# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  Is It Really Possible to "Pump" heat?

## HVACTech

this question popped onto my radar the other day.. and it would appear.. that even people who purport to know about such things...
*can't even look it up!!*   WTF?  

WHY would this be?  is there a reason?     I am willing to explain it. I will simplify it as much as is possible. (artistic license) 
*once the 4TH method of heat transfer is understood..  I promise.. you will never look up into the sky, and see a "cloud" the same!* 

*this technology is slightly older than the transistor, but not by much.*   today, very few are aware that there was no frozen food section at the grocery, until 1955. coolers were rare and food storage was a problem. 

this problem was so severe, that Albert Einstein himself.  invented one in order to solve the problem of food storage. (it failed)

the short answer is this.* yes. it is in fact possible to "pump" heat.* in fact, mother nature does it all the time! YOU even have this system built into your own body!  

_Latent heat transfer_ is how.
*it is the phase change that moves the heat* folks.  (liquid to gas, and then gas to liquid. closed loop) 



I am a commercial cooling specialist. and do not consider this to be personal information.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

My question to you, good sir, is; are clouds elevators ?

----------


## FindLiberty

So 212 degree water is "hotter" (contains more ability to heat) than 212 degree steam, right?

----------


## HVACTech

> My question to you, good sir, is; are clouds elevators ?


within context, yes. 

*they disperse heat that was absorbed at the surface*. in this manner, the "surface" can be understood..
as the "evaporator"...

and the sky.. the "condenser"  therefore, the heat is traveling up.
it is a latent heat rejection system. 

and it is VERY powerful sir. *this is the source for the power of hurricanes.* (or whatever you call them up there in the frosty north!)

----------


## HVACTech

> So 212 degree water is "hotter" (contains more ability to heat) than 212 degree steam, right?


that is a tricky question,  but is also the basis for steam heat systems..

you get as much (970.3 BTU's per LB) going one way.. as you do the other. 

I can see no reason for this to piss off caitlyn jenner.

----------


## FindLiberty

It's more work to change 32 degree water to 32 degree ice 
than to change 33 degree water to 32 degree water or
32 degree ice to 31 degree ice.  Or reverse?

State change - vs - latent heat  

OK, start talkin' and schplainin'

----------


## FindLiberty

> My question to you, good sir, is; are clouds elevators ?


Don't they lift rain drops till they become too big and heavy (due to static electricity)?  

Or the other way around, where drops form the static that also prevents them from falling (on their first try)?

Explains layered hail structure (when viewed cross section).

----------


## HVACTech

> It's more work to change 32 degree water to 32 degree ice 
> than to change 33 degree water to 32 degree water or
> 32 degree ice to 31 degree ice.  Or reverse?
> 
> State change - vs - latent heat  
> 
> OK, start talkin' and schplainin'


oh yeah! you want to see an example of pumping heat eh? 
all these babes are from Texas... would you "change state" for the 3rd lady?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn7HjHondI8

----------


## erowe1

I don't think latent heat transfer is a method of heat transfer.

What bothers me is not that HVAC Tech doesn't know this, but that he won't even bother to look it up.

I gather that understanding that kind of thing isn't a requirement for HVAC techs. Huh?

----------


## HVACTech

> *I don't think latent heat transfer is a method of heat transfer.*
> 
> What bothers me is not that HVAC Tech doesn't know this, but that he won't even bother to look it up.
> 
> I gather that understanding that kind of thing isn't a requirement for HVAC techs. Huh?


damn, phil4paul was right..
 "heat pumps" are really just a conspiracy theory,
 cooked up by the utilities to enhance chemtrails...  

should I stop fixing them and making them work for the people erowe!?
I have a reputation as to be the man to call for this... purpose. 

*IF, heat pumps existed..*. I would probably not help you with yours though...

and IF I did. that would be silly. right?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Is It Really Possible to "Pump" heat?


Yes. I know this because I have three heat pumps, that I know of. I may have more but I only deal with the two that are connected to our house and the one hooked up to the pool. Mostly, to Mr Animal's chagrin, I jack with the thermostats. He's threatened on numerous occasions to get some of those commercial lock boxes on the ones in the house. I'm not sure how he plans to keep me from setting the pool water at 98 but he's a crafty fella, I gotta keep my eye on him.

Through the power of magic, they take cold air (but not too cold - especially the pool heat pump) and turn it into warm air or water.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *this technology is slightly older than the transistor, but not by much.*   today, very few are aware that there was no frozen food section at the grocery, until 1955. coolers were rare and food storage was a problem.
> 
> Latent heat transfer is how.
> 
> it is the phase change that moves the heat folks. (liquid to gas, and then gas to liquid. closed loop)


Vapor compression refrigeration was invented in 1805 by an American, Oliver Evans, using ether as a refrigerant.

Small coolers and refrigerators were in common use by 1925 and become ubiquitous with Midgley's commercially viable artificial synthesis of Freon around 1928. Same thing with residential AC. Prior to Midgley's work, mechanical refrigeration systems used ammonia or sulfur dioxide or other poisonous or flammable gases, which of course, limited residential use. 

It was the consumption boom in the 50s that brought millions of these products into people's homes.

The "phase shift" you speak of is not the actual form of heat transfer.

The heat transfer is actually thermal *conduction*, where the heated air meets the cold evaporator coils, or vice versa.

DGS Groceries, Washington DC 1935
Retail food cooler.

----------


## HVACTech

> Yes. I know this because I have three heat pumps, that I know of. I may have more but I only deal with the two that are connected to our house and the one hooked up to the pool. Mostly, to Mr Animal's chagrin, I jack with the thermostats. He's threatened on numerous occasions to get some of those commercial lock boxes on the ones in the house. I'm not sure how he plans to keep me from setting the pool water at 98 but he's a crafty fella, I gotta keep my eye on him.
> 
> Through the power of magic, they take cold air (but not too cold - especially the pool heat pump) and turn it into warm air or water.


yah, I worked on one of those for a chicky-doo onetime... hers was a salt water system... 
I am guessing she thought that was better than Chlorine, bromine or ozone. I was OK with that. 

an air-to water heat pump does work, as you say, but they are not very powerful in cold weather.. 
"heat pumps" are fair weather friends Love... 

why am I not surprised that you would know that?

----------


## HVACTech

> The "phase shift" you speak of is not the actual form of heat transfer.
> 
> The heat transfer is actually thermal conduction, *where the heated air meets the cold evaporator coils,* or vice versa.


that took balls..
umm, why sir.. are the* "evaporator coils"* cold?  

is that where the heat is going? or do they create "cold" all by themselves?

----------


## erowe1

> damn, phil4paul was right..
>  "heat pumps" are really just a conspiracy theory,
>  cooked up by the utilities to enhance chemtrails...  
> 
> should I stop fixing them and making them work for the people erowe!?
> I have a reputation as to be the man to call for this... purpose. 
> 
> *IF, heat pumps existed..*. I would probably not help you with yours though...
> 
> and IF I did. that would be silly. right?


