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

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 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.

      • Fubber Nuckin'@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          4 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            4 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 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.

        • PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 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.

        • vynlwombat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I suggest we submit proposals to define “100%” and “efficient” before we design the experiment

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 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
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 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.

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 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.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That heat also powers certain chemical reactions happening on the surface of the hot wire. It’s not a lot of energy, but it’s still something. Light and sound tend to be converted back to heat at some point, but chemical transformations can be more stable, which would result in a tiny loss of efficiency.

    • UserFlairOptional@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s like arguing that 99% of the light off a heating element is a laser beam directed straight into deep space.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It depends on the framing of the question a bit. If we are defining 100% efficiency as 100% of electrical energy being converted into kinetic energy (heat) by the device, then that is a no. Some percentage is emitted as EM radiation instead of heat. If they were so then a light bulb or a bomb is a 100% effective heater as well.

        • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          It depends on what you consider the room: Both a light bulb and a bomb would deliver all their energy around a fully enclosed room. Incandescent bulbs are indeed effective heaters, LEDs just deliver much less energy. And a bomb, by design, is hard to contain in a room.