A CERN Physicist Fails At Elementary Physics

Recently I had a conversation with a renowned CERN physicist Konstantin Toms. In this conversation, all of a sudden, he exposed himself failing to spot the difference between power and work. The conversation happened in a public place here: lj.rossia.org/users/ktoms/17248.html
it was performed in Russian, so I have to translate it for you, however, Dr. Toms is informed of this fact and is welcome to make his corrections if he has any.

Dr. Toms posts to his blog:

Here is an interview with myself and some other good people from the LHC team www.svoboda.org/content/article/27501529.html

I comment:

«MWt/hour»?! — physicists, damit!

Toms:

the author is not a physicist. problem is fixed thanx.

I noticed the change in the text of the interview and comment again:

«energy consumption rate is 200 MWt*hour» — is it a fix?? f**k!

Toms:

i suspect you are an imbecile.

me:

i suspect you simply forgot Si in your CERN.

Toms:

wiki-link «Watt*hour»

me:

«while running LHC consumes 200 MWt*h»
«while NO-BEAM LHC consumes 50 MWt*h»
tell me honestly, don't you see an error in these statements?

Toms:

no, i do not.

me:

the statement reads «energy consumption rate» and equates it to energy
don't you see a difference between energy and its derivative?

Toms:

what derivative?!

me:

consumption rate is a derivative
amount PER unit of time
say, per 1 second amount of energy changes for X Joule

Toms:

per 1 second the consumption rate does not change at all!
LHC consumption is 200 MWt.

me:

wake up!!!

Toms:

lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/faq/lhc-energy-consumption.htm
i am sick of you!

me:

thanx god, the official CERN does not agree with your claim of equivalence between Joule and Watt

Toms:

power is measured in Watts, not Joules.
Your derivative is zero.

me:

it is time to re-read what you have written before:
«while running LHC consumes 200 MWt*h»

Toms:

i did not write it!
F**K YOU!

me:

i agree, you did not write it, but you insisted this statement is TRUE.
and now you are trying to blame the journalist — good job.
but i am sure the journalist would understand the error much sooner than you.

Toms:

what error?
it is just a little bit of inaccurate wording, and i ignore such nuances.
he simply wrote «energy consumption» instead of «power».

me:

«energy consumption» is synonymous to «power», you moron.

Toms:

you are an imbecile!
he simply expressed energy consumption in Wt*h, that's it.

me:

«he expressed energy consumption in Wt*h»
PER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME???

no answer.

I asked him a little later:

do you denounce your erroneous statements?

Toms:

NO! NOT A WORD!

Give it a thought, one of the highest rank physicists in the world fails at elementary physics. It would be a mistake to extrapolate this experience to entire CERN, but this conversation is (at very least) extremely worrying. If they accept and honor this man who clearly lacks of elementary understanding of physics, how can we trust their judgement regarding other physicists, their qualification and their achievements? Or, maybe, just maybe, the modern days high energy physics does not require understanding of very fundamental physical notions?

It also worth noticing, that despite Toms's claims svoboda.org has corrected the text of the article as I suggested.