I didn't mention heat pumps. Heat pumps transfer heat via 2 of the three heat transfer methods, none of which is called "latent heat transfer." Apparently being able to fix them doesn't require that you know that.

Would it really be too much trouble for you to look it up?

----------


## brushfire

Pumping heat?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> that took balls..
> umm, why sir.. are the* "evaporator coils"* cold?  
> 
> is that where the heat is going? or do they create "cold" all by themselves?


If the coils were in a vacuum, no heat would be exchanged but the coils would still be cool.

The actual *transfer* of heat, from the coils and fin surfaces is *conduction*.

----------


## erowe1

Here you go HVAC Tech. This is high school physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump



Latent heat explains the amenability of the refrigerant to transfer heat, but it isn't a method of transferring heat.

Using the image above as a model, imagining the blue side as the inside of a refrigerator, heat is transferred through the air inside the refrigerator via convection (the wide blue arrow pointing left), and then it is transferred from the air that comes in contact with the evaporator coils to those coils via conduction, and then it is transferred throughout the refrigerant in its gaseous form inside those coils via convection again.

The reverse happens on the left half of the picture, again with conduction and convection being the methods by which heat is transferred from one thing to another.

The two places in the image where latent heat is most important are the condenser and the expansion valve. After passing through the expansion valve, the refrigerant is at a low pressure at which it's boiling temperature is below its current temperature, so it boils at that low temperature, undergoing latent heat of vaporization, which makes it absorb heat according to the process described above (we're back on the right side of the diagram again). And as said above, the heat transfer methods by which this happens are convection and conduction. Latent heat of vaporization is what makes this heat transfer according to these methods possible. But it is not a heat transfer method itself.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *this technology is slightly older than the transistor, but not by much.*   today, very few are aware that there was no frozen food section at the grocery, until 1955.


Flash frozen foods were invented in 1925 by Clarence Birdseye and the first frozen food plant was started the same year in my old hometown of Gloucester Massachusetts.

He started with fish and by 1927 was freezing vegetables, beef and poultry.

In 1929 he sold everything off, and the General Foods Company was started which began to market directly at the retail level.

Ten years later, by 1935, frozen foods at the retail consumer level were quite common and easily obtained.

ETA - That is to say *mechanically* frozen food. People in northern climates have been freezing food to preserve it for centuries.

----------


## HVACTech

> I didn't mention heat pumps.* Heat pumps transfer heat via 2 of the three heat transfer methods*, none of which is called "latent heat transfer." Apparently being able to fix them doesn't require that you know that.
> 
> Would it really be too much trouble for you to look it up?


*your magnificence,* does this mean that an air-to-air heat pump.. * is NOT a reverse cycle A/C unit*?  
and does not therefore, require auxiliary heat?  
I tremble in anticipation of your reply sir....

----------


## HVACTech

> Here you go HVAC Tech. This is high school physics.* Latent heat of vaporization is what makes this heat transfer* according to these methods possible. But it is not a heat transfer method itself.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Birds Eye Frozen Food ad from *1940*.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 


Stahp.

You really should just retreat and lick your wounds at this point.

----------


## Anti Federalist

And, before you start, I'll freely admit to looking up dates and persons involved in the invention of modern refrigerants.

But you ran afoul of me with your bull$#@! claim that there was no frozen food in grocery stores until 1955.

Not only is Clarence Birdseye something of a local folk hero in my old home town, I just finished his biography, written by a favorite author of mine, Mark Kurlansky, who also wrote _"Cod"_ and _"Salt"_, both of which are vital to food supplies in the days before mechanical refrigeration and freezing.


*Birdseye: The Adventures of a Curious Man*

http://www.amazon.com/Birdseye-Adven.../dp/0767930304

While working as a fur trapper in Labrador, Canada, Clarence Birdseye encountered an age-old problem: bad food and an unappealing, unhealthy diet. However, he observed that fresh vegetables wetted and left outside in the Arctic winds froze in a way that maintained their integrity after thawing. As a result, he developed his patented Birdseye freezing process and started the company that still bears his name. 

Birdseye forever changed the way we preserve, store, and distribute food, and the way we eat.

Mark Kurlansky’s vibrant and affectionate narrative reveals Clarence Birdseye as a quintessential “can-do” American inventor—his other patents include an electric sunlamp, a harpoon gun to tag finback whales, and an improved incandescent lightbulb—and shows how the greatest of changes can come from the simplest of ideas and the unlikeliest of places.

----------


## specsaregood

I really preferred the other thread about burgers.

----------


## FindLiberty

_The greatest of changes can come from the 
simplest of ideas and the unlikeliest of places._



[Forgive me oh great one; you have something on your face!]

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I really preferred the other thread about burgers.


I've been dieing to try an In and Out burger.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Another Birds Eye frozen food ad, this one from 1941.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Pumping heat:

----------


## phill4paul

> damn, phil4paul was right..
>  "heat pumps" are really just a conspiracy theory,
>  cooked up by the utilities to enhance chemtrails...  
> 
> should I stop fixing them and making them work for the people erowe!?
> I have a reputation as to be the man to call for this... purpose. 
> 
> *IF, heat pumps existed..*. I would probably not help you with yours though...
> 
> and IF I did. that would be silly. right?


  This new infatuation you have with me is...unsettling.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's more work to change 32 degree water to 32 degree ice 
> than to change 33 degree water to 32 degree water or
> 32 degree ice to 31 degree ice.  Or reverse?
> 
> State change - vs - latent heat  
> 
> OK, start talkin' and schplainin'


He doesn't seem to be able or willing to.  But then, I doubt this is something his training covered.  This is the stuff mostly reserved for physics students.  But, yes, you found the heart of the matter.

The change of state--from liquid to solid, from liquid to gas--is the real work.  This is where the real energy transfers take place.  Water has to give off a lot of heat to turn solid.  As your refrigerator pumps heat out of the freezer compartment, the water turning to ice puts off that heat which must be removed.  But losing that heat does not chill the water, it just slows down the molecules moving around to the point where the substance turns hard.  When it hits 0C/32F, it has to do the hard work of consolidating into a solid before its temperature gets any lower.  So, it dumps a lot of heat energy which is not keeping it warm, but is keeping it fluid, before it can get any colder.

Likewise when it turns to steam.  Water in a pan will remain close to 100C/212F while it boils.  That's why your stove can melt the metal in an empty pan but cannot melt a pan with water in it.  When you get to that point, water absorbs heat readily and quickly but does not warm up.  That's because all that heat is being used for another purpose--to transform that liquid into a vapor.

And the way a heat pump works is exactly the way refrigeration works.  Yes, it moves heat around.  That's all you can do with heat.  You can release chemical energy as heat, or you can move heat around.  You can't create heat out of nothing, and you can't destroy heat, but you can move it.  A heat pump is simply an air conditioner working backwards.  An air conditioner absorbs heat in the house and moves it outside.  A heat pump absorbs heat outside and moves it inside.  It doesn't matter if it's colder outside than inside.  It's colder inside a refrigerator than outside, but the machinery still manages to absorb the little bit of heat inside the freezer and move it to the much warmer room.  And a heat pump can scrounge the little bit of heat outside and move it in the warmer house.

This is done through evaporative cooling.  Refrigerant is compressed and cooled to the point where it's a liquid, because a vapor can be compressed until it turns into a liquid, just as it can be cooled until it turns into a liquid.  Yes, if you compress steam, you can turn it into water at a temperature higher than 212F--the water in your car radiator is regularly heated up to more than 250 degrees, but it must still be water, because if it turned to steam the water pump couldn't circulate it and your car would overheat.  This is possible because it's under pressure, and that changes the boiling point.  The vapor puts off a lot of heat in the process of turning into a liquid, because when a vapor turns into a liquid it puts off heat.  It has to dump that energy in order to turn into a liquid, because a liquid doesn't float in the air and doesn't move around so much, and if that energy were still there the substance would expand and rise.  If you then move that liquid to a place where it has room--where it's no longer compressed--it turns into a gas as soon as it has room to do so, if it's the least bit warm.  Now, in order to turn into a vapor, and float, and take up more space, it has to absorb heat.  And it will.

So, wherever you let your refrigerant evaporate, it will absorb heat, and wherever you compress it, it will radiate heat.  And that's how any refrigeration/heat transfer system 'pumps' heat--by compressing refrigerant where you want the heat to be and by allowing it room to evaporate where you don't want the heat to be.

Now I have explained the thing the OP promised to explain in the first post, but didn't explain.  Clear enough?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> within context, yes. 
> 
> *they disperse heat that was absorbed at the surface*. in this manner, the "surface" can be understood..
> as the "evaporator"...
> 
> and the sky.. the "condenser"  therefore, the heat is traveling up.
> it is a latent heat rejection system. 
> 
> and it is VERY powerful sir. *this is the source for the power of hurricanes.* (or whatever you call them up there in the frosty north!)


I thank you very much for your swift reply.

Now, I like to do what you do, which is ask questions I already know the answer to. That way at least you know you're not saying something stupid  Which is kind of an interesting thing, I think you actually need some experience or knowledge about something before you start asking questions. Is that a catch 22 ? And yeah, I already know the answer to that. 

Anyways. I am going to try said elevator effect and will report back to you with my findings. Unfortunately it is very dry here currently and we do not have any clouds at the moment. Do you by any chance know if you actually need a cloud for this natural heat transfer phenomenon ?

We don't have many hurricanes here. But I do know they always rotate the same direction, depending on which hemisphere they are on. Oh, I should have phrased that as a question I already knew the answer on.. But I didn't, oh well. I don't know what we call hurricanes here. I guess "bad luck for you guys" or something like that. 

I'll report my findings soon. Stay patient.

----------


## acptulsa

> Do you by any chance know if you actually need a cloud for this natural heat transfer phenomenon ?


Obviously not.

If this heat transfer creates the clouds, then obviously this phenomenon must begin before the clouds are formed.  If so, of course it can happen without clouds.

That's like asking if you have to have spaghetti before you can grow wheat.

Clouds are formed when heat radiating upward from the surface carries air (and air contains water vapor, among other things) up to an altitude cool enough to cause the water vapor to condense to liquid.  That altitude and coolness causes that condensation by absorbing the heat from the vapor.

Now _there_ is an explanation--a simple one.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> He doesn't seem to be able or willing to.  But then, I doubt this is something his training covered.  This is the stuff mostly reserved for physics students.  But, yes, you found the heart of the matter.
> 
> The change of state--from liquid to solid, from liquid to gas--is the real work.  This is where the real energy transfers take place.  Water has to give off a lot of heat to turn solid.  As your refrigerator pumps heat out of the freezer compartment, the water turning to ice puts off that heat which must be removed.  But losing that heat does not chill the water, it just slows down the molecules moving around to the point where the substance turns hard.  When it hits 0C/32F, it has to do the hard work of consolidating into a solid before its temperature gets any lower.  So, it dumps a lot of heat energy which is not keeping it warm, but is keeping it fluid, before it can get any colder.
> 
> Likewise when it turns to steam.  Water in a pan will remain close to 100C/212F while it boils.  That's why your stove can melt the metal in an empty pan but cannot melt a pan with water in it.  When you get to that point, water absorbs heat readily and quickly but does not warm up.  That's because all that heat is being used for another purpose--to transform that liquid into a vapor.
> 
> And the way a heat pump works is exactly the way refrigeration works.  Yes, it moves heat around.  That's all you can do with heat.  You can release chemical energy as heat, or you can move heat around.  You can't create heat out of nothing, and you can't destroy heat, but you can move it.  A heat pump is simply an air conditioner working backwards.  An air conditioner absorbs heat in the house and moves it outside.  A heat pump absorbs heat outside and moves it inside.  It doesn't matter if it's colder outside than inside.  It's colder inside a refrigerator than outside, but the machinery still manages to absorb the little bit of heat inside the freezer and move it to the much warmer room.  And a heat pump can scrounge the little bit of heat outside and move it in the warmer house.
> 
> This is done through evaporative cooling.  Refrigerant is compressed and cooled to the point where it's a liquid, because a vapor can be compressed until it turns into a liquid, just as it can be cooled until it turns into a liquid.  Yes, if you compress steam, you can turn it into water at a temperature higher than 212F--the water in your car radiator is regularly heated up to more than 250 degrees, but it must still be water, because if it turned to steam the water pump couldn't circulate it and your car would overheat.  This is possible because it's under pressure, and that changes the boiling point.  The vapor puts off a lot of heat in the process of turning into a liquid, because when a vapor turns into a liquid it puts off heat.  It has to dump that energy in order to turn into a liquid, because a liquid doesn't float in the air and doesn't move around so much, and if that energy were still there the substance would expand and rise.  If you then move that liquid to a place where it has room--where it's no longer compressed--it turns into a gas as soon as it has room to do so, if it's the least bit warm.  Now, in order to turn into a vapor, and float, and take up more space, it has to absorb heat.  And it will.
> ...


Perfectly clear but isn't that more or less basic physics ?

With one addition; 


> You can release chemical energy as heat, or you can move heat around.  You can't create heat out of nothing, and you can't destroy heat, but you can move it.


Chemical reactions can also absorb heat. Which I'm sure you know

----------


## Danke

When I was younger and in my prime, I use to "pump" heat all the time. But now that I'm older and turning gray, I only "pump" heat once a day.

----------


## acptulsa

> Chemical reactions can also absorb heat. Which I'm sure you know


Yes, some of them do.  They have to, or they don't happen.  I should have mentioned that, I suppose, but I was talking about HVAC.  And while HVAC systems use chemical reactions to release heat from substances (which is called 'burning stuff') they don't air condition by trying to turn ash and carbon dioxide into natural gas.

Oh but if we only knew how to do that...

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Yes, some of them do.  They have to, or they don't happen.  I should have mentioned that, I suppose, but I was talking about HVAC.  And while HVAC systems use chemical reactions to release heat from substances (which is called 'burning stuff') they don't air condition by trying to turn ash and carbon dioxide into natural gas.
> 
> Oh but if we only knew how to do that...


If only there was something like synthetic natural gas..... We could call it SNG.

----------


## presence



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> When I was younger and in my prime, I use to "pump" heat all the time. But now that I'm older and turning gray, I only "pump" heat once a day.


Leave it to danke to bring lulz to a heat pump thread.  ~hugs~

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Leave it to danke to bring lulz to a heat pump thread.  ~hugs~


I was actually waiting for yours .

----------


## acptulsa

By the way, the reason the heat pump is considered useless when it's below freezing outside is not because there's no heat out there to pump inside.  It's because what heat there is has become scarce enough that the heat pump (which is not the most efficient system in the world) is having to work so hard at scavenging that heat that it becomes too inefficient to bother with.

And pumping heat is not the same thing as hot pumping.  But there is a thread on that around the forum somewhere...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So 212 degree water is "hotter" (contains more ability to heat) than 212 degree steam, right?


If I remember correctly it takes seven times the energy to generate steam from 212° water.

The expansion rate is 1700 times, by volume at standard pressure, which retains quite a bit of energy, thus, steam engines and turbines.

By adding more heat, you get "superheated" or "dry" steam, which is what is useful for engines and turbines, but not so much for home heating.

----------


## acptulsa

So, no, 212F steam is not hotter than 212F water, though it can actually become hotter without changing form.  But steam is always more energized than water.  There are other forms of energy besides heat.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So, no, 212F steam is not hotter than 212F water, though it can actually become hotter without changing form.  But steam is always more energized than water.  There are other forms of energy besides heat.


Exactly.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> So, no, 212F steam is not hotter than 212F water, though it can actually become hotter without changing form.  But steam is always more energized than water.  There are other forms of energy besides heat.


As long as you remember that all energy is equal .

----------


## erowe1

> *your magnificence,* does this mean that an air-to-air heat pump.. * is NOT a reverse cycle A/C unit*?  
> and does not therefore, require auxiliary heat?  
> I tremble in anticipation of your reply sir....


No, it doesn't mean that.

----------


## HVACTech

> My question to you, good sir, is; are clouds elevators ?


Cloud suck

Cloud suck is typically associated with an increase in thermal updraft velocity near cloud base. As a parcel of air lifted in a thermal rises, it also cools, and water vapour will eventually condense to form a cloud if the parcel rises above the lifted condensation level. As the water vapour condenses, *it releases its latent heat of vaporization*, 
thereby increasing the buoyancy of the parcel.[3] *The updraft is amplified by this latent heat release.*[1][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_suck

that was cool man! thanks for that.   I had not thought of glider pilots, yes. they would certainly be aware of such phenomena. 
this illustrates the raw power of_ latent heat transfer_ very well. and identifies it as the source of power for both tornadoes and hurricanes..

as a pilot, I am sure that Danke is aware of this and see's it everyday. I am just not so sure that he knows that he is looking at* the top half of mother natures refrigeration cycle!*  (condensation = heat rejection)

(ah've been meaning to have a talk with that boy...)

what you are more interested in, is the lower half of the cycle, 

*the sun heats the earth radiantly,* this means that it heats the surface and not the air in between. water absorbs heat at the surface and this causes it to evaporate. (evaporation = heat absorption) this heat is then transferred latently to the upper atmosphere.  where the heat is rejected and the water falls back to the earth in the form of rain to complete the cycle. 

I know this, the reason that death valley is so hot. is because it is below sea level. (it is in a concave area) this bottles the heat up...
mebbe there would be more thermals near depressions in the earth?   
I am thinking concave good, convex bad. and yes! I may in fact have that completely bassackwards.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> mebbe there would be more thermals near depressions in the earth?


You'll find rising air, right next to falling air.

----------


## HVACTech

> You'll find rising air, right next to falling air.


well heck! nobody told me there was going to be a quiz at the end!  

now that I think about, I would look for up slope areas that get a lot of sunshine...  and avoid the leeward side?  
cooler air is denser, that is why it sinks, warmer air is thinner, and that is why it rises and can hold more moisture.

----------


## HVACTech

> *If I remember correctly it takes seven times the energy to generate steam from 212° water.*



*aww heck AF! why don't we do the math on that one. shall we?*  
(yes, I am aware that you do not believe in_ latent heat transfer_ but to do the math.. we will need to include it)
to raise, or lower the temperature of 1LB (16ozs) of water, 1 degree = 1 BTU. imperial scale. 

lets start with 32 degree solid ice. (that is 32) now we add the latent heat of fusion for water 144 BTU's per LB. that gives us 176.BTU's.
now, we go from 32 degree liquid water. (did you notice what I did there?)  to 212F liquid water. 176 + 180.  that gives us 356 BTU's. 

so, to go from frozen ice, to scald the $#@! out of you hot liquid water is worth 356 BTU's. got that?

now. lets go from 212F liquid water. to 212F vaporous steam. (did you notice what I did there?)  that value is 970.3 BTU's 

latent heat transfer cannot be avoided AF. (even if you do not believe in it.)

----------


## HVACTech

> Stahp.
> 
> You really should just retreat and lick your wounds at this point.


yah know, when I used to teach classes on this stuff, "atmospheric pressure"  seemed to give the guys the most trouble.. 
not_ latent heat transfer_.  (you really are special AF!)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> yah know, when I used to teach classes on this stuff, "atmospheric pressure"  seemed to give the guys the most trouble.. 
> not_ latent heat transfer_.  (you really are special AF!)


Did you teach them there was no retail frozen foods until 1955 as well?

I'd demand a refund.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *aww heck AF! why don't we do the math on that one. shall we?*  
> (yes, I am aware that you do not believe in_ latent heat transfer_ but to do the math.. we will need to include it)
> to raise, or lower the temperature of 1LB (16ozs) of water, 1 degree = 1 BTU. imperial scale. 
> 
> lets start with 32 degree solid ice. (that is 32) now we add the latent heat of fusion for water 144 BTU's per LB. that gives us 176.BTU's.
> now, we go from 32 degree liquid water. (did you notice what I did there?)  to 212F liquid water. 176 + 180.  that gives us 356 BTU's. 
> 
> so, to go from frozen ice, to scald the $#@! out of you hot liquid water is worth 356 BTU's. got that?
> 
> ...


In silly meters:

Heat required to raise the temperature of 0 °C water to 100 °C water

q = mcΔT

q = (25 g)x(4.18 J/g·°C)[(100 °C - 0 °C)]
q = (25 g)x(4.18 J/g·°C)x(100 °C)
q = 10450 J

Heat required to raise the temperature of 0 °C water to 100 °C water = 10450 J

Heat required to convert 100 °C water to 100 °C steam

q = m·ΔHv

where
q = heat energy
m = mass
ΔHv = heat of vaporization

q = (25 g)x(2257 J/g)
q = 56425 J

Heat required to convert 100 °C water to 100 °C steam = 56425


10450 J to go from 0 to 100 C

56425 to go from 100C water to 100C steam

Or 5.4 times.

