Residence Power Meter And Reactive Loads Question ?
Bob
Think I have a very basic understanding of VA, Power Factor, etc. but
was wondering about this:
Even though most of the load in a typical residence is probably all
resistive, how does the power meter outside "decide" what's reactive and
what's resistive ?
It measures the total current going into the house, doesn't it ?
But you should, I think, be charged Only for the current
consumed/required by all the resistive loads. Is this true ?
Does it just measure total VA, and assume a Power Factor ?
If someone a lot better at this stuff could explain this for me, would
be most appreciative.
Thanks, and Happy Holidays,
Bob
Archimedes' Lever
>Hi,
>
>Think I have a very basic understanding of VA, Power Factor, etc. but
>was wondering about this:
>
>Even though most of the load in a typical residence is probably all
>resistive, how does the power meter outside "decide" what's reactive and
>what's resistive ?
What makes you think that it needs to?
>
>It measures the total current going into the house, doesn't it ?
No, it measures power.
>But you should, I think, be charged Only for the current
>consumed/required by all the resistive loads. Is this true ?
No. You get charged for your power consumption. What makes you think
that your reactive consuming loads should be able to operate for free?
>Does it just measure total VA, and assume a Power Factor ?
No.
>If someone a lot better at this stuff could explain this for me, would
>be most appreciative.
Old power meters had issues with different loads. Newer meters are
quite capable of determining just how much you use, regardless of what
type of load is presented to the load side of the meter.
Dean Hoffman
There was a long thread here "Balancing the Breaker Box"
recently. Read that. It should pretty much answer your questions.
James Sweet
The meter measures true power, so the power factor of the load has no
effect on the charges.
John Gilmer
> Old power meters had issues with different loads.
They did?
The basic mechanism generated a torque proportional to the voltage X current
average. (That's power!) I don't think any "funny" load could spoof it.
If anything they slight cheated the customer who had a very unbalanced load
because the basic meter was usually 2-wire.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
There was a time when the number of capacitors hanging on the line
determined how well aluminum disc power meters would "read" inductive
consumption.
Archimedes' Lever
Note that I am referring to the utility provider side, up on the local
HV sub for the cap banks.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>
>
>> Old power meters had issues with different loads.
>
>They did?
>
>The basic mechanism generated a torque proportional to the voltage X current
>average. (That's power!) I don't think any "funny" load could spoof it.
No, the basic mechanism APPLIED a torque to an Alunimnum plate, and it
had error when the current and the voltage were not in phase.
The torque applied is less when the two are out of phase, and the
subsequent turns per watt/hour will be less as well.
The power company puts the cap banks on the line to offset their losses
on those meters.
They do not need to any more as the meters no longer present the
problem.
>
>If anything they slight cheated the customer who had a very unbalanced load
>because the basic meter was usually 2-wire.
It only needed to be 2 wire, and even if all use was on one side, it
STILL reads resistive accurately, and inductive less so if the phase
correction is not just right.
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
You surely are an idiot, DinBulb. AlwaysWrong too.
krw
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:08:23 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:19:46 -0500, "John Gilmer" <jlgi...@localnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Old power meters had issues with different loads.
>>
>>They did?
>>
>>The basic mechanism generated a torque proportional to the voltage X current
>>average. (That's power!) I don't think any "funny" load could spoof it.
>
> No, the basic mechanism APPLIED a torque to an Alunimnum plate, and it
>had error when the current and the voltage were not in phase.
Wrong again, AlwaysWrong.
> The torque applied is less when the two are out of phase, and the
>subsequent turns per watt/hour will be less as well.
DimBulb, the torque is lower because the W are lower. The meter reads
WATTS.
> The power company puts the cap banks on the line to offset their losses
>on those meters.
Wrong. The power company puts capacitors on the line to correct the
VARS, so *their* losses are lower. It has nothing to do with the
meter. It's reading watts, as it was designed to.
> They do not need to any more as the meters no longer present the
>problem.
Remember folks, AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong. They never did, you
stupid jerk. Power meters have *always* read POWER. This has been
hashed out here before and you've *ALWAYS* been wrong, AlwaysWrong.
Clue up, for once.
>>If anything they slight cheated the customer who had a very unbalanced load
>>because the basic meter was usually 2-wire.
>
>It only needed to be 2 wire, and even if all use was on one side, it
>STILL reads resistive accurately, and inductive less so if the phase
>correction is not just right.
I know you can't understand the simplest engineering concepts, but you
don't have to open your mouth, AlwaysWrong. It may confuse those who
wish to learn.
Archimedes' Lever
>> No, the basic mechanism APPLIED a torque to an Alunimnum plate, and it
>>had error when the current and the voltage were not in phase.
>
>Wrong again, AlwaysWrong.
Liar.
Archimedes' Lever
>> The torque applied is less when the two are out of phase, and the
>>subsequent turns per watt/hour will be less as well.
>
>DimBulb, the torque is lower because the W are lower. The meter reads
>WATTS.
No, the meter reads the number of turns the disc gets put to it. When
reading resistive loads, it reads Watt/hours (you were wrong again, as
usual), when it is responding to an inductive load, it reads LESS
Watt/hours than it should. That is one reason why that type of meter has
been phased out of service, idiot.
If a load turns it less than usual, that means that the METER fails to
make a valid claim of what was actually consumed.
I know it is hard for you to understand, K-Tard, but less is less, and
the number of functioning brain cells between your ears is no exception.
krw
Like I said, folks, AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong. He didn't get the
name because he knows anything.
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:42:25 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>> The torque applied is less when the two are out of phase, and the
>>>subsequent turns per watt/hour will be less as well.
>>
>>DimBulb, the torque is lower because the W are lower. The meter reads
>>WATTS.
>
> No, the meter reads the number of turns the disc gets put to it. When
>reading resistive loads, it reads Watt/hours (you were wrong again, as
>usual), when it is responding to an inductive load, it reads LESS
>Watt/hours than it should. That is one reason why that type of meter has
>been phased out of service, idiot.
You really don't have a clue. The torque (thus power) is proportional
to the watts. The integral of that (the accumulator gears) is energy
(watt-hours).
>
> If a load turns it less than usual, that means that the METER fails to
>make a valid claim of what was actually consumed.
Wrong again, AlwaysWrong. The meter reads *exactly* the power
consumed. It doesn't care about inductance, capacitance, or anything
else, but WATTs.
> I know it is hard for you to understand, K-Tard, but less is less, and
>the number of functioning brain cells between your ears is no exception.
You've been proven wrong again, AlwaysWrong, though you will never
understand.
Archimedes' Lever
>
>You really don't have a clue. The torque (thus power) is proportional
>to the watts. The integral of that (the accumulator gears) is energy
>(watt-hours).
>>
You really do not get it. The torque is LESS when the two coils that
drive it are out of phase. That means that the same POWER will yield
LESS metered reporting of it. It does not get much more simple than
that, K-Tard.
See if you can wrap your single neuron around that, dumbfuck.
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:51:16 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>
>>You really don't have a clue. The torque (thus power) is proportional
>>to the watts. The integral of that (the accumulator gears) is energy
>>(watt-hours).
>>>
> You really do not get it. The torque is LESS when the two coils that
>drive it are out of phase.
No, AlwaysWrong, it is *you* who doesn't get it (or anything). The
torque is LESS because the POWER is lower when the current in the
coils is out of phase.
>That means that the same POWER will yield
>LESS metered reporting of it.
Now, DimBulb, the POWER is NOT the same when the current in the coils
is out of phase as it is when they are. The meter reads the POWER, no
matter what the phase relationship.
>It does not get much more simple than that, K-Tard.
Evidently it does, because *you* are too simple to understand simple
electricity, AlwaysWrong.
> See if you can wrap your single neuron around that, dumbfuck.
Once again, AlwaysWrong proves how wrong he always is.
Keep it up DimBulb, you're making a real fool out of yourself. Still.
Archimedes' Lever
>
>No, AlwaysWrong, it is *you* who doesn't get it (or anything). The
>torque is LESS because the POWER is lower when the current in the
>coils is out of phase.
You really do not understand the relationship between torque and total
number of turns over time.
Less torque will mean slower rotation. It really is THAT simple, you
moronic sub-human chump.
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:50:29 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>
>>No, AlwaysWrong, it is *you* who doesn't get it (or anything). The
>>torque is LESS because the POWER is lower when the current in the
>>coils is out of phase.
>
>
> You really do not understand the relationship between torque and total
>number of turns over time.
You're a dumbass, DimBulb. Do you have any clue what in integral is?
No, I suppose not.
> Less torque will mean slower rotation. It really is THAT simple, you
>moronic sub-human chump.
Integrated over time is fewer turns, so? The TORQUE is a function of
POWER, moron.
Don't try anything as technical as brushing your teeth, AlwaysWrong.
You're not up to it. Oh, that's right. You don't.
Have fun in mommy's hamper, DimBulb.
dh...@shawcross.ca
"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:hsmlj55n8oelbm2v2...@4ax.com...
---------------------------------
Puzzlement??
a) The induction disk meter "reads" the real power only.
b)whatever is on the line "upstream" of the meter has no bearing on the
meter.
Capacitors "downstream" will reduce the inductive load (which is being
ignored by the meter except for a decrease in losses and possible harmonic
effects).
--
-----
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
dh...@shawcross.ca
"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:emnlj5lutj7er47n4...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:19:46 -0500, "John Gilmer" <jlgi...@localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Old power meters had issues with different loads.
>>
>>They did?
>>
>>The basic mechanism generated a torque proportional to the voltage X
>>current
>>average. (That's power!) I don't think any "funny" load could spoof
>>it.
>
> No, the basic mechanism APPLIED a torque to an Alunimnum plate, and it
> had error when the current and the voltage were not in phase.
