On 13 Mar, 16:13, Richard Forbes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor

It all seems very basic stuff to me. What bit(s) don't you understand?

Far more than you, by the look of your contributions to this thread.

No one who knew what they were doing would apply your arguments to the
type of circuits as you do. That is unless they are trying to appear
clever.

And what arguments do you think I am trying to apply to what circuits?

You may care to remember that I am responding to the claim that "power
factor" may always be usefully defined as "power dissipated / Vrms
Irms" ...

Ian

On 13 Mar, 16:37, Martin Bonner wrote:

In the case of the torch, the RMS voltage, RMS current, and RMS power
over a week will all be practically zero. However the power factor
will be very close to one.

Indeed. Nice to see that someone sees what I'm getting at.

Ian

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:39 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 13 Mar, 16:13, Richard Forbes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor

It all seems very basic stuff to me. What bit(s) don't you understand?

Far more than you, by the look of your contributions to this thread.

No one who knew what they were doing would apply your arguments to the
type of circuits as you do. That is unless they are trying to appear
clever.

And what arguments do you think I am trying to apply to what circuits?

You may care to remember that I am responding to the claim that "power
factor" may always be usefully defined as "power dissipated / Vrms
Irms" ...

Ian


I do remember, but I've also noticed you've neevr said what definition
you use for power factor. You only seem to throw other points back at
people. I thought this site is a DIY one and I assume the people using
it want advice not academic points that bear no application to the
questions asked. Not a very good way of communicating and spreading
knowledge and experience.

On 13 Mar, 18:41, Richard Forbes wrote:

I do remember, but I've also noticed you've neevr said what definition
you use for power factor. You only seem to throw other points back at
people. I thought this site is a DIY one and I assume the people using
it want advice not academic points that bear no application to the
questions asked. Not a very good way of communicating and spreading
knowledge and experience.

It's called Socratic questioning, dear boy.

The claim was made, repeatedly, that a dimmer controlled light has a
lagging power factor because the load current doesn't start to rise
until some time (5ms) after the supply voltage has started to rise. I
am interested to know if the same people would claim a lagging power
factor for my torch.

If you're just not sure about rms values for DC, let me know.

Ian

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 13 Mar, 18:41, Richard Forbes wrote:

I do remember, but I've also noticed you've neevr said what definition
you use for power factor. You only seem to throw other points back at
people. I thought this site is a DIY one and I assume the people using
it want advice not academic points that bear no application to the
questions asked. Not a very good way of communicating and spreading
knowledge and experience.

It's called Socratic questioning, dear boy.

The claim was made, repeatedly, that a dimmer controlled light has a
lagging power factor because the load current doesn't start to rise
until some time (5ms) after the supply voltage has started to rise. I
am interested to know if the same people would claim a lagging power
factor for my torch.

If you're just not sure about rms values for DC, let me know.

Ian

Oh dear. Yiou have really shown your ignorance now. And still not
defined what your quantities relate to.

On 14 Mar, 16:36, Richard Forbes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor

The claim was made, repeatedly, that a dimmer controlled light has a
lagging power factor because the load current doesn't start to rise
until some time (5ms) after the supply voltage has started to rise. I
am interested to know if the same people would claim a lagging power
factor for my torch.

Oh dear. Yiou have really shown your ignorance now. And still not
defined what your quantities relate to.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about now. Haven't defined how
what quantities relate to what?

Why don't we go back to the beginning?

What do you think the power factor is for a resistive load (let's
leave out non-linearity for now) supplied by a dimmer?

There is, you know, a distinct chance that we're actually on the the
same side here!


Ian

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 14 Mar, 16:36, Richard Forbes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor

The claim was made, repeatedly, that a dimmer controlled light has a
lagging power factor because the load current doesn't start to rise
until some time (5ms) after the supply voltage has started to rise. I
am interested to know if the same people would claim a lagging power
factor for my torch.

Oh dear. Yiou have really shown your ignorance now. And still not
defined what your quantities relate to.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about now. Haven't defined how
what quantities relate to what?

Why don't we go back to the beginning?

What do you think the power factor is for a resistive load (let's
leave out non-linearity for now) supplied by a dimmer?

There is, you know, a distinct chance that we're actually on the the
same side here!


The term power factor is not applicable to non linear devices.



Ian

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


The term power factor is not applicable to non linear devices.

Opps!

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:20 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On 06 Mar 2008 16:44:21 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

One that I measured...
A 500W light dimmed to same output as a 40W light was consuming 300W.

Interestingly those usual suspects who claim to be very interested
in figures have not responded to your figures. I think this tells us
all we need to know.

Excellent, personal abuse, do keep it up.

Can't think who you might mean, but anyway I was out of the country at
a conference.

However it's been self evident to me since I was seven that a cycle
front lamp (Cycle front lamp eh? Showing my age there) gives much
less than half it's light output when the battery is down to half
voltage.

****-poor try.

DG

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:47:07 +0000 someone who may be Derek Geldard
wrote this:-

One that I measured...
A 500W light dimmed to same output as a 40W light was consuming 300W.

Interestingly those usual suspects who claim to be very interested
in figures have not responded to your figures. I think this tells us
all we need to know.

Excellent, personal abuse, do keep it up.

Nice try. However, readers will observe that my comment does not
refer to any individual. Therefore it cannot be personal, unless one
tries to twist it.

However it's been self evident to me since I was seven that a cycle
front lamp (Cycle front lamp eh? Showing my age there) gives much
less than half it's light output when the battery is down to half
voltage.

It does partly depend on the type of cell. However, light output
becomes close to zero long before zero voltage is reached. A cycle
lamp with a "traditional" bulb will put out just a little glow when
the 1.2V rechargeable cells reach around 0.9V. Much the same with
"non-rechargeable" cells.

Next contestant please.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54