Not exactly 7, but close enough for off the top of my head.

And that's an energy figure for water from freezing to near boil.

It would be right about 7 times if one used the energy usage at room temp water to near boiling.

----------


## HVACTech

> Yes, some of them do.  They have to, or they don't happen.  I should have mentioned that, I suppose, but I was talking about HVAC.  And while HVAC systems use chemical reactions to release heat from substances (which is called 'burning stuff') they don't air condition by trying to turn ash and carbon dioxide into natural gas.
> 
> Oh but if we only knew how to do that...


I am trying to play nice and avoid discussions concerning the creation of plasma right now dude. 

I do NOT wish to hear from AF again about his $#@!ing "corn stove" or "coal stoker"... 

when I check or "tune" a modern refrigeration machine. *what I am looking for, is to maximize latent heat transfer.*
"sensible" heat transfer is weak, much like AF and his adsorption systems. 

_latent heat transfer_ is badass dude. and is all that I care about. 

to do so. I measure subcooling and superheat.  one tells me the quality of my condenser and refrigerant charge.
the other is used for proper cooling, and protection from liquid of my vapor pump. 
(these things can be quite expensive you know..)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> "sensible" heat transfer is weak, much like AF and his adsorption systems.


And your arguments.

----------


## HVACTech

> In silly meters:
> 
> Heat required to raise the temperature of 0 °C water to 100 °C water
> 
> 
> Or 5.4 times.
> 
> Not exactly 7, but close enough for off the top of my head.
> 
> ...


interesting, my numbers went past the boiling point. 
and your numbers included "the heat of vaporization" like mine did.
does this mean that_ Latent heat transfer_ exists? and that you believe in it?   

why would you use "*silly meters*"  IF.. you were doing the math yourself?

----------


## HVACTech

> And your arguments.


this thread is about _latent heat transfer_ AF. please try to stay on topic.

----------


## erowe1

> yah know, when I used to teach classes on this stuff, "atmospheric pressure"  seemed to give the guys the most trouble.. 
> not_ latent heat transfer_.  (you really are special AF!)


I'm calling your bluff. You might have taught classes on how to fix air conditioners. And you might have misused your time in those classes pontificating about related scientific concepts you didn't understand. But you have never actually been paid money by anyone to teach people that latent heat is the fourth method of heat transfer.

----------


## erowe1

> *aww heck AF! why don't we do the math on that one. shall we?*  
> (yes, I am aware that you do not believe in_ latent heat transfer_ but to do the math.. we will need to include it)
> to raise, or lower the temperature of 1LB (16ozs) of water, 1 degree = 1 BTU. imperial scale. 
> 
> lets start with 32 degree solid ice. (that is 32) now we add the latent heat of fusion for water 144 BTU's per LB. that gives us 176.BTU's.
> now, we go from 32 degree liquid water. (did you notice what I did there?)  to 212F liquid water. 176 + 180.  that gives us 356 BTU's. 
> 
> so, to go from frozen ice, to scald the $#@! out of you hot liquid water is worth 356 BTU's. got that?
> 
> ...


Do you realize that the math you just showed at no point involved any heat transfer?

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm calling your bluff. You might have taught classes on how to fix air conditioners. And you might have misused your time in those classes pontificating about related scientific concepts you didn't understand. But you have never actually been paid money by anyone to teach people that latent heat is the fourth method of heat transfer.


you sir. are a fish, at the very bottom of an ocean of air.  and this concept is about "wetness" sir. 
how else would you describe a vacuum to the guys?

they will need to measure one in both inch's of mercury as well as microns you know. 
and since YOU are so smart, what the heck is an "inch of mercury" anyhow oh wise one?

----------


## HVACTech

> Do you realize that the math you just showed at no point involved any heat transfer?


*
darn, the water was never heated?*   did Bryan not pay the gas bill again!  curses!

----------


## erowe1

> you sir. are a fish, at the very bottom of an ocean of air.  and this concept is about "wetness" sir. 
> how else would you describe a vacuum to the guys?
> 
> they will need to measure one in both inch's of mercury as well as microns you know. 
> and since YOU are so smart, what the heck is an "inch of mercury" anyhow oh wise one?


Your repeated attempts to change the subject from the topic at hand, which is the fact that latent heat is not a method of heat transfer, aren't working.

Nor are you succeeding at upsetting me.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> this thread is about _latent heat transfer_ AF. please try to stay on topic.


Since we have already determined that latent heat is not truly a method of heat *transfer*, then this thread can be about burgers...or WalMarx people.

----------


## HVACTech

> Leave it to danke to bring lulz to a heat pump thread.  ~hugs~


get with the program HB34. it is NOT possible to "pump" heat.  

you have to conduct or convect it first! silly!

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> well heck! nobody told me there was going to be a quiz at the end!  
> 
> now that I think about, I would look for up slope areas that get a lot of sunshine...  and avoid the leeward side?  
> cooler air is denser, that is why it sinks, warmer air is thinner, and that is why it rises and can hold more moisture.


We don't have mountains or significant slopes.

This is what it looks like around here right about now.  (and yes, loads of windmills around here, lots of subsidies for those. Even to take them down and build a 'better' one)

----------


## erowe1

> get with the program HB34. it is NOT possible to "pump" heat.  
> 
> you have to conduct or convect it first! silly!


You're just pretending to be stupid. Pumping heat is conducting and convecting it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You're just pretending to be stupid. Pumping *head* is conducting and convecting it.


Oh lordy...

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Oh lordy...


Oh my.

----------


## HVACTech

> Oh my.


I am going to have to get Dankes opinion on this one... do I owe HB34 an apology?    ~lulz~

----------


## erowe1

> Oh lordy...


For crying out loud! fixed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> For crying out loud! fixed.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Vapor compression refrigeration was invented in 1805 by an American, Oliver Evans, using ether as a refrigerant.
> 
> Small coolers and refrigerators were in common use by 1925 and become ubiquitous with Midgley's commercially viable artificial synthesis of Freon around 1928. Same thing with residential AC. Prior to Midgley's work, mechanical refrigeration systems used ammonia or sulfur dioxide or other poisonous or flammable gases, which of course, limited residential use. 
> 
> It was the consumption boom in the 50s that brought millions of these products into people's homes.
> 
> The "phase shift" you speak of is not the actual form of heat transfer.
> 
> The heat transfer is actually thermal *conduction*, where the heated air meets the cold evaporator coils, or vice versa.
> ...


This is correct.  What vaporization and condensation does is increase the efficiency of heat conduction at the coils, and lower the temperature of the cold end of the closed system.  Liquid at 40° above ambient will lose more heat via conduction through coils than liquid at 10° above ambient.  Evap and lower pressure dramatically lower the temperature and generate the cooling effect.  Pressurize to a liquid on one side and blow off the heat through a coil, and depressurize to a gas on the other side to blow cold air off the other side.  Larger commercial HVAC facilities also have hydro evaporator stacks, where thousands of gallons of water are sprayed through a column of air, evaporating the water and chilling the column.

----------


## acptulsa

> Larger commercial HVAC facilities also have hydro evaporator stacks, where thousands of gallons of water are sprayed through a column of air, evaporating the water and chilling the column.


Are you sure you're not thinking of condensers?  That's where the heat is.

At the evaporator, there is water--being drawn out of the air by the cold coils and drained away, and being monitored by the system lest it freeze to the coil and destroy the compressor.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Are you sure you're not thinking of condensers?  That's where the heat is.
> 
> At the evaporator, there is water--being drawn out of the air by the cold coils and drained away, and being monitored by the system lest it freeze to the coil and destroy the compressor.


Helped build and then ran the ice plant at my fish co-op.

That system used these:

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Are you sure you're not thinking of condensers?  That's where the heat is.
> 
> At the evaporator, there is water--being drawn out of the air by the cold coils and drained away, and being monitored by the system lest it freeze to the coil and destroy the compressor.


No, it's a special thing for "green" cooling.  My controls expert has set them up and toured me through one.  It's a gigantic 2 to 3 story air stack that they spray jets of water through, the water evaporates, the air cools down, and then they run the cooled air through a coil to cool the building air.  It's only a "green auxillary" so they don't have to run their giant condensers as much.  Of course, buildings that large tend to have boilers instead of heat pumps, no matter how new they are.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## acptulsa

> No, it's a special thing for "green" cooling.  My controls expert has set them up and toured me through one.


Interesting.  First run the air through a swamp cooler, then through the evaporators.  It makes sense.  But it's a dangerous game to play.

Of course, air conditioning coils are in no way as prone to freeze up as freezer coils.  Even so, in humid environments like this one they can and do freeze up.  I'm sure there are places where the introduction of this extra moisture would do far more harm than good.

There are also places dry enough that a swamp cooler will do just fine, and modern air conditioning isn't needed at all.  Unlike here, where houses which used swamp coolers for decades tend to get torn down because that's the only way to eliminate all the mold.

----------


## HVACTech



----------


## GunnyFreedom



----------


## HVACTech

> Stahp.
> 
> You really should just retreat and lick your wounds at this point.


this thread is about to get interesting..  

care to take the first shot at reading that gauge?

----------


## acptulsa

> care to take the first shot at reading that gauge?


Too late.

One pound per square inch.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> this thread is about to get interesting..  
> 
> care to take the first shot at reading that gauge?


Coolant pressure gauge, with a chart of state change temperatures at pressure, for a brief selection of coolant types.  System is either a hair off empty, or totally empty and the needle needs calibration.

Why do you think this stuff hard?  I've never seen the like of this gauge before in my life and I can tell this just from looking at it.

----------


## HVACTech

> Coolant pressure gauge, *with a chart of state change temperatures* at pressure, for a brief selection of coolant types.  System is either a hair off empty, or totally empty and the needle needs calibration.
> 
> Why do you think this stuff hard?  I've never seen the like of this gauge before in my life and I can tell this just from looking at it.


so, it has something to do with a "*change of state*" then?  *why is that important* and what do you do with this information...

not a bad answer though, even if the tone is dismissive.  

it is a compound gauge and gauge pressure reading is ambient, so, it is reading just fine and is within calibration range.  (+ or - 3% range of scale)  it could also be reading a system that is *in a "pump down" state*. end of cycle, waiting for the next cycle. or in a defrost. 
large HP refrigeration equipment uses this method extensively.

----------


## HVACTech

> Too late.
> 
> One pound per square inch.


that gauge has the original three refrigerants on it. yes, the ones that came over on the mayflower!
representing the three ranges of refrigeration, A/C or high temp (R-22) medium temp (R-12) and low temp (R-502)
all three have now been phased out. 

today, this is a low pressure low side gauge. you cannot use it for R-410-A  

R-404A replaced both R-502 and R-12 with respect to application range. R-410A replaced R-22.
none of this matters much though, as how you "read" it never changes.

----------


## HVACTech

> Helped build and then ran the ice plant at my fish co-op.
> 
> That system used these:


those are cooling towers for a water cooled condenser. 

the specific heat of water is 970.3 btus per LB. and you get this value regardless of the phase change temp. 
that machine is transferring heat latently.  it's capacity is based on wet-bulb temperatures.

----------


## HVACTech

> Interesting.  First run the air through a swamp cooler, then through the evaporators.  It makes sense.  But it's a dangerous game to play.
> 
> Of course, air conditioning coils are in no way as prone to freeze up as freezer coils.  Even so, in humid environments like this one they can and do freeze up.  I'm sure there are places where the introduction of this extra moisture would do far more harm than good.
> 
> There are also places dry enough that a swamp cooler will do just fine, and modern air conditioning isn't needed at all.  Unlike here, where houses which used swamp coolers for decades tend to get torn down because that's the only way to eliminate all the mold.


nah, he said it was used as a "pre-cooler"  but yes, it is an evaporative (swamp) cooler. evaporative coolers transfer heat latently. 
water has a spectacular specific heat. 970.3
and as you stated, they really only work well where water is cheap and wet-bulb temps are low.

my guess would be that it is for LEED certification or electrical demand limiting.

----------


## HVACTech

> *I'm calling your bluff.* You might have taught classes on* how to fix air conditioners*. And you might have misused your time in those classes pontificating about related scientific concepts you didn't understand. But you have never actually been paid money by anyone to teach people that latent heat is the fourth method of heat transfer.


*"Conditioning Air"* does NOT involve "scientific" principles?    and why the heck do we call it that anyhow....

is it because they transfer both sensible AND latent heat by conduction? (this is external to the _latent heat transfer_ that is going on _inside_ the coils)  did you know that it is possible to raise or lower the gross heat removal split by increasing or decreasing the forced convection unit? (blower) 

how about never mind how they do it. *what are they doing?*   why don't you take a shot at that?  

let's just imagine for a moment, that they DO remove latent heat from the air. and that this lowered the wet-bulb temperature... with me so far?
good.   what effect would this have on your body's  evaporative cooling system? 
or do human body's NOT remove heat by latent heat transfer?

----------


## HVACTech

> We don't have mountains or significant slopes.
> 
> This is what it looks like around here right about now.  (and yes, loads of windmills around here, lots of subsidies for those. Even to take them down and build a 'better' one)


I am curious about something man. and I am wondering if it is the same over there as it is here. 

as this thread illustrates, when it comes to this subject matter, misinformation abounds. and it is rife with contention amongst the peoples.
(it turns into a veritable pissing contest if you will) 

once upon a time, I asked the local college HVAC/R instructor, "why is Latent heat not taught as the 4TH method of heat transfer"  his immediate response was..
"we do teach it"  I then asked, then why is it not known as the 4TH method.... his reply?

_"that is God's method"_    (I am not making that up)

is there _something_ about this subject matter, that attacks the peoples religious faith? and if so, what do you suppose that it is?

----------


## erowe1

> *"Conditioning Air"* does NOT involve "scientific" principles?


Sure it does. It's just that you have no awareness of them. It's too late for you to pretend otherwise. The jig is up.

