"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 01:00:05 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 21:29:54 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

So, if we put a 100kW heater in there and had it on for 1 second,
would the water end up as hot as if we put a 10kW heater in there and
had that on for 10 seconds? I'm not talking 'theoretically, I'm
talking real world here?

The (/my) 'big question' is that if (say) the heater element get's
sufficiently hot as to start to boil the surrounding water, *does* the
heat get carried into the water as effectively as if it wasn't
boiling?

If the answer is no, then you could see how if you increased the
surface are of the heater you decrease the energy / area and could
take it down to a level where there was no kettling.


Bubbles of steam on the surface of the element would certainly reduce
the amount of heat being transferred to the water, effectively acting
as insulation.

Ok.

But if you're actually putting in 100kW for 1 sec, all
that will happen is that the element itself will get hotter under
those circumstances than the 10kW/10 sec situation, and at the end of
that 1 second, it will lose that extra heat to the water and the
overall result will be the same.

Ok, fair enough.

Assuming the 100kW heater was
designed for that sort of duty*, and wasn't an over-driven 10kW one,

Of course. ;-)

I
can't see any significant benefit in running it at a lower power.

Other than when the element loses (or reduces) it's ability to
transfer it's heat to the water, the internal resistance goes up and
the power consumption goes down and so the output energy goes down?

Yebbut... if the resistance rises due to the element getting hot, it
would take longer to dissipate the 100kW you originally proposed,

Yes.

and power might fall from 100kW to 50kW,

Nope, to nothing like half.

in which case it would take 2 seconds
to dissipate the same amount of energy.

Nope, nothing like twice as long.

But the efficiency would still remain the same. All the energy
would end up in the water, and bearing in mind we're only
talking 3kW max for most domestic water cylinder heaters,
I can't see it being improved on in any way that makes a
difference. Possibly for very high power flash heaters, if
such things exist, but not domestic stuff.

And this would be over a sliding scale, from a single bubble to the
entire element covered.

I believe these were the sort of lines the OP was thinking re his
initial question (but not kettling specifically).

I know it's not quite the same (because it's not a closed system) but
try to accelerate a tyred vehicle past it's ability to maintain
traction and that extra power (and some of the previous power) is just
wasted.

Not the same at all. As has been said in this thread many times, all
the heat from the element goes into the water, whether you put it in
slowly or quickly. The only factor relating to efficiency is the
external insulation on the tank. If it's poorly insulated, more heat
will be lost with slow heating than fast heating, so less efficient,
but that wasn't what the OP was asking about IIRC.

*AIUI kettling can cause localised pitting and corrosion, but not if
the element was designed to cope.

OK.

On 25/12/16 11:26, PeterC wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 11:13:15 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 12/24/2016 10:07 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
Are immersion heaters as efficient as they could be? Could the tubular
element be improved upon - or doesn't it matter?


pedant
If you put fins on the cladding the heat transfer would improve, and the
resistive element would run a bit cooler. That might improve its life?
Also, a cooler element would have lower resistance, hence slightly
higher current and output.
/pedant

AFAIK the resistance is very little affected by temperature - just as well,
reaaly, as a 3kW element that has low resistance at cold...!

Correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantan


For kettles, the "concealed" (I think of it as remote) element will run
hotter than the immersed type. The area of the element is very low and there
might be an advantage to having a physically larger one to transfer the same
rate of heat at a lower temperature. The plate at the bottom of the kettle
gets very hot I'd guess, judging by the colour. It might also spread the
scale to a thinner layer(?).

Biggles wrote:

Ah, I thought you meant "who has cylinders?" .........

I was thankful for the loft tank when we were without supply for
about 18 hours a few weeks ago.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 05:52:10 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/12/16 02:52, T i m wrote:


Now, it may not make much of a difference ITRW but we were just
'wondering' about such things here. ;-)


No, we are not wondering. You are wondering, because you are naive and
ignorant.

Everyone else knows that is all ********. Its almost impossible to make
an inefficient kettle in terms of electricity in versus heat transferred
to the water.

And the amount of electricity used is not enough to seriously warrant
any time being spent on making it marginally better.

I suggest you direct your limited intellect to more useful issues, like
whether green cars are faster than white ones.


Mate, it's blatantly obvious you really aren't wired suitably to be
able to join in such conversations so please don't bother.

No one is talking about actually re-designing anything, this was a
'just wondering' discussion for those able to 'just wonder'.

