250

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 179 points 11 months ago

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 11 months ago

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

[-] fubbernuckin@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago

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 11 months ago

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 11 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.

[-] Xatix@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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.

[-] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 11 months ago

You double-posted this comment, FYI

[-] Techranger@infosec.pub 8 points 11 months ago

One for each server.

[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

It's still efficient because both those comments will end up as heat anyway.

[-] PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed so in the grand scheme of things, everything is 100% energy efficient one way or another.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 8 points 11 months ago

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 11 months ago

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 11 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

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

that's only true if you shine it out a very large the window

normally windows cover a quite small fraction of a rooms surface area

but sure, if a few fractions of a percent leave through a window, i guess its technically not a 100% effective space heater, if we define the work as heating only the relevant room.

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

and that light hits stuff and gets converted to heat.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hugin@lemmy.world 99 points 11 months ago

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

[-] IIII@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

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)
[-] ptz@dubvee.org 59 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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 18 points 11 months ago

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 11 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 11 months ago

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

[-] pearable@lemmy.ml 37 points 11 months ago

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 7 points 11 months ago

but but muh thermodynamics

[-] HereIAm@lemmy.world 7 points 11 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?).

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 19 points 11 months ago

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

[-] addie@feddit.uk 27 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] kakes@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago

All energy output will eventually become heat. Why bother measuring efficiency at all if we're counting those aftereffects?

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Only heaters are a machine where the "good" output is one you want to be heat.

For other devices the heat is the bad part.

But since your goal with a heater... is to generate heat... and all energy eventually will become heat, it is close to 100% efficient.

If you can hear the heater's sound it makes in a room/area you don't want to be heating though, now it's <100% efficient as a tiny bit of energy became heat that heated the non ideal location.

[-] kakes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

Fun fact: this phenomenon is what causes the infamous "hot ear" effect that many people suffer from every day.

[-] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah I mean you’d have to consider the practical factors such as how quickly or evenly they can heat up a room rather than worry so much about the raw efficiency.

[-] spaduf@slrpnk.net 14 points 11 months ago

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 11 months ago

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 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] cosmic_skillet@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago

Total amount of heat for the entire closed system does not increase over 100% of energy used to drive the heat pump. Like you said, you just moved heat around

[-] isyasad@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

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

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 11 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/V-jmSjy2ArM

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

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

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 9 points 11 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.

[-] Tramort@programming.dev 7 points 11 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 11 months ago

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

[-] OhmsLawn@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I believe, in terms of work, that would be 0% efficient. You're basically going all-in on entropy.

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 6 points 11 months ago

You’re basically going all-in on entropy.

We all do that eventually.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
250 points (100.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

30174 readers
287 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. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS