What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

What if there was a forum for discussing these?

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Psykar
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:32 am UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Psykar » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:38 am UTC

Klear wrote:
rhomboidal wrote:Now I want a lava box. For Christmas.


This is kinda creepy considering the hidden alt text on one of the pictures:

"it's warmer than my parents! It's my new parents."

The alt texts on the images of this one were brilliant.

ebbitten
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:05 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby ebbitten » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:01 am UTC

About the cost of a plugged in charger, does anyone know how he arrived at those numbers?

User avatar
Möbius
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Möbius » Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:06 am UTC

The manhole cover legend comes from 1957, Operation Plumbbob during the Pascal B test shot. This was an underground nuclear weapons test wherein the borehole had a steel lid (the manhole cover) welded to the well casing.

Look up the Pascal B shot here for a short description of the manhole cover story: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html

Dr Brownlee offers his own account of the event here: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Brownlee.html

Quoting Dr Brownlee in part:

*****
For Pascal B, my calculations were designed to calculate the time and specifics of the shock wave as it reached the cap. I used yields both expected and exaggerated in my calculations, but significant ones. When I described my results to Bill Ogle, the conversation went something like this.

Ogle: "What time does the shock arrive at the top of the pipe?"
RRB: "Thirty one milliseconds."
Ogle: "And what happens?"
RRB: "The shock reflects back down the hole, but the pressures and temperatures are such that the welded cap is bound to come off the hole."
Ogle: "How fast does it go?"
RRB: "My calculations are irrelevant on this point. They are only valid in speaking of the shock reflection."
Ogle: "How fast did it go?"
RRB: "Those numbers are meaningless. I have only a vacuum above the cap. No air, no gravity, no real material strengths in the iron cap. Effectively the cap is just loose, traveling through meaningless space."
Ogle: And how fast is it going?"

This last question was more of a shout. Bill liked to have a direct answer to each one of his questions.
RRB: "Six times the escape velocity from the earth."

Bill was quite delighted with the answer, for he had never before heard a velocity given in terms of the escape velocity from the earth! There was much laughter, and the legend was now born, for Bill loved to report to anybody who cared to listen about Brownlee's units of velocity. He says the cap would escape the earth. (But of course we did not believe that would ever happen.)

The next obvious decision was made. We'll put a high-speed movie camera looking at the cap, and see if we can measure the departure velocity.

In the event, the cap appeared above the hole in one frame only, so there was no direct velocity measurement. A lower limit could be calculated by considering the time between frames (and I don't remember what that was), but my summary of the situation was that when last seen, it was "going like a bat!!"
*****

So there you have it, the genesis of the Project Thunderwell legend.

User avatar
Goggalor
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:04 am UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Goggalor » Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:15 am UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:
jalohones wrote:Although given that it's a sealed box, I suspect the answer to the latter question is Schrodinger's cat.

I highly doubt that it would be Schrödinger's cat, because you have information while the box is closed, you could say something about lack of poisonous vials, but the heat would substitute for that. Lets say we do have Schrödinger's cat in there. Then the cat is alive so long as the dial is being changed, which can be determined by leaving the equilibrium state after having achieved it.

Not only by this information "leak" you could claim this (could be solved by having the cat turn it on 11 immediately, but then the cat is useless anyway), but the cat also manages to survive heat that normally vaporizes any metal. So the cat is indestructible, which is a fatal flaw for Schrödinger's experiment.

I highly doubt it's Schrödinger's cat, because it is difficult to turn a dial with paws.
Keeper Of The Bags, Protector Of Puns
A Timewaiter from the very beginning to the bitter end.1
1but not from beginning to end to beginning since I'm not a loopist

Greth
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 5:53 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Greth » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:50 pm UTC

So ... Who's turning the dial?

User avatar
Moose Anus
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Moose Anus » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:21 pm UTC

The dial is heat-activated.
Lemonade? ...Aww, ok.

User avatar
dimochka
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:25 pm UTC
Location: Formerly NYC, now LA. He/Him/His please.