May I suggest an early new years resolution for you. Put me back in
your killfile and that way you don't have to read what I write and I
don't have to deal with your stalking and harassment.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:05:50 +1100, "John" wrote:



"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 09:31:05 +1100, "John" wrote:

snip

So, are you saying that a 'kettling' element *will* be transferring
it's energy to the water as effectively as one with say twice the
surface area that wasn't kettling?

Yes, because there is nowhere else for the heat to go.

(straight question).

Just as well, I don't like bent questions.

;-)

So we aren't talking directly about a loss of energy here, but
a loss of efficiency (because of kettling and other variables).

That isnt loss of efficiency, all the heat still ends up in the water.

Ok, but only the energy that is available?

So, no kettling, good thermal conductivity with the water, plenty of
time for the water to convect and take the heated water round the
cylinder. Heater element stays reasonably cool and therefore low
resistance therefore runs at full marked power.

Overdriven element (for the surface area), kettling, decreased contact
with the water (steam insulating the element from the water),
increased element temperature, higher resistance, reduced energy
consumption from rated, lower actual output?

The difference in resistance due to the higher element temperature
would be very small and so amount of heat available would only
change very minimally.

Ok.

Now, it may not make much of a difference ITRW but we were just
'wondering' about such things here. ;-)

Yeah, it would certainly see a small change in the heat available.

Sure, but I think within the bounds of a 'just wondering' thread, the
fact that it *would* change would be worthy of note (even if then
discarded on real world grounds). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 08:32:15 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

Other than when the element loses (or reduces) it's ability to
transfer it's heat to the water, the internal resistance goes up and
the power consumption goes down and so the output energy goes down?

Yebbut... if the resistance rises due to the element getting hot, it
would take longer to dissipate the 100kW you originally proposed, and
power might fall from 100kW to 50kW, in which case it would take 2
seconds to dissipate the same amount of energy. But the efficiency
would still remain the same.

Yeahbut that was the point, it only got the 1 second, no compensation
for 'other variables'?

All the energy would end up in the water,
and bearing in mind we're only talking 3kW max for most domestic water
cylinder heaters, I can't see it being improved on in any way that
makes a difference.

No, quite, we are all pretty sure that is the case, including me. ;-)

Possibly for very high power flash heaters, if
such things exist, but not domestic stuff.

Ok.

And this would be over a sliding scale, from a single bubble to the
entire element covered.

I believe these were the sort of lines the OP was thinking re his
initial question (but not kettling specifically).

I know it's not quite the same (because it's not a closed system) but
try to accelerate a tyred vehicle past it's ability to maintain
traction and that extra power (and some of the previous power) is just
wasted.

Not the same at all.

Yes, like I said ('it's not a closed system' but the point I was
trying to make was the 'slippage' when the heat transfer process is
pushed past a particular point). Similarly, if you overcharge a
battery the surplus energy often gets dissipated in heat (or liberated
as a gas as the battery 'boils off')?

As has been said in this thread many times, all
the heat from the element goes into the water, whether you put it in
slowly or quickly.

So, extreme example ... an element that was so hot that it formed a
layer of steam round it all the time. Would all the energy still end
up in the water as heat or isn't that energy being used to convert
water to a vapour that would then be lost up the overflow pipe?

How much hotter does a kettle of water get if the thermostat gets
stuck on and the water continues boiling? If it doesn't get any
hotter, where / how is that surplus energy being dissipated?

The only factor relating to efficiency is the
external insulation on the tank. If it's poorly insulated, more heat
will be lost with slow heating than fast heating, so less efficient,
but that wasn't what the OP was asking about IIRC.

Quite.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:09:21 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

So, extreme example ... an element that was so hot that it formed a
layer of steam round it all the time. Would all the energy still end
up in the water as heat or isn't that energy being used to convert
water to a vapour that would then be lost up the overflow pipe?

Depends on the design of the system. If the container was deep and
narrow, and the heater near the bottom, the steam would condense back
to water, thus giving up its latent heat of evaporation to the water,
before it got to the surface.

Understood.

If the container was wide and shallow
and the heater near the surface, then yes, steam would probably be
lost and the system would be inefficient, unless of course generating
steam was the objective.

Quite. ;-)


How much hotter does a kettle of water get if the thermostat gets
stuck on and the water continues boiling? If it doesn't get any
hotter, where / how is that surplus energy being dissipated?

