I think the reason for easy confusion is that "kWh" is not a term that the lay person normally deals with. 1 KWh, or 1 kilowatt-hour, does not indicate 1 kilowatt per hour, but represents 1 kilowatt over a span of 1 hour. Hence, 500 watts for two hours = 1 kWh.
The layperson inherently links kWh as kilowatts per hour. Man on Bridges <manonbrid...@aim.com> wrote: >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
