| 16-04-2017 22:07 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt.
No, that's still not right.
Heat is a form of energy
Heat is not a form of energy.
Surface Detail wrote:
and is therefore measured in joules.
No. It is measured in watts.
Surface Detail wrote:
The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second.
Correct.
Heat is a form of energy.
Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself.
Surface Detail wrote:
1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy.
Surface Detail wrote:
The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ.
That is thermal energy.
Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me.
In every single reference I can find, the unit of heat is defined to be the same as the unit of energy, i.e. a joule, calorie, BTU, etc. The terms heat, heat energy, and thermal energy are synonymous. Heat is a form of energy.
See, for example: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
It makes sense, for example, to ask how much heat 1 kg of coal would release if burned, and the answer would be given in joules. The rate at which the heat is released would depend on how fast the coal burns; that would be given in joules per second or, equivalently, watts.
Well you just proved "Into The Night's" point.
Heat, per se, is not energy but the flow of energy from one energy source to another sink of lower energy.
Thanks for making that clear.
I'm not sure how you read that from my post. The S.I. unit of heat is the joule, which is a unit of energy, not the watt, which a unit of rate of flow of energy.
Gee, I thought that you just quoted the Britannica which says: "Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature." So specifically heat is not energy but the flow of energy.
Or are you saying that the Britannica is incorrect? |
| 16-04-2017 23:33 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt.
No, that's still not right.
Heat is a form of energy
Heat is not a form of energy.
Surface Detail wrote:
and is therefore measured in joules.
No. It is measured in watts.
Surface Detail wrote:
The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second.
Correct.
Heat is a form of energy.
Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself.
Surface Detail wrote:
1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy.
Surface Detail wrote:
The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ.
That is thermal energy.
Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me.
In every single reference I can find, the unit of heat is defined to be the same as the unit of energy, i.e. a joule, calorie, BTU, etc. The terms heat, heat energy, and thermal energy are synonymous. Heat is a form of energy.
See, for example: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
It makes sense, for example, to ask how much heat 1 kg of coal would release if burned, and the answer would be given in joules. The rate at which the heat is released would depend on how fast the coal burns; that would be given in joules per second or, equivalently, watts.
Well you just proved "Into The Night's" point.
Heat, per se, is not energy but the flow of energy from one energy source to another sink of lower energy.
Thanks for making that clear.
I'm not sure how you read that from my post. The S.I. unit of heat is the joule, which is a unit of energy, not the watt, which a unit of rate of flow of energy.
Gee, I thought that you just quoted the Britannica which says: "Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature." So specifically heat is not energy but the flow of energy.
Or are you saying that the Britannica is incorrect?
No, Britannica is correct, but you seem to be misreading it. Heat is energy that is transferred, not the rate at which that energy is transferred. Heat is therefore measured in joules, not watts (as ITN claimed). |
| 16-04-2017 23:39 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt.
No, that's still not right.
Heat is a form of energy
Heat is not a form of energy.
Surface Detail wrote:
and is therefore measured in joules.
No. It is measured in watts.
Surface Detail wrote:
The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second.
Correct.
Heat is a form of energy.
Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself.
Surface Detail wrote:
1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy.
Surface Detail wrote:
The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ.
That is thermal energy.
Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me.
In every single reference I can find, the unit of heat is defined to be the same as the unit of energy, i.e. a joule, calorie, BTU, etc. The terms heat, heat energy, and thermal energy are synonymous. Heat is a form of energy.
See, for example: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
It makes sense, for example, to ask how much heat 1 kg of coal would release if burned, and the answer would be given in joules. The rate at which the heat is released would depend on how fast the coal burns; that would be given in joules per second or, equivalently, watts.
Well you just proved "Into The Night's" point.
Heat, per se, is not energy but the flow of energy from one energy source to another sink of lower energy.
Thanks for making that clear.
I'm not sure how you read that from my post. The S.I. unit of heat is the joule, which is a unit of energy, not the watt, which a unit of rate of flow of energy.
