yh125d
Diamond Member
- Dec 23, 2006
- 6,886
- 0
- 76
The same laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems, so I'm not sure why you think we can't relate the two. Who are we to tell people what to do with their car engines?
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, really. The only issue I'm having is that in your concluding statement you keep adding the word "thermally" in front of "efficient" when you should not. It's fine to take some shorthand and simply say the car engine is 25% efficient, because it is 25% mechanically efficient and that is a car engine's primary purpose -- outputting mechanical energy.
But if you wanted to use the car engine to cook breakfast on the engine block, it is clearly 75% efficient at producing heat! Heat suddenly is the work being done, and the engine is really quite good at converting fuel into heat. Thus, car engines do not become thermally inefficient simply because we elect to focus on their ability to move cars instead of their ability to produce heat. The percents don't change. (It's also incorrect to claim the egg-cooking car engine is suddenly 0% mechanically efficient...unless you get eggs in the engine or something.)
Anyway, if someone can point me in the direction of a test showing the electrical input power of a GPU roughly equaling the heat output, I'd appreciate a PM. People are getting tired of this rather argumentative tangent so I'm done posting on the subject.
You're reading too much into your elementary understanding of the word "thermal" and not enough into the strict definition of thermal efficiency. To be completely honest I don't know how to better explain it to you, other than to just say "sorry, that's not how it works"
Thermal efficiency is a relative term. The thermal efficiency of a car engine doing mechanical work as was its intention is ~25%. The thermal efficiency of a car engine running in your garage to heat it up in the winter cause it's unheated is closer to 75%. But those are (in terms of TE) two distinct and separate systems. One, a mechanical engine, and two, a heater. Just because it is technically the same object doesn't mean you can use it's TE when used as a heater and apply it when it's used as a mechanical engine
Now, if you were to rig up a car to have the engine drive the car, and gather some waste heat produced by the engine to run a steam engine, the TE of the system would theoretically shoot up, because you're using the engine as a heat engine (~75% TE) and a mechanical engine (~25% TE) at the same time, and getting a lot more work done with the same amount of input (gasoline)
I can understand how GPUs are confusing though. Once again excluding the fan for simplicity, they do no usable work from their input. We are also ignoring the pushing around of a few trillion electrons and switching of nm scale xtors as they are negligible
If a system does no usable work for it's intended purpose from it's input energy, it is 0% TE for that task. That's why a GPU used as a GPU is 0%TE. When you use a GPU as a heater, it is nearing 100%TE, and that's where the confusion is coming from.
And it's pretty ridiculous to ask for a test showing what percentage of the input power to a GPU is converted into heat, it would be nigh-impossible to do. To isolate a GPU from the other components completely, in an airtight chamber, and measure accurately how rapidly it heats up (from which you can extract the amount of heat being dumped into the known volume) would be quite infeasible
