Re: [Phys-l] Which is the most E efficient?

[chuck britton <cvbritton@mac.com>]

'Efficiency' is an interesting term to use.

'Heat' input to overcome the 'Heat' of vaporization?
i.e. how to get he most H2O molecules moved from liquid to vapor with 
the least oil/electricity input.

Hanging wet sheets/laundry would seem the 'cheapest' such solution.
But would require LOTS of sheets, rewetted frequently to be effective 
in a cold climate, especially in a 'leaky' abode.

'Efficient' but not necessarily 'effective'.

Ultrasonic is the most 'neat' solution - but it puts fine mineral 
powder into the air unless you feed it distilled (pricey) water. 
Asthmatics must NOT use ultrasonic. The fine white powder will settle 
out onto nearby furniture etc. (as well as lungs).

Machines with wicks will leave the mineral deposits on/in the wick 
and benefit from chemicals that tend to keep the minerals dissolved. 
Chemicals to avoid algae and bacteria growth are also called for in 
reservoir machines.

Keep your abode well sealed, open the dishwasher when it goes into 
the dry cycle, keep your vent fan off when showering (all examples of 
'efficiency').

At 9:03 PM -0800 11(18(2009, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> Friend is poverty stricken retired school librarian (Seattle pub. 
> school -- was long ago Gate Keeper Seese's master teacher in SF) 
> wants to know if running a teakettle to humidify very dry ambience  
> instead of purchasing a pricey humidifier would be satisfactory.  
> Would aiming a fan at a wet towel dipped in pan of water be more or 
> less efficient?.  Assume both sources of "heat" are the same 
> (forsooth,  oil and electricity).
>
> bc  thinks an ultrasonic (most pricey?) would be the most efficient,
> and thinks he knows all the factors to do the calc., but is lazy.