"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Set Square" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

Which is power.

The only power

Power again.

used to do the conversion is that due to the *inefficiency*
of the process - so if a boiler is (say) 90% efficient,
10% of the energy in the fuel ends up heating the
neighbourhood or whatever rather than your
house!

I'm afraid Set Square's description was entirely correct except that in
his
last paragraph he said "The only power used..." when he meant "The only
energy used..." (which was about the only thing you didn't query).

What he was saying was that energy in - energy out = the energy used to
create power to do the state conversion of one energy state to another.

Overall what he was trying to say was what I wrote to totally wrong, yet
what he wrote agreed with it except for the point you picked up, which was
right except it was poorly written.

In a previous post you claimed the
power station "burned energy to make power".

Well burnt fuel which contains energy (CV)

One can neither "burn energy" (only convert
it from one form to another)

Which is what I have been saying.

nor "make power" (as it's a rate, ie so
much of something per second).

energy x time = power. The speed of consuming energy.

One can convert energy at a certain rate
(which is power).

yep.

In a 100% efficient
boiler (using the commonly accepted
definition rather than the
manufacturer's one) all the converted
energy gets out into the water by
heating it up. Some energy is lost to
the atmosphere however and the rate at
which it is lost compared with the rate it
gets into the water gives one the
inefficiency.

yep.

The use of the terms "power station"
and "power supply" are
rather looser terms generated by the
need to satisfy consmer "power
requirements" (ie the rate at which they wish to use energy).

yep. The term "power" station is a misnomer.

Power:
Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted, produced by "energy".
The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount of work per unit
time and commonly measured in units such as the watt and horsepower.

Power and Energy are interchanged liberally and confuse. It is easy to see
why. As power is a result of energy x time. So to get energy you divide
the power by time. We pay for electricity in skewed way as a unit (energy)
is power x time.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

A boiler: The output is in "power". Yet the boiler just converts one
energy
state (oil) into another (heat). Yet the output is rated in "power".

You are falling into the trap of using "power" in a colloquial sense.
Power is not something you can consume in a strict sense.

Power is a result of energy.

You can use
energy (you don't even consume
that - just change its form), but you
don't use power - it is simply a
measurement of the rate of energy use.

Yep.

It takes power to do the state conversion.

No. In absolute terms no energy is gained or lost in the reaction.

So all boilers are 100% efficient then. That is nice to know.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

You are falling into the trap of using "power" in a colloquial sense.
Power is not something you can consume in a strict sense.


Power is a result of energy.

Makes as much sense as "speed is a result of distance"...

No. In absolute terms no energy is gained or lost in the reaction.


So all boilers are 100% efficient then. That is nice to know.

Indeed they a

A - B - C - D - E - F - G = 0

A = Energy in
B = energy imparted to water
C = energy vented to flue
D = energy used to provide latent heat of vaporisation to water created
in the gas / oxygen reaction
E = energy lost to room
F = energy converted to acoustic noise
G = all other energy components not accounted for in B through F above

Alas you are only usually only interested in B and some of D

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

You are falling into the trap of using "power" in a colloquial sense.
Power is not something you can consume in a strict sense.


Power is a result of energy.

Makes as much sense as "speed is a result of distance"...

It doesn't as Enery x Time results in Power.

No. In absolute terms no energy is gained or lost in the reaction.

So all boilers are 100% efficient then. That is nice to know.

Indeed they a

A - B - C - D - E - F - G = 0

A = Energy in
B = energy imparted to water
C = energy vented to flue
D = energy used to provide latent heat of vaporisation to water created
in the gas / oxygen reaction
E = energy lost to room
F = energy converted to acoustic noise
G = all other energy components not accounted for in B through F above

Alas you are only usually only interested in B and some of D

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Makes as much sense as "speed is a result of distance"...


It doesn't as Enery x Time results in Power.

No.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Power: Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted, produced
by "energy". The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount of
work per unit time and commonly measured in units such as the watt and
horsepower.

Nice to see you may have learnt something and of course feel the need to
pass it on. But considering you have claimed in the past to have a physics
degree, it's a bit late to finally understand the basics?

After all, this was explained more than adequately in an O level applied
dynamics course. The effort of a 'standard' horse to raise a known weight
via a frictionless block and tackle in a given time.

Power and Energy are interchanged liberally and confuse. It is easy to
see why. As power is a result of energy x time. So to get energy you
divide the power by time. We pay for electricity in skewed way as a unit
(energy) is power x time.

It's been the way of measuring electricity usage for many a year. And can
be related to the usage of any energy. It only confuses those of feeble
minds. If any measure uses the same time (one hour, say) it can be
disregarded for working out costs as it's a constant.

That you seem to imply you've suddenly re-invented the wheel - or just
discovered how it works - surprises no one.

