Most efficient way to boil water?
x6...@yahoo.com
to boil water.
- stovetop kettle using gas
- stovetop kettle electric
- electric kettle made of plastic
- electric kettle stainless steel
- microwave oven using pyrex
- microwave using some kind of closed container
- other?
Thanks.
Steve Spence
My wood stove. It's "free" heat ......
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Don K
If you define efficiency as (energy absorbed)/(energy used)
then you should put the water in a thermally insulated
container and use an electric immersion heating element.
That way nearly all the energy used will be absorbed by
the water.
Don
Sam Wormley
- Solar powered oven
Richard Henry
What do you mean by "most efficient"?
Jan Panteltje
<dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in <kL-dndTayJw...@comcast.com>:
Yes but the powerplant will have a rather low efficiency.
Gas cooking is probably more efficient.
Shaun Eli
making sure that the flame isn't so big that it's wider than the width
of the kettle. Flames shooting up the sides of the kettle (rather than
just under it) don't add much to the heating but use much more gas.
Shaun Eli
www.BrainChampagne.com
Brain Champagne: Clever Comedy for the Smart Mind (sm)
Brain Champagne-- now with free video on the website!
Don K
> On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:07:27 -0500) it happened "Don K"
> <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in <kL-dndTayJw...@comcast.com>:
>
>><x6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1134830154....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>>> to boil water.
>>
>>If you define efficiency as (energy absorbed)/(energy used)
>>then you should put the water in a thermally insulated
>>container and use an electric immersion heating element.
>>
>>That way nearly all the energy used will be absorbed by
>>the water.
>>
>>Don
> Yes but the powerplant will have a rather low efficiency.
> Gas cooking is probably more efficient.
Again, it depends on how you want to define efficiency.
This sort of thing can get into the category of arguing
over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Don
Gregory L. Hansen
You might get higher efficiency if you can work a heat pump in there.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
The Ghost In The Machine
<dk@dont_bother_me.com>
wrote
on Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:07:27 -0500
<kL-dndTayJw...@comcast.com>:
A nitpick: a heat pump might be potentially more efficient,
if it's good enough (and one can find an appropriate fluid)
and the pipes are sufficiently insulated. The heat source
would be the outside air, of course, which would be cooled
as the kettle water is boiled. The working end of the
pump would be immersed of course. The efficiency gain
is good for heating a room, but it's probably not nearly
as good for boiling water.
Bear also in mind that electricity is a conveyance, not a source;
the energy is ultimately generated somewhere else, either using
a dam, gas, coal, oil, tidal, solar, or geothermal. I don't know
how much is lost in the transition.
I have, however, seen immersion elements used in Europe.
I was in Austria in 1974-75 and we had one that we used
for boiling a cup of water. (For some reason they're not
real popular in the US -- probably because UL and/or FDA
and/or whoever doesn't like the idea of people burning
themselves therewith, either accidentally or on purpose.)
>
> Don
>
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
ChairMan
x6...@yahoo.com <x6...@yahoo.com>spewed forth:
use someone elses stove
Nog
Y.Porat
or else the pump has losses of energy as any machine
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Alex Terrell
1. Gas heating a saucepan (with a closed lid), making sure the flame is
smaller than the base. Cost in UK is about 2p / KWhr, so if efficiency
is > 2/3, should beat 2.
2. Electric kettle using night time electricity. Kettles are close to
100% efficient (90%?). night time electricity is about 3p per KWhr.
3. Electric kettle using day time electricity at about 9p per KWhr.
If you have a big vacuum container, and are up before the switch over,
I guess you could boil the water on night time electricty pour it into
the flask for use in the day.
Microwaves are not so efficient, but extremely practical to heat half a
cup of milk for your Latte.
Rod Speed
> i guess the heat pump has to be inside the water
Nope.
> or else the pump has losses of energy as any machine
Its still going to be better than say an immersion heater
even if it isnt inside the water if by efficiency you mean
the amount of energy that ends up in the water relative
to the input energy.
Bob Eldred
"Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
news:LpmdnVu3J6Nkojne...@comcast.com...
Isn't it 72? or is that 72 virgins, I forgot!
Madwia
Start with water that is already almost boiling.
zzbu...@netscape.net
It depends what you want the boiled water for,
If you want hot coffee, the most efficcient way
is a nuclear power plant, it keeps all the
idgit ACLU McDonald's Lawyers away.
If you want to boil the water on your stovetop,
the most effiecent way is to buy a Starrbuck's
franchise, it keep all the Washington EPA
neo-con Gestapo away.
