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

[Chiron]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:58:04 -0500, John Fields wrote:

Dionaea muscipula considers it a matter of life and death.

OK, sure... but that's not who's posting here.



--
You may be marching to the beat of a different drummer, but you're
still in the parade.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:13:45 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

---
If you firmly believe that, then you don't know the meaning of
"gaffe".

Do yourself a favor; look it up and post back with what you find, OK?
---

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.

---
Oh, then voltage squared _is_ equal to or greater than power?

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:14:28 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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?

---
Omigod, a Larkin wannabe who isn't nearly as bright or original!

--
JF

 

[Chiron]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:24:25 -0400, 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.

I phrased it as a question, not as a statement. The reason I did this

was because I did not understand your use of the symbol '=>', as I said.

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.

OK. What you wrote is not mathematically accurate, but that's a whole

other story.

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?

Whatever. I am not going to engage in a flame war with you. You are
certainly entitled to your opinions, but when you dismiss something as
"nonsense" without offering any sort of support, you leave me with no
rejoinder outside of "It's not nonsense." And then we can endlessly say,
"'Tis," "'Tisn't" until the end of time without learning a single thing
about electronics (though it might be instructive about human nature).

I've already participated in more than my fair share of flame wars. Not
one of them did a thing for me; I never learned from them, didn't become
a better person, nothing. Oh, except I did learn (after way more time
than it should have taken) that I was utterly wasting my time.

So be well, Godspeed, and all that. No hard feelings, no malice, and no
thanks to the flame war.

--
"Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think
about."
-- B. L. Whorf






--
"What people have been reduced to are mere 3-D representations of their
own
data."
-- Arthur Miller

 

[Chiron]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:48:23 -0500, John Fields wrote:

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

Actually, that symbol often does mean "implies," which is how KRT
explained it to me. It's a reasonable use of the symbol, and also one
that makes more sense than "equal to or greater than." Anyway, that's
usually written as '>='.

--
If you keep anything long enough, you can throw it away.

 

[Chiron]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:53:51 -0500, John Fields wrote:

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

John, I don't mind when someone disagrees with me. If I knew so much,
I'd be teaching, not asking for help on a "basics" newsgroup. I know I
don't know everything. At times I wonder whether I know *anything*.

I have learned two of the most useful phrases in the English language.
One of them is, "I don't know." The other is, "I was wrong." Amazingly,
these two phrases can put a stop to all kinds of rancorous disputes.

I make a special effort to treat people respectfully, even if they
disagree with me, even if they are a bit snippy with me. In return, I
expect the same treatment.

I am a pretty simple guy. If someone starts to treat me with disrespect,
I take a moment to comment on it (as I am doing now). I ask - in a
respectful manner - that they be respectful. Often that's all it takes.
Lots of people will treat me with respect when they understand that I
intend to treat them the same way.

Unfortunately, there are a few who prefer to use abuse.

I don't know whether you are willing to treat me with respect, or whether
you will insist on being disrespectful. I can only ask that you be
respectful, and hope for the best. So please - treat me with the respect
that I give you. If you feel I have been disrespectful, then please call
me out on it. Maybe I phrased something sloppily so it sounded nasty;
maybe I really *was* being disrespectful. I'm human. I fuck up
sometimes, despite my best efforts. But if I do, I will either explain
myself, or - if I see I *was* disrespectful - I will say yet another
useful English phrase. That one is, "I'm sorry."

I've had way more experience with flame wars than is healthy for a
person, far more than I ever should have. It did me not the least bit of
good, just wasted much of my precious time. It's not how I want to spend
my time any more. That's why I use the killfile. It keeps me from
wasting more time doing something that no one benefits from.

So I hope you'll choose to be respectful. But if not, then peace. I
wish you well, and good luck, and all that. No hard feelings either way.

--
Decorate your home. It gives the illusion that your life is more
interesting than it really is.
-- C. Schulz

 

[Chiron]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:32:20 -0500, John Fields wrote:

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.

OK, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Still, sometimes pedantry offers unnecessary details that a new person
might find confusing.



--
God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage
to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.

 

[Chiron]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:34:32 +0000, Chiron wrote:

That should be "KRW"'; sorry about that.

