U
Unknown
Meters do not supply current. They only measure it. pF would be so small as
to be negligible.
to be negligible.
P
Pegasus [MVP]
Unknown said:
Bob omitted a word by mistake. I'm pretty sure he wanted to say "Unless you
have a meter to *measure* supply current, RMS voltage and pF readings, you
aren't going to calculate anything.
B
Bill in Co.
Just FYI:
PF = power factor
pF = picofarad (used for capacitance)
PF = power factor
pF = picofarad (used for capacitance)
P
Pegasus [MVP]
Bill in Co. said:
Thanks, I'm quite aware of this, I learnt about pF, nF, mA, kV, mW, kWh and
MHz a long, long time ago.
B
Bill in Co.
Pegasus said:
Same here.
Actually, it used to be ma, mw, pf, (etc) when I got started, before the
IEEE "weighed in" on it. And cps, NOT Hz, and mhos, NOT Siemens.
M
Mike Torello
Bill in Co. said:Same here.
Actually, it used to be ma, mw, pf, (etc) when I got started, before the
IEEE "weighed in" on it. And cps, NOT Hz, and mhos, NOT Siemens.
You're neglecting your knitting, Billy.
P
Pegasus [MVP]
Bill in Co. said:Same here.
Actually, it used to be ma, mw, pf, (etc) when I got started, before the
IEEE "weighed in" on it. And cps, NOT Hz, and mhos, NOT Siemens.
It seems you're getting forgetful. There was always mA and MA, mW and MW.
Remember - there is a factor of 10 to the power of 9 between the two members
of each pair . . . m=milli, M=Mega.
B
Bill in Co.
Mike said:
Still on life support, eh?
B
Bob I
Pegasus said:
Nope the meter supplies the readings, but I did inadvertently drop the
caps on the "p" in PowerFactor. ;-)
B
Bill in Co.
Pegasus said:
Not so. In the early days, one letter (signifying the inventor) was NOT
capitalized. It was ma, mw - as in: 10 ma, 10 mw, etc.
And 10 kc or kcps was used for frequency (10 kilocycles per sec, or 10 kHz
today)
What do I mean by early days? Before the early 1960's - back in the vacuum
tube era. Transistorized equipment was still a bit new, even in 1960.
J
James Watkins
Bill in Co. said:
If you were unable to tell the difference between MW (Megawatts, a unit
often used by power station staff) and mW (milliWatts, a until in common use
in electronics) then you must have been a lousy technician. There many 500
MW power stations but there are none that generate 500 mW - other than
batteries! Can you tell the difference?
M
Mike Torello
James Watkins said:
Bill was off his meds when he wrote that. He was AWOL from the
afternoon knitting group when Nurse Cratchett showed up there to pass
out the afternoon meds so he missed his dose.
B
Bill in Co.
James said:
Let's try again. The terms were 500 mw (milliwatts) or 500 MW (Megawatts),
and there was NO "mW" abbreviation used in electronics.
Nor was the pico or nano in use, either. For example, capacitances were
measured in uf or uuf, and NOT nf or pf, etc. It's likely before your
time.
T
Twayne
Bill said:
Watt is a proper name: therefore it's mW. W is always a capital.
When it's not a name, as in bits and bytes, then a convention is simply
developted as in, kb = kilo-bits, and kB - kilo Bytes. Capitalize Byte
but not bit.
It would be before YOUR time too, to get back to a point where uf and
uuf were ever the accepted standards. Actually, they were more apt to
use 1exxx... than uuF or uuuF.
Farad is also a proper name: pF, nF, uF.
http://worldofaerospace.googlepages.com/Convert-Farad-pF-nF-uF-mF-F.htm
You're not the only one to screw that up though, so do a lot of others.
But, since you are being tekinikally krect, the F is capitalized. If
you need an actual citation, I'll leave that to you; easy enough to
find.
Twayne
B
Bill in Co.
Twayne said:
Now, yes. But it wasn't always that way. That *change* and practice came
about after the IEEE adopted it in the late 1960's, likely before your time.
Nope, you're wrong. It was definitely not before my time. It may have
been before yours though. I got into electronics a long time ago (1950's).
Nope. They were not apt to do so.
I haven't screwed it up. I've just pointed out some history to you.
Whether or not you can appreciate that is up to you.
Today it is, yes. But it wasn't always that way, as I've already
mentioned.
T
Twayne
Bill in Co. wrote:
....
It wasn't a historical context; it was current. Thus irrelevant.
No, you're still wrong. You could not possibly be old enough to have
experienced it unless you are well over a hundred. Historty, irrelevant
as it is to this context, did not start with the day you were borne.
Yup, they were; looked up the white paper before I responded.
You have screwed it up: It's your perogative to try to use history to
justify yourself if you wish but don't use your own; use actual history.
Personally I could care less but since you wish to push the matter: If
you want to talk history, whose name was originally associated with what
Mr. Michael Faraday eventually identified? In fact, he even identified
a useful magnitude to be 10 -6F, not 10 -6f, and the original label was
F, his initial, not Farad. It was some time before Farad came into
common usage.
But you mentioned incorrect data:
Since the days of Michael Faraday, it HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED, first as F,
and then as Farad (uF) and then back to F but the word for "F" was
Farad, not Faraday. It went through several twists before it settled
out. But anyone using "f", of which there are still thousands of
examples today, is/was wrong and always will be. It has always been "F"
since Faraday, but pronouced Farad. The electrical community never used
anything but the capital letter. Why would you when it came from a
proper noun anyway? So, your perception of history is imperfect. Since
you decided to push the subject.