If you to make gas heat, the most efficient way
is to move to Australia, it's keep Bush,
Exxon, and Mel Gibson away.
>
> Thanks.
Gene S. Berkowitz
says...
Use a vacuum pump. You can get the water to boil at room temperature.
--Gene
Logan Shaw
Use a vacuum pump to lower the boiling point to room temperature.
Presto, no heat input needed to bring it to boiling, and very
little energy needed.
- Logan
Anthony Matonak
> I would think that the least expensive way would be gas stovetop,
> making sure that the flame isn't so big that it's wider than the width
> of the kettle. Flames shooting up the sides of the kettle (rather than
> just under it) don't add much to the heating but use much more gas.
You can get a bit better efficiency with pot skirts.
Anthony
CWatters
> - microwave using some kind of closed container
That could be fun!
CJT
... and then lower the pressure on its surface.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Rod Speed
> <x6...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
> That could be fun!
He said closed, not sealed.
Duane C. Johnson
Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient
> > way to boil water.
> Use a vacuum pump to lower the boiling point to
> room temperature. Presto, no heat input needed to
> bring it to boiling, and very little energy needed.
Yes, the vacuum does lower the boiling point.
However, it still takes about the same amount of energy
to boil a given amount of water. The heat energy comes
from the environment around the vacuum flask and power
to do the work comes from the pump.
> - Logan
Duane
--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
red...@redrok.com (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
catalpa
"Gene S. Berkowitz" <first...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e0e35ae3...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Yes, the water boils and all the water vapor gets sucked out by the vacuum
pump and you are left with a thin piece of ice.
catalpa
"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hC_of.1210$tO4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Yes, the water boils and all the water vapor gets sucked out by the vacuum
catalpa
> to boil water.
>
> - stovetop kettle using gas
> - stovetop kettle electric
> - electric kettle made of plastic
> - electric kettle stainless steel
> - microwave oven using pyrex
> - microwave using some kind of closed container
> - other?
>
>
Waste heat from refrigerator.
Rod Speed
Wont boil the water.
Al Zenner
@trnddc02:
Good point, waste heat from <any source>
If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste heat
from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate. Anyone remember
the "easy bake oven?"
bsr...@my-deja.com
How about using an internal combustion engine to power the heat pump,
and use the engine's cooling system as the heat source.
Bruce
max
x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
> to boil water.
>
> - stovetop kettle using gas
> - stovetop kettle electric
> - electric kettle made of plastic
> - electric kettle stainless steel
> - microwave oven using pyrex
> - microwave using some kind of closed container
> - other?
>
> Thanks.
The most efficient way to boil water is to reduce its pressure. You can
easily make room temperature water boil in mere seconds with very little
energy expenditure.
so easy.
.max
Bob Ward
wrote:
You got a perpetual-motion type of vacuum pump in your pocket, or are
you glad to see me?
max
"Duane C. Johnson" <red...@redrok.com> wrote:
> Hi Logan;
>
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient
> > > way to boil water.
>
> > Use a vacuum pump to lower the boiling point to
> > room temperature. Presto, no heat input needed to
> > bring it to boiling, and very little energy needed.
>
> Yes, the vacuum does lower the boiling point.
> However, it still takes about the same amount of energy
> to boil a given amount of water. The heat energy comes
> from the environment around the vacuum flask and power
> to do the work comes from the pump.
The question wasn't about how much energy it takes, it was about the most
efficient way to achieve it. Utilizing ambient heat + vacuum is more
efficient than raising the temperature to 1 bar sat. temp. IIRC it takes
slightly less energy to boil water at lower sub atmospheric temps.
yadda yadda more efficient to use vacuum.
.max
Dan Bloomquist
x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm curious...
So am I...
Why do the trollish, stupidest, threads get so much traffic on sci.energy?
I'm finding that only the private groups have any real thinkers.
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
Richard Henry
"max" <beta...@earthink.net> wrote in message
news:do2s4e$i06$5...@ftupet.ftupet.com...
I missed something. What scientific breakthrough has allowed us to "reduce
its pressure" with no energy expenditure?
Rod Speed
> "catalpa" <cat...@entertab.org> wrote in news:9n5pf.31941$fY5.14606
> @trnddc02:
>
>> <x6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134830154....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>>> to boil water.
>
>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>> - other?
>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
> Good point, waste heat from <any source>
> If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
> heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
And wont boil the water.
catalpa
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:kR6pf.1439$OU3...@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I'm curious...
>
> So am I...
>
> Why do the trollish, stupidest, threads get so much traffic on sci.energy?