We're more used to you quoting maker's figures without a clue about how
they're derived. Filling a bath, for example, without saying how big that
bath is, or the final temperature, or the starting point of the cold water.

So it's nice to see you've at last discovered basic principles.

--
*When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
No. In absolute terms no energy is gained or lost in the reaction.

So all boilers are 100% efficient then. That is nice to know.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Thought you claimed to have
some form of physics degree?

And it's not so long ago you were quoting maker's efficiencies for boilers
that didn't reflect their running costs?

Hint. The energy input to a boiler is less than the energy output from it
because some of it doesn't get into the water.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Set Square
writes
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Set Square" wrote in message
...

But even if you (incorrectly!) believe kW/hr to be a measure of
energy,

It is because we buy out electrical energy using that.


Oh no we don't! We buy it in kilowatt-hours - not kilowatts *per* hour.

dIMM must be right - he designs systems (so he says)


DIMM shows his total lack of understanding - shock horror



--
geoff

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Set Square
writes
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Set Square" wrote in message
...

But even if you (incorrectly!) believe kW/hr to be a measure of
energy,

It is because we buy out electrical energy using that.


Oh no we don't! We buy it in kilowatt-hours - not kilowatts *per* hour.

dIMM must be right - he designs systems (so he says)


DIMM shows his total lack of understanding - shock horror

Maxie, does Dim Lin, the Oriental enchantress, not understand you? I am
dismayed for you Maxie - dismayed.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Power: Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted, produced
by "energy". The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount of
work per unit time and commonly measured in units such as the watt and
horsepower.

Nice to see you may have learnt something and of course feel the need to
pass it on. But considering you have claimed in the past to have a physics
degree, it's a bit late to finally understand the basics?

I did claim that? I did? Such is the view of senility.

After all, this was explained more than adequately in an O level applied
dynamics course. The effort of a 'standard' horse to raise a known weight
via a frictionless block and tackle in a given time.

Power and Energy are interchanged liberally and confuse. It is easy to
see why. As power is a result of energy x time. So to get energy you
divide the power by time. We pay for electricity in skewed way as a unit
(energy) is power x time.

It's been the way of measuring electricity usage for many a year.

Gosh! You don't say.

And can
be related to the usage of any energy. It only confuses those of feeble
minds.

You are obviously very confused then.

If any measure uses the same time (one hour, say) it can be
disregarded for working out costs as it's a constant.

That you seem to imply you've suddenly re-invented the wheel - or just
discovered how it works - surprises no one.

I have re-invented the wheel? I will have to patent it.

We're more used to you quoting maker's figures without a clue about how
they're derived.

You are?

Filling a bath, for example, without saying how big that
bath is,

Crystal Palace swimming pool.

or the final temperature, or the starting point of the cold water.

Cold water starts at the tap. Then it goes in the bath.

So it's nice to see you've at last discovered basic principles.

I know all about and everything about life and the universe and everything
therein. And the answer is not 42.

"John Rumm" wrote from bowls of a taseless
county in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Makes as much sense as "speed is a result of distance"...


It doesn't as Enery x Time results in Power.

No.

If you say so.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Nice to see you may have learnt something and of course feel the need
to pass it on. But considering you have claimed in the past to have a
physics degree, it's a bit late to finally understand the basics?

I did claim that? I did? Such is the view of senility.

I'm sure others will have chapter and verse. In your former incarnations
as IMM or Adam. Personally, I can't be bothered to keep tracks on a ****
like you.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Doctor Drivel wrote:


Power = Energy x Time. So this energy and the rate (time) sounds like
power.

NO!!! Power = Energy *divided by* time!

Energy = Power x Time [which is why 1 kw x 1 Hr and *not* 1 kw / 1 Hr is a
measure of energy]


I fear taxpayers money was wasted.

Any spent on you clearly was! The taxpayers got good value for money out of
me though.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Makes as much sense as "speed is a result of distance"...


It doesn't as Enery x Time results in Power.

No.


If you say so.

Look at the units and it should be clear. Work is expressed in Jules,
and rate of doing work (i.e. power in Watts) is Jules *per* second.
Therfore power must be given by:

Work
------ = power
time

and not work * power


This is also why your electricity is metered in kWhrs and not kW/hrs

energy
-------- * time = energy
time

(i.e. the time units cancel leaving only energy and no concept of time
or power)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message ws.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Set Square
writes
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Set Square" wrote in message
...

But even if you (incorrectly!) believe kW/hr to be a measure of
energy,

It is because we buy out electrical energy using that.


Oh no we don't! We buy it in kilowatt-hours - not kilowatts *per* hour.

dIMM must be right - he designs systems (so he says)


DIMM shows his total lack of understanding - shock horror

Maxie, does Dim Lin, the Oriental enchantress, not understand you?


