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

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Yes or no would actually answer the question.

Not the real question.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Not the real question.

It would have answered the direct question I asked.
But you chose to avoid it.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

It would have answered the direct question I asked.

But you chose to avoid it.

It doesn't address the more important broader question, regardless of the answer and does not alter the clearly intended meaning of the articles.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It doesn't address the more important broader question, regardless of the answer and does not alter the clearly intended meaning of the articles.

Nonetheless, you chose to avoid or evade giving a direct answer.

You have claimed that:

"the explanation lies beyond that equation"

It doesn't.

The equation gives the relationship between the three quantities precisely, completely, and with simple elegance.

I'm sorry that you don't see that, despite its simplicity.

You stated:

"You might understand one day"

So you evidently think that I don't understand the difference between power and energy, the difference between instantaneous nature of the former and the time dependent nature of the latter? Perhaps, if you re-read that you will see how it comes across. No problem. I'm pretty laid back. If you want to take a pop and my professional credentials, that's fine too. Doing so from a stance displaying lack of understanding on the matter was your choice.

But do I understand the difference?

Well, on contracts, particularly for the water industry, I have frequently had to put money on the line in guaranteeing performance in terms of power, energy, and efficiency - up to £100,000 for getting it wrong.

Believe me, when that’s at stake, you can’t afford not to understand the concepts.

Getting it wrong isn’t an option.

Anyone who has to do that understands the difference.

But, I have an apology.

Despite my experience in the field, I have been unable to explain in terms acceptable to you that energy can't be instantaneous. That’s a failing on my part. Deaf ears don’t help.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Nonetheless, you chose to avoid or evade giving a direct answer.

You have claimed that:

"the explanation lies beyond that equation"

It doesn't.

The equation gives the relationship between the three quantities precisely, completely, and with simple elegance.

I'm sorry that you don't see that, despite its simplicity.

You stated:

"You might understand one day"

So you evidently think that I don't understand the difference between power and energy, the difference between instantaneous nature of the former and the time dependent nature of the latter? Perhaps, if you re-read that you will see how it comes across. No problem. I'm pretty laid back. If you want to take a pop and my professional credentials, that's fine too. Doing so from a stance displaying lack of understanding on the matter was your choice.

But do I understand the difference?

Well, on contracts, particularly for the water industry, I have frequently had to put money on the line in guaranteeing performance in terms of power, energy, and efficiency - up to £100,000 for getting it wrong.

Believe me, when that’s at stake, you can’t afford not to understand the concepts.

Getting it wrong isn’t an option.

Anyone who has to do that understands the difference.

But, I have an apology.

Despite my experience in the field, I have been unable to explain in terms acceptable to you that energy can't be instantaneous. That’s a failing on my part. Deaf ears don’t help.

Your apology is accepted. The issue lies beyond the simple concepts you have raised. If you haven't worked it out by now, then I can't help you further at this moment. Hopefully in time it will make more sense to you . Best you remain laid back at this stage.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The issue lies beyond the simple concepts you have raised.

Not so. It is simple and universal. Energy cannot be instantaneous.
You can choose to accept, reject, ignore, or disrespect my expert knowledge on the subject.
It was given in good faith in an attempt to explain the facts to you.
If it was a wasted effort, it was a wasted effort. Such is life.
Go in peace.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Not so. It is simple and universal. Energy cannot be instantaneous. You can choose to accept, reject, ignore, or disrespect my expert knowledge on the subject. It was given in good faith in an attempt to explain the facts to you. If it was a wasted effort, it was a wasted effort. Such is life.
Go in peace.

Quite so. It is interesting to note however, that the only place your apparent fallacious quote "Energy cannot be instantaneous" appears on the internet, is in this forum in this thread. We all know what they say about "experts". I have noted "expert" opinion to the contrary of your view.

You are entitled to your view, but everyone else entitled to a view and nobody has to accept anyone else's view, yours included ( especially on a chat forum ), just because you or anyone else says so. The articles intended meaning is clear. That's my view.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It is interesting to note however, that the only place your apparent fallacious quote "Energy cannot be instantaneous" appears on the internet, is in this forum in this thread. We all know what they say about "experts". I have noted "expert" opinion to the contrary of your view.

Excellent. Find experts in the field of power and energy and quote precisely the contrary view that they expressed.

[spadlet]

*hopes she doesn't regret this brief aside*

Can I just check whether you both agree with and understand the following and if not, exactly what you don't agree with?

There are things which can be termed thermodynamic properties. These are the attributes that are dependant upon the intital anf final state of the substance and are not related to the method used to transfer the substance from one state to the other?

An example would be getting from a pub at the bottom of a hill to your home on top of the hill. It does not make any difference whether you climb straight up the steepest bit of the slope or take a longer path winding round and round the hill. The height of the house is constant as is the height of the pub. Thus height is a thermodynamic property.

There are also things that can be called thermodynamic paths. A thermodynamic path would be the route that you chose to get from the pub to your house. Every path is different. There are as many paths between the thermodynamic properties as there are routes between the pub and your house.

A thermodynamic process is defined by both the end states and the path. If you got from the pub up the hill to your next door neighbours house it is a different process to going from the pub to your house even if you have used the same route up the hill. Equally if use a different route to get from the pub to your house it is a different process, even though the start and end points are the same.

The energy of a substance is a property. For example there is the energy you gain when walking up the hill, which is the energy needed to overcome gravity pulling you back down the hill. The size of the graviatiational force is directly porportional to your height above ground so it is dependant upon the the start and end points NOT the path taken in between. The work that you do against gravity is proportional to the strength of the gravitational field multiplied by the vertical distance which you travel. So the work done against gravity is independant of the route taken between the pub and your house.

There is also the work which you do overcoming the friction of the horizontal distance between the pub and your house. This is proportional to the horizontal distance which you travel so there will be less if you go straight up the steep part of hte hill and more if you take a path that winds around and around the hill. So the work done against friction is dependant on the route which you choose to take and is thus a property of the thermodynamic path.

Not the total work which you have done is the work done overcoming gravity and the work done overcoming the friction of the horizontal distance of the road. So the total work done is dependant upon the thermodynamic states and path. This means that the total work done is dependant upon the thermodynamic process.

Electricity is the flow of energy required to complete an electrical process. As it is related to the flow of energy the magnitude of electricity required is dependant both upon the begining and end points and the path used to get to them. So electricity is analogous to the work that you do when going up the hill from the pub to your house.

If you take the short steep route up to the top of the hill it's usually quicker but harder (you have to use more energy at any given point in time). So you do more work per unit time going up the steep direct path than taking the winding path around the hill. Power is the rate at which work is done per unit time. So the steep direct path requires more power than the shallower, winding path. So electrical power is the rate at which electrical energy flows.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by spadlet

If you take the short steep route up to the top of the hill it's usually quicker but harder (you have to use more energy at any given point in time).

You would have to use more effort rather than more energy.

Originally Posted by spadlet

So you do more work per unit time going up the steep direct path than taking the winding path around the hill.
Power is the rate at which work is done per unit time.

Certainly, if the steeper slope got you there more quickly, your rate of work, or power, would be greater. Total energy would be the same (same mass lifted the same distance) if efficiency was the same. I don't think it is - you expend energy just walking on level ground - so the steep route possibly uses less energy.

Originally Posted by spadlet

So electrical power is the rate at which electrical energy flows.

Yes, and not just for electrical energy.