Why was the one-year test performed?

Shane:

Quote

Just when I think there is some hope for you Mary, you go and revert to form

That's pretty hilarious from the dunce who got fooled by Rossi for going on five years and still doesn't have it straight. Rossi never accomplished anything whatever except fool people and neither did Ampenergo.

Quote from Alan Smith

While I do not approve of Rossi calling anyone stupid,
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

You are wrong to say 'most people use'. It is a phrase often used by non-academic EE's in Europe to denote sustained power capability, either produced and consumed. In other words, 'baseload'. This is simply to distinguish it from 'peak load.'

Alan, I googled it. The term is relatively rare. The problem was never that it was "incorrect" -- though Rossi responded as if that claim had been made; what he responded to was a distortion by the one who asked him about it.

Both base load and peak load would be expressed in kW, normally. However, utility companies deal in kWh, routinely. Power meters collect that data. So sometimes they talk about kWh/h. I actually covered all this. It means kW! I.e, an average over a time.

Rossi knows that kWh/h is a measure of power. Most people and sources and usages call that "kW." And that's obvious if you search. Power conversion calculators do not include the unit kWh/h. Alan, you are -- incorrectly -- seizing on one phrase "most people" and completely missing the point.

Rossi repeated his error (that converting kWh/h to kW was "stupid") in his last post, and he again referred to "physics manuals." I found one document apparently by Wolfson, the source he had recommended, where kWh/h is used. It was a result of calculating average power (so many kwh) over a period (h) and then Wolfson wrote that we can cancel the h/h, exactly what Rossi says is stupid.

I assume that you know the basic facts here, so you can stand proud as the first person who knows any of the facts to defend what Rossi wrote. Or were you defending it?

Do you think that most people use kWh/h as a measure of power, whether average power or whatever? Can you show any citations? Believe me, I looked!

Here: an encyclopedia entry! https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWh/h

They call it an anomaly, and, yes, I checked the linked article. This is not normal language, that is what they mean.

Rossi explicitly denies the math. He avoids the hyphen in "kilowatthour" and makes a point of it, that because of this being a "quantum of energy," in figuring the rate, as "kilowatthours per hour" one cannot simply drop the hour part (i.e, both, as a fraction equaling 1).

Smart people, snowing not-so-smart people, present complicated numbers (and may do this, in person, off the top of their head.) Very impressive. So he says, though it was not at all relevant to the actual question, that one kWh is equal to 3526 kJ

But, as soon as one knows that one watt is one joule per second, one can then convert watts and time to joules. one watt-second equals one joule. One watt-minute equals 60 joules. and one watt-hour equals 60 watt-minutes. So one watt-hour equals 3600 joules. And then one kWh equals 3600 kJ. Or we might say 3.6 MJ.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=157#comment-1229980 is his post where he goes off the rails. You are free to hold his hand and go off with him if you like.

Rossi's head is full of cobwebs.

Look, if I make mistakes, I really want my friends to point it out. It appears that Rossi is deleting comments as "spam" where people try to correct this.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Wyttenbach wrote:

For a second, maybe....
I suppose you meant with a constant supply of power at 1MWh

Heh! Sarcasm, Paradigmnoia?

But even Rossi would say 1 MWh/h.

2.5 kW each house, well, it depends on climate, but that is a little less than two small electric heaters full-on. As peak power, it's a bit thin, but maybe. Average power, probably, except in a quite cold climate. Not sure what "single house" means.

Quote from Alan Smith

Abd, if you read what I wrote instead of desperately seeking to be right all the time, you would realise that I never said 'most people.' I actually said 'It is a phrase often used by non-academic EE's in Europe to denote sustained power capability, either produced and consumed. In other words, 'baseload'. This is simply to distinguish it from 'peak load.'

Alan, you remind me of Mr. Magoo. Just a fact.

Since I think you are truthful, apparently you don't see what is right in front of you. Here you write that, if I wasn't so eager to be right all the time, I would "realise that I [Smith] never said 'most people.'"

Quote

You are wrong to say 'most people use'.

Even though that was very brief, you didn't quote it, just what came after. Basically, Alan, you become confused as to what the issue is.

You would be correct if you merely said what you now say, that "some people" use kWh/h. But I never said that nobody did, and wrote quite to the contrary of that.

The argument for the usage is weird, (both loads are expressed in watts, and trying to use watts for one and watt-hours per hour for the other -- "to distinguish" -- is imprecise, far from obvious, and likely confusing. What we know is that kWh/h is power, which is always an instantaneous measure, a rate, or it could be an average, or a base or a peak, and the time unit does cancel out in a power calculation, and thus the averaging period is not truly expressed. If it matters, one should state it! I am, in fact, an "EE," as to actual work experience, though it was not with major electrical power.

I did some research on "base load." It is the minimum power demand in a system. It is not average load. It would be expressed in watts. Time would only come into play if one has energy measurements in kWh, say, and then divides it by hours. As has been noted, some electric utilities might do that. But it is actually a power level. Then there is peak power, the maximum that a system can use or is designed to supply. (If the maximum is exceeded, failures arise.) Peak power for my house might be 12 kVA, which is the same as kilowatts (assuming power factor of 1). Base load just for my house is quite low. There are various devices and a few lights that are left on. Might be about 0.2 kW. Power grids have subsystems that are always-on, and some that are always-on at night, with others always-on during the day. So a much higher percentage of the peak load is always in demand for the overall system that for my house.

In thinking about this, what I have handy is the ratings of devices in watts. I consider light bulbs. I do not have a figure for kWh consumption, though this is now sometimes on packages, generally kWh/year, assuming always-on. I would not use that information to figure base load. However, it's true that if I turn everything off that I would turn off at night, and go out to my power meter, and observe the accumulated power reading in watts or kilowatts or whatever is easy to measure as it changes, I can figure, then watt-hours per hour, thus the consumed wattage. That involves a time calculation, but I end up with a timeless number. (Time is still involved because it is for a period, but this has nothing to do with "base load."

