Power factor and VA vs Watts

[Cold Fusion]

If you build the model then find data that fits, don't you run the risk that you taylor your data so that it does fit. ...

yes - but the global warming data cheats may be one of the lesser evils. We got:

pharmaceuticals
medical procedures
psychology
government stastics on health care
government planing on economics
gun control advocate studies


And then there is us: (paraphrased posts I recall)
"Oh, just tell them it was 'surge' ..."

"Show the home owner the picture of the guy burned in the 2MVA transformer explosion and tell them this is what could happen if they open their panel"

Reminds me of Pogo: "We have met the enemy and it is us."

cf

 

[weressl]

Is this a lead-in to:
"The answer is 42"?

(edit to add)
Let me reprase.
I guess so. I don't know the equation (or question), but the answer is 42.

cf

..and that is about where science stands today.

 

[Cold Fusion]

Does anyone remember what we were talking about?

Let's see.
First we got some beer and horse analogies on complex power.

Then it went to trash the OP. That went on until someone pointed out the trashers were being rude.

Then we went complex math.

About page 3 Lasslo and Ham weighed in and straightened us all out.

Then Smart kicked off an alternate model of inductive impedance.

Then Lasslo drew a line in the sand between emperical data and mathematical models.

The thread went philosophical on measured parameters, calculated data, math models

Slight detour to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series.

Now at the dangers of science/social fanatics cheating data to prove models. All in the name of altruism and gain.

All 9 pages interspersed with several steadfastly holding to discussion aimed at the OP question on complex power.

cf

 

[weressl]

Let's see.
First we got some beer and horse analogies on complex power.

Then it went to trash the OP. That went on until someone pointed out the trashers were being rude.

Then we went complex math.

About page 3 Lasslo and Ham weighed in and straightened us all out.

Then Smart kicked off an alternate model of inductive impedance.

Then Lasslo drew a line in the sand between emperical data and mathematical models.

The thread went philosophical on measured parameters, calculated data, math models

Slight detour to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series.

Now at the dangers of science/social fanatics cheating data to prove models. All in the name of altruism and gain.

All 9 pages interspersed with several steadfastly holding to discussion aimed at the OP question on complex power.



cf

1. What sand?
2. It is L-a-s-z-l-o:roll:
3. At least Einstein was honest.
4. Do I know how to stir the pot or what?

 

[Cold Fusion]

...
2. It is L-a-s-z-l-o

...

Sorry Las, I won't do that again. Spelling someone's name wrong is a terrible sin

fc

 

[Zorak]

I jump to the last page and see this nice recap of the previous nine pages. In there is a section on the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. So, I go in search of this section only to find it was only one or two posts. Bummer.

While not reading the whole topic or arguements, I personally believe that the universe is based on a mathmatical model but is not limited to that mathmatical model. Just like a programmer can create a program that modifies itself but only to the extents allowed by the program limits. From inside the program, it could determine the rules of its universe. But the programmer is still allowed to modify the program, force a bit for instance, and the model reacts within its model though the bit tweak may not have been possible from inside the model.

This throws a theological spin on the arguement, but that's my two cents.

 

[mivey]

This not a "dumb" question, I have a copyright to ask "dumb" questions and I ain't gonna allow you to use it.:grin:

I like these threads a lot and I am glad you started it. If we get Mivey in on this, it will really get fun. Where is he?

Vacation. Just getting caught up. :grin:

FWIW, I can't think of much to add that hasn't already been touched on so far.

 

[mivey]

Vacation. Just getting caught up. :grin:

FWIW, I can't think of much to add that hasn't already been touched on so far.

Now that I have reached the end of the posts so far and have accomplished a few honey-do's as well, I realize I am still in vacation mode and probably should go cut my grass instead of trying to get my brain back in gear.

I do want to re-read smart$'s impedance stuff again as I think I skimmed it too quickly. While it looks odd at first glance, I don't want to dismiss it without a fair look.

Thanks for the thread summary cf.

 

[LarryFine]

Spelling someone's name wrong is a terrible sin

fc

Especially your own.