----------


## CCTelander

I don't know about whether or not it's possible to pump heat, but this thread provides more than ample evidence that the bloviations of certain individuals can and do produce massive quantities of hot air.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> is there _something_ about this subject matter, that attacks the peoples religious faith? and if so, what do you suppose that it is?


No, it is the way in which *you* present it: with snark, condescension and smarmy comments.

That, interspersed with outright incorrect information or bull$#@!, and it doesn't make for a pleasant or informative discussion.

----------


## erowe1

> once upon a time, I asked the local college HVAC/R instructor, "why is Latent heat not taught as the 4TH method of heat transfer"


That was a mistake. You should have asked a physicist. He wouldn't have given you a wrong answer like that professor of janitorial studies did.

----------


## HVACTech

> No, it is the way in which *you* present it: with snark, condescension and smarmy comments.
> 
> That, interspersed with* outright incorrect information* or bull$#@!, and it doesn't make for a pleasant or informative discussion.


where did I give incorrect information sir?

----------


## HVACTech

> *I don't know about whether or not it's possible to pump heat,* but this thread provides more than ample evidence that the bloviations of certain individuals can and do produce massive quantities of hot air.


yeah, I find that a bit fascinating.  unlike politics, you cannot bluff or bully your way through a conversation about them..
without making an ASS of yourself. 

does this mean that you doubt_ the very existence of heat pumps_?  and consider them to be a possible fraud?

----------


## HVACTech

> That was a mistake. You should have asked a physicist. He wouldn't have given you a wrong answer like that* professor of janitorial studies* did.


by now.. I would think that you are certainly aware that _latent heat_ exists.  *and is based on sound, proven and verifiable scientific principles*. 
or is that STILL a point of contention with you?  

WHY do humans sweat erowe1?   

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rmo/sweat.html

Heat Transfer by Vaporization

If part of a liquid evaporates, it cools the liquid remaining behind because it must extract the necessary heat of vaporization from that liquid in order to make the phase change to the gaseous state. It is therefore an important* means of heat transfer* in certain circumstances, such as the cooling of the human body when it is subjected to ambient temperatures above the normal body temperature.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> where did I give incorrect information sir?


Just in this thread, you said there was no frozen foods in grocery stores before 1955.

Clearly you are wrong about that, and I posted supporting information showing you to be wrong, by at least 20 years.

----------


## acptulsa

> Just in this thread, you said there was no frozen foods in grocery stores before 1955.
> 
> Clearly you are wrong about that, and I posted supporting information showing you to be wrong, by at least 20 years.


R-12 was invented by Charles Kettering at about the time Frigidaire was founded in the 1920s, and by 1952 the Santa Fe Railway began using piggyback service (trailers on flat cars, or TOFC) to compete with established trucking companies with mechanically refigerated trailers with their own mechanically refrigerated trailers--because mechanically refrigerated rail cars had been invented, but lettuce growers tended to boycott any railroad which used them.

They don't dry out the lettuce and make it limp the way they used to, by the way.

That's almost certainly where he got that date--1955 was indeed the year mechanically refrigerated rail cars which could maintain frozen food first appeared on American railroads.  But the detail he missed was that was the culmination of an epic battle, and the fresh fruit and lettuce shippers lost that battle because even by 1952 frozen food was much, much too popular to ignore any more.

----------


## HVACTech

> Just in this thread, you said there was no frozen foods in grocery stores before 1955.
> 
> Clearly you are wrong about that, and I posted supporting information showing you to be wrong, *by at least 20 years.*


so, in this thread... I have explained.
why it rains.
how the sun heats the earth. 
why clouds form. 
identified the power behind hurricanes
and tornadoes.
correctly identified "mother natures" refrigeration cycle.
proven that humans sweat.
explained what cooling towers and swamp coolers are.
and how they work.
pissed on hillary clinton  
introduced and discussed latent heat.
correctly identified it as a heat transfer method.
and more...
all in the effort (*much needed it appears*) to explain both the operation of and also to confirm the existence of "heat-pumps"  (yes, Virginia, they are real) 
and they are not hiding under your bed. 

and that is all you got?  OK, you can have that one. 

what about Albert Einstein and HIS "icy balls" ?
do you now understand why both of those efforts failed Virginia?

----------


## HVACTech

> R-12 was invented by Charles Kettering at about the time Frigidaire was founded in the 1920s, and by 1952 the Santa Fe Railway began using piggyback service (trailers on flat cars, or TOFC) to compete with established trucking companies with mechanically refigerated trailers with their own mechanically refrigerated trailers--because mechanically refrigerated rail cars had been invented, but lettuce growers tended to boycott any railroad which used them.
> 
> *They don't dry out the lettuce and make it limp the way they used to, by the way.*
> 
> That's almost certainly where he got that date--1955 was indeed the year mechanically refrigerated rail cars which could maintain frozen food first appeared on American railroads.  But the detail he missed was that was the culmination of an epic battle, and the fresh fruit and lettuce shippers lost that battle because even by 1952 frozen food was much, much too popular to ignore any more.


man, you got me feeling like a scalded dog here... 
and yes. it really is true that in medium and low temp applications.* that we are not interested in latent heat removal from the air.* (humidity) it is a pest and a bother.. sorta like my ex-wife..come to think of it...

in a walk in cooler, place the vegetables and such underneath the evaporator. (the return air steam) this is the warmest area.
place the milk and meats... and especially the beer!  in the discharge air stream.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

BTW, correct me if I'm saying something entirely stupid but....

Isn't a 'Peltier-element' a heat-pump in the most basic definition of the word ? It moves heat energy from one side to another employing/using an electrical current...

----------


## HVACTech

> BTW, correct me if I'm saying* something entirely stupid but*....
> 
> Isn't a 'Peltier-element' a heat-pump in the most basic definition of the word ? It moves heat energy from one side to another employing/using an electrical current...


*not at all. and yes. it indeed is*.  like many other types. it has a very low COP (coefficient of performance) basically it is not worth jacking with. (too weak)

by erowe1's standard. "heat" only flows... downhill, higher to lower. this is why he cannot comprehend "heat pumps" 

_latent heat_, blows away ALL other heat *transfer* methods.

Mother nature understands this.   so, the question is.. why do the people, have such trouble with it? 

do you think that it violates his definition of Entropy?  mebbe?

----------


## erowe1

> by now.. I would think that you are certainly aware that _latent heat_ exists.


By now?

The existence of latent heat has never been in question. But it's not a method of heat transfer. By now I think it's safe to say that you finally have come to realize that. You just can't admit you were wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> If part of a liquid evaporates, it cools the liquid remaining behind because it must extract the necessary heat of vaporization from that liquid in order to make the phase change to the gaseous state.


And how does it extract that heat?

By conduction.

----------


## erowe1

> WHY do humans sweat erowe1?   
> 
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rmo/sweat.html


This is rich. I just now clicked your link. I'm sorry I didn't before my previous response.

Did you happen to read the first sentence?

