Re: some of the reason why energy and power definitions areconfusing

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "john cooper" <tesla-at-tesla-coil-dot-com> 


 >Original poster: "Alfred Erpel" <alfred-at-erpel-dot-com>
 >
 >Howdy all,
 >
 >
 >A coulomb is (to me) an unsimplifiable property of the universe.  It is
 >6.41418*10^18 electrons.  You can't state this in a simpler form another way
 >in terms of ¹distance, mass, time and energy.  It bugs the hell out of me
 >that the coulomb in the SI system is defined as a DERIVED unit in terms of
 >amperes. And amperes has the status of being a basic unit. Amperes is
 >defined as coulombs/second.  Amperes were INVENTED by man yet have been
 >confered the status of a basic unit.  This I believe obfuscates and confuses
 >many issues.  I have no idea why this was done.  It is my opinion that
 >energy has nothing to do with time, however with this artificial definition,
 >joules (energy) = watts * seconds.  With this system the energy unit has
 >time in it and the power unit doesn't.
 >
 >
 >remember, amps = coulombs / seconds  below and:
 >
 >joules = watts * seconds
 >
 >joules = volts * amps * seconds
 >
 >joules = volts * (coulombs / seconds) * seconds
 >
 >joules = volts * coulombs
 >
 >
 >Hence, joules should (IMHO) always be spoken of as being equal to volt *
 >coulombs. This is a more basic unit and without reference to time.  Power
 >would be volt * coulombs / second.  This is way less confusing.
 >
 >If anyone has a clue why the SI system made this exception to defining basic
 >units, I sure would like to hear it.
 >
 >¹ distance, mass, time, and energy is it baby, that and nothing else,
 >comprises all that we know.
 >
 >Regards,
 >
 >Al Erpel

I've had the same issues twisting thru my mind, especially with one 
horsepower equalling 746 or whatever, watts.  Who in the hell came up with 
that one?  And how do you prove it?  Small horse, medium horse?  What if we 
want to use camels?  How many watts per bactrian?  There are a few problems 
with the way science has been taught but we tend to build upon what is 'known'.

For coiling, we need our own specific definitions.  I mean math is math and 
we should all be capable, perhaps better than most but these issues of what 
is what is driving all but the highly educated out of the conversation, and 
most likely some of them as well.  We need some 'rock-solid' definitions, 
specific to this art, that all can build upon.  Anyone else see an evolving 
art here?

I'll not pretend to be even vaguely qualified to set these out but I can 
sure incorporate them into my work and thinking, once defined.

Drizzle, Drazzle, Druzzle Drone, Help Mr. Wizard!  Where's Antonio on this one?

John



John


 >
 >
 >