In article ,
Robin wrote:
You keep using "silent" without defining what you mean. So I suspect
you are through the looking glass and playing Humpty Dumpty. Meanwhile
the rest of us in the world where "completely silent" requires the
absence of any acoustic waves - whether or not you can hear them with
your particular ears at whatever distance you are listening. Good luck
achieving that with a fan. And even if you define "silent" by reference
to your ear at your distance, don't attach "completely" until you've
checked what happens if you run 1,000 of the fans in the room at the
same time.

I'd guess you're bashing your head against a brick wall, Robin. Silently,
of course.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 24/06/2020 22:56:30, wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 12:52:39 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/06/2020 05:05:13, Rod Speed wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/06/2020 20:41, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 14:24:11 UTC+1, RJHÂ* wrote:
On 22 Jun 2020 at 17:29:59 BST, "tabbypurr wrote:

If an engineer isn't able to design a silent fan they had better
stay out
of that business.

Moving any volume of air around inherently creates noise. An engineer
would know this, otherwise they best stay out of that business.

I take it you're not an engineer then. Or an ignorant one.

Hint: try turning a desktop fan round by finger & see how noisy it
is. No
wind noise.


Oh well yes, even I could do that. Doesn't make me (or you) an
engineer. Or
the room meaningfully warmer.

It makes the point that fans can be silent.

Perhaps very quite and mostly useless would be closer to the truth.

Nope, the fan in my heatbank is completely silent and nothing like useless.

Yes big slower fans are quieter than smaller faster ones for the same
air flow, but none are silent.

Mine is.

That's because you're deaf.

If you are shifting a volume of air, you will get noise from that even
without the fan...

Thats bull**** too with the volume of air from a radiator.

That is because it is not mechanically 'moved'. This thread was making
more efficient radiators from some addition help to move the air. Do
keep up.

Ever heard the wind blow?

Thats the trees and houses and you cant hear the air in a
light breeze without any trees or bushed or buildings.

Moving air is going to impinge on something solid; eventually.

Obviously there are plenty of daily scenarios in which air moves but people don't hear it.

Because of deafness.

The ear is not sensitive to the limit of possible hearing, unlike the
eye. Moving air makes noise when it encounters an obstacle.

While you may be an expert in making noise in this group, care to tell
us the relationship between air speed and noise? You make it sound a
trivial engineering problem.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 24/06/2020 05:05:13, Rod Speed wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/06/2020 20:41, wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 14:24:11 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 22 Jun 2020 at 17:29:59 BST, "tabbypurr wrote:

If an engineer isn't able to design a silent fan they had better
stay out
of that business.

Moving any volume of air around inherently creates noise. An
engineer
would know this, otherwise they best stay out of that business.

I take it you're not an engineer then. Or an ignorant one.

Hint: try turning a desktop fan round by finger & see how noisy it
is. No
wind noise.


Oh well yes, even I could do that. Doesn't make me (or you) an
engineer. Or
the room meaningfully warmer.

It makes the point that fans can be silent.

Perhaps very quite and mostly useless would be closer to the truth.

Nope, the fan in my heatbank is completely silent and nothing like
useless.

Yes big slower fans are quieter than smaller faster ones for the same
air flow, but none are silent.

Mine is.

That's because you're deaf.

Nope, dont have any problem hearing faint noises.

If you are shifting a volume of air, you will get noise from that even
without the fan...

Thats bull**** too with the volume of air from a radiator.

That is because it is not mechanically 'moved'.

He said without the fan, ****wit.

Ever heard the wind blow?

Thats the trees and houses and you cant hear the air in a
light breeze without any trees or bushed or buildings.

Moving air is going to impinge on something solid; eventually.

But not necessarily making any noise when it does that, ****wit.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
Moving air is going to impinge on something solid; eventually.

Obviously there are plenty of daily scenarios in which air moves but
people don't hear it.

Would that depend on your hearing?

Nope, not with the weaker air movements, most
obviously with drafts. No one can hear those.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:49:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:28:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 23:35:34 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 24/06/2020 22:45, tabbypurr wrote:

You keep using "silent" without defining what you mean.

So you've not even read the thread yet want to chip in with another idiotic troll. Mmkay.

