Stan, Pat, and David: I, too, am favorably impressed by the technical chapters of David McKay's book (the only chapters I have scanned to date).
However, I, too, would prefer he had more consistently used the SI unit of energy, the joule (J), rather than the kWh; and the SI unit of power, the watt (W), rather than the kWh/day; and used other SI prefixes consistently with the J and W as needed. Amounts of energy can be discrete with no particular interval of time involved. The h and day are *outside* coherent SI. They encumber easy reading. I have other objections as well which could confuse some readers who are not well educated in SI and mathematics conventions: David confuses mass and weight in several places. He also uses multiple operators (.../.../...)in several places which require effort by the reader to be certain of meaning. Nevertheless, David's technical chapters are a valuable study of power and energy in practical applications. Eugene A. Mechtly, PhD-Physics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:50:53 +1000 >From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:45108] Re: MacKay >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >Cc: USMA Metric Association <[email protected]>, David JC McKay ><[email protected]> > > On 2009/05/27, at 10:15 AM, Stan Jakuba wrote: > > I mentioned this book once before: "Sustainable > Energy - without hot air." Its brilliant author, > an Englishman, decided to continue the > narrow-minded habit of his ancestors by making > himself a unit for his book. A man of that caliber > would, one should hope, recognize the advantage of > coherence among units and stick with it. Not so. > Metric yes, SI no. > > Reading this enormously useful book, it annoyed me > having to go thru endless conversions to his > preferred "kWh per day" from the much shorter and > commonly used W. How much easier it would be to > read the book if one were not bothered a dozen > times on a page after page with repetitious > conversions in brackets such as ........ 45 GW (18 > kWh per day) ....... or .......18 kWh per day (45 > GW) ......... > > I wrote to the publisher and you might find the > letter interesting. It is attached. To keep it to > the (metric) point, the first two paragraphs are > omitted - they were compliments to the author and > the publisher. >________________ >________________ > Dear Stan, > Well done! Some time ago, I wrote to the author but > I did not receive a reply that I could call > sympathetic to the idea of using rational units from > the SI for energy or for power. Basically, it seemed > to me that he took my remarks and positive > suggestions for improvement to be a personal insult. > I was reminded of the children's maxim. Oh what a > wicked web we weave, when first we practice to > deceive. > Among other things, I objected to the sentence: > 'But this book concerns all forms of energy > consumption and production, and I will use the word > 'power' for all of them.' > I took energy consumption to mean energy > consumption, and I took energy production to mean > energy production. But the author reckoned that I > should be sophisticated enough to read that he had > implied a 'per some unit of time' from his sentence > and I should have inferred that he meant power when > he wrote energy. David JC McKay wrote back to me to > say: > I think the sentence is fine. > Energy consumption is power. > Energy production is power. > But I remain confused. I still think that energy > consumption means energy consumption, and energy > production mean energy production as no unit of time > is mentioned or implied. Granted, even though I > trained to be a farmer, I have enough knowledge of > physics to guess whether the author might means > energy or power from most contexts, but as the > intended audience seems to be politicians, > journalists, and the general public I don't like the > writer's chances of being widely understood. > It seems that there are two muddled issues. > Firstly, many (probably most) politicians, and > journalists have no idea that energy and power are > two quite different and distinct physical realities. > For example, the Australian Government Minister for > Climate Change routinely swaps and changes between > the two words (and realities) in her speeches. James > Prescott Joule and William Thomson (Lord > Kelvin) distinguished clearly between energy and > power in the 1860s but sadly some scientists > (hopefully few) choose to try to talk down to > politicians, journalists, and the public in some > sort of garbled unscientific language using > ill-defined words whose meanings were initially > perpetrated by journalists and linguists. > Secondly, few writers about energy issues (such as > global warming, climate change, peak energy, and > peak oil) know that the International System of > Units (SI) is coherent in that it has only one unit > — joule — for energy, and that this has been an > internationally accepted unit since 1889. > However having said that, I absolutely agree with > you that David McKay's book deserves a wide audience > for its design and the layout of the content. I > have to say that I was delighted with the ideas in > the book and their presentation. McKay was extremely > thorough in his choice of sources for the energy > that humans use and the graphics are simple and > superb. You can obtain (by purchase or download) a > copy of David JC Mcay's book > from http://www.withouthotair.com > McKay has done fascinating research and has given a > great deal of thought on how to present his findings > to the public and hopefully to our politicians. The > main faults — and they are significant faults — > are in muddling the words energy and power, and in > the avoidance of the word joule to unnecessarily > avoid big numbers larger than about 100. > This whole issue of muddling energy and power and > their measurement is, of course, wider in it > implications. It goes to the heart of the relevance > of science to the pressing issues of the 21st > century. If science cannot be communicated simply > and clearly to the public and their politicians, of > what use is it? > Let me quote from an email you sent to me a week or > two ago: > As a friend of mine says: "People will take years to > debate an energy issue but not a semester of > physics." Nowhere is that more pronounced than in > the USA, in my opinion. Our country has more degreed > people per capita than any other, mostly graduates > of liberal arts colleges and law schools. The basic > physics is missing in the compulsory coursework. > Thus we have the perfect background for breeding > outspoken energy advocates that cannot understand > each other. And not realizing why. Stan Jakuba > 2009-05-11 > Fifty years ago, C. P Snow a UK scientist and > novelist remarked in a lecture, and subsequently a > book, entitled, The Two Cultures and the Scientific > Revolution, that scientists and humanists could not > combine to address the problems of the world (on > 1959 May 7) because they simply could not understand > each others language(s). It seems to me that C. P. > Snow's concerns are still very real and that they > should be urgently reconsidered again in 2009. You > might be interested in an article that I wrote on > this issue called, 'Is science dead?'. >________________ >________________ > As a reminder (I've shared these with you before), > you might also be interested in a poster and an > article I have written on this previously. > See: > http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/EnergyWords.pdf > and > http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/AWordAboutGlobalWarming.pdf > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin > P.S. I have sent a copy of this email to Professor > David JC McKay as a matter of courtesy. > PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, > Geelong, Australia > Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 > Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat > Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and > hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric > system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that > they now save thousands each year when buying, > processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat > provides services and resources for many different > trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, > industrial and government metrication leaders in > Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include > the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and > the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the > USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more > metrication information, contact Pat > at [email protected] or to get the > free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go > to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to > subscribe.
