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

```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
>
>

```