Re: Energy efficient heaters
Hactar
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> In article <Xns9CC93F0086FF1op...@192.168.1.101>,
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >We need to buy a couple of heaters so that this year's gas bill won't
> >be as high. What's the cheapest, most energy-efficient option? It
> >doesn't need to heat the room immediately, so an oil-filled radiator
> >type heater is fine. And it doesn't need to heat the whole room so much
> >as the area where someone is sitting at a desk or sleeping. So
> >something directional is fine.
> >
> >It seems to me I asked this question last year, but never followed
> >through on getting a heater. The resulting gas bills were horrendous,
> >so I'm hoping I can get it done this year. Extra Opus Points (TM) to
> >anyone who provides a pointer to that previous thread, especially if
> >the advice I got last year directly contradicts any advice I get this
> >year.
> >
> >What makes some heaters more energy efficient than others? What are the
> >trade-offs if any?
>
> As others have pointed out, electric heaters are by definition 100%
> efficient, as any inefficiency results in...heat. Some radiant
> heaters claim to be more than 100% efficient; this is BS. Others have
> pointed out that electric heaters can deliver the heat more locally
> than some other options.
>
> Heaters that work by burning stuff should also be quite efficient at
> turning chemical energy into heat, with the caveat that if they involve
> a flue or chimney, then you are likely losing some or even most of the
> heat that way. If they do not involve a flue or a chimney, they pose
> certain other risks or drawbacks. In general, the tradeoff is:
>
> Burning cheap coal, turning maybe 30% of that heat into electricity,
> transmitting that electricity to your house with some losses, and then
> converting 100% of what's left into heat.
Well, you left out the aspect of bulk fuel purchases in the range of
hundreds or thousands of ton(ne)s per day (I think) and the price
savings that incurs.
And heat pumps (I suppose they could be run by propane/LPG/whatever the
same way some fridges are), which deliver more heat than they use in
energy, which gives them a >1 equivalent efficiency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump#Efficiency
,--
| When used for heating a building on a mild day, a typical air-source
| heat pump has a COP of 3 - 4, whereas a typical electric resistance
| heater has a COP of 1.0. That is, one joule of electrical energy will
| cause a resistance heater to produce one joule of useful heat, while
| under ideal conditions, one joule of electrical energy can cause a heat
| pump to move much more than one joule of heat from a cooler place to a
| warmer place.
'--
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
This message was created using recycled electrons.
Mac
> In article <he6ip8$m7...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
>
>
> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9CC93F0086FF1opusthepenguinnet...@192.168.1.101>,
>
> This message was created using recycled electrons.
LPG refrigerators, unless you mean the kind that have a little engine
on 'em, (Yes, these do exist. Used for reefer containers and
trailers.) are absorption units; the best know type were marketed by
Servel. They have a great many virtues, but high efficiency is not
one of them. That's not such a big deal for heat pump use, of course,
but it limits summer use as AC.
Hactar
bill van <bil...@skipthis.shaw.ca> wrote:
> In article <4b0778f9...@news20.forteinc.com>,
> no...@privacy.net (dan) wrote:
>
> > What's that Lassie? You say that Opus the Penguin fell down the old
> > alt.fan.cecil-adams mine and will die if we don't mount a rescue by
> > Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:18:39 GMT:
> >
> > >What makes some heaters more energy efficient than others? What are the
> > >trade-offs if any?
> >
> > That is to say all of the power they consume is turned into heat, that
> > is put into the room.
> >
> > Fuel heaters(central heating) will send some of the heat up the flue.
> > That is lost energy that reduces the efficiency.
>
> Shirley some of it is converted into light when the metal filaments glow.
... which then gets eventually turned into heat when it hits something
(including your retinas, though the conversion may be rather indirect).
The only "lost" energy is EM radiation which escapes through a window.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Q: Why does hamburger have lower energy than steak?
A: Because it's in the ground state. -- Harold_of_the_Rocks on Fark
Hactar
> >>more efficient?
> >>
> >>Maybe "efficient" isn't the right word since it's a term of art
> >>with electrical appliances. I'm asking which heater puts out the
> >>most heat for the least electricity used. Is that a question that
> >>can be sensibly asked, or am I still not getting it?
> >
> > All of the electrical power consumed by the heater becomes heat.
> > I will even go out on a limb and say that all of it becomes heat
> > within the room in which the heater is being used[1]. The only
> > respect in which some heaters might be better is in their ability
> > to deliver the heat exactly where it is wanted.
>
> So you're telling me that every single electric heater out there puts
> out exactly the same amount of heat per watt used? It's just a
> question of how that heat is directed? That doesn't sound right to
> me.
No, it's correct, except for powerline losses. Or if it does something
bizarre like energy -> mass conversion (Einstein said it was possible)
or spends energy ionizing the air, its efficiency (in some sense) might
not be 100%.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of
being called an idea at all. -Oscar Wilde
Hactar
>
> > In <Xns9CCC8A6BC593Bop...@192.168.1.101> Opus the
> > Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>So you're telling me that every single electric heater out there
> >>puts out exactly the same amount of heat per watt used? It's just
> >>a question of how that heat is directed? That doesn't sound right
> >>to me.
> >
> > into a room eventually becomes heat in that room.
>
> You all keep saying yes and then restating the problem to something that
> sounds different to me.
