It seems you're trying to dress your theory as fact. I'm afraid there is a big difference between theory and reality. What sounds good in theory may not be the case in reality. If your theory was true then this would be reflected in consumers complaining of slow Miele vacuuming machines in their reviews. The fact it hasn't happened means I can swiftly dismiss your so called facts as just a theory.Originally Posted by peterb
Last edited by Top_gun; 03-09-2014 at 11:43 PM.
You can dismiss what you like
I'm not dressing theory as fact - that seems to be how you are interpreting it, perhaps because you still don't understand the underlying science?
But if your experience is good - I am pleased for you. But that doesn't alter the basic premiss that lower power does not necessarily equal lower overall energy consumption or efficiency.
Next?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Noxvayl (04-09-2014)
well it is fact. Anyone with an engineering degree would know that and back it up with a good bit of maths, science and FACT. Go and read up on mass flow and Bernoulli. then take care few fluids labs playing with the flow generator and hydraulic jumps etc. then maybe read up on a degree level fluid textbook sit a few exams get a proper qualification that lets you comment sensibly in what does and doesn't work, is and isn't fact. until then please refrain from dismissing entirely truthful comments just because you don't like what they say.
As for next I believe you wouldn't be trying to be so rude and dismissively arrogant as to imply your poorly reasoned and unsubstantiated post was some kind of definitive conclusion. I can only conclude you were introducing a tangent regarding the clothing store. it used to be very good but the quality has gone down somewhat of late.
Last edited by ik9000; 03-09-2014 at 11:54 PM.
People rave about iphones too.
No, the underlying science made sense. As did the energy efficient kettle. What I am questioning is whether the theory translates to the real world.You can dismiss what you like
I'm not dressing theory as fact - that seems to be how you are interpreting it, perhaps because you still don't understand the underlying science?
But f your experience is good - I am pleased for you. But that doesn't alter the basic premiss that lower power does not necessarily equal lower overall energy consumption or efficiency.
Next?
I don't doubt PeterB's intelligence as the other day I was intrigued by one of his post on Corsair PSUs. I suspected some time ago he came from an engineering background. But that does not mean I should accept everything he says as fact in the same way I don't accept the word of marketing as fact. Yesterday I came across a blog where an Electrical Engineer talked about Close Mind Syndrome and how most technical people will rely solely on hard data and facts to draw a conclusion before testing the reality of the situation to determine correlation. I believe the same has happened here. I can't question his science but I can question the end result.
As for the next bit, it was just a bit of silliness but I took it out as I later thought it may cause a tricky conversation, the page refreshed and then I saw your post. Please accept my apologies - no offence was intended.
Scientists are the ones that deal with theory. Engineers translate theory into the real world. That is what engineering is, and is what we do on a daily basis.
Let me re-phrase that for you: "People will rely on prejudice to draw a conclusion before testing reality". That is just people.
So I have no idea who that bloke has been working with. In my experience, engineers often have to do things that have never been done before causing them to question everything. That might be why we are drawn to this thread, questioning how you can make it more efficient when you seem to be up against fundamental limits (specially with the kettle).
So basically the EU proposals remind me of this video (the expert) which is what being an engineer can often feel like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Last edited by DanceswithUnix; 04-09-2014 at 07:42 AM. Reason: Typo
Noxvayl (04-09-2014)
Seven Red lines sums this up brilliantly.
The way the ignorant attack those who understand the problem, refusing to actually engage with them on the domain knowledge, instead just making idiotic noises.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
It is the way that these things almost makes sense that I suppose is snaring.
We want a cleaner that is quieter (most likely requiring more energy to push exhaust through silencing systems), and emits less dust (so better filtering, requiring energy to push the air through), and we want it to use less energy. In isolation they seem sane, they just don't add up.
Perhaps that is why I cringe at the energy restriction. Making a unit quieter can be done by throwing money at the problem, but most people won't want to pay £500 for a cleaner just so they can get a state of the art electric motor in there to produce less noise and an active noise cancellation system to reduce exhaust noise down to almost nothing. Better filtering sounds great, and is common enough with HEPA models being fairly common. But mandatory filtering would probably mean active mass airflow monitoring around the cleaner to warn if they get clogged in the same way that cars have sensors around CAT converters and DPF filters. It all costs money, it all requires energy.
That bloke was actually talking about himself suffering the closed mind syndrome as an Electrical Engineer. What I'm questioning is the reality not the theory.
Last edited by Top_gun; 04-09-2014 at 11:24 AM.
And I was saying that mapping theory to reality is what engineers do. If you aren't any good at it, you end up putting bad theories into a real product that doesn't work, money gets lost in development, people lose their jobs in cost cutting so the company doesn't fold because you messed up. So let me make myself clear, when I say that I don't get how you can just lower the consumption of a cleaner without *something* having to give, that isn't born from theory that is from hard reality having teeth that an engineer learns to respect.
When IK9000 mentioned thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, these aren't theories, they are practical subjects.
The electrical engineer wasn't talking about putting bad theories into real products that doesn't work. He was saying most technical people suffers from Closed Mind Syndrome and there is a difference between theory and reality. The reality is, for me, how comes customers haven't complained of longer cleaning times?
So to take your other argument one stage further, why would Miele Engineers design a product which takes twice as long to clean given the reputation of the company?
Without wishing to put words in Top_Gun's mouth, perhaps because a vacuum cleaner is about a system of parts, and the effect of the sum of those parts is more than just the power of the motor.
For instance, it is possible to solve a problem by throwing power at the motor. But it might also be possible to solve it by redesigning other parts, like suction chambers, filtering systems, etc.
Think cars. You can make a car go quicker by putting in a bigger engine. But you could also make it go faster by cutting the weight of the rest of the car, or perhaps by a more efficient and better made gearbox, or a better diff, carbon-fibre propshaft (cutting weight) etc. Or perhaps by tuning and polishing manifold lengths, exhaust systems, etc.
But if vacuum manufacturers can just throw motor power at the problem, it's a relatively cheap and easy approach. But if you regulate to limit power, they might be able to rethink old design assumptions. For instance, for a very long time, vacuum cleaners had bags, not least 'cos that's how it'd always been done. Then, an engineer comes along and challenges that. Result? Bag-less models.
If the EU extends this to, say, kettles, it's far harder to see how other parts may be able to compensate for power limits. Though, I can think of one way that some kettles use, but it's the exception not the rule. The 'system' is little more that a chamber of water, and a heating element. But a vacuum cleaner's overall effectiveness is the result of the sum of quite a few components, not just motor power.
And that kettle design feature? Temperature control.
I can set the thermostat cutout point on my kettle. If I'm fast-boiling a kettle for, say, water for pasta, I want it boiling, so set it at 100c. But, for a cup of instant coffee, 85c works just fine. And, as we know, it takes a certain amount of energy in to heat water by each extra degree. So by reducing the target level from 100c to 85c, I save nearly 20% on the cost, and energy usage, every time I make a cuppa at 85c instead of 100c. That 20%, by the way, comes from raising room temp water, typically 20-25c, to 85c, instead of 100c.
It strikes me that a few people a confused about where science ends and engineering begins. Which in some ways is understandable as it is a bit of a grey area, due to the crossover point within Research and Development. Plus terminology can exacerbate this if you don't understand the difference between; hypothesis, theory and law.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm
So once you get to the level of theories and laws then you are dealing with principles that have been demonstrated to work in reality, albeit in some cases within well defined conditions. Thus in terms of this discussion dismissing the science is folly, as it is how the world works. Where the fun starts is in terms of practicability, i.e. can you build a functioning machine that is easy to use etc.
Finally the correct response is... "Yes we can draw seven red lines. However, I am curious as to why the green and transparent ink? Using them would significantly increase cost and time to the project."
Admittedly the funniest response I've heard was "so do we get an extra bonus for finding a way to contravene the laws of nature?"
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
People really need to stop using 'theory' as if it were a wild guess. If it turns out that reality doesn't match with a theory, then the theory is wrong and revised or discarded and replaced with a theory which matches observed phenomena.
Yeah, actually the contrary is true, when it comes to actually moving heat into a fluid, more heat is actually more efficient. But there are engineering tweaks kettle manufacturers could be doing to accelerate the rate of heating and shut off the element asap, aside from the variable thermostat, they could also increase the surface area of the kettle by taking CPU heatsink design cues and applying it to their flat baseplate designs. A nice well packed array of fins a bit under the minimum water level (lets make it a mug volume) will speed things up markedly, and increase thermal efficiency (more heat directed right into the water, rather than the kettle itself, and transferred/radiated into the environment). It would also make narrow kettle designs a hell of a lot more feasible, to boot.
Noxvayl (04-09-2014)
A sponge-like metallic foam would probably be quite good, but a nightmare to get limescale out of
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
