They are in front of the elevators at an outdoor multi story parking garage around my area. That's all I wanted to share, thanks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 7 months ago (16 children)

Those particular ones might be a waste of energy, but outdoor heaters like that in general are great for in front of hotels, and in the vestibule for doormen at clubs or valets

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    I responded further down but the infrared equivalent to these are very useful and explicitly solve for the energy waste issue you describe. Infrared heaters can’t heat open air which means heat-energy is transferred right to solid surfaces. It is extremely efficient in areas with any amount of airflow as the heat isn’t able to be blown away as it’s radiating from the surfaces below the heater, not the heater or the air between.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    I bet we can take it even further. Switch it out for a phased array of infrared emitters that track and target people based on body temperature. Then it won't have to be on all the time and there's no way it could possibly go wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Im wondering how large a phased array of infrared sources would be

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Given that they have to be a distance apart relative to the wavelength they're emitting, I'd guess about 10 times larger than a single emitter with the same output. However, because it's able to create beams with cross-sections similar to the profile of its targets, I'd argue it could just have a lower output and resolution with similar performance to a single emitter for half that. Those are wild guesses. Hopefully an engineer is lurking around here somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    And usually they are infrared so you're only heating people, not concrete.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think that's how radiant heat transfer works. Should generally heat anything colder than the heat source

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago*

    Kinda both right, it heats surfaces the infrared energy emitted by the heater can make contact with. It won’t heat open air which makes it extremely useful in outside environments or anywhere with a potential for airflow. But yeah it does heat everything it does point at, just not the air in between. Really useful for heating furniture to heat the ambient area in addition to the people present.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    I dont know how people absorb infared vs concrete, but i do know that once it emits a photon of infared, that energy is gone from the system, regardless of where it is absorbed. Meaning you spend the exact same power heating nothing as heating the air, concrete, or people. As long as the heater is emitting, it is emitting the same amount always.

    This parapraph began as a short tangent but now i have a longer question. I was going to explain that the energy delivered does chnage if you prevent the energy from escaping, but now im not sure exactly how. If you, say, reflect all the ir back at the emitter it heats up. Therefore, it emits more blackbody radiation. Im just gonna take a guess and say that blackbody radiation is not the mechanism by which quartz ir heaters operate though. Im assuming they operate closer to an LED, where they are doing fancy quantum magic to directly create the chosen photon and the chosen amplitude, which would be way more efficient. In that case, as the emitter heats up it would have a lower efficiency because the electrical resistance goes up, wasting power. It would also serve to expand the bandgap in the IRED, either reducing efficiency or pushing it into another frequency of light altogether.

    However, all that "wasted energy" or "reduced efficiency" has another name... heat. And its a heater. So like.... net energy generation stays the same? I think my confusion is coming from not clearly defining what it actually is im trying to measure or where im taking that measurement.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] [S] -1 points 7 months ago

    I'll agree that they have very specific locations where they have reasonable use cases, but the vast majority of where they're located are a waste. Like you mentioned, specifically somewhere with dry desert conditions, where it can get very cold at night rapidly where people are tourists and not dressed properly.

  • source
  • parent