If a thermostat in a kettle sticks on, the kettle eventually boils
dry, but doesn't get any hotter than 100C until all the water has
evaporated. The surplus energy is carried away by the latent heat of
evaporation in converting water at 100C to steam at 100C, i.e. 2257
kJ/kg, or 0.627 kWh per litre, near enough.

Agreed (and previously). My point was there are times where you could
'overheat' (too fast or max temperature) something and the energy not
end up where you hoped it might. I concede that is way outside the RW
application here though. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 09:26:40 +0000, PeterC wrote:

The plate at the bottom of the kettle gets very hot I'd guess,
judging by the colour. It might also spread the scale to a
thinner layer(?).

It also gets quite noisy (in these kind of kettles) needing frequent
de-scaling, although no visible scale build-up and in a soft(ish)
area.

On 24/12/2016 14:00, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 15:42:08 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

I think the typical installation orientation of nearly vertical would
not help with any 'finning' that would in turn help the conduction and
the convection that supports it.

If the (typically orientated) element had some longitudinal 'finning',
maybe in the form of a cross, that may increase the surface area
sufficiently and not interfere with the convection too much?


Why bother?

It was a hypothetical question. You may not have understood such? ;-(

Its all expense to make something 100% efficient...100% efficient!

I bet you don't know why people climb to the top of mountains when
there is a perfectly good cable car either.

See, it's not all about efficiency directly but questioning *if* there
were any *other* improvements that could be made that *could* have
other benefits ... like faster recovery-time or reduced scaling.

A larger (surface area) element at lower temperature may result in
slightly less scaling. It should not make much difference to the
recovery time though since the limit is usually the rate of heat input.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 25/12/16 02:52, T i m wrote:


Now, it may not make much of a difference ITRW but we were just
'wondering' about such things here. ;-)


No, we are not wondering. You are wondering, because you are naive and
ignorant.

Everyone else knows that is all ********. Its almost impossible to make
an inefficient kettle in terms of electricity in versus heat
transferred to the water.

And the amount of electricity used is not enough to seriously warrant
any time being spent on making it marginally better.

I suggest you direct your limited intellect to more useful issues, like
whether green cars are faster than white ones.



TNP, You have to remember little Timmy only has half a brain.
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 08:32:15 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

Other than when the element loses (or reduces) it's ability to
transfer it's heat to the water, the internal resistance goes up and
the power consumption goes down and so the output energy goes down?

Yebbut... if the resistance rises due to the element getting hot, it
would take longer to dissipate the 100kW you originally proposed, and
power might fall from 100kW to 50kW, in which case it would take 2
seconds to dissipate the same amount of energy. But the efficiency
would still remain the same.

Yeahbut that was the point, it only got the 1 second, no compensation
for 'other variables'?

All the energy would end up in the water,
and bearing in mind we're only talking 3kW max for most domestic water
cylinder heaters, I can't see it being improved on in any way that
makes a difference.

No, quite, we are all pretty sure that is the case, including me. ;-)

Possibly for very high power flash heaters, if
such things exist, but not domestic stuff.

Ok.

And this would be over a sliding scale, from a single bubble to the
entire element covered.

I believe these were the sort of lines the OP was thinking re his
initial question (but not kettling specifically).

I know it's not quite the same (because it's not a closed system) but
try to accelerate a tyred vehicle past it's ability to maintain
traction and that extra power (and some of the previous power) is just
wasted.

Not the same at all.

Yes, like I said ('it's not a closed system' but the point I was
trying to make was the 'slippage' when the heat transfer process is
pushed past a particular point). Similarly, if you overcharge a
battery the surplus energy often gets dissipated in heat (or liberated
as a gas as the battery 'boils off')?

As has been said in this thread many times, all
the heat from the element goes into the water, whether you put it in
slowly or quickly.

So, extreme example ... an element that was so hot that it formed a
layer of steam round it all the time. Would all the energy still end
up in the water as heat or isn't that energy being used to convert
water to a vapour that would then be lost up the overflow pipe?

How much hotter does a kettle of water get if the thermostat gets
stuck on and the water continues boiling? If it doesn't get any
hotter, where / how is that surplus energy being dissipated?

Didn't you pay any attention at all in your science lessons?
At normal atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees - period.
The only factor relating to efficiency is the
external insulation on the tank. If it's poorly insulated, more heat
will be lost with slow heating than fast heating, so less efficient,
but that wasn't what the OP was asking about IIRC.

Quite.

Cheers, T i m



--
bert

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 14:11:01 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

See, it's not all about efficiency directly but questioning *if* there
were any *other* improvements that could be made that *could* have
other benefits ... like faster recovery-time or reduced scaling.

