User talk:Wjbeaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Is this who I think it is? If so, we were talking about you over in Talk:Capacitor#Charge_on_plates_or_insulator.3F. Maybe you could clarify that article, too? - Omegatron 03:52, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

[1] 24.75.67.179 15:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) Another mystery IP

Contents

[edit] Electric power transmission

I'd like some amplification as to why "electric energy transmission" is felt to be more accurate than "electric power transmission". Are those wires overhead moving energy, or moving power? I found the use of "energy flow (power)" to be particularly interesting, since I thought "power" was an adequate way of expressing energy flow. True, my local newspaper has a hard time distinguishing between "MWh" and "MW". Also true, my household bill totals my consumption in "kWH" and doesn't talk about "kW" - but industrial "power" bills do. And when I flip the switch, I expect the 100 W to be available, no matter how long I have the light on. --Wtshymanski 17:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know this wasn't directed to me, but the page is on my watchlist. I think it's as simple as power being the rate of flow or dissipation of energy, so power isn't flowing, energy is flowing, and power is the rate of that flow. So energy is transferred, and power is dissipated. Beaty can certainly explain this better. - Omegatron 21:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
This is good stuff! To some, this may seem like nitpicking but the truth is that cleaning up the slopply use of terms always leads to better understanding of the material. I wonder how many misunderstandings occur every day because two people use and understand the same terms differently?
Within the context of electric circuits, energy is either delivered to or supplied by a circuit element. The power associated with that element is the rate at which this energy transfer occurs. If the circuit element is resistive, the energy delivered to the element is lost (dissipated) to the environment. If the circuit element is reactive, the energy delivered to the element is stored in some fashion such that the energy can be returned to the circuit. Alfred Centauri 14:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. To understand electrical physics, we really have to understand the differences between energy and power and the differences bewteen charge and current. Both energy and charge are substance-like entities (they are "conserved.") Energy can flow, but power cannot, since power *IS* the flow of energy. Energy is joules, power is joules-per-second.
Analogy: what should we call the stuff that flows in rivers, "water" or "current?" When we fill a bucket from a faucet, do we get a bucket of "current?" Of course not. But in the electrical world, the equivalent of water and water-flow are frequently confused with each other. In most everyday conversation, accuracy isn't all that important, but in the classroom and in reference material it is vitally important that we avoid screwy concepts such as "flow of current" and "flow of power." Unfortunately, even the experts often use these terms incorrectly, and the terms have wormed their way into all sorts of places. Does a "power company" sell power, or does it sell energy? For anyone who has gut-level knowledge of the difference between energy and power, the answer is trivial: power is not a stuff, power can neither flow nor be used nor be sold, and the phrase "Power company" is even cringe-worthy. (And some "power companies" are changing their names, replacing the term "power" with "energy."
Charges flow in wires, and we call their flow by the name "electric current." EM energy flows across circuits, and we call its flow "power." To test the accuracy of statements about these sorts of topics, just replace the more complicated term by its definition: e.g. substitute the term "power" by the term "energy flow," or by the term "rate of energy use," and see if it still reads correctly.--Wjbeaty 07:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the difference is between a physicist's perspective and an electrical engineer's perspective? CYME sells software for "power flow" analysis. My old EM textbook (William Hayt "Engineering Electromagnetics 3rd Ed." ) uses the phrase "power flow" several times, for example in discussion of the Poynting vector. I think the "power flow" usage is common, and that "power transmission" is what the wires are doing. And the distinction between selling "power" and selling "energy" is too fine for me to discern at this late hour; you can't have one without the other. When I worked at the steel mill, a big bill came in each month, with about half for something that was priced in dollars per megawatt (power) and about half the cost for something priced in dollars per megawatthour (energy) - it certainly looked like the utility was in the business of selling both power and energy. --Wtshymanski 08:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm a BSEE.  :) What makes me different than most BSEEs is that I spent several years trying to explain electricity to the general public. And there certainly is a difference between the EE and the Physicist perspective: scientists tend to be much more strict with terminology. It's built into their culture, while we engineers are far more likely to play fast and loose with words. Let me repeat myself again: power does not flow. The entity which flows is called "electrical energy." We could say it this way: Joules can flow, but Watts cannot, since "Watt" is the same as "Joule per Second." This isn't complicated! The plumbing analogy clears it up: gallons of water can flow, but gal/sec cannot flow, since gal/sec is an abstract entity. Electromagnetic energy is not abstract; it's the exact same stuff as light, just of lower frequency. And yes, you're right, the "power flow" misuse is very common. I said as much above: it has wormed its way into many reference books. But that doesn't change the definitions of the terms, since in science, the meaning of words is not determined by the number of people using (or misusing them.) If vast numbers of people say "power" when they're talking about "energy," it has no effect on the definitions of those words, and those vast numbers of people are using the terms incorrectly, and it suggests that they have a feeble grasp on the difference between the two concepts.
If we were two engineers having a conversation, then the phrase "power flow" would be no problem. We both know what we really mean. We could be strictly correct and say "power appears" or "power arises," but it would be sort of silly. But if we wish to explain these topics to NON engineers, then it becomes very important to avoid misusing the terms. And if we're writing a reference book, we'd better take pains to correct any common misuse. Engineering conversations and even engineering textbooks can get away with screwy phrases. A source like Wikipedia cannot. If we talk about "power flow," then we are unwittingly sowing confusion regarding the two concepts. Saying "power flow" unwittingly teaches the reader that there's this stuff called "power" which can flow through wires. This is wrong. The "stuff" that flows in electric circuits is called electromagnetic energy or electrical energy (or often, "electricity.") --Wjbeaty 04:54, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
I must respectfullly disagree. The majority usage seems to be that power flows. Definitions are how people use the words. Insisting that power can't flow doesn't seem to serve the cause of clarity. I have argued on the side of pedantry before, so this is an inconsistency on my part, but I don't think saying that power flows, is transmitted, etc. puts us much further along the line to pointing and grunting instead of articulate speech.
And what about reactive "power" - this can't exist, because power is the flow of energy, and energy is the capacity for doing work, and we all know that reactive power can't do any useful work. Correct? --Wtshymanski 22:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"The majority usage seems to be that power flows." The majority is wrong, and if you disagree, then you are wrong as well. Why wrong? It's very simple: Energy is a conserved quantity, therefore energy is substance-like, and energy can flow along. But "energy flow"(power) is a rate, it's not a conserved quantity. Rates are not like substances, rates cannot flow. Yet this issue goes even deeper: words like "number" and "rate" and "energy" signify fixed concepts, therefore whenever a large number of people try to re-define those words, those people are wrong. This is the difference between legal debate and science debate. Suppose I say that 1+1=3. Suppose I get two billion people to say the same thing. Does 1+1 now equal 3?!!! The definition of scientific terms like "energy" and "power" are similar to 1+1=3: they are not open to voting. If the majority has traditionally swapped the words "energy" and "power," then the majority is wrong, and their error has become ingrained and traditional. Yet it remains an error.
In most cases, such misuse causes no problems. For example, we say "power supply" and "power lines" and "power consumption," when in all three cases the correct term would be "energy." Since these misuses cause no problems, attempts to correct them is pedantic nitpicking. But in some situations the misuse of words does cause problems. In my teaching career, time and time again I've seen that students don't know the difference between power and energy. The words "power flow" are one major cause of student misconceptions.
If our goal is to teach newbies the difference between energy and power, then we can greatly help them by ruthlessly excizing our own traditional misuse of such words.
Here's a very powerful rule of thumb: stop using the term "power" entirely. Erase it everywhere it appears. Instead expand the word "power" by replacing it with its own definition: "energy flow" or "rate of energy use." Ok, ready?... If someone writes "flow of power," and if we expand it to "flow of energy flow," then the original mistake is made clear. The stuff that flows along electric cables is not called "energy flow," it's called "energy." --Wjbeaty 12:33, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
"And what about reactive "power" - this can't exist." Ah, this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate how correct semantics can clear up problems. If we remove the word "power," then we realize that "reactive power" is not like a substance. What then does "reactive energy-flow" mean? GOOD QUESTION. Look at an AC generator (an ideal voltage source) connected to an idea capacitor. The energy flow is 100% reactive. During one quarter-cycle, the energy flows from the generator into the capacitor, charging it. During the next quarter-cycle, all of the energy that was stored in the capacitor returns to the generator again. OUR ANSWER: reactive energy-flow is "energy sloshing back and forth." The reactive energy-flow is not 'abstract.' It is genuine, it really exists. But it doesn't flow continuously forward from the source to the load. On average there is no forward flow of energy into that ideal capacitor. Contrast this with a resistor connected in place of the capacitor. In that case the energy flows continuously forward as two pulses per cycle, and no energy flows from the resistor back to the generator. In AC energy distribution systems, the flow of electrical energy can have a vibrating component riding upon an average forward flow component. The vibrating component is the "Reactive" flow, while the average forward component is the "Real" flow. Yet both components really exist. --Wjbeaty 12:58, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
I noted the edits to the electric power transmission page which led me here. Transmission systems are designed and operated on the basis of "power" or "load" "flows". The maximum rate of energy transfer determines the capacity of the network or network component. For a monthly energy transfer of 720 kWh, the power requirement could vary from 1kW used continuously or 720kW used for only one hour in the month. I think that is why engineers tend to think of transmission systems as being power transfer systems. In a utility system control room the MW or MVAr "flows" are monitored continuously to manage system constraints and system performance. Notwithstanding the pedantry exhibited, and despite the physics, I believe that "power" will continue "flow" in transmission systems as that is how the industry has described and continues to descibe the transmission of electrical energy. The terms power and energy have become synonymous. Good luck with the campaign to stem the tide.
On the question of how the transmission company charges, there is a simple reason for it to bill for both kW and kWh - it is load factor. As noted previously, the system required to convey 720kWh in a month is highly dependent on the rate of energy consumption. The energy conveyed is related to the duration of the demand. Hence, utilities want to signal the benefits of high load factors; they therefore recover their costs by applying a two part tariff. It is worth noting that in a deregulated electricity market a transmission utility does not sell energy, nor does it sell power. It recovers its costs for the use of its system by generators, distributors and retailers through its tariff. The steel mill sees a bundled charge for the services of all the contributors. Tiles 02:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By analogy: the public water system is designed and operated on the basis of flow rate. Does this mean that the substance flowing within the pipes is no longer called "water?" Of course not. Does this mean that households aren't buying gallons of water? (I'm just trying to show that pipes always deliver water, even if the city water system is designed in terms of gallons/sec rate capability, and even if pipe-owners focus on flow rate in their fee calculations.) As far as Power goes, where electric systems are concerned, it's MORE important that we clean up our usage of words, since the energy and its motion are both invisible. At least with hydraulic systems we can see the water, and we can conceptually grasp what one gallon, is or easily understand the "one gallon per second" rate.
Power transfer systems?  :) But "flowrate" is not something that can be transferred, so "power transfer system" isn't such an informative and meaningful phrase. "Energy transfer system" is OK, and "Power system" isn't that bad. In all these examples, to reveal the problem, just replace the word "power" with "flow rate." Is the utility grid a system for transferring energy, or is it a system for transferring "flow rate?" And yes, the utilities are certainly selling a service. Charging for power is similar to charging for maintainence: nothing substance-like is being sold. (In a water system, the supplier could add surcharges for high flow, but that doesn't mean that the pipes have become "flowrate transfer pipes" rather than "water transfer pipes."
Ah, that's exactly it; the terms "power" and "energy" have become synonymous. So, how can we explain these concepts to the public? First we have to act like nitpickers and fix any mistaken usage. But such nitpickingly-consistent usage of terminology is only appropriate to reference authors. Analogy: people who correct their friends' grammar have some sort of mental problem... but the authors of grammar texts had better be the worlds' formost nitpickers.  :) But there's no need to "stem the tide" of widespread misuse of the word "power." All we have to do is fix the mistakes in our little online textbook here. Or put it another way: teachers have to maintain very high standards of accuracy, since their misuse of words will give their students misconceptions. But the world of non-teachers has little need for such ridiculous levels of rigid consistency. --Wjbeaty 04:54, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

SEE ALSO:

[edit] Titling

Note you do not need to type ""s when you are creating a new article. [[Experimenter's regress]] will do, that will show up as Experimenter's regress. Thanks Dysprosia 05:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can register, login and submit a bug at http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org . By the way, talk goes at the bottom of the page :) Dysprosia 05:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Resonance#Increase in energy?

I replied a while ago. I don't understand your comment. - Omegatron 03:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, WP started taking up too much time, so I went temporarily Cold Turkey --Wjbeaty 01:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I should do that... - Omegatron 01:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tesla's "radiant energy" patents

Can you check my... "review" of one of Tesla's patents over at Talk:Photoelectric_effect#Tesla / radiant energy? I think it's up your alley. If I did anything wrong, point it out. - Omegatron 15:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Also check out User:Omegatron/Hydraulic analogy, which will be merged into Hydraulic analogy when it's complete enough. I wish I knew how to write applets... - Omegatron 00:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] electrometer

Does an Talk:Electrometer measure charge, electric field, or voltage? - Omegatron 16:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Or picoamps too? I think an electrometer is similar to an analog meter movement: depending how it's used, an analog meter can measure current or voltage, yet it's really a current-sensitive display device. An electrometer is a voltage-sensitive display device, but can be used to build a voltmeter, a picoammeter, an e-field meter, or a micro-coulometer. --Wjbeaty 20:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am happy to see you here. I found your http://amasci.com/ pages inspirational for many years. I hope your ideas catch on -- especially the idea of making explanations understandable to newcomers, rather than just to people already in-the-know. "thoughts on why obfuscated language develops. I hope you are right that more and more people will solve more and more of the big, complicated problems. The sort of problems that previously, people didn't do anything about, because the big words tricked them into thinking they weren't smart enough to fix it." ( http://CommunityWiki.org/PlainTalk ) --DavidCary 06:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. :-) — Omegatron 13:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
You have my support too. Its so refreshing to see someone prepared to tackle this insidious watering down of terminology and to explain things in ways that make sense. Keep up the good work! --Light current 17:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Awwww, shucks. --Wjbeaty 21:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Electric flux

According to Gauss' Law, electric flux is equal to charge which is measured in Coulombs. Therefore should not electric flux have the units of Coulombs? If not, what is the unit of electric flux? --Light current 04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"According to Gauss' Law, electric flux is equal to charge which is measured in Coulombs." Nope. Electric flux is e-field over a surface, and e-field does not "equal" charge. The only time that electric flux is directly connected to electric charge is when we measure the *net* flux extending through the *entire area* of a *closed* surface (such as a sphere) which contains charge. If the closed surface contains zero charge, then the flux summed over the whole surface is zero, even though the flux at any small patch need not be zero. If we measure the flux of an arbitrary piece of that surface, or the flux of any area bounded by a closed curve, in that case flux isn't proportional to charge. --Wjbeaty 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The closed surface integral of the e-field is the total charge enclosed over the permittivity of the medium. It is the closed surface integral of the electric flux density (D) that is equal to the charge enclosed (in coulombs). A non-conservative e-field or d-field integrated over a closed surface is identically zero (the divergence of the curl is identically zero...). However, a closed contour integral of the e-field is non-zero only if the e-field is non-conservative (the curl of the gradient is identically zero...). Stationary charge creates a conservative field. Accelerated charge (a changing electric current) generates a non-conservative component of the e-field ([E = -(gradV + dA/dt]). Welcome back Bill! Alfred Centauri 03:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

OK Bill, thanks for the clarification on that one!--Light current 01:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] magnetic field sensing

"The Gift of Magnetic Vision" http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20040226.html Should I drop this link into magnetoception ? --DavidCary 08:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah! Very cool. Also this was a scary coincidence, since I just logged in to look at Talk:Nose, but first I checked this message. On Talk:Nose they're arguing about ...human magnetoception! --Wjbeaty 21:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Sorry, don't remember doing that - it was blank and TFD'd at the time, should be a redirect to Template:SI electromagnetism units, restored and fixed. ed g2s • talk 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have undelete those edits as well. Looks like an mistake by User:Brockert. ed g2s • talk 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of one of your pages

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Electromagnetism_and_force.3F, where one of your pages is being discussed. http://www.amasci.com/weird/unusual/e-wall.html I thought you'd like to join in perhaps. --GangofOne 00:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaneless ion wind generator

Do you know of any other specific implementations of this idea besides Kelvin's thunderstorm and Alvin Marks' power plant patent? — Omegatron 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't "Sharper Image" or "BN Genius" or one of those catalogs sell tens of thousands of these things as ion-fans/air cleaners?--Wjbeaty 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No, that's the opposite. You're thinking of ion wind generators or air ionizers, which generate wind directly from electricity. This is a device that generates electricity directly from wind. I listed Kelvin's thunderstorm as similar, since they both generate electricity from the motion of water droplets. — Omegatron 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't click on the link. No, I haven't heard of anything besides the Marks "power fence" patent. --Wjbeaty 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hill's spherical vortex

Isn't the term Hill's(spherical) vortex used only for the spherical case, not the general vortex ring? (cf Batchelor p526, IIRC) Linuxlad 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathological skepticism

Hi, you may want to comment on this:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pathological_skepticism

Much enjoyed reading your commentary on that article's talk page and some stuff you've posted elsewhere on the subject, with which I pretty much agree. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 04:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/j/b/User_talk%7EWjbeaty_4445.html"