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby dimochka » Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:42 pm UTC

the question is - if the dial keeps turning as hair dryer gets warmer, does it (a) turn all the way back to 0 and stop, (b) turn all the way to 0, but because of the heat continues turning and creates a perpetual cycle, or (c) continue getting warmer and closer to infinity heat over time?
If you're curious about the origin of my avatar, google "Cheburashka".

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:29 pm UTC

dimochka wrote:the question is - if the dial keeps turning as hair dryer gets warmer, does it (a) turn all the way back to 0 and stop, (b) turn all the way to 0, but because of the heat continues turning and creates a perpetual cycle, or (c) continue getting warmer and closer to infinity heat over time?
Infinite heat? I'm fairly sure there is a maximum limit to energy density (planck temperature).
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
5th Earth
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:22 pm UTC
Location: Santa Cruz, California

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby 5th Earth » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:14 pm UTC

cantab314 wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:Heating a gas while keeping the volume and the number of moles present fixed increases the pressure of the gas. If the temperature inside the box gets high enough, then you start getting fusion taking place. Higher still, and you get a quark-gluon soup. Higher still and you break known physics...
An entirely unexplored line. At what point do we have a fusion reactor in the box - and if the ionising radiation can escape directly, for how far around is it deadly?


Well, once fusion progresses beyond iron, it starts absorbing energy rather than releasing it. I imagine at any given temperature beyond that, there will be an equilibrium point where atoms are fusing to higher masses and then fissioning back down, re-releasing the absorbed energy. Until you get so hot that that the nuclei themselves break down, anyway. I think the net effect would be pretty much trivial compared to the energy already being produced by the hair dryer.
It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Rai
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:35 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Rai » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:11 am UTC

jgh wrote:Ah, but on Back to the Future they didn't use gigawatts, they used something called jiggawatts.

'jigga' was a pronunciation of 'giga' that never caught on.

elej
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:06 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby elej » Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:10 am UTC

Psykar wrote:
Klear wrote:
rhomboidal wrote:Now I want a lava box. For Christmas.


This is kinda creepy considering the hidden alt text on one of the pictures:

"it's warmer than my parents! It's my new parents."

The alt texts on the images of this one were brilliant.


yeah, liked the 'hidden alt text' on this one. reference to the hugging machine on the big bang theory? (the little kid made my go 'awww....')

also enjoyed 'the floor is made of lava'

User avatar
Davidy
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:18 am UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Davidy » Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:17 am UTC

What would happen if you turned it up to 11?
"It's only funny until someone loses an eye, then it's still funny but they can only see it in 2-D."

charonme
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:18 am UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby charonme » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:13 am UTC

If an unused charger isn’t warm to the touch, it’s using less than a penny of electricity a day. For a small smartphone charger, if it’s not warm to the touch, it’s using less than a penny a year.

this makes me wonder: some cellphones after being charged full display a message (even if they are turned off) telling me to unplug the charger from the wall "to save electricity" - is it possible that more energy is wasted on displaying the message (including manufacturing the phone and programming it to do this) than it would be wasted if everyone just left the charger in the wall?

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Angelastic » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:23 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Infinite heat? I'm fairly sure there is a maximum limit to energy density (planck temperature).

Then you start getting into negative absolute temperatures.
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
tibfulv
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:31 am UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby tibfulv » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:52 am UTC

Klear wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
Klear wrote:Whatever it was you just said, Pfhorrest came up with this javasript to enable it:

Code: Select all

javascript:(function(){ h = document.getElementsByTagName("img"); for (i=0; i<h.length; i++) h.item(i).title = h.item(i).alt; })()


I what? When did this happen? Have I been coding in my sleep?


Oops... it was huangho. Turns out that somebody misattributed the script in a quote. That somebody was me.

Incidentally, it seems we no longer need that javascript for later pages. Munroe has fixed the glitch that necessitated it, so now title/alt-texts work.

Ed.: The old ones have been fixed, too. Looks like a sed/perl filter, which I completely understand. I wouldn't have done it manually, either.

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby ijuin » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:44 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
dimochka wrote:the question is - if the dial keeps turning as hair dryer gets warmer, does it (a) turn all the way back to 0 and stop, (b) turn all the way to 0, but because of the heat continues turning and creates a perpetual cycle, or (c) continue getting warmer and closer to infinity heat over time?
Infinite heat? I'm fairly sure there is a maximum limit to energy density (planck temperature).

