On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:36:06 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:08:35 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote:

Did you read what I wrote?

_________________________________________________ ________

Yes, of course.

I'm becoming convinced this is more a question of semantics or of
somebody's arbitrary definition than one of actual fact.

My real disagreement is with the statement "There is no such thing as
RMS power". The rest of the arguments here I have no real quarrel with.
As far as I can tell, all the math presented here is correct, with the
exception of the fellow who the wrong factor when converting RMS voltage
to peak power.

To each his own.

Now, what about that current flow from plus to minus? :-)


You may be reading what people wrote but you are doing selective
reading. You are only letting through things that agree with your
preconceived beliefs and blocking out the logic.

You have the bandwidth cranked in too tight, the notch filter set too
deep on the wrong side of the pass band and the noise blanker on. You
are complaining how bad the signals sound but if you read the manual
you may be able to clear the problem. :)

Roy said that there is rms power but that it has nothing to do with
average power that we get when rms voltage and current are multiplied.

I and others have said that there is no such thing as rms power. That
is not a stand alone absolute fact obviously but in this context it is
meaningless.

You can find the rms value of any periodic wave just like you find the
rms value of voltage or current. But finding the rms value of power is
of no value. And you don't get it by multiplying rms voltage by rms
current. Again, once you multiply an rms value by another rms value
the answer you get is not rms.

Rms is not a title. It is the result of a mathematical operation.

Average power and rms power are not the same.

73
Gary K4FMX