Gee, I thought that you just quoted the Britannica which says: "Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature." So specifically heat is not energy but the flow of energy.
Or are you saying that the Britannica is incorrect?
No, Britannica is correct, but you seem to be misreading it. Heat is energy that is transferred, not the rate at which that energy is transferred. Heat is therefore measured in joules, not watts (as ITN claimed).
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English? |
| 16-04-2017 23:48 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt.
No, that's still not right.
Heat is a form of energy
Heat is not a form of energy.
Surface Detail wrote:
and is therefore measured in joules.
No. It is measured in watts.
Surface Detail wrote:
The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second.
Correct.
Heat is a form of energy.
Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself.
Surface Detail wrote:
1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy.
Surface Detail wrote:
The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ.
That is thermal energy.
Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me.
In every single reference I can find, the unit of heat is defined to be the same as the unit of energy, i.e. a joule, calorie, BTU, etc. The terms heat, heat energy, and thermal energy are synonymous. Heat is a form of energy.
See, for example: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
It makes sense, for example, to ask how much heat 1 kg of coal would release if burned, and the answer would be given in joules. The rate at which the heat is released would depend on how fast the coal burns; that would be given in joules per second or, equivalently, watts.
Well you just proved "Into The Night's" point.
Heat, per se, is not energy but the flow of energy from one energy source to another sink of lower energy.
Thanks for making that clear.
I'm not sure how you read that from my post. The S.I. unit of heat is the joule, which is a unit of energy, not the watt, which a unit of rate of flow of energy.
Gee, I thought that you just quoted the Britannica which says: "Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature." So specifically heat is not energy but the flow of energy.
Or are you saying that the Britannica is incorrect?
No, Britannica is correct, but you seem to be misreading it. Heat is energy that is transferred, not the rate at which that energy is transferred. Heat is therefore measured in joules, not watts (as ITN claimed).
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts). |
| 17-04-2017 05:18 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts).[/quote]
Yes. One is thermal energy. The other is heat.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 17-04-2017 05:30 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts).
Yes. One is thermal energy. The other is heat. |
| 17-04-2017 05:32 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts).
Yes. One is thermal energy. The other is heat.
Did you catch that from him that he TUTORS PHYSICS????? |
| 17-04-2017 12:15 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts).
Yes. One is thermal energy. The other is heat.
Did you catch that from him that he TUTORS PHYSICS?????
Which way around do you want heat to be??
The rate of thermal energy transfered(Watts) or the thermal energy it's self(Joules)?
I think you will see that not many of us use the word heat on it's own. We say temperature, heat energy, thermal flow etc. |
| 17-04-2017 16:56 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14403) |
samijafri wrote: Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming?
Glaciers growing all over the world aren't sufficient to reject the Global Warming faith?
samijafri wrote: Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions.
Haven't you learned the science of blackbody radiation?
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 17-04-2017 17:10 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14403) |
Surface Detail wrote: No, Britannica is correct, but you seem to be misreading it.
You always accuse others of "misreading" text that quite clearly contradicts your position.
Thermal energy is simply the energy.
You claim that heat is NOT the flow of thermal energy. Fine. Can you provide us one, just one, example of heat that does NOT involve the flow of thermal energy?
Surface Detail wrote: Heat is energy that is transferred,...
Correction: heat is the transfer of the thermal energy. Thermal energy is the energy that is transferred.
Just for clarity, what part of the above do you deny?
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 17-04-2017 17:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
IBdaMann wrote:
samijafri wrote: Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming?
Glaciers growing all over the world aren't sufficient to reject the Global Warming faith?
samijafri wrote: Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions.
Haven't you learned the science of blackbody radiation?
.
The paper I quoted (https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf) shows that the Earth is not a pure black body radiator and that 30 years ago the idea of "greenhouse gases" was proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
samijafri is no more than a victim of the short human lifespan. This is what the True Believers count on. The idea that because humans only see short parts of the weather/climate cycles that they can be convinced that things are changing abnormally rather than in a simple and normal pattern. |
| 17-04-2017 18:21 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:.... 30 years ago the idea of "greenhouse gases" was proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Gerhard Gerlich was part of a group trying to debunk several science positions, & was proven much in error from numerous people & organizations. The advocacy by "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" of Gerhard Gerlich is another way to debunk Gerlich.
