Keith S. Taber
Looking to check out some music videos on YouTube, and being presented with irrelevant advertisements, I was amazed to learn of a revolutionary new type of electrical heater that can potentially offer consumers vast savings on their electricity bill. Revolutionary, as the inventor, a disgraced London student, seems to have rewritten the laws of physics.
Revolutionary design: "a perpetual heating loop" (a coil of wire that can be left connected to a power supply?)
Warning. The copyright in the images included here does not belong to me. I think much the video looks like it uses stock footage, but if not, and IF the company behind this product believes they can genuinely support their claims as reported here, they may get in touch to explain why I am misguided.
I generally look to respect copyright in other's work, but I believe it is in the public interest to call out attempts to scam people through misrepresenting science in material in the public domain.
The revolutionary new design of heater is a small plug-in device which can heat up a room very quickly, and moreover it is so efficient that it does not waste energy – like those other more traditional types of heaters some people might still be using.
This technological advance:
- can heat a home in 90 seconds
- can save a householder thousands of pounds a year
- "can warm any space at 90% less cost than conventional heating methods"
- avoids any waste: "by reusing the heat it produces, so none of it is wasted"
- on testing, it warmed university classrooms "from 10˚C to 21˚C in only 2 minutes"
- uses "89% less energy" than regular heating systems
Wow. If not too good to be true, that would certainly help with the climate crisis by reducing electricity demands.
What is the new technology?
The video advertising this new type of heater offer some clues to its design. It begins by illustrating the "trick" which can "heat your home in 90 seconds" and "save thousands of pounds" off the Winter heating bill:
So, it seems you need to get some tea lights, and place them under a large inverted ceramic flower pot? I am pretty sure that's not going to do the 'trick'. Perhaps this was meant as some kind of metaphor…?
Reinstate Jason!
The video explains how 'Jason' "a clever student from UK, London University" creates the new type of heater because the University heating system was not functioning properly. He designed the new heater to support his classmates who were having to work in rooms at 10˚C.
When Jason refused to earn a fortune from his invention by selling the rights, the University responded within three days by expelling him. 1
Jason's professor thought his idea was revolutionary (but he may not be that up to date in his subject knowledge – most of the scientific community adopted metric units decades ago 2)
Apparently Jason achieved this scientific breakthrough by 'reverse-engineering' a standard heater. Presumably the available text books did not explain the physics of heaters (in essence, you connect (i) a piece of conducting material that can withstand heating and that has suitable resistance, to (ii) a power supply); so he had take apart heaters to find out how they worked.
Here he seems to be drawing up the specifications for his new design, helped by a sophisticated paper model.
The video shows how Jason studied circuit components called 'resistors' and found out how to read those little coloured lines on them (as children do in UK schools).
So what was revolutionary about the physics?
Of course, the manufacturers do not want to give away too many commercial secrets (even if Jason had nobler instincts), but the video does offer some clues.
Induction heating
One technique shown in the film is described as "a special device that creates a perpetual heating loop".
The special device illustrated seems to be a coil of thick copper wire, able to pass a large alternating current, which is heating a metal rod 'by induction'.
This works because the coil produces a large constantly changing magnetic field, which induces a changing e.m.f. in the rod. Now this technique only produces heating in an electrical conductor as the magnetic field cannot transfer energy to an insulator, such as air (which is not substantially influenced by the magnetic field). It seems Jason's genius must have been to somehow produce heating of ordinary air by this method. That would be the kind of breakthrough reflecting new physics deserving of a Nobel prize!
The dual Thomson effects
My ageing hearing told me that Jason's revolutionary design used the Joule-Thomson effect. This surprised me a little, as to my mind this technique would produce cooling, not heating. This effect can be experienced in everyday effects – such as in the material propelled from an aerosol can which often feels cold, or when noting the cold air passing out of the valve of a tyre being quickly deflated.
Energy is always conserved in all processes. The conservation of energy is one of the most fundamental principles in science, and is generally believed to be universal in its application. (Thus my annoyance at how the English National Curriculum includes a logically flawed reference to it.) When a compressed gas (such as in the tyre) is allowed to expand through a small opening it does work pushing back the surrounding air, and the temperature drops by a corresponding amount. 3
So, I was mystified at how an effect that usually produced cooling here gives the opposite effect. But then I spotted (from the kindly provided subtitles) that I (or else, the person making the subtitles?) had misheard. It seems Jason was using a different effect: 'dual Thomson' physics.
