On 03/07/2020 03:24:22, wrote:

snip

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

Last I heard infrared was a electromagnetic frequency. Perhaps you're
getting confused with a related force?

In article ,
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.

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

--
*HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?

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

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
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.

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

Yes. I'm saying there is no fundamental reason why it can't be. Any
other forms of energy produced are probably going to decay to heat
rapidly or heat other objects in the room, for instance.

--

Roger Hayter

On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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.

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


NT

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
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.

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

Yes. I'm saying there is no fundamental reason why it can't be. Any
other forms of energy produced are probably going to decay to heat
rapidly or heat other objects in the room, for instance.

OK then. As a rad heats, it expands. Please explain where the energy
needed for that comes from, and just how it is ultimately translated into
useful heat. Or have we invented perpetual motion? Where you get 'work'
done for no energy?

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

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

In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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.

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

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

On 04/07/2020 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

--
Max Demian

Max Demian wrote:

On 04/07/2020 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when
it cools down.

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 04/07/2020 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

Ah - right. And when it contracts dumps all the energy needed back into
the system.

--
*What boots up must come down *

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

On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
On 04/07/2020 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when
it cools down.

Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion then releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it just temporarily stores some energy.

He'll never get it though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity to heat is imposible.


NT

wrote:

On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
On 04/07/2020 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when
it cools down.

Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion then
releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it just
temporarily stores some energy.

He'll never get it though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity
to heat is imposible.


NT

Of course in the spring case some of the energy is lost as heat, but in
the heater case none need be lost as mechanical work.



--

Roger Hayter

On 05/07/2020 09:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
On 04/07/2020 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when
it cools down.

Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion then
releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it just
temporarily stores some energy.

He'll never get it though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity
to heat is imposible.


NT

Of course in the spring case some of the energy is lost as heat, but in
the heater case none need be lost as mechanical work.



heat is mechanical work done on molecules


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

In article ,
wrote:
And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when
it cools down.

Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion then
releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it just
temporarily stores some energy.

So you can press a spring in your little world with no energy involved?

And if it released an equal amount of energy on release, you'd have the
perfect energy storage solution.

Do you ever think before posting?

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

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

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
On 04/07/2020 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when
it cools down.

Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion then
releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it just
temporarily stores some energy.

He'll never get it though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity
to heat is imposible.


NT

Of course in the spring case some of the energy is lost as heat, but in
the heater case none need be lost as mechanical work.

I'll say again. Nothing in this world is 100% efficient. Of course you can
approach it with some things. But never achieve it.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote: On 04/07/2020 11:55,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article
,
tabbypurr wrote: On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave
Plowman (News) wrote: So you stand by his
claim that an electric convector heater is 100% efficient?
Just curious. I said some are, not all are. Oil
filled ones that overheat, glow red hot & catch fire may
have more heat output than input And
those that simply expand? As all will? It only expands
once. After that it is 100% efficient. And, of course, the
heat stored during expansion will be released when it cools down.
Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion
then releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it
just temporarily stores some energy. He'll never get it
though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity to heat is
imposible.
NT

Of course in the spring case some of the energy is lost as heat, but in
the heater case none need be lost as mechanical work.

I'll say again. Nothing in this world is 100% efficient. Of course you can
approach it with some things. But never achieve it.

Why do you think that nothing is 100% efficient? The only reason for
believing this that I know of is a a thermodynamic one, and this does
not apply ot heat production as an endpoint. Though it certainly would
apply to heat *transfer*, but we are not talking about this.

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Why do you think that nothing is 100% efficient? The only reason for
believing this that I know of is a a thermodynamic one, and this does
not apply ot heat production as an endpoint. Though it certainly would
apply to heat *transfer*, but we are not talking about this.

Of course we are. Transferring heat from an element or water or oil or
whatever.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

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

On Sunday, 5 July 2020 12:07:15 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when
it cools down.

Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion then
releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it just
temporarily stores some energy.

So you can press a spring in your little world with no energy involved?

FWIW springs return the energy when released. But a hot radiator is not a compressed spring.


And if it released an equal amount of energy on release, you'd have the
perfect energy storage solution.

perfect? you dream

Do you ever think before posting?


