Password avoidance

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$....
> 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>> 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/d...s/ohms-law.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt%27s_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%27...c=IE-SearchBox
Dave

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$....
> 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>> 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

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:16:10 -0500, "Dave" <>
wrote:

>
>
>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
>news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$....
>> 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>> 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.

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

> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:16:10 -0500, "Dave" <>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
>>news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$....
>>> 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>>> 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

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

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
news:bp55vqwl557s.hi43aikry0fl$....
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:06:44 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:16:10 -0500, "Dave" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
>>>news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$....
>>>> 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>>>> 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

Gene E. Bloch 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>> 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.
>

I think he is referring to James Watt. There isn't any Watts law in
respect to electrical systems. There is a connection tho that watts
really refers to how much work is done, and in this sense heat is
released due to the work. I think that a good read in a physics book
shows the connection. The above that you posted pretty much ties it all
together. I know that resistors have power ratings given to them, such
as 1/8W, 1/4W, 1/2W, etc. Exceed the power rating and watch some smoke.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:21:34 -0500, Dave wrote:

> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
> news:bp55vqwl557s.hi43aikry0fl$....
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:06:44 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:16:10 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
>>>>news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$....
>>>>> 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>>>>> 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

There's not a statement in this reply of yours that is borne out by your
behavior in this thread. Not one. I mean this sincerely and literally.

I have also seen no evidence that you understood anything that I said in
any of my posts here, but plenty of evidence that you misinterpreted almost
everything I posted, and the same for your interpretation of what Char
Jackson posted. BTW, I don't even agree all that much with Char, but we
didn't need to insult each other - or to insult you for that matter (at
least until you started your series of insults and other ad-hominem
arguments).

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:15:59 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:

> Gene E. Bloch 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I think he is referring to James Watt. There isn't any Watts law in
> respect to electrical systems. There is a connection tho that watts
> really refers to how much work is done, and in this sense heat is
> released due to the work. I think that a good read in a physics book
> shows the connection. The above that you posted pretty much ties it all
> together. I know that resistors have power ratings given to them, such
> as 1/8W, 1/4W, 1/2W, etc. Exceed the power rating and watch some smoke.

And bad smells even if they don't quite reach the point of smoke. Fun.

I agree with your remarks. Certainly, the Watt in question is James, the
Scottish engineer and the creator of the first really successful steam
engines. And of course, Watt had little to say about electricity, but the
unit name after him long after his death is useful in electricity and steam
and anywhere else one needs to talk about power. (Naturally, I mean
physical power, not political or social power.)

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

"GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Gene E. Bloch 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 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I think he is referring to James Watt. There isn't any Watts law in
> respect to electrical systems.

Actually, James Watt never performed any electrical experiments, but there
is a Watt's Law that is used in electrics and electronics. It is taken from
James Watt since what we are measuring in this electrical application is
power. Since it is a measure of power (which Law Watt did compile), it is
directly related to a unit of energy called a Joule and indirectly related
to Horsepower. Neither of those terms are used much in electrical analysis,
but when or if you attend a program on electronics you will learn how to
apply these and cross-check between any or all of them, or either get a bad
grade or flunk out. All of these units of measurement are standards in
electricity and used constantly. It has no bearing on steam and/or
mechanical energy producing devices that Watt did perform experiments on,
other than it is related due to it being a measure of a form of power,
amount of electrons that move past a noted point at a noted rate of flow for
a noted period of time.
You don't have to take my word for any of this, search for Watt's Law and
you will see references that show this is a Law describing electrical power.
If you read long enough you will find all the information I've posted here,
which agrees with your assessment for the most part, and if you don't read
far enough you may come to the conclusion Watt's Law has nothing to do with
electrical and you would be mistaken.

There is a connection tho that watts
> really refers to how much work is done, and in this sense heat is released
> due to the work.

You are indirectly correct in this as heat is a byproduct of power, in this
case electrical, and has to be factored in whenever you move past the
simplistic parts of circuit analysis.

I think that a good read in a physics book
> shows the connection. The above that you posted pretty much ties it all
> together. I know that resistors have power ratings given to them, such as
> 1/8W, 1/4W, 1/2W, etc. Exceed the power rating and watch some smoke.

There's some fun in letting the smoke out. :-D
Dave