According to our current understanding of physics, anything that gets hotter than the Planck temperature necessarily contains so much energy that, since e = m * c^2, it is effectively dense enough to collapse into a black hole under its own gravitation.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Klear » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:57 am UTC

I guess if it wasn't for that, you'd still be unable to make something hotter once all the particles are moving at the speed of light.

User avatar
snowyowl
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby snowyowl » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:57 pm UTC

Klear wrote:I guess if it wasn't for that, you'd still be unable to make something hotter once all the particles are moving at the speed of light.


I don't think that works. Nothing (or rather nothing with mass) can reach the speed of light; no matter how fast something is moving it can always be made faster.
The preceding comment is an automated response.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby brenok » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

snowyowl wrote:
Klear wrote:I guess if it wasn't for that, you'd still be unable to make something hotter once all the particles are moving at the speed of light.


I don't think that works. Nothing (or rather nothing with mass) can reach the speed of light; no matter how fast something is moving it can always be made faster.


Isn't your second statement contradictory with your third?

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Klear » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:05 pm UTC

snowyowl wrote:
Klear wrote:I guess if it wasn't for that, you'd still be unable to make something hotter once all the particles are moving at the speed of light.


I don't think that works. Nothing (or rather nothing with mass) can reach the speed of light; no matter how fast something is moving it can always be made faster.


Gotcha. I meant 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of c and got lazy. Or, to put it in another way, that the speed of light would be a limit to temperature, even though you can't reach the limit itself.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Angelastic » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:42 pm UTC

brenok wrote:
snowyowl wrote:
Klear wrote:I guess if it wasn't for that, you'd still be unable to make something hotter once all the particles are moving at the speed of light.


I don't think that works. Nothing (or rather nothing with mass) can reach the speed of light; no matter how fast something is moving it can always be made faster.


Isn't your second statement contradictory with your third?
Nope, quite the opposite; something with mass can always get closer to the speed of light, and since it can never reach the speed of light, there will always be room for it to get a tiny bit closer. It can't be made so much faster that it'll be at or over the speed of light, but it can be made faster. If it could reach the speed of light, then it wouldn't be able to get any faster.
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
snowyowl
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby snowyowl » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:53 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:
brenok wrote:
snowyowl wrote:
Klear wrote:I guess if it wasn't for that, you'd still be unable to make something hotter once all the particles are moving at the speed of light.


I don't think that works. Nothing (or rather nothing with mass) can reach the speed of light; no matter how fast something is moving it can always be made faster.


Isn't your second statement contradictory with your third?
Nope, quite the opposite; something with mass can always get closer to the speed of light, and since it can never reach the speed of light, there will always be room for it to get a tiny bit closer. It can't be made so much faster that it'll be at or over the speed of light, but it can be made faster. If it could reach the speed of light, then it wouldn't be able to get any faster.

Precisely. You can't reach the speed of light, though you can get up to 0.9999999c. But once you're there, you can still accelerate to 0.99999999999999c. And from there to 0.9999999999999999999999999999c. And so on.
The preceding comment is an automated response.

User avatar
Jofur
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Jofur » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:58 pm UTC

Whee! Limits!
Everybody is doing it and nobody knows why.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:47 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
snowyowl wrote:
Klear wrote:I guess if it wasn't for that, you'd still be unable to make something hotter once all the particles are moving at the speed of light.


I don't think that works. Nothing (or rather nothing with mass) can reach the speed of light; no matter how fast something is moving it can always be made faster.


Gotcha. I meant 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of c and got lazy. Or, to put it in another way, that the speed of light would be a limit to temperature, even though you can't reach the limit itself.