---
Errr, Not true. If it were, the meters would be useless as the load pf
is not constant. The meter inherently reads the <real power>, ignoring the
reactive component.
Are you thinking of the "lag coil"? This is not a power factor correction
device.
Nor is the torque "applied". A rotating magnetic field is applied and the
reaction of induced eddy currents in the disc with this field produces (or
generates) torque.
------------
>
> The torque applied is less when the two are out of phase, and the
> subsequent turns per watt/hour will be less as well.
-----------
When the two are out of phase, the torque at a given current and voltage
will be lower, as you indicate, because the torque is proportional to the
component of current in phase with the voltage- ie -the real power which
will be lower than the VI product. Voltage*current is, contrary to what you
appear to believe, not power (watts) for AC.
The turns per watt-hour will not change.
. The speed of rotation will decrease because the real power and hence the
torque will decrease.
----------------------
>
> The power company puts the cap banks on the line to offset their losses
> on those meters.
----------------
No. They put capacitors on the line to provide vars locally to compensate
for inductive loads, reducing line losses "upstream" of the capacitors, or
to improve the voltage. Note that these capacitors will have absolutely no
effect on the meter and meter losses will not be corrected by such
capacitors.
>
> They do not need to any more as the meters no longer present the
> problem.
-----
They are still used - for the same reason that they were always used.
-----------------------
Whether you like it or not, krw is right.
Archimedes' Lever
>Whether you like it or not, krw is right.
>
>-
The retarded fuck has not ever once said a goddamned thing about it,
you stupid fuck.
Now, IF he comes back with some brains, instead of his stupid, peanut
gallery dumbfuck crap, MAYBE your remarks would have some merit.
Since all he does is parrot the same old, tired, retarded horseshit,
both he, and his retarded butt buddy (you) can shove it up each others
asses for all I care.
So, his CRAP is meaningless without stating what his refutation is.
And since you do not even know what fucking torque is, I doubt
seriously that you have any real depth of knowledge as it relates to ANY
mechanical device in existence. This meter is a mechanical device,
dipshit.
Archimedes' Lever
> Nor is the torque "applied". A rotating magnetic field is applied and the
>reaction of induced eddy currents in the disc with this field produces (or
>generates) torque.
Dumbass. The field IS APPLYing the torque force.
Yes, it IS applied. Whenever a shaft is rotated by a force, torque has
been applied. And whenever a shaft is turned, torque IS the force that
was applied to the shaft, by whatever means, to turn it. Go back to
basic physics classes, dimwit.
So, if the shaft turns at one speed under an in phase resistive load,
and it does... and IF the shaft gets slightly less torque applied to it
by the eddy currents when "looking at" an inductive load, then ANY IDIOT
can declare that the number of turns will be less, despite the fact that
the same power was consumed, if the torque is less due to the two coils
being out of phase, and as it happens, that IS the case with inductive
loads.
So, same power consumed in both cases, and the meter will read the
inductive load as having been less. Period. The difference was not
enough for them to be concerned about, and it was made up for ON the FEED
side (utility) by putting cap banks up on the poles to shift the phase so
that an inductive load would make the metering a bit more accurate on
such loads.
It is not just for reducing line losses, it is also for reducing the
error in the meters on inductive loading.
You all need to go back to school... very basic school.
Andrew Gabriel
Archimedes' Lever <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:51:16 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>
>>You really don't have a clue. The torque (thus power) is proportional
>>to the watts. The integral of that (the accumulator gears) is energy
>>(watt-hours).
>>>
> You really do not get it. The torque is LESS when the two coils that
> drive it are out of phase. That means that the same POWER will yield
> LESS metered reporting of it. It does not get much more simple than
> that, K-Tard.
You have Power and VA mixed up. If you said the same VA will yield
LESS metered reporting, you would be right. That's because as the
current drifts further out of phase (and assuming the current amplitude
remains constant), the Power drops. This is because the meter is
measuring Power (or more correctly, the integral of Power, Energy).
Alternatively, if you want the Power consumption to remain the same
as you shift the current further out of phase, the current (and VA)
will increase to compensate. Regardless, the meter measures the
[integral of] Power, and will spin at the same rate for constant
power consumption regardless of phase angle. If you want to try this
second case for yourself, play with the first java applet example
(Phase Shift) on http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/PowerFactor/
which shows how the various parameters such as current and VA change
as you change the phase shift, whilst drawing constant power.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:43:03 -0800, <dh...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
>
>>Whether you like it or not, krw is right.
>>
>>-
>
>
> The retarded fuck has not ever once said a goddamned thing about it,
>you stupid fuck.
You don't read. <sarcasm> What a surprise, DimBulb. </sarcasm>
> Now, IF he comes back with some brains, instead of his stupid, peanut
>gallery dumbfuck crap, MAYBE your remarks would have some merit.
Now go back and read what you snipped, AlwaysWrong. It's in there.
> Since all he does is parrot the same old, tired, retarded horseshit,
>both he, and his retarded butt buddy (you) can shove it up each others
>asses for all I care.