The only way power fed to the heater doesn't help heat up the room is if
something escapes -- could be power lines heating up in other rooms or
between you and the power station, or sound or light that's detectable
outside, or air motion (again, outside), whatever. BUT, such losses are
almost always negligible. FAPP electric resistance heaters (radiant,
conductive, convective, forced air, whatever) are all 100% efficient.
Heat pumps (when not in "emergency heat" mode) are not resistance
heaters, and are in some sense 300-400% efficient. (The heat comes from
outdoors; all the H.P. does is move it indoors. If you include the
entire world in your "closed system", they're 100% efficient, just like
the others.)
--
The people don't want war, but it is a simple matter to drag the people
along. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. - HG
Mac
> In article <Xns9CCCB35F2CAE8opusthepenguinnet...@192.168.1.101>,
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > danny burstein (dan...@panix.com) wrote:
>
> > > Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > >>So you're telling me that every single electric heater out there
> > >>puts out exactly the same amount of heat per watt used? It's just
> > >>a question of how that heat is directed? That doesn't sound right
> > >>to me.
>
> > > Eyup, it's true. Every single electron [a] you pump
> > > into a room eventually becomes heat in that room.
>
> > You all keep saying yes and then restating the problem to something that
> > sounds different to me.
>
> The only way power fed to the heater doesn't help heat up the room is if
> something escapes -- could be power lines heating up in other rooms or
> between you and the power station, or sound or light that's detectable
> outside, or air motion (again, outside), whatever. BUT, such losses are
> almost always negligible. FAPP electric resistance heaters (radiant,
> conductive, convective, forced air, whatever) are all 100% efficient.
This is how we are confusing him. Can't talk about losses and then
say "100%."
Hactar
Bill Turlock <"Bill Turlock "@sonnnic.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >So you're telling me that every single electric heater out there puts
> > >out exactly the same amount of heat per watt used? It's just a
> > >question of how that heat is directed? That doesn't sound right to
> > >me.
> >
> > Eyup, it's true. Every single electron [a] you pump
> > into a room eventually becomes heat in that room.
> >
> > lab rats, there's only one common item where that
> > wouldn't be the case, and another type where it's
> > still mostly.
> >
> > If you use a battery charger in your home and you
> > pump in, say, 2500 watt-hours of power into the
> > battery (car battery size...), something like 75 percent
> > of the energy goes into chemical reactions and
> > gets stored in that battery. So your room only
> > heats up 24 percent of the way.
> >
> > The other one that is a "mostly" is if you aim
> > a light out the window. Depending on thises
> > and thatses, anywhere up to 15 percent of the
> > energy can go out the window... as light.
> > (Usually it's just a fraction of a percent).
>
> I assume we're defining "electric heater" rather narrowly,
> because a microwave oven is just that, and does not put 100% of
> its energy into the item of interest.
No, but if you want to heat up the room, 1 MJ into the microwave works as
well as 1 MJ into a space heater. It's more fiddly and not really
designed for that purpose, but it works. Sorta. And, the microwave can
make some food mostly-palatable as a byproduct.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin
Mac
> In article <c6b2e8ad-1b3d-41c3-a56e-8b54d8659...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
You know, I think "negligible" is one of those words so abused in
informal speech (especially about politics), and by salesmen and other
panderers, that people forget that it really means "able to be
neglected." Notice how "indicator" has gone down this path?
Snidely
You're just needling us, right?
/dps
Peter Ward
It's because of all them women in p0rn films answering doors in their
negligibles.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
Education is what survives when what has been learned has been
forgotten.
- B. F. Skinner
danny burstein
>> > I did link them with the phrase "such losses are almost always
>> > negligible".
>> You know, I think "negligible" is one of those words so abused in
>It's because of all them women in p0rn films answering doors in their
>negligibles.
That would be unmentionable.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Mark Steese
> In article
> <e6588075-4ec1-474c...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 8:28 am, Dover Beach <moon.blanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dover Beach <moon.blanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:Xns9CCD5FC356AA3mo...@130.133.1.4:
>> >
>> > > Heated keyboards? Really? Could you point me to one? I'll look
>> > > around a little myself.
>> >
>> > Well gol durn. Here's one right here:
>> >
>> > http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/23/heated-keyboard-keeps-fingers-toa
>> > s... hilst-typing/
>>
>> Is that an actual product for sale or just a discussion item?
>
> Actual product:
>
> http://www.tooltopia.com/v8-tools-wk001.aspx
>
> (took two clicks to get there)
Unless the keyboard also includes a self-cleaning feature, I'm not sure a
warmer is such a great idea. Normal keyboards are already disgusting (cf.
http://xkcd.com/237/), but at least you don't have to *smell* all the gunk
lurking beneath the keys.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found the
banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
Hactar
> just as efficient to produce heat by friction as by resistance?
Yup, no matter what you do with your 1KWh, you 1KWh of heat out (when you
consider _all_ its effects).
> Or is
> it just that the heat produced by friction in a space heater is
> negligible--both in terms of electricity required and heat produced.
That too. Most of a space heater's input energy goes directly to heat,
and it's designed that way. A little bit of its energy goes to moving air
or pumping oil or whatnot, but that too gets eventually turned into heat,
so there's no "lost" energy.
