784004db   
   XPost: rec.audio.pro, comp.dsp   
   From: spam@spam.com   
      
   On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:53:16 -0800 (PST), rickman    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Nov 20, 2:52 pm, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:43:03 -0800 (PST), rickman    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >On Nov 20, 12:02 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:   
   >> >> Dick Pierce  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >Scott Dorsey wrote:   
   >> >> >> I don't know, because I have never seen actual instantaneous RMS   
   values   
   >> >> >> ever displayed anywhere.   
   >>   
   >> >> >The term "instantaneous RMS value" is itself meaningless.   
   >>   
   >> >> BINGO! Mr. Pierce wins the kewpie doll!   
   >> >> --scott   
   >>   
   >> >Except that it is wrong.  What is the instantaneous RMS value of -1...   
   >> >+1.  RMS doesn't have to be an integral or a sum. b   
   >>   
   >> >Rick   
   >>   
   >> It isn't. It is the square root of the mean of the squares. In the   
   >> case of -1, +1 it is 1.   
   >>   
   >> The inclusion of the term "mean" says that there must be at least two   
   >> measurements - any fewer and you can't have a mean.   
   >>   
   >> d   
   >   
   >I don't recall any such restriction on N.  Certainly the measurement   
   >has just as much meaning with N = 1 as any greater N.  Think of it as   
   >a limit as N approaches 1 then.  The point is that it is as valid a   
   >measurement for a single point as it is for many points.  It   
   >represents the equivalent voltage that would produce the same power as   
   >DC of the same voltage.   
   >   
      
   When you do it for a single point, the term RMS ceases to have   
   meaning. For a single point it is just the voltage. For two points and   
   above, RMS volts times RMS current give average power.   
      
   d   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)