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.

top 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 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
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    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
  • [–] 24 points 7 months ago

    I don't know about this use case but we have them at transit stations and some major bus stops. They make really bad days bearable and I would say are a necesity. Granted they are on demand so you hit a button and get a few minutes and if no one is around they stay off.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    It really depends on the use case. These “shoot” the heat directly onto the surface, instead of heating the air and pushing that air in a direction.

    If you’re standing under them for long periods of time, they’ll (generally) be a better option in a cold environment, since it’s directly heating you instead of the air.

    But if you’re just walking under them for a moment, or if it is meant to be a kind of “heat boundary”, heated air is going to be the better option.

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

    Considering placement, I'm willing to bet these are intended for heating the walkway, not people. People with snowy shoes standing around waiting for an elevator are making puddles, and without a heater, the puddles will turn to ice right on the one part of the parking garage that nearly everyone will be walking on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    They do suck but CTA stops in Chicago have these and they're better than nothing in the brutal cold. A lifesaver when the train is going to take a while

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] [S] -20 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Sure, but just dress warmly with another layer. The reason they're a waste is because the vast majority of actual heat energy is just lost to the atmosphere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Brother I don't think you understand how cold Chicago gets. I was wearing 2 sweaters and a coat and it's still fucking cold as balls

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Similar deal in Canada. It's bitter hell waiting for a bus or train in -40c even with as many layers on as you can fit. These heaters are absolutely worth the energy use

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    That's -40f for those south of the border.

    No need to thank me for doing all that math. On a serious note, some actually helpful points are:

    0c = 32f (probably the most well known one)

    10c = 50f

    20c = 68f

    30c = 86f

    40c = 104f

    Aside that, I figure I'll be cooking and therefore using a nice enough thermometer to have both scales. Otherwise things have gone terribly, terribly wrong, and I have much larger problems to worry about than conversions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Freezing, chilly, nice, hot, 104.

    This is worth memorizing.

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

    It's only a waste if you are generating that electricity from non-renewables. If the electric is coming from nuclear or renewable AND there is enough electricity where you are then there's basically no harm. Electric heat is 100% efficient since all the energy is consumed for its intended purpose.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I get what you're saying, but I disagree. If you don't use this heater but send the renewable electricity to the grid instead, somewhere non-renewable energy doesn't have to be used. IMO your argument is the same as the reason energy efficiency leads to more energy consumption. I quickly googled it to make sure I'm not talking out of my ass, and it's called Jevon's paradox.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    So what your saying is that switching to renewable is pointless because we aren't allowed to use the energy for what we want?

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

    Hm, the efficiency point is a bit moot, you can say the same for coal, oil and gas.

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

    You definitely cannot. All of those materials burn and release carbon. Not 100% of the material goes towards energy. Solar for instance produces electricity with no byproduct (excluding the cost to make the panel). There are no byproducts in the generation stage. We then transport the electric which also produces heat.

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

    I see a lot of propane ones

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Even worse are places that leave their doors open with the AC blasting in the middle of summer. Yah, let's try to cool the atmosphere.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Is there any chance these are here for the elevator and not your comfort?

  • source