Rock Port, Missouri - The First 100% Wind Powered City

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

There is no difficulty. Power is a rate measurement

Quite.
Rate.
Rate does not require the passage of time.
The difficulty seems to be that you don't, won't or can't grasp that concept.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Quite.
Rate. Rate does not require the passage of time.
The difficulty seems to be that you don't, won't or can't grasp that concept.

There is no difficulty and nothing to grasp. Of course rate does not require the passage of time, but instantaneous in the context of power measurement typically does not imply a zero rate. It typically is used in the context of measuring energy flow and as such time is implicit in that flow. Power measured in an instant implies that the energy had to arrive at its point of measurement and to do that, time is required. As I said though energy can be instantaneous regardless of time, because its always present in varying forms and is more fundamental than power.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

There is no difficulty and nothing to grasp. Of course rate does not require the passage of time,

Glad you agree with that. You now see that power, as a rate of doing work, does not require the passage of time.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

As I said though energy can be instantaneous regardless of time, because its always present in varying forms and is more fundamental than power.

It can not be instantaneous.
Consider the fundamental relationship:
Energy = power x time.
That simply precludes energy being instantaneous.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Glad you agree with that. You now see that power, as a rate of doing work, does not require the passage of time.

It can not be instantaneous.
Consider the fundamental relationship:
Energy = power x time.
That simply precludes energy being instantaneous.

Electrical Energy as Wh or kWh = Power x Time. As I indicated, for the rate to have useful meaning in the context of measurement of energy, the context of the passage of time is implied. Power is the rate at which energy is transmitted. For this to have useful meaning in the context of the articles, it implies time and is little use without time. In the context of the articles, time spans the course of one year.

The articles are remarking about power in yearly terms based on average expectation, being the average amount of work done or energy transferred per unit time. Time is implied in this context in regard to power. In that context of the articles, the power measurement being referred to is not instantaneous and does not have to be, as they are talking about energy and average power expectation over one year and not about Delta t approaching zero. The articles are still correct to speak about power in the context they have conveyed. It's evident you have tried to alter the interpretation of the articles to try to make a point, that the articles don't make themselves.

Energy is ever present and always instantaneous. Energy exists irrespective of power, but power requires energy to be measured and to have practical meaning, work has to be done.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Electrical Energy as Wh or kWh = Power x Time.

The fundamental relationship:
Energy = power x time
does not depend on the form of energy.
The notion of instantaneous energy violates that fundamental relationship.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The fundamental relationship:
Energy = power x time does not depend on the form of energy.
The notion of instantaneous energy violates that fundamental relationship.

Electrical energy is the energy context to which the articles refer. Energy when viewed in the context of time = Power x Time. Power can be reduced to single units of energy. Instantaneous energy is consistent with fundamental laws. Energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Energy is always present and when observed momentarily is instantaneous. Power measures the rate of energy transfer. No energy no power. The term instantaneous is an observation frame of reference and can apply to anything being observed.

The articles refer to average power over time and not instantaneous power and the notion of instantaneous power is not consistent with the way power is described in the articles. It's irrelevant and a distraction from the intended meaning of the articles, which is clear.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Electrical energy is the energy context to which the articles refer.

Indeed it is.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Energy when viewed in the context of time = Power x Time. Power can be reduced to single units of energy.

It can't. Power is not energy.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Instantaneous energy is consistent with fundamental laws.

It isn't.
Energy = power x time
That totally precludes the notion of instantaneous energy.
It is a very simple relationship. I don't know why you have such difficulty with it.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I don't know why you have such difficulty with it.

Penfolds ?Yates Wine Lodge?

[forfismum]

OOooops did I say that out loud?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Indeed it is.
It can't. Power is not energy.

It isn't.
Energy = power x time
That totally precludes the notion of instantaneous energy.
It is a very simple relationship. I don't know why you have such difficulty with it.

Nothing difficult at all and it doesn't preclude anything. The notion of instantaneous is not mutually exclusive to energy or power, which is an aside. It's just a frame of reference that's all. The word instantaneous can be applied to anything. It's a mute point and also irrelevant to the article, which is discussing average power over the year.