>
> I'm finding that only the private groups have any real thinkers.
>
> Best, Dan.
>
Because they are crossposted to misc.consumers.frugal-living and elsewhere.
CJT
Immerse the bulb and they're the same efficiency.
>
> And wont boil the water.
>
>
>>Anyone remember the "easy bake oven?"
>
>
>
>
catalpa
"Bob Ward" <bob...@email.com> wrote in message
news:eps9q1d99k1rd46uj...@4ax.com...
Making ice by boiling water with a vacuum pump is fully explained at
http://chapters.avs.org/nccavs/triplept.pdf . Refer to page 4 in particular.
Rod Speed
>>>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>> - other?
>>>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
>>> Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>>> If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>>> heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
>> Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
> Immerse the bulb and they're the same efficiency.
Nope, more escapes as light, and 100W will take too
long to heat the water, so is less efficient for that reason.
Rod Speed
He said very little, not no energy expenditure.
Gene S. Berkowitz
says...
> child is 7 and has her own.
Ours works fine. Did you RTFM? Standard bulb (not "soft white"), and
allow 15 minutes to warm up.
--Gene
CJT
> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>catalpa <cat...@entertab.org> wrote
>>>>
>>>>><x6...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>>>I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>
>
>>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>>> - other?
>
>
>>>>>Waste heat from refrigerator.
>
>
>>>>Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>
>
>>>>If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>>>>heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
>
>
>>>Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
>
>
>>Immerse the bulb and they're the same efficiency.
>
>
> Nope, more escapes as light,
Light will only escape if you let it.
and 100W will take too
> long to heat the water, so is less efficient for that reason.
>
Assume a 100 watt immersion heater, then.
>
>>>And wont boil the water.
>
>
>>>>Anyone remember the "easy bake oven?"
>
>
>
Richard Henry
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40ke25F...@individual.net...
Then please do the arithmetic for me, pressure reduction vs simple heating.
Y.Porat
just remember that your split air conditioner
(which indeed is very efficient)-
is at least partly inside your home!!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Y.Porat <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>>> i guess the heat pump has to be inside the water
>> Nope.
>>> or else the pump has losses of energy as any machine
>> Its still going to be better than say an immersion heater
>> even if it isnt inside the water if by efficiency you mean
>> the amount of energy that ends up in the water relative
>> to the input energy.
> yes i mean that
> just remember that your split air conditioner
> (which indeed is very efficient)-
> is at least partly inside your home!!!
Doesnt mean that it has to be to be more efficient than in immersion heater.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote
>>>>> catalpa <cat...@entertab.org> wrote
>>>>>> <x6...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>>>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>>>> - other?
>>>>>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
>>>>> Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>>>>> If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>>>>> heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
>>>> Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
>>> Immerse the bulb and they're the same efficiency.
>> Nope, more escapes as light,
> Light will only escape if you let it.
Sure, but you dont have to bother with an immersion heater.
>> and 100W will take too long to heat the water, so is less efficient for that
>> reason.
> Assume a 100 watt immersion heater, then.
Useless assumption, no one uses one that small unless
they only want to heat boil a small amount of water.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote>>>> x6...@yahoo.com wrote
>>>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>> - other?
>>>> The most efficient way to boil water is to reduce its pressure.
>>>> You can easily make room temperature water boil in mere
>>>> seconds with very little energy expenditure.
>>>> so easy.
>>> I missed something. What scientific breakthrough has allowed
>>> us to "reduce its pressure" with no energy expenditure?
>> He said very little, not no energy expenditure.
> Then please do the arithmetic for me,
> pressure reduction vs simple heating.
I was JUST commenting on your footshot.
I didnt even say anything about whether pressure
reduction would be more efficient than simple heating.
Y.Porat
intention
he wanted a hot cup for coffee
not just vapor
am i right Mr 1x??
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Shawn Hirn
x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
> to boil water.
>
> - stovetop kettle using gas
> - stovetop kettle electric
> - electric kettle made of plastic
> - electric kettle stainless steel
> - microwave oven using pyrex
> - microwave using some kind of closed container
> - other?
Measure these methods and find out for yourself. My guess is the first
option will be the most efficient. I guess it also helps to know what
kind of efficiency you are looking for.
Paul E. Bennett
If this was a homework assignment I think you all have the OP really
confused now.
--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://p...@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************
jmfb...@aol.com
"Paul E. Bennett" <p...@amleth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>> In article <1134830154....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>>> to boil water.
>>>
>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>> - other?
