Re: some of the reason why energy and power definitions are confusing

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: robert heidlebaugh <rheidlebaugh-at-desertgate-dot-com> 

Now define peak  power and average power. A TC has 20,000 volts and 400 amps
is that  5 000,000 watt 0r 250 watt or is it both.
    Robert   H
-- 


 > From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
 > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:00:20 -0600
 > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
 > Subject: some of the reason why energy and power definitions are confusing
 > Resent-From: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
 > Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:10:03 -0600
 >
 > 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 way
 > 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 confuses
 > 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 definition,
 > 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 basic
 > 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.
 >
 > Regards,
 >
 > Al Erpel
 >
 >