Meanwhile:
These minimum temperatures for Block Island State ARPT, RI are interesting:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=370896&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2014.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMIN&minyear=1880&maxyear=2014
During the time the solar TSI was languid for decades & low for the last 10 years (including a 3+ year period where the solar TSI set a 100 year record low TSI). Why does the temperature record show a rise after 1990, instead of a drop? AGW shows much stronger than the solar TSI drop.
Oh, yeah. What a blessing fer "badnight's" recommended website.
Edited on 17-04-2017 18:28 |
| 17-04-2017 18:27 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: No, Britannica is correct, but you seem to be misreading it.
You always accuse others of "misreading" text that quite clearly contradicts your position.
Thermal energy is simply the energy.
You claim that heat is NOT the flow of thermal energy. Fine. Can you provide us one, just one, example of heat that does NOT involve the flow of thermal energy?
Surface Detail wrote: Heat is energy that is transferred,...
Correction: heat is the transfer of the thermal energy. Thermal energy is the energy that is transferred.
Just for clarity, what part of the above do you deny?
.
Surface detail and I do not actually talk about heat as a single thing.
We may well say heat energy, or heat energy transfer or some such.
It is Wake who talks about heat and seems not to know what he is talking about.
Untill we understand what heat energy(enthalpy) is as different to temperature(in degrees, c ideally) and what heat energy transfer(watts) is as different to both and what heat capacity(amout of energy it would take to get that thing to x temperature) and specific heat capacity(amount of energy(+ or -) it takes to change the material by 1 degree for 1 gramm of it) are any information about how much heating effect the greenhouse does or does not do is meaningless. |
| 17-04-2017 18:39 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner AGW denier liar whiner i b da no-sigh-ants mann" wrote:... "misreading"....
How's ya like the temperature data, espoused by several other "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners on this website, as data refuting AGW:
These minimum temperatures for Milbank, SD are interesting:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=395536&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2014.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMIN&minyear=1886&maxyear=2014
During the time the solar TSI was languid for decades & low for the last 10 years (including a 3+ year period where the solar TSI set a 100 year record low TSI). Why does the temperature record show a rise after 1990, instead of a drop? AGW shows much stronger than the solar TSI drop.
Oh, yeah. What a blessing fer "badnight's" recommended website AND other AGW denier liar whiners tryin' to support their anti-AGW stance, with this data. |
| 17-04-2017 20:29 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts).
Yes. One is thermal energy. The other is heat.
No. Thermal energy, heat energy and heat are synonyms for the same quantity, the SI unit for which is the joule. Other units are the calorie, BTU, etc. You don't have to take my word for it: look at the Britannica reference, or Wikipedia, or try googling "units of heat". Heat has the same units as energy because it is a form of energy.
It is the rate of transfer of heat/heat energy/thermal energy that is measured in watts. This is also called power, watts being equivalent to joules per second. |
|
| 17-04-2017 23:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts).
Yes. One is thermal energy. The other is heat.
No. Thermal energy, heat energy and heat are synonyms for the same quantity, the SI unit for which is the joule.
So now you're saying heat isn't measured in watts??? You seem to be contradicting yourself!
Surface Detail wrote:
Other units are the calorie, BTU, etc. You don't have to take my word for it: look at the Britannica reference, or Wikipedia, or try googling "units of heat". Heat has the same units as energy because it is a form of energy.
Britannica has it right. You don't. Heat is not a form of energy. Thermal energy is.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is the rate of transfer of heat/heat energy/thermal energy that is measured in watts. Attempting to redefine 'heat' is not going to work.
Surface Detail wrote:
This is also called power, watts being equivalent to joules per second.
