You and Yours
 

You and Yours
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM
wrote:
Then you try and make some smart arse comment to cover up,
snipping
the other stuff as you go. You don't even have the grace to admit
you
got it wrong. You are a fool. Your opinions are worthless are
discussions with you are pointless.


Very well said! I've had to put up with Plowman's nonsense for
literally years. He's a clueless moron, and he will never admit
that
he's wrong even though he is very frequently completely wrong.

Nice to see you two agreeing. Such a sensible alliance. But who gets
the
brown tongue first? And you seemed to have changed your opinion
about BBC
employees.


I don't see any mention of the word "power" or "energy" or "time" in
your post. Here's a post that you haven't responded to yet. Do so
rather than gobbing off like the clown you are.


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Energy also happens to have a unit of measurement: the Joule.

That is the SI unit. But you should have used that if you're going
to use
seconds.


What on earth are you going on about?

Doesn't surprise me you can't see it.


I suggest you respond to my post rather than dishonestly suggesting
that it's ME that doesn't get something.

Here's my post, reply to it, or else admit that you don't know what
the **** you're talking about:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Energy is a broad term while second an actual
unit.


Energy also happens to have a unit of measurement: the Joule.

That is the SI unit. But you should have used that if you're going
to use
seconds.


What on earth are you going on about?

The Joule is an SI unit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

Time in seconds is also an SI unit, so what are you going on about?


Power= energy x time would have been correct.


Trust you to get a GCSE-level equation wrong! It should be power =
energy / time, obviously.


Stick to one or the other - not mix them.


What on earth are you going on about? There is only one form - that's
the point of using SI units, to have one universal way of measuring
things.


And
energy measurement is consistent across different forms of energy,
such as mechanical energy (force x distance = work done = energy,
and
IIRC rotational speed (in radians/second) x radius of a wheel =
energy, and potential energy = height * gravity, kinetic energy =
mass
x velocity (all IIRC)), chemical energy (whcih is released when you
have a chemical reaction, electrical energy (e.g. energy stored on
a
capacitor or inductor, which IIRC is 1/2 CV^2 and 1/2 LI^2
respectively), heat energy, where heat is transferred from a hotter
to
a colder body. There's energy in food - just look at the number of
Joules per 100g on a packet of food.

ALL forms of energy are consistent with one another, and the law of
conservation of energy applies when converting from one form of
energy
to another, so the number of Joules before and after any conversion
will be the same (anything not purely converted to the other form
of
energy is usually wasted as heat (assuming you're not talking about
converting to heat energy)).

So energy may be a "broad term", but that's because there's lots of
different forms of energy, but that doesn't mean that energy isn't
the
right term to use, and it is the right term to use when considering
the output of a wind turbine over its lifetime.

Nice try. But you've missed the point. Probably deliberately.


Really? Care to actually explain what point I've missed, because I
think you've just said that because in reality you've been shown to
have been talking nonsense yet again.







--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

You and Yours
 

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Frontier-Silicon (the biggest DAB module manufacturer) does the OFDM
demodulation in hardware, because it designs and manufacturers its own
ASIC chips, whereas Radioscape (the 2nd biggest DAB module
manufacturer, although it might not be 2nd any more) does everything
in software, because it uses off-the-shelf DSP processors.

I didn't realise they decoded ODFM in hardware. I suppose on the scale
of microchips, (that can have millions of components per chip), having
to build 1536 separate receivers is not such a huge problem.

OK so not necessarily possible to switch to a completely different
system, in software, but DAB+ could be implemented if the memory and
processing power is there.

Richard E.

You and Yours
 

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Richard Evans wrote:


It does appear as if there is a centrifugal force, but actually there
isn't any force actually pushing anything away from the centre of the
circle.

Yes there is: there is a force on the drum which is the reaction to
the force it exerts on the clothes. Just as the ground exerts an
upward force on you which is the reaction to the downward
gravitational force you exert on it.

Well I did write a reply to this, but then I deleted it, as I don't
believe in getting caught up in pointless discussions. If you don't
agree with what I said, then fine, we don't agree.


Would you also say there is no such thing as the Coriolis force?

Why would I say that. Actually I don't fully understand Coriolis force,
but I know that it exists.

The Coriolis force is a force which only appears in a rotating from of
reference. If you say there's no such thing as centrifugal force, you
should also say there's no such thing as the Coriolis force. They're
both equally "fictitious".

Well I didn't bring up the subject of coriolis force, and as I said I
don't fully understand it. As much as I do understand it, it's the
reason why the Earths winds don't simply blow directly from the tropics
to the poles. Some how the fact that the Earth is rotating causes the
winds to blow in circles. Hence creating weather systems.

