Dear Stan,
OK, I'll concede that when you write '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 …' you are
comparing power with power.
However, I am still having trouble with the ideas in the phrase '-
just like any non-renewable-energy power-plant is judged.' as I am
having trouble with the expression 'power plant'. I suppose that you
mean some kind of industrial place (factory, works, …) where energy of
one kind is changed into energy of another kind and I agree that this
is done at a particular rate (of power).
However, I truly believe that the difficulty in making the distinction
between energy and power is too sophisticated for members of the
public, for journalists and for the politicians who use the writings
of journalists seeking reliable advice on energy and power issues.
Sadly, I am aware of many journalists who are not trained to
understand the distinction between energy and power – or worse – do
not even know that such a distinction exists. I am daily confronted by
this lack of knowledge of this distinction on TV, radio, and in the
print media.
I think that the way we communicate has to be so abundantly clear that
the confusion between energy and power cannot arise. I know that you
are fully aware of these differences and you distinguish between them
clearly in your mind.
My personal problem with this is that I sometimes (often) make
assumptions about what my reader already knows and understands – and I
am often wrong. (This idea of making an assumption as an expert is
sometimes called the 'curse of knowledge', a term used by Chip and Dan
Heath in their popular book, 'Made to Stick: Why some ideas survive
and others die', see http://www.amazon.com/Made-Stick-Ideas-Survive-Others/dp/1400064287/ref=pd_sim_b_1
In McKay's case, he clearly stated at the start of his work that
although as an expert he knew the distinction between energy and
power, he had decided to use the term power incorrectly throughout his
book. I criticised him on that point.
Cheers,
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.
On 2009/09/21, at 00:12 , Stan Jakuba wrote:
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.