> If that's so, presumably an oil-filled heater with no moving parts
> (except the switches and dials and the little casters that you move
> it around on) would be more efficient than a fan heater, if only
> negligibly so. Have I got that right?
The friction -> heat from rolling it or twiddling the dials comes from
you, which comes from your food. But any energy anything uses eventually
gets turned into heat. There's no way to get other than 1KWh of heat from
anything if you use 1KWh of electricity and end in the same situation
you started (except warmer). Some things play games with the heat
(oil-filled heaters by giving you heat after you use the electricity,
heat pumps by moving outdoor heat indoors, etc.) but eventually exactly
1KWh of heat shows up. It just changes the form of energy, from
electrical to thermal (really kinetic, expressed as Brownian motion).
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
A neutron walks into a bar; he asks the bartender,
"How much for a beer?" The bartender looks at him,
and says "For you, no charge." -- GooberMcFly on Fark
Lee
> In article <0YOdnWsutLP8RJHWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdn...@speakeasy.net>,
>
> <huey.calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have visions of basement cisterns with thousands of gallons of water
> > in them, used as heat batteries. And I think the next time I find a dead
> > OTA satellite dish or a dead water heater by the side of the road, I'm
> > gonna collect those up. And I'm going to polish the dish, build a
> > solar tracker, and see just how much free heat you can get from
> > focusing an eight-foot dish on a water-line heatsink block. I wonder
> > how hard it is to build a micro-scale steam turbine, big enough to
> > spin a 200amp car alternator.
>
> ,--
> | Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the
> | top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1,366 watts per square meter
> '--
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation)
>
> An 8' dish has a frontal area (assuming "8'" means "across, not along
> the curve") of pi*(4')^2 = 50.2 ft^2 = 4.67 m^2. At high noon (solar
> time) on a clear day I think it gets a max of 1.366 KW/m^2* 4.67 m^2
> = 6.38 KW = 8.56 hp. Is that enough, counting various inefficiencies?
>
> > And then I wonder how much useful
> > post-inverter electricity you get out of an electric forklift battery.
>
> What's the charging efficiency, 2/3 or 3/4 or so? Looks like about
> 600-700 Ah.
>
> > I wonder about the efficiency of peltiers used as electricity
> > generation.
>
> "Not good".
>
> > Batteries are bad at storing energy, but it's harder to
> > store heat in a form that's useful to create other sorts of energy
> > than heat. I wonder if I covered the eight-foot OTA dish with solar
> > cells, they'd generate enough energy directly to power the solar-tracker
> > and control software, while still reflecting enough to create useful
> > thermal energy at the focal point. I wonder...
>
> Yeah, I don't think the albedo of photoelectric cells is that high,
> certainly not high enough to make up for the >70% losses inherent in PE
> cells. You'd probably be better off using Al foil in the dish, and
> putting the cells elsewhere on a flat surface like your roof. Maybe on
> an annular platform that aims with the dish.
>
> --
I finally managed to download that link and read all the stuff the
bunch of you wrote.
a GREAT GREAT job of discussing
I have had theories for the reason my apartment never goes below 65
degrees even when it is zero degrees outside. I'm thinking here's an
"explanation"?
Mac
Yeah. Neighbors.
David Friedman
<a93c990b-963d-48e6...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 1:08�pm, Lee <skoler...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > I have had theories for the reason my apartment never goes below 65
> > degrees even when it is zero degrees outside. �I'm thinking here's an
> > "explanation"?
>
> Yeah. Neighbors.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_1st_Edn_Ch21/PTh
y_1st_Edn_Chap_21.html
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Hactar
Lee <skol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have had theories for the reason my apartment never goes below 65
> degrees even when it is zero degrees outside. I'm thinking here's an
> "explanation"?
Yeah. Neighbors with poor insulation and large heating bills. Freeloader.
OTOH, why rock the boat?
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP http://royalty.mine.nu:81
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H.L. Mencken
Bill Turlock
>
> In article <Xns9CCE1B2364F3Aop...@192.168.1.101>,> > Xho Jingleheimerschmidt (xho...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > > Opus the Penguin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I understand that. Do you understand how saying it's all
> > >> converted to heat is NOT the same as saying it's all converted to
> > >> the SAME AMOUNT of heat?
> > >
> > > The first law is generally taken as a given, it goes without
> > > saying.
> > >
> > > If I explicitly mention it, will that satisfy your objection?
> >
> > If you want to explain, fine. Otherwise, no. Why should heaters be
> > different from other appliances?
>
> They're not, if like heaters you consider _everything_ they affect.
>
> > Do all air conditioners cool at
> > exactly the same rate per kilowatt hour? Do all refrigerators draw the
> > same amount of electricity per cubic foot cooled?
>
> They all do if you consider _everything_ they change -- the hot side and
> the cool side. ACs and the like don't cool at all, really; they heat
> (by exactly the power they consume) and move heat around, producing a
> cooling effect in the desired region.
>
> > Do all light bulbs
> > put out the same amount of light per watt drawn?
>
> Visible light is only a small part of the energy they put out, and when
> all is considered, they're all 100% efficient heaters, just like
> everything else.
>
> Keep in mind the laws of thermodynamics, restated for easier
> comprehension:
>
> 1. You can't win. (No perpetual-motion machines.)
>
> 2. You can't break even. (No frictionless bearings, although maglev in
> a vacuum comes close.)