You can keep increasing the kinetic energy of a particle without limit - as its speed approaches c, the energy manifests more as mass and less as velocity. The speed of light is no limit on temperature.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4540
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:15 pm UTC

This conversation makes me wonder several things:

1) Can a beam of light itself, considered as a collection of particles (photons), be said to have a temperature? If so, then as there is no more velocity to be added to a photon (already being at the speed of light), the only energy that can be added to a "gas" of photons is mass-energy (i.e. increasing frequency/decreasing wavelength), and there is a limit to that (Planck length is the minimum wavelength, no?). That would seem to give us a theoretical maximum temperature: that of a gas of planck-wavelength photons. Of course the temperature of such a gas will vary with pressure as well so the maximal temperature would be that of a maximally dense volume of such photons. And I'm pretty sure that would be the Planck temperature, as at that point you would have a volume of space maximally saturated with energy and it would collapse into a black hole, no?

2) Would it be practically possible to create a high enough energy density to form a black hole just out of light? Intersect a whole fuckton of beams of extremely high-energy lasers and eventually you have a point where so many high-energy photons are so close together that even they can't get away from each other? Of course any such black hole would be tiny and evaporate immediately, but would it be possible? (And if you did that in the midst of a good amount of other matter -- say, fire the lasers to intersect in the atmosphere of a gas giant -- could you create larger black holes at will?)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Klear » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:40 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:This conversation makes me wonder several things:

1) Can a beam of light itself, considered as a collection of particles (photons), be said to have a temperature? If so, then as there is no more velocity to be added to a photon (already being at the speed of light), the only energy that can be added to a "gas" of photons is mass-energy (i.e. increasing frequency/decreasing wavelength), and there is a limit to that (Planck length is the minimum wavelength, no?). That would seem to give us a theoretical maximum temperature: that of a gas of planck-wavelength photons. Of course the temperature of such a gas will vary with pressure as well so the maximal temperature would be that of a maximally dense volume of such photons. And I'm pretty sure that would be the Planck temperature, as at that point you would have a volume of space maximally saturated with energy and it would collapse into a black hole, no?

2) Would it be practically possible to create a high enough energy density to form a black hole just out of light? Intersect a whole fuckton of beams of extremely high-energy lasers and eventually you have a point where so many high-energy photons are so close together that even they can't get away from each other? Of course any such black hole would be tiny and evaporate immediately, but would it be possible? (And if you did that in the midst of a good amount of other matter -- say, fire the lasers to intersect in the atmosphere of a gas giant -- could you create larger black holes at will?)


1) Can massless particles even have temperature? I'd guess that they can't, but it's just a feeling.

2) I think I've seen this pop up as a suggested side effect to something in the fictional science forum not long ago, though I don't remember which thread it was... the one where we are trying to weight a feather perhaps?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:58 pm UTC

The "temperature" of a beam of light is a measure of the disorder of the photons in it - a laser, with all the photons moving in phase in the same direction is "cool" while a typical sunbeam is "warm".

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby endolith » Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:50 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Space Shuttle's tiles once. You can heat them until they are glowing red ( the spectral radiant output is a function of temperature and all sorts of weird physics that get summarized into how much unlike a 'black body radiator' the material is) and hold them in your hands without injury


Vid or it didn't happen?

charonme wrote:this makes me wonder: some cellphones after being charged full display a message (even if they are turned off) telling me to unplug the charger from the wall "to save electricity" - is it possible that more energy is wasted on displaying the message (including manufacturing the phone and programming it to do this) than it would be wasted if everyone just left the charger in the wall?


Or just hang up a single load of laundry to air-dry instead of putting it in the dryer, and forget about it. You'll save more energy with one load of laundry than you would unplugging chargers for a year.

Each time it nears the ground, it superheats the surface, and the plume of expanding air hurls it back into the sky.

Would this really happen? I'm skeptical. Yes, rockets shoot away from the earth with less energy output, but their energy is directed downward. The hair dryer is superheating everything in all directions. What determines whether it shoots away from the Earth or burrows a melty hole into the Earth?
Last edited by endolith on Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

speising
Posts: 2212
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby speising » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:11 pm UTC

endolith wrote:
charonme wrote:this makes me wonder: some cellphones after being charged full display a message (even if they are turned off) telling me to unplug the charger from the wall "to save electricity" - is it possible that more energy is wasted on displaying the message (including manufacturing the phone and programming it to do this) than it would be wasted if everyone just left the charger in the wall?