You don't read, AlwaysWrong. Did I say that you're always wrong?
> So, his CRAP is meaningless without stating what his refutation is.
You don't read well, AlwaysWrong. Try again, if you can keep you
blood pressure below 300. If not, just take a week off and relax. A
month would be better.
> And since you do not even know what fucking torque is, I doubt
>seriously that you have any real depth of knowledge as it relates to ANY
>mechanical device in existence. This meter is a mechanical device,
>dipshit.
Nice rant, AlwaysWrong, but you're still always wrong.
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:43:03 -0800, <dh...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
>
>> Nor is the torque "applied". A rotating magnetic field is applied and the
>>reaction of induced eddy currents in the disc with this field produces (or
>>generates) torque.
>
>
> Dumbass. The field IS APPLYing the torque force.
>
> Yes, it IS applied. Whenever a shaft is rotated by a force, torque has
>been applied. And whenever a shaft is turned, torque IS the force that
>was applied to the shaft, by whatever means, to turn it. Go back to
>basic physics classes, dimwit.
No one said anything different, DimBulb.
> So, if the shaft turns at one speed under an in phase resistive load,
>and it does... and IF the shaft gets slightly less torque applied to it
>by the eddy currents when "looking at" an inductive load, then ANY IDIOT
>can declare that the number of turns will be less, despite the fact that
>the same power was consumed, if the torque is less due to the two coils
>being out of phase, and as it happens, that IS the case with inductive
>loads.
Yes, but the inductive load doesn't dissipate the same power as the
resistive load, now does it AlwaysWrong? The torque is PROPORTIONAL
to the *real* power of the load. There is no error for an inductive
(or capacitive) load.
> So, same power consumed in both cases, and the meter will read the
>inductive load as having been less. Period.
Because the power in the inductive load is *LOWER*, AlwaysWrong.
>The difference was not
>enough for them to be concerned about, and it was made up for ON the FEED
>side (utility) by putting cap banks up on the poles to shift the phase so
>that an inductive load would make the metering a bit more accurate on
>such loads.
No, ALwaysWrong, the capacitors are there to correct their VARS so
they aren't supplying current that isn't used, with the losses that
entails. The capacitors don't affect the meter _at_all_. They
*can't*, they're before the meter.
> It is not just for reducing line losses, it is also for reducing the
>error in the meters on inductive loading.
AlwaysWrong, is always wrong.
>
> You all need to go back to school... very basic school.
You never went to school, DimBulb.
Archimedes' Lever
>>
>>> Nor is the torque "applied". A rotating magnetic field is applied and the
>>>reaction of induced eddy currents in the disc with this field produces (or
>>>generates) torque.
>>
>>
>> Dumbass. The field IS APPLYing the torque force.
>>
>> Yes, it IS applied. Whenever a shaft is rotated by a force, torque has
>>been applied. And whenever a shaft is turned, torque IS the force that
>>was applied to the shaft, by whatever means, to turn it. Go back to
>>basic physics classes, dimwit.
>
>No one said anything different, DimBulb.
What do you think "nor is the torque applied" refers to, you fucking
retard?
Whenever ANY shaft is made to rotate by ANY force, the force acting on
the shaft is torque.
I do not expect you to get it, though, K-Tard.
krw
You really are retarded, DimBulb. Of course a torque is applied to
the disk. The point is that the torque is proportional to the *REAL*
power, not VA.
> I do not expect you to get it, though, K-Tard.
You clearly don't get any physics, DimBulb. You're AlwaysWrong about
everything else, too. No surprises for any here, though.
dh...@shawcross.ca
"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:6rnoj5p8gq2s8clm6...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:43:03 -0800, <dh...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
>
>> Nor is the torque "applied". A rotating magnetic field is applied and
>> the
>>reaction of induced eddy currents in the disc with this field produces (or
>>generates) torque.
>
>
> Dumbass. The field IS APPLYing the torque force.
>
> Yes, it IS applied. Whenever a shaft is rotated by a force, torque has
> been applied. And whenever a shaft is turned, torque IS the force that
> was applied to the shaft, by whatever means, to turn it. Go back to
> basic physics classes, dimwit.
------
Torque has been applied to the shaft- true- the torque itself is not
applying a torque- which is due to the interaction of fields produced by
both the stator and the rotor part of the motor- classical electromagnetic
energy conversion concepts apply (as taught at the junior levels of EE).
>
> So, if the shaft turns at one speed under an in phase resistive load,
> and it does... and IF the shaft gets slightly less torque applied to it
> by the eddy currents when "looking at" an inductive load, then ANY IDIOT
> can declare that the number of turns will be less, despite the fact that
> the same power was consumed, if the torque is less due to the two coils
> being out of phase, and as it happens, that IS the case with inductive
> loads.
------------
Again, as others, such as Gabriel, whom I respect, have pointed out, and as
you would find out for yourself if you cared to do a little bit of research
, you are wrong. The meter inherently reads real power- not volts*amperes.
