Dear Pat: The first paragraph talks about energy and means energy. The second paragraph talks about power. It uses power terms such as OUTPUT and the unit W (W/m²).
There is no conflict. Let's not be paranoid about this. Nothing forbids expressing energy issues in terms of energy AMOUNT and/or energy FLOW as long as it fits the contents. One can deduct energy from energy or power from power. I could have phrased the two paragraphs in reverse order, POWER in the first, ENERGY in the second. Or both in terms of POWER or both, less conveniently, in terms of ENERGY. We have been thru this before trying to persuade you that MacKay, although mixing up the terms in several instances, was correct in that one case of the response to you. Stan ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Naughtin To: [email protected] Cc: U.S. Metric Association Sent: 09 Sep 20, Sunday 03:42 Subject: Re: [USMA:45820] Can journalists be cured of their affliction? On 2009/09/17, at 07:00 , Stan Jakuba wrote: Nobody will know the actual amount of energy generated until after a few years of operation; predictions and extrapolations are a dime a dozen. The production must be measured 24/7, regardless how many shut-downs for modifications and updates occurred, and not just the net time when the wind blows and everything works just as predicted. Also, the output should be NET, meaning the power needed to feed the field and to operate, including starts and stops, the machinery is deducted from the output - just like any non-renewable-energy power-plant is judged. Then 1 W/m² is a pretty good output during, say, a 5-years existence. Stan Jakuba Dear Stan, Since our goal is to help journalists to use quantity names and unit names correctly, it is probably best if we use these words accurately ourselves. In your first paragraph, you use the word energy correctly to mean 'the ability to do work'. Unfortunately, I am having trouble with the second paragraph because it seems to me that you have used the quantity name, power, to mean energy on both occasions where you use it. This letter, that I sent to the editor of 'The Age' newspaper in Melbourne Australia, might help to explain my position on this issue. The Editor 'The Age' Melbourne Dear Editor, Power has a problem. I am writing to alert you to two serious defects in your use of the word, power. Power is regularly misused, and it is also one of the most overused words in politics and in the media. Both misuse and overuse mean that the many different meanings of power often become hopelessly muddled. Misuse Misuse of the word, power, is the more serious problem as it a major cause of confusion. You sometimes use energy when you are writing about power and, far more often, you use power when you mean energy. Power is so often misused from both sides of debates about global warming, the greenhouse effect, peak energy, and peak oil, that there is a danger of making any discussion about these important issues almost meaningless. This paragraph uses examples from 'The Age'. As Minister, he felt he had real control over power because he could supply or deny power to the community by increasing power bills or ordering power rationing in emergencies. He could also manage power stations from when they start to produce power, to maintaining power supplies during their lives of power production, until the end of their power producing life. This applied to all forms of power such as: chemical power, electrical power, nuclear power, solar power, and wind power. Here, the word, power, is used as though it is synonymous with energy. It is not. All technical people such as engineers have known since they were in senior high school science classes that energy (measured in joules) is defined as the ability to do work and that that power (measured in watts) is the rate at which you do work or use energy; and that these are quite different concepts. Using these definitions, the above paragraph now reads: As Minister, he felt he had real control over energy because he could supply or deny energy to the community by increasing energy bills or ordering energy rationing in emergencies. He could also manage energy conversion stations from when they start to produce energy, to maintaining energy supplies during their lives of energy production, until the end of their energy producing life. This applied to all forms of energy such as: chemical energy, electrical energy, nuclear energy, solar energy, and wind energy. Overuse Overuse means that I have to stop each time I see the word, power, long enough to decipher your current meaning. This is necessary because the word, power, in addition to its scientific definition, has about a dozen other different dictionary meanings, all with their associated connotations. For example, I need to pause when you use the word, power, in the sense of (say) 'political power' that has nice alliteration but lacks a definite meaning, or 'electrical power' that has a quite specific scientific definition, which you might not intend. Here is another paragraph using examples from 'The Age' that uses power in non-technical senses: The Minister was a large powerful man, who exuded physical power doing his power walk along the corridors of power. He got his power position when his party came to power at the last election, and as the only engineer in the party in power, the powerful leadership team appointed him Minister. This time, you could purge power altogether to improve readability by writing: The Minister was a large man, whose fitness was obvious as he vigorously walked around Parliament House. He became Minister when, after his party won the last election, he was appointed to his present position. Cheers, P.S. I will try to find the time to develop this letter into an article for wider distribution. The misuse and overuse of the word, power, are not confined to a single newspaper in Australia! Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, that you can obtain from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html 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.
