"Smart" Alloy Will Make Your Air Conditioner 175% More Efficient

[Airbot]

"Smart" Alloy Will Make Your Air Conditioner 175% More Efficient

Leaving your air conditioner on full blast all day might soon come with a little less guilt, thanks to an alloy developed by the University of Maryland. The "thermally elastic" material could allow air conditioners to run 175% more efficiently.

more

 

[Lordbob75]

Cool!

~Lordbob

 

[fseal]

Uuugh!

 

[Airbot]

Uuugh! huh. Very descriptive.

Of course more information is needed, but my initial thoughts would be this material could possibly have numerous advantages in different fields. Maybe that's just the scientist in me though.

 

[johnwillyums]

Perhaps a pc case of the future with Dyson bladeless fans that won't clog up

 

[clunkfish]

The "thermally elastic" material could allow air conditioners to run 175% more efficiently.

175% more efficient? So if an a/c unit is already, say, 20% efficient, what would the new improved model be?

1. (20+175)=195% efficient
or
2. (20+(20*1.75)=55% efficient

If the latter, I'd say that was a 35% increase in efficiency, not 175%; and if the former, then you are getting more energy out than you put in, and physicists don't like that.

Mind you, if it really does produce more energy than you put in, simultaneously sorting out global warming and the energy crisis would suddenly be pretty straightforward. Just deploy a bunch of these air conditioners around the world and bob's yer uncle

 

[fseal]

I was groaning about Lorbobs terrible terrible /terrible/ pun

 

[Lordbob75]

The "thermally elastic" material could allow air conditioners to run 175% more efficiently.

175% more efficient? So if an a/c unit is already, say, 20% efficient, what would the new improved model be?

1. (20+175)=195% efficient
or
2. (20+(20*1.75)=55% efficient

If the latter, I'd say that was a 35% increase in efficiency, not 175%; and if the former, then you are getting more energy out than you put in, and physicists don't like that.

Mind you, if it really does produce more energy than you put in, simultaneously sorting out global warming and the energy crisis would suddenly be pretty straightforward. Just deploy a bunch of these air conditioners around the world and bob's yer uncle

No you are right in the second one. Assuming AC is about 40% efficient, then it is essentially (40+(40*.75) and becomes 70% efficient. It may not be a BIG increase, but if every AC unit in Arizona used this, we would save a ton of money and landfill space.

I was groaning about Lorbobs terrible terrible /terrible/ pun

:roflmao:

That was literally unintentional and I didn't even think about it until you said this.

As Airbot said, this leaves room for some really (COOL) neat uses, such as a thermoelastic computer case, making the whole case a heatsink (not really practical, but kind of cool), or a better type of heatsink (more efficient than copper?).

~Lordbob

 

[smarteyeball]

As Airbot said, this leaves room for some really (COOL) neat uses, such as a thermoelastic computer case, making the whole case a heatsink (not really practical, but kind of cool), or a better type of heatsink (more efficient than copper?).

I bypassed any thought of air conditioning efficiency and went straight to thinking about cooler components too

(pun or literal meaning are equally interchangeable )

 

[clunkfish]

No you are right in the second one. Assuming AC is about 40% efficient, then it is essentially (40+(40*.75) and becomes 70% efficient. It may not be a BIG increase, but if every AC unit in Arizona used this, we would save a ton of money and landfill space.

No, that's a 75% increase. A 175% increase from 40%, using Method 2 geek gives:

(40+(40*1.75))=110% efficiency

- so we are still in the realms of perpetual motion machines. If they really can do this, buy stock right now

 

[Lordbob75]

No you are right in the second one. Assuming AC is about 40% efficient, then it is essentially (40+(40*.75) and becomes 70% efficient. It may not be a BIG increase, but if every AC unit in Arizona used this, we would save a ton of money and landfill space.

No, that's a 75% increase. A 175% increase from 40%, using Method 2 geek gives:

(40+(40*1.75))=110% efficiency

- so we are still in the realms of perpetual motion machines. If they really can do this, buy stock right now

No, thats wrong.

It is 175% MORE efficient than it already is, which means 1.75 more efficient... That makes it 70%.

~Lordbob

 

[clunkfish]

If I earn £40 per hour and get a 175% increase, I will now earn £110 per hour. If my increase is to £70 per hour, that's only a 75% rise.

It's always clearer when you put it in financial terms

 

[jebuchanan]

That 70% is still a product of the initial number.
175% (MORE) efficient, initial efficiency suggestion was 40%, = 40 (100%) + 30 (75%) = 70%
70% + 40% (the original number - the percentages are additive) = 110%.

Seeing as how one cannot generate more than is put into a system (power in = power out), the above numbers just do not work.
I would venture to say this system (may) improve efficience by a given amount, but any real numbers have yet to be determined/realized.

 

[Thorsen]

40%= 4/10= 0.4
175% = 175/100 = 1.75

.4 * 1.75 = 0.7 = 70%

 

[Thorsen]

another example.

Bob works at a job at 40% capacity.
Sue works twice as hard (200%)
sue works at 80% capacity

.4 * 2.0 = .80 or 80%

 

[fseal]

I would bet that it's 99% probable that the phrase "more efficient" was incorrectly used in the original source. Actual grammar is completely non-existant in most news sources these days.

 

[clunkfish]

40%= 4/10= 0.4
175% = 175/100 = 1.75

.4 * 1.75 = 0.7 = 70%

By your analysis, a 100% increase would be worthless:

40%= 4/10= 0.4
100% = 100/100 = 1.00
.4 * 1.00 = 0.4 = 40%

So a 100% increase from 40% would be...still 40%. This is clearly wrong.

What's more, a 50% increase by this method would mean a decrease:

40%= 4/10= 0.4
50% = 50/100 = 0.5
.4 * 0.5 = 0.2 = 20%

We started with 40%, increased it by half, and ended up with... only 20%. This is even more clearly wrong.

A 25% increase from 40% is 50%; a 50% increase from 40% is 60%; a 100% increase from 40% is 80%; and a 175% increase from 40% is 110%. So either standard air conditioners generally work at rather low efficiencies and the new system is going to improve them by an absolutely astonishing amount, or this "175% increase" they quote is a mistake. My money is on option 2

 

[jebuchanan]

:roflmao:

I would agree with option 2 also.

 

[Lordbob75]

40%= 4/10= 0.4
175% = 175/100 = 1.75

.4 * 1.75 = 0.7 = 70%

By your analysis, a 100% increase would be worthless:

40%= 4/10= 0.4
100% = 100/100 = 1.00
.4 * 1.00 = 0.4 = 40%

So a 100% increase from 40% would be...still 40%. This is clearly wrong.

What's more, a 50% increase by this method would mean a decrease:

40%= 4/10= 0.4
50% = 50/100 = 0.5
.4 * 0.5 = 0.2 = 20%

We started with 40%, increased it by half, and ended up with... only 20%. This is even more clearly wrong.

A 25% increase from 40% is 50%; a 50% increase from 40% is 60%; a 100% increase from 40% is 80%; and a 175% increase from 40% is 110%. So either standard air conditioners generally work at rather low efficiencies and the new system is going to improve them by an absolutely astonishing amount, or this "175% increase" they quote is a mistake. My money is on option 2

No, you are still wrong.

50% is 1/2 correct?
So 1/2 of 50% is 25%.
175% is 7/4, so 7/4 of 50% is 87.5%

~Lordbob

 

[jebuchanan]

You're missing the big point: This is on top of the original figure (added to).

so 175% more than 40% is 110%

let's work with actual numbers, shall we?

say (as in previous example) 100% is 100 units.
40% of this is 40 units.
still with me?

we increase the 40 units by 175% (175% of the 40 units).
first off, what are we doing?
we are adding an additional 175% of these 40 units to this amount.
40 * 1.75 (we all agree here 1.75 = 175%) = 70 (can be checked with a calculator for those who are slower)
this is the amount we are adding to the original 40 units.
so:
original units + 175% of those units = new total units
40 + 70 = 110 units now total.