Power factor and VA vs Watts

[weressl]

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.

Oh, sorry that was global warming

The point is that ALL your data has to fit the mathematical model. If you get empirical data that does 'not compute' then you have two choices:

1. Your data collection method - something interferes - or accuracy is wrong.
2. Your model is faulty.

Scientist invest enormous time to develop the model, publish papers, receive grants, degrees, etc., so they are vested in their 'discovery'. They are reluctant to discard their work. It is much easier to ignore the data. Evidently that's what happened in East Anglia.

Math IS the core of the Universe.

Peace out rockers..........

 

[ggunn]

Now you are back to using "p" and "P"... you're going to have to keep these correct if you keep using two different p's in the same equation.

No, he doesn't. He is as free to define his own nomenclature and symbolism as you are.

 

[ggunn]

...and I'm using the word in the context of definition #4


That is correct. I'm not referencing any book. I write what is in my head.

That's the problem with types that so-called learned this in school. The school or prof decided what they learned, and for the sake of succeeding, they wrapped theirr heads around the concepts taught. Some free thinkers make it through this process, while many believe their course texts are the equivalent of a "bible", and there is no other acceptable documentation.


You told me what your domain is. It is not the same as my usage of the word. The word has not less than 10 meanings according to only one dictionary. Show me where I have to use your meaning for the word. Otherwise, get your head out of the sand.


It is good that you don't, but on the other hand you are attempting to play me small. So how is the air up there?

I'm not "playing you small" any more than you are when you look down your nose at anyone who has an education. You can use the word "domain" in any sense you want, I don't give a r's a. It just doesn't mean the same thing to the rest of us that it apparently means to you. Does that make you a "free thinker"? OK, whatever....

 

[ggunn]

You told me what your domain is. It is not the same as my usage of the word. The word has not less than 10 meanings according to only one dictionary. Show me where I have to use your meaning for the word. Otherwise, get your head out of the sand.

Playing me small, eh? Be that as it may, I respectfully submit that you still have not defined what the "RMS domain" is in any sort of mathematical sense, irrespective of the semantics involved.

 

[Smart $]

No, he doesn't. He is as free to define his own nomenclature and symbolism as you are.

...and as such he will get a response accordingly.

I'm not "playing you small" any more than you are when you look down your nose at anyone who has an education. You can use the word "domain" in any sense you want, I don't give a r's a. It just doesn't mean the same thing to the rest of us that it apparently means to you. Does that make you a "free thinker"? OK, whatever....

If I look down my nose at anyone who has an education it is because I am part of and must include myself in that group. Being a member, you should know that group is vast and quite diversified. Only in certain clic's does the status qualify either of us for special consideration.

Playing me small, eh? Be that as it may, I respectfully submit that you still have not defined what the "RMS domain" is in any sort of mathematical sense, irrespective of the semantics involved.

It is really quite simple, and you would have gotten the gist if you would quit trying to define it in mathematical terms rather than what it is. The "RMS power domain" is a train of thought. But if you really must put it in mathematical terms it would probably closely resemble restricting calculations to where only those using Pavg are valid.

 

[ggunn]

It is really quite simple, and you would have gotten the gist if you would quit trying to define it in mathematical terms rather than what it is. The "RMS power domain" is a train of thought. But if you really must put it in mathematical terms it would probably closely resemble restricting calculations to where only those using Pavg are valid.

It was you who was presenting equations and quoting the terms "RMS domain" and "instantaneous domain" in association with them, i.e., in mathematical terms. But I can accept that you aren't talking about mathematics. OK, so it's a train of thought. What train of thought, specifically? If it's so simple, then please just assume I'm a dunce and define the "RMS power domain" for me, explicitly and unambiguously, in whatever terms you like. If you cannot define a term yourself in the sense that you are using it, how can you expect anyone else to know what you mean? Otherwise it's just randomly chosen words that sound good to you with no intrinsic meaning.

 

[kingpb]

Can someone point me to a thread that explains pf, va and watts. I can't seem to get it right. Thanks!

Based on the 300+ posts to what you probably thought was a simple question, I would have to say sorry, there is nowhere to point you!:roll:

As much as I enjoy reading the banter, I vote this thread should be closed..................

 

[Cold Fusion]

As much as I enjoy reading the banter, I vote this thread should be closed..................

Way to light. I'd say executed.

I'd say a few of trains of thought ave been derailed

cf

 

[Smart $]

Way to light. I'd say executed.

I'd say a few of trains of thought ave been derailed

cf

Ahh... just jumping at the chance to get in a few last words

Yes, those were it

 

[Besoeker]

Now how do you plan to graph p(t) when pf<1???

See the example I gave in post #141.

