Another overpriced heater

Hot on the heels of my post about the rather audacious "Amish" fan heater, came this:

I've been seeing commercials on TV that proclaim the advantages of a certain compact heating system that uses some sort of mixture of infrared lamps and a heat exchanger. They also claim, like the "Amish" heater people, that it uses less electricity than a coffee maker.

Now, I live in a 120+ year old house, and I'm quite... thrifty. Given the rise in natural gas prices, this of course piqued my interest.

The "Portable Furnace" is a similar product to the one in the ads.

Still, something sounds off here. I remember in my grandparents' old cottage they had a heating lamp of some description in the bathroom, over the spot one would be when one stepped outside of the shower door. It worked well then, but move a few inches either way and it was quite useless.

Smoke and mirrors?

Joe

I'll be darned if the "Portable Furnace" isn't just another surprisingly expensive ($US599!!) 1500-watt fan heater.

It's a nice-looking one that probably doesn't make much noise and may last longer than the $10 discount-store type, but it's still essentially the same thing. And, once again, the ads are trying to trick people into thinking it's something special, when it really, really isn't.

I can say this with such confidence because basic physics tells us that all resistive electrical heaters are, to a first approximation, exactly the same.

In a resistive heater - actually, in any electrically powered device at all - each watt of electricity ends up as one watt of heat. End.

You can change exactly how a heater delivers its heat to the room - as infrared light, in the case of a simple old-fashioned "bar" heater with a reflector, or as a rising column of convective hot air, in the case of an oil-filled heater, or as a hot breeze, in the case of a fan heater. You can even get all tricky and add a ceiling fan, probably spinning in the opposite direction to the way it spins in summer, to suck air up in the middle of the room and blow it down the walls, thus preventing hot air from gathering up by the ceiling where nobody is sitting.

But the base efficiency of the system is exactly the same for all electrical heaters.

The allegation that the Portable Furnace's heating elements are in some way special because they're big light bulbs (I presume the same kind you get in the bathroom ceiling heaters you mentioned) instead of the simple coiled element you get in a $10 fan heater is nonsense. It would make a difference if the light bulbs were pointing at you - instant warmth on the side of you facing the bulbs, at the price of a lot of glare - but since they're just pointing at some heat exchanger doodad inside the heater, over which a fan moves air, the end result will be exactly the same as that of any other fan heater, except presumably with a bit of a jolly glow coming out of the exhaust slot.

(The kind of heat lamp you see keeping reptiles and birds warm, that has a deep red glow, looks that way because there's a red filter over the lamp. Heat lamps really are basically just big bright light bulbs; they run at a relatively low temperature by light bulb standards, but without a filter 375 watts of heat lamp is still good for easily as much visible light output as a regular 200W bulb.)

If the diagram on the "how it works" page is accurate, the Portable Furnace's 1500 watt power rating and four bulbs means this thing does indeed have four 375W heat lamps inside it, just like a normal bathroom light-heat-and-fan combo package here in 230-volt Australia. Those lamps have a pretty long lifespan, but I'd be surprised if they lasted any longer than an ordinary cheap fan heater. Hence, I suppose, the availability of replacement Portable Furnace lamp sets (for a mere eighty bucks - which is easily twice what they ought to cost...).

The advantage of resistive electric heat is that you can have exactly as much heat as you need, exactly when you need it, from a dirt cheap heater. No other technology can give you that two minutes of heat while you're towelling off after your shower. And if you really do need to heat only one room, a central heating system with a furnace will waste considerable heat even if you remember to close the vents in all of the other rooms.

But resistive electrical heating is still more expensive per unit of heat than all of the other technologies. It's a lousy solution for long-term applications. And the "dirt cheap heater" advantage kind of goes away, too, if someone suckers you into paying six hundred freakin' dollars for a fan heater. Sheesh.

If gas or other combustion heating is out of the question, consider reverse-cycle air conditioning. That's much more efficient than resistive heating, because it uses some electricity to pump heat from one place to another, and adds its own waste heat. The result is at least two times, maybe 2.5 times, as much heat output as electricity input. The only big disadvantage is that if the cold side of a normal air conditioner is cooled close to freezing, it won't be able to pump any more heat from it - so reverse-cycle works well for heating in relatively temperate climates, but is no good if a real winter has set in.

