Timeline for Is it wasteful to use a heating element, instead of doing useful work?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2014 at 7:53 | comment | added | John Rennie | @slim: I've just spotted physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53493/…, which is a near duplicate. | |
| Jan 11, 2014 at 11:28 | answer | added | Urgje | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 20:01 | vote | accept | slim | ||
| Jan 10, 2014 at 18:21 | answer | added | Ross Millikan | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 18:07 | answer | added | John Rennie | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 17:19 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | You used "cost" to mean "expense" 11 words prior to using it to mean something entirely different, how could anyone follow that train of thought? | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 17:17 | history | edited | slim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2014 at 17:09 | comment | added | slim | @KyleKanos have replaced "cost the same as" with "use the same amount of power as". In CS we use "cost" to mean that; thought it was the same in physics. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 17:08 | history | edited | slim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:55 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Now it's off-topic because it is not asking about physics but cost-effectiveness. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:50 | comment | added | innisfree | @Nabla a classical logic gate has 2 in bits and 1 out bit. Destroys info, with a temp increase as entropy is increased. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:38 | comment | added | slim | Have replaced "should we" with "is it more efficient to". | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:38 | history | edited | slim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Replaced "should we" with "is it more efficient", to avoid accusations of being off-topic.
|
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:32 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | I'm not going to get into a debate. Your question is off-topic because it is opinion based (it's a "should we do this"-type question). | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:30 | history | edited | slim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 345 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:23 | comment | added | slim | @KyleKanos I can remove the reference to folding@home if necessary. It's there as a well known example of something that maxes out the CPU "indefinitely". You seem to be missing the point here. The question is theoretical. Would it make sense to manufacture "heaters" which do computational work as a side effect? | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:21 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Uhh, how many people have 16 computers let alone running them full-steam? | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:19 | comment | added | slim | @KyleKanos 4 CPUs mostly idling is less than one 1KW heater, yes. 16 dual core Pentiums at 65W each, given a task that uses 100% CPU, would exceed a 1KW heater. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:19 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Note also that this appears off-topic as it is (a) asking for opinions and (b) appears to be a plug for software. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:13 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 11, 2014 at 6:07 | |||||
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:11 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | My office building lost its heat a few days ago for a couple days; the 4 CPUs in my office could not heat the room but the portable heater we brought in the next day kept it nice and warm. Thus, I don't think your argument about heating your house with a computer is feasible. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:58 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 10, 2014 at 16:04 | |||||
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:39 | history | asked | slim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |