I understand this and your other posts. My mistake is in the clarity of expressing that there are two comparisons being made, one of overall system thermodynamic efficiency versus the electrical efficiency of an "Edison" lightbulb. The efficiency numbers cited were incomparable, and I tried to demonstrate that, but then I'm accused of being a jackass because people believe that the citations are comparable, whereas they're not. Electrical efficiency is not a member of the set of thermodynamic efficiency, and therefore the two can't be compared, despite complaints to the contrary.
I care about it, within the context that this is a thread about efficiency in electrical circuits, specifically what lightbulbs do. That others incorrectly read the thread, pull in incomparable numbers, then try to compare them, is my correction.
The transducer portion of your equation is the conversion step from electricity applied to heat output.
We're talking about lightbulbs here. They throw off light, but also heat in the conversion step. That's the "work" they do in the circuit. My arguments have been based solely on that efficiency-- electrical efficiency, and no other additive or other domain measurements.
Yes, that's a good measurement of heat pump efficiency, as it takes into consideration the domain of observation.
But as we're on lightbulb efficiency, heat pump efficiency isn't easily extrapolated from the observation of a multivariant measurement like CoP. Dubious claims of 100% efficiency, and then wow!!! 400-500% efficiency was my original argument. 100% isn't possible.
You cut your electricity bill. That's why you're paying less money: less electricity.
You can't invent heat. It came from somewhere. The system has to be less than 100% efficient *unless you added some from somewhere else*. Claims of higher than 100% are science fiction. You did something else, like had sunshine, body heat, or some other source. You only get 100% max. That's all there is.
We must disagree. You're using marketing speak that has nebulous connotations to distract what actually happens into meaninglessness.
Should you add an external variable into the equation, you're dealing with a different equation, and you're not describing heat pump efficiency, you're becoming a Trane dealer.
It draws X amount of current at Y amount of voltage. There are different ways to look at the product of these two, but this is called wattage.
The transducer, which is the heating element, draws power, then converts that to heat. That's one circuit. Let's focus on that circuit, because that's where we derive the efficiency value from.
The power in watts in to the transducer in a heat pump will be less than the heat value radiated. It's always less than 100%. Good ones approach 96%. Poor ones are at around 85-90%. One cannot add more heat to the element, but there are dispersion designs that allow higher and higher efficiency, and there are methods consider the atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, gaseous composition of the airflow around the heat pump transducer element, and so forth. But at the end of the measurement, it's less than 100%.
The measurement of efficiency of conversion approaches in optimized circuits, perhaps close to 100%, meaning energy input get converted to heat pretty thoroughly. You can't add energy to this equation. Doesn't exist.
Heat pumps can have very high energy conversion rates, it's true. But the domain of heat dispersion and room thermal dynamics aren't in that equation. Room dynamics can cut efficiency, but never raise it. Radiance and dispersion characteristics can ally efficiency and the transducer, but it can't add to it. Max is max, and it's less than 100%.
In reality, there is no 100% efficiency. Bulbs and heating elements are transducers, and they have poor-moderate conversion; the problem is subsequent radiation of the heat to its intended target.
If you're getting 400-500% efficiency, this means you're inventing energy as you get 100% max. Any more, any more and you're opening up a hole from another dimension to let energy in. I want to know how to do that.
To answer your question: no. Some of them were barely alive or in Ch11 or Ch7 bankruptcy. Owning stock in oil companies wasn't on the agenda.
More onerous is your Birther attitude towards climate change. Apparently you're sufficiently talented to buck both the evidence, and the body of knowledge.
Thread drift is a hallowed part of/. history. From the time I joined after lurking for a while, thread drift has become a major feature of this atmosphere. To ensure you like it, next time you get mod points, use the Offtopic mod.
Most geeks have at least a touch of ADD. The original topic, which talked about a Space Program by the opposition candidates, was made after one of them wondered, in all seriousness, why you couldn't open windows on airliners. Any semblance of subsequent sanity is purely accidental.
I suggest: huge Dodge Ram 4x4 extended cab with dualies. Nice big Cat diesel with the turbo enhancement kit. That could help maximize your per-mile pollutants nicely. Yummm.
So you find the superlative polluter on the planet, then point to the skies of Hannover, Hamburg, Munich, and say-- look how clear! By comparison, they're pristine. So is LA during a Friday rush hour.
I don't think it's a scam at all. Germany pays plenty for fossil fuels, and even for electricity. It fuels the German economy. Pollution is hideous, and costs are high.
At some point, this has to change not only for Germany, but the rest of us, too. Bigger more efficient batteries? More efficient drive trains? Coils embedded in highways so you can charge while driving? Who knows. What's evident is that fossil fuels will continue cost the planet a lot in terms of global weather change, politics, and money.
