3 ms·
All energy from log burners comes from the fuel, and some ashes remain unburnt. They're under 100% efficient at converting fuel to heat. You put in x fuel and <
by mminer237 4y ago
All energy from log burners comes from the fuel, and some ashes remain unburnt. They're under 100% efficient at converting fuel to heat. You put in x fuel and <x heat.
A heat pump takes heat from outside the system. You put in x fuel and you get >x heat. Getting more energy than you put in makes the efficiency over 100%.
- OJFord 4y agoI know. You can't just ignore the bulk of the input and still call it 'efficiency' though. Even manufacturers call this 'coefficient of performance', not efficiency.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoSince precise use of language is so important to you: > "You can't [...]" He did, so obviously he can. You mean shouldn't, not can't.
- marshray 4y agoAn implied qualification of "you can't [while remaining logically consistent]" is common usage.
- OJFord 4y agoSure, a slightly irritating turn of phrase, not accurate. I didn't think it would be so controversial to hold terms of art/words with actual scientific meaning to a higher standard though. If we're willing to be so blasé with 'efficiency' then why not, say, 'functional programming'? If it works it's functional right?
- bufferoverflow 4y ago> They're under 100% efficient at converting fuel to heat I think only matter-antimatter reaction comes close to 100%. Burning fuels isn't even 1% of that.