>>
>> Measure these methods and find out for yourself. My guess is the first
>> option will be the most efficient. I guess it also helps to know what
>> kind of efficiency you are looking for.
>
>If this was a homework assignment I think you all have the OP really
>confused now.
Everybody I worked with spent time on this one. Coffee was
an essential tool when debugging.
Their efficiency was to boil once and keep the water hot
which has nothing to do with minimizing fuel used for
the isolated system of "hot water". When the power
consumption of the mainframes was included in the
"efficiency rating", it was much more efficient to expend
energy to keep the water hot rather than waste the energy
of an idle million dollar mainframe that isn't getting
debugged while the developer is waiting for the water to
boil.
Furthermore, if the work was involved in a firefight and
a customer is waiting for the fix, any delay even of seconds
could be costing billions of dollars.
I don't know how one chooses to draw the box when you
study a particular physical system.
/BAH
Richard Henry
Alreight then, please justify "very little".
Remember to take into account the law of conservation of energy.
Bret Cahill
The energy necessary to build a heat pump might be a factor in small
economies of scale.
Bret Cahill
Y.Porat
i am afraid you are not familiar with the way a heat pump works and why
it is so efficient
just in general its efficency is more than 1.0000 !!!
because in addition to the electricity imput
it suckes heat by the out' part from the envirinment
(the out grid becomes cooler than the out ambient temperature)
and
*in addition to all that* the heat losses of the machine is .....
alse used as ........ for heating the inner envirinment
if yoy keep the 'inner split part' outside
you loos the mecine losses of it by leaving them
outside of the place that you what to heat.
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------.
Y.Porat
try to be paractical!!!........
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Bret Cahill
Finally I looked and it wasn't too bad.
The big issue of the day is a sustainable _society_ so we really DO
need to think about all the broader definitions of efficiency and
sustainability.
If a wealthy or other uniquely situated person buys some land and solar
panels and an EV and announces, "hey you poor suckers on the coal fired
grid, why aren't YOU sustainable like me? I'm not polluting!" it
doesn't necessarily do much to move us towards a sustainable _society_.
Ditto for states like California using electricity from coal fired
plants in other states or Mexico.
Society is even more interconnected / synergized than the environment
so it doesn't save anyone from the inevitable geo wars.
Bret Cahill
Bret:
"Carl Sagan thinks nuclear winter can be a wedge issue; it would induce
the rich to oppose Reagan's defense build up. Do you think it will
work?"
Bret's Dad (pausing to get enough breath to explode):
"THAT'S THE MOST STUPID IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD IN MY ENTIRE LIFE! IT'LL
NEVER WORK! THEY'LL GO GRABBING AFTER THE MONEY RIGHT ON UP UNTIL THE
SECOND THE BOMBS GO OFF! . . ."
Bret's Mom (quietly):
"Bret, they won't even think about it. They'll just go on living like
they always have."
max
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote:
> > The most efficient way to boil water is to reduce its pressure. You can
> > easily make room temperature water boil in mere seconds with very little
> > energy expenditure.
> >
> > so easy.
>
> I missed something. What scientific breakthrough has allowed us to "reduce
> its pressure" with no energy expenditure?
You should have payed attention in English class, since i wrote VERY LITTLE
which is not equivalent to no.
Moron.
.max
max
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote:
Place the water in an arbitrarily long cylinder with a piston with no air
volume. Withdraw the piston an arbitrary distance. say for the sake of
this discussion far enough to expand the original volume by 500%.
Let's use 1 gallon of water for the original volume.
If you think will be be too hard to pull out the piston, you're allowed to
use a crank and a ratchet.
Now. I'll start cranking the piston out and you can start rubbing your two
neurons together until they generate heat. Let's see who boils water first.
.max
x6...@yahoo.com
Sam Wormley wrote:
> x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
> > to boil water.
> - Solar powered oven
Thanks Sam. But I barely have enough sunlight to
dry my just-washed clothing, which is on a rack.
Nice name, by the way.
x6...@yahoo.com
Nog wrote:
> x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
> > to boil water.
> Old Faithful.
I'm afraid the commute to/from would be
rather expensive for me. I would also have
to purchase heat-shielding clothing from
Fisher or someplace, and I lack the funds
for such an enterprise.
x6...@yahoo.com
Alex Terrell wrote:
> 2. Electric kettle using night time electricity. Kettles are close to
> 100% efficient (90%?). night time electricity is about 3p per KWhr.
> 3. Electric kettle using day time electricity at about 9p per KWhr.
I have a problem with plastic electric kettles, which
leach chemicals into the water, but a stainess steel
electric kettle could work quite well, if the outside is
insulated.
The question then is: What form of insulation to use on
the outside of a stainless steel electric kettle?
Here is an example of such a device for people living
in distant places:
x6...@yahoo.com
I will see if I can borrow my landlord, who is a
vacuum pump of a sort. Or at least he seems thus,
when rent time arrives.
x6...@yahoo.com
Only if the container is made of used CDROMs
and glue.
Al Zenner
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:57:21 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Al
> Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>
>>"catalpa" <cat...@entertab.org> wrote in news:9n5pf.31941$fY5.14606
>>@trnddc02:
>>
>>> <x6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1134830154....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>>>> to boil water.
>>
>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>> - other?
>>>> Thanks.
>>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
>>Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>>If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste heat
>>from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate. Anyone remember
>>the "easy bake oven?"
> I remember that it never cooked anything, not when I was 7 and not now
> that my child is 7 and has her own.
That's odd. My daughter and I baked exceptionally good
baking soda biscuits in hers back in the 1960's. Did you
remember to put the appropriate sized light bulbs in it
or are you just making mischief here?
In fact one could inflict a nasty burn on themselves
because the trays coming out were so hot. 100 watt bulbs
release a *lot* of waste heat.
A 20 watt compact flourescent, even with its own variety
of waste, gives the same amount of light as a 75 watt
incandescent bulb.
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Unitall/ConservationTips.htm
x6...@yahoo.com
Our fridge is filled with thermal capacitors
which is to say liquids in plastic containers,
so the fridge rarely uses energy or makes heat.
Richard Henry
Well then, what scientific breakthrough has allowed us to "reduce its
pressure" with VERY LITTLE energy expenditure.
> Moron.
We shall see.
Richard Henry
???
No further comment necesary.
Al Zenner
@individual.net:
> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>> "catalpa" <cat...@entertab.org> wrote in news:9n5pf.31941$fY5.14606
>> @trnddc02:
>>> <x6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1134830154....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>>>> to boil water.
>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>> - other?
>>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
>> Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>> If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>> heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
> Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
Waste heat is less effficient? Ya right.
> And wont boil the water.
Whatever you say, troll......
Al Zenner
@individual.net:
> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote
>>>> catalpa <cat...@entertab.org> wrote
>>>>> <x6...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>>> - other?
>>>>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
>>>> Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>>>> If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>>>> heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
>>> Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
>> Immerse the bulb and they're the same efficiency.
> Nope, more escapes as light, and 100W will take too
> long to heat the water, so is less efficient for that reason.
I'm pleased that your trollish definition of efficiency works for you.
Al Zenner
news:MPG.1e0ed5d0e...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
> In article <v2s9q1d2bksfvk5h0...@4ax.com>, am...@aol.com
> says...
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:57:21 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Al
>> Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>> >"catalpa" <cat...@entertab.org> wrote in news:9n5pf.31941$fY5.14606
>> >@trnddc02:
>> >> <x6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1134830154....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>> >>> to boil water.
>> >>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>> >>> - stovetop kettle electric
>> >>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>> >>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>> >>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>> >>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>> >>> - other?
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >> Waste heat from refrigerator.
>> >Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>> >If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste heat
>> >from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate. Anyone remember
>> >the "easy bake oven?"
>> I remember that it never cooked anything, not when I was 7 and not now
>> that my child is 7 and has her own.
> Ours works fine. Did you RTFM? Standard bulb (not "soft white"), and
> allow 15 minutes to warm up.
My memory is that it took 2 bulbs, but we're talking ~40 years ago.
Al Zenner
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>>
>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>>Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>catalpa <cat...@entertab.org> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>><x6...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>>>I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>>>> - other?
>>
>>
>>>>>>Waste heat from refrigerator.
>>
>>
>>>>>Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>>
>>
>>>>>If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>>>>>heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
>>
>>
>>>>Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
>>
>>
>>>Immerse the bulb and they're the same efficiency.
>>
>>
>> Nope, more escapes as light,
>
> Light will only escape if you let it.
>
> and 100W will take too
>> long to heat the water, so is less efficient for that reason.
>>
>
> Assume a 100 watt immersion heater, then.
He's a garden variety troll.
max
wrote:
what is the temperature of the hot coils on YOUR fridge? Mine is certainly
not anywhere near 212F
Al Zenner
Well it is time for troll #2 to report in. Actually you're just a
little late, but no matter. Your designation for this thread is
now T2 while "Rod Speed" will be called T1. Just your order of
appearance, nothing to do with your ability to troll.
You're on ripco eh? How's Bruce doing, married and all, or is
that over already? Bruce is the only person I've ever met who
has actually managed to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
The Real Bev
> "max" <beta...@earthink.net> wrote:
>>
>> x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>> > to boil water.
>> >
>> > - stovetop kettle using gas
>> > - stovetop kettle electric
>> > - electric kettle made of plastic
>> > - electric kettle stainless steel
>> > - microwave oven using pyrex
>> > - microwave using some kind of closed container
>> > - other?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> The most efficient way to boil water is to reduce its pressure. You can
>> easily make room temperature water boil in mere seconds with very little
>> energy expenditure.
>>
>> so easy.
>
> I missed something. What scientific breakthrough has allowed us to "reduce
> its pressure" with no energy expenditure?
Insert a straw and suck? Any personal energy expenditure, in view of the
increasing girth of the general population, should be considered a plus rather
than a minus.
--
Cheers, Bev
========================================================
"We're so far beyond fucked we couldn't even catch a bus
back to fucked." --Scott en Aztlan
SMS
> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
> to boil water.
>
> - stovetop kettle using gas
> - stovetop kettle electric
> - electric kettle made of plastic
> - electric kettle stainless steel
> - microwave oven using pyrex
> - microwave using some kind of closed container
> - other?
An immersion heater is by far the most efficient method. Essentially
this is what electric water heaters use as well. It may not be the
cheapest, depending on the relative cost of electricity versus other fuels.
Logan Shaw
> "Logan Shaw" <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:hC_of.1210$tO4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>>>to boil water.
>>Use a vacuum pump to lower the boiling point to room temperature.
>>Presto, no heat input needed to bring it to boiling, and very
>>little energy needed.
> Yes, the water boils and all the water vapor gets sucked out by the vacuum
> pump and you are left with a thin piece of ice.
Sure, but the original poster didn't specify that they wanted the water
to be hot or that they wanted it to continue to boil after the moment
it reaches boiling.
If there are additional requirements, maybe they should have included
those in the question. It's not clear whether they're trying to make
a cup of tea or understand things about boiling in the abstract.
- Logan
Logan Shaw
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:57:21 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Al Zenner
> <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>>If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste heat
>>from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate. Anyone remember
>>the "easy bake oven?"
> I remember that it never cooked anything, not when I was 7 and not now that my
> child is 7 and has her own.
Funny this should come up today, since last night I went on a date with
a woman who mentioned that she has an Easy-Bake Oven[1] and that you can
cook a variety of things in it, although the portions are not very big.
She said there are several web sites out there devoted to the Easy-Bake
Oven and that lots of recipes are available. In fact, some googling
confirms this. There's even a book of gourmet recipes:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0762414405/
- Logan
[1] And for anyone who is wondering, no, I did not go out on a date
with a girl who is 11 years old. Actually, I am younger than her.
Logan Shaw
>><az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>>>Anyone remember
>>>the "easy bake oven?"
>>I remember that it never cooked anything, not when I was 7 and not now that my
>>child is 7 and has her own.
> Ours works fine. Did you RTFM? Standard bulb (not "soft white"), and
> allow 15 minutes to warm up.
I hear you can save a lot of money by replacing your Easy-Bake Oven's
light bulb with a compact fluorescent...
- Logan
Logan Shaw
I put extra capacitors in the power supplies of all my electronic
items, and you wouldn't BELIEVE how much money I'm saving on my
electric bill each month...
- Logan
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Y.Porat <map...@012.net.il> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Y.Porat <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>>>>> i guess the heat pump has to be inside the water
>>>> Nope.
>>>>> or else the pump has losses of energy as any machine
>>>> Its still going to be better than say an immersion heater
>>>> even if it isnt inside the water if by efficiency you mean
>>>> the amount of energy that ends up in the water relative
>>>> to the input energy.
>>> yes i mean that
>>> just remember that your split air conditioner
>>> (which indeed is very efficient)-
>>> is at least partly inside your home!!!
>> Doesnt mean that it has to be to be
>> more efficient than in immersion heater
> i am afraid you are not familiar with the way
> a heat pump works and why it is so efficient
We'll see...
> just in general its efficency is more than 1.0000 !!!
Duh.
> because in addition to the electricity imput it
> suckes heat by the out' part from the envirinment
> (the out grid becomes cooler than the out ambient temperature)
Duh.
> and *in addition to all that* the heat losses of the machine is .....
> alse used as ........ for heating the inner envirinment
Duh.
