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

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfismum

OOooops did I say that out loud?

You can go back to sleep now.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Nothing difficult at all and it doesn't preclude anything.

It simply precludes energy being instantaneous.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

It simply precludes energy being instantaneous.

It doesn't, they are independent and instantaneous is just a momentary observation. Energy is always present in one form or another. Quantities, rates and observations are independent of eachother.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It doesn't, they are independent and instantaneous is just a momentary observation. Energy is always present in one form or another. Quantities, rates and observations are independent of eachother.

Energy may be present but the notion of instantaneous energy contravenes basic laws of physics. It doesn't happen.

Have you heard of Dinorwig Power Station?
It is a pumped storage scheme, the largest in UK, and perhaps in Europe.
It's rated at about 2,000MVA/1,728kW. At full rating, it takes seven hours to pump the water to the upper reservoir and generates for five hours.
But if instantaneous energy was possible, they could get the water up the hill instantaneously and generate all the time. Perpetual motion.

Do see now, how daft the instantaneous energy idea is?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Energy may be present but the notion of instantaneous energy contravenes basic laws of physics. It doesn't happen.

Have you heard of Dinorwig Power Station?
It is a pumped storage scheme, the largest in UK, and perhaps in Europe.
It's rated at about 2,000MVA/1,728kW. At full rating, it takes seven hours to pump the water to the upper reservoir and generates for five hours.
But if instantaneous energy was possible, they could get the water up the hill instantaneously and generate all the time. Perpetual motion.

Do see now, how daft the instantaneous energy idea is?

No more daft than instantaneous power. Inappropriate analogy. In order to obtain electrical power from that same energy the same seven hours would apply. It's by observation in an instant, we derive the instantaneous context as applied to anything. Power is just a rate of work over time. Its the observation of that rate in an "instant" that coins the phrase instantaneous and not the rate itself. The same applies to energy and anything else. It's a frame of reference, nothing more. Kinetic wind energy can be observed to be instantaneous. The energy is the 'instantaneous' value that the body has at some point in its motion. The term is widely used in meteorology and other science.

This discussion has no bearing on the intended meaning of the articles, about average expected power over the course of the year, which is clear.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No more daft than instantaneous power.

Perhaps you think it's daft because you don't understand it?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Perhaps you think it's daft because you don't understand it?

On the contrary its perfectly understandable. Instantaneous is based on observation and is not exclusively inherent in anything. If you observe anything in a moment, its the moment of observation that's instantaneous.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

On the contrary its perfectly understandable.

Possibly so but, based on your posts, not by you.
I don't mean that unkindly, but it is evident that you don't understand the fundamentals.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Possibly so but, based on your posts, not by you.
I don't mean that unkindly, but it is evident that you don't understand the fundamentals.

I see the fundamentals clearly, as explained, as do I see the intended meaning of the articles as clear, as explained. I don't mean that unkindly, but it is you that shows lack of appreciation of the fundamentals.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I see the fundamentals clearly.

If you did, you wouldn't present logically contradictory statements.