Power factor and VA vs Watts

[Besoeker]

So the correct statement would be instantaneous current times instantaneous voltage is instantaneous apparent power at every instance,

No. It is just power. Nothing apparent about it. Just power.
For sure, if you look at a whole cycle you can determine other relationships.
If you take a purely reactive load, the instantaneous current times the instantaneous voltage gives you the power at all instants.
But you need to take whole cycle values to determine real, reactive, and apparent components.
Thus, instantaneous apparent power is a meaningless term.

 

[Smart $]

No. It is just power. Nothing apparent about it. Just power.
For sure, if you look at a whole cycle you can determine other relationships.
If you take a purely reactive load, the instantaneous current times the instantaneous voltage gives you the power at all instants.
But you need to take whole cycle values to determine real, reactive, and apparent components.
Thus, instantaneous apparent power is a meaningless term.

So what if we need whole cycle values to determine other relationships. The values are still instantaneous values, not rms or averaged in any way. Just because we use the word instantaneous does not mean we are limited to a single instant.

Averages and rms values used to determine apparent, real, and reactive power are derived from whole-cycle instantaneous values. What applies to the average/rms values and calculations must also apply to the whole-cycle instantaneous values. For each power component, its instantaneous counterpart must exist. There can be no other conclusion.

 

[Cold Fusion]

... Just because we use the word instantaneous does not mean we are limited to a single instant. ...

smart -
That's a good comment. I would say it sums up your entire philosophy in the several threads.

cf

 

[Besoeker]

smart -
That's a good comment. I would say it sums up your entire philosophy in the several threads.

cf

Indeed.
But will the irony be understood, far less appreciated?