Well, what's obvious that you don't understand what kWh are

Something so absolutely and fundamentally basic for someone who does
what you claim to do



--
geoff

"Dave Plowman (News)" in a haze of senile flatulence
wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Nice to see you may have learnt something and of course feel the need
to pass it on. But considering you have claimed in the past to have a
physics degree, it's a bit late to finally understand the basics?

I did claim that? I did? Such is the view of senility.

I'm sure

You can't be sure as you are confused. and inverted.

In article ,
says...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Makes as much sense as "speed is a result of distance"...


It doesn't as Enery x Time results in Power.

No.


If you say so.

Look at the units and it should be clear. Work is expressed in Jules,
and rate of doing work (i.e. power in Watts) is Jules *per* second.
Therfore power must be given by:



I assume that the "Jules" being referenced is of the Holland ilk?

No wonder that the "Jule" is such a small amount of energy...

... like its cousin, the joule :-)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

--
Regards,

Will.

Will wrote:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Tis ok, now Mary has gone we need someone to make sure the spelling
standards don't drop too far.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

This is also why your electricity is metered in kWhrs and not kW/hrs

Along with the water and gas, the electricity supply to his council
flat was disconnected some time ago. True but sad (yet safer for
everyone)

Back to the counter Dribble and sell more copper.


--

"Dave Plowman (News)" in a haze of senile flatulence
wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
No. In absolute terms no energy is gained or lost in the reaction.

So all boilers are 100% efficient then. That is nice to know.

Energy

snip senile drivel

Such confusion in the man who leaves his boiler unserviced for 18 years.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
[ snip ]
I'm sure others will have chapter and verse. In your former incarnations
as IMM or Adam. Personally, I can't be bothered to keep tracks on a ****
like you.

If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO,
but no - there's all this willy-waving that fills it up with
rubbish. Dr. D. is the "angus" of uk.d-i-y.

"Matt" idioitcally wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:

This is also why your electricity is metered in kWhrs and not kW/hrs

Along with the water

You buy water by the kW-hr. I suppose you do in airy-fairy land.

In article ,
Will wrote:
In article ,
says...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Makes as much sense as "speed is a result of distance"...


It doesn't as Enery x Time results in Power.

No.


If you say so.

Look at the units and it should be clear. Work is expressed in Jules,
and rate of doing work (i.e. power in Watts) is Jules *per* second.
Therfore power must be given by:



I assume that the "Jules" being referenced is of the Holland ilk?

No wonder that the "Jule" is such a small amount of energy...

... like its cousin, the joule :-)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Oi! Stop messing about with the name of our local celebrity. Probably the only
significant person from Sale (and not, as some text books put it, from Salford
- that's where his father had his brewery).

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) in a haze of senile flatulence
wrote in message :

If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO,
but no - there's all this willy-waving that fills it up with

And this electric caber tosser pervo likes to waver his wily.

rubbish. Dr. D. is the "angus" of uk.d-i-y.

Who is "angus" Angus Mecoatup?

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
[ snip ]
I'm sure others will have chapter and verse. In your former
incarnations as IMM or Adam. Personally, I can't be bothered to keep
tracks on a **** like you.

If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO, but no -
there's all this willy-waving that fills it up with rubbish. Dr. D. is
the "angus" of uk.d-i-y.

Despite trying my best to understand what you mean Chris, I can't. Perhaps
you'd provide clue? Who is 'angus'?

--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Despite trying my best to understand what you mean Chris, I can't. Perhaps
you'd provide clue? Who is 'angus'?

Have a look in u.c.e. Angus is a poster who seems to delight in
controversy for controversy's sake. Various people attempt to
"argue" with him, to get him to recognise that he's spouting
rubbish. He may well realise it, but it does not stop him, or
his "opponents" from pointlessly arguing in circles. I cannot
remember when a serious discussion took place on that NG,
'though the four or five posters will have it that they're
being perfectly rational, and that there's a possibility that
they might "win" an argument, and that what they are spouting
is not *utter pants*, and has not spoiled a perfectly good
NG which is now absolutely useless, since any subject is now
so twisted by the protagonists to further their own ends that
it becomes almost instantly corrupt. One or two of these ppl.
are supposedly educated, too! The same happens with Dribbel,
or whoever, here - ppl. think they can "win" an argument, stop
him spouting stuff of the most ridiculous sort, and that they're
somehow winning an argument, and that maybe someone other than
them actually thinks their willy-waving is interesting. It ain't.
The trouble is that they're so close to it that they cannot see.
I just wish the whole lot would take a FF.

Cue attempts to justify such behaviour.

Chris Bacon wrote:

If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO,

Does your newsreader not have a facility to ignore threads that are no
longer of interest to you?

Look at the bright side, the vast majority of threads are dribble
discussion free!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:

If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO,

Does your newsreader not have a facility to ignore threads that are no
longer of interest to you?

Look at the bright side, the vast majority of threads are dribble
discussion free!


Unfortunately he has completely ****ed up Google. Try doing a search for
something which he has added his "contributions" to and the ensuing
"corrections" from people from Earth. The whole thing becomes unreadable and
as to actually finding the answer to your question its nigh on impossible!

Killfiling him and his aliases/sock puppets works to some extent for the
newsgroup but doesn't stop the replies.

John Rumm wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO,

Does your newsreader not have a facility to ignore threads that are no
longer of interest to you?

Yes, but these sheets of stuff still drift into other
threads, and using some sort of kill mechanism is a
cop-out WRT the purist approach. It's curing the symptoms.


Look at the bright side, the vast majority of threads are dribble
discussion free!

Their prescence is possibly balanced by the extremes of
mutual dribbling. One can but hope for sense, I suppose.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:

If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO,

Does your newsreader not have a facility to ignore threads that are no
longer of interest to you?

Look at the bright side, the vast majority of threads are dribble
discussion free!

...and you are one of the biggest dribblers.

"John" in a haze of fish odour wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:

If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO,

Does your newsreader not have a facility to ignore threads that are no
longer of interest to you?

Look at the bright side, the vast majority of threads are dribble
discussion free!


Unfortunately ....

....you are here, the so called boiler expert. The one who didn't know
condensing boilers are rated up to 109% efficiency. He was told and still
wouldn't believe it. Expert at boilers and doesn't know something
fundamentally simple - yes sure he is an expert. More like someone who just
picked it up - a little knowledge is dangerous. I have no time for people
who make their living in a field and don't know it.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO,

Does your newsreader not have a facility to ignore threads that are no
longer of interest to you?

Yes, but these sheets of stuff still drift into other
threads,

I know what you mean it is difficult to get rid of idiot Plownman and
half-wit Matt, et al.

John wrote:

Unfortunately he has completely ****ed up Google. Try doing a search for
something which he has added his "contributions" to and the ensuing
"corrections" from people from Earth. The whole thing becomes unreadable and
as to actually finding the answer to your question its nigh on impossible!

Google is a more tricky one than the group really... if no one on this
planet challenged the derranged rantings, then the unfortunate googler
may stumble upon some of the dodgy advice and assume it to be sound. If
you do correct it then you get the problem you describe.

Killfiling him and his aliases/sock puppets works to some extent for the
newsgroup but doesn't stop the replies.

Perhaps the trick is to counter any really dodgy advice in a reply to
the OP, and leave dribbles post dangling rather than engage the fool in
dialogue... (shame it, he will probably just carry on the argument with
himself or an alias).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
John wrote:

Unfortunately he has completely ****ed up Google. Try doing a search for
something which he has added his "contributions" to and the ensuing
"corrections" from people from Earth. The whole thing becomes unreadable
and
as to actually finding the answer to your question its nigh on
impossible!

Google is a more tricky one than the group really... if no one on this
planet challenged the derranged rantings,

You are clear effing idiot. You and this fraud deserve each other.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

You and this fraud deserve each other.

For someone as obviously skilled and helpfull as John (Boilerdoc), I can
only take that as a compliment. Thank you.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
...you are here, the so called boiler expert. The one who didn't know
condensing boilers are rated up to 109% efficiency.

The physics illiterate strikes again...

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

You and this fraud deserve each other.

For someone as obviously
skilled

You are joking of course.

and helpfull as John (Boilerdoc),

More jokes.

I can only take that as a compliment. Thank you.

You are very odd.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

...you are here, the so called boiler expert. The one who didn't know
condensing boilers are rated up to 109% efficiency.

The physics illiterate strikes again...

Another effing senile idiot.

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:58:34 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

|
| "Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
| flatulence wrote in message ...
| In article ws.net,
| Doctor Drivel wrote:
|
| ...you are here, the so called boiler expert. The one who didn't know
| condensing boilers are rated up to 109% efficiency.
|
| The physics illiterate strikes again...
|
| Another effing senile idiot.

No! it is just the rather crazy way efficiency is calculated for boilers.
I read about it some weeks ago, but it seemed not a crazy as it sounds, and
did not understand it.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
...you are here, the so called boiler expert. The one who didn't know
| condensing boilers are rated up to 109% efficiency.
|
| The physics illiterate strikes again...
|
| Another effing senile idiot.

No! it is just the rather crazy way efficiency is calculated for
boilers. I read about it some weeks ago, but it seemed not a crazy as it
sounds, and did not understand it.

Efficiency is simply energy in versus energy out. And since energy can
neither be created or destroyed efficiency cannot exceed 100%. As I'm sure
you know.

But Drivel doesn't understand this since he can only read adverts.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.