I know. You can't just ignore the bulk of the input and still call it 'efficiency' though.
Even manufacturers call this 'coefficient of performance', not efficiency.
Re:Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
by MichaelCollins on Friday September 02, 2022 @02:41PM
(#32694353)
Since precise use of language is so important to you:
> "You can't [...]"
He did, so obviously he can. You mean shouldn't, not can't.
Sure, a slightly irritating turn of phrase, not accurate. I didn't think it would be so controversial to hold terms of art/words with actual scientific meaning to a higher standard though.
If we're willing to be so blasé with 'efficiency' then why not, say, 'functional programming'? If it works it's functional right?
An implied qualification of "you can't [while remaining logically consistent]" is common usage.
Re:Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
by bufferoverflow on Friday September 02, 2022 @04:52PM
(#32695587)
> They're under 100% efficient at converting fuel to heat
I think only matter-antimatter reaction comes close to 100%. Burning fuels isn't even 1% of that.
A heat pump takes heat from outside the system. You put in x fuel and you get >x heat. Getting more energy than you put in makes the efficiency over 100%.