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

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

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

Only according to your own notion of logic. Your statements don't prove or disprove anything, except within the very limited parameters and boundaries of your own reasoning.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Only according to your own notion of logic.

Your posts....
Post #41: Power is a rate at which work is performed
This rate is a ratio, in which two measurements ( 1. unit of energy - joule and 2. time ) are related to each other to derive meaning. If no time passes then this rate cannot exist.
Post #52: Of course rate does not require the passage of time...

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Your posts....
Post #41: Power is a rate at which work is performed
This rate is a ratio, in which two measurements ( 1. unit of energy - joule and 2. time ) are related to each other to derive meaning. If no time passes then this rate cannot exist.Post #52: Of course rate does not require the passage of time...

No contradiction at all. To derive useful meaning of the rate the passage of time is relevant. Without the passage of time, work is not done and thus its useful meaning is diminished in the context of measuring flow of energy. Flow implies a movement and movement implies passage of time from one point to another. A rate can be applied to anything momentarily, but for the rate to give rise to useful meaning when measuring flow, time is implied. Dream on. Instantaneous is simply a moment of observation and can be applied to anything. Energy is always present, power requires work and work requires time. As such the essence of the articles remains perfectly clear.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No contradiction at all.

No?

rate does not require the passage of time

Originally Posted by LMagic007

To derive useful meaning of the rate the passage of time is relevant.

I'm rather saddened that you don't see the contradiction.

Energy = power X time
If time = zero I'm sure you can work out the energy.

But what saddens me more is that, after forty years as a professional engineer, all of it in the field of power control that, despite my best efforts to explain it, you still fail to grasp the fundamental difference between power and energy.

At this point, I don't know whether it is lack of clarity by me or willful ignorance on your part.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

No?


I'm rather saddened that you don't see the contradiction.

Energy = power X time
If time = zero I'm sure you can work out the energy.

But what saddens me more is that, after forty years as a professional engineer, all of it in the field of power control that, despite my best efforts to explain it, you still fail to grasp the fundamental difference between power and energy.

At this point, I don't know whether it is lack of clarity by me or willful ignorance on your part.

Be sad if you wish. I suspect the contradiction lies in your perception. The fundamentals go beyond what you have described. Energy can be observed instantaneously and as indicated, the intended meaning of the articles is clear.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Energy can be observed instantaneously

It can't. It is the time integral of power.
Where is the flaw in that very simple relationship:
Energy = power X time?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

It can't. It is the time integral of power.
Where is the flaw in that very simple relationship:
Energy = power X time?

You might understand one day, but the explanation lies beyond that equation.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You might understand one day, but the explanation lies beyond that equation.

Is the equation wrong?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Is the equation wrong?

I defer to my previous remark.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I defer to my previous remark.

Yes or no would actually answer the question.