So, if you have a resistive load drawing 10A at 100V rms, the power will be
1000Watts and if you have a reactive load , inductive or capacitive at 0.8
pf at the same voltage and current magnitude, the real power will be 800
watts. So, the KWH meter will run slower in the latter case because the
real power component is lower. The meter is designed to measure the real
power (actually energy) even if the load is inductive or capacitive. It does
mechanically what an electronic meter does by multiplying and averaging
sampled data. This has been beaten to death in an earlier thread.
-----
>
> So, same power consumed in both cases, and the meter will read the
> inductive load as having been less. Period. The difference was not
> enough for them to be concerned about, and it was made up for ON the FEED
> side (utility) by putting cap banks up on the poles to shift the phase so
> that an inductive load would make the metering a bit more accurate on
> such loads.
>
> It is not just for reducing line losses, it is also for reducing the
> error in the meters on inductive loading.
----------
It is amazing in that in the short sentence above, there are several
incorrect concepts. Tell me, how the meter "down stream" of the capacitors
will be more accurate due to the capacitors. The meter sees the load
"downstream" from itself and even if it's accuracy is affected by the
inductance of the load (and it isn't), the capacitance will not change this
because the corrective effect of the capacitance is only seen "upstream" of
the capacitors. Kirchoff reigns!
>
>
> You all need to go back to school... very basic school.
If the ideas that you present are based on what you learned in "school" ,
you have a good case for suing your teachers for misleading you.
Do you want my CV ( or some reference textual material ( I don't have much
at the "basic" level, but have some at the junior to graduate level in my
back closet)?
I'm not bluffing.
dh...@shawcross.ca
"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
-------------------------------------
Vembu Gourishankar & Donald H. Kelly "Electromechanical Energy Conversion"
Second edition, Intext, 1973.
It appears that I have a somewhat deeper knowledge than you have
suggested---and I don't substitute invective for rational thought.
happy new year!
Archimedes' Lever
>the torque itself is not
>applying a torque
Pretty hard since "torque" is not a "thing".
Got any more silly horseshit?
Archimedes' Lever
> which is due to the interaction of fields produced by
>both the stator and the rotor part of the motor-
These meters are NOT a typical motor, dumbass.
There is no "rotor" other than the Al disc, and it exhibits NO field.
It responds to the field around it. Period.
Archimedes' Lever
> classical electromagnetic
>energy conversion concepts apply (as taught at the junior levels of EE).
If your previous remark was true, sure. But it was not a true remark.
There is no "rotor", and there is no coil or magnet on the part that a
dope like you would call the rotor.
The Aluminum is what responds to the field. That is why this "motor"
type will never be seen as a mechanical power source. The torque applied
by the field is enough to turn it, and the gear resistance, but there is
no way one could perform any real "work" with such a "motor".
It, in fact, can be argued as being incorrectly termed as a motor.
Archimedes' Lever
> It does
>mechanically what an electronic meter does by multiplying and averaging
>sampled data. This has been beaten to death in an earlier thread.
It is mechanical. It does not perform ANY "sampling of data".
It responds ONLY to the resultant force applied to it.
That force is less for an out of phase reading, despite the power
(energy) being the same. RESULTANT FORCE.
So, even if we use your term "sample", the "sample" is what ends up
doing less turning for the same amount of use. Why? The resultant force
applied to this type of meter has an inherent error which is due to its
physical construction that you are apparently unable to grasp and were
obviously never educated about. It is physical. There is nothing you can
do about it with words. Hell, you cannot even grasp how capacitance
upstream side can play into how such a meter reads. It is all one big
circuit, dude. So it doesn't matter where they are located, they play
into the operation of the reactive device, as well as that type of
meter's accuracy when reading such a live circuit.
Archimedes' Lever
> The meter sees the load
>"downstream" from itself
The meter sees the load in the circuit loop it is in. It is a circuit.
Upstream or downstream doesn't matter.
Archimedes' Lever
> Kirchoff reigns!
>>
My point exactly.
Archimedes' Lever
>I'm not bluffing.
Like I give a fat flying fuck what you did. I was making the point
that whatever it was, you missed something. Doh!
Archimedes' Lever
>and I don't substitute invective for rational thought.
No. You make stupid remarks like "no torque is applied", when the topic
is about the turning of a shaft. It doesn't get much more stupid than
that.
I would say that despite you publishing a book, you definitely missed a
few things along the way.
krw
AlwaysWrong once again (and again, and again, and...) proves the
validity of his given name.
krw
Don, consider yourself among the elite! You scored a DimBulb *seven*
bagger! That's the best I've ever done and I've been correcting
AlwaysWrong's, always wrong, crap for years! Way to go!
Archimedes' Lever
> That's the best I've ever done and I've been...
You're a fucking retard.
The best thing your'll ever do is feed worms.
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:04:46 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>> That's the best I've ever done and I've been...
>
>
> You're a fucking retard.
Why thank you, AlwaysWrong. Since you're *always* wrong...
