wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 14:29:43 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 11:35:50 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Feel free to tell us where the inefficiency is in an oil filled
radiator. (I think we can assume it doesn't get so hot as to
glow.)

Have it your own way. Some things are exactly 100% efficient. I
take it you work in advertising?

So you've no idea where any inefficiency occurs in that radiator,
but still want to make silly comments. Mmkay.

You've already been told why it isn't 100% efficient but choose to
ignore it.

No you've not come up with any inefficiency in such a rad. That's cos
there isn't one.

You are showing yourself to be a fool.

The oil in that rad will circulate. And expand. Where to you think the
energy needed for that comes from?

Heat. And as the rad cools, as it does at some point, you find that every
single bit of electricity consumed has turned to heat.

If you'd said near 100% efficient, no argument.

If you said you were 100% stupid there's be no argument.

Come on, yet again, I invite you to tell us what else the lost energy
turns into apart from heat. See if you can think of something.

Yes. Thermodynamic issues which generally prevent even theoretical
100% efficiency of energy conversion actually work in your favour if you
are trying to convert other forms of energy to heat - or even just
transfer heat from a hot place to a cooler place; you are simply doing
your bit towards converting the universe to a homogenous slightly warm
thing.



--

Roger Hayter