The Sun is 100% efficient

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 12:19 AM

The sun is 100% efficient.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SpG...icient&f=false

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by John99

The sun is 100% efficient.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SpG...icient&f=false

False. You don't even read your "sources".

I quote:

"Since the Earth's surface and the Sun absorb and radiate with nearly 100% efficiency for their respective temperatures..."

Nearly 100% is NOT 100%.
Nothing is 100% efficient.

And even if the Sun were 100% efficient that says nothing whatsoever about whether or not the Earth is a finite sphere. (Which it is).

Typical fail from you.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 07:44 AM

I saw that in the link but figure someone would want to read anyway.

The sun (a sun) is 100% self sufficient. I didnt google google it.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

And even if the Sun were 100% efficient that says nothing whatsoever about whether or not the Earth is a finite sphere. (Which it is).

But it is not finite in every way.

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by John99

But it is not finite in every way.

Bullshit. Finite is finite.
You'll have to be somewhat more specific than that.

Originally Posted by John99[/quote

I saw that in the link but figure someone would want to read anyway.

I see. You make a claim and knowingly post a link that directly contradicts you.
Reported for more intellectual dishonesty.

The sun (a sun) is 100% self sufficient. I didnt google google it.

In other words you don't have anything at all to support your uniformed belief and expect other people to do your work for you. Nothing is 100% efficient.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 08:21 AM

Bullshit. Finite is finite.
You'll have to be somewhat more specific than that.

I alredy was. I said that plants keep growing (non-finite) etc. Read the posts.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I saw that in the link but figure someone would want to read anyway.

I see. You make a claim and knowingly post a link that directly contradicts you.
Reported for more intellectual dishonesty.
[/QUOTE]

How did it contradict me? I never siad anything about absorption.

In other words you don't have anything at all to support your uniformed belief and expect other people to do your work for you. Nothing is 100% efficient.

And how are you supporting that is isnt?

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by John99

I alredy was. I said that plants keep growing (non-finite) etc.

And you contend that they will keep growing forever? That nutrients etc will never run out?
Finite is finite is not infinite. Got it yet?

How did it contradict me? I never siad anything about absorption.

You claimed that the Sun is 100% efficient. That link specifically stated that Sun is NOT 100% efficient.
Plus, of course, your earlier comment "I saw that in the link but figure someone would want to read anyway" is a tacit admission that you were aware you were bullshitting.

And how are you supporting that is isnt?

Ever heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics?
It is a scientific fact that nothing is 100% efficient.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 08:31 AM

ahhhh....had you looked further you you woudl have ocme upon this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium

There is your Sun. The sun is 100% efficient becouse it relies on no ohter sources.

...and now the definition of efficiency:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/efficiency

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by John99

ahhhh....had you looked further you you woudl have ocme upon this:
There is your Sun. The sun is 100% efficient becouse it relies on no ohter sources.
...and now the definition of efficiency:

"Not relying on other sources" is not a definition of efficiency. Fail.

Originally Posted by John99

...and now the definition of efficiency:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/efficiency

Which does nothing to support your point.

You're also ignoring the slight problem that if the Sun were 100% efficient we wouldn't be here. The heat and light from the Sun are a by-product of the processes going on inside it - i.e. an indication that it is not 100% efficient.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

You're also ignoring the slight problem that if the Sun were 100% efficient we wouldn't be here. The heat and light from the Sun are a by-product of the processes going on inside it - i.e. an indication that it is not 100% efficient.

So what? Then by your definition a rock is 100% efficient.

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by John99

So what? Then by your definition a rock is 100% efficient.

A rock doesn't do anything.
Therefore efficiency doesn't enter into it.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 08:43 AM

you have to remeber, inorder to prove\show efficiency a process needs to take place.

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by John99

you have to remeber, inorder to prove efficiency a process needs to take place.

Remember?
You're attempting to lecture me after the crass ignorance you've demonstrated so far?

Correct, so let's go back to your ridiculous claim about what I'd say of a rock: what process does a rock do?

And, and also for your information, it's not my definition, it's the one given by science.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 08:48 AM

Lets back up:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

The heat and light from the Sun are a by-product of the processes going on inside it

correct. we can also use result instead of by-product.

- i.e. an indication that it is not 100% efficient.

How does that show it is not 100% efficient? It is not relying on anything else...simple.

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by John99

Lets back up:
correct. we can also use result instead of by-product.

What "result"?

How does that show it is not 100% efficient? It is not relying on anything else...simple.

The only simple thing here is you. If there is a by-product (of any kind or magnitude) then the process by definition is not 100%, since a percentage is going into producing the by-product.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 09:01 AM

So producing something means it is not 100% efficient? Never heard that before.

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by John99

So producing something means it is not 100% efficient? Never heard that before.

Ho hum.
Is that deliberate dishonesty or ignorance on your part?
It's getting so I can't tell these days. I used to ascribe your comments to ignorance but, given your recent history, I'm hard-pressed to distinguish now.

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 09:08 AM

Lets make this simple:

If i light a candle and it burns forever (on its own) is the candle 100% efficient?

**Dywyddyr** · 02-23-11, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by John99

Lets make this simple:
If i light a candle and it burns forever (on its own) is the candle 100% efficient?

No. Again the light and heat from a candle are by-products (a sign of inefficiency) in the process of combustion.
For someone who claimed he spends much of his time reading you are appallingly uninformed. What, exactly, do you read? Airport blockbusters?

**~~John99~~** · 02-23-11, 09:19 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

thermal efficiency must be between 0% and 100%. Due to inefficiencies such as friction, heat loss, and other factors, thermal engines' efficiencies are typically much less than 100%.

Look closely at the quote above. The reason the sun is 100% efficient is because it produces heat and light but there is no loss. In other words it remains the same but the other key component is nothing is added.

100% efficiency.