> The best thing your'll ever do is feed worms.
AlwaysWrong, that'll be your only contribution to the world, but
you'll somehow get that wrong too, as always.
dh...@shawcross.ca
"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:eh1rj59o6oqapv6e6...@4ax.com...
---------
Wrong:
the rotor has eddy currents which produce a field interacting with the
"stator field" to produce torque. Essentially it is a form of induction
motor and can be analyzed as such.
> If your previous remark was true, sure. But it was not a true remark.
> There is no "rotor", and there is no coil or magnet on the part that a
> dope like you would call the rotor.
>
> The Aluminum is what responds to the field. That is why this "motor"
> type will never be seen as a mechanical power source. The torque applied
> by the field is enough to turn it, and the gear resistance, but there is
> no way one could perform any real "work" with such a "motor".
>
> It, in fact, can be argued as being incorrectly termed as a motor.
_----------------
Wrong again- according to your concept the drag cup motor won't work because
it doesn't have a coil or magnet. The fact that the "stator windings" are
set up to produce a rotating field and the aluminum disc is conductive, is
sufficient. I have made demo motors with beer cans or paper clips as
rotors- anything conductive works.
Is it a good design for a mechanical power source? No. but it does provide
motor action.
---------------
>> It does
>>mechanically what an electronic meter does by multiplying and averaging
>>sampled data. This has been beaten to death in an earlier thread.
>
>
> It is mechanical. It does not perform ANY "sampling of data".
>
------
, You have a reading problem. The electronic meter multiplies and averages
sampled data. The mechanical meter multiplies and averages instantaneous
values of power achieving the same result.
---------------
> Hell, you cannot even grasp how capacitance
> upstream side can play into how such a meter reads. It is all one big
> circuit, dude. So it doesn't matter where they are located, they play
> into the operation of the reactive device, as well as that type of
> meter's accuracy when reading such a live circuit.
---------
Let's see, the circuit as a whole does affect the load voltage and current-
that is true. Changes in the load will be affect the circuit as a whole-
also true. However, the meter measures the voltage across the load and the
current through the load, whatever they may be. Accordingly the meter will
measure the power delivered to the load and at any given load impedance and
voltage, it cannot tell the difference between the situation of an ideal
source connected above it or a long line connected to a grid system with or
without capacitances. If a capacitor is connected on the load side of the
meter, it will change the current and voltage at the metering point and the
meter will measure accordingly- but as the capacitance only compensates for
inductive reactive VAR's , it will not correct the meter and the only effect
it will have on the meter will be a change in losses in the wiring on the
load side of the meter.
An industry may put capacitors downstream of the meter in order to improve
power factor- not because of any attempt to correct the meter but to reduce
the peak KVA demand which is not registered by a KWH meter but is reflected
in demand metering charges.
A utility putting a capacitor upstream of the metering point (and it is
always a parallel capacitor for very good reasons) doesn't correct the meter
downstream because it only modifies the upstream current (KCL applies). Do
you want some circuit analysis of this?
----------------
> The meter sees the load in the circuit loop it is in. It is a circuit.
> Upstream or downstream doesn't matter.
----
So, are you saying that, if the meter is moved to a different location in
the circuit, it reads the same thing? If not, then what are you implying?
Have you ever used a wattmeter in a circuit?
I don't know where you got your circuit or motor concepts but somewhere,
somehow, something is badly amiss in your understanding. There are many
references out there Shaum's outline on circuits is quite good for circuits
and a sophomore text such as Basic Electrical Engineering by Fitzgerald,
Higginbotham etc has been resurrected many times in different editions.
Also try:
http://fourier.eng.hmc.edu/e84/lectures/ch3/node1.html
considers the interaction between the eddy currents and the flux of the
stator- in general, this interaction is actually better described in terms
of the interaction between the stator flux and the flux produced by the eddy
currents. In any case it is simply a form of shaded pole induction motor.
If you wish to give some tangible circuit models to present your points for
discussion- please feel free to do so. If you wish me to give some examples,
let me know.
Michael A. Terrell
dh...@shawcross.ca wrote:
>
> "Archimedes' Lever" <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
> news:eh1rj59o6oqapv6e6...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:03:29 -0800, <dh...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> which is due to the interaction of fields produced by
> >>both the stator and the rotor part of the motor-
> >
> >
> > These meters are NOT a typical motor, dumbass.
> >
> > There is no "rotor" other than the Al disc, and it exhibits NO field.
> > It responds to the field around it. Period.
