the vector
voltage? What does the vector voltage have to do with harmonic content?

That power factor percentage is just another name for the cosine of
the angle between VA and Watts. No angle = Cos (0) = 1 = 100 percent.

Wrong. Even a newb knows that this doesn't account for the harmonic content.

If it were a purely inductive load, the power factor would be Cos (90)
= 0

It's when the load gives you a reactive power triangle that you get
watts on the bottom, VAR (reactive) going vertical and VA on the
hypotenuse.

You may be confusing RMS values for PF.

You must me a moron.

 

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:14:32 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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

Are you saying that voltage squared *equals* power? Because if so, it
doesn't.

But what are you saying then? I don't recognize the symbol => - or at
least, I don't know what it is intended to represent.

My question was originally about why power couldn't have an RMS value.
Someone said it couldn't happen. Someone else said that the calculation
could be performed, but that it had no physical meaning.

Upon investigation, I found that the calculation can be performed, and
that the result (RMS power) has a physical meaning. I also found that
this meaning isn't particularly useful, which is probably what people
were trying to say.

--
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

 

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:17:29 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Some use pedantry to attempt to show how "brilliant" they are. It's one
of Field's trademarks.

IIRC, the word "pedant" has the same root as the word "pederasty."



--
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
-- Walt Kelly

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:14:04 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:14:32 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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

Are you saying that voltage squared *equals* power? Because if so, it
doesn't.

I did *NOT* say that. Stop doing a Fields. All things equal, power is
proportional to voltage squared. Voltage squared (divided by resistance) gets
you power.

But what are you saying then? I don't recognize the symbol => - or at
least, I don't know what it is intended to represent.

Implies.

My question was originally about why power couldn't have an RMS value.

....and I answered, it can. You can RMS the number of shoes you can see but
it's rather meaningless. The RMS values of voltage and current have meaning
because (relative, for the pendants out there) power can be inferred from
them. Squaring power gets you nothing useful so RMS power is equally useless.

Someone said it couldn't happen. Someone else said that the calculation
could be performed, but that it had no physical meaning.

I said that. Of course you can do the calculation but you can take the RMS of
sneakers, too.

Upon investigation, I found that the calculation can be performed, and
that the result (RMS power) has a physical meaning. I also found that
this meaning isn't particularly useful, which is probably what people
were trying to say.

Nonsense. What "physical meaning" did you discover that RMS power has?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:15:04 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:17:29 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Some use pedantry to attempt to show how "brilliant" they are. It's one
of Field's trademarks.

IIRC, the word "pedant" has the same root as the word "pederasty."

That thought had crossed my mind too.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:10:06 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:03:34 -0600, m II <C@in.the.hat> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I * V does equal W in AC, since in AC work that HAS to be a
vector calculation.


Absolute nonsense. ...as to be expected from dumbass Myers.

He's right and you are wrong. It all depends on the load. In an AC
circuit, with a purely resistive load, VA = Watts. The power factor is
one Hundred percent.

What a dumbass. When was the last time your multimeter gave you the vector
voltage? What does the vector voltage have to do with harmonic content?

---
Harmonic content???

Now _that's_ either an intentional red herring or a sample of your
abysmal ignorance.

Although the former isn't out of the question - considering your
posting history - I think the latter is more likely, you poor deluded
loon.

Run this:

Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE 256 64 112 64
WIRE 256 80 256 64
WIRE 112 144 112 64
WIRE 256 160 256 144
WIRE 304 160 256 160
WIRE 256 192 256 160
WIRE 112 288 112 224
WIRE 256 288 256 272
WIRE 256 288 112 288
WIRE 112 352 112 288
FLAG 112 352 0
SYMBOL voltage 112 128 R0
WINDOW 3 24 96 Invisible 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value SINE(0 10 60)
SYMBOL res 240 176 R0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL cap 240 80 R0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 1ľ
TEXT 118 312 Left 2 !.tran 50ms


then take the FFT of the voltage across or the current through the
resistance and post back with where you found harmonics, OK?
---

That power factor percentage is just another name for the cosine of
the angle between VA and Watts. No angle = Cos (0) = 1 = 100 percent.

Wrong. Even a newb knows that this doesn't account for the harmonic content.

---
Again with the harmonic content???

How much rope do you need?
---

If it were a purely inductive load, the power factor would be Cos (90)
= 0

It's when the load gives you a reactive power triangle that you get
watts on the bottom, VAR (reactive) going vertical and VA on the
hypotenuse.

You may be confusing RMS values for PF.

You must me a moron.

---
I think the last three words are apropos.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:11:23 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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

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

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

---
Geez, all I did was state that there's no such thing as RMS power
which, for some reason, got your knickers all in a bunch and put you
in your usual rabid state.

Maybe you ought to get some anger management help before you go
apoplectic, huh?
---

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.

---
PKB?

When I post something technical which is non-trivial I usually show my
work in an effort to more efficaciously communicate the factual nature
of the work, while you seem to revel in nothing but name-calling and
blather.
---

He's all about his ego and
to boost his he has to tear his betters down.

---
Well, if that's true then you certainly have nothing to worry about,
so double up on your meds and try not to stroke out.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:30:00 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
Dionaea muscipula considers it a matter of life and death.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:17:29 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:43:38 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

It's kind of strange to find pedantry in an electronics group. Back in
the day (late seventies, early eighties) we were happy if we were within
10% of reality.

---
In this group, where there are no stupid questions and noobs often ask
questions which indicate their lack of knowledge, what might be
considered pedantry may in actuality be the presentation of subject
matter with enough accuracy and attention to detail to allow them to
learn something.
---

Some use pedantry to attempt to show how "brilliant" they are. It's one of
Field's trademarks.

---

krw seems to resent - well, just about everything - so he comes
through, true to form, sowing discord and spewing vitriol at every
opportunity.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:24:25 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:14:04 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:14:32 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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

Are you saying that voltage squared *equals* power? Because if so, it
doesn't.

I did *NOT* say that. Stop doing a Fields. All things equal, power is
proportional to voltage squared. Voltage squared (divided by resistance) gets
you power.

But what are you saying then? I don't recognize the symbol => - or at
least, I don't know what it is intended to represent.

Implies.

---
If you want to use mathematical notation, then you should adhere to
the conventions surrounding it, so stop back-pedaling and 'fess up to
your gaffe.

You wrote: "Voltage squared => power" which reads: "Voltage squared is
equal to or greater than power" which is, of course, nonsense.

Par for the course, though.
--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:25:07 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:15:04 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:17:29 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Some use pedantry to attempt to show how "brilliant" they are. It's one
of Field's trademarks.

IIRC, the word "pedant" has the same root as the word "pederasty."

That thought had crossed my mind too.

---
You two should decide on who's going to be the geezer and who's going
to be the punk and get a room...

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:50:39 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:11:23 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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


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

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

---
Geez, all I did was state that there's no such thing as RMS power
which, for some reason, got your knickers all in a bunch and put you
in your usual rabid state.

You're a liar, Fields. I never said there was any such thing.

Maybe you ought to get some anger management help before you go
apoplectic, huh?

What a dumbass.

---

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.

---
PKB?

No, it's a fact. How long did you keep up a similar pedantic jag on Larkin's
latching relay? Months? A year? Good grief you're an asshole.

When I post something technical which is non-trivial I usually show my
work in an effort to more efficaciously communicate the factual nature
of the work, while you seem to revel in nothing but name-calling and
blather.

You're *all* blather. Your only purpose here is to show how bloviated you can
be. You and Slowman are two peas.

---
He's all about his ego and
to boost his he has to tear his betters down.

---
Well, if that's true then you certainly have nothing to worry about,
so double up on your meds and try not to stroke out.

I certainly don't have anything to worry about. You're nothing but a hacker.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:48:23 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:24:25 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:14:04 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:14:32 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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

Are you saying that voltage squared *equals* power? Because if so, it
doesn't.

I did *NOT* say that. Stop doing a Fields. All things equal, power is
proportional to voltage squared. Voltage squared (divided by resistance) gets
you power.

But what are you saying then? I don't recognize the symbol => - or at
least, I don't know what it is intended to represent.

Implies.

---
If you want to use mathematical notation, then you should adhere to
the conventions surrounding it, so stop back-pedaling and 'fess up to
your gaffe.

Fuck you, Fields. I made no gaffe.

You wrote: "Voltage squared => power" which reads: "Voltage squared is
equal to or greater than power" which is, of course, nonsense.

Par for the course, though.

What a lying shit you are, fields.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:53:51 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:25:07 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:15:04 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:17:29 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Some use pedantry to attempt to show how "brilliant" they are. It's one
of Field's trademarks.

IIRC, the word "pedant" has the same root as the word "pederasty."

That thought had crossed my mind too.

---
You two should decide on who's going to be the geezer and who's going
to be the punk and get a room...

Peck, peck, peck. Any more bright points to make, hen?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:32:20 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:17:29 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:43:38 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

It's kind of strange to find pedantry in an electronics group. Back in
the day (late seventies, early eighties) we were happy if we were within
10% of reality.

---
In this group, where there are no stupid questions and noobs often ask
questions which indicate their lack of knowledge, what might be
considered pedantry may in actuality be the presentation of subject
matter with enough accuracy and attention to detail to allow them to
learn something.

What a liar, Fields.

---

Some use pedantry to attempt to show how "brilliant" they are. It's one of
Field's trademarks.

---

krw seems to resent - well, just about everything - so he comes
through, true to form, sowing discord and spewing vitriol at every
opportunity.

You're nothing but an asshole, Fields. That's all you've ever been and all
you will ever be. You're happy with that, too.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:10:51 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:50:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:11:23 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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


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

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

---
Geez, all I did was state that there's no such thing as RMS power
which, for some reason, got your knickers all in a bunch and put you
in your usual rabid state.

You're a liar, Fields. I never said there was any such thing.

---
I never said you did.

Go back and you'll see that I was replying Jamie's post, not yours.
---

Maybe you ought to get some anger management help before you go
apoplectic, huh?

What a dumbass.

---
Ad hominem attack again???
You really are a one-trick pony.
---

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.

---
PKB?

No, it's a fact. How long did you keep up a similar pedantic jag on Larkin's
latching relay? Months? A year? Good grief you're an asshole.

---
Wow, you're really good with that name-calling aren't you?

Well, at least you've got _that_ going for you.

You remember the relay thread huh? Must have made quite an impression
on you.

Regardless of Larkin's smoke and mirrors I stood my ground and proved
Larkin wrong, so why does it matter so much to you how long it lasted?

Afraid the same thing'll happen to you?
---

When I post something technical which is non-trivial I usually show my
work in an effort to more efficaciously communicate the factual nature
of the work, while you seem to revel in nothing but name-calling and
blather.

You're *all* blather. Your only purpose here is to show how bloviated you can
be. You and Slowman are two peas.

---
Straw man.
---

---
He's all about his ego and
to boost his he has to tear his betters down.

---
Well, if that's true then you certainly have nothing to worry about,
so double up on your meds and try not to stroke out.

I certainly don't have anything to worry about. You're nothing but a hacker.

---
That's quite a compliment; thank you!

--
JF