>
> 3. You can't quit the game. (Nothing escapes these rules.)
I've always wondered about the Zeroth Law: There IS a game.
What does that mean?
Hactar
Bill Turlock <"Bill Turlock "@sonnnic.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Keep in mind the laws of thermodynamics, restated for easier
> > comprehension:
> >
> > 1. You can't win. (No perpetual-motion machines.)
> >
> > 2. You can't break even. (No frictionless bearings, although maglev in
> > a vacuum comes close.)
> >
> > 3. You can't quit the game. (Nothing escapes these rules.)
>
> I've always wondered about the Zeroth Law: There IS a game.
>
> What does that mean?
Probably something like "more rules follow, and everything uses them".
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Q: Why does hamburger have lower energy than steak?
Hactar
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> The banner ad on a site I went to recently was an incompetent ad for a
> replacement for the furnace in a large home. (incompetent because it
> wasn't clickable -- after they got my attention, I had to google their
> tag line to find the company.)
>
> They convert methane into hydrogen, then feed the hydrogen to a fuel
> cell to make electricity. The waste heat from the process is used for
> hot water and bulk heat. They claimed some spectacular efficiency
> improvements over just burning the methane and buying electricity.
IIRC the same method is used for some city buses in BC(?).
The method, even if somewhat less efficient than combustion (doesn't
have to be) offers the benefits of no high (well, less-high) temps and
no noise.
What's it do for the first step, CH4 + O2 -> 2 H2 + CO2 ? Any idea how
it separates the CO2 from the H2 (if that reaction is correct)? I suppose
the correct semi-permeable membrane would work. How hard is it to get a
tank of methane?
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
What do you do with dead chemists?
Barium. -- Harold_of_the_Rocks on Fark
Snidely
> How hard is it to get a
> tank of methane?
Don't you just stop at a CNG filling station? There's one a few
blocks from me, and another about 7 miles. I saw a taxi pulling into
the near one today. I suppose the odorant might have an impact on the
fuel cell design, but as long as it doesn't bind to the catalyst you
should be good.
/dps
Greg Goss
>In article <7n6gj2F...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>> They convert methane into hydrogen, then feed the hydrogen to a fuel
>> cell to make electricity. The waste heat from the process is used for
>> hot water and bulk heat. They claimed some spectacular efficiency
>> improvements over just burning the methane and buying electricity.
>
>IIRC the same method is used for some city buses in BC(?).
Much to a number of activists' annoyance, those experimental buses
were converted back to normal combustion engines. I think they went
back to diesel, though methane and propane combustion engines are both
fairly common in BC.
The company that placed the fuel cells into those buses has been the
perrennial "just about to break through" archetypal high-publicity
Canadian high-tech company for fifteen or twenty years or so. People
STILL expect that Ballard is where the future lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballard_Power_Systems
>The method, even if somewhat less efficient than combustion (doesn't
>have to be) offers the benefits of no high (well, less-high) temps and
>no noise.
>
>What's it do for the first step, CH4 + O2 -> 2 H2 + CO2 ? Any idea how
>it separates the CO2 from the H2 (if that reaction is correct)? I suppose
>the correct semi-permeable membrane would work. How hard is it to get a
>tank of methane?
BC has lots of natural gas wells but no (or very little) oil. As a
result, the government subsidized methane vehicle conversions rather
heavily in the eighties. In 1988, I tried to buy a dual-fuel natural
gas Dodge Colt, but the owner was never home when I phoned, and had
sold it by the third day when I finally found him home.
Across BC, in the areas where natural gas service has been plumbed,
vehicle natural gas at gas stations is generally adequate. For fleet
service like those buses, a compressor to pump up generally available
natural gas to the very high pressures used in vehicle tanks would be
at the service yard. I expect that a whole day's supply of fuel would
be supplied each overnight.
When I was looking at getting the CNG econobox, there were two gas
stations within a mile of me that supplied CNG at the pump island, and
you could also get a low-volume high-pressure pump that would sit next
to your driveway and provide a tankful of CNG overnight from your
household natural gas service.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
>I have had theories for the reason my apartment never goes below 65
>degrees even when it is zero degrees outside. I'm thinking here's an
>"explanation"?
From 97 to 2003, my late wife and I lived in an apartment. We had
neighbors on four sides, and a hallway followed by more neighbors on
the fifth side. We only had one side facing out.
We generally kept the electric underfloor heat turned off. The
fireplace was thermostatically controlled, and I put a timer
thermostat on it and connected a large room fan to the heat-controlled
fan circuit in the fireplace. The natural gas service for the
fireplace was included in our condo fees.
I'm not sure if the fireplace really supplied all our heat. I rather
suspect that most of our heat came through the walls from neighbors
who kepf their apartments warmer.
Lee
> In article <1907c31f-a0ff-4a7e-9106-7ba951983...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Lee <skoler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have had theories for the reason my apartment never goes below 65
> > degrees even when it is zero degrees outside. I'm thinking here's an
> > "explanation"?
>
> Yeah. Neighbors with poor insulation and large heating bills. Freeloader.
> OTOH, why rock the boat?
>
> --
So, the exposure where I get maximum sunlight all day long via sunroom/
balcony and the fact that it is cooler when it's cloudy but gets up to
85-90 degrees on a sunny day even in winter? The sun has nothing
whatsoever to do with the temperature in my aparment box?
