Question on miles per Kw

[nerys]

exactly. ability to do something.

in this case "drive x miles" (notice it also denotes quality which in this context would be low miles low quality high miles high quality)

that definition is a little odd to me (your 4 definition) but I think it is ok since it is not saying power is energy. it is saying it is energy "used to operate a device" that is the same thing as saying ability to do something just in different words. ie you can separate the energy (battery) from the device now you have no ability to do anything. just energy and a dead gadget. See now I am being uber careful with what I think a word means because I have to consider any beration I might recieve if anyone does not agree with it and will use it to argue different context in other discussions. aint the internet grand :-(

energy and power are connected. power is the application of energy is it not? I want to say the "final result" is work??

from what I understand of the definition of energy it would be (in my case) 18.5kwh at full charge. I have asked repeatedly if this is correct and no one has said NO yet. is it correct or not?

well 18.5kwh means nothing to me. 18.5kwh at 30' with the heat on means 59 miles 18.5kwh at 65' with nothing on means 90miles to me.

the 18.5kwh does not change. so we are NOT talking about energy. it is not what is important to me since I can not "change" the energy. I can only changes its "ability to do something" at least that is the plan.

someone said I was using the wrong word. that power was the wrong word.

SO I did the sensible (to me) thing. I looked up the word power.

that was the first result in google. it fit precisely with my intended usage of the word power.

SO I asked how is it wrong. since then everyone has FLAT OUT IGNORED this question entirely and simply started saying "you are wrong because we say so" and calling me names (as i predicted quite typical really on the internet sadly) or insulting me.

no body challenges the definition they just say you are wrong because we say so and refuse to explain themselves. just "shut up shitizen you are wrong because we say so"

Dictionaries only apply when they agree with us shitizen.

nonsense. if I challenge someone I EXPLAIN my challenge.

 

[cucopper]

(notice it also denotes quality which in this context would be low miles low quality high miles high quality)

I think you are missing the point - I think the "quality" in the definition refers to the distinction between quality and quantity, hence my point that the first definition refers to something that is not measurable in quantity, and you are misapplying that particular definition of the word "power."

SO I asked how is it wrong. since then everyone has FLAT OUT IGNORED this question entirely

I made an attempt to not ignore your question and answer it from the perspective of applying that particular dictionary application of the word. You sure have the right not to acknowledge my attempt and collectively say everyone has flat out ignored your question.

I see my naive attempt to inject reason into this "discussion" is futile. This will be my last post on this topic.

 

[nerys]

"SO I asked how is it wrong. since then everyone has FLAT OUT IGNORED this question entirely"

was intended to mean "BEFORE YOUR POST" not sure how you missed that.

the quality aspect is not explicit. ie it can be quality it is not exclusively quality (read the definition) so replacing quantity with quality is valid unless someone can show me otherwise?

the quality of "doing something" in this case is measured in miles.

the definition is the ability to DO something. pretty simple. my do something is "how far can I do" that is the something I am doing. driving.

 

[Nubo]

...from what I understand of the definition of energy it would be (in my case) 18.5kwh at full charge. I have asked repeatedly if this is correct and no one has said NO yet. is it correct or not?

I don't know the particulars of your battery but that's a reasonable number.

well 18.5kwh means nothing to me.

That's the part you need to work on

8.5kwh at 30' with the heat on means 59 miles 18.5kwh at 65' with nothing on means 90miles to me.

Yes. You see, it does mean something!

the 18.5kwh does not change.

It changes all the time. As soon as you start driving it begins decreasing. When you charge it increases.

so we are NOT talking about energy

We're talking about energy, we just disagree on its significance.

it is not what is important to me since I can not "change" the energy. I can only changes its "ability to do something" at least that is the plan.

You change it all the time. If you're talking about maximum range beginning with a full charge, then yes you always have the same starting point, and the outcome is dictated by other variables. Just like any other car on the planet.