I've had my say and am afraid I have nothing more to say to you. You
have taught me nothing and fortunately I knew better than what you did
try to "teach". I've made my point and I'm finished dawdling over this
with you. If you feel you must resopnd, go ahead but you'll be talking
to yourself.
Twayne
....
It wasn't a historical context; it was current. Thus irrelevant.
No, you're still wrong. You could not possibly be old enough to have
experienced it unless you are well over a hundred. Historty, irrelevant
as it is to this context, did not start with the day you were borne.
Yup, they were; looked up the white paper before I responded.
You have screwed it up: It's your perogative to try to use history to
justify yourself if you wish but don't use your own; use actual history.
Personally I could care less but since you wish to push the matter: If
you want to talk history, whose name was originally associated with what
Mr. Michael Faraday eventually identified? In fact, he even identified
a useful magnitude to be 10 -6F, not 10 -6f, and the original label was
F, his initial, not Farad. It was some time before Farad came into
common usage.
But you mentioned incorrect data:
Since the days of Michael Faraday, it HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED, first as F,
and then as Farad (uF) and then back to F but the word for "F" was
Farad, not Faraday. It went through several twists before it settled
out. But anyone using "f", of which there are still thousands of
examples today, is/was wrong and always will be. It has always been "F"
since Faraday, but pronouced Farad. The electrical community never used
anything but the capital letter. Why would you when it came from a
proper noun anyway? So, your perception of history is imperfect. Since
you decided to push the subject.
I've had my say and am afraid I have nothing more to say to you. You
have taught me nothing and fortunately I knew better than what you did
try to "teach". I've made my point and I'm finished dawdling over this
with you. If you feel you must resopnd, go ahead but you'll be talking
to yourself.
Twayne
B
Bill in Co.
Twayne said:
No, your comment is irrelevant.
Sorry, but you're wrong. I've actually worked with the electronics, and
you clearly haven't. I doubt if you could even identify a capacitor.
Well, you usually do have little of substance to say (including all your
bunk on registry cleaners). So, no big loss there.
Nobody can teach you anything, Twayne (what a surprise). So at least on
that point we are in full agreement. But then again, ignorance is bliss,
isn't it. And, I think we're done.
Why don't you go back to extolling the "virtues" of registry cleaners,
Twayne? I think that's more "in your league". (cough)
A
Al Falfa
Repeat (several times) {
Twayne wrote: ...
Bill in Co. wrote: ...
}
In particular, Bill in Co. wrote to Twayne: (in chronological sequence)
That was also the common practice that *I* saw then.
Me too. Pre TV. Valve radio. Silly currency, weights and measures.
He used to be a software administrator.
But, what about those chimpanzees who bought WW-II communications radios
from 'Army Surplus' stores to salvage cheap spare parts:
Champ: I wonder if this unmarked 'condensor' still works.
Chimp: <-Connects wires to B+ and Eth->
Chomp: <-loud bang, smoke->
Chump: <-in hospital ward-> Wha' happen'?
Army: That was a self-destruct bomb to disable the radio if surrender
to the enemy was iminent. Did you expect a warning label?
'Do not eat this bomb! Penalty: Death'
Twayne wrote: ...
Bill in Co. wrote: ...
}
In particular, Bill in Co. wrote to Twayne: (in chronological sequence)
That was also the common practice that *I* saw then.
Me too. Pre TV. Valve radio. Silly currency, weights and measures.
He used to be a software administrator.
But, what about those chimpanzees who bought WW-II communications radios
from 'Army Surplus' stores to salvage cheap spare parts:
Champ: I wonder if this unmarked 'condensor' still works.
Chimp: <-Connects wires to B+ and Eth->
Chomp: <-loud bang, smoke->
Chump: <-in hospital ward-> Wha' happen'?
Army: That was a self-destruct bomb to disable the radio if surrender
to the enemy was iminent. Did you expect a warning label?
'Do not eat this bomb! Penalty: Death'
D
db
question:
how many geeks and
days does it take to
analyze the wattage
a light bulb utilizes.
answer:
the world may never
know.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @hotmail.com
"share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
how many geeks and
days does it take to
analyze the wattage
a light bulb utilizes.
answer:
the world may never
know.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @hotmail.com
"share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J
John John - MVP
If the light bulb is as bright as you are it will be a pretty short and
dim analysis...
The point is that you stated that the rated wattage of the PSU was the
energy usage of the computer, that isn't true and you are too pompous to
accept your error and move on...
So, lets see here... according to db the energy usage of my house would
be... the main panel (PSU) is rated at 200 AMPs so at 120 volts my house
must be consuming... 24,000 watts! Oh wait a minute... some of the
stuff is running on 240 volts, lets see here... oh boy, my power bill
is going to be pretty big next month!
dim analysis...
The point is that you stated that the rated wattage of the PSU was the
energy usage of the computer, that isn't true and you are too pompous to
accept your error and move on...
So, lets see here... according to db the energy usage of my house would
be... the main panel (PSU) is rated at 200 AMPs so at 120 volts my house
must be consuming... 24,000 watts! Oh wait a minute... some of the
stuff is running on 240 volts, lets see here... oh boy, my power bill
is going to be pretty big next month!