Hactar
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>
> >In article <7n6gj2F...@mid.individual.net>,
> >Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> They convert methane into hydrogen, then feed the hydrogen to a fuel
> >> cell to make electricity. The waste heat from the process is used for
> >> hot water and bulk heat. They claimed some spectacular efficiency
> >> improvements over just burning the methane and buying electricity.
> >
> >it separates the CO2 from the H2 (if that reaction is correct)? I suppose
> >the correct semi-permeable membrane would work. How hard is it to get a
> >tank of methane?
>
> vehicle natural gas at gas stations is generally adequate.
Is it generally bad to feed ethane and/or propane (or whatever's in
natural gas) to a device that's expecting methane?
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Two atoms are discussing whether or not to go into a bar. The first atom
says, "I don't know about this place. Last time I went in there, I lost
an electron." The second atom says, "Don't worry, I'll keep my ion you."
Greg Goss
>In article <7n7aoqF...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <7n6gj2F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> >Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> They convert methane into hydrogen, then feed the hydrogen to a fuel
>> >> cell to make electricity. The waste heat from the process is used for
>> >> hot water and bulk heat. They claimed some spectacular efficiency
>> >> improvements over just burning the methane and buying electricity.
>> >
>> >What's it do for the first step, CH4 + O2 -> 2 H2 + CO2 ? Any idea how
>> >it separates the CO2 from the H2 (if that reaction is correct)? I suppose
>> >the correct semi-permeable membrane would work. How hard is it to get a
>> >tank of methane?
>>
>> Across BC, in the areas where natural gas service has been plumbed,
>> vehicle natural gas at gas stations is generally adequate.
>
>Is it generally bad to feed ethane and/or propane (or whatever's in
>natural gas) to a device that's expecting methane?
Natural gas is mostly methane. In BC, both methane and propane are
used for vehicle fuels.
The tanking is completely different. Propane can be liquified with
fairly low pressure (the vehicle fuel propane is usually called "LPG"
which can be either "liquified petroleum gas" or "low pressure gas".
Methane (natural gas) is stored in extremely high-pressure tanks as a
compressed gas.
My townhouse has a natural gas line plumbed to the back deck for a
barbecue. I have a propane barbecue largely because of the capital
costs. A natural gas BBQ is about $50 higher than the equivalent
propane one. The propane one can be taken to a party or whatever
while the natural gas one is tied to the house. But the fact that the
burner is different for natural gas than propane implies significant
differences.
The fact that the normal vehicle conversion for natural gas (methane)
is dual fuel, switchable on the road from gasoline (octane-ish) to and
from methane implies that a dual fuel methane and propane feed should
be easy.
(Methane is one carbon surrounded by the max number of hydrogen.
Propane is the three-carbon equivalent. Octane is the eight carbon
equivalent.)
Hactar
Lee <skol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 5:19 pm, ebenZERO...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
> > In article
> <1907c31f-a0ff-4a7e-9106-7ba951983...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Lee <skoler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have had theories for the reason my apartment never goes below 65
> > > degrees even when it is zero degrees outside. I'm thinking here's an
> > > "explanation"?
> >
> > Yeah. Neighbors with poor insulation and large heating bills. Freeloader.
> > OTOH, why rock the boat?
>
> balcony and the fact that it is cooler when it's cloudy but gets up to
> 85-90 degrees on a sunny day even in winter? The sun has nothing
> whatsoever to do with the temperature in my aparment box?
Ah, you didn't say "my apartment has a sunroom". Of course it does.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave. -Sir William Drummond
Hactar
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >Now, I think all of the textbooks give all energies
> >in Joules. (Unless they use electron-Volts, a whole 'nuther can of worms...)
> >But yeah, it would be more accurate and lead to fewer mistakes if everyone
> >used Joules for all forms of energy. Didn't someone here say that in
> >Europe, they use Joules when talking about diet and weight loss and so on?
>
> My natural gas bill in the eighties sold me cubic feet of natural gas.
> Between the eighties and 2005, I lived in apartments or condos where I
> didn't have my own billed natural gas service. When I started buying
> natural gas again in 2005, my bill now told me the cubic feet I'd
> bought, then told me the average joules per cubic foot for that
> particular month, then billed me for joules.
>
> I guess the natural gas service here varies in what's really in the
> delivered gas. In BC, I was used to calling natural gas "methane",
> but I guess there's a mix of hydrocarbons in it. What else would
> cause variation in joules per cubic foot?
What is their joules calculation based on, the theoretical maximum based
on perfect combustion, or the "typical" combustion, or what? If
"typical", their hypothetical users could have upgraded their process.
--
"The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a
twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals
out there. Type in 'Find people that have sex with goats that are on
fire' and the computer will say, 'Specify type of goat.'" -- Rich Jeni
Hactar
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> My townhouse has a natural gas line plumbed to the back deck for a
> barbecue. I have a propane barbecue largely because of the capital
> costs. A natural gas BBQ is about $50 higher than the equivalent
> propane one. The propane one can be taken to a party or whatever
> while the natural gas one is tied to the house. But the fact that the
> burner is different for natural gas than propane implies significant
> differences.
Yeah, propane (C3H8) needs more oxygen per mole than does methane (CH4).
