this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
246 points (97.3% liked)

Showerthoughts

29632 readers
689 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If a machine is never 100% efficient transforming energy into work because part of the energy is converted into heat, does it mean an electric heater is 100% efficient? @showerthoughts@lemmy.world

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 176 points 8 months ago (5 children)

You know how you turn on an electric heater and the filament begins to glow? That is energy being converted to light, so not 100% efficient.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 49 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Doesn’t the light turn into heat anyway as soon as it’s absorbed?

[–] fubbernuckin@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I mean if you want to go that route, we could just say that every speaker, light source, motor, etc is 100% efficient at generating heat because all of its energy output will eventually become heat.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 42 points 8 months ago (5 children)

That is also completely true, but meaningless because heat generation is not the purpose of these devices. However, if you use them in a building heated by a thermostat-controlled electric heater, you’re effectivhly running them for free.

[–] Xatix@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

I‘m was using two old servers with folding@home running as space heaters in the winter. I got them for dirt cheap and thought if I convert electricity into heat, I might as well do something good with it. Also nice opportunity to run a minecraft server for the kids during that time.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The visible part of the spectrum is likely going to be absorbed somewhere far away from the place you're trying to heat up. Also, I'm not educated enough to tell if there will be further losses of energy

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If it’s in a room the visible radiation will still just heat up the room. If you’re using it outdoors and point it away then yeah you’ll have some waste.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 4 points 8 months ago

Not sure if visible radiation that leaves through a transparent window will still heat up only inside the room, that what I meant. Probably should have phrased it better

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

and that light hits stuff and gets converted to heat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] userflairoptional@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Black-body radiation is an interesting argument against 100% efficiency, but couldn't you just extrapolate and argue that the emission will be converted back to heat once it stops reflecting and becomes absorbed?

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's like arguing that trickle down economics is efficient because the money eventually gets into the hands of the poor.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 99 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not quite. Some is lost in magnetic flux and mechanical deformation. But that is a VERY small about.

[–] IIII@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Do those not end up as heat later down the line as well?

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but magnetic flux causes radio waves and there isn't a guarantee these will turn into heat in the space you are heating.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 72 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but, it is also possible to achieve greater than 100% efficiency in using electrical energy for heat. You can use electricity to move heat from where you don't need it to where you want it. The amount of heat energy you move can be greater than the amount of electrical energy put into the system, so it's greater than 100% electrically efficient. It's well below 100% thermal efficiency, of course.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 61 points 8 months ago (4 children)
[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Same link with site tracking removed: https://youtu.be/7J52mDjZzto

I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 7 points 8 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/7J52mDjZzto

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

KNEW it was gonna be the technology connections video.

was literally just talking about, and recommended this video, IRL like 10 minutes ago.

[–] loudWaterEnjoyer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

THIS IS THE COMMENT THREAD YOU WANT TO LOOK INTO.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 3 points 8 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/7J52mDjZzto?si=i57lMtNvpoLUxKGK

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 54 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Technically, yes. Even the internal resistances outside of the heating elements eventually radiate into the space. Since the purpose is space heating, it's not a waste product and they can be roughly considered 100% efficient.

The reason heat pumps are more efficient (i.e. around 300% or more) is not that they create more heat from the same amount of energy but because they concentrate and move existing heat from one source to another.

[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is correct, but it's also, it's only 100% of the heat at that point in the circuit.

Technically, using natural gas to make electricity, then sending that electricity to an electric heater would be less efficient than burning that natural gas for heat at the source.

So it depends on where you start counting from.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 14 points 8 months ago

True, and also the transmission losses between the power plant and your outlets are also factors. I just treated the question like a high school physics one where you're allowed to disregard air resistance. lol

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kazumara@feddit.de 40 points 8 months ago

Yes, but a heat pump for heating is somwhere from 200% to 500% efficient.

[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, except a heat pump is capable of being more than 100% efficient because the using the power to move heat around is more efficient than converting power directly to heat

[–] floridaman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

but but muh thermodynamics

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

I get you are joking, but incase someone doesn't see the /s. As the top comment said it's easier to move heat around than creating it. Regardless if it's warmer or colder outside there's still energy there that we can use.

It's easier to move your clothes from the laundry basket to the wardrobe, than to go out and buy new clothes (or is it?).

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Essentially all electrical devices are, in addition to whatever else they do, also basically 100% efficient space heaters. A PC running on 300 watts is doing things with that 300 watts but it all ends up as heat, the vast majority of which stays in the room. A light bulb puts out light, but little of that light leaves the house, it's all getting reflected and absorbed until it's mostly a heater in your house.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Consuming energy to do something the device isn't intended to do is the definition of inefficiency. You've basically redefined efficiency so as to make it meaningless.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 11 points 8 months ago

What are you confused about?
That's why they phrased it "also basically 100% efficient space heaters."

Every electric device is a something% effective whatever work they are meant for device, but ALSO a 100% effective space heater.
That second part is meaningless to the devices normal function, but very relevant to the post question.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 7 points 8 months ago

They didn't redefine efficiency. They changed the purpose scoping.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Heaters sometimes produce a little light or sound, so not 100%, but very close.

[–] addie@feddit.uk 26 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The sound will eventually dissipate in the air as heat. The light will be absorbed into surfaces, like any other radiation, as heat. Still 100%, but with a couple extra stops along the way.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] spaduf@slrpnk.net 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There's an interesting aspect of this that I have not seen mentioned yet. While this is true you are usually better off using your residential heater rather than an electric space heater because residential heaters are frequently over 100% efficient. That is, they deliver more heat for the energy expenditure than if you had converted the energy directly by redirecting ambient heat. Heat pumps are this same principle taken to the extreme.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But there's a flip side to that as well - if you've got heat pump heating your whole home but you only really need to heat 1 room, you may be "wasting" a good chunk of that bonus efficiency.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

But you can heat an area with 'better than 100% efficiency' if you use a heat pump and move heat from one place to another. Coefficients of performance (cop) of about 2.5 I think are pretty common, meaning if you put 100 watts into moving heat, the area will get 250 watts warmer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 9 points 8 months ago

Only in the sense of releasing heat into the surrounding environment. But for instance, an electric boiler is not 100% efficient because not all of the heat goes to the water. The heat that doesn't go to the intended recipient of the heat is treated as loss.

[–] isyasad@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

tl;dr, yes If you want to watch a 20 minute video about it instead of 1 word answers, https://youtu.be/V-jmSjy2ArM

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes it does. There's no such thing as an inefficient electric heater. I'm the US they sell 2 kinds. 750w and 1500w. The differences between them are all a matter of form factor. Maybe a nice fan to circulate might be what you like though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tramort@programming.dev 6 points 8 months ago

Yes. The end form of all energy is heat.

The problem is that heat is a high-entropy source of energy. As a result, the losses come when you try to convert all that delicious heat back into electricity (like with a steam turbine). The "efficiencies" only go one way (and I put efficiencies in quotes because, as you pointed out, getting energy into the form of heat is inevitable, whether that's the form you wanted or not)

[–] WIPocket@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I so want this to be true, but dont they produce radio waves?

load more comments
view more: next ›