I have to confess to not being familiar with 'dual Thomson' physics. Indeed I only found a handful of references on the www through an internet search, and these referred to specialised instruments designed to detect ion velocities in high energy physics research.
I am not sure what that has to do with plug-in wall heaters, and I am pretty sure that that was not what was illustrated in the accompanying footage.
Testing the new design
A powerful device?
According to the video being pushed at viewers by YouTube, Jason "took this amazing gadget to the University and the outcomes were fantastic" where "classrooms went from 10˚C to 21˚C in only 2 minutes".
Now that would be pretty impressive, as any lecturer who has arrived in a cold teaching room and then dragged in the electric heater from their office would know (I write from experience).
We are not told the size of the room used in this supposed trial but a lecture room would be something of the order of a thousand cubic metres. If we assume that the heater transfers all of its energy to the air in the room (and that in the short time it is used, none of this heat is lost to outside, or warms up anything else in the room – like the furnishings or the walls or ceilings – or the people who were feeling too cold) then we can calculate the energy needed, and so the power of the heater. My-back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests this would be about 100 kW. 4
Now I am not going to claim that a hundred kilowatts heater cannot be made, but I am prepared to suggest that no technology available today could safely get near, anywhere near, this power rating with this scale of device.
Larger heaters designed for industrial use are available rated for a few kilowatts, but a 100 kW plug-in heater for domestic use seems fantasy. (Especially as "You can move it around without worrying about burning yourself" according to the website.)
Am I wrong? TechTrends, the website selling the devices (sorry, independently assessing, 😉, 😉, the devices and telling us where to buy them), does not seem to offer any details on this testing, so I assume it was not carried out by competent investigators and reported in a peer reviewed journal. If indeed, given the non-viability of the claim, it really took place. Anyone reading this form TechTrends – if I am wrong please enlighten us? (Comments welcome below.)
Greater efficiency?
We are asked to accept this magical outcome because the device is so energy efficient (that in itself I believe – I expect an electric heater to be very efficient), compared with standard technology. The video claims that the new heater "used 89% less energy" than "regular heating systems". That is clearly nothing other than an outright lie!
Many machines are inefficient in the sense that the energy input does not match the desired work output as some energy is 'lost' or perhaps better 'diverted'. Now energy is always conserved, so this means that, say, 100 Joules of energy are 'taken' from some supply to power some activity, but perhaps only 6oJ does what we intend (so in this case, 60% efficiency) and the other 40J has some other effect.
A key idea in thermodynamics is that engines have an inherent limit to efficiency. A car engine exhausting into the atmosphere well above absolute zero (at around 300K rather than 0K) will necessarily only direct a fraction of the energy sourced into the desired locomotion. Achieving higher temperatures in the engine (a technical challenge) can improve what is possible; but only releasing exhaust gases at 0K would make 100% efficiency even theoretically possible. So, is it feasible that normal electrical heaters would be so inefficient?
Filament lamps are only inefficient in the Summer
…or…
Why would anyone manufacture a light bulb completely encased in a solid metal shade?
The notion that a standard electric heater might be no more than 11% efficient might not sound too unlikely to some people watching these commercials as they wait for their music videos (or cats juggling, or whatever their taste may be). One reason filament lamps have been phased out is because they were notoriously inefficient – indeed, 11% efficiency is the kind of figure that was sometimes quoted. A 100 W filament lamp might only be generating visible light at around 11W, which seems quite a waste (especially as the utility company will be billing for all 100W).
I have always considered such lamps to be inefficient in the Summer, but that this is less of an issue in the Winter. That's because that other 89W will be heating up the room – unhelpful or even problematic in Summer, but perhaps acceptable in Winter when we are deliberately heating the rooms anyway. Does it matter if a little more of your heating comes from the light bulbs and a little less from the 'heaters'.
Indeed, when I was a child, before the days when most people had central heating, we used to have a device that was basically a light bulb inside a big metal shield. When turned on, it emitted no light. The bulb did, of course, but not the device. These were used on Winter evenings as bed warmers to avoid getting into a very cold bed. The lamp may have given out 11% light, but it all ultimately got absorbed into the metal and contributed to the heat transfer from filament to bed warmer and so onto the bedding. 5
Generally, energy inefficiencies in machines involve energy released as heat that goes to make molecules move about a bit faster on average rather than going where intended to do useful jobs. We might think of heat (or strictly, the dispersed thermal energy of matter, that heat leads to) as the lowest quality form of energy, that all other forms of energy are ultimately, eventually, degraded into.
This unintended 'heat leakage' may be an issue in lamps and motors and televisions and many other devices – but clearly not in heaters.
The same old hot air…
The video suggests one feature of the revolutionary new design is that instead of only heating cold air, the promoted device is able to recycle warm air to minimise waste. What could this mean?
Now if you take an electric heater out into the garden on a cold day when there is a breeze, then it is quite likely that the air that passes through the heater will be blown away quite quickly, and so the heater is always heating air from the same ambient starting point. That would be a bit of a waste. (Hint: do not use an electric heater to keep you warm in the garden – put on warm clothes or move around instead).
Inside a well insulated room, the air that is passing through the heater will soon already have been warmed, so the heater can achieve a higher room temperature for the same power input (compared with when it is operating in your garden, that is). I do not think any reasonable reading of 'standard system' for home heating would not "recycle warm air" rather that continuously heating only cold air, so to my reading this is simply a clear lie.
Some made up numbers from the website 'reviewing' (actually, promoting) the device
90% less cost to the householder?
I therefore consider the claim that the new design of heater "can warm any space at 90% less cost than conventional heating methods" is also a simple lie. Your standard home plug-in heater might not be as well designed, and may have some flaws, but it will not be converting 89 0r 90% of the energy supply into something other than heat. Inefficient machines produce heat instead of other (generally more useful) forms of output.
No, it cannot.
Not unless we've had some basic physics completely wrong for a long time and no one had noticed.
As has been often pointed pointed out, any claim that begins "in fact…" should be treated suspiciously. There is no logical difference between writing
- "these claims are inconsistent with the laws of physics", and
- "in fact, these claims are inconsistent with the laws of physics"
'In fact' tends to be used rhetorically when what is being said might of itself not seem a very convincing 'fact', and could otherwise be surprising, as in,
In fact, this is another lie.
The video directs readers to what seems at first sight to be a consumer website praising the new heaters, although they've dropped the story about poor, mistreated Jason,
"This simple but rather genius concept was developed in 2019 by a group of electrical engineers from the EVI (Electric Vehicle Industry)."
There seem to be at least two versions directing to the same basic copy promoting 'EcoWell' and 'HeatFlow' on different webpages. Some customers (such as a 'Daniel Walker') seem to have even sought out both designs, presumably to match their decor in different rooms?
The web-pages do not repeat the more obviously fraudulent claims, but rather seem to suggest the heater is going to save money by pointing out how much heat produced by a domestic heating system is leaving the home. This is important, but it is worth n0oting that (assuming that a house can never have perfect thermal insulation) then when the home has reached a constant temperature (and the external temperature is not changing), the amount of heat being lost to the environment matches that produced by the heaters. That is, 100% of the energy being used for heating is being transferred to the outside. It is important to try to slow that rate, but all heating systems, "leak energy, warming up basements and underground lines", not just those that are "outdated and inefficient" as the TechTrends website implies.
It still claims that "99.8% efficiency ensures all your electricity gets turned into heat, saving you thousands" (where any heater will be highly efficient at producing heat – the issue is how it is distributed), but acknowledges.
"One HeatFlow heater can heat up a room up to 12 square meters. Depending on your needs, you might want to purchase several heaters for continuous warmth in all rooms or keep one to bring with you where you need it the most."
"One EcoWell heater can heat up a room up to 12 square meters. Depending on your needs…"
(The EcoWell design looks very similar to an alternative available from a well-established and reputable manufacturer selling their product on Amazon at £20 when I checked today. Whereas TrechTrends tells readers that with the half price discount "At the moment of writing this review, you can get EcoWell[*] for just £49.99!" [* or HeatFlow if you prefer the tiny coal fireplace look]
So, if you stop heating the house, and just have one single plug-in device that you move around to the room that you are going to be occupying, it will save money on your energy bills. But that will not work if you like frequently moving between rooms in your house, or have a family that like some privacy. (Of course, you can save even more money on your bills by wearing a good many layers of clothing and not using any heaters. )
Still, the website shows there have been many favourable customers' comments, which I rather spoiled yesterday with my own cynical offering:
But that was yesterday, and checking back today I was un-amazed to find my comment wiped. In any case, there is an acknowledgement showing the site is an advert, and the photos are of 'models' not real purchasers:
But it is presented in faint text on a black background seemingly designed to make sure it is not easily noticed 6 .
There is of course a special price if you buy now within 24 hours…
As there was yesterday.
Does it matter?
So these advertisements contain some very misleading 'bad science' (or, perhaps – as the claims are inconsistent with well-studied science – magical claims). Misinformation like this is is common in the post-truth age – but here it is masquerading as engineering and physics.
