-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I agree that Joules is a much better way to express energy. However, I fear that it would lead to even more confusion when talking about EVs.
It is most useful when comparing energy from different sources, each having their own idiosyncratic nomenclature.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
As you point out, it would take some time for people to learn and get used to the new nomenclature.
If people are already confused about kW and kWh and amps and volts, this would just be another term to add to the confusion.
However, I do agree that the Joule is a much better term for energy and it would be nice if everyone used this for all forms of energy.
I'm happy to start using Joules but I'm afraid that no one would know what I'm talking about. I have a Tesla model 305(MJ)D.
Gotcha.
I was thinking of replacing the existing confusion people are originally faced with regarding kilowatt-hours with different confusion regarding gigajoules.
So a net zero confusion gain scenario.
But I agree it's not likely to gain traction...
I was thinking of replacing the existing confusion people are originally faced with regarding kilowatt-hours with different confusion regarding gigajoules.
So a net zero confusion gain scenario.
But I agree it's not likely to gain traction...
deonb
Active Member
Gotcha.
I was thinking of replacing the existing confusion people are originally faced with regarding kilowatt-hours with different confusion regarding gigajoules.
So a net zero confusion gain scenario.
But I agree it's not likely to gain traction...
Even when there is an obvious correct term, it doesnt stop people from using the incorrect one. E.g. topsoil is sold in cubic yards - I've never heard ANYBODY use that correctly. From dispensers to truck drivers to landscapers. They always just say "yards".
Part of the explanation is that in English the physical unit is just considered a noun, subject to the normal use of nouns, i.e. with more or less non-standard abbreviations, a plural form and with adjectives, like in your example 'cubic', which people feel they can leave out for brevity, like they do for other nouns.
In other languages, all but the most commonplace units (for time) are considered algebraic terms, instead subject to mathematical operations (multiplication and division). The unit symbol (e.g. m for meter) is not merely an abbreviation, it is a term in a algebraic expression. As such 10 km is the product of three factors, 10, k (kilo) and m (meter).
As such, these languages do not pluralize for example the 'meter', a distance is for example 10 meter, or just 10 m. And you never write 10 mtrs or any other random abbreviation.
And most relevant to the above, a derived unit such as the cubic meter is written as a single word, e.g. Kubikmeter in German(ic languages). So you really cannot leave out any part of the word, and you thus take delivery of '10 Kubikmeter' soil (or 10 m^3, if you unlike me know how to superscript).
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Well, this IS a pedantic discussion.Informative, but seems like this became a grammar lesson.
Informative, but seems like this became a grammar lesson.
And, in fact, correctly using units of measurement, regardless of application, is exactly the original topic.
In fact, the Imperial measurements we are so distraught about were themselves linguistic, and were attempts to standardize non-standard subjects. Thus the entire metric discussion. Without metric measurements it would be very difficult to build li-ion batteries, Merlin engines (not the airplane ones, those were Imperial) or calculate orbital mechanics.
So, yes, it's all about grammar.
So, when McRat made the observation he did, he did point out part of the nature of a living language. Without a doubt SMS and Twitter communicate. They certainly don't do too well for precise, clear, unambiguous data presentation, unless through pre-agreed codes.
deonb
Active Member
Mmm. Not sure about that. I grew up in a metric English country (South Africa) and I've never heard that kind of abominations over there. Nobody dropped cubic or squared from even the most casual conversations.
And don't get me started on fluid ounces...
Those countries that have been metric for a long time seem to lose most linguistic affectations about measurement, or so it seems to be. Canada, ANZ, India (more native English speakers than any other country, IIRC) all have few of those abonimations, which is the perfect word for them. Thanks!
OBX John
Autonomous Driving Enthusiast
“Han claims that the Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs — but a parsec is a unit of distance, not time. What’s the deal?
While Captain Solo is known to make boastful claims that seem to defy the basic laws of space-time physics, in this particular case, an understanding of the mechanics of the Kessel Run illuminates this statistic.