The point is not that using kW instead of kWh is "right," though. These are conventions; and it was convention that was mentioned, not "right" or "wrong." It was Rossi who made-wrong.

I had criticized his explanation of power vs. potential energy (the original question) by just quoting it with no comments other than noting the trope -- the unusual expression, that does not mean "wrong" -- and then saying "poor kid," and I'm still standing with the impression that the kid is unfortunate to have a father who would ask this question of Andrea Rossi instead of researching it himself. (and presumably then tell the kid he was wrong, when the kid was merely confused and needed clarity. What Rossi provided was not clarity, at all, and it was actually, in places, wrong to boot.)

I never stated or implied that nobody used kWh/h. I knew that it was used, and acknowledged that early and often. My point was simple: in his reaction to the original post, Rossi was calling routine practice among engineers and physicists "stupid." He was doing this as part of a paranoid reaction, and this is all obvious. When we are paranoid, we get stupid, that is also routine. I cannot tell how much Rossi really knows, then, though his usage of "3526 joules per kWh" was pretty out-there if his knowledge is solid.

The real topic is his paranoia and the extremity of his reactions. And now, here, yours! I write a lot but I also proofread it, generally, and attempt to be careful and clear. "Most people" meant, obviously, "most people who talk and write about electrical power."

I have *never* heard someone actually say "Kilowatt-hours per hour."

Quote

Non-academic EE's - the guys who crawl around in service ducts ans swap out grid transformers - are not 'most people' by any stretch of the imagination. But they are certainly 'some people'.

Which was irrelevant, since it was already agreed that some people used it.

Quote

To be honest 'most people' seldom let the term Kw/H past their lips. I have only heard it used in conversation, btw. These are not usually guys who write a lot of web articles. But they know what they mean, and even you know what they mean, which is actually what counts.

This was never in question. But what does Rossi mean by "stupid." What does he mean by accusing people who comment on anything that he thinks is negative of being paid to do it? What does he mean by deleting comment as spam that wasn't spam, it was apparently an attempt to show him something better, and then he says he has no more time to waste on this nonsense, referring people to "physics manuals" that directly contradict what he's said.

I'll say what it means to me.

It means, "I'm right, I'm always right, and if you disagree you are stupid. Go away. I don't have anything to learn from you. I'm busy. The proof I am right will appear in the market."

Quote

As for defending Rossi, I am not -what I am defending is the retention of a sense of proportion, which at times goes 'out the window' here.

It seems to me that you think this is about whether "kWh/h" is right or not. That was never the issue! That would be pedantic bullshit. So what, as long as we know what is being referred to. You would be right on.

However, that's not what happened!

One more point. I learn from everything. While I certainly could have derived it, with a little thought, I did not have "3600 joules per watt-hour" in my head. I will now never forget it -- unless this brain does really go south. I'm watching it, there are certain things I do regularly for a relatively objective measure. There is definitely a decline in some ways -- relatively objectively observed -- with some compensations in others, and others seem to think so, as do I.

In some ways, I am not as smart as I was when I was younger. but ... what about wisdom?

Who cares? This is actually a huge social issue, call it the sequestered and unavailable wisdom of the elders. What keeps it that way? And that is what I'm working on with a social worker. My answer: lack of training and experience in cross-generational communication.

Quote from zeus46

Abd, your initial post on the topic was off-topic pedantic nitpicking, your last post on the topic was unnecessarily long off-topic pedantic nitpicking^-3

I'm reminded of the Zen story which ends with "I am the only one who has not broken our vow of silence"

There is a great deal here on lenr-forum that is off topic, it is almost more routine than being on-topic. I am, here, of course, responding to an off-topic comment that is ... well, rather opinionated and not on-point to the diversion topic either.

This was the original post: Why was the one-year test performed?

It received, here, one comment (from Jed Rothwell, and I agreed with it). But it turned into a huge flap on Rossi's blog. Rossi's behavior is, in fact, a major topic for this community at this point. Rossi also showed, in his comments, his opinion of this forum (it was called a "hostile blog.")

Looking over the posts before and after it, almost every one is "off-topic."

As to length, everything is there for a purpose. Obviously, though, it is not there to impress "zeus46." If I ever write for this user, perhaps I will reduce it to memes. That can be fun, but, it takes time and, my experience, the people who don't like the long posts really hate the short ones. Just wait.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

On the topic of nitpicking, I have a beef with m/s2 for acceleration , too (ie: 9.81 m/s2). Maybe we should write kW/h2...

Uh, Paradigmoia, I'm getting a bit worried. Rossi said that some idiot had mentioned kW/h, which he claimed was nonsense. He was not correct, there is a meaning to it, but it is rate of change of power. I wrote about this. If at some time the kW/h is 0, it would mean that power was constant. kW/h has nothing to do with anything that was being discussed, it might have been a typo. But what are you talking about here? Here you have kW/h^2, which would be kW/h-h or kW/h/h. It would be the rate of change of the rate of change of power. The second derivative, mathematically.

What is your beef with the acceleration measure? It read it as "meters per second per second, the rate of change of velocity. (I would not read it as "meters per second squared" because it obscures the origin). "Per second per second" is, though, "per second squared". "Per' means division, in this case by time.

"kW/h/h" is not anything that anyone has been talking about. Rossi uses kWh/h, for power, except when he doesn't. Like he does not write that the Plant was a 1 MWh/h plant.

Rossi noted that Focardi noted that many students were confused about energy and power. I agree with Focardi. But Rossi was finger-pointing, forgetting about himself.