Password avoidance

[Dave]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:03:27 -0500, Dave wrote: snip
You are right in your supposition. I was talking about plugging a dryer
(really any device, but dryer is the example that was chosen) that is
wired
for 120V into 240V power. I don't think I was aware that a 120V machine
could normally be rejumpered for 240V operation. Thanks for that
information.

The multi-voltage capable dryer certainly could be thought of as an
implementation of what we were describing as two dryer models, one for
120V
and one for 240V. Clearly it's a more elegant idea than having two
distinct
models, especially in an place where both voltages are available. It might
be as simple as wiring a pair of motor coils in parallel for 120V and
serial for 240V, the same for heating coils, and having transformer taps
for the power supply for the digital circuits.

Probably most of us are aware that the switching power supplies commonly
used as USB charger wall warts can be plugged into a range of voltages at
different frequencies. I don't know how they are wired, but clearly they
are designed by the right engineers (not designed by me, for sure!).

Not all dryers have this feature, those that do have to be rewired in the
junction box where the power cord is attached in the dryer to take advantage
of this feature. I can't speak for modern day, but it used to be an
advantage to wire one at 240V if available as it used less than half the
amps = lower electric usage = less $$$. There are a lot of electric motors
with this feature as well, many can be wired at several different set
voltages or a range like 208V-270V (may not be accurate numbers on voltage)
or something like that. AFAIK, the ones with a specific voltage have to have
somewhere close to that voltage and aren't multi-phase capable. The ones
with a voltage range will handle single, double and possibly three-phase
power feeds. Don't take any of this as factual enough to rely on for
application, other than theory I'm an amateur on this, my area is/was
electronics.
By the way, I used to work in a two-way communications shop for a while and
when we got a dead or defective battery we used to hook them up in series or
parallel and jumper them pos. to neg. so we could see them blow up and which
was would make the most smoke and noise. I'd love to create your example,
plug a 120V appliance into 240V to see the smoke. :-D
Dave

 

[Dave]

Do *you* know what Watt's law is?

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Watt's+law

Recall that Watt died in 1819, long before the unit of power was named
after him (1882), and before the formula for power in an electric circuit
was worked out.

If you follow the posts you will see where I posted it and corrected Char
when he called it Ohm's Law.
Dave

 

[Char Jackson]

Not all dryers have this feature, those that do have to be rewired in the
junction box where the power cord is attached in the dryer to take advantage
of this feature. I can't speak for modern day, but it used to be an
advantage to wire one at 240V if available as it used less than half the
amps = lower electric usage = less $$$.

Dave, you're in way over your head. Two identical dryers, one properly
wired for 120v and the other properly wired for 240v, will use the
same amount of energy and thus will cost the owner the same amount of
money to operate.

You don't get charged for amps, you get charged for Watts.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

If you follow the posts you will see where I posted it and corrected Char
when he called it Ohm's Law.
Dave

If you had looked at the link I provided, you would have seen that Watt's
Law has nothing to do with electricity.

Your criticism of Char Jackson's error was otherwise valid, of course.

I forget the name of another law: when you post a correction in Usenet, you
will make an error in *your* post

 

[Dave]

If you had looked at the link I provided, you would have seen that Watt's
Law has nothing to do with electricity.

Your criticism of Char Jackson's error was otherwise valid, of course.

I forget the name of another law: when you post a correction in Usenet,
you
will make an error in *your* post

I'm starting to think you have the same problem as Char, you don't really
know what you're talking about and won't admit it. Just as Ohm's Law is a
means of analyzing an electrical path, it's characteristics and functions,
Watt's law is as well. Watt's Law is a formula for POWER; produced, consumed
and utilized. Pretty basic stuff, one of the first things you learn in
electronics and electricity.
I did in fact read your reference and it refers to steam. Exactly how steam
and Watt's Law is related I don't know or care, in fact it is not relevant
to this conversation. I hoped you wouldn't persist and I wouldn't have to
respond to you as I did with Char when he tried to twist my information with
illogical statements, but you did. So, using your reference again, I found
this for you:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Watt's+law
When you read it, understand it and figure out how to relate Watt's Law,
Ohm's law and cross-check between the two of them, I'm willing to discuss
this with you. Until then, like I posted to Char, 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

 

[Dave]

Dave, you're in way over your head. Two identical dryers, one properly
wired for 120v and the other properly wired for 240v, will use the
same amount of energy and thus will cost the owner the same amount of
money to operate.

You don't get charged for amps, you get charged for Watts.
PLONK

 

[Char Jackson]

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.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

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.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

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.

 

[Char Jackson]

Agreed.

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'.

Ouch, I don't think he intended for you to stumble onto that
particular part.

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.

Careful, you'll cause his head to spin.

 

[Dave]

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/designtools/ohms-law.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt's_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's+law&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox
Dave

 

[Dave]

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

 

[Char Jackson]

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.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

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

 

[Char Jackson]

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.

 

[Dave]

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

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

 

[GreyCloud]

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.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

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]

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.)

 

[Dave]

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