And, you CAN'T change its ability to do work. That energy will do the same amount of work every time. The question is what percentage of that work will result in forward movement. (vs climbing hills or generating cabin heat)

someone said I was using the wrong word. that power was the wrong word.
SO I did the sensible (to me) thing. I looked up the word power.
that was the first result in google. it fit precisely with my intended usage of the word power.
SO I asked how is it wrong. since then everyone has FLAT OUT IGNORED this question entirely and simply started saying "you are wrong because we say so" and calling me names (as i predicted quite typical really on the internet sadly) or insulting me.

Folks have gone to great pains to try to explain to you the difference between power, energy, work, force and results in this thread and many other. They've failed to trigger that "aha" moment but they haven't ignored your questions.

no body challenges the definition they just say you are wrong because we say so and refuse to explain themselves. just "shut up shitizen you are wrong because we say so"

If you mean "we" in the general sense, then yes words mean what "we" decide they mean. All language is convention, including that dictionary of yours. But context is part of that process. Because it's the way that "we" agree on the specific definitions and nuances that apply to words which can have multiple meanings.

In this case we're on an EV forum discussing how far an electrical vehicle can go in relation to the quantity of *something* stored in the battery. And so when we start using the word "power" in this context, "we" expect to be talking not about political power, military power, power of deduction, magnificantion power of a lens, or power of attorney. "We" expect to be talking about power as used in physics. Because we're discussing a problem that falls in the realm of physics.

Dictionaries only apply when they agree with us shitizen.

nonsense. if I challenge someone I EXPLAIN my challenge.

A number of folks have tried to explain. You've disagreed with the explanations which is your right, but claiming no one has tried to explain it is false.

 

[Levenkay]

["We" expect to be talking about power as used in physics. Because we're discussing a problem that falls in the realm of physics.
.

I'm trying to resist adding to this fire, but that's just beautifully put, Nubo.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Haven't we already had this discussion at some length before?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=17985&start=12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess it needs to come up every six months or so!

 

[nerys]

no. we do not talk about power as in physics (technical)

We are talking about as you noted political power military power or ... wait for it. get this now.


DRIVING POWER.

how far I can go. seems pretty simple to me.

18.5kwh at full charge never changes. therefore it is not relevant since I can not increase this value.

that is energy. CORRECT? yes or no?

Power is the ability to DO something. the ability in this case to DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ENERGY OF 18.5KWH

We measure "do something" in the context of this discussion as "range" how far can I go.

That is what the Power Meter or "range meter" or GOM in the car tries to tell me.

the car DOES in fact report the correct (as far as I know) ENERGY content but what "I" want is an accurate POWER reading. in this case ability to drive miles. (do something)

it is not remotely accurate. no matter how steady you drive. it is "never" ever accurate from full charge. ever. it always 100% of the time reports 10 to 20 miles more range than you will actually get no matter what conditions you drive (at least no matter the conditions I have so far driven)

this is not a PHYSICS forum. this is not an ENGINEERING forum.

this is a consumer car nissan leaf forum. maybe you WANT it to be a physics and engineering forum. reality disagrees with you.

and NO. no one has contested my definition on logical grounds. not one single post has done that.

PLEASE quote for me the post where this occurred. I admit I could have missed it and apologize if I did.

ALL I have seen anywhere close to challenging it is "it is wrong because we say so" which is not a valid challenge and you know it.

 

[Nubo]

.
.
.
ALL I have seen anywhere close to challenging it is "it is wrong because we say so" which is not a valid challenge and you know it.

It's not a challenge. But it is the important point. Communication can only occur between people who both understand and agree to the terms. There's no winning or losing, it isn't a contest, it's cooperation.

The ideas and terms needed to understand the problem of "how far I can go", were studied, defined and solved by physicists, and are understood by millions of people worldwide as a framework of proven ideas and a common terminology. You're free to disregard all that and come up with your own terms defined any way you wish. More "power" to you. It's not necessarily "wrong", but it is uncommon and so makes communication more difficult.

 

[nerys]

Once again. I used a word. I showed the definition of the word which validates my usage of that word.

you refuse to acknowledge or explain to me why this is wrong.

except to say "because we say so"

not understand and agree. understand and accept. agreement allows bias. acceptance allows communication on a level playing field.

