Hi,
On 8-10-2011 17:44, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
>No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h)
It's amazing that nobody reads the report.
He wrote ENERGY PRODUCED. That's not "energy flow", is energy produced.
ANd it's not a "typo", because he wrote it many many times.
2011/10/8 Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar <mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar>>
On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university
of bologna.
He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo,
is a conceptual error, a big one.
No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h).
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kWh/h
Although the expression may be confusing, the concepts are clear.
Ok, once again Mattia, I know what you are referring to and you are right.
The thing only is, it's not a matter of syntax but semantics as
Stremmenson and others who say "kWh/h" i.s.o. "kWh" seem not to know or
understand that "kWh" is already a unit of Energy which is ALWAYS
expressed in power per time unit.
You really need to read "inter versus", to understand what Stremmenson
meant to say.
Yes, his syntax is wrong, but his semantics are right!
If you don't understand what I mean, then please look up the meaning of
the words SYNTAX and SEMANTICS.
Kind regards,
MoB