A larger (surface area) element at lower temperature may result in
slightly less scaling.

Ok.

It should not make much difference to the
recovery time though since the limit is usually the rate of heat input.

Understood ... the fact that it might make *some* difference though
(then) could be of interest to some. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:03:22 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 25/12/16 02:52, T i m wrote:


Now, it may not make much of a difference ITRW but we were just
'wondering' about such things here. ;-)


No, we are not wondering. You are wondering, because you are naive and
ignorant.

Everyone else knows that is all ********. Its almost impossible to make
an inefficient kettle in terms of electricity in versus heat
transferred to the water.

And the amount of electricity used is not enough to seriously warrant
any time being spent on making it marginally better.

I suggest you direct your limited intellect to more useful issues, like
whether green cars are faster than white ones.



TNP, You have to remember little Timmy only has half a brain.

Bert dribbled pointlessly re thermal fins:

"Collapsible to get them through the small hole."

Bwhahahaha ...

Yeah, well done 'bert'! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:09:05 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

How much hotter does a kettle of water get if the thermostat gets
stuck on and the water continues boiling? If it doesn't get any
hotter, where / how is that surplus energy being dissipated?

Didn't you pay any attention at all in your science lessons?

Yup ....

At normal atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees - period.

No? Really? Fancy that!

Another left brainer failing to understand a rhetorical statement.

The point (that whooshed you) was to suggest that you *could* continue
to put energy into a system without actually increasing (say) the
temperature because the surplus energy was being liberated elsewhere.

Try to keep up OM. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 23:14:48 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes

How much hotter does a kettle of water get if the thermostat gets
stuck on and the water continues boiling? If it doesn't get any
hotter, where / how is that surplus energy being dissipated?

Didn't you pay any attention at all in your science lessons?
At normal atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees - period.

It can't get any hotter than 100C at sea-level pressures until all the
water has boiled away. The extra energy being put in is what is needed
to boil the water off - quite a lot of energy is needed for that
purpose.

Quite, so, *if* an element was kettling and *if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system, then increasing the
surface area of the element might improve the situation.

Loads of 'ifs' there of course but still a potential answer to a 'just
wondering' type question. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 25/12/2016 21:09, bert wrote:
8

How much hotter does a kettle of water get if the thermostat gets
stuck on and the water continues boiling? If it doesn't get any
hotter, where / how is that surplus energy being dissipated?

Didn't you pay any attention at all in your science lessons?
At normal atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees - period.

That is almost true.
water boiling at normal pressure is at 100C is more likely to be correct.
Its quite possible to have water under normal pressure above 100c and
not be boiling as anyone that has been scalded when a glass of water
erupts while being removed from a microwave will be able to tell you.
Maybe they didn't cover that in your science lessons?

On 25/12/2016 23:52, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 14:11:01 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

See, it's not all about efficiency directly but questioning *if* there
were any *other* improvements that could be made that *could* have
other benefits ... like faster recovery-time or reduced scaling.

A larger (surface area) element at lower temperature may result in
slightly less scaling.

Ok.

It should not make much difference to the
recovery time though since the limit is usually the rate of heat input.

Understood ... the fact that it might make *some* difference though
(then) could be of interest to some. ;-)


Perhaps, but enough to make it worth doing something?

Much as any engineer tends to view the world as a sub optimal
implementation that needs to be fixed, there comes a point where you
need to choose a problem big enough to make it worth spending the effort
fixing it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/12/2016 20:02, rick wrote:
On 24/12/2016 10:07, DerbyBorn wrote:
Are immersion heaters as efficient as they could be? Could the tubular
element be improved upon - or doesn't it matter?



I suppose you could improve on the design to allow it to get the heat
away quicker - .... by having a load of fins - and therefore create
surface area in contact with the water.
Wouldn't make conversion of electricity to heat any more efficient.

Surely the speed with which you can get the heat away can't exceed the
rate you stick it into the heater element? Or have they changed physics
again when I was not looking?

So if you are sticking electrical energy in at 3kW, and the element is
not in thermal runaway heating adiabatically, then its must be dumping
heat at a rate of 3kW also.

The only time more fins etc will start to pay dividends is where you
have a *much* more powerful heater that you could not thermally "couple"
to the water well enough to reach an equilibrium temperature on the
heater that is not so high as to destroy it.

Cost involved probably not worth any gain.