So I suspect
you are through the looking glass and playing Humpty Dumpty. Meanwhile
the rest of us in the world where "completely silent" requires the
absence of any acoustic waves - whether or not you can hear them with
your particular ears at whatever distance you are listening. Good luck
achieving that with a fan. And even if you define "silent" by reference
to your ear at your distance, don't attach "completely" until you've
checked what happens if you run 1,000 of the fans in the room at the
same time.

more idiot troll.

On Thursday, 25 June 2020 10:46:46 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

With 'respect' if you think broadcast companies etc go for cheap noisy
ventilation fans in a proper studio installation, you are even more
stupid than you first appear.

In my experience of only 2, and observations of a few others, broadcast
companies typically know very little about science or physics, and when
other companies offer them products lavishly praised they pick from
those. They make routinely not the best choices. Fan companies, like any
other copmany, of course are not normally building for top quality, when
they say they are they normally build for relatively good quality with
various cost cutting measures. Add on a nice markup, praise it to the
skies and there you have a commercial product. The same pattern occurs
in business sector after business sector.

There you have it then. A great business opportunity for you. Make silent
ventilation systems for studios. And indeed everywhere - as I doubt many
like the noise of air moving, or the bits needed to do this.

lol.


BTW, if you think broadcast companies know little about science or
physics. you could do some simple research on just how many such things
were invented and developed by the likes of the BBC and ITV. As well as
the parent companies of recording studios. But that would show just how
little you know about such things.

I've watched enough BBC to know how clueful they are. Behind the scenes sure they employ good people at times.


But I'd guess in your world, the laws of physics don't apply.
Hence you talking about 100% efficiency too.

I don't understand why some people are just stuck on stupid.

You don't understand yourself then? Only a fool talks about 100%
efficiency with anything.

I've invited you again and again to tell us what else the radiator
produces than heat. You failed. And no, it still doesn't get hot enough
to glow.

Are you really as thick as you appear? As a radiator heats, it expands.
Where do you thing the energy needed for that comes from? Etc etc.

this was already addressed of course

'Nothing is 100% efficient' is a good rule of thumb. Like any idiot you
confuse oversimplified rules of thumb with actual reality.

How long are you going to continue digging this hole for yourself?

how long are you going to play the idiot troll?

On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 22:16:52 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
tabbypurr 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.

But you don't mention what other form of energy you think comes from the radiator other than heat. Another silly troll.

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 01:25:52 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/06/2020 20:41, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 14:24:11 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 22 Jun 2020 at 17:29:59 BST, "tabbypurr wrote:

If an engineer isn't able to design a silent fan they had better stay out
of that business.

Moving any volume of air around inherently creates noise. An engineer
would know this, otherwise they best stay out of that business.

I take it you're not an engineer then. Or an ignorant one.

Hint: try turning a desktop fan round by finger & see how noisy it is. No
wind noise.


Oh well yes, even I could do that. Doesn't make me (or you) an engineer. Or
the room meaningfully warmer.

It makes the point that fans can be silent.

Perhaps very quite and mostly useless would be closer to the truth.

so you don't know what the truth is but are happy to make it up. I OTOH have made silent fans. You sir are a stupid troll.


Yes big slower fans are quieter than smaller faster ones for the same
air flow, but none are silent.

already BTDT. So have others.


If you are shifting a volume of air, you
will get noise from that even without the fan... Ever heard the wind blow?

Yup. I've also observed the many days on which there is no wind noise, yet air still moves. And I've observed that you're being a stupid troll.

NT

Sorry, I thought that was utterly & completely obvious.

Yeah Nige, you would.

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 11:36:55 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
I worked in broadcasting. All studios are air sealed against noise. So
if in use for more than a short time, require ventilation. And despite
this being an extremely expensive part of the structure, and done by
experts in that field, none is totally silent.

With respect it's not difficult to make silent fans. Obviously they
don't move a lot of air per size, so a given flow requires large blades
& if ducted, large ducts. That you've seen cheaper noisy ones tells us
precisely nothing.

With 'respect' if you think broadcast companies etc go for cheap noisy
ventilation fans in a proper studio installation, you are even more stupid
than you first appear.

I didn't say they did, troll

On Thursday, 25 June 2020 12:06:40 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/06/2020 22:56:30, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 12:52:39 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/06/2020 05:05:13, Rod Speed wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/06/2020 20:41, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 14:24:11 UTC+1, RJHÂ* wrote:
On 22 Jun 2020 at 17:29:59 BST, "tabbypurr wrote:

If an engineer isn't able to design a silent fan they had better
stay out
of that business.

