2 ms·
See, this is exactly the point. When something that seems obvious is not happening, most of the time it just means there is a gap in your understanding. Unless
by ricardobeat 6y ago
See, this is exactly the point. When something that seems obvious is not happening, most of the time it just means there is a gap in your understanding.
Unless you live in the north pole and get outside temps in the 3°C range, this idea is already a no-go. Refrigerators are pretty efficient, using the same energy as a single incandescent lamp. They are not fighting the internal house temperature at all - compressors/heat pumps actually get less efficient at colder temperatures, and the heat it sheds off is offsetting your heating costs.
- sitkack 6y agoI'll bite, but you haven't shown anything and have sprinkled your comment full of rhetorical devices and fallacies. The average upfridge at homedepot (USA) consumes 500kWh ish a year. This is to cool down from an internal ambient of 20C. It absolutely takes more work to cool from 20C than it does 10,5 or 0C. This is the conservation of energy. Cooler _efficiency_ changes as it approaches the setpoint do not mean that I can have free energy by having a larger delta. Modern refrigerators have been designed specifically (forced by the government) because they are always-on devices that in aggregate consume large amounts of energy. You are conflating low power and always-on consumption of energy. I'll absolutely engage with you, but it needs to be over facts and mathematics and not hand wavy arguments about "pretty efficient" vs a incandescent lamp. https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/12-2-first-law-of-thermodynamics-thermal-energy-and-work https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/12-2-first-law-of-t...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]