Anyone who has been to school and benefited from science education should not be taken in by the sillier claims about this new design of heater. They may be very useful, compact, convenient, and perhaps even powerful-for-their-size heaters. But the more extreme claims being made are lies, contrary to basic physics.
They cannot heat a classroom in 2 minutes. They are not 97% more cost effective. They will not save people thousands of pounds if used to replace other plug-in heaters. They do not use induction (or tea lights) to heat the air or dual Thomson physics. And although they recycle hot air, so does every other type of room heater. They may well be over 99% efficient, but that's because heat is the lowest grade of energy and so increasing machine efficiency is about avoiding 'high grade' energy being reduced to heat. The claim here is like claiming your teenager is better than the standard model because it can turn an organised bedroom into arbitrarily organised chaos – as if that was a rare quality, given that most teenagers are only ever able to mess up part of a room.
The video is in breach of UK law and YouTube should have done due diligence before accepting advertising money for such deliberately dishonest films. I feel somewhat offended that YouTube would think that an educated person would fall for this – but presumably plenty do. If people are listening to/watching this nonsense and not spotting a problem, then science education has not done a very good job. This kind of scam relies on low levels of scientific literacy.
But, I suspect these companies are getting plenty of sales from their dishonest advertising as in October 2022 I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to complain about very similar adverts:
"Brand/product: AlphaHeater or Elite Heat
Your complaint: After watching a football match on you tube there was a misleading video, which directed viewers to a misleading website. The video claimed that a revolutionary new heater using jet engine technology would heat a room "using 90% less energy" (screen shot below). This is nonsense (I am a Chartered Physicist, Fellow of the Institute of Physics: heat is the lowest quality form of heat, so (unlike say the working of a motor) a heater cannot be produced so much more more efficiently.). The website was pretending to be an independent review (HeatReviewGuide) of the heater but had dummy links and was only advertising that product (see below). …
Acknowledgement of complaint: October 2022
seems familiar?
The ASA replied
"Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about ads online for this heating device and for your patience while your complaint was considered.
We acknowledge your concern about this ad and so we have put an alert out to have it taken down through our ASA Scam Ad Alert System. We will share the details of this ad with our network of key industry partners, including all the major social media platforms and ad networks operating in the UK, so that the content is taken down and to help stop similar ads appearing in future."
Outcome of compliant: November 2022
I guess criminals behind these scams respond to this regulation of advertisements by changing the name or other minor details of their products, and then just carrying on. Time for another message to the ASA?
Merry Christmas everyone.
Notes
1 Even if we believe that Universities still readily expel fee-paying 'customers' for the most vile of offences, and even if we think that refusing to become a billionaire amounts to grounds for such an expulsion (why?) – the idea that a university could act in three days on a student disciplinary matter and follow due process does not ring true. (I know from personal experience there are plenty of people in universities who are prepared to ignore principles of natural justice, but luckily the institutions themselves have careful and balanced procedures to protect members from false and malicious claims). Jason could always have got his University's Enterprise department to help him arrange the commercialisation of the design, and then signed over any personal interests to generate income for a charitable trust.
2 I am assuming that psi means pounds per square inch. The scientific units are pascals (that is newtons per square metre) which were already been taught in school when I was a pupil half a century ago.
3 Temperature is NOT the same as heat, of course, but a certain temperature change in a sample of a substance involves the transfer of a related amount of energy that for a characterised material can be calculated (heat = product of mass by specific heat capacity by temperature change; 𝚫H = mc𝛉).
4 I used:
- The density of air is about 1200 grammes per cubic metre
- the specific heat capacity of air is about 1 Jg-1K-1
- power = energy transferred / time [= 120s]
5 We usually think of light and heat as discrete. But heating is energy transferred due to a difference in temperature: so when radiation is emitted by a hot body and absorbed by a colder one it counts as heat, even if it is light. So heat is not necessary light, but light often counts as heat. As they say, there's often 'more heat than light'.
6 Just in case you are finding the text difficult to make out, it reads:
"THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATEADVERTISING DISCLOSURE: THIS WEBSITE AND THE PRODUCTS & SERVICES REFERRED TO ON THE SITE ARE ADVERTISING MARKETPLACES. THIS WEBSITE IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT A NEWS PUBLICATION. ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF PERSONS USED ON THIS SITE ARE MODELS. THE OWNER OF THIS SITE AND OF THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES REFERRED TO ON THIS SITE ONLY PROVIDES A SERVICE WHERE CONSUMERS CAN OBTAIN AND COMPARE."