With constant oxygen (which is what you get with air), you need less
propane per unit oxygen than you do methane. Which means you probably
get less energy output.
> The fact that the normal vehicle conversion for natural gas (methane)
> is dual fuel, switchable on the road from gasoline (octane-ish) to and
> from methane implies that a dual fuel methane and propane feed should
> be easy.
Hm yeah, they can do "flex fuel" gasoline-ethanol, so different
stoichiometric ratios aren't a problem with fuel injection. I wonder
what the holdup is.
Are *ane vehicles usually carburetted or fuel injected?
> (Methane is one carbon surrounded by the max number of hydrogen.
> Propane is the three-carbon equivalent. Octane is the eight carbon
> equivalent.)
What happened to ethane? I mean, why isn't it a part of "Natural Gas"?
Chopped liver?
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
> A: It's annoying as hell
> Q: Why do most people hate top-posting? -- Lots42 The Library Avenger
http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html
Hactar
Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >So you're telling me that every single electric heater out there puts
> > >out exactly the same amount of heat per watt used? It's just a
> > >question of how that heat is directed? That doesn't sound right to
> > >me.
> >
> > then yes. Energy is conserved, just runs downhill from "high-quality"
> > energy to "low quality" energy. The bottom of the quality curve is
> > heat. Pretty much any kind of energy ends up as heat when you're done
> > with it.
> >
> > If it's heat you're looking for, then efficiency becomes an almost
> > meaningless idea.
>
> No, it really doesn't. Different kinds of electric heaters work
> better for different purposes. But that means measuringing something
> a little trickier to measure, and salesmen like the sound of
> "100%!!!!" too much to give it up without a fight. The big question
> for a space, point, or directional heater is "how much electricity
> will it take to do the job I want?", and for that the answer won't be
> the same across types and models.
What Greg said, "EFFICIENCY becomes ... meaningless" (emphasis mine).
What you're discussing is EFFICACY. Different beast.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
>
> I've always wondered about the Zeroth Law: There IS a game.
>
> What does that mean?
Things put in thermal contact reach thermal equilibrium. Corollaries to
this are that temperature exists (usually), and thermometers are more or
less successful at measuring it.
Xho
Greg Goss
>> The fact that the normal vehicle conversion for natural gas (methane)
>> is dual fuel, switchable on the road from gasoline (octane-ish) to and
>> from methane implies that a dual fuel methane and propane feed should
>> be easy.
>
>Hm yeah, they can do "flex fuel" gasoline-ethanol, so different
>stoichiometric ratios aren't a problem with fuel injection. I wonder
>what the holdup is.
>
>Are *ane vehicles usually carburetted or fuel injected?
The one I almost bought in 88 was carburetted. I suspect that the
carbuettor was for the gasoline and that the gaseous CNG was merely
"mixed" with the intake air upstream of the carb.
The rise of injection may be why I hear less about methane / propane
now than I was hearing twenty years ago.
>> (Methane is one carbon surrounded by the max number of hydrogen.
>> Propane is the three-carbon equivalent. Octane is the eight carbon
>> equivalent.)
>
>What happened to ethane? I mean, why isn't it a part of "Natural Gas"?
>Chopped liver?
Wiki: "Before natural gas can be used as a fuel, it must undergo
extensive processing to remove almost all materials other than
methane. The by-products of that processing include ethane, propane,
butanes, pentanes and higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, elemental
sulfur, and sometimes helium and nitrogen."
Perhaps ethane sells for more.
There was an active gas well about a mile from my house when I bought
it (the house). It's been plugged since then, the berm removed, and
another bunch (hundreds?) of houses are going in where the berm was.
Greg Goss
>In article <7n7bj6F...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>> >Now, I think all of the textbooks give all energies
>> >in Joules. (Unless they use electron-Volts, a whole 'nuther can of worms...)
>> >But yeah, it would be more accurate and lead to fewer mistakes if everyone
>> >used Joules for all forms of energy. Didn't someone here say that in
>> >Europe, they use Joules when talking about diet and weight loss and so on?
>>
>> My natural gas bill in the eighties sold me cubic feet of natural gas.
>> Between the eighties and 2005, I lived in apartments or condos where I
>> didn't have my own billed natural gas service. When I started buying
>> natural gas again in 2005, my bill now told me the cubic feet I'd
>> bought, then told me the average joules per cubic foot for that
>> particular month, then billed me for joules.
>>
>> I guess the natural gas service here varies in what's really in the
>> delivered gas. In BC, I was used to calling natural gas "methane",
>> but I guess there's a mix of hydrocarbons in it. What else would
>> cause variation in joules per cubic foot?
>
>What is their joules calculation based on, the theoretical maximum based
>on perfect combustion, or the "typical" combustion, or what? If
>"typical", their hypothetical users could have upgraded their process.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
"@sonnnic.invalid> wrote:
> I've always wondered about the Zeroth Law: There IS a game.
>
> What does that mean?
It's a more recent discovery and it just formalizes the existence and
applicability of the three older laws.
Mary "Universal application, no exceptions."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/
Hactar
"a conversion factor that takes into account the energy content"
Sufficiently vague.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP http://royalty.mine.nu:81
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert
Snidely
Were we expected to know about this sun exposure from your original
message?
