reverse cycle air conditioning heating is more efficient??

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:26:50 +1100, "Two Bob"

Food and water was free once too, until they found a way to charge people for it. In fact they already charge for solar energy when it's added to the electricity grid.

MrT.

Food and water is still free if you grow it and capture it yourself.

It's still free if you have your own solar cells, solar air heater, solar hot water or whatever ;-)

Dave :)

You are totally off the track, I don't care about absolute efficiency or any thermodynamic laws. I *know* the sun is providing most of the energy, but to me that energy is free and costs me nothing. I am not arguing anything to do with absolute efficiency at all.

I put in 25W of Electrical energy and I get out 500W of heat energy. That is 2000% better *relative* to an electric heater, and much better than a reverse cycle aircon. The exact same conclusion you came to when you dusted off your textbooks ;-)

Dave :)

Where does stealing come into this? As far as the sun is concerned, the heat and light energy is free for all and any to use. So, in your idea, plants steal the energy to grow? Yes it is a finite scource, but no one will be around to see that energy disappear. When this energy is utilised, it is still free, the only cost, as I have stated, is the cost of extracting it for our needs.

Cant you read? That's what I said, without writing a novel about it.. The suns energy is free. The only energy required is the energy to make it useful. Argue all you want, the facts are the facts. The sun was given to us to utilise any way we want. I dont care who created which law or rule, the suns energy id free.

Prove me wrong!

I can't understand the total stupidity of your argument. How can you include the energy the sun contributes for free. Free is free. If the sum contributes 500watts of of free energy and it requires 25watts af energy to utilise it, you have only expended 25watts of energy. Simple and basic logic. If you needed $2000, and I give you $1500 for nothing (and with no expectation of repayment), you have expended a total of $500. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.

So, if the sun has given you 500W for free, and you have used 25W to "move"

500W, then the total sum of the energy is 25Watts that you have used. Which is a bonus and a lot cheaper than you would like us to believe. No one wants to worry about how much energy is used or saved, they are only interested in what it saved in dollar terms. This is also fact!

Food costs us money because people (ie farmers) have to put a lot of labour into bringing it to market. No argument. If you want to complain about what we pay for food, complain to woolies and coles.

Water, well, there is the biggest government rip off known to man. We were told we had to pay for water until the drought was ended (in the eighties). The drought ended and they are still charging for water. This is the best example of legalised theft that exsists. Water costs absolutely NOTHING. There is nothing wrong with charging us for the delivery of water, but to charge for the water itself is a precursor to charging for the air we breathe. As a result of water charges, the water authority are the largest landowners in the country.

Hah! That is another government rip off. All those greenies pay extra for their power bills for the same power normal people know is no different. If it's on the grid, the same power goes to every household, call it what you like.

Please let me know where you get the "solar cells, solar air heater, solar hot water or whatever" free?

MrT.

That much is clear.

to

fact

Cash is fine then :-)

"move"

Which

only

So simply quote running COST then rather than EFFICIENCY.

MrT.

That much is clear.

to

fact

Cash is fine then :-)

"move"

Which

only

So simply quote running COST then rather than EFFICIENCY.

MrT.

Just *how* did I know you were going to ask that!

Of course they are not free, but there is this thing thing called a payback period, perhaps you've heard of it? Once that payback period is over the suns energy is FREE.

Dave :)

Why?, *relative efficiency* against a benchmark is a perfectly valid way to represent something, especially for this industry where it is common practice.

Dave :)

solar

Because it was so obvious blind Freddy would have expected it?

Yes, and someone else calculated his payback period is after his death. :-) But in fact they will probably need replacing before then, so back to square one! It's like the greenies claiming trams and trains are non polluting, whilst screaming that brown coal power stations are filthy polluters :-) There is a reason why all power is not generated from solar, it's still uneconomical at current costs.

MrT.

*IF* it's stated as such, which it wasn't.

There are many stupid things that are common practice. Doesn't make them right, just common.

MrT.

It doesn't have to be, especially when it's common practice in the field being discussed. Most of us knew exactly what it was, and it was cleared up very early on for those who were unsure, but people still had to be pedantic and harp on about it. Perhaps we should state it in every single post on the subject just to keep you happy?

It is not stupid or wrong, and it is the accepted terminology, so you have to live with it I'm afraid :-P

Dave :)

I would love to respond, but the beer and the ashes has better of me. Did you all know that Aus beat UK when it should have been not possible. ANy way, the original post should be confirmed as relative rather than absolute. nothing is free...

thermodynamic efficiency versus heating efficiency,

Bye. Jasen

"Two Bob" aka John the Schizoid snipped-for-privacy@iprimus.com.au

** You are ONE evil, PARANOID SCHIZO NUT CASE

There is no place for sub human GARBAGE like you here.

........ Phil

Isnt it related? If something is efficient, then it is cost effective. If the heat is supplied by nature and the only energy required is to redirect it, it has to be more efficient than manufacturing the heat first, hence, cheaper.