--
If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had
lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:15:42 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

---
Oh, my! You mean you disagree?

---

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.

---
If that were true, then I'd be pleased that my function would be to
defecate the likes of you.

You're happy with that, too.

If that were my lot in life I'd be serving a useful function so sure,
why not?

What I'm happiest about though, is that I'm not you.

---
--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:34:32 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:48:23 -0500, John Fields wrote:

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

Actually, that symbol often does mean "implies," which is how KRT
explained it to me. It's a reasonable use of the symbol, and also one
that makes more sense than "equal to or greater than." Anyway, that's
usually written as '>='.

---
I agree with you on the ">=" part of it, but from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols

the implication krw ascribed to => seems to be invalid.

Had he written: "The quotient of the voltage across a resistive load
squared and then divided by the resistance of the load is equal to the
power dissipated by the load.", any ambiguity would have been
resolved.

But no, he chose to refrain from admitting his error and to defend his
position with ad hominem attacks instead of logic.

What more needs to be said?

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:32:57 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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???

Yes, though it's not surprising you know nothing about the subject.

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

Yours, asshole.

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

AlwaysWrong. Cluck. Cluck. Cluck.

Run this:

Nope.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:06:20 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

Then it's a strawman, liar.

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

You just did, liar.

---

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

What a dumbass.

---
Ad hominem attack again???

Fact.

You really are a one-trick pony.

IKWYABWAI does suit your "intelligence".

---

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?

Facts are facts.

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

Honesty, certainly.

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

You kept it going long enough with your pedantry.

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?

Pure pedantry on your part. You just *must* impress the newbs. Everyone else
knows you're a hack.

Afraid the same thing'll happen to you?

Afraid of you? LOL!

---

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.

No. Fact.

---

---
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!

For you, it probably is. Hairballs like your ZCD are proof of hackery.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:24:39 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:13:45 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

---
If you firmly believe that, then you don't know the meaning of
"gaffe".

I made none.

Do yourself a favor; look it up and post back with what you find, OK?

What a dumbass.

---

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.

---
Oh, then voltage squared _is_ equal to or greater than power?

You're a lying piece of shit, Fields. Even a first year college kid knows
"=>" means "implies". Of course, since you never went to college...

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:58:56 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:34:32 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:48:23 -0500, John Fields wrote:

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

Actually, that symbol often does mean "implies," which is how KRT
explained it to me. It's a reasonable use of the symbol, and also one
that makes more sense than "equal to or greater than." Anyway, that's
usually written as '>='.

---
I agree with you on the ">=" part of it, but from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols

the implication krw ascribed to => seems to be invalid.

Had he written: "The quotient of the voltage across a resistive load
squared and then divided by the resistance of the load is equal to the
power dissipated by the load.", any ambiguity would have been
resolved.

But no, he chose to refrain from admitting his error and to defend his
position with ad hominem attacks instead of logic.

You're, of course, wrong, AlwaysWrong.

What more needs to be said?

Hopefully you'll never say anything again.

 

[m II]

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

John Fields wrote:

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.

One of our teachers used 'phi', while the other preferred 'theta'. It
got to the point we started interchanging the names without worrying
about it too much.

The Math guy just shook his head and laughed at both of them. He said
phi and theta could be used in the same problem to avoid confusion
between two different currents or voltages.


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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPhjpHAAoJEDTMN7GV3zbX9c4H/2zZVKLkunoma3BrjlzTJqY9
QpjSa2p4PAX7H6+SQn8ls4cud2mvEYnbEbZsCfp3XE3KDgZbMJRmAJuj2wYePZQT
7+tbMkfRLl6qqSvjbdncUlTb+upRsVnD3FrtdqGIiS3l+pQRYxvpFDVimwxVkXZ7
nh3o3tmvC8kSAy9B9CyILkRLQvngpIaU+dtXb5/9fXRuY36nU7egOwkXn9Gjn56d
zbgtJpaxs9s5WDN5m1ON75xhk1P+PX9j41/WUf7ux2Fzphf2RSAJ/mm1f4vK/6C1
FbSIDtVbahKSYxX+d5w8iP6tcxO84O/g5qJ72CbZItIkJcMeTQxDu699iGmbIjw=
=a6aZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:31:51 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:24:25 -0400, 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.