>
> ---------
> Wrong:
You are wasting your time on a known troll. Here are some of his
other nyms:
THE DIMBULB SCORECARD
Abbey Somebody <abno...@castlefrankenstein.org>
AnimalMagic <Anima...@petersbackyard.org>
Archimedes' Lever <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
AtTheEndofMyRope <AtTheEnd...@AtTheEndofMyRope.org>
AwlSome Auger <AwlSom...@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>
Bart! <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org>
BigBalls <BiggestB...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
BillyPilgrim <BillyP...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Bungalow Bill <Bugal...@AbbeyRoad.UKCOM>
Capt. Cave Man <ItIsSoEasyAC...@upyers.org>
CellShocked <cells...@thecellvalueattheendofthespreadsheet.org>
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org>
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Corbomite Carrie <Corb...@maneuver.org>
DarkMatter <DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
DarkSucker <DarkS...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Do I really need to say? <ra...@thescree.org>
Dorothy with the Red Shoes on <Dor...@notinkansas.org>
Dr. Heywood R. Floyd <Hey...@thebarattheendofthemonolith.org>
FatBytestard <FatByt...@somewheronyourharddrive.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShun...@yermomma.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShu...@yermomma.org>
George Orr <Gerg...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement
<GoldIntermetall...@youdontknowjack.org>
Hattori Hanzo <Outint...@billsbackyard.org>
Herbert John \Jackie\" Gleason" <BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov>
HiggsField <higgd...@whutthableapduyoukno.org>
IAmTheSlime <TheSlimeFr...@oozingacrossyourlivingroomfloor.org>
ItsASecretDummy <secreta...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Jupiter Jaq <Jupit...@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>
Kai <k...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
LargeMarge <Large...@thetentwoposition.org>
life imitates life <past...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
lurch <lu...@yourangcousinitslibrary.org>
MadManMoon <TheWholePl...@hereandnow.org>
MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet <DoNotAttemptT...@anytime.org>
Massiv...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<Massiv...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
MeowSayTongue <MeowSa...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Mr.Eko <ekoint...@lostisland.org>
Mr. Haney <mrh...@thebarattheendofthefarmroad.org>
Mycelium <myceli...@underyourshrooms.org>
Mycelium <myce...@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>
Neanderthal <da...@gottafindawomanrighton.org>
OutsideObserver <Stand And Del...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Pieyed Piper <pieye...@thebongshopattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Phat Bytestard <PhatBy...@getinmahharddrive.org>
RoyLFuchs <RoyL...@urfargingicehole.org>
scorpius
<scor...@thewormholethatemptiesontheothersideoftheuniverse.org>
SkyPilot <some...@theedgeofspace.org>
SomeKindOfWonderful
<SomeKindO...@allthegirlsintheworldbeware.org>
Son of a Sea Cook <NotaBr...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
SoothSayer <SayS...@TheMonastery.org>
Spurious Response <Spurious...@cleansignal.org>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarat...@thusspoke.org>
Sum Ting Wong <SumTi...@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBolt.org>
Sum Ting Wong
<SumTi...@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBoltmonolith.org>
SuspendedInGaffa <suspende...@kateshouse.org>
The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org>
TheGlimmerMan <justag...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TheJoker <Leonardoofthe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
The Keeper of the Key to The Locks
<TheL...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TheKraken <ReachUpandSuckYo...@yup.org>
The Last Mimsy <mi...@TheOtherSideoftheLookingGlass.org>
TheQuickBrownFox <thequick...@overthelazydog.org>
The Loner <TheL...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TralfamadoranJetPilot <BillyP...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TutAm...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<TutAm...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
UltimatePatriot <Ultimat...@thebestcountry.org>
UpGrade <UpG...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
ValleyGirl <LuvYe...@LikeIWouldGiveIt.Comeon>
VioletaPachydermata <PurpleE...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
WallyWallWhackr <wallywa...@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>
100WattDarkSucker <100WattD...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
bud--
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:38:04 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>>
Real interesting Don.
>
> AlwaysWrong once again (and again, and again, and...) proves the
> validity of his given name.
I sorta figured AlwaysWrong was merely stupid. In this thread he appears
to be a mere troll - who is stupid.
But then he is best when matched with his equal - Proteus.
--
bud--
James Sweet
>
> I sorta figured AlwaysWrong was merely stupid. In this thread he appears
> to be a mere troll - who is stupid.
>
> But then he is best when matched with his equal - Proteus.
>
Aren't they one and the same? I usually just block each new account they
pop up under but I know at one point I was looking up the IP's and most
of the trolls were from the same place.
UpYerNose
wrote:
If you 'just block' and never READ the headers, how can you be so
utterly retarded as to ASSume they they are the same, OR that you even
know ANY goddamned thing about ANY post EVER made by ANYBODY, you stupid
fucktard?
He is in NYC. I am in CA.
IF your IQ was above 20, you MIGHT be able to decipher that hugely
difficult bit of data, and realize the err of your fucked up life.
It is quite obvious that your claim of "looking at IP address" is a
goddamned lie coming from a goddamned liar.
But then, your thought process "comes from the same place" as your
feces.
krw
wrote:
>krw wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:38:04 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>>>
>>> ... despite you publishing a book...
>
>Real interesting Don.
>
>>
>> AlwaysWrong once again (and again, and again, and...) proves the
>> validity of his given name.
>
>I sorta figured AlwaysWrong was merely stupid. In this thread he appears
>to be a mere troll - who is stupid.