Or just hang up a single load of laundry to air-dry instead of putting it in the dryer, and forget about it. You'll save more energy with one load of laundry than you would unplugging chargers for a year.


what if i don't even own a dryer? do i have to buy one to save by not using it?

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby endolith » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:20 pm UTC

speising wrote:what if i don't even own a dryer? do i have to buy one to save by not using it?


Cook a meal in a microwave instead of the oven? Wash a few loads of dishes by hand instead of using the dishwasher? Turn off the air conditioning for a few hours?

speising
Posts: 2212
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby speising » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:36 pm UTC

endolith wrote:
speising wrote:what if i don't even own a dryer? do i have to buy one to save by not using it?


Cook a meal in a microwave instead of the oven? Wash a few loads of dishes by hand instead of using the dishwasher? Turn off the air conditioning for a few hours?


dishwashers are actually cheaper than handwashing.
i also do not have a/c.

my point is: i never get why people say instead of x just do y, that will save more. how do you know the other one isn't already doing y? someone asking about energy saving is probably already energy concious and has already implemented all the obvious strategies.

User avatar
trueger
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:57 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby trueger » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:20 pm UTC

Icalasari wrote:
Klear wrote:
rhomboidal wrote:Now I want a lava box. For Christmas.


This is kinda creepy considering the hidden alt text on one of the pictures:

"it's warmer than my parents! It's my new parents."


Oj freaking site won't let me put in my shock at the what if images having alt text


Yep, there goes my afternoon.

Interplanetary Cessna (#30) is especially good: "i do not want to go to space today".
(That and the 32 individual alt-texts for the various solar system bodies.)

Mikeski
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Mikeski » Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:40 am UTC

Move somewhere colder, then all the energy you're "wasting" by leaving chargers plugged in is subtracted from your heating bill.

Also applies to incandescent light bulbs vs. those expensive new mercury-delivery systems the gov't wants us to use.

KarenRei
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby KarenRei » Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:03 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:Move somewhere colder, then all the energy you're "wasting" by leaving chargers plugged in is subtracted from your heating bill.

Also applies to incandescent light bulbs vs. those expensive new mercury-delivery systems the gov't wants us to use.


There'd be less mercury emitted if you took a fluorescent bulb at end-of-life, smashed it open, put it into a plasma arc furnace to vaporize all of its mercury (when broken in real life, most of it stays with the glass), and vented it straight into the atmosphere, then if you'd used an incandescent bulb, just due to the amount of mercury released from burning the extra coal (let alone all of the other pollutants). And CFL mercury is inorganic (elemental), rather than the organic mercury (methyl and dimethyl) released from burning coal.

Also, in most places, there are far more efficient ways to heat your home than with non-circulated electric heat. And of course you know that telling someone to move isn't a practical solution. And that in the summer, waste heat is an added cost to get rid of.

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby endolith » Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:17 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:Move somewhere colder, then all the energy you're "wasting" by leaving chargers plugged in is subtracted from your heating bill.

Yes, but then they'll argue that a heat pump can heat your home more efficiently than just dumping energy directly into it.

speising wrote:my point is: i never get why people say instead of x just do y, that will save more. how do you know the other one isn't already doing y?

Because 99% of people aren't, and have no intention of doing so, but do bullshit things like unplugging cell phone chargers and then feel better about themselves while having negligible effect on anything? Electricity consumption per capita

KarenRei wrote:And CFL mercury is inorganic (elemental), rather than the organic mercury (methyl and dimethyl) released from burning coal.

Ooh, so the coal mercury is healthier, right? It's all-natural and organic!

Mikeski
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Mikeski » Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:46 pm UTC

KarenRei wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Move somewhere colder, then all the energy you're "wasting" by leaving chargers plugged in is subtracted from your heating bill.

Also applies to incandescent light bulbs vs. those expensive new mercury-delivery systems the gov't wants us to use.

There'd be less mercury emitted if you took a fluorescent bulb at end-of-life, smashed it open, put it into a plasma arc furnace to vaporize all of its mercury (when broken in real life, most of it stays with the glass), and vented it straight into the atmosphere,

And the power savings vs. incandescent when you add in this recycling method? Including transport costs? I'm not likely to wait until I have a back-seat-full of curlycue lightbulbs before I want to get them out of my house. I'm guessing we're burning more fossil fuels to use the "lower power" bulbs. (Pretty sure there's more power and materials used to manufacture the things, too.)