I would gladly accept. when someone can explain to me why I am wrong without saying "because we say so" or "because we have a special dictionary and all your other dictionaries are invalid" which is "because we say so"

read the stupid kw/kwh threads. I accepted and admitted my understanding of the USAGE of the terms in language (not in science my understanding their was never cloudy) was incorrect though I still do not fully understand why and the educated video which showed me my language usage was wrong appears to self contradict itself in its own description which is why I am still unclear as to why I am wrong but whatever.

Here no one is even trying. even when I post the accepted (except by you) definition of the word and it validates my use.

all I get is "because we say so" or statements that essentially equate to because we say so.

 

[LightningLeaf]

it is not remotely accurate. no matter how steady you drive. it is "never" ever accurate from full charge. ever. it always 100% of the time reports 10 to 20 miles more range than you will actually get no matter what conditions you drive (at least no matter the conditions I have so far driven)

I have to concur with this observation. For example, I drive 56 miles round trip for work at average of 4.8 miles per kWh. My battery range would start at 92 miles and ended up at 24 miles when I get home which is 58 miles. I can't really explain this other than the use of radio, ventilation fan and lighting.

From layman perspective, my sense of power is how fast I can go, not how far I can go. Clearly the car uses different amount of energy when powering the car in normal mode vs ECO mode. When going down hill, using B mode the car is using NEGATIVE power as I am rolling down the hill and my battery range would increase (energy). I have a long stretch of down hill where my range would increase from 45 miles to 60 miles yet I only drove 10 miles. This is a net gain of 25 miles by GOM. Of course when I drive up hill, the range on GOM would go down very fast yet I drive less miles than what GOM would indicate.

 

[Nubo]

Here no one is even trying. even when I post the accepted (except by you) definition of the word and it validates my use.

all I get is "because we say so" or statements that essentially equate to because we say so.

Cut it out with the "not trying" part.

The reason to use the physics terminology is that all the work necessary to understand the phenomena you're interested in, has already been done. By the likes of Newton, Gallileo, Faraday, etc... It's already been figured out by experimentation, observation, clever deduction and mathematics. Centuries of work! We stand on the shoulders of giants, eh?

Along the way, certain terms were defined. So by using them, you make it easier for other people to understand what you are talking about and can take advantage of a common set of tools, concepts and proven equations that relate power and energy, mass and force, work and potential.

Or you can go on about "driving power" Let us know when your equations for "driving power" are worked out.

 

[nerys]

Once again you did not even attempt to address the clear obvious dictionary definition posted. Another stinking troll. Figures.

You cut it out with the ignoring it part.

 

[Nubo]

Once again you did not even attempt to address the clear obvious dictionary definition posted. Another stinking troll. Figures.

You cut it out with the ignoring it part.

Lol. You win!

 

[nerys]

Hahahaha i just noticed your sig.

Hellooo computer?

 

[mbender]

Once again you did not even attempt to address the clear obvious dictionary definition posted. Another stinking troll. Figures.

You cut it out with the ignoring it part.

--> "I know you are, but what am I?"

How many posts and pages is this going to go on? When are you going to wake up and realize that everyone in this forum (or at least the group replying to you in this topic) is ignorant, doesn't know how to use a dictionary, a troll and/or wrong?! If I were you and as smart and right as apparently are, I'd have given up on us knuckleheads and moved on long ago. And yet you persist!

 

[nerys]

Another stupid troll reply adding zero value.

How typical.

 

[Stoaty]

How many posts and pages is this going to go on? When are you going to wake up and realize that everyone in this forum (or at least the group replying to you in this topic) is ignorant, doesn't know how to use a dictionary, a troll and/or wrong?!

This may shed some light on the problem:

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[nerys]

Very interesting concept. So now i know how to describe these types of people.

 

[Nubo]

I thought that was Freddie-Kruger. :lol:

 

[Stoaty]

I thought that was Freddie-Kruger. :lol:

No, Freddie Kruger doesn't suffer from that syndrome... his estimation of his killing abilities is pretty accurate.