/dps
S. Checker
> On Nov 25, 5:19?pm, ebenZERO...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>> In article <1907c31f-a0ff-4a7e-9106-7ba951983...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>> > I have had theories for the reason my apartment never goes below 65
>> > "explanation"?
>>
>> Yeah. ?Neighbors with poor insulation and large heating bills. ?Freeloader.
>> OTOH, why rock the boat?
>
> balcony and the fact that it is cooler when it's cloudy but gets up to
> 85-90 degrees on a sunny day even in winter? The sun has nothing
> whatsoever to do with the temperature in my aparment box?
Correct. Sunlight, having had to travel through the frozen wastes of
space to the Earth, is cooled to a temperature of 41 degrees Farenheit
(-80 Celcius). What you perceive as your apartment being warmer is
actually a heightened body temperature from practicing your waltz moves
in the sunroom.
--
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible
and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge.
-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Hactar
Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:40:34 -0700, Greg Goss wrote:
>
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> know that last one isn't true.
>
> > Hypothetically touch an incandescent light bulb. Now touch a CFL one.
> > Then an LED one. Do you see what the wasted energy ends up as?
>
> I don't have cites handy but if I recall correctly something like 80% of
> the energy used by an incandescent lightbulb is converted into forms
> useless to the human eye.
I'd guess far higher, around 95%, but if that's based on hard data then OK.
I have a 15W CFL desk lamp here. Even at equilibrium in a 74F room, I can
put my hand on the metal shade and it's only warm. I have a 3W LED bulb
(60W incandescent equivalent, or so it claims) but it's too big at the
bright end to fit in the shade.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP http://royalty.mine.nu:81
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands,
Hactar
> > lay...@panix.com says...
> >
> >>I don't have cites handy but if I recall correctly something like
> >>80% of the energy used by an incandescent lightbulb is converted
> >>into forms useless to the human eye.
> >
> > the data from GE that the figures for halogen lamps is 9% visible
> > light, 1% ultraviolet and 90% infrared.
>
> Then what's so great about halogen lamps? Why do we bother with them?
As far as my research showed, there's little-to-no difference in
efficiency. At their heart, they both use the same method -- an
electrically-heated wire in inert gas. The appeal of them is their
color. Since they run hotter, the visible light they radiate looks
whiter. I don't know about lifetime.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
If you need someone to blame
Throw a rock in the air
You'll hit someone guilty -- U2, _Zooropa_, "Dirty Day"
Mac
> In article <Xns9CD2DDDE2F1Bopusthepenguinnet...@192.168.1.101>,> > DT (dthompson4...@SPAMwowway.com) wrote:
> > > layr...@panix.com says...
>
> > >>I don't have cites handy but if I recall correctly something like
> > >>80% of the energy used by an incandescent lightbulb is converted
> > >>into forms useless to the human eye.
>
> > > Much worse than that. I have designed lamp banks and recall from
> > > the data from GE that the figures for halogen lamps is 9% visible
> > > light, 1% ultraviolet and 90% infrared.
>
> > Then what's so great about halogen lamps? Why do we bother with them?
>
> As far as my research showed, there's little-to-no difference in
> efficiency. At their heart, they both use the same method -- an
> electrically-heated wire in inert gas. The appeal of them is their
> color. Since they run hotter, the visible light they radiate looks
> whiter. I don't know about lifetime.
Then your research is a little suspect. Although the majority of
electricity for both lamp types is lost as heat, halogens are about
half again as efficient as most incandescents, and more so at the
smaller lamp sizes. So, if you wanna get a certain level of
illumination, and you want it evenly spread, you need to use about 50%
more juice using incandescents in most home and office applications.
It's easy to lose sight of this when the efficiency is so small.
Where this makes a tremendous difference is in summer, in areas that
are artificially lit, and airconditioned.
Hactar
Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 9:03 pm, ebenZERO...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
> > In article <Xns9CD2DDDE2F1Bopusthepenguinnet...@192.168.1.101>,
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > DT (dthompson4...@SPAMwowway.com) wrote:
> > > > layr...@panix.com says...
> >
> > > >>I don't have cites handy but if I recall correctly something like
> > > >>80% of the energy used by an incandescent lightbulb is converted
> > > >>into forms useless to the human eye.
> >
> > > > Much worse than that. I have designed lamp banks and recall from
> > > > the data from GE that the figures for halogen lamps is 9% visible
> > > > light, 1% ultraviolet and 90% infrared.
> >
> > > Then what's so great about halogen lamps? Why do we bother with them?
> >
> > As far as my research showed, there's little-to-no difference in
> > efficiency. At their heart, they both use the same method -- an
> > electrically-heated wire in inert gas. The appeal of them is their
> > color. Since they run hotter, the visible light they radiate looks
> > whiter. I don't know about lifetime.
>
> Then your research is a little suspect.
Entirely likely. It was only based on published blurbs, one digit of
precision or so.
Bill Turlock
>
> In article <Xns9CD2DDDE2F1Bop...@192.168.1.101>,
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > DT (dthomp...@SPAMwowway.com) wrote:
> > > lay...@panix.com says...
> > >
> > >>I don't have cites handy but if I recall correctly something like
> > >>80% of the energy used by an incandescent lightbulb is converted
> > >>into forms useless to the human eye.
> > >
> > > Much worse than that. I have designed lamp banks and recall from
> > > the data from GE that the figures for halogen lamps is 9% visible
> > > light, 1% ultraviolet and 90% infrared.
> >
> > Then what's so great about halogen lamps? Why do we bother with them?
>
> As far as my research showed, there's little-to-no difference in
> efficiency. At their heart, they both use the same method -- an
> electrically-heated wire in inert gas. The appeal of them is their
> color. Since they run hotter, the visible light they radiate looks
> whiter. I don't know about lifetime.
halogen cycle
Snidely
> Then your research is a little suspect. Although the majority of
> electricity for both lamp types is lost as heat, halogens are about
> half again as efficient as most incandescents, and more so at the
> smaller lamp sizes. So, if you wanna get a certain level of
> illumination, and you want it evenly spread, you need to use about 50%
> more juice using incandescents in most home and office applications.
> It's easy to lose sight of this when the efficiency is so small.
I use a 35W halogen to light my bedroom; definitely better than a 60W
incandescent (and I'd say better than a 75W and maybe a 100W, although
it has been a while since I let one of the latter into my home). The
high temperature means I don't have the light on unattended; the other
disadvantage is the sharp shadows on the far wall.
The following is for comparison only:
The 20W CFL in a swing-arm desk lamp illuminates my living room pretty
well, but has a much yellower cast. I use 2 9W CFL "globe lights" in
the bathroom, which do a good enough job in that small room (these are
my slow starters -- after 15-20 seconds, you see the output increase
dramatically). I have a multi-head floor lamp that switches on 2 of
5, the other 3, or all 5 heads; the 2 position has some 7W CFLs that
make good nightlights. The 3 position is 2x10W+1x14W, and that is the
usual work illumination in my living room. Plenty good for reading
when I'm in the same end of the room.
The hallway has, I think, a 14W CFL under the glass of the fixture,
but since the hallway is barely 2 doors wide I wouldn't have used more
than a 40W incandescent bulb there, anyway.
The kitchen is blindingly bright with a traditonal tube type
flourescent: 2x40W chain-hung reflector, rather like a workshop
fixture.
The dining room has an incandescent bulb in a hanging lamp that eats
bulbs (CFLs sound scary in it). If that light was really needed, I'd
have replaced the fixture, but I've been able to postpone it
indefinitely by letting the kitchen light do the work.
Now that's more than you wanted know, but nyah-nyah-nyah. Oh, and all
the CFLs run too hot to touch except momentarily.
/dps
Esra Sdrawkcab
> On Nov 29, 10:55 pm, Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Then your research is a little suspect. Although the majority of
>> electricity for both lamp types is lost as heat, halogens are about
>> half again as efficient as most incandescents, and more so at the
>> smaller lamp sizes. So, if you wanna get a certain level of
>> illumination, and you want it evenly spread, you need to use about 50%
>> more juice using incandescents in most home and office applications.
>> It's easy to lose sight of this when the efficiency is so small.
>
> I use a 35W halogen to light my bedroom; definitely better than a 60W
> incandescent (and I'd say better than a 75W and maybe a 100W, although
> it has been a while since I let one of the latter into my home). The
> high temperature means I don't have the light on unattended; the other
> disadvantage is the sharp shadows on the far wall.
>
LEDs are coming RSN.
--
Nuns! Reverse!
Snidely
> LEDs are coming RSN.
Already easily available (even at Walmart) but you pay a premium for
the relatively high manufacturing costs of silicon, and they are
better as spots or narrow floods than as area lighting. OLEDs are
close to production; they have a lower light output per unit area but
are cheap enough that large areas can be produced. Wall tiles are the
expected form factor for OLED lighting, and the reduction in strong
shadows will probably be considered flattering.
/dps
Hactar
Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:39:08 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >Well, as I said, the units date from before they had figured out that
> >foot-pounds of work and BTU's of heat were measuring the same quantity.
> >Then, even after someone figured that out, there was the matter of
> >getting an acurate conversion between the two. Even then it was still
> >easier for people who mainly worked with heat to measure it in terms
> >of a certain amount of water heating up by so many degrees, rather
> >that to use units of mechanical work. And finally, there
> >was plain old unwillingness to change; until recently some chemistry books
> >gave the delta-H of reactions in calories, others in Joules, and students
> >had to convert a lot. Now, I think all of the textbooks give all energies
> >in Joules. (Unless they use electron-Volts, a whole 'nuther can of worms...)
> >But yeah, it would be more accurate and lead to fewer mistakes if everyone
> >used Joules for all forms of energy. Didn't someone here say that in
> >Europe, they use Joules when talking about diet and weight loss and so on?
>
> the figure in kilojoules first, but then shows it in kilocalories, and
> the vast majority of people, books etc. still talk in "calories". I
> think mainland Europeans are more enlightened, and I know Australians
> use kJ more.
And (kilo)watts for engines. I still (after two seasons of Top Gear
Australia) don't have a good grasp of the conversion between kW and hp.
Yeah yeah, http://www.convertunits.com/from/kW/to/hp says 1 kW ~= 1.3 hp.
I mean an innate understanding, so when someone rattles off a figure, I
can think of it appropriately. Maybe I just need to practice more.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
This message was created using recycled electrons.
DT
First the Ureopeeins took away the foot, now they have done away with
horsepower. THOSE ARE GOD GIVEN UNITS FER CHRISSAKE!
--
Dennis