Alas the killer of many a good idea.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 26/12/16 01:59, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:09:05 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

How much hotter does a kettle of water get if the thermostat gets
stuck on and the water continues boiling? If it doesn't get any
hotter, where / how is that surplus energy being dissipated?

Didn't you pay any attention at all in your science lessons?

Yup ....

At normal atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees - period.

No? Really? Fancy that!

Another left brainer failing to understand a rhetorical statement.

The point (that whooshed you) was to suggest that you *could* continue
to put energy into a system without actually increasing (say) the
temperature because the surplus energy was being liberated elsewhere.



Then the system isn't closed and isn't a 'system'
Try to keep up OM. ;-)


Try to keep up.

Cheers, T i m

On 26/12/16 02:08, T i m wrote:
*if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system

Oh dear. How can energy 'escape' from a 'closed' system?

The total lack of scientific comprehension is actually truly frightening.

On 26/12/16 05:47, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/12/2016 23:52, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 14:11:01 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

See, it's not all about efficiency directly but questioning *if* there
were any *other* improvements that could be made that *could* have
other benefits ... like faster recovery-time or reduced scaling.

A larger (surface area) element at lower temperature may result in
slightly less scaling.

Ok.

It should not make much difference to the
recovery time though since the limit is usually the rate of heat input.

Understood ... the fact that it might make *some* difference though
(then) could be of interest to some. ;-)


Perhaps, but enough to make it worth doing something?

Much as any engineer tends to view the world as a sub optimal
implementation that needs to be fixed,

Complete lie.

No true engineer regards it like that.

Its is a chaos of compromises, all just good enough to not be worth
fixing except for a very very few cases.

Stuff that works massively worse than other stuff, tends not to exist
after a while.

Unil some romantic idiot decides to reintroduce it and con billions out
of people to pay r it.

Windmills spring to mind....bit eventually those too will pass as te
money spent on them will not be spent on stuff that actually works to
keep the soceity and its culture intact, and someone will take over and
build probably treadmills for all the surplus snowflakes and greens.


there comes a point where you
need to choose a problem big enough to make it worth spending the effort
fixing it.


And that is good engineering philosophy.

Go to a company like Prodrive, and the engineers there will be analysing
rally car performance in tenths of a second per stage per million pounds
spent.

And the technology with the most tenths gets the budget.

Don't confuse real engineers with people like Clive Sinclair or James
Dyson, or the people behind e.g. Microsoft or Apple.

There is stuff that is designed to sell, and there is stuff that is
designed to work.

In the consumer market, the two are almost unrelated.

On 26/12/16 05:53, John Rumm wrote:

Cost involved probably not worth any gain.

Alas the killer of many a good idea.

No, by definition the killer of all bad ideas.

Like 'Diversity'

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 03:47:22 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 25/12/2016 23:52, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 14:11:01 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

See, it's not all about efficiency directly but questioning *if* there
were any *other* improvements that could be made that *could* have
other benefits ... like faster recovery-time or reduced scaling.

A larger (surface area) element at lower temperature may result in
slightly less scaling.

Ok.

It should not make much difference to the
recovery time though since the limit is usually the rate of heat input.

Understood ... the fact that it might make *some* difference though
(then) could be of interest to some. ;-)


Perhaps, but enough to make it worth doing something?

Quite possibly not, but that wasn't ever really the intention was it,
but only to ask 'if'?

Much as any engineer tends to view the world as a sub optimal
implementation that needs to be fixed, there comes a point where you
need to choose a problem big enough to make it worth spending the effort
fixing it.

Of course, however, sometimes such simple questions do get people
interested, they come up with something and it becomes the new
de-facto standard.

I never considered this topic to be one of those cases of course
because the science proves it's pretty well there already. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:53:12 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/12/16 01:59, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:09:05 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

How much hotter does a kettle of water get if the thermostat gets
stuck on and the water continues boiling? If it doesn't get any
hotter, where / how is that surplus energy being dissipated?

Didn't you pay any attention at all in your science lessons?

Yup ....

At normal atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees - period.

No? Really? Fancy that!

Another left brainer failing to understand a rhetorical statement.

The point (that whooshed you) was to suggest that you *could* continue
to put energy into a system without actually increasing (say) the
temperature because the surplus energy was being liberated elsewhere.



Then the system isn't closed and isn't a 'system'

Again, this is where you left brainers can only see / think literally.
;-(

The 'system' in this case is *normally* closed and is a system (it's
even called "a central heating / hot water system" ffs!