 

[Hameedulla-Ekhlas]

I jump to the last page and see this nice recap of the previous nine pages. In there is a section on the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. So, I go in search of this section only to find it was only one or two posts. Bummer.

While not reading the whole topic or arguements, I personally believe that the universe is based on a mathmatical model but is not limited to that mathmatical model. Just like a programmer can create a program that modifies itself but only to the extents allowed by the program limits. From inside the program, it could determine the rules of its universe. But the programmer is still allowed to modify the program, force a bit for instance, and the model reacts within its model though the bit tweak may not have been possible from inside the model.

This throws a theological spin on the arguement, but that's my two cents.

Every software has its own language and princple but the language and princple of unverse is math

 

[mivey]

Every software has its own language and princple but the language and princple of unverse is math

I would say that math is a universal language, but not the language and principle of the universe.

 

[mivey]

Especially your own.

missed that :grin:

 

[Hameedulla-Ekhlas]

I would say that math is a universal language, but not the language and principle of the universe.

oh, that is your opinion but I am not agree with you regarding this. Because in Universe every thing is based on math.
Recall Newton and others what they have done is based on math.

Every invention is based on math. :-?

 

[Cold Fusion]

Especially your own.

yes

missed that :grin:

Sharp as a marble, we are today?:roll:

cf

 

[Besoeker]

oh, that is your opinion but I am not agree with you regarding this. Because in Universe every thing is based on math.

I don't agree.
Mathematics can be used to explain or describe what happens in the universe.
From empirical data, Kepler formed his laws of planetary motion.
Newton formulated the mathematical basis for the laws of motion which described how what happens happens.
Even without the work of Brahe, Kepler, or Newton, planetary motion would be as it is. Mathematics is a human concept. A very useful one at that.
I don't think you can extrapolate that concept to have pre-dated human existence.

 

[Hameedulla-Ekhlas]

I don't agree.
Mathematics can be used to explain or describe what happens in the universe.
From empirical data, Kepler formed his laws of planetary motion.
Newton formulated the mathematical basis for the laws of motion which described how what happens happens.
Even without the work of Brahe, Kepler, or Newton, planetary motion would be as it is. Mathematics is a human concept. A very useful one at that.
I don't think you can extrapolate that concept to have pre-dated human existence.

Suppose, if one knows the language program of a software he can easily make thousands of other softwares.

I accept the empirical but if you can not explain the empirical data through math or it does not suit math's law then there are two points

You may not know math for that level or
Your empirical is wrong.

mathematics is a human concept

I agree math is a human concept and I have mentioned that math is a universe language. Language between human and nature to understand the nature concept and character.

 

[Smart $]

I don't agree.
Mathematics can be used to explain or describe what happens in the universe.
From empirical data, Kepler formed his laws of planetary motion.
Newton formulated the mathematical basis for the laws of motion which described how what happens happens.
Even without the work of Brahe, Kepler, or Newton, planetary motion would be as it is. Mathematics is a human concept. A very useful one at that.
I don't think you can extrapolate that concept to have pre-dated human existence.

Math greatly assists our understanding of how events happen, even to the degree of predicting when events will happen, but has yet to answer the ultimate question of why events happen. It certainly isn't because someone made a calculation

Yes, there are connotations in my comment above that quantum mechanics and the whole space-time continuum would be affected if a certain calculation was or was not performed... but I believe that's going way beyond the context of this discussion

 

[Besoeker]

I accept the empirical but if you can not explain the empirical data through math or it does not suit math's law then there are two points

You may not know math for that level or
Your empirical is wrong.

Logically there are four points.
Both A and B could be right.
A could be right and B wrong.
B could be right and A wrong.
Both A and B could be wrong.

 

[Besoeker]

Math greatly assists our understanding of how events happen, even to the degree of predicting when events will happen, but has yet to answer the ultimate question of why events happen.

Does there have to be a "why"?

 

[Hameedulla-Ekhlas]

Logically there are four points.
Both A and B could be right.
A could be right and B wrong.
B could be right and A wrong.
Both A and B could be wrong.

Dont think which could be right or not use logic gate.
Use AND Gate , NAND Gate, OR GATE
draw the truth table and reduce your option to minium size
But you have to do mathmatically not by empircal.