I phrased it as a question, not as a statement. The reason I did this
was because I did not understand your use of the symbol '=>', as I said.


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.

OK. What you wrote is not mathematically accurate, but that's a whole
other story.

It *is* mathematically accurate. Logic is math.

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?


Whatever. I am not going to engage in a flame war with you. You are
certainly entitled to your opinions, but when you dismiss something as
"nonsense" without offering any sort of support, you leave me with no
rejoinder outside of "It's not nonsense." And then we can endlessly say,
"'Tis," "'Tisn't" until the end of time without learning a single thing
about electronics (though it might be instructive about human nature).

It's *NOT* an opinion. It's a fact. What meaning did you find? How the hell
can I offer support for a position when you won't say what you found?

I've already participated in more than my fair share of flame wars. Not
one of them did a thing for me; I never learned from them, didn't become
a better person, nothing. Oh, except I did learn (after way more time
than it should have taken) that I was utterly wasting my time.

So be well, Godspeed, and all that. No hard feelings, no malice, and no
thanks to the flame war.

Oh, well. Wander in the dark with Fields.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:29:14 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:14:28 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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?

---
Omigod, a Larkin wannabe who isn't nearly as bright or original!

I'd far rather be a Larkin wannabe than a Fields. Wow! No contest!

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:55:23 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:15:42 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

---
Oh, my! You mean you disagree?

---

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.

---
If that were true, then I'd be pleased that my function would be to
defecate the likes of you.

Now you even sound like DimBulb. It figures.

You're happy with that, too.

Happy? What an idiot.

If that were my lot in life I'd be serving a useful function so sure,
why not?

Yes, it would be a big improvement for you.

What I'm happiest about though, is that I'm not you.

We're *both* tickled pink!

What an asshole.

 

[m II]

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

Jamie wrote:

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.

The power factor denotes the SUMMATION of reactive and real power,
not the difference. That summation is the hypotenuse of the power
triangle.

VA is Apparent power. VAR is reactive power and is always ninety
degrees to Watts.

Power factor is the Cosine of the angle between VA and Watts

VARS = Watts * Tan(phi or theta)
VA = Watts / Cos(phi or theta)
Watts = VA * Cos(phi or theta)

You'll notice the impedance triangle is identical to the power
triangle, with good reason.

mike










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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPhkGoAAoJEDTMN7GV3zbXjF4H/0mMntmCbwhNj2v3xdbuLAiH
TmMezMDGpOuvvAI8mzK2wYjTbavnS4GNy3xTdJe2hUxQD8SDujK7JeEczMjnBhsY
4fJi9RuoTM1WmsPnKCTxUu+riM8TxhZStWBX67NvPr4Ehelcqhumy+BRVHeUGOAV
89lfBSWgEMwHd9llmGzRhjtZhDPYL4CdKCnNbHGDebqK8kTDAice7JHSX8206iMA
5IXAo9D0lNB5yMEJ7RzdpCFMbs9ct+I8Io/GqQ86fdYxEm+pwQp76+zG9VnT88YK
6DY843tW5Fc5QgL1aZxoKrenYGBHYjZUbDTg1bk3oAyaoYY6l51r92CZxoaGUCQ=
=awKY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Chiron]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:14:40 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

It's *NOT* an opinion. It's a fact. What meaning did you find? How
the hell can I offer support for a position when you won't say what you
found?

Well, as I said, I am not going to engage in a flame war with you. Your

statements are opinions. Your equations, if correct, are facts.

I've already participated in more than my fair share of flame wars. Not
one of them did a thing for me; I never learned from them, didn't become
a better person, nothing. Oh, except I did learn (after way more time
than it should have taken) that I was utterly wasting my time.

So be well, Godspeed, and all that. No hard feelings, no malice, and no
thanks to the flame war.


Oh, well. Wander in the dark with Fields.

Refusing to participate in an idiotic flame war is hardly "wandering in
the dark." In fact, a case could be made that it's *refusing* to wander
in the dark.

Be well.


--
Gentlemen, I want you to know that I am not always right, but I am
never wrong. -Samuel Goldwyn