However, there are instances where (and especially for the purposes of
this thread), what was a closed system could become open and then the
numbers can change.

You are welcome (again). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 26/12/16 12:24, T i m wrote:
there are instances where (and especially for the purposes of
this thread), what was a closed system could become open and then the
numbers can change.

Then it isn't a closed system is it?

NO wonder idiots like you believe in man made climae change.

Look if tu want t indulge in arty farty 'right brain' thinking, join the
greens or the labour party and you will find loads of similarly
deficient people engaging in 'magic thinking' and calling it 'new science'

But sine you are here, can you tell me what shape of road wheel might be
better than a round one, and why?

For a man of your massive 'right brained' 'emotional intelligence', that
should not require more than a ....couple of lifetimes....

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:54:50 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/12/16 02:08, T i m wrote:
*if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system

Oh dear. How can energy 'escape' from a 'closed' system?

Tell you what, I'll put back what you desperately cut out to try to
make your pathetic left brainer case:

Tim Streater said:"
It can't get any hotter than 100C at sea-level pressures until all the
water has boiled away. The extra energy being put in is what is needed
to boil the water off - quite a lot of energy is needed for that
purpose.

I said:
Quite, so, *if* an element was kettling and *if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system, then increasing the
surface area of the element might improve the situation."


The total lack of scientific comprehension is actually truly frightening.

And your total lack of honesty and integrity is totally expected but I
guess desperate times ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 26/12/2016 03:47, John Rumm wrote:

Perhaps, but enough to make it worth doing something?

Much as any engineer tends to view the world as a sub optimal
implementation that needs to be fixed, there comes a point where you
need to choose a problem big enough to make it worth spending the effort
fixing it.



Like fixing the fences next to the railways rather than spending it on
automatic train controls to stop the odd crash.

Fixing the fences is the engineering choice to lower the death rate on
railways, ATC is the political solution to lowering the death rate on
railways.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 12:33:06 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/12/16 12:24, T i m wrote:
there are instances where (and especially for the purposes of
this thread), what was a closed system could become open and then the
numbers can change.

Then it isn't a closed system is it?

Doh, again, demonstrating a complete lack of mental flexibility. ;-(
'Of course' things can (and do) change, internal combustion becomes
external combustion when your car catches fire.

NO wonder idiots like you believe in man made climae change.

Another attempt to denigrate me? You must be desperate (as well as a
sad little man).

Look if tu want t indulge in arty farty 'right brain' thinking, join the
greens or the labour party and you will find loads of similarly
deficient people engaging in 'magic thinking' and calling it 'new science'

See above.

But sine you are here, can you tell me what shape of road wheel might be
better than a round one, and why?

Now distraction techniques?

For a man of your massive 'right brained' 'emotional intelligence', that
should not require more than a ....couple of lifetimes....

And back to the insults.

Mate, just killfile me before you dig any deeper (for your own sake).

Cheers, T i m

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/12/16 12:24, T i m wrote:
there are instances where (and especially for the purposes of
this thread), what was a closed system could become open and then the
numbers can change.

Then it isn't a closed system is it?

NO wonder idiots like you believe in man made climae change.

Look if tu want t indulge in arty farty 'right brain' thinking, join
the greens or the labour party and you will find loads of similarly
deficient people engaging in 'magic thinking' and calling it 'new
science'

But sine you are here, can you tell me what shape of road wheel might
be better than a round one, and why?

For a man of your massive 'right brained' 'emotional intelligence',
that should not require more than a ....couple of lifetimes....

Skimming through Guns, Germs and Steel recently, I came across some
examples where a new invention was not adopted immediately by the home
country. One was why did Japan benefit from the American invention of
the transistor with the finger pointed at US vested interests from
vacuum valve manufacturers. Our railways and the reluctance to change
from steam might be another vested interest example.

Even if Tim patents his mag-lev wheel it is going to hit serious
obstruction:-)

--
Tim Lamb

In article om,
dennis@home.? scribeth thus
On 26/12/2016 03:47, John Rumm wrote:

Perhaps, but enough to make it worth doing something?

Much as any engineer tends to view the world as a sub optimal
implementation that needs to be fixed, there comes a point where you
need to choose a problem big enough to make it worth spending the effort
fixing it.



Like fixing the fences next to the railways rather than spending it on
automatic train controls to stop the odd crash.

Fixing the fences is the engineering choice to lower the death rate on
railways, ATC is the political solution to lowering the death rate on
railways.