NT

On Sunday, 5 July 2020 12:07:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
On 04/07/2020 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100%
efficient? Just curious.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red
hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input


And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when
it cools down.

Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion then
releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it just
temporarily stores some energy.

He'll never get it though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity
to heat is imposible.


NT

Of course in the spring case some of the energy is lost as heat, but in
the heater case none need be lost as mechanical work.

I'll say again. Nothing in this world is 100% efficient. Of course you can
approach it with some things. But never achieve it.

You're a dummy.

On Sunday, 5 July 2020 12:58:08 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'll say again. Nothing in this world is 100% efficient. Of course you can
approach it with some things. But never achieve it.

Why do you think that nothing is 100% efficient? The only reason for
believing this that I know of is a a thermodynamic one, and this does
not apply ot heat production as an endpoint. Though it certainly would
apply to heat *transfer*, but we are not talking about this.

His thinking difficulty is not afaik thermodynamic in nature.

In article ,
wrote:
FWIW springs return the energy when released. But a hot radiator is not a compressed spring.


And if it released an equal amount of energy on release, you'd have the
perfect energy storage solution.

perfect? you dream

Anything with 100% efficiency is your dream.

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

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

On 05/07/2020 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote: On 04/07/2020 11:55,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article
,
tabbypurr wrote: On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave
Plowman (News) wrote: So you stand by his
claim that an electric convector heater is 100% efficient?
Just curious. I said some are, not all are. Oil
filled ones that overheat, glow red hot & catch fire may
have more heat output than input And
those that simply expand? As all will? It only expands
once. After that it is 100% efficient. And, of course, the
heat stored during expansion will be released when it cools down.
Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion
then releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it
just temporarily stores some energy. He'll never get it
though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity to heat is
imposible.
NT

Of course in the spring case some of the energy is lost as heat, but in
the heater case none need be lost as mechanical work.

I'll say again. Nothing in this world is 100% efficient. Of course you can
approach it with some things. But never achieve it.

Why do you think that nothing is 100% efficient? The only reason for
believing this that I know of is a a thermodynamic one, and this does
not apply ot heat production as an endpoint. Though it certainly would
apply to heat *transfer*, but we are not talking about this.


Thermodynamics does not forbid 100% efficiency in the conversion /to/
heat. That does not mean it is easy to achieve /in practice/.

Rather a lot of texts (used to) state that 100% efficiency is /easy/ to
achieve. A common example they gave is a person pushing a box across a
flat floor at a constant speed. All the work is (they say) converted
into heat in the box/floor system. One of my undergraduate tutorial
tasks was to discuss that and some similar statements. My recollection
is points included:

where's the pressure suit to limit heat to that system alone (and even
then no vacuum is perfect)?

where are the insulated mittens if it's not the box/floor/person system?

what are the materials of the box and floor to guarantee there are no
endothermic reactions?

ditto as regards energy stored in defects in crystalline structures?

A better example IMO are the evolutions of Joule's paddle wheel
experiment - though even there I would question 100% conversion.



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

On Sunday, 5 July 2020 18:52:17 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 05/07/2020 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
tabbypurr@ wrote:
On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote: On 04/07/2020 11:55,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article
,
tabbypurr wrote: On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave
Plowman (News) wrote: So you stand by his
claim that an electric convector heater is 100% efficient?
Just curious. I said some are, not all are. Oil
filled ones that overheat, glow red hot & catch fire may
have more heat output than input And
those that simply expand? As all will? It only expands
once. After that it is 100% efficient. And, of course, the
heat stored during expansion will be released when it cools down.
Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion
then releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it
just temporarily stores some energy. He'll never get it
though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity to heat is
imposible.
NT

Of course in the spring case some of the energy is lost as heat, but in
the heater case none need be lost as mechanical work.

I'll say again. Nothing in this world is 100% efficient. Of course you can
approach it with some things. But never achieve it.

Why do you think that nothing is 100% efficient? The only reason for
believing this that I know of is a a thermodynamic one, and this does
not apply ot heat production as an endpoint. Though it certainly would
apply to heat *transfer*, but we are not talking about this.


