On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 12:47:15 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 17:32:24 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 13:23:32 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 23:38:43 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.
When the most efficint kettle the average consumer can buy is under 90%

I'm curious where you get that 90% from.

I didn;t it came up years ago (CSE physics I think) as being
the most efficient you can get from a demostic kettle.

Just because some fool claims something.

just because some fool thinks kettles are 100% effecient doesn;t mean they are.


That number is complete and utter drivel
and it is completely trivial to prove that.

So prove it.
That figure was the text books guide to the most efficient type of the time
when the book was publish which I think was in the 1970s, they also said that an average bolt of lightning could power London for 20-30 seconds.
But that's probbably changed since then.

How about envoking the wizard of Oz.

if yuo only had a brain you could find.
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tech...wave-oven.html

Electric kettles are designed for their efficiency and many of them have names like Eco Kettle. In electric kettles the water is in direct contact with the heating element, there is no pot to heat and most kettles include an integrated lid. The electric kettle averaged around 1200 watts and took 125 seconds to boil the water, which translates to 0.04 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity consumed. I cleared the cobwebs off of the thermodynamic part of my brain and calculated that the theoretical energy required to heat 350 ml of water by 83° C in 125 seconds is 972 watts. Dividing this by the actual wattage used gives us the overall efficiency of boiling water in an electric kettle, 81%.