Drumming..... Forgot to reply yesterday. Sorry but you're wrong..
Actually, your statement about rms isn't wrong, but you've either misinterpreted or assumed wrongly, what I said. As often happens, your words are different from my words...
You said:
"There is no RMS vs non-RMS in electrical meters"... and you went on to speak to rms & true rms.
Above, those are your words..
What I said was:
"It's sort of akin to the difference between RMS & non RMS electrical measurements."
Big difference between the 2 statements, imho...
1) I said nothing about meters or digital, I spoke of measurements. I also wasn't talking about rms vs true rms. I realize you normally need meters of some kind to take measurements, but you are obviously referring to a digital VOM. I was not...
I wasn't thinking I'd have to defend or define what I meant, because I meant it more as the difference between rms & non rms measurements, which certainly does exist. It exist in audio measurements & in RF measurements. I know the difference between rms & true rms. That's a different issue. For example, most people think rms (or even true rms) means an avg or "mean" measurement, but that's not the case. It's partly true but partly not. Regsrdless, its not what I was referring to, which is why I spoke only of rms or no rms, and not "true rms". Many years ago I bought a true rms digital VOM. In fact, that was its name: "true rms meter" (by radio shack). I still have it.
Anyway, as I was saying, when measuring audio or RF, the meters used, of which I have many, can utilize rms measurements or peak measurements. Some have only one or the other & some have both, thus rms vs non rms. Sometines the rms component of such meters are labeled as rms & sometimes it labeled as avg. The correctness of those labels is a whole other debatable thing and depends on the meters..
There is peak, p.e.p. (peak-to-pesk or peak envelope), avg, rms, and true rms, labels that can be found on various meters, but an example of what I meant, simply, would be an RF wattage meter. Some have rms or avg read and some have peak read & some have both. One of the best known industry standard watt meters, would be the Bird 43 thruline. It comes as an rms or avg reading meter, I can't recall at the moment if it actually measures true rms or is just avg reading, but it very well might be true rms. There is a popular kit available for it that adds the ability to measure peak reading. When installed, there is a switch that switches from rms (or avg) to peak (which is not or non rms). There are also other watt meters that read only peak and not rms (or avg). It's a big deal in the radio world, for some, because they want to see that "swing" shown by peak reading meters, as opposed to the nearly flat read of an rms (or avg) reading on an analog scale, not a digital. And that, is basically what my refernce meant, as compared to the near flatline charting of vplm for so long, as opposed to volatility and that is reflected in the vwap. So that's what I meant. By the way, the analog RF watt metering and measurements I spoke of is still "electrical" metering and RF happens to be AC, so what I've said is true. Also, in my opinion, while rms in general, and especially true rms is often considered to be a more accurate depiction of the signal, personally I think when it comes to RF (and probably audio spectrum as well), that peak reading is more realistic because rms & true rms is based on averages, which is ok in terms of house current, etc, but in RF & audio, it's that dynamic swing that is heard, seen, felt and drives a signal to punch.
I'm not an expert and I didn't refer to any articles, it's just my own words of what I know and practice. Maybe my analogy to vwap wasn't the best, but I had something in mind about the differences in the dynamics between "weighted averages" & non weighted, compared to rms (true rms or regular rms) & peak reading. I hope that helps you to know what I meant. I also still feel that in the case of vplm, in terms of its prices and movements/trends, that vwap is useless info to at least 99.99 percent of any stockholders. If you find it important & helpful, then more power to you.
....................
In more vplm news...
All the talk about this company & that company is the best candidate or more likely to snatch up vplm, is more speculative wishful thinking. Not that there's anything wrong w/that, but the way I see it, is if any of those companies were as good a candidate as been theorized, one or more of them would've gotten froggy long ago when vplm would've been far cheaper & easier to obtain or also more recently when the alleged major validation of the patents was established upon the PTAB sweep, showed so many the great need and value of them. But it's also possible or even probable, that they did not because they don't believe in the alleged baseline, fundamental, empirical, essential & controlling nature of the patents, regardless of all the years of hype and regardless of the sweep.
...............................
In yet more less than stunning vplm news, the pps seems to be nesting in the 14s recently, which is a lot closer to 2 cents than to 45. The numerous predictions that it would be in the dollar + range way before now, seem to have fallen by the wayside. I'll bet those judges and panels & new ptab managers and circuit court, having had plenty of time to consider the near trillion dollar dreams of vplm potential, are cooking up a hell of a strange brew to soon begin passing around to the thirsty ones. Some have said the legal questions up for contest are quite open & shut ideas. I say it will be anything but.
AI