I don't know how someone can *always* be wrong, but AlwaysWrong
manages to do it.
>But then he is best when matched with his equal - Proteus.
They're Siamese Twins; joined at the hip.
dh...@shawcross.ca
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:942dnfkWVdKjJKPW...@earthlink.com...
You may be right and so far the evidence supports you. I am still hoping
for better as it's not personal but simply reacting to nonsense. FatsBystard
occasionally had something right and occasionally saw reason- so he may not
be the same person. He can give an example circuit for analysis (along with
his understanding of it) or ask for an example circuit to analyze or
critique analysis.
Ok I am wishing for the moon!
krw
Michael is right.
>FatsBystard occasionally had something right and occasionally saw reason-
You're dreaming.
>so he may not be the same person.
He is. He got the name "DimBulb" when he was using the FatBystard
nym. He's easy to spot; always wrong and always with the foul mouth.
>He can give an example circuit for analysis (along with
>his understanding of it) or ask for an example circuit to analyze or
>critique analysis.
Nope. Not possible.
>Ok I am wishing for the moon!
The moon was easy.
FatBytestard
Michael is an absolute fucking retard with a chip on his shoulder.
>
>>FatsBystard occasionally had something right and occasionally saw reason-
>
>You're dreaming.
You're an antagonistic immature bastard.
>
>>so he may not be the same person.
>
>He is. He got the name "DimBulb" when he was using the FatBystard
>nym. He's easy to spot; always wrong and always with the foul mouth.
Only toward retarded, motherless bastards like you, boy.
>>He can give an example circuit for analysis (along with
>>his understanding of it) or ask for an example circuit to analyze or
>>critique analysis.
>
>Nope. Not possible.
You're an idiot.
>>Ok I am wishing for the moon!
>
>The moon was easy.
Leave to a total retard to claim to be knowledgeable, yet cannot get
the simple stuff, like which fucking words require capitalization.
krw
<FatByt...@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:28:47 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 18:25:28 -0800, <dh...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
>
>>>You may be right and so far the evidence supports you. I am still hoping
>>>for better as it's not personal but simply reacting to nonsense.
>>
>>Michael is right.
>
> Michael is an absolute fucking retard with a chip on his shoulder.
You.
>>>FatsBystard occasionally had something right and occasionally saw reason-
>>
>>You're dreaming.
>
> You're an antagonistic immature bastard.
No, FatBytstard, you're the bastard. You can't get anything right,
AlwaysWrong.
>>>so he may not be the same person.
>>
>>He is. He got the name "DimBulb" when he was using the FatBystard
>>nym. He's easy to spot; always wrong and always with the foul mouth.
>
> Only toward retarded, motherless bastards like you, boy.
Well, she is dead. OTOH, your mommy's hamper is overflowing. Better
go home and play! She'll be happy to "play with you".
>>>He can give an example circuit for analysis (along with
>>>his understanding of it) or ask for an example circuit to analyze or
>>>critique analysis.
>>
>>Nope. Not possible.
>
> You're an idiot.
You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong.
>>>Ok I am wishing for the moon!
>>
>>The moon was easy.
>
> Leave to a total retard to claim to be knowledgeable, yet cannot get
>the simple stuff, like which fucking words require capitalization.
I wonder how AlwaysWrong can be so wrong, always.
Archimedes' Lever
>>>>Ok I am wishing for the moon!
>>>
>>>The moon was easy.
>>
>> Leave to a total retard to claim to be knowledgeable, yet cannot get
>>the simple stuff, like which fucking words require capitalization.
>
>I wonder how AlwaysWrong can be so wrong, always.
The "moon" of another planet is NOT, but OURS is when you refer to it,
dumbfuck. I expect nothing less from the ditz that is K-Tard though.
krw
You try hard, AlwaysWrong. You're still wrong, but you try.
Archimedes' Lever
Halfway down the page, idiot.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28capital_letters%29
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:04:40 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:38:19 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:52:57 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Ok I am wishing for the moon!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The moon was easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Leave to a total retard to claim to be knowledgeable, yet cannot get
>>>>>the simple stuff, like which fucking words require capitalization.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder how AlwaysWrong can be so wrong, always.
>>>
>>> The "moon" of another planet is NOT, but OURS is when you refer to it,
>>>dumbfuck. I expect nothing less from the ditz that is K-Tard though.
>>
>>You try hard, AlwaysWrong. You're still wrong, but you try.
>
> Halfway down the page, idiot.
>
>_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28capital_letters%29
You're so wrong you can't even figure our why you're wrong,
AlwaysWrong.
Proteus IIV
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:20:58 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
BOTH OF YOU ARE SO FULL OF DUNG YOU COULD OPEN A FERTILIZER BUSINESS
TOGETHER
CALL IT FUCKING TROLLS HEAP INCORPORTATED
I AM PROTEUS
Michael A. Terrell
Too bad that we can't talk NASA into sending him to Ganymede. :)