For starters, please change your posting software to something more standard. You have apparently placed your comments in the .sig section of the post, causing my very standard posting software (which handles
99.99% of all Usenet replies just fine) to not be able to quote your comments.
I noticed you repeated your "95 watts per hour" mistake. No, it is NOT
95 watts per hour. Watts is a measure of instantaneous power. I explained this is detail, you said somewhere that you understood this, but quite clearly you did not.
You need to brush up on basic physics. Learn the difference between energy and power, between work and rate of work being done.
And get some better posting software, somehting that quotes articles properly.
I apologize in advance for the terrible formatting of this post. Given Christopher's top-posting and unmarked editing of my previous post, I have no idea how to straighten it out.
Feel free not to page through this mess (that's probably wise), but please note that what Christopher quoted me as saying in his post, I DID NOT SAY.
My remarks will follow this unedited c>Hmm. Using RU for Rate of usage, and AP for ammount of power, lets see if
Please do not edit my posts without clearly marking the changes as belonging to you. At best, editing someone's post that way is very rude. Anyone who reads your post, thinking that you accurately quoted me, would think I'm an idiot.
After several posts explaining why watt-hours are correct and valid units for measuring energy and watts per hour are not, you still say, "Which is just bout what I said. 95 watts per hour. "
Do you actually not understand or are you trolling? Just in case you're on the level, I'll give it one more try.
Watt-hours are derived by mutiplying watts times hours. They are a valid unit and indicate energy.
Watts per hour (if such an animal existed) would be derived by dividing watts by hours (the "per" indicates division). They are not a valid unit of anything.
Volt-amps are a measure of apparent power. Amp-hours are used to measure the capacity of a battery. They are NOT interchangeable. I know, I'm repeating myself, but I don't know how to state it any more clearly. R, Tom Q.
A: Because it puts the answer before the question.
Q: Why is it frowned upon?
A: Top posting.
Q: What form of posting to newsgroups is generally frowned upon?
A c>Dear Tim,
The questi>Is it possible you are comparing "watts per hour" which would
Watts per hour? Presumably you meant watt-hour. There's a big difference.
1,000 VA battery? Assuming you were referring to battery capacity, the correct unit of measure would be amp-hours. It was especially confusing that you used VA, as that was one of the units in question. Volt-amps is the unit of measure of apparent power. See Ian's (or my) previous post for info on volt-amps.
BTW, the number on a light bulb is 95 watts, no unit of time needed (or wanted). If you run the light for an hour, you've expended 95 watt-hours of energy. If you run it for 30 minutes, you've expended
Yes, I have the same problem with his posts. He adds comments at the top, usually includes the entire text of articles he is replying to, but then sometimes adds "CY:..." extra comments in the included text.
There are three cardinal sins many posters to Usenet are making these days:
Top-posting and including the entire previous article.
Bottom-posting, with the same full article inclusion. (Especially bad are the "Me, too!" and "I agree!" bottom posts.)
Doing a line-by-line rebuttal of very long articles with lots of included text from multiple authors. Those who engage with "Erniegalts" often do this, as he routinely copies an entire article and then adds comments. Life is too short to spend time trying to figure out who's saying what in these "novels."
I learned when I started posting, back around 1988, to try to get to orginal comments on the FIRST screenful of text. That is, only quote enough of an article to establish context. This is not always possible, but it's a good goal.
You really think that most people on this group are able to handle AC theory on power factors?
Hell, Tim, most have enough trouble with Ohms law, discrimination between electrochemical cells and "batteries", output of different types, why the "watt hour" measurement has been quietly abandoned, and so on. :-)
However, since the military and ex-military types seem determined to drive me off this group, perhaps doesn't matter.
I've only posted once in this thread to ask everyone to ignore him. His tactic is to commit threadjackings by making them about him and his ideas on God regardless of what the topic was initally.
Look at the bright side of it, I assume that you are reading from somewhere besides misc.survivalism So, he only messed up one thread in your ng. In misc.survivalism, he does it to almost every thread and it's feels like its been going on forever.
This is my last reply in this thread regarding ernie. Reply if you like, but I'm about to filter the thread. Once ernie threadjacks them, they are no longer worth following.
Regardless of WHAT group it is on, it is just as unacceptable for those who have no religeous beliefs, or anti Christian beliefs to spout their claptrap as it is for those who do have a belief system to in any way mention theirs. Christianity is not a religion - it is a way of life - and it will ALWAYS be evident in one way or another in a Christian's life.
Just the same, non belief, or heathenism, or whatever is a way of life. It also will be evident in one way or another in the life of those who follow this lifestyle. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Your lifestyle includes off colour jokes, cussing, denying the existance of a supreme being, or whatever? Fine. Keep it off these newsgroups. No more a place for YOUR beliefs than his.
If you are not willing to censor your own posts, please do not censor the posts of others.
He's also a troll in misc.rural and alt.energy.homepower, and I've learned from first-hand experience that while he might seem like he can be reasoned with, it's just a ploy to waste more of your time.
(Don't bother replying, erniegalts, you're in the new program's killfile too.)
It's obvious that I don't "get it", so I'll quit while I'm behind. I apologize also if anyone thought you looked inaccurate -- that sure wasn't my intent.
stormin, consumption is watts consumed output is rated in horsepower, and sure there is loss, in friction , heat and conversion of that electricity to mechanical energy. Your converter doesnt convert 100%, maybe 90 to 96% the loss is in heat
Of course it is. There is no such thing in motors as 100%+ efficency.
Gunner
"The people who believe that, as a result of industrial development, life is about to become a hell, or may be one already, are guilty, at least, of sloppy pronouncements. On page 8 of Earth in the Balance, Al Gore claims that his study of the arms race gave him "a deeper appreciation for the most horrifying fact in all our lives: civilization is now capable of destroying itself."
In the first place, the most horrifying fact in many of our lives is that our ex-spouse has gotten ahold of our ATM card. And civilization has always been able to destroy itself. The Greeks of ancient Athens, who had a civilization remarkable for lack of technological progress during its period of greatest knowledge and power, managed to destroy themselves just fine." -- P.J. O'Rourke, All the trouble in the world. The lighter side of famine, pestilence, destruction and death.
It's not at all unusual to find motors with efficiencies over 90%. Compared to other machines (reciprocating engines, pumps, boilers), motors are pretty efficient.
E.g. sites
formatting link
and
formatting link
show efficiencies for different motors varying from 0.68 to 0.94.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.