Moving any volume of air around inherently creates noise. An engineer
would know this, otherwise they best stay out of that business.

I take it you're not an engineer then. Or an ignorant one.

Hint: try turning a desktop fan round by finger & see how noisy it
is. No
wind noise.


Oh well yes, even I could do that. Doesn't make me (or you) an
engineer. Or
the room meaningfully warmer.

It makes the point that fans can be silent.

Perhaps very quite and mostly useless would be closer to the truth.

Nope, the fan in my heatbank is completely silent and nothing like useless.

Yes big slower fans are quieter than smaller faster ones for the same
air flow, but none are silent.

Mine is.

That's because you're deaf.

If you are shifting a volume of air, you will get noise from that even
without the fan...

Thats bull**** too with the volume of air from a radiator.

That is because it is not mechanically 'moved'. This thread was making
more efficient radiators from some addition help to move the air. Do
keep up.

Ever heard the wind blow?

Thats the trees and houses and you cant hear the air in a
light breeze without any trees or bushed or buildings.

Moving air is going to impinge on something solid; eventually.

Obviously there are plenty of daily scenarios in which air moves but people don't hear it.

Because of deafness.

what a silly claim

The ear is not sensitive to the limit of possible hearing,

is there a meaning behind that?

unlike the
eye. Moving air makes noise when it encounters an obstacle.

ok, show us a sound recording of air rising from a typical domestic radiator. Should prove interesting.


While you may be an expert in making noise in this group, care to tell
us the relationship between air speed and noise? You make it sound a
trivial engineering problem.

Making a silent fan is simple. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on fans but I know enough to have designed & made them, and have made more than one completely silent fan. It really is not difficult.

Shame I don't have pictures, I did this many years before I got a digital cam, and of course it was not normal to take pictures of lots of things back then. If anyone decides to move out of idiot troll mode I don't mind explaining how it was done, but that hasn't happened here so far.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
BTW, if you think broadcast companies know little about science or
physics. you could do some simple research on just how many such things
were invented and developed by the likes of the BBC and ITV. As well as
the parent companies of recording studios. But that would show just how
Q
ñÑ
Ý‘ ½ïÑ
Ÿûúõ�óóA
¯¯Aÿ�AÿnQ

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 11:36:55 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
I worked in broadcasting. All studios are air sealed against
noise. So if in use for more than a short time, require
ventilation. And despite this being an extremely expensive part of
the structure, and done by experts in that field, none is totally
silent.

With respect it's not difficult to make silent fans. Obviously they
don't move a lot of air per size, so a given flow requires large
blades & if ducted, large ducts. That you've seen cheaper noisy ones
tells us precisely nothing.

With 'respect' if you think broadcast companies etc go for cheap noisy
ventilation fans in a proper studio installation, you are even more
stupid than you first appear.

I didn't say they did, troll

FFS. Having worked in lots and lots of studios across the land, none has
totally silent ventilation.

Except in your little world where if the noise doesn't deafen you, it is
silent enough. So 100% silent.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

Q
��
ݑ ���
�������A
��A��A�nQ

That's quite an impressive mojibake, I can't find anything that can
ungarble it

On 26/06/2020 15:33, wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 23:35:34 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 24/06/2020 22:45, tabbypurr wrote:

You keep using "silent" without defining what you mean.

So you've not even read the thread yet want to chip in with another idiotic troll. Mmkay.

So I suspect
you are through the looking glass and playing Humpty Dumpty. Meanwhile
the rest of us in the world where "completely silent" requires the
absence of any acoustic waves - whether or not you can hear them with
your particular ears at whatever distance you are listening. Good luck
achieving that with a fan. And even if you define "silent" by reference
to your ear at your distance, don't attach "completely" until you've
checked what happens if you run 1,000 of the fans in the room at the
same time.

more idiot troll.


insults are much more effective if supported by facts - eg you point to
where you did define "silent".



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Q
##
# ###
#######A
##A##A#nQ

That's quite an impressive mojibake, I can't find anything that can
ungarble it

I've no idea either. ;-)

--
*IF A TURTLE DOESN'T HAVE A SHELL, IS HE HOMELESS OR NAKED?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 22:16:52 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
tabbypurr 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.

But you don't mention what other form of energy you think comes from the
radiator other than heat. Another silly troll.

Try reading again. I meant yes I agree, not yes I've found a new form
of energy!


--

Roger Hayter

On 26/06/2020 21:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 22:16:52 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
tabbypurr 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.

But you don't mention what other form of energy you think comes from the
radiator other than heat. Another silly troll.

Try reading again. I meant yes I agree, not yes I've found a new form
of energy!



Not if you include "useful" or the like in your definition of
efficiency[1]. So for example if you want to heat a room using
electricity the efficiency is less than 100% because the energy
delivered is less than the energy used to generate that electricity: no
generator is 100% efficient, and then there are transmission losses.

And even if you count only the energy delivered to your house there will
be losses there. At the limit I wager there will be some losses from
the mains wiring's EMFs, and it takes less than a femtojoule to deny you
100%

[1] see eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guide...tv4/revision/3

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
Robin wrote:
Not if you include "useful" or the like in your definition of
efficiency[1]. So for example if you want to heat a room using
electricity the efficiency is less than 100% because the energy
delivered is less than the energy used to generate that electricity: no
generator is 100% efficient, and then there are transmission losses.

And even if you count only the energy delivered to your house there will
be losses there. At the limit I wager there will be some losses from
the mains wiring's EMFs, and it takes less than a femtojoule to deny you
100%

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't useful heat.
But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad expanding. Hence nothing
ever being 100% efficient in practice.

--
*I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 26 June 2020 16:28:04 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 11:36:55 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
I worked in broadcasting. All studios are air sealed against
noise. So if in use for more than a short time, require
ventilation. And despite this being an extremely expensive part of
the structure, and done by experts in that field, none is totally
silent.

With respect it's not difficult to make silent fans. Obviously they
don't move a lot of air per size, so a given flow requires large
blades & if ducted, large ducts. That you've seen cheaper noisy ones
tells us precisely nothing.

With 'respect' if you think broadcast companies etc go for cheap noisy
ventilation fans in a proper studio installation, you are even more
stupid than you first appear.

I didn't say they did, troll

FFS. Having worked in lots and lots of studios across the land, none has
totally silent ventilation.

yes, we agree on that

Except in your little world where if the noise doesn't deafen you, it is
silent enough. So 100% silent.

I've never claimed that. You're an idiot and/or troll if you can't read & comprehend what I have claimed.

On Saturday, 27 June 2020 14:03:50 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:

Not if you include "useful" or the like in your definition of
efficiency[1]. So for example if you want to heat a room using
electricity the efficiency is less than 100% because the energy
delivered is less than the energy used to generate that electricity: no
generator is 100% efficient, and then there are transmission losses.

And even if you count only the energy delivered to your house there will
be losses there. At the limit I wager there will be some losses from
the mains wiring's EMFs, and it takes less than a femtojoule to deny you
100%

we were discussing the efficiency of an electric radiator, not the efficiency of generators & distribution.

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't useful heat.
But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad expanding. Hence nothing
ever being 100% efficient in practice.

Plenty don't make noises. Try again.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
we were discussing the efficiency of an electric radiator, not the efficiency of generators & distribution.

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't useful heat.
But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad expanding. Hence nothing
ever being 100% efficient in practice.

Plenty don't make noises. Try again.

Keep on trolling Mr Purr. It just makes you look an even bigger fool.

Only advertising copywriters claim 100% efficiency for anything.

--
*'ome is where you 'ang your @ *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Saturday, 27 June 2020 16:04:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

we were discussing the efficiency of an electric radiator, not the efficiency of generators & distribution.

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't useful heat.

In article ,
wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2020 16:04:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

we were discussing the efficiency of an electric radiator, not the efficiency of generators & distribution.

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't useful heat.
But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad expanding. Hence nothing
ever being 100% efficient in practice.

Plenty don't make noises. Try again.

Keep on trolling Mr Purr. It just makes you look an even bigger fool.

Only advertising copywriters claim 100% efficiency for anything.

Every time you have an opportunity to claim where else the energy goes,
you either come up with nothing or something dumb. You waffle like a
fool, but are not able to answer the key question, which is what other
form of energy is produced. It just might be because with some rads
there isn't one. Have a think about that.

And you just ignore all the answers you've had.

But carry on making yourself the fool. And it is only a fool who refers to
100% efficiency with anything. Even under laboratory conditions.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sunday, 28 June 2020 11:47:32 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2020 16:04:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

we were discussing the efficiency of an electric radiator, not the efficiency of generators & distribution.

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't useful heat.
But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad expanding. Hence nothing
ever being 100% efficient in practice.

Plenty don't make noises. Try again.

Keep on trolling Mr Purr. It just makes you look an even bigger fool.

Only advertising copywriters claim 100% efficiency for anything.

Every time you have an opportunity to claim where else the energy goes,
you either come up with nothing or something dumb. You waffle like a
fool, but are not able to answer the key question, which is what other
form of energy is produced. It just might be because with some rads
there isn't one. Have a think about that.

And you just ignore all the answers you've had.

I haven't ignored any. Not even the glowing one

But carry on making yourself the fool. And it is only a fool who refers to
100% efficiency with anything. Even under laboratory conditions.

If you don't think electricity can be turned to heat at 100% efficiency you're truly clueless.

In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 28 June 2020 11:47:32 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2020 16:04:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

we were discussing the efficiency of an electric radiator, not
the efficiency of generators & distribution.

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't
useful heat. But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad
expanding. Hence nothing ever being 100% efficient in practice.

Plenty don't make noises. Try again.

Keep on trolling Mr Purr. It just makes you look an even bigger
fool.

Only advertising copywriters claim 100% efficiency for anything.

Every time you have an opportunity to claim where else the energy
goes, you either come up with nothing or something dumb. You waffle
like a fool, but are not able to answer the key question, which is
what other form of energy is produced. It just might be because with
some rads there isn't one. Have a think about that.

And you just ignore all the answers you've had.

I haven't ignored any. Not even the glowing one

But carry on making yourself the fool. And it is only a fool who
refers to 100% efficiency with anything. Even under laboratory
conditions.

If you don't think electricity can be turned to heat at 100% efficiency
you're truly clueless.

And you have your head in the clouds.

100% efficiency is like perpetual motion. In theory possible, but never in
practice.

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 29 June 2020 13:54:12 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 28 June 2020 11:47:32 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2020 16:04:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

we were discussing the efficiency of an electric radiator, not
the efficiency of generators & distribution.

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't
useful heat. But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad
expanding. Hence nothing ever being 100% efficient in practice.

Plenty don't make noises. Try again.

Keep on trolling Mr Purr. It just makes you look an even bigger
fool.

Only advertising copywriters claim 100% efficiency for anything.

Every time you have an opportunity to claim where else the energy
goes, you either come up with nothing or something dumb. You waffle
like a fool, but are not able to answer the key question, which is
what other form of energy is produced. It just might be because with
some rads there isn't one. Have a think about that.

And you just ignore all the answers you've had.

I haven't ignored any. Not even the glowing one

But carry on making yourself the fool. And it is only a fool who
refers to 100% efficiency with anything. Even under laboratory
conditions.

If you don't think electricity can be turned to heat at 100% efficiency
you're truly clueless.

And you have your head in the clouds.

100% efficiency is like perpetual motion. In theory possible, but never in
practice.

thank you for confirming your cluelessness. Turning electricity to heat 100% efficiently is done EVERY SINGLE DAY.


NT

wrote:
Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't useful heat.
But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad expanding. Hence nothing
ever being 100% efficient in practice.

Every time you have an opportunity to claim where else the energy
goes, you either come up with nothing or something dumb.

A creak or tick, which in my experience is quite common in heaters and
radiators, is acoustic energy, and, being a creak or a tick, is
insufficiently disordered to be described as heat. An expanding or
contracting heating element or radiator may not be entirely free to
expand or contract, leading to the storage of energy as elastic or
stress potential energy. The bulk motion of the air as it rises from
the heater, and any resulting convection patterns produced, are
likewise also not heat. They are, of course, almost certainly not
significant contributions compared to the heat energy produced.

If you want to get more esoteric, the heating may induce changes in
material properties - perhaps chemical, or perhaps by alterations in
the material's microstructure, which would also not be heat.


#Paul

wrote:
If you don't think electricity can be turned to heat at


almost


100% efficiency you're truly clueless.



Can we stop all this now?

#Paul

#Paul wrote:

A creak or tick, which in my experience is quite common in heaters and
radiators, is acoustic energy, and, being a creak or a tick, is
insufficiently disordered to be described as heat.

By the time it's bounced off a wall or two, or down an ear canal, it
will be ...

On Monday, 29 June 2020 15:32:06 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

Quite - if a rad creaks or ticks as it heats up that isn't useful heat.
But that noise comes from somewhere - the rad expanding. Hence nothing
ever being 100% efficient in practice.

Every time you have an opportunity to claim where else the energy
goes, you either come up with nothing or something dumb.

A creak or tick, which in my experience is quite common in heaters and
radiators, is acoustic energy, and, being a creak or a tick, is
insufficiently disordered to be described as heat.

It's common, yes. It's also common for heaters to not make noises.

An expanding or
contracting heating element or radiator may not be entirely free to
expand or contract, leading to the storage of energy as elastic or
stress potential energy.

As the heater cools any stresses are relieved. Everything comes out as heat. There is always a time delay between electricity input and heat output, one would have to have a zero mass heater for time delay to not ocur.

The bulk motion of the air as it rises from
the heater, and any resulting convection patterns produced, are
likewise also not heat. They are, of course, almost certainly not
significant contributions compared to the heat energy produced.

However the air movement is pushed by the heat released, not by the heater itself. The heater only outputs heat, the air does its movement thing in response but it's still 100% heat from the heater.

If you bolted a peltier junction to the heater & took electricity from it the heater would still be 100% efficient. The peltier would then be turning heat to electricity after the fact.


If you want to get more esoteric, the heating may induce changes in
material properties - perhaps chemical, or perhaps by alterations in
the material's microstructure, which would also not be heat.


#Paul

It doesn't. If it did you'd have a problem with the heater design. I can't rule out the existence of such heaters, but normally that does not occur.

Resistors in electronic circuits are another example. Very close to 100% of them turn electriicty to heat at 100% efficiency. There is a vast number of them doing that at every moment in the world.


NT

wrote:
The heater only outputs heat

Well, if you want to reduce yourself to arguing a meanless tautology,
you can. But since the subject of this thread is "older/newer GCH
radiator efficiency", and not about some notional idealized heat
producing device along in the style of a spherical cow, then some
practical considerations may be relevant. However, I expect that
modern radiator is only likely to be significantly better in terms of
appearance, maintainability, or other other properties rather than
heat production. Of course, if one of those other properties is e.g.
better internal flow, less silting, heating up faster, or whatever, it
might thus be better at meeting the needs (or hopes) of the user, even
if the steady-state "ideal heat efficiency" is the same as an older
radiator.

#Paul

On Wednesday, 1 July 2020 19:32:05 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

The heater only outputs heat

Well, if you want to reduce yourself to arguing a meanless tautology,
you can.

no, I'm just bringing it back to facts. Snipping something misleadingly won't change that.


But since the subject of this thread is "older/newer GCH
radiator efficiency", and not about some notional idealized heat
producing device along in the style of a spherical cow, then some
practical considerations may be relevant.

What I'm saying applies for all practical purposes to any passive CH rad, as well as perfectly so to some.


However, I expect that
modern radiator is only likely to be significantly better in terms of
appearance, maintainability, or other other properties rather than
heat production.

stating the obvious

Of course, if one of those other properties is e.g.
better internal flow, less silting, heating up faster, or whatever, it
might thus be better at meeting the needs (or hopes) of the user, even
if the steady-state "ideal heat efficiency" is the same as an older
radiator.

#Paul

it could be, though those 3 factors are unlikely to be better to a significant extent.

A newer rad could also be worse. DAMHIKT.


NT

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.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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.


--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 2 July 2020 10:47:55 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr 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.

I wasn't wrong, and haven't said I was. If you hadn't snipped that sentence it would be clear what I meant, at least for folks that can comprehend stuff.

What I'm saying applies for all practical purposes to any passive CH rad, as well as perfectly so to some.

D--- there's some stupid in this thread.


NT

On Thursday, 2 July 2020 18:11:08 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr 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.

They don't like this factual reality stuff.

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.

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

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thursday, 2 July 2020 20:39:55 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 02/07/2020 18:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr 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.

I don't think CH rads produce EMFs. Electronic circuits tend to, but that can also be prevented.


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

There are lots of uses for heat


NT