Air-con's also not cheap to buy - you certainly can get a basic reverse-cycle window air conditioner for the price of a Portable Furnace, but that ain't saying much. And even a window air conditioner is not entirely trivial to install. Portable air conditioners need a certain amount of "installation" too (cumbersome hoses...), and they have lousy efficiency. And all air conditioning is kind of goofy unless you intend to use it at least occasionally for cooling as well.

Cheap air conditioners also all still use the old "binary" control system; they're either pumping heat at full power, or not pumping any heat at all. You have to pay extra to get an "inverter" system that's able to run at fractional powers, which is often what you actually want rather than endless noisy thermostat-driven cycles.

The very best electrical heating, though, is the kind you get as a side-effect of something else that you'd be doing anyway.

If your TV consumes 100 watts while it's on, you get 100 watts of heat out of it, "for free". The same goes for every other electrical appliance in the house, definitely including computers. This is bad if you're paying to cool your house (or room full of servers...), but it's great if you're paying to heat it.

So if you're to the point where you're considering resistive electrical heating anyway, think about more entertaining things you can get that electricity to do on the way to warming the room. Even if all you do is abolish all traces of Seasonal Affective Disorder by lighting your living room with two $25 500-watt halogen shop floods pointed at the ceiling, that still beats the hell out of being suckered into paying $600 for a lousy fan heater!

The surprisingly expensive Amish fan heater

Via Consumerist, I found this rather cheeky ad.

Amish fan heater

Click for the whole thing, including reams of text. The Consumerist version of the same image is here.

You can buy one of these "Heat Surge" fireplace-shaped heaters for a mere $US587 (plus extra for optional, but included by default, remote control and extended warranty!) from their main Web site. But if you plough through the advertorial and call before the "order deadline" and do whatever else they say you have to do to get your special claim code and then enter it on this other site, you can get a heater with its special allegedly-made-by-real-Plain-Folk mantel for "just two hundred ninety-eight dollars"!

The Consumerist's ridicule centred around the Photoshoppery visible in all of the images - particularly amusing given the touted Amish connection - and the fact that this "advertorial" is disguised as a real USA Today article.

I concur with their derision. The images, in particular, remind me of the quickie that'll-do pictures you see illustrating Onion articles - not least because The Onion uses much the same layout as USA Today (or possibly vice versa).

But I was also intrigued by the claim that this "work of engineering genius from the China coast" could in some way save you money.

The heater has a quoted "5119 BTU's" (sic) of output. The British Thermal Unit is a measure of energy; BTU ratings for heaters are actually BTU per hour. 5119 BTU is 5,400,831 joules, a joule is a watt-second, 5,400,831 watt-seconds in one hour is almost precisely 1500 watt-hours per hour.

So this thing is a 1500 watt fan heater, with what looks like a less than totally convincing fake-fire effect.

I'm guessing 1500 watts of heater element, plus maybe 50 watts for the fan and lights.

And it "uses less energy than it takes to run a coffee maker"!

Well, if your coffee maker draws more than 1500 watts, then yes. Small domestic "Mr Coffee"-type machines actually usually consume something like 900 to 1200 watts.

And your coffee machine doesn't run at full blast all day.

The vendors of this highly decorated fan heater enjoin you to "leave it on day and night" - which actually isn't a very safe idea for most fan heaters, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that this big chunky heater won't set the curtains, or itself, on fire if left unattended. If you do run it all day and night, though, then if you're paying ten cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity, it'll cost you three bucks sixty a day to run it.

Over a three-month winter, you'd pay about $US330.

To be fair, the "Saves Money" page of the Heat Surge site clearly tells you how much power the heater consumes (only 750 watts, on "Medium"!), and that it'll cost "about 12 cents an hour" to run at full power, at a presumed eight cents per kilowatt-hour, which isn't much lower than the US average. And their advice about only heating the rooms you're using is sensible enough. But, you know, duh.

This heater would be even cheaper to run, and much easier to move from room to room (a major selling point!) if it didn't have the silly mantelpiece and lit-up fake fire.