The Kessel Run is a contest of speed and endurance for smugglers. Those who undertake it must deliver specified cargos (usually illicit in nature) to a series of divergently moving transport vessels. The smuggler must deliver the cargo before the transports wander out of the free trade lanes into restricted Imperial space.
Solo’s record is impressive, since the transport vessels covered less than 12 parsecs of distance during his hurried run between them, a testament to his piloting and the speed of the Millennium Falcon.” - Chris Burns, Slash Gear
Clever justification. Illuminating to Star Wars devotees too, since George Lucas went to some trouble to make the stories plausible, if not possible.
deonb
Active Member
That is a retrofitted explanation if I've ever heard one...
There's also this, somewhat more "believable", explanation:
How the Star Wars Kessel Run Turns Han Solo Into a Time-Traveler
OBX John
Autonomous Driving Enthusiast
I couldn't find it, but I thought I read one where the light drive contracted the actual distance down to 12 parsecs - resulting in ".5 past light speed" travel while still obeying the 3x10 to the 8th m/s speed limit.
deonb
Active Member
OBX John
Autonomous Driving Enthusiast
I'm working on a "Tesla Time" equation: Tesla Time = Real Time * 4 / Frustration Tolerance. Don't buy a Tesla if your frustration tolerance is approaching 0.
cpa
Active Member
I think you nailed it, scaesare. (I am clearly not a scientist-type.) Physicists, engineers and the like draw a very bright line between power and energy. They have to.
The rest of us plebeians more or less use these terms interchangeably for many quotidian activities because they are abstract terms. No one can see, feel, smell or hear a kilowatt or kilowatt-hour. To us it is a distinction without a difference.
A brief etymology of power leads me to before the 13th century. The scientific definition is listed way down the list of definitions of the word. Similarly, energy dates to the 16th century, and it is defined as a "vigorous exertion of power." Curiously, an accepted synonym of energy is power. See how confusion and ambiguity reign?
I will go out on a limb etymologically speaking (I do not have a ready reference), and posit that these words and their ancestors had been used in daily conversations centuries before the scientists used them for their studies and research. It is quite possible that scientists lifted these common words for their specific uses because they were the words that were already in existence, and their classical definitions most closely resembled the scientific application. This sort of linguistic piracy has been ongoing since Man started communicating, and it continues today.
Please don't saw off that limb on which I am precariously perched!
Indeed I think the abstract nature of terms describing things we can detect with our senses increases the difficulty in choosing the correct unit, or using the units correctly. And similar units (kilowatt vs kilowatt-hour) to describe different things doesn't help. And again, that usage of a time dimension for a quantity is, quite frankly, rather counter-intuitive.
And generally, the more specialized the field, the lesser the need for most folks to know the terms. Hence my hope I wasn't trying to come off like a jerk. I don't really expect most folks to understand how to use them correctly. But now, for perhaps the first time for many, they are being exposed to these terms in their everyday life as new EV owners... or are needing to grasp the concepts as potential buyers.
The need to understand current and voltage is probably less important to most except for those who are either more interested in getting under the hood (floorboards?) of their car, or are considering their home charging requirements.
One of the reasons I used the "water" analogy, is that it holds pretty darn well for the voltage/current relationship, and is something folks are likely to grasp more easily, or at least be more familiar with... Again my goal was to help make the concepts a bit more relatable to folks...
And generally, the more specialized the field, the lesser the need for most folks to know the terms. Hence my hope I wasn't trying to come off like a jerk. I don't really expect most folks to understand how to use them correctly. But now, for perhaps the first time for many, they are being exposed to these terms in their everyday life as new EV owners... or are needing to grasp the concepts as potential buyers.
The need to understand current and voltage is probably less important to most except for those who are either more interested in getting under the hood (floorboards?) of their car, or are considering their home charging requirements.
One of the reasons I used the "water" analogy, is that it holds pretty darn well for the voltage/current relationship, and is something folks are likely to grasp more easily, or at least be more familiar with... Again my goal was to help make the concepts a bit more relatable to folks...
Similar threads
