They didn’t redefine efficiency. They changed the purpose scoping.
Consuming energy to do something the device isn’t intended to do is the definition of inefficiency. You’ve basically redefined efficiency so as to make it meaningless.
Kissaki@feddit.de 1 year ago
Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
It would be meaningless, were it not for the context of the question it is answering. All of the electrical energy consumed is being turned in to heat in all those cases making it indeed possible to make a 100% efficient heater using electricity as was asked. The fact that that is orthogonal to the purpose of the machines is only relevant in as much as that’s why they were chosen as illustrative examples, showing that even when you’re not trying to, you end up making 100% efficient space heaters from electrical devices.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 year ago
What are you confused about?
That’s why they phrased it “also basically 100% efficient space heaters.”
Every electric device is a something% effective whatever work they are meant for device, but ALSO a 100% effective space heater.
That second part is meaningless to the devices normal function, but very relevant to the post question.