And wouldn't you know it - those technological geniuses "from the China coast" have just in the last fifty years or so invented amazing "fan heater" gadgets. You'll be astonished to learn that these devices are much more portable than this large and cumbersome fireplace-shaped device. And they can be purchased at any discount store for, oh, approximately nothing!

Which'll save you enough money to run one all winter.

Intelligent design STILL bunk - film at 11

Steve Fuller, unpersuasive testifier for the defense in the Kitzmiller Intelligent Design trial (you know, the one that led a conservative Christian judge to conclude that Intelligent Design was obviously just creationism with a fake moustache), has written a book explaining his views.

That book has been reviewed by Norman Levitt, who has himself written a book which addresses similar subject matter from a somewhat different point of view.

Levitt's review is not complimentary.

It is, I think, on par with Roger Ebert's review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.

It seems to me that Levitt tired of the serious-thinker-versus-stoned-dimwit-with-a-high-opinion-of-himself beat-down fairly early, so he started throwing in hundred-dollar words to keep himself interested.

New, from FakeCo: Placebotrol!

My flabber was quite significantly gasted when someone posted an ad for the anti-nervous-tension drug "Pre-Tense" to the Healthfraud list.

I looked at it, and I of course immediately thought it was a joke. The pill is called "Pre-Tense", after all. And the sales spiel is headlined "Nervous Tension a Weakness?", which is straight out of the old patent medicine ads.

But no - Pre-Tense actually seems to be real.

It's made by Indigene Pharmaceuticals, which is a real company. And there's not a hint of a joke anywhere on the pretensepill.com site, besides the preposterous name. And yes, you can really buy the pills, direct from Indigene if you're in the States, or from other dealers.

And Pre-Tense may actually do something, since it is alleged to contain herbs (including valerian) which may indeed have some (very) mild relaxant effect.

But the drug's name, I feel compelled to repeat, means "the act of giving a false appearance", "pretending with intention to deceive" or "a false or unsupportable quality".

It's like that episode of Brass Eye where all of those celebrities sagely warned about a "made-up drug" called "cake":

"Disco Duck," 1

Newspaper "formulae" for one thing or another have a terrible, and richly deserved, reputation.

But the formula for the Moby Quotient, whereby one may calculate "the degree to which artists besmirch their reputations when they lend their music to hawk products or companies", would be highly amusing even if the article about it hadn't been written by Bill Wyman.

(Regrettably, the Bill Wyman in question is this guy, not the famous metal detector fellow who once dabbled in music.)

I believe Scrooge McDuck actually did it first

This Metafilter post tipped me off to the existence of Brawndo Big Ox Canned Oxygen.

It's pretty awesome.

(Similar products are apparently quite popular in Japan, where the educational system clearly doesn't work as well as we've been told.)

The Big Ox sales spiel says "Because of increased pollution and the continued destruction of our forests, you might not always be getting the oxygen you need for your active lifestyle."

This is what us professionals refer to as hogwash.

If atmospheric oxygen levels had actually significantly dropped - to, say, 15% oxygen by volume from the roughly 21% that's normal - you'd notice. That'd make it as hard to get oxygen into your system at sea level as it currently is at 9000 feet.

Fortunately, the claim is nonsense. Normal atmospheric gases in relatively unpolluted Western nations provide just as good a breathing mixture as was around in the olden days of human history. CO2 levels have not increased (and are not projected to increase) enough to make any difference to respiration, and oxygen levels have been stable for the whole of human existence.

And, furthermore, the capacity of these low-pressure oxygen spraycans is laughably small.

The biggest can Big Ox sells is specified as 4.4 grams of gas. That'll cost you $US124.99 for a 12-pack.

At sea level and 25 degrees Celsius, 24.8 litres of oxygen weighs 32 grams. So 4.4 grams of it (assuming the can weight specification is 100% O2 and they're not counting the 11% of other gases they say are in there) will be about 3.4 litres.

A normal breath is about one litre. When you're breathing hard because you're the kind of Xtreme Super Athlete who needs to buy air in a can, you could easily be moving more than two litres per breath.

So one of these $US10.42 cans will give you enough oxygen for four shallow breaths, or less than two deep ones. Maybe only one.

You could make the can last a lot longer by just sniffing it like a whiteboard marker from time to time, but the effect would of course approach zero as the can life approached... a few minutes.

Proper high-pressure medical oxygen cylinders, in contrast, can actually provide enough oxygen to seriously supplement someone's breathing for at least half an hour, even for the little ones that only weigh about a kilo in total. You could buy $75 medical cylinders and throw them away after using them, not even bothering to get refills, and still be paying a thirtieth as much as this stupid Big Ox stuff costs. Buy bigger cylinders and get refills and the price difference becomes a factor of several hundred, at the very least.

Bottled water is moronic and wasteful, but at least a litre of stupid water from Fiji is just as good as a litre of water from the tap. A case of Perrier could save your life if you were stranded in the outback.

A case of Big Ox, in contrast, will make about as much difference to the life of an athlete, clubgoer or person stuck on a frozen airless planet as a teaspoon of water would to someone lost in the desert.

They tested the wrong guy

Fortunately, I found out about the "Beat the Lie Detector" secondary story in the most recent episode of MythBusters before I watched it. So I knew to fast-forward through the lie detector story and just watch the other one.

This was entirely for the sake of my health. There's no way I could watch someone claiming that polygraphs are "80% to about 99% accurate", and then see a screen shot of software saying "Probability of Deception is Greater Than .99", without dangerously elevating my own metabolic markers.

(But yes, I've skimmed through the lie detector story now, just to make sure the complaints are valid. They are.)

The icing on the cake is the fact that the person making the "80 to 99%" claim, and later administering the polygraph tests, was "Doctor" Michael Martin. Who, apparently, bought his doctorate from a diploma mill.

You certainly don't need university qualifications to be knowledgeable about a subject, but fake degrees are anti-qualifications. Nobody who bought a diploma to make themselves look qualified in an area should be believed about anything, until they say they're sorry and take the unearned honorifics off their business card.

In reality, it is arguable that the polygraph is not entirely useless. (This may set some sort of record for damning with faint praise.)

The polygraph looks especially good if you, unfairly, count the cases in which it's used merely as an intimidation device to trick a guilty person into confessing. Wen Ho Lee, for instance, passed his polygraph test with flying colours - but that was no problem for the Feds, who just said he'd failed. It's like police interrogators telling a suspect that their buddy has already confessed, when no such thing has actually happened.

Contrary to not-a-real-doctor Michael Martin's statement, the polygraph's history is one big losing streak. Nobody's ever actually been able to demonstrate, in proper controlled tests, that the darn thing is actually worth using. Not that many governments or corporations seem to listen when the National Academies of Science tell them as much.

The NAS actually concluded that, although the polygraph is the best lie-detection device created so far, it's still worse than useless, thanks to its high false-positive rate. The essential randomness of the polygraphic process means that although it certainly is possible to "beat" a polygraph test, there are no guarantees; no matter how innocent you look (because you know the tricks, or because you really are innocent), the polygraph operator may still decide you're guilty.

The popular conception that a polygraph actually does "detect lies" in any straightforward sense is entirely wrong. An honest TV show should make this clear, and not give air time to someone who proudly states the opposite, whether or not that person has valid qualifications.

As psycho-quackery goes, the polygraph is a long way behind the real horror stories (like the lobotomy craze, for instance). But it still very royally deserves an "anti" Web site.

MythBusters genuinely does make an effort to get things right, which makes them almost unique in the "reality TV" field, and quite unlike certain other shows in their own niche.

This time, though, they appear to have dropped the ball very seriously indeed.

This isn't just a procedural error, oversimplification or scientific mistake on the level of getting the shape of a raindrop or the principles of operation of a wing wrong. It's a big ol' slab of prime-time bullshit.

Lichtenbergia

The other day I was shining a dangerously bright green laser through a Lichtenberg figure, as I'm sure all of you have done from time to time, and I discovered something interesting.

What?

Oh, all right. I'll explain.

Lichtenberg figure

This is a Lichtenberg figure.

Well, technically, the Lichtenberg figure is the feathery ferny shape inside the block of clear acrylic. The shape is a void burned into the plastic by a powerful electric discharge.

A Lichtenberg figure is, in brief, the shape of an electrical discharge. Specifically, it's the shape of an electrical discharge from an area to a point - sometimes over time, but usually all at once.

The acrylic-block type of Lichtenberg ornament is definitely of the all-at-once variety. To make one, you have to shoot your acrylic with a fairly high powered electron beam, also known as a cathode ray.

The electron beam in a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) television or computer monitor - which, yes, actually is a kind of particle accelerator - delivers electrons with maybe 20,000 or 25,000 electron volts (20 to 25keV) of energy.

That's quite enough to produce considerable X-ray radiation when the electrons strike the inside of the tube - which is why CRTs are made from leaded, radiation-blocking glass - but it's only 1%, at best, of the energy you need to drive electrons even a centimetre or so into a plastic target.

If your electron beam is powerful enough to do that, several seconds of exposure will cause the plastic to acquire a absolutely terrific level of charge. Up in the low megavolts, and with total stored energy ranging from that of a tiny to that of a quite large pistol cartridge.

Then you bring an earthed contact close to one side of the block.

And bang, there's your Lichtenberg figure.

Lichtenberg figure detail

Close-up of Lichtenberg figure

It's been speculated that the feathery tips of the figure are present all the way down to the molecular level.

The world's premiere - actually, pretty close to the world's only - supplier of Lichtenberg figures burned into clear acrylic blocks is Bert Hickman's Stoneridge Engineering. That's one of Bert's in the video above, and I've bought a total of three smaller figures from him over the years, from his eBay store here. This equilateral triangle figure is four inches on a side, and cost me $US24.95 plus postage.

As acrylic Lichtenberg figures get bigger, the energy needed to make them rises, and is soon well beyond what your common-or-garden medical LINAC can manage. This sort of accelerator is not something you can make at home; it's very difficult to get even 1MeV out of a homebuilt unit, even if you're the kind of kid who is only bullied by the members of the football team who didn't know about all the jocks at your old school whose hair and teeth fell out before they died.

You need something like one of the big blighters used to irradiate food. This is why Bert's real monsters are rather expensive.

When high energy electrons hit acrylic, they don't just settle peacefully into the polymer matrix. They actually hit hard enough to discolour the plastic on the side on which the beam enters. This effect is known as "solarisation", because it looks not unlike the discolouration caused by long exposure to ultraviolet radiation (which only has energy of about ten electron-volts).

The electrons actually end up charging the plastic a bit beyond the discoloured deceleration zone. So if you look at an acrylic Lichtenberg figure from the side...

Solarisation of Lichtenberg figure acrylic

...you can quite clearly see the discoloration and the Lichtenberg figure itself as separate layers.

The solarisation nestles around the Lichtenberg figure like a little bathtub. It fades out around the edges, but those edges rise up around the lightning-shape on all sides.

And this is what I noticed when I was fooling around with my laser.

Shining the laser through the un-solarised part of the figure...

Laser beam through Lichtenberg figure

...produced pretty much the effect you'd expect.

But shining it through the solarised portion...

Laser beam through Lichtenberg figure

...gave a, much brighter, amber diffusion glow. You can see the beam turning amber as it hits the solarised portion of the plastic.

There's no great mystery about why the beam looks brighter in the solarised area. That seems to simply be because it's travelling through damaged polymer that scatters more of the light.

Laser beam through Lichtenberg figure

But the distinct amber colour was a surprise.

Only the scattered light is amber; the main beam's the same colour coming out of the block as it was going in.

Laser beam through Lichtenberg figure

Here's the unsolarised side, again.

Another interesting thing about solarisation is that it heals. Over a few years, if you don't expose the acrylic to any more high-energy insults, the orange tint goes away.

The first Lichtenberg figure I bought from Bert was a little two-incher, which I purchased back in 2004. I can't remember whether it had visible solarisation when I got it, but it doesn't now - and a green laser beam stays green all the way through it.

UPDATE: Find some high-res video of acrylic Lichtenberg figures being made in this post!