Robin wrote:

On 02/07/2020 18:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
What I'm saying applies for all practical purposes

At last. Why didn't you state this first?

But good to see you admit you were wrong all this time.

He's not wrong. Producing heat from other forms of energy is one thing
you can do with 100% efficiency, certainly given time for equilibration.
There are no theoretical limitations from thermodynamics.



Please help me by explaining where I went wrong on 24 June when arguing
there would be some loss from the EMFs which prevent 100% for a system
which delivers /useful/ heat.

It's a matter of setting the bounds of the question. The question was
whether 100% of the electridal energy *delivered to the radiator* could
be converted to heat. Although I would point out that your "lossses"
are actually in the form of heat delivered to other parts of the
building or conversely paid for by the utility company if they are
outside the building.




Or explain why you think it /useful/ merely to produce heat.

Generally that is what a radiator is useful for. Not that I am claiming
there is any particular practical advantage of 100% over, say, 99% or
99.9%.

--

Roger Hayter