Yes. Heat is work being done. That is also known as 'power'. I think you'll find that's how the 2nd law of thermodynamics builds the case for entropy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 17-04-2017 23:45 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts).
Yes. One is thermal energy. The other is heat.
No. Thermal energy, heat energy and heat are synonyms for the same quantity, the SI unit for which is the joule.
So now you're saying heat isn't measured in watts??? You seem to be contradicting yourself!
Surface Detail wrote:
Other units are the calorie, BTU, etc. You don't have to take my word for it: look at the Britannica reference, or Wikipedia, or try googling "units of heat". Heat has the same units as energy because it is a form of energy.
Britannica has it right. You don't. Heat is not a form of energy. Thermal energy is.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is the rate of transfer of heat/heat energy/thermal energy that is measured in watts. Attempting to redefine 'heat' is not going to work.
Surface Detail wrote:
This is also called power, watts being equivalent to joules per second.
Yes. Heat is work being done. That is also known as 'power'. I think you'll find that's how the 2nd law of thermodynamics builds the case for entropy.
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different. |
| 18-04-2017 01:19 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
So now you're saying heat isn't measured in watts??? You seem to be contradicting yourself!
No, I have repeatedly stated that heat is measured in joules, or other units of energy, such as calories or BTUs.
Into the Night wrote:
Britannica has it right. You don't. Heat is not a form of energy. Thermal energy is.
Britannica says:
The two units of heat most commonly used are the calorie and the British thermal unit (BTU). The calorie (or gram-calorie) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water from 14.5° to 15.5° C; the BTU is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water from 63° to 64° F.
So units of heat are calories and BTUs, which are units of energy. Hence heat is a form of energy. You are misreading Britannica.
Into the Night wrote:
Attempting to redefine 'heat' is not going to work.
I'm not; you are.
Into the Night wrote:
Yes. Heat is work being done. That is also known as 'power'. I think you'll find that's how the 2nd law of thermodynamics builds the case for entropy.
Heat is not power. Heat is energy, as Britannica states.
Edited on 18-04-2017 01:38 |
| 18-04-2017 01:26 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.
There was no "/" was there, Wake?
Watt seconds (Ws) and watts per second (Ws-1) are indeed different things. The first is equivalent to joules; the second would be a rate of change of power with time. |
| 18-04-2017 01:37 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Did you catch that from him that he TUTORS PHYSICS?????
Yes, I tutor A-level (exams typically taken by 18 year old students in the UK as a condition for university entry) physics, mostly to the children of friends. Today I was helping a student to understand Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
I have a first class degree in Physics with Astrophysics and a PhD in Plasma Physics, but I left academia for better-paying work as a software developer after a couple of post-docs. That was a long time ago, but I still have a strong interest in physics and science in general, and I very much enjoy helping enthusiastic students with their learning. |
| 18-04-2017 02:26 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.
There was no "/" was there, Wake?
Watt seconds (Ws) and watts per second (Ws-1) are indeed different things. The first is equivalent to joules; the second would be a rate of change of power with time.
How does watts per second indicate a change in power at all?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-04-2017 02:40 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Did you catch that from him that he TUTORS PHYSICS?????
Yes, I tutor A-level (exams typically taken by 18 year old students in the UK as a condition for university entry) physics, mostly to the children of friends.
and what do you teach them? Does the UK test actually go against the Britannica?
Surface Detail wrote:
Today I was helping a student to understand Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
Kirchoff's 'circuit' laws apply to more than just circuits. They apply to all energy and anything that can be construed as a 'node'. They even apply to plumbing. They really are nothing more than an expression of the conservation of energy law.
Surface Detail wrote:
I have a first class degree in Physics with Astrophysics and a PhD in Plasma Physics, but I left academia for better-paying work as a software developer after a couple of post-docs. That was a long time ago, but I still have a strong interest in physics and science in general, and I very much enjoy helping enthusiastic students with their learning.
You claim a PhD in plasma physics??? Sounds pretty specialized to me! You might as well have a PhD in solids.
So do you teach your students about your concept of 'heat'?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-04-2017 18:40 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And why am I not in the least surprised that you cannot read and correctly interpret English?
Nope, that would be you in this case. There is a difference between the amount of energy that is transferred (measured in joules) and the rate at which that energy is transferred (measured in watts).
Yes. One is thermal energy. The other is heat.
No. Thermal energy, heat energy and heat are synonyms for the same quantity, the SI unit for which is the joule.
So now you're saying heat isn't measured in watts??? You seem to be contradicting yourself!
Surface Detail wrote:
Other units are the calorie, BTU, etc. You don't have to take my word for it: look at the Britannica reference, or Wikipedia, or try googling "units of heat". Heat has the same units as energy because it is a form of energy.
Britannica has it right. You don't. Heat is not a form of energy. Thermal energy is.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is the rate of transfer of heat/heat energy/thermal energy that is measured in watts. Attempting to redefine 'heat' is not going to work.
Surface Detail wrote:
This is also called power, watts being equivalent to joules per second.
Yes. Heat is work being done. That is also known as 'power'. I think you'll find that's how the 2nd law of thermodynamics builds the case for entropy.
Look, I and Surface Detail are on the opposite side of the debate about AGW. I would take the opportunity to show how he had it wrong quickly. And he me. But he has it right.
You however have no clue about what you are talking about.
Heat is definately a form of energy. That is why it is either measured in degrees or Joules depending upon what exactly you are measuring.
Heat is not work being done. You have no clue about entropy as you cannot understand it if you don't understand enthalpy.
Edited on 18-04-2017 18:44 |
| 18-04-2017 18:43 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.
There was no "/" was there, Wake?
Watt seconds (Ws) and watts per second (Ws-1) are indeed different things. The first is equivalent to joules; the second would be a rate of change of power with time.
How does watts per second indicate a change in power at all?
Watts per second would be a rate of change of power.
Watts being Joules per second:-power.
Joules being the unit for energy. |
| 18-04-2017 19:22 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
You claim a PhD in plasma physics??? Sounds pretty specialized to me! You might as well have a PhD in solids.
It is the nature of a PhD that it is specialised. When you do a PhD, you investigate some particular aspect of science in very great detail. Rather than learning a bit about everything, as in an undergraduate course, you learn a lot about a very limited field and, hopefully, contribute something new to it.
In my case, I spent most of my time creating numerical models of magnetically confined plasmas. This basically involved fitting solutions of the equations that define macroscopic plasma behaviour (Maxwell's equations and the equations of fluid dynamics) to experimental measurements for various geometries in order to determine other properties of the confined plasmas. Long time ago now, though. |
| 18-04-2017 22:02 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You claim a PhD in plasma physics??? Sounds pretty specialized to me! You might as well have a PhD in solids.
It is the nature of a PhD that it is specialised. When you do a PhD, you investigate some particular aspect of science in very great detail. Rather than learning a bit about everything, as in an undergraduate course, you learn a lot about a very limited field and, hopefully, contribute something new to it.
In my case, I spent most of my time creating numerical models of magnetically confined plasmas. This basically involved fitting solutions of the equations that define macroscopic plasma behaviour (Maxwell's equations and the equations of fluid dynamics) to experimental measurements for various geometries in order to determine other properties of the confined plasmas. Long time ago now, though.
SD,
When you did your A levels and got A's in maths and physics in order to do your physics degree did you notice that your grades would also have given you the option of doing a metoerology course but just having took the damn things and maybe got one with an E would probably got you onto a geography department climate science course at Norwich Polly?
Given that why do you put so much confidence in the CRU? |
| 18-04-2017 23:09 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.
There was no "/" was there, Wake?
Watt seconds (Ws) and watts per second (Ws-1) are indeed different things. The first is equivalent to joules; the second would be a rate of change of power with time.
That is because you're an idiot. In terms of energy consumption, a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watt-seconds. But EXACTLY the same amount of energy is consumed by a one watt bulb for 1,000 seconds.
So we're back to your staggeringly stupid argument about definition of words.
Since you have nothing of any interest to add to these discussions you are becoming more and more like litesong with every posting. |
| 19-04-2017 00:40 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.
There was no "/" was there, Wake?
Watt seconds (Ws) and watts per second (Ws-1) are indeed different things. The first is equivalent to joules; the second would be a rate of change of power with time.
In terms of energy consumption, a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watt-seconds. But EXACTLY the same amount of energy is consumed by a one watt bulb for 1,000 seconds.
That is a correct statement, but it in no way supports your apparent conviction that watt seconds are the same as watts per second.
It wouldn't make any sense to say that a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watts per second, would it?
Edited on 19-04-2017 00:43 |
| 19-04-2017 01:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.
There was no "/" was there, Wake?
Watt seconds (Ws) and watts per second (Ws-1) are indeed different things. The first is equivalent to joules; the second would be a rate of change of power with time.
In terms of energy consumption, a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watt-seconds. But EXACTLY the same amount of energy is consumed by a one watt bulb for 1,000 seconds.
That is a correct statement, but it in no way supports your apparent conviction that watt seconds are the same as watts per second.
It wouldn't make any sense to say that a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watts per second, would it?
The real question is why you are saying anything at all? You have absolutely nothing to add to any intelligent conversation and are only reduced to your ridiculous entries because you HAVE nothing of intelligence to say.
Try spending your time listening to this instead of speaking only to see your name in lights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFyH-b3FRvE |
| 19-04-2017 01:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.
There was no "/" was there, Wake?
Watt seconds (Ws) and watts per second (Ws-1) are indeed different things. The first is equivalent to joules; the second would be a rate of change of power with time.
In terms of energy consumption, a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watt-seconds. But EXACTLY the same amount of energy is consumed by a one watt bulb for 1,000 seconds.
That is a correct statement, but it in no way supports your apparent conviction that watt seconds are the same as watts per second.
It wouldn't make any sense to say that a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watts per second, would it?
The real question is why you are saying anything at all? You have absolutely nothing to add to any intelligent conversation and are only reduced to your ridiculous entries because you HAVE nothing of intelligence to say.
Try spending your time listening to this instead of speaking only to see your name in lights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFyH-b3FRvE |
|
| 19-04-2017 01:19 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I'm still enjoying his belief that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.
There was no "/" was there, Wake?
Watt seconds (Ws) and watts per second (Ws-1) are indeed different things. The first is equivalent to joules; the second would be a rate of change of power with time.
In terms of energy consumption, a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watt-seconds. But EXACTLY the same amount of energy is consumed by a one watt bulb for 1,000 seconds.
That is a correct statement, but it in no way supports your apparent conviction that watt seconds are the same as watts per second.
It wouldn't make any sense to say that a 1000 watt bulb burning for one second will consume 1000 watts per second, would it?
The real question is why you are saying anything at all?
I'm just trying to be helpful. If you're still struggling to understand units of measurement, there's not much point moving on to more complex concepts until you do. It's essential to have a proper grasp of the basics first before going on to tackle the more advanced material. |
| 24-04-2017 20:31 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Did you catch that from him that he TUTORS PHYSICS?????
Yes, I tutor A-level (exams typically taken by 18 year old students in the UK as a condition for university entry) physics, mostly to the children of friends. Today I was helping a student to understand Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
I have a first class degree in Physics with Astrophysics and a PhD in Plasma Physics, but I left academia for better-paying work as a software developer after a couple of post-docs. That was a long time ago, but I still have a strong interest in physics and science in general, and I very much enjoy helping enthusiastic students with their learning.
This all sounds very admirable. But I suggest you open your eyes a bit and see that the laws of physics are only on the most general of scales and that you have to be aware of the finer details.
I've been arguing with you about nothing at all because you have a violent reaction to your knowledge being threatened. So I have been pulling your strings.
You have been using "heat" instead of energy. And heat is nothing more than the the presence of that energy. But you wish to redefine it as a thing rather than the result of a thing.
You should be more careful of understanding what it real and what isn't. |