And the chances of everyone doing things the right way, vs. just throwing the things in the trash and polluting trash bins, trash trucks, and landfills?

And the effects of breaking one in your house? (i.e. the power savings of the bulb, vs. the power used to re-climate-control your house if you do what most people suggest for safety?) I bet I use a lot more energy to re-heat or re-cool my house from a Minnesota summer day or winter night if I have to "open the windows for several hours" and "open the windows the next several times I vacuum", when it's -20F or +90F & 90%humidity outside, vs. what that one CFL "saved" me over its lifetime.

And the environmental damage when a truckload of CFLs on the way to Home Depot crashes, vs. a truckload of incandescents? Or when the stock clerk drops a case of them? Or a customer rams their shopping cart into a display? (I worked as a grocery store manager for several years; breakage is a daily event.)

There's a lot of things I want to do to help the environment. I can't see a way where CFL light bulbs do anything but hurt it, overall. The gov't progressively outlawing incandescents is nothing but stupid busybodying overreach.

then if you'd used an incandescent bulb, just due to the amount of mercury released from burning the extra coal (let alone all of the other pollutants). And CFL mercury is inorganic (elemental), rather than the organic mercury (methyl and dimethyl) released from burning coal.

That's a reason to go natural gas or nuclear or hydro or something else large-scale and non-coal, not a reason to use environmentally-questionable lightbulbs.

Also, in most places, there are far more efficient ways to heat your home than with non-circulated electric heat. And of course you know that telling someone to move isn't a practical solution. And that in the summer, waste heat is an added cost to get rid of.

Since we're arguing about power usage in the watt-hours-per-year range, I thought the sarcasm involved in a suggestion about heating one's home with cell-phone chargers or moving to Moose Jaw would be obvious. :wink:

charonme
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:18 am UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby charonme » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:53 am UTC

All 1875 watts have to go somewhere. No matter what happens inside the box, if there’s 1875 watts of power being used, eventually there will be 1875 watts of heat flowing out.

Not always. Depends on the mass of the box (and its contents) and its rotation speed... :twisted:

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby ijuin » Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:45 pm UTC

endolith wrote:
Each time it nears the ground, it superheats the surface, and the plume of expanding air hurls it back into the sky.

Would this really happen? I'm skeptical. Yes, rockets shoot away from the earth with less energy output, but their energy is directed downward. The hair dryer is superheating everything in all directions. What determines whether it shoots away from the Earth or burrows a melty hole into the Earth?


The box is blasted upward because there is far more mass below the box getting superheated than above. Above the box is only the remainder of the atmosphere, while below the box is the entire surface and subsurface of the Earth. Thus, if the heat output is high enough, far more mass will be heated underneath than above, therefore any pressure from the expanding gases will tend to be pushing it upward from below.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:31 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:This conversation makes me wonder several things:

1) Can a beam of light itself, considered as a collection of particles (photons), be said to have a temperature? If so, then as there is no more velocity to be added to a photon (already being at the speed of light), the only energy that can be added to a "gas" of photons is mass-energy (i.e. increasing frequency/decreasing wavelength), and there is a limit to that (Planck length is the minimum wavelength, no?). That would seem to give us a theoretical maximum temperature: that of a gas of planck-wavelength photons. Of course the temperature of such a gas will vary with pressure as well so the maximal temperature would be that of a maximally dense volume of such photons. And I'm pretty sure that would be the Planck temperature, as at that point you would have a volume of space maximally saturated with energy and it would collapse into a black hole, no?


1) Can massless particles even have temperature? I'd guess that they can't, but it's just a feeling.
...

A photon to my understanding has an infinitesimally small amount of mass. Even in 5th grade science they teach that electrons have mass when the class gets around to the part about atomic weight.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

speising
Posts: 2212
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby speising » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:A photon to my understanding has an infinitesimally small amount of mass.


if it had, it couldn't go at the speed of light...


Return to “What If?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests