Password avoidance

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:57:41 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:296 -0800, TOM wrote:
>
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> 35 yrs being an Electrician. The draw when you open a light switch with
>>> a single 100 w bulb will be approximately +- 0.03 kvh at start up where
>>> as the light staying open will draw 0.01 per kvh per every 10 hrs, Now
>>> open and close the switch 10 times per day which will cause 0.30kvh
>>> registration on the meter as compared to a bulb continuously burning for
>>> a 24hr period as approximately .025. Same applies to any electrical
>>> apparatus be it a light bulb or the computer plus adding the opening
>>> surge and then the burning ( running) time
>>> But I will try and find the documentation on this Ken and will get over
>>> to you (right now the documentation is in my head and I do not have my
>>> CA book at hand here so as to show a hard copy
>>
>>
>> I was told, by the journeyman electrician I worked for, that the terms
>> "open" and "close" originated "way back when." He assumed that when
>> candles were used to provide light, they had shutters; you open the
>> shutters to light the room and close the shutters to darken the room.
>>
>> Another idea was the "barn door" shutters on Klieg lights:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klieg_light
>>
>> Barn doors:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_doors
>>
>> Closer to the original off topic:
>> http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/myths.html
>
> Have you ever seen an old-fashioned knife switch? One glance at that (or
> for that matter at the interior of a modern wall switch) would tell you
> where those terms come from. They are quite literal...

I was careless in the above. I forgot to point out that when you *open* a
switch you get darkness and when you *close* a switch you get light.
However, my grandparents and other relatives of their generation (they were
immigrants born around 1880) used to say "close the light" to mean turn the
light off.

Also, to engineers at least, an open circuit is a circuit that is not
powered or otherwise not complete.

BTW, if I were a poor person in the days of candles, I don't think I'd want
to close a shutter on them to cut off their light. I'd be burning candles
without getting the benefit of their light, which is poor economics.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

[GreyCloud]

Sam E wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 168:46 -0700, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sam E wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 2149 -0700, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> You may be using a computer for 60 years or more. 60 years, and ONE
>>>>> logon per day. Now you've got over 21,914 logons. At 5 seconds each,
>>>>> that's more than 24 hours wasted on repeatedly entering your password.
>>>> That is fine
>>> What's "this"? Are you continuing to imagine that I was LIMITING
>>> myself to ONE DAY? How many times do you log on during your LIFE? You
>>> spend a lot more than 5 seconds logging on.
>>>
>>>> if it is your own computer.
>>>> Do it at work that demands security, and you'll find yourself out of a job.
>> That is totally ridiculous. All it takes is an outsider to get by
>> password security and it is all over with. What the OP wants is not
>> worth it.
>
> You replied to the wrong person. I asked questions.
>
>> I remember a DOD gal that managed a VMS cluster and she got pretty lazy
>> and wrote down her password, only because VMS does not allow
>> passwordless systems, and the system got compromised. She spent the
>> next year going from government facitly to facility teaching security
>> after that snafu.

It isn't about how many times a year you have to login... why do you
think MS provided a password mechanism in the first place?
It helps to keep outsiders on the net from just waltzing in and snooping
thru your files.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:03:27 -0500, Dave wrote:

> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gkyza3c54rwf.hfa8qoe40wnq$.dlg@40tude.net...
> snip
>
>>
>> It seems that people are ignoring Ohm's law.
>>
>> If you double the voltage into a fixed device, you will not halve the
>> current but in fact double it. Ohm's law says E = IR (that's for DC; it's
>> more complicated in AC with capacitance and inductance to consider - i.e.,
>> reactive components, but that wouldn't affect this argument).
>>
>> The result is that the putative dryer will consume four times the power
>> (in
>> the short amount of time before it bursts into flame).
>>
>> The case where the power is the same at 120 vs 140 volts is where we have
>> two entirely separate devices, each one properly designed for its voltage.
>>
>> --
>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>
> Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding when you
> wire a dryer that's dual voltage capable, with 120V you use maybe half the
> heating elements. When you wire it with 240V you use all the heating
> elements. So everything changes by an unknown except Voltage which we know
> is 240V. We can now start to solve the problem by finding the resistance
> (Ohms) with an Ohmmeter, which is now a known and solve for current (Amps)
> or find current with an Ammeter and solve for resistance (Ohms). We can now
> solve for power (Watts) now as well. We can cross-check with Ohm's Law to
> verify. We can solve for Watts before Ohms, but we have to have two known's
> before we can solve. We cannot assume any factor and come up with a factual
> result.
> To go back to your post, if you wire a dryer that's not dual voltage
> capable, which I think is what you meant judging by the data in your post,
> then you are correct, you will let the smoke out of the dryer. One final
> note, while your assessment of Ohm's law is true, you are assuming all the
> people in this discussion don't know the difference between devices that are
> multi-voltage capable and that's not so. Judging by Char's reply to your
> post he doesn't know the difference either, just like he didn't know the
> difference between Watt's Law and Ohm's Law.
> Dave

Do *you* know what Watt's law is?

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Watt's+law

Recall that Watt died in 1819, long before the unit of power was named
after him (1882), and before the formula for power in an electric circuit
was worked out.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:06:27 -0500, Dave wrote:

> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
> news:a5pg17k32gw9.trdic7oivzjj$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:414 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:03:10 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>My bad, you are correct. The acronym I should have use is KVA
>>>>(KiloVoltAmps). IIRC KWH is true power and KVA is apparent power. I don't
>>>>know that much about the difference, I know I used to rent generators
>>>>rated
>>>>in KWH and now they are in KVA and there is a slight difference in the
>>>>output ability. 2) There is a formula for this one.
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>> Oy. Glad we got to the bottom of it.
>>
>> We didn't. KVA is a measure of power (when the power factor is included),
>> KWH is a measure of energy consumed.
>>
>> Energy consumed is power times time, or equivalently, power is energy per
>> unit time.
>>
>> --
>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>
> For your perusal, when you get the time.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kva
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwh
> HTH,
> Dave

Thanks for the (unneeded) links.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

[Dave]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:7eiqgvcngw8r$.1628a1kb1dgca$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:03:27 -0500, Dave wrote:
snip
> You are right in your supposition. I was talking about plugging a dryer
> (really any device, but dryer is the example that was chosen) that is
> wired
> for 120V into 240V power. I don't think I was aware that a 120V machine
> could normally be rejumpered for 240V operation. Thanks for that
> information.
>
> The multi-voltage capable dryer certainly could be thought of as an
> implementation of what we were describing as two dryer models, one for
> 120V
> and one for 240V. Clearly it's a more elegant idea than having two
> distinct
> models, especially in an place where both voltages are available. It might
> be as simple as wiring a pair of motor coils in parallel for 120V and
> serial for 240V, the same for heating coils, and having transformer taps
> for the power supply for the digital circuits.
>
> Probably most of us are aware that the switching power supplies commonly
> used as USB charger wall warts can be plugged into a range of voltages at
> different frequencies. I don't know how they are wired, but clearly they
> are designed by the right engineers (not designed by me, for sure!).
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

Not all dryers have this feature, those that do have to be rewired in the
junction box where the power cord is attached in the dryer to take advantage
of this feature. I can't speak for modern day, but it used to be an
advantage to wire one at 240V if available as it used less than half the
amps = lower electric usage = less $$$. There are a lot of electric motors
with this feature as well, many can be wired at several different set
voltages or a range like 208V-270V (may not be accurate numbers on voltage)
or something like that. AFAIK, the ones with a specific voltage have to have
somewhere close to that voltage and aren't multi-phase capable. The ones
with a voltage range will handle single, double and possibly three-phase
power feeds. Don't take any of this as factual enough to rely on for
application, other than theory I'm an amateur on this, my area is/was
electronics.
By the way, I used to work in a two-way communications shop for a while and
when we got a dead or defective battery we used to hook them up in series or
parallel and jumper them pos. to neg. so we could see them blow up and which
was would make the most smoke and noise. I'd love to create your example,
plug a 120V appliance into 240V to see the smoke.
Dave

 

[Dave]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:eyo91ya37le7$.qwmjrrs174zp$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:03:27 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:gkyza3c54rwf.hfa8qoe40wnq$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> snip
>>
>>>
>>> It seems that people are ignoring Ohm's law.
>>>
>>> If you double the voltage into a fixed device, you will not halve the
>>> current but in fact double it. Ohm's law says E = IR (that's for DC;
>>> it's
>>> more complicated in AC with capacitance and inductance to consider -
>>> i.e.,
>>> reactive components, but that wouldn't affect this argument).
>>>
>>> The result is that the putative dryer will consume four times the power
>>> (in
>>> the short amount of time before it bursts into flame).
>>>
>>> The case where the power is the same at 120 vs 140 volts is where we
>>> have
>>> two entirely separate devices, each one properly designed for its
>>> voltage.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>>
>> Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding when you
>> wire a dryer that's dual voltage capable, with 120V you use maybe half
>> the
>> heating elements. When you wire it with 240V you use all the heating
>> elements. So everything changes by an unknown except Voltage which we
>> know
>> is 240V. We can now start to solve the problem by finding the resistance
>> (Ohms) with an Ohmmeter, which is now a known and solve for current
>> (Amps)
>> or find current with an Ammeter and solve for resistance (Ohms). We can
>> now
>> solve for power (Watts) now as well. We can cross-check with Ohm's Law to
>> verify. We can solve for Watts before Ohms, but we have to have two
>> known's
>> before we can solve. We cannot assume any factor and come up with a
>> factual
>> result.
>> To go back to your post, if you wire a dryer that's not dual voltage
>> capable, which I think is what you meant judging by the data in your
>> post,
>> then you are correct, you will let the smoke out of the dryer. One final
>> note, while your assessment of Ohm's law is true, you are assuming all
>> the
>> people in this discussion don't know the difference between devices that
>> are
>> multi-voltage capable and that's not so. Judging by Char's reply to your
>> post he doesn't know the difference either, just like he didn't know the
>> difference between Watt's Law and Ohm's Law.
>> Dave
>
> Do *you* know what Watt's law is?
>
> http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Watt's+law
>
> Recall that Watt died in 1819, long before the unit of power was named
> after him (1882), and before the formula for power in an electric circuit
> was worked out.
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

If you follow the posts you will see where I posted it and corrected Char
when he called it Ohm's Law.
Dave

 

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:03:59 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
wrote:

>Not all dryers have this feature, those that do have to be rewired in the
>junction box where the power cord is attached in the dryer to take advantage
>of this feature. I can't speak for modern day, but it used to be an
>advantage to wire one at 240V if available as it used less than half the
>amps = lower electric usage = less $$$.

Dave, you're in way over your head. Two identical dryers, one properly
wired for 120v and the other properly wired for 240v, will use the
same amount of energy and thus will cost the owner the same amount of
money to operate.

You don't get charged for amps, you get charged for Watts.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:05:16 -0500, Dave wrote:

> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eyo91ya37le7$.qwmjrrs174zp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:03:27 -0500, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:gkyza3c54rwf.hfa8qoe40wnq$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that people are ignoring Ohm's law.
>>>>
>>>> If you double the voltage into a fixed device, you will not halve the
>>>> current but in fact double it. Ohm's law says E = IR (that's for DC;
>>>> it's
>>>> more complicated in AC with capacitance and inductance to consider -
>>>> i.e.,
>>>> reactive components, but that wouldn't affect this argument).
>>>>
>>>> The result is that the putative dryer will consume four times the power
>>>> (in
>>>> the short amount of time before it bursts into flame).
>>>>
>>>> The case where the power is the same at 120 vs 140 volts is where we
>>>> have
>>>> two entirely separate devices, each one properly designed for its
>>>> voltage.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>>>
>>> Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding when you
>>> wire a dryer that's dual voltage capable, with 120V you use maybe half
>>> the
>>> heating elements. When you wire it with 240V you use all the heating
>>> elements. So everything changes by an unknown except Voltage which we
>>> know
>>> is 240V. We can now start to solve the problem by finding the resistance
>>> (Ohms) with an Ohmmeter, which is now a known and solve for current
>>> (Amps)
>>> or find current with an Ammeter and solve for resistance (Ohms). We can
>>> now
>>> solve for power (Watts) now as well. We can cross-check with Ohm's Law to
>>> verify. We can solve for Watts before Ohms, but we have to have two
>>> known's
>>> before we can solve. We cannot assume any factor and come up with a
>>> factual
>>> result.
>>> To go back to your post, if you wire a dryer that's not dual voltage
>>> capable, which I think is what you meant judging by the data in your
>>> post,
>>> then you are correct, you will let the smoke out of the dryer. One final
>>> note, while your assessment of Ohm's law is true, you are assuming all
>>> the
>>> people in this discussion don't know the difference between devices that
>>> are
>>> multi-voltage capable and that's not so. Judging by Char's reply to your
>>> post he doesn't know the difference either, just like he didn't know the
>>> difference between Watt's Law and Ohm's Law.
>>> Dave
>>
>> Do *you* know what Watt's law is?
>>
>> http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Watt's+law
>>
>> Recall that Watt died in 1819, long before the unit of power was named
>> after him (1882), and before the formula for power in an electric circuit
>> was worked out.
>>
>> --
>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>
> If you follow the posts you will see where I posted it and corrected Char
> when he called it Ohm's Law.
> Dave

If you had looked at the link I provided, you would have seen that Watt's
Law has nothing to do with electricity.

Your criticism of Char Jackson's error was otherwise valid, of course.

I forget the name of another law: when you post a correction in Usenet, you
will make an error in *your* post

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

[Dave]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1gxiqkdvdxrx5$.74ctwh1psii9.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:05:16 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:eyo91ya37le7$.qwmjrrs174zp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:03:27 -0500, Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:gkyza3c54rwf.hfa8qoe40wnq$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that people are ignoring Ohm's law.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you double the voltage into a fixed device, you will not halve the
>>>>> current but in fact double it. Ohm's law says E = IR (that's for DC;
>>>>> it's
>>>>> more complicated in AC with capacitance and inductance to consider -
>>>>> i.e.,
>>>>> reactive components, but that wouldn't affect this argument).
>>>>>
>>>>> The result is that the putative dryer will consume four times the
>>>>> power
>>>>> (in
>>>>> the short amount of time before it bursts into flame).
>>>>>
>>>>> The case where the power is the same at 120 vs 140 volts is where we
>>>>> have
>>>>> two entirely separate devices, each one properly designed for its
>>>>> voltage.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>>>>
>>>> Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding when
>>>> you
>>>> wire a dryer that's dual voltage capable, with 120V you use maybe half
>>>> the
>>>> heating elements. When you wire it with 240V you use all the heating
>>>> elements. So everything changes by an unknown except Voltage which we
>>>> know
>>>> is 240V. We can now start to solve the problem by finding the
>>>> resistance
>>>> (Ohms) with an Ohmmeter, which is now a known and solve for current
>>>> (Amps)
>>>> or find current with an Ammeter and solve for resistance (Ohms). We can
>>>> now
>>>> solve for power (Watts) now as well. We can cross-check with Ohm's Law
>>>> to
>>>> verify. We can solve for Watts before Ohms, but we have to have two
>>>> known's
>>>> before we can solve. We cannot assume any factor and come up with a
>>>> factual
>>>> result.
>>>> To go back to your post, if you wire a dryer that's not dual voltage
>>>> capable, which I think is what you meant judging by the data in your
>>>> post,
>>>> then you are correct, you will let the smoke out of the dryer. One
>>>> final
>>>> note, while your assessment of Ohm's law is true, you are assuming all
>>>> the
>>>> people in this discussion don't know the difference between devices
>>>> that
>>>> are
>>>> multi-voltage capable and that's not so. Judging by Char's reply to
>>>> your
>>>> post he doesn't know the difference either, just like he didn't know
>>>> the
>>>> difference between Watt's Law and Ohm's Law.
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> Do *you* know what Watt's law is?
>>>
>>> http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Watt's+law
>>>
>>> Recall that Watt died in 1819, long before the unit of power was named
>>> after him (1882), and before the formula for power in an electric
>>> circuit
>>> was worked out.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>>
>> If you follow the posts you will see where I posted it and corrected Char
>> when he called it Ohm's Law.
>> Dave
>
> If you had looked at the link I provided, you would have seen that Watt's
> Law has nothing to do with electricity.
>
> Your criticism of Char Jackson's error was otherwise valid, of course.
>
> I forget the name of another law: when you post a correction in Usenet,
> you
> will make an error in *your* post
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

I'm starting to think you have the same problem as Char, you don't really
know what you're talking about and won't admit it. Just as Ohm's Law is a
means of analyzing an electrical path, it's characteristics and functions,
Watt's law is as well. Watt's Law is a formula for POWER; produced, consumed
and utilized. Pretty basic stuff, one of the first things you learn in
electronics and electricity.
I did in fact read your reference and it refers to steam. Exactly how steam
and Watt's Law is related I don't know or care, in fact it is not relevant
to this conversation. I hoped you wouldn't persist and I wouldn't have to
respond to you as I did with Char when he tried to twist my information with
illogical statements, but you did. So, using your reference again, I found
this for you:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Watt's+law
When you read it, understand it and figure out how to relate Watt's Law,
Ohm's law and cross-check between the two of them, I'm willing to discuss
this with you. Until then, like I posted to Char, I'm done with this
conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming very
boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do know
the difference, but am done with this topic.
Respectfully,
Dave

 

[Dave]

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:ka52q5tvg0920rhtfmitfcjonqio8ka8mg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:03:59 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Not all dryers have this feature, those that do have to be rewired in the
>>junction box where the power cord is attached in the dryer to take
>>advantage
>>of this feature. I can't speak for modern day, but it used to be an
>>advantage to wire one at 240V if available as it used less than half the
>>amps = lower electric usage = less $$$.
>
> Dave, you're in way over your head. Two identical dryers, one properly
> wired for 120v and the other properly wired for 240v, will use the
> same amount of energy and thus will cost the owner the same amount of
> money to operate.
>
> You don't get charged for amps, you get charged for Watts.

PLONK
>

 

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
wrote:

>I'm done with this
>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming very
>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do know
>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>Respectfully,
>Dave

This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
promise sticks.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm done with this
>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming very
>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do know
>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>Respectfully,
>>Dave
>
> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
> promise sticks.

He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't realized it


He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no need to
respond further to his anger.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm done with this
>>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming very
>>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
>>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do know
>>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>Respectfully,
>>>Dave
>>
>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>> promise sticks.
>
> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't realized it
>
>
> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no need to
> respond further to his anger.

Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:

"Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:

P = V x I "

Note the word 'improper'.

He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law refers to
steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.

Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above with an
x.

Now I ramble a bit:
Useful random fact: 746 W = 1 HP. 'Watt' is the metric (SI) unit of power,
equal to one Joule/sec, and of course it is not in any way restricted to
electrical contexts.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:24:44 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-me@other.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm done with this
>>>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming very
>>>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
>>>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do know
>>>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>>Respectfully,
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>>> promise sticks.
>>
>> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't realized it
>>
>>
>> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no need to
>> respond further to his anger.

Agreed.

>Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:
>
>"Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:
>
> P = V x I "
>
>Note the word 'improper'.

Ouch, I don't think he intended for you to stumble onto that
particular part.

>He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law refers to
>steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.
>
>Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above with an
>x.
>
>Now I ramble a bit:
>Useful random fact: 746 W = 1 HP. 'Watt' is the metric (SI) unit of power,
>equal to one Joule/sec, and of course it is not in any way restricted to
>electrical contexts.

Careful, you'll cause his head to spin.

 

[Dave]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm done with this
>>>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming
>>>>very
>>>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
>>>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do
>>>>know
>>>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>>Respectfully,
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>>> promise sticks.
>>
>> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't realized
>> it
>>
>>
>> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no need to
>> respond further to his anger.
>
> Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:
>
> "Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:
>
> P = V x I "
>
> Note the word 'improper'.

Improper is a qualifier to the word "name", not the formula, as in "It's an
improper name." Has nothing to do with the formula.

>
> He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law refers to
> steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.
>
You can't seem to figure out that Watt's Law does refer to electricity. You
can't even see in your search results there are thousands of references to
Watt's Law referenced to electrical power, but can see the one that's
related to steam and so that's the end of it for you. So, is it those
thousands of sites are as wrong as I am?

> Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above with an
> x.
>
> Now I ramble a bit:
> Useful random fact: 746 W = 1 HP. 'Watt' is the metric (SI) unit of power,
> equal to one Joule/sec, and of course it is not in any way restricted to
> electrical contexts.
>
So, in one sentence you claim Watt's Law is only related to steam and in no
way related to electricity and in this sentence you say it is not restricted
to electrical contexts. When you make up your mind which way it is will you
get back to us?

When you deal with people who would rather ignore fact and replace with
their assumptions:
http://www.crownaudio.com/apps_htm/designtools/ohms-law.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt's_law
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/baconbacon/page2.html

simpler, why don't I just give you the bing page.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=watt's+law&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox
Dave

 

[Dave]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm done with this
>>>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming
>>>>very
>>>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
>>>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do
>>>>know
>>>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>>Respectfully,
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>>> promise sticks.
>>
>> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't realized
>> it
>>
>>
>> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no need to
>> respond further to his anger.
>
> Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:
>
> "Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:
>
> P = V x I "
>
> Note the word 'improper'.
>
> He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law refers to
> steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.
>
> Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above with an
> x.
>
One other thing I learned while I was schooling on electronics, you can use
a dot in a formula in place of an x to indicate multiplication. Just thought
you'd like to know, or not.
Dave

 

[Char Jackson]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:16:10 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm done with this
>>>>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming
>>>>>very
>>>>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
>>>>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do
>>>>>know
>>>>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>>>Respectfully,
>>>>>Dave
>>>>
>>>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>>>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>>>> promise sticks.
>>>
>>> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't realized
>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no need to
>>> respond further to his anger.
>>
>> Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:
>>
>> "Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:
>>
>> P = V x I "
>>
>> Note the word 'improper'.
>>
>> He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law refers to
>> steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.
>>
>> Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above with an
>> x.
>>
>One other thing I learned while I was schooling on electronics, you can use
>a dot in a formula in place of an x to indicate multiplication. Just thought
>you'd like to know, or not.
>Dave

No, a dot will look like a misplaced decimal point, but another
accepted means of showing multiplication is to put the two values
right next to each other, as in P = VI. Modern textbooks actually
prefer this form.

Speaking of textbooks and 'schooling', you've mentioned these things
multiple times in this thread. Is it because you're still a student?
If so, what do your textbooks say about a 240v appliance using less
power (and therefore costing less) than its 120v equivalent? I'd love
to see how you support that crazy position.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:06:44 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:16:10 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm done with this
>>>>>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming
>>>>>>very
>>>>>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or not
>>>>>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do
>>>>>>know
>>>>>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>>>>Respectfully,
>>>>>>Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>>>>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>>>>> promise sticks.
>>>>
>>>> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't realized
>>>> it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no need to
>>>> respond further to his anger.
>>>
>>> Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:
>>>
>>> "Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:
>>>
>>> P = V x I "
>>>
>>> Note the word 'improper'.
>>>
>>> He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law refers to
>>> steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.
>>>
>>> Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above with an
>>> x.
>>>
>>One other thing I learned while I was schooling on electronics, you can use
>>a dot in a formula in place of an x to indicate multiplication. Just thought
>>you'd like to know, or not.
>>Dave
>
> No, a dot will look like a misplaced decimal point, but another
> accepted means of showing multiplication is to put the two values
> right next to each other, as in P = VI. Modern textbooks actually
> prefer this form.
>
> Speaking of textbooks and 'schooling', you've mentioned these things
> multiple times in this thread. Is it because you're still a student?
> If so, what do your textbooks say about a 240v appliance using less
> power (and therefore costing less) than its 120v equivalent? I'd love
> to see how you support that crazy position.

Whatever is wrong with Dave, I don't think we can help.

He even railed at me for a post where I partly supported his view

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

[Char Jackson]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:47:12 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-me@other.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:06:44 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> Speaking of textbooks and 'schooling', you've mentioned these things
>> multiple times in this thread. Is it because you're still a student?
>> If so, what do your textbooks say about a 240v appliance using less
>> power (and therefore costing less) than its 120v equivalent? I'd love
>> to see how you support that crazy position.
>
>Whatever is wrong with Dave, I don't think we can help.
>
>He even railed at me for a post where I partly supported his view

He admitted in another thread today that he's a student. I praise his
eagerness to start applying what he's learning in his classes but a
modicum of restraint is in order, as well.

 

[Dave]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:bp55vqwl557s.hi43aikry0fl$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:06:44 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:16:10 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 155:16 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm done with this
>>>>>>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is becoming
>>>>>>>very
>>>>>>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I
>>>>>>>do
>>>>>>>know
>>>>>>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>>>>>Respectfully,
>>>>>>>Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>>>>>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>>>>>> promise sticks.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't
>>>>> realized
>>>>> it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no need
>>>>> to
>>>>> respond further to his anger.
>>>>
>>>> Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:
>>>>
>>>> "Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:
>>>>
>>>> P = V x I "
>>>>
>>>> Note the word 'improper'.
>>>>
>>>> He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law refers
>>>> to
>>>> steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.
>>>>
>>>> Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above with
>>>> an
>>>> x.
>>>>
>>>One other thing I learned while I was schooling on electronics, you can
>>>use
>>>a dot in a formula in place of an x to indicate multiplication. Just
>>>thought
>>>you'd like to know, or not.
>>>Dave
>>
>> No, a dot will look like a misplaced decimal point, but another
>> accepted means of showing multiplication is to put the two values
>> right next to each other, as in P = VI. Modern textbooks actually
>> prefer this form.
>>
>> Speaking of textbooks and 'schooling', you've mentioned these things
>> multiple times in this thread. Is it because you're still a student?
>> If so, what do your textbooks say about a 240v appliance using less
>> power (and therefore costing less) than its 120v equivalent? I'd love
>> to see how you support that crazy position.
>
> Whatever is wrong with Dave, I don't think we can help.
>
> He even railed at me for a post where I partly supported his view
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

The only thing that's wrong with me is I don't tolerate people well who only
post for the benefit of flaming or inciting. If someone has an intelligent
input and can back it up with fact, if called upon, then they have all my
consideration. Someone who will only support their posts with beliefs,
assumptions or hearsay doesn't deserve anyone's consideration. Add to this
people who won't look at evidence presented and keep reverting back to their
assumptions are less than credible. I also am willing to admit when I'm
wrong, but will not accept claims I am wrong without evidence to support
that claim. I am perfectly willing to provide evidence, which I have done
repeatedly, to support my beliefs.
One other point, I wholeheartedly enjoy an intelligent communication with
anyone, I am always ready to learn something new and don't for one minute
believe any of my experience, schooling, training or knowledge makes me more
right than anyone else, unless I can back it up with data.
I don't believe I railed at you and I don't remember you supporting my views
in any way. One other thing I don't tolerate well is someone who will attack
behind someone's back like you are doing with one of your groupies. I don't
think I've done this with you or anyone else and don't intend to. If I have,
please call it to my attention and I will make amends.
I will also state I put Char in my killfile so I don't see his posts. It
looks like he's replying to my posts and he asked a question. If he's
willing to discuss I'm willing as well, but again won't stay involved with
someone who only posts assumptions.
Dave