On Thursday, 19 May 2016 22:49:21 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 18/05/2016 23:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 13:25:02 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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. There's also quite a
differnce between hot water and bioling water.

Think you're confusing it with an electric motor.

Why are YOU confusing it with an electric motor, I'm not.

The amount of heat loss would be pretty consistent across a range of
element sizes.

across a smallish range I'd say.

Making a smaller element one very much more inefficient
than a large one.

yes I know.
Which is why reducing the power to a kettle won't make much sense.

That isnt about efficiency, its about limiting the peak demand
on the grid when all you fools watching the big match etc all
decide to put the kettle on in the same ad break.

But some will put the kettle on immediately, some will nip to the toilet
first, etc. so the demand is spread through the ad break.

No there's no ad break in Eastenders :-D

Lower the
power, so they take longer to boil, and you'll just end up with a point
where the early ones are still on and the late ones have turned on,
possibly giving an even bigger peak load.

That's what I was getting out if we lower kettle power ratings.
And if we are doing that to eliminate peeks will it really work if we halve all teh kettle they'll take more than twice as long to heat up unless there is a 100% efficint kettle which I don't believe exists.