People don't want to change. But they ultimately don't have a choice. I want an electric. That Toyota gave up deeply saddens me. Now the Nissan Leaf is all that's really left.
I have a bunch of watches; I rarely wear them anymore. Each one is different. I can't know what was in the Apple artist's mind. If it's a design that was indeed ripped from the face of a Swiss Clock, and that clock face is legally copyrighted, then perhaps there's a problem-- but the bigger problem is that a clock face is copyrightable in the first place.
But their copyrights are a different matter. Can you copyright something as common as a clockface? I'm no Apple fanboi, but this seems a real stretch. How about street signs? Google street views?
C'mon. We've past the ludicrous and have ventured into the surreal.
The ostensible mutation might have helped humans digest plant proteins... but stomach flora has a lot to do with uptake. Until more is known about the relationship between the two, I'll listen to the premise and wonder aloud how gut flora combined with the mutation to provide a systematic result.
Until then, I think it's clever spaghetti against the wall.
Which is why others use proxies, noscript, ghostery, and other blockers to both obscure our addresses, and confound these jerks. Trust DNT? Not really.
But it's painful for the big data analysis engines, the advertisers, and the data whores. And if it's a bit painful for Uncle Sam, sorry about that, but get out of my biz.
Remember that you're playing with the business models of corporations that believe they have every right to know all things about your, for their purposes, not yours.
As long as Microsoft continues to do upgrades, they'll pull compatibility a step ahead. I don't know if the formats change by accident, or on purpose. Document interchangeability has been a huge problem for Microsoft-- and therefore for others that don't use Microsoft products.
This will likely always be the case, as getting everyone to the table is impossible because in the end, everyone's ideas are different and there is no compelling market reason to make them behave.
Although there was some truth to this, much of this is mythological these days. I save to doc and docx with LO, and no one has been the wiser. Admittedly, they're not highly formatted with lots of font changes and document template disciplining. Nonetheless, no one has been the wiser for at least a couple of years now.
Wholesale changeover? No. I'm not even expecting that. I've also used MS Office on Apple.. but never used iWork apps as they weren't known for document interchangeability with the Office hegemony. Perhaps they were; if so, I was unaware.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand this and your other posts. My mistake is in the clarity of expressing that there are two comparisons being made, one of overall system thermodynamic efficiency versus the electrical efficiency of an "Edison" lightbulb. The efficiency numbers cited were incomparable, and I tried to demonstrate that, but then I'm accused of being a jackass because people believe that the citations are comparable, whereas they're not. Electrical efficiency is not a member of the set of thermodynamic efficiency, and therefore the two can't be compared, despite complaints to the contrary.
Right. And for purposes of comparing it to lightbulbs, it's an invalid equation. These are NOT the same things.
I care about it, within the context that this is a thread about efficiency in electrical circuits, specifically what lightbulbs do. That others incorrectly read the thread, pull in incomparable numbers, then try to compare them, is my correction.
Your last paragraph capitulates to my argument.
The transducer portion of your equation is the conversion step from electricity applied to heat output.
We're talking about lightbulbs here. They throw off light, but also heat in the conversion step. That's the "work" they do in the circuit. My arguments have been based solely on that efficiency-- electrical efficiency, and no other additive or other domain measurements.
Yes, that's a good measurement of heat pump efficiency, as it takes into consideration the domain of observation.
But as we're on lightbulb efficiency, heat pump efficiency isn't easily extrapolated from the observation of a multivariant measurement like CoP. Dubious claims of 100% efficiency, and then wow!!! 400-500% efficiency was my original argument. 100% isn't possible.
You cut your electricity bill. That's why you're paying less money: less electricity.
You can't invent heat. It came from somewhere. The system has to be less than 100% efficient *unless you added some from somewhere else*. Claims of higher than 100% are science fiction. You did something else, like had sunshine, body heat, or some other source. You only get 100% max. That's all there is.
We must disagree. You're using marketing speak that has nebulous connotations to distract what actually happens into meaninglessness.
Should you add an external variable into the equation, you're dealing with a different equation, and you're not describing heat pump efficiency, you're becoming a Trane dealer.
I understand what a heat pump is and does.
It's wired to a home's electrical wiring.
It draws X amount of current at Y amount of voltage. There are different ways to look at the product of these two, but this is called wattage.
The transducer, which is the heating element, draws power, then converts that to heat. That's one circuit. Let's focus on that circuit, because that's where we derive the efficiency value from.
The power in watts in to the transducer in a heat pump will be less than the heat value radiated. It's always less than 100%. Good ones approach 96%. Poor ones are at around 85-90%. One cannot add more heat to the element, but there are dispersion designs that allow higher and higher efficiency, and there are methods consider the atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, gaseous composition of the airflow around the heat pump transducer element, and so forth. But at the end of the measurement, it's less than 100%.
No. You're mixing variables and equations.
The measurement of efficiency of conversion approaches in optimized circuits, perhaps close to 100%, meaning energy input get converted to heat pretty thoroughly. You can't add energy to this equation. Doesn't exist.
Heat pumps can have very high energy conversion rates, it's true. But the domain of heat dispersion and room thermal dynamics aren't in that equation. Room dynamics can cut efficiency, but never raise it. Radiance and dispersion characteristics can ally efficiency and the transducer, but it can't add to it. Max is max, and it's less than 100%.
In reality, there is no 100% efficiency. Bulbs and heating elements are transducers, and they have poor-moderate conversion; the problem is subsequent radiation of the heat to its intended target.
If you're getting 400-500% efficiency, this means you're inventing energy as you get 100% max. Any more, any more and you're opening up a hole from another dimension to let energy in. I want to know how to do that.
To answer your question: no. Some of them were barely alive or in Ch11 or Ch7 bankruptcy. Owning stock in oil companies wasn't on the agenda.
More onerous is your Birther attitude towards climate change. Apparently you're sufficiently talented to buck both the evidence, and the body of knowledge.
Thread drift is a hallowed part of /. history. From the time I joined after lurking for a while, thread drift has become a major feature of this atmosphere. To ensure you like it, next time you get mod points, use the Offtopic mod.
Most geeks have at least a touch of ADD. The original topic, which talked about a Space Program by the opposition candidates, was made after one of them wondered, in all seriousness, why you couldn't open windows on airliners. Any semblance of subsequent sanity is purely accidental.
I suggest: huge Dodge Ram 4x4 extended cab with dualies. Nice big Cat diesel with the turbo enhancement kit. That could help maximize your per-mile pollutants nicely. Yummm.
So you find the superlative polluter on the planet, then point to the skies of Hannover, Hamburg, Munich, and say-- look how clear! By comparison, they're pristine. So is LA during a Friday rush hour.
And your observation(s)? Did it meet your expectations?
I can tell you haven't been there.
As for buying one, I'm in the market. The costs, however, are prohibitive.
I don't think it's a scam at all. Germany pays plenty for fossil fuels, and even for electricity. It fuels the German economy. Pollution is hideous, and costs are high.
At some point, this has to change not only for Germany, but the rest of us, too. Bigger more efficient batteries? More efficient drive trains? Coils embedded in highways so you can charge while driving? Who knows. What's evident is that fossil fuels will continue cost the planet a lot in terms of global weather change, politics, and money.
People don't want to change. But they ultimately don't have a choice. I want an electric. That Toyota gave up deeply saddens me. Now the Nissan Leaf is all that's really left.
I have a bunch of watches; I rarely wear them anymore. Each one is different. I can't know what was in the Apple artist's mind. If it's a design that was indeed ripped from the face of a Swiss Clock, and that clock face is legally copyrighted, then perhaps there's a problem-- but the bigger problem is that a clock face is copyrightable in the first place.
What's next, stop signs? Certainly not. Warning labels? Puhleeze.
But their copyrights are a different matter. Can you copyright something as common as a clockface? I'm no Apple fanboi, but this seems a real stretch. How about street signs? Google street views?
C'mon. We've past the ludicrous and have ventured into the surreal.
The ostensible mutation might have helped humans digest plant proteins... but stomach flora has a lot to do with uptake. Until more is known about the relationship between the two, I'll listen to the premise and wonder aloud how gut flora combined with the mutation to provide a systematic result.
Until then, I think it's clever spaghetti against the wall.
A hex on you.
There is much truth in this. This is why I try and educate people.
Which is why others use proxies, noscript, ghostery, and other blockers to both obscure our addresses, and confound these jerks. Trust DNT? Not really.
But it's painful for the big data analysis engines, the advertisers, and the data whores. And if it's a bit painful for Uncle Sam, sorry about that, but get out of my biz.
Remember that you're playing with the business models of corporations that believe they have every right to know all things about your, for their purposes, not yours.
As long as Microsoft continues to do upgrades, they'll pull compatibility a step ahead. I don't know if the formats change by accident, or on purpose. Document interchangeability has been a huge problem for Microsoft-- and therefore for others that don't use Microsoft products.
This will likely always be the case, as getting everyone to the table is impossible because in the end, everyone's ideas are different and there is no compelling market reason to make them behave.
Although there was some truth to this, much of this is mythological these days. I save to doc and docx with LO, and no one has been the wiser. Admittedly, they're not highly formatted with lots of font changes and document template disciplining. Nonetheless, no one has been the wiser for at least a couple of years now.
Wholesale changeover? No. I'm not even expecting that. I've also used MS Office on Apple.. but never used iWork apps as they weren't known for document interchangeability with the Office hegemony. Perhaps they were; if so, I was unaware.