----------


## HVACTech

> And how does it extract that heat?
> 
> By conduction.


yah, that is why we call it *saturated suction temperature.* (SST) this has NOTHING to do with HB34 sir.  
(it has to do with the final evaporating temp... in the uh... evaporator. sir)

I can go back to describing how to read that gauge that I posted.. if you would like sir.  
but alas, I simply cannot use smaller words..  

are you STILL against *forced convection*? and what does that have to do with turbulence anyhow?  
 force is ALWAYS very bad... right?

----------


## HVACTech

> By now?
> 
> The existence of latent heat has never been in question. But it's not a method of heat transfer. By now I think it's safe to say that you finally have come to realize that. You just can't admit you were wrong.


let me see if I got this right your magnificence. 

_Latent heat exists._ but there is NO heat transfer involved. 

did I do good sir?

----------


## acptulsa

> _Latent heat exists._ but there is NO heat transfer involved.


Ouch.

Chaste women are one thing.  But _hot_ chaste women just hurt.

----------


## HVACTech

> Ouch.
> 
> Chaste women are one thing.  But _hot_ chaste women just hurt.


well.. damn.
that would certainly explain why my ex wife hates me...  

any suggestions for redemption?

----------


## Anti Federalist

No you didn't. 

You slung around a bunch of disjointed factoids and half truths and bull$#@!.

If anybody coming into this thread learned anything about heat transfer and operations, it was from the posts by erowe and acptulsa.

Which also showed that latent heat is not a true heat *transfer* method.





> so, in this thread... I have explained.
> why it rains.
> how the sun heats the earth. 
> why clouds form. 
> identified the power behind hurricanes
> and tornadoes.
> correctly identified "mother natures" refrigeration cycle.
> proven that humans sweat.
> explained what cooling towers and swamp coolers are.
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is rich. I just now clicked your link. I'm sorry I didn't before my previous response.
> 
> Did you happen to read the first sentence?


For those who don't click through...

When the ambient temperature is above body temperature, then *radiation, conduction and convection all transfer heat* into the body rather than out.

----------


## HVACTech

> For those who don't click through...
> 
> When the ambient temperature is above body temperature, then *radiation, conduction and convection all transfer heat* into the body rather than out.


*
YOU are a frickin SUPER genius!* or...

this is just an example of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that you looked up on Wikipedia... 
is latent heat transfer prohibited at that point?
or,
is latent heat transfer the ONLY one available under said conditions?   sir.
would this be an example of a hot body _desperately_ pumping heat?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV9lTNtDd5U

----------


## HVACTech

> No you didn't. 
> 
> You slung around a bunch of disjointed factoids and half truths and bull$#@!.
> 
> If anybody coming into this thread learned anything about heat transfer and operations, it was from the posts by erowe and acptulsa.
> 
> Which also showed that* latent heat is not a true heat transfer method.*


so, Latent heat IS a heat transfer method..._ it is just not a true. heat transfer method._ 

will YOU stand by that claim sir?  

have you noticed that this sounds a LOT like your political positions?  (if you had one of course, that is)

----------


## HVACTech

> And how does it extract that heat?
> 
> *By conduction*.


things suddenly got pretty quiet in here... (I am thinking it is time to play nice again )

*it is possible that this is... at least partially correct*. my engineering school was quite explicit on this point. (this was in the mid 80's)
EXACTLY HOW this transfer takes place, is only partially understood. to my knowledge, this remains true to this very day.
how to make it kick ass and take names is well known. maximize the phase change. period. 

this thread has benefited me you know... I am not as sharp at explaining this stuff as I used to be... hell, I almost forgot how to draw a P-H diagram!  curse's! 

and I used to draw them on them on the board for $#@!z and giggles! 
here it is, and yes Virginia, it includes "heat-pumps"  

http://www.jsrae.or.jp/jsrae/stady/Eng%20saikuru.htm

----------


## acptulsa

And the answer is, no.  It is not possible to pump heat.

You can pump hot air, you can pump hot water, you can pump refrigerant and move heat out, or in, you can pump gas which will be burned for heat when it gets to where you're pumping it, you can pump hot anti-freeze to a radiator where the heat is transferred one way or another, and you can pump air over coils which are either full of heat for it to absorb or void of heat and ready to absorb the stuff.

But you cannot pump heat.  Not even with a heat pump.

We _wish_ we could pump heat.  If we could, no doubt we would find doing so is far, far less expensive and more efficient than compressing refrigerant.

----------


## HVACTech

> And the answer is, no.  It is not possible to pump heat.
> 
> You can pump hot air, you can pump hot water, you can pump refrigerant and move heat out, or in, you can pump gas which will be burned for heat when it gets to where you're pumping it, you can pump hot anti-freeze to a radiator where the heat is transferred one way or another, and you can pump air over coils which are either full of heat for it to absorb or void of heat and ready to absorb the stuff.
> 
> But you cannot pump heat.  Not even with a heat pump.
> 
> We _wish_ we could pump heat.  If we could, no doubt we would find doing so is far, far less expensive and more efficient than compressing refrigerant.


I am good with that!  HVACTech, over and outta here!  
 @acptulsa I logged back in to explain why I did that. it looks like you are moving in the direction of defining WHAT heat is. 
my understanding is that it has to do with the orbits of atoms. specifically the space between the orbits.
the more heat, the higher the orbits. and vice versa. 
to my knowledge, this was confirmed by the bose-einstein condensate. which was achieved in...93 I am thinking.
anyhow, when the last bit of heat was removed... the orbits collapsed and turned into a wave.

so, no. I really don't want to "go there" with these folks.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> I am good with that!  HVACTech, over and outta here!  
>  @acptulsa I logged back in to explain why I did that. it looks like you are moving in the direction of defining WHAT heat is. 
> my understanding is that it has to do with the orbits of atoms. specifically the space between the orbits.
> the more heat, the higher the orbits. and vice versa. 
> to my knowledge, this was confirmed by the bose-einstein condensate. which was achieved in...93 I am thinking.
> anyhow, when the last bit of heat was removed... the orbits collapsed and turned into a wave.
> 
> so, no. I really don't want to "go there" with these folks.


Why not go there ? Because atoms is something luc knows a thing or two about ?  Screw refrigeration, I know just about nothing about that. I'm building my own oven but not my own fridge. Although I did build a more powerful Peltier cooled cooler to keep my caught fish in. 

Anyways, next question; is heat kinetic energy ?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> R-12 was invented by Charles Kettering at about the time Frigidaire was founded in the 1920s, and by 1952 the Santa Fe Railway began using piggyback service (trailers on flat cars, or TOFC) to compete with established trucking companies with mechanically refigerated trailers with their own mechanically refrigerated trailers--because mechanically refrigerated rail cars had been invented, but lettuce growers tended to boycott any railroad which used them.
> 
> They don't dry out the lettuce and make it limp the way they used to, by the way.
> 
> That's almost certainly where he got that date--1955 was indeed the year mechanically refrigerated rail cars which could maintain frozen food first appeared on American railroads.  But the detail he missed was that was the culmination of an epic battle, and the fresh fruit and lettuce shippers lost that battle because even by 1952 frozen food was much, much too popular to ignