Solar flare threatens to disrupt Earth's communications and power

In article ,
brightside S9 wrote:
[omitted]

I suggest that you look back over the thread working on the assumption
that the posters really do understand the difference between energy and
power, and that your misunderstanding results from failing to take
the obvious meaning of terms like "consumption" in context.

I can quite correctly say that my average energy consumption is 2kW,
and that my energy consumption during December was 3000kWh.

Would you object if I instead said that my average energy consumption
was 2kJ per second? That is exactly equivalent to saying it's 2kW.

-- Richard

On Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 12:30:56h +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

I can quite correctly say that my average energy consumption is 2kW, and
that my energy consumption during December was 3000kWh.

Would you object if I instead said that my average energy consumption
was 2kJ per second? That is exactly equivalent to saying it's 2kW.

Yes, yes, and thrice yes.

You have missed out the all important word "rate" as in my average
rate of energy consumption.

Something which changes with time is a "rate".

Velocity is the rate of change of displacement with respect to time.

Power is the rate of change of energy with respect to time.

Mathematic magic occurs when the period of time over which the quantity
changes tends to zero.

In article , J G Miller
wrote:
On Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 12:30:56h +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

I can quite correctly say that my average energy consumption is 2kW,
and that my energy consumption during December was 3000kWh.

False.


Would you object if I instead said that

my average energy consumption was 2kJ per second

Also false.


? That is exactly equivalent to saying it's 2kW.

Irrelevent to the actual error in both assertions. :-)

Yes, yes, and thrice yes.

You have missed out the all important word "rate" as in my average rate
of energy consumption.

Indeed. Without that word being included appropriately *both* the
assertions as "2kW" and as "2kJ/sec" are nonsense.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , J G Miller wrote:

Would you object if I instead said that my average energy consumption
was 2kJ per second? That is exactly equivalent to saying it's 2kW.

Yes, yes, and thrice yes.

Well, in that case your disagreement is with the English language,
because "consumption" is often used to mean the rate at which
something is consumed, as well as the total amount consumed.

This is probably because an amount consumed pretty well has to happen
over some time, unlike a distance which exist without reference to
time (no digressions into relativity, please).

-- Richard

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:36:29 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 12:30:56h +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

I can quite correctly say that my average energy consumption is 2kW, and
that my energy consumption during December was 3000kWh.

Would you object if I instead said that my average energy consumption
was 2kJ per second? That is exactly equivalent to saying it's 2kW.

Yes, yes, and thrice yes.

You have missed out the all important word "rate" as in my average
rate of energy consumption.

In the non-mathematical English phrase "average energy consumption is
2kW" the "2kW" makes it clear that a rate is being referred to. The
word "rate" is implied.


Something which changes with time is a "rate".

Velocity is the rate of change of displacement with respect to time.

Power is the rate of change of energy with respect to time.

Mathematic magic occurs when the period of time over which the quantity
changes tends to zero.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Indeed. Without that word being included appropriately *both* the
assertions as "2kW" and as "2kJ/sec" are nonsense.

So do you reject "my consumption of chocolate is 3 bars per week"?
How about "I consume 3 bars of chocolate per week"?

-- Richard

In article , Richard Tobin
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Indeed. Without that word being included appropriately *both* the
assertions as "2kW" and as "2kJ/sec" are nonsense.

So do you reject "my consumption of chocolate is 3 bars per week"? How
about "I consume 3 bars of chocolate per week"?

Both of those statements are worded consistently with the units stated in
them.

Whereas your earlier statements using 'kW' and 'kJ/sec' were not.

Never mind, red herrings are apparently still in production. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:32:55 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

Well, in that case your disagreement is with the English language,
because "consumption" is often used to mean the rate at which something
is consumed, as well as the total amount consumed.

Which reflects a poor usage of English on the person or persons reporting
their consumption.

Your electricity bill charges you for the consumption of energy (Joules)
not the rate at which you consume that energy (kW).

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:35:29 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

So do you reject "my consumption of chocolate is 3 bars per week"? How
about "I consume 3 bars of chocolate per week"?

What do you do when the shopkeeper replies, that will be GBP 1095 please?

(Because the shop keeper bills in advance per year.)

On Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 15:54:11h +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:

In the non-mathematical English phrase "average energy consumption is
2kW" the "2kW" makes it clear that a rate is being referred to. The
word "rate" is implied.

Using inaccurate vernacular usage to justify technical discussion
is a "non-starter".

Remind me, what does the "tech" in the name of the news group mean,
or does it only have a "meeja studies" flash value?