Correct term: thermal power & electrical power

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the terminology for power outputs, stating that a radiator's performance can be referred to as "Thermal Power Output," while a nuclear plant's performance is termed "Electrical Power Output." It highlights that the efficiency of converting thermal energy to electrical energy is limited, with typical efficiencies around one-third for standard temperatures. A nuclear power plant generating 1 GW of electrical power typically requires about 3 GW of thermal energy. In contrast, devices like stoves can achieve nearly 100% efficiency when producing heat. Understanding these distinctions is crucial in discussions about energy production and efficiency.
_phillip
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

This question might sound trivial but for weeks I am unsure about the correct answer:

1. Given there is a radiator. The radiator's performance is stated in [Watt].
2. Given there is a nuclear plant. The plant's performance is also stated in [Watt].

Is it correct English to call the first "Thermal Power Output" and the second "Electrical Power Output"?

Thank you very much!
Phillip
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, or you can just say 'Power Output'.
 
Thanks a lot!
 
I'm not sure, but I think a radiator (at least an electric one) might be rated in the power it takes in, but not necessarily puts out...although I'm also not sure what the difference is.
 
For an electric radiator the output us equal to the input.
 
_phillip said:
Dear all,

This question might sound trivial but for weeks I am unsure about the correct answer:

1. Given there is a radiator. The radiator's performance is stated in [Watt].
2. Given there is a nuclear plant. The plant's performance is also stated in [Watt].

Is it correct English to call the first "Thermal Power Output" and the second "Electrical Power Output"?

Thank you very much!
Phillip

The point you make is interesting and sometimes confusing in (heated) debates about energy production.

Thermodynamics learns that if you want to convert heat into work (or electricity), you can only do this with a certain maximal efficiency. For "normal" working temperatures, this is about one third. (for high temperatures, this can be up to some 50% or even somewhat more).

So if you have a thermal machine (boiler + steam turbine say), you will need 3 times more thermal energy than you can hope to produce electrical energy.

A nuclear power plant of 1 GW electric will produce something like 3 GW thermal energy. (same for a coal plant).

However, if you want just heat, you do not have to pay that price: heat is heat. A stove can be almost 100% efficient (there are some losses through the chimney though).
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
It may be shown from the equations of electromagnetism, by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860’s, that the speed of light in the vacuum of free space is related to electric permittivity (ϵ) and magnetic permeability (μ) by the equation: c=1/√( μ ϵ ) . This value is a constant for the vacuum of free space and is independent of the motion of the observer. It was this fact, in part, that led Albert Einstein to Special Relativity.
Back
Top