[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: some of the reason why energy and power definitions are confusing
Original poster: "Gerry Reynolds" <gerryreynolds-at-earthlink-dot-net>
Not as confusing if you understand the history. If I remember this
correctly from a previous post the ampere was a result of an arbitrarily
chosen one ohm such that one amp resulted from one volt/one ohm (ohms law).
I'm sure at the time nobody knew how many electrons per second this resulted
in. Which ever way of describing things you mention below is less
confusing, depends on what "language" you are more fluent in.
> Original poster: "Alfred Erpel" <alfred-at-erpel-dot-com>
> Howdy all,
> A coulomb is (to me) an unsimplifiable property of the universe. It is
> 6.41418*10^18 electrons. You can't state this in a simpler form another
> in terms of ¹distance, mass, time and energy. It bugs the hell out of me
> that the coulomb in the SI system is defined as a DERIVED unit in terms of
> amperes. And amperes has the status of being a basic unit. Amperes is
> defined as coulombs/second. Amperes were INVENTED by man yet have been
> confered the status of a basic unit. This I believe obfuscates and
> many issues. I have no idea why this was done. It is my opinion that
> energy has nothing to do with time, however with this artificial
> joules (energy) = watts * seconds. With this system the energy unit has
> time in it and the power unit doesn't.
> remember, amps = coulombs / seconds below and:
> joules = watts * seconds
> joules = volts * amps * seconds
> joules = volts * (coulombs / seconds) * seconds
> joules = volts * coulombs
> Hence, joules should (IMHO) always be spoken of as being equal to volt *
> coulombs. This is a more basic unit and without reference to time. Power
> would be volt * coulombs / second. This is way less confusing.
> If anyone has a clue why the SI system made this exception to defining
> units, I sure would like to hear it.
> ¹ distance, mass, time, and energy is it baby, that and nothing else,
> comprises all that we know.
> Al Erpel