I reckon the death rate of people getting through fences to access the
rails is in the noise compared with the incidents on crossings and the
like.

Fencing railways is to keep the railway in and not the public out ! its
on an old bit of rail legislation from 1800 odd!...

--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 12:20:23 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/12/16 12:24, T i m wrote:
there are instances where (and especially for the purposes of
this thread), what was a closed system could become open and then the
numbers can change.

Then it isn't a closed system is it?

NO wonder idiots like you believe in man made climae change.

Look if tu want t indulge in arty farty 'right brain' thinking, join
the greens or the labour party and you will find loads of similarly
deficient people engaging in 'magic thinking' and calling it 'new
science'

But sine you are here, can you tell me what shape of road wheel might
be better than a round one, and why?

For a man of your massive 'right brained' 'emotional intelligence',
that should not require more than a ....couple of lifetimes....

Skimming through Guns, Germs and Steel recently,

Is that like Elephants and Trains magazine Tim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klS92A8YzfY

I came across some
examples where a new invention was not adopted immediately by the home
country. One was why did Japan benefit from the American invention of
the transistor with the finger pointed at US vested interests from
vacuum valve manufacturers. Our railways and the reluctance to change
from steam might be another vested interest example.

Yes, with "Necessity (often) being the mother of invention", once
invented it can be down to many factors as to what happens with / to
it next (including pressures from your 'vested interests', rival
solutions or material innovations etc).

Even if Tim patents his mag-lev wheel it is going to hit serious
obstruction:-)

Doh! ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 26/12/2016 10:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/12/16 05:53, John Rumm wrote:

Cost involved probably not worth any gain.

Alas the killer of many a good idea.

No, by definition the killer of all bad ideas.

Not always. Some ideas are good and worth doing even if they don't have
a direct payback in financial terms.

(but tweaking immersion heater design probably ain't one of those!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message
Tim Streater wrote:


[snip]

And at stations.

Fencing railways is to keep the railway in and not the public out ! its
on an old bit of rail legislation from 1800 odd!...

Railway tends to stray, does it?

A lot have gome missing post-Beeching :-p

--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England
My homework was not stolen by a one armed man

Fixing the fences is the engineering choice to lower the death rate on
railways, ATC is the political solution to lowering the death rate on
railways.

I reckon the death rate of people getting through fences to access the
rails is in the noise compared with the incidents on crossings and the
like.

And at stations.

In the noise too unless your including the London underground different
scenario and I suppose if you discount all the women around southall and
hayes and harlington which distort the national figure;(

Fencing railways is to keep the railway in and not the public out ! its
on an old bit of rail legislation from 1800 odd!...

Railway tends to stray, does it?


Suppose they thought it might at one point;!..

--
Tony Sayer

On 26/12/16 12:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:54:50 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/12/16 02:08, T i m wrote:
*if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system

Oh dear. How can energy 'escape' from a 'closed' system?

Tell you what, I'll put back what you desperately cut out to try to
make your pathetic left brainer case:

Tim Streater said:"
It can't get any hotter than 100C at sea-level pressures until all the
water has boiled away. The extra energy being put in is what is needed
to boil the water off - quite a lot of energy is needed for that
purpose.

I said:
Quite, so, *if* an element was kettling and *if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system, then increasing the
surface area of the element might improve the situation."



And I sad 'how can energy escape from a *closed* system


The bit you forgot to quote....


The total lack of scientific comprehension is actually truly frightening.

And your total lack of honesty and integrity is totally expected but I
guess desperate times ... ;-(


Hint. when in a hole....

Cheers, T i m

On 26/12/2016 13:01, tony sayer wrote:

Fencing railways is to keep the railway in and not the public out ! its
on an old bit of rail legislation from 1800 odd!...

Just a stray thought.In general farmers are required to fence to keep
their animals in. Railways are required to keep animals out and pay
compensation if any are killed as a result of their fences failing.

And a belated seasonal greeting to all your readers.

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 18:50:42 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/12/16 12:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:54:50 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/12/16 02:08, T i m wrote:
*if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system

Oh dear. How can energy 'escape' from a 'closed' system?

Tell you what, I'll put back what you desperately cut out to try to
make your pathetic left brainer case:

Tim Streater said:"
It can't get any hotter than 100C at sea-level pressures until all the
water has boiled away. The extra energy being put in is what is needed
to boil the water off - quite a lot of energy is needed for that
purpose.

I said:
Quite, so, *if* an element was kettling and *if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system, then increasing the
surface area of the element might improve the situation."



