3 ms·

Oh common. I objected to you saying that all energy drawn gets transformed to heat. That's patently false, unless the system you're studying has either efficien

by gdee 18y ago

Oh common. I objected to you saying that all energy drawn gets transformed to heat. That's patently false, unless the system you're studying has either efficiency 0% or is indeed a heater of efficiency 100%. Anything in between contradicts what you said. In the specific case I've objected to is even easier to see the problem. The HDD platters spin. That's work done. Energy transformation from electric to kinetic. Whether its quantity is bigger or smaller than that that gets transformed to thermal energy is a matter of efficiency. Otherwise the kinetic one would be free and Perendev and Bedini would be inclined to post here.

tome 18y ago
I appreciate that you've taken the literal interpretation of the world "all", but if you're going to be pedantic (which isn't very helpful or interesting in any case) at least be correct, please. Eventually all the kinetic energy in the spinning platters is converted to heat. It is converted continuously to heat by the process of friction between moving parts, and by the time the platters stop moving, all of it that was kinetic is now thermal.
- gdee 18y ago
  I'm sorry if I seemed pedantic. It was not my intention. I took "all" literally because I thought that it was important in that context. The problem was pointed to be heat and I thought pointing out that heat is the result (and directly proportional with) the inefficiency of the design (friction mainly) and power drawn, would be useful. It thus seemed that increasing efficiency and/or reducing power requirements would be a nice way of solving that particular wish in the original article. Therefore I thought that assuming heat was unavoidable was not a good/correct idea and tried to argue that. The tone was already set to "let's make wishes". If you want to argue that all energy goes to heat in the end... irreversibly even, I think you move to a different level altogether.

by gdee 18y ago

tome 18y ago

I appreciate that you've taken the literal interpretation of the world "all", but if you're going to be pedantic (which isn't very helpful or interesting in any case) at least be correct, please. Eventually all the kinetic energy in the spinning platters is converted to heat. It is converted continuously to heat by the process of friction between moving parts, and by the time the platters stop moving, all of it that was kinetic is now thermal.

gdee 18y ago
I'm sorry if I seemed pedantic. It was not my intention. I took "all" literally because I thought that it was important in that context. The problem was pointed to be heat and I thought pointing out that heat is the result (and directly proportional with) the inefficiency of the design (friction mainly) and power drawn, would be useful. It thus seemed that increasing efficiency and/or reducing power requirements would be a nice way of solving that particular wish in the original article. Therefore I thought that assuming heat was unavoidable was not a good/correct idea and tried to argue that. The tone was already set to "let's make wishes". If you want to argue that all energy goes to heat in the end... irreversibly even, I think you move to a different level altogether.