@almarg
Imhififan, thanks for providing the additional link
.
Al,
First please accept my sincere apology for anything I may has said to cause you offence. This has been a muddy thread, made worse by unvetted quotes from poor sources. These I have already cited.
The OP pulled much of his argument from this self contradictory paper. And the flawed references in the Wickipedia article Audio Power.
http://www.n4lcd.com/RMS.pdf"The FTC also incorrectly assumed that the measurement of the power in Watts would be RMS
Watts. It's not. It's Watts. There's no such thing as RMS Watts.
In summary, RMS Voltage is correct, but there's no such thing as RMS Power or RMS Watts.
Or stated differently, the Voltage that's measured is RMS Voltage, but the resulting power is
Average Power and it's measured in Watts."
Focusing on the wrong of putting RMS in front of Power and then the word Average the horse took off a running. I dont for a moment believe that the FTC meant to apply any form of root 2 to the aready calculated watts. The were actually trying to get away from Peak watts and Peak to Peak watts which were inflating numbers.
Perhaps if they has said Watts (RMS) or more correcty Watts measured by the RMS vaue of a sine wave all would well.
Had the OP simply objected to the language instead of coming back with math (some of which is incorrect) we would have been done with the first post by Atmasphere, thanks Raph. However Ralph was ignored.
I had my Chinese math guy check the integral also. The answer is 3/8 pi not 3/8, working that out the root the answer is 1.08 as I recall. I dont really care whose math is right or wrong, my question is why throw that out at all? Who on this thread is likely to be a math major? The OP fired all his ammo and I think he's out on this.
As to kijanki we are still in a tussle about emitter resistors and losses in amplifiers. I wish we were sitting around a table drinking and having more fun with this. These topics are interesting to discuss, we all learn from those who can best express their ideas calmly and rationally.
I would like to have Imhififan at the table. I have enjoyed how he said little but kept coming back a source that cleared it up for me.
I was doing repairs in a HI FI store when the FTC rule came around. It uas designed to stop the inflation of power into Peak Watts and Peak to Peak watts (which dont exist). I am writing a paper on the history of that which I hope will extend and clairfy what the FTC was trying to do. In my reasearched no one ever RMSed the Watts in any literature. They used RMS to differentiate real Watts from POP (Peak Output Power) and PPOP (Peak to Peak Output Power)
We are all sorry they decided to put RMS in front of watts.I think they has to put something. But I never assumed the meant to RMS the watts. Who would?