And I sad 'how can energy escape from a *closed* system

You really, really are either suicidal in your efforts to defend your
bogus position or so very hard of thinking.

I explained to you that it isn't a closed system when it is no longer
a closed system (duh) and it was under the circumstances of being an
open system that we were then discussing. I know you can't keep up
because you aren't wired for it (so I don't hold it against you).


The bit you forgot to quote....

I didn't forget to quote it, I didn't quote it because your opinion is
completely irrelevant. My comment on you however is still valid as you
continue to prove as you dig even deeper. ;-(

The total lack of scientific comprehension is actually truly frightening.

And your total lack of honesty and integrity is totally expected but I
guess desperate times ... ;-(


Hint. when in a hole....

Oh the irony, and you another example of your inability to cope.

Therefore, because it is obvious you have lost the plot, I'm going to
do you (especially) and everyone else here a favour and ignore any
further replies from you on this (or any other thread where you are
stalking me or just trying to spread more of your vile cr*p).

I *really* hope things turn out better for you in 2017.

Cheers, T i m

On 26/12/16 21:00, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 18:50:42 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/12/16 12:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:54:50 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/12/16 02:08, T i m wrote:
*if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system

Oh dear. How can energy 'escape' from a 'closed' system?

Tell you what, I'll put back what you desperately cut out to try to
make your pathetic left brainer case:

Tim Streater said:"
It can't get any hotter than 100C at sea-level pressures until all the
water has boiled away. The extra energy being put in is what is needed
to boil the water off - quite a lot of energy is needed for that
purpose.

I said:
Quite, so, *if* an element was kettling and *if* that energy wasn't
being recovered before escaping the closed system, then increasing the
surface area of the element might improve the situation."



And I sad 'how can energy escape from a *closed* system

You really, really are either suicidal in your efforts to defend your
bogus position or so very hard of thinking.

I explained to you that it isn't a closed system when it is no longer
a closed system (duh) and it was under the circumstances of being an
open system that we were then discussing. I know you can't keep up
because you aren't wired for it (so I don't hold it against you).


The bit you forgot to quote....

I didn't forget to quote it, I didn't quote it because your opinion is
completely irrelevant. My comment on you however is still valid as you
continue to prove as you dig even deeper. ;-(


Its not an opinion. You say energy escapes from a closed system. That is
impossible. If energy escapes its not a closed system.




The total lack of scientific comprehension is actually truly frightening.

And your total lack of honesty and integrity is totally expected but I
guess desperate times ... ;-(


Hint. when in a hole....

Oh the irony, and you another example of your inability to cope.

Oh the irony, and you another example of your inability to cope.

Therefore, because it is obvious you have lost the plot, I'm going to
do you (especially) and everyone else here a favour and ignore any
further replies from you on this (or any other thread where you are
stalking me or just trying to spread more of your vile cr*p).

I *really* hope things turn out better for you in 2017.

Cheers, T i m


Is that your way of admitting you lost the argument and really are a
thick ****?

In message , T i m
writes
Skimming through Guns, Germs and Steel recently,

Is that like Elephants and Trains magazine Tim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klS92A8YzfY

I came across some
examples where a new invention was not adopted immediately by the home
country. One was why did Japan benefit from the American invention of
the transistor with the finger pointed at US vested interests from
vacuum valve manufacturers. Our railways and the reluctance to change
from steam might be another vested interest example.

No. I had forgotten the name of the author (Jared Diamond according to
Wiki) basically about the fate of human societies but some interesting
stuff.

--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 19:47:53 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
Skimming through Guns, Germs and Steel recently,

Is that like Elephants and Trains magazine Tim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klS92A8YzfY

I came across some
examples where a new invention was not adopted immediately by the home
country. One was why did Japan benefit from the American invention of
the transistor with the finger pointed at US vested interests from
vacuum valve manufacturers. Our railways and the reluctance to change
from steam might be another vested interest example.

No. I had forgotten the name of the author (Jared Diamond according to
Wiki) basically about the fate of human societies but some interesting
stuff.

Ah, 'Location, location location'. ;-)

Funny, I was talking to the Mrs recently about how 'lucky' one might
consider oneself being born in a country that is generally able to
support a reasonable amount of like and nearly all year round. This is
specifically in comparison with those who live near the poles (N/S,
not Poland g) or in what is mostly desert.

No trees, no easy way for yer average roaming inhabitant to cook food
for example.

Cheers, T i m