Richard E.

You and Yours
 

"Richard Evans" wrote in message

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Frontier-Silicon (the biggest DAB module manufacturer) does the
OFDM
demodulation in hardware, because it designs and manufacturers its
own
ASIC chips, whereas Radioscape (the 2nd biggest DAB module
manufacturer, although it might not be 2nd any more) does
everything
in software, because it uses off-the-shelf DSP processors.

I didn't realise they decoded ODFM in hardware. I suppose on the
scale
of microchips, (that can have millions of components per chip),
having
to build 1536 separate receivers is not such a huge problem.


OFDM demodulation is performed using the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fourier_transform

and OFDM modulation is performed using the IFFT (inverse FFT). Both
have a computational complexity of O(N log2 N), where N is the length
of the FFT, which in the case of DAB would presumably be 2048, because
normal FFTs require N to be a power of 2 (there are some weird
modifications of the FFT that use number theory to allow different
lengths to be calculated, but I can't remember what FFT lengths they
allow now).


OK so not necessarily possible to switch to a completely different
system,


No, it would be possible to switch to something like DVB-T2, but it
would require some organisations to actually push the idea, i.e. to
get receivers manufacturers etc, or else Europe will end up with
DAB/DAB+/DMB.


in software, but DAB+ could be implemented if the memory and
processing power is there.






--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

You and Yours
 

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:



No, it would be possible to switch to something like DVB-T2, but it
would require some organisations to actually push the idea, i.e. to
get receivers manufacturers etc, or else Europe will end up with
DAB/DAB+/DMB.

I'm sure there is something ironic in the fact that Ofcom supposedly
want to make things as spectrally efficient as possible, but will
probably never consider such a move.

Richard E.

You and Yours
 

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:01:20 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

You're the one who stated quite categorically that:
Power = Energy x Time

I gave the definition earlier. But of course you won't have read that bit.

I know you gave that definition. That's why I requoted it. Sadly I have
read it.

You're the one who needs to get a clue as this quite obviously WRONG.

Suddenly you remember your schooling? When it suits you? Or did you have
to 'look up a table'?

What do you mean suddenly? I've never said I didn't remember. This is a
different subject entirely. When what suits me? Are you deranged? Your
questions make absolutely no sense.
And no, I didn't have to look up a table to know the relationship between
energy, power and time.
This is schoolboy physics. Clearly, you are the one who needs to look up
the table of common formulas. You still have no idea that what you said
is blatantly wrong do you?

So from your tables tell us what you do get by multiplying a given amount
of energy by a given amount of time, using units from the same system?

I dunno Dave-boy, what do you get? Please tell us all so we can have
another good laugh at you. Hint: the answer is nothing sensible.

What do you get if you multiply miles by seconds?

And you obviously think there's nothing wrong in defining it as
'power=energy per second'? Given you've not made any mention of that.

That is the correct definition, so indeed there is nothing wrong in
defining it like that. That is not what you said however.

Then you try and make some smart arse comment to cover up, snipping the
other stuff as you go.

Good grief. And just what are you doing, you shiftless worm?

Exposing you for the spineless imbecile that you are.

You don't even have the grace to admit you got it wrong. You are a fool.
Your opinions are worthless are discussions with you are pointless.

In just about every post you criticise others for doing *exactly* what you
do.

I didn't get it wrong Davey. You did.

But if 'discussions with me are pointless' why do you spend so much time
replying to my posts here?

I don't spend "so much" time. I takes me mere seconds to respond to your
drivel. You clearly have nothing better to do all day.

You and Yours
 

In article ,
Dave Farrance wrote:

Yes. I know I'm being over-picky here, but what I was getting at was that
the reference frame is not the object. If you have an inertial reference
frame and the Earth is rotating within that, then you can detail all of
the forces using standard Newtonian mechanics, Coriolis effects and all
(which doesn't contradict what you've written above, of course).

At the risk of flogging a dead horse... Yes, that is just the point.
You can describe the Coriolis *effect* - the movement of air around a
depression say - in an inertial frame, and that explanation will not
involve a Coriolis *force*. The Coriolis force only arises when you
describe what is observed in the rotating frame (in this case, the
earth).

Similarly, you can describe circular motion in an inertial frame, and
that description will not involve a centrifugal force (except in the
sense of a reaction to the centripetal force). The centrifugal force
on the rotated object only appears in the rotating frame.

That is why I said that if you deny the existence of centrifugal force
you should deny the existence of the Coriolis force too. Both are
equally "fictitious".

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.