older/newer GCH radiator efficiency?

It's common, yes. It's also common for heaters to not make noises.

As the heater cools any stresses are relieved. Everything comes out as heat. There is always a time delay between electricity input and heat output, one would have to have a zero mass heater for time delay to not ocur.

However the air movement is pushed by the heat released, not by the heater itself. The heater only outputs heat, the air does its movement thing in response but it's still 100% heat from the heater.

If you bolted a peltier junction to the heater & took electricity from it the heater would still be 100% efficient. The peltier would then be turning heat to electricity after the fact.

It doesn't. If it did you'd have a problem with the heater design. I can't rule out the existence of such heaters, but normally that does not occur.

Resistors in electronic circuits are another example. Very close to 100% of them turn electriicty to heat at 100% efficiency. There is a vast number of them doing that at every moment in the world.

NT

Well, if you want to reduce yourself to arguing a meanless tautology, you can. But since the subject of this thread is "older/newer GCH radiator efficiency", and not about some notional idealized heat producing device along in the style of a spherical cow, then some practical considerations may be relevant. However, I expect that modern radiator is only likely to be significantly better in terms of appearance, maintainability, or other other properties rather than heat production. Of course, if one of those other properties is e.g. better internal flow, less silting, heating up faster, or whatever, it might thus be better at meeting the needs (or hopes) of the user, even if the steady-state "ideal heat efficiency" is the same as an older radiator.

#Paul

no, I'm just bringing it back to facts. Snipping something misleadingly won't change that.

What I'm saying applies for all practical purposes to any passive CH rad, as well as perfectly so to some.

stating the obvious

it could be, though those 3 factors are unlikely to be better to a significant extent.

A newer rad could also be worse. DAMHIKT.

NT

At last. Why didn't you state this first?

But good to see you admit you were wrong all this time.

He's not wrong. Producing heat from other forms of energy is one thing you can do with 100% efficiency, certainly given time for equilibration. There are no theoretical limitations from thermodynamics.

I wasn't wrong, and haven't said I was. If you hadn't snipped that sentence it would be clear what I meant, at least for folks that can comprehend stuff.

D--- there's some stupid in this thread.

NT

They don't like this factual reality stuff.

Please help me by explaining where I went wrong on 24 June when arguing there would be some loss from the EMFs which prevent 100% for a system which delivers /useful/ heat.

Or explain why you think it /useful/ merely to produce heat.

I don't think CH rads produce EMFs. Electronic circuits tend to, but that can also be prevented.

There are lots of uses for heat :)

NT

Last I heard infrared was a electromagnetic frequency. Perhaps you're getting confused with a related force?

So you stand by his claim that an electric convector heater is 100% efficient? Just curious.

It's a matter of setting the bounds of the question. The question was whether 100% of the electridal energy *delivered to the radiator* could be converted to heat. Although I would point out that your "lossses" are actually in the form of heat delivered to other parts of the building or conversely paid for by the utility company if they are outside the building.

Generally that is what a radiator is useful for. Not that I am claiming there is any particular practical advantage of 100% over, say, 99% or

Yes. I'm saying there is no fundamental reason why it can't be. Any other forms of energy produced are probably going to decay to heat rapidly or heat other objects in the room, for instance.

I said some are, not all are. Oil filled ones that overheat, glow red hot & catch fire may have more heat output than input :)

NT

OK then. As a rad heats, it expands. Please explain where the energy needed for that comes from, and just how it is ultimately translated into useful heat. Or have we invented perpetual motion? Where you get 'work' done for no energy?

And those that simply expand? As all will?

It only expands once. After that it is 100% efficient.

And, of course, the heat stored during expansion will be released when it cools down.

Ah - right. And when it contracts dumps all the energy needed back into the system.