 

[weressl]

Smart-
I highlighted a couple of the more interesting parts. You're ... ummm ... giving some unusual definitions of the normal math models - but certainly interesting.

therefore power cannot exist in an instant: Normally one would think that it could. Power is the first derivative of the energy transfer. That would usually be considered instantaneous.

determine instantaneous power based on the voltage and current properties for intervals both preceding and after the point of measure
This one just baffles me. if the power is instantaneous, why do we care what the voltage and current properties are for the pre and post intervals around the point of measure? Okay, I'm really confused where this one is going.:-?

As for the restrictive definition:
This is a math discussion - not english composition. I think gg is right - if you are going to use a non-standard definition, it would be good to let us know.

Just a thought.

cf

Good thoughts Fuser!

Instantaneous is essentialy unmeasurable, it is a concept like a point that has no dimension.

In practical terms the instantaneous measurement is the smallest integrated measurement what an instrument is capable of distinguishing whithout changing the value. It is, in essence, the integrated value of the measurement within the smallest sampling or integration time. That could be refred to as 'instantaneous domain' as the algebraic summations of all data within that time period, but it is a linguistic definition attempt on my part, I never heard of it refered that way. Then again, I don't recall this being defined or elaborated upon as it is not a practical, but a theorethical matter. It is further complicated by the fact that some instantanous measurements can squeze the time if the sampled deviation from the mean exceeds a certain amount.

 

[weressl]

I have been. Coupled with that, I didn't see any guidelines that said I had to restrict my usage of the english language... even in what you and ggunn seem to be saying is limited to a math discussion. I embody knowledge as a whole, and use it as such. I shall not lessen myself for the likes of others. Sorry if you can't understand... but that is just the way it is.

..as it unfolds, all of a sudden Smart $ just picks up his marbles and leaves the playground.:grin:

alternative ending:

..."When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less."!!:grin:

 

[ggunn]

..as it unfolds, all of a sudden Smart $ just picks up his marbles and leaves the playground.:grin:

alternative ending:

..."When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less."!!:grin:

Leave it to Lewis Carrol to put it much more succinctly than I ever could have! :grin:

 

[weressl]

Smart -
You have certainly straightened me out about this thread.

...me three.

Using the current english definition of "instantaneous", this statement is wrong. Please note that I am certainly not trying to convinince you of this fact.

Well that's mighty tolerant of you.

For this I am horrible apologetic. In my defence, I can only say that adhering to the known body of the laws of God and physics that have been built upon for the last 350 years, would never have occured to me as asking you to lessen yourself. I would never want you to do that.

Did you mean humbly apologetic?

Another heathen, unable to recognize a revelation when it's presented to him.....

Iyay inkthay Iyay dooday.:grin:

later

cf

Now, we're getting somewhere!

 

[Smart $]

..as it unfolds, all of a sudden Smart $ just picks up his marbles and leaves the playground.:grin:

I did not say I was leaving :roll:

You guys really need to get a grip on the english language... but I guess you have a more universal language and consider english but a mutterance. :roll:

alternative ending:

..."When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less."!!

My, oh my... Resorting to a quote from children's literature to disguise a [snide] remark. Need I say more. Well, I guess I have to, because I see it has lead to effective communication amongst yourselves.

 

[Smart $]

Good thoughts Fuser!

Instantaneous is essentialy unmeasurable, it is a concept like a point that has no dimension.

In practical terms the instantaneous measurement is the smallest integrated measurement what an instrument is capable of distinguishing whithout changing the value. It is, in essence, the integrated value of the measurement within the smallest sampling or integration time. That could be refred to as 'instantaneous domain' as the algebraic summations of all data within that time period, but it is a linguistic definition attempt on my part, I never heard of it refered that way. Then again, I don't recall this being defined or elaborated upon as it is not a practical, but a theorethical matter. It is further complicated by the fact that some instantanous measurements can squeze the time if the sampled deviation from the mean exceeds a certain amount.

...all this from the guy that said math is the proof

 

[Smart $]

...

Iyay inkthay Iyay dooday.

later

cf

Now, we're getting somewhere!

hhhmmmm.... guess I covered this already

 

[Smart $]

See the example I gave in post #141.

The question, while not addressed to you in particular, was HOW?

Not what should it look like.

 

[Besoeker]

The question, while not addressed to you in particular, was HOW?

Multiply the voltage by the current and plot the result.
That gives you power.

 

[ggunn]

My, oh my... Resorting to a quote from children's literature to disguise a [snide] remark. Need I say more. Well, I guess I have to, because I see it has lead to effective communication amongst yourselves.

There is nothing disguised about it, and it's called "parody". Look it up. :grin:

And that's "led", not "lead", mr. maven of the English language, or are you using a different meaning for "lead"?

PS: You still have not defined the "RMS domain" for me; are you ever going to get around to that?