Well it’s not creating energy out of thin air. But it is moving it. So you get more energy moved than the amount of energy put in.
Comment on Anon questions the magic box
And009@reddthat.com 2 months agoAh… energy doesn’t work that way. You can’t have a perpetually endless cycle with 100% efficiency in real world.
ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
And009@reddthat.com 2 months ago
Sure but that’s not the definition of efficiency, I’m sure it might be 5x more effective than traditional heaters of some sort from the power consumption perspective
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
so technically, it’s not generating electricity, it’s moving heat from point A to point B, and believe it or not, 20f air still has a lot more heat energy in it than 0k air. So yeah, it’s more than 100% efficient. Comparing it to electric resistive heating, which is producing the heat directly from electricity, rather than moving it around.
An electric resistive heater is 100% efficient, the efficiency of gas furnaces is measured similarly, though they hit about 90% eff, due to basic mechanics. Geothermal systems would also have greater than 100% efficiency as well, due to the fact that they just move fluid around, which is then cooled by the earth, (or warmed by it) though external heating wouldn’t be.
Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
It’s called a CoP, Coefficient of Performance. It essentially is a factor of how much electricity you put in and how much cooling power comes out.
Cooling towers can have a CoP of 12 and beyond, whereas compression cooling usually lingers at around 3 to 3.5. so at a CoP of 3 for instance, you could put in 1 kW of electricity and get 3 kW of cooling power.