> if yoy keep the 'inner split part' outside you
> loos the mecine losses of it by leaving them
> outside of the place that you what to heat.
Duh.
But if you are just heating water, the 'inner part' doesnt
actually have to be inside the water, it can be outside the
water container with the water container on top of it, so
the heat coming out of the 'inner part' just conducts thru the
wall of the container, just like say an electric hotplate does.
In that situation a heat pump will STILL be more efficient
than just putting the electrical power into the hotplate instead.
Rod Speed
> The OP suggested the water was only a cup or so.
No he didnt.
> The energy necessary to build a heat pump
> might be a factor in small economies of scale.
Gets sillier by the minute.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
Couldnt bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag...
Rod Speed
>>>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>> - other?
>>>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
>>> Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>>> If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>>> heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
>> Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
> Waste heat is less effficient?
Didnt say that.
> Ya right.
>> And wont boil the water.
> Whatever you say, troll......
Couldnt bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag...
Rod Speed
Couldnt bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag...
Rod Speed
> common Guys
> try to be paractical!!!........
paractical is illegal, stupid.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Richard Henry <rph...@home.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Richard Henry <rph...@home.com> wrote
>>>>>>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>>>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>>>> - other?
>>>>>> The most efficient way to boil water is to reduce its pressure.
>>>>>> You can easily make room temperature water boil in mere
>>>>>> seconds with very little energy expenditure.
>>>>>> so easy.
>>>>> I missed something. What scientific breakthrough has allowed
>>>>> us to "reduce its pressure" with no energy expenditure?
>>>> He said very little, not no energy expenditure.
>>> Then please do the arithmetic for me,
>>> pressure reduction vs simple heating.
>> I was JUST commenting on your footshot.
>> I didnt even say anything about whether pressure
>> reduction would be more efficient than simple heating.
> Alreight then, please justify "very little".
No need, it wasnt me that said that.
I was JUST commenting on your footshot.
> Remember to take into account the law of conservation of energy.
Completely irrelevant to whether 'very little' is different to 'no'
Rod Speed
> x6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way
>> to boil water.
>>
>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>> - stovetop kettle electric
>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>> - other?
> An immersion heater is by far the most efficient method.
Nope, a heat pump is more efficient if by efficiency
you mean the amount of heat that ends up in the water
compared with the heat supplied that you pay for.
Solar is more efficient than both if you mean
efficiency in the sense of power you pay for.
> Essentially this is what electric water heaters use as well. It may not be the
> cheapest, depending on the relative cost of electricity versus other fuels.
So you havent even established that an immersion heater is more
efficient than an efficient gas powered system for heating water.
Logan Shaw
>>>>>>>The most efficient way to boil water is to reduce its pressure.
>>>>>>>You can easily make room temperature water boil in mere
>>>>>>>seconds with very little energy expenditure.
>>Alreight then, please justify "very little".
> Place the water in an arbitrarily long cylinder with a piston with no air
> volume. Withdraw the piston an arbitrary distance. say for the sake of
> this discussion far enough to expand the original volume by 500%.
Or, to make it easier to visualize, create a perfectly rigid tank whose
capacity is 1,000,000 liters of water and whose only opening is a tiny
tube at the top with a diameter of 1 mm and a length of 100 mm. Fill
the tank with water so that the water level comes up just to bottom of
the tube. Now, remove the air from the tube. Since there is only
about 0.08 cm^3 of air, it shouldn't take much energy to do so. Since
there is then no pressure on the surface of the water, it should be
boiling.
Granted, it won't *stay* boiling for very long, but basically all the
solutions you're going to see for boiling water are going to require
additional energy input to *keep* the water boiling. And the original
poster didn't say whether it was necessary to keep the water boiling.
Actually, most regular water might not really boil in this situation
since tap water has air dissolved in it. When you boil tap water on
the stove, the dissolved air comes out of solution and bubbles up to
the top before the water actually starts boiling. But, once again,
the original poster didn't say we had to start with water that has
air dissolved in it, and if start with water that has no air dissolved
in it, we are still boiling water.
On the other hand, since specifics weren't given about the starting
state, the most efficient way to boil water probably is to choose some
water that already happens to be at a temperature of 99.99C. :-)
And as long as I'm talking about how the original question wasn't
specific enough, it didn't define efficiency either, so if we are
talking in economic terms, you might have highly-paid staff who
need to boil water. Maybe the original poster is designing a
conference rooms for the top executives in a Fortune 500 corporation
and wants to provide a way where they can make their own tea while
in a private meeting where they don't want to be bothered even by
personal assistants. In that case, the method that is easiest and
quickest is probably the most efficient, because the money you
can save by saving energy is much less than the money lost by
making the VIPs concentrate on boiling water rather than whatever
problem they're really trying to solve.
- Logan
Logan Shaw
>>> The most efficient way to boil water is to reduce its pressure.
>> I missed something. What scientific breakthrough has allowed us to
>> "reduce its pressure" with no energy expenditure?
> Insert a straw and suck? Any personal energy expenditure, in view of
> the increasing girth of the general population, should be considered a
> plus rather than a minus.
It's true. If we view this in terms of efficiency of the economy in
general, lack of exercise and excess weight are major problems that
many Americans have, and these are costing our economy lots of money
for healthcare. So, perhaps the most efficient thing to do would be
to wire up some exercise bikes with generators and use the energy
produced those to power resistive heating elements to boil the water.
Yes, you could use a heat pump to boil more water with less effort,
but up to a point, making the system less energy-efficient makes it
more efficient in general. You need 20 minutes of stationary biking
to get a good aerobic workout, so a system that boils water in 5
minutes would be less efficient than one that boils water in 20.
- Logan
Logan Shaw
> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>>If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>>heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
> Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
>
> And wont boil the water.
Sure it will. Just put the 100W light bulb and the water
together into a vacuum flask. If you still want the light
from the bulb, line the flask with something reflective
(which it probably already is), and close the top with
something transparent rather than the usual cork or rubber
stopper.
Most of the light will escape through the transparent stopper,
but lots of the heat will stay in, and since the flask
insulates very well, the water will eventually boil.
- Logan
Rod Speed
>>> If you set your mind to capturing it, the waste
>>> heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
>> Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
>> And wont boil the water.
> Sure it will.
Nope, not when using just the WASTE heat it wont.
> Just put the 100W light bulb and the water together into a vacuum flask.
No more light.
> If you still want the light from the bulb, line the flask with something
> reflective (which it probably already is), and close the top with something
> transparent rather than the usual cork or rubber stopper.
Nothing like the light you originally had.
> Most of the light will escape through the transparent stopper,
Nope.
> but lots of the heat will stay in, and since the flask
> insulates very well, the water will eventually boil.
Thats not using JUST the waste heat.
CJT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><x6...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>>>>>I'm curious if anyone knows the most efficient way to boil water.
>
>
>>>>>>>> - stovetop kettle using gas
>>>>>>>> - stovetop kettle electric
>>>>>>>> - electric kettle made of plastic
>>>>>>>> - electric kettle stainless steel
>>>>>>>> - microwave oven using pyrex
>>>>>>>> - microwave using some kind of closed container
>>>>>>>> - other?
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>Good point, waste heat from <any source>
>
>
>>>>>>heat from a 100 watt light bulb is adequate.
>
>
>>>>>Nope, not as efficient as an immersion heater.
>
>
>
>
>>>Nope, more escapes as light,
>
>
>
>
... which is irrelevant to the original question. Convenience wasn't
the issue.
>
>
>>>and 100W will take too long to heat the water, so is less efficient for that
>>>reason.
>
>
>>Assume a 100 watt immersion heater, then.
>
>
> Useless assumption, no one uses one that small unless
> they only want to heat boil a small amount of water.
>
>
If you Google for 100 watt immersion heater, I think you'll find
they're common. Alternatively, assume however many 100 watt bulbs
you need in order to be in parity.
>>>>>And wont boil the water.
>
>
>>>>>>Anyone remember the "easy bake oven?"
>
>
>
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
CJT
I assumed by the latter he meant there was therefore more heat loss
to the surroundings (as a result of the longer time involved); it's
probably a small effect, but at least a plausible argument.
CJT
That depends on where you draw the system boundaries when you calculate
"efficiency."
CJT
If you don't want or need the light, then it's _all_ "waste."
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>> Waste heat from refrigerator.
No point in bothering with the bulb, might as well use the
immersion heater and it will have a high enough wattage to
boil the water in a reasonable time too, and use less of the
space in the container and much less likely to get broken too.
>>>> and 100W will take too long to heat the water, so is less efficient for
>>>> that reason.
>>> Assume a 100 watt immersion heater, then.
>> Useless assumption, no one uses one that small unless
>> they only want to heat boil a small amount of water.
> If you Google for 100 watt immersion heater, I think you'll find they're
> common.
They arent, particularly ones that will BOIL water.
> Alternatively, assume however many 100 watt bulbs you need in order to be in
> parity.
What is the point over an immersion heater ?