Thermodynamics does not forbid 100% efficiency in the conversion /to/
heat. That does not mean it is easy to achieve /in practice/.

Rather a lot of texts (used to) state that 100% efficiency is /easy/ to
achieve. A common example they gave is a person pushing a box across a
flat floor at a constant speed. All the work is (they say) converted
into heat in the box/floor system. One of my undergraduate tutorial
tasks was to discuss that and some similar statements. My recollection
is points included:

where's the pressure suit to limit heat to that system alone (and even
then no vacuum is perfect)?

where are the insulated mittens if it's not the box/floor/person system?

what are the materials of the box and floor to guarantee there are no
endothermic reactions?

ditto as regards energy stored in defects in crystalline structures?

A better example IMO are the evolutions of Joule's paddle wheel
experiment - though even there I would question 100% conversion.

resistors do a fine job of it, if not overloaded. Wouldn't surprise me if there were a trillion of them out there.


NT

On 05/07/2020 20:03, wrote:
On Sunday, 5 July 2020 18:52:17 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 05/07/2020 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
tabbypurr@ wrote:
On Saturday, 4 July 2020 13:32:04 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote: On 04/07/2020 11:55,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article
,
tabbypurr wrote: On Friday, 3 July 2020 11:19:23 UTC+1, Dave
Plowman (News) wrote: So you stand by his
claim that an electric convector heater is 100% efficient?
Just curious. I said some are, not all are. Oil
filled ones that overheat, glow red hot & catch fire may
have more heat output than input And
those that simply expand? As all will? It only expands
once. After that it is 100% efficient. And, of course, the
heat stored during expansion will be released when it cools down.
Obvious to everyone but Dave. Pressing a spring by expansion
then releasing it by unexpanding doesn't really do any work, it
just temporarily stores some energy. He'll never get it
though. He still thinks a resistor turning electricity to heat is
imposible.
NT

Of course in the spring case some of the energy is lost as heat, but in
the heater case none need be lost as mechanical work.

I'll say again. Nothing in this world is 100% efficient. Of course you can
approach it with some things. But never achieve it.

Why do you think that nothing is 100% efficient? The only reason for
believing this that I know of is a a thermodynamic one, and this does
not apply ot heat production as an endpoint. Though it certainly would
apply to heat *transfer*, but we are not talking about this.


Thermodynamics does not forbid 100% efficiency in the conversion /to/
heat. That does not mean it is easy to achieve /in practice/.

Rather a lot of texts (used to) state that 100% efficiency is /easy/ to
achieve. A common example they gave is a person pushing a box across a
flat floor at a constant speed. All the work is (they say) converted
into heat in the box/floor system. One of my undergraduate tutorial
tasks was to discuss that and some similar statements. My recollection
is points included:

where's the pressure suit to limit heat to that system alone (and even
then no vacuum is perfect)?

where are the insulated mittens if it's not the box/floor/person system?

what are the materials of the box and floor to guarantee there are no
endothermic reactions?

ditto as regards energy stored in defects in crystalline structures?

A better example IMO are the evolutions of Joule's paddle wheel
experiment - though even there I would question 100% conversion.

resistors do a fine job of it, if not overloaded. Wouldn't surprise me if there were a trillion of them out there.


My physics is well past its 40th anniversary of disuse so please remind
me how you have an electric current passing through as resistor with
/zero/ radiation and particle emission (taking account also of quantum
tunnelling). Please bear in mind that (1 - 10^-99) ain't 100%.

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

On Sunday, 5 July 2020 21:19:52 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 05/07/2020 20:03, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 5 July 2020 18:52:17 UTC+1, Robin wrote:

A better example IMO are the evolutions of Joule's paddle wheel
experiment - though even there I would question 100% conversion.

resistors do a fine job of it, if not overloaded. Wouldn't surprise me if there were a trillion of them out there.


My physics is well past its 40th anniversary of disuse so please remind
me how you have an electric current passing through as resistor with
/zero/ radiation and particle emission (taking account also of quantum
tunnelling). Please bear in mind that (1 - 10^-99) ain't 100%.

Radiated heat is still heat. I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

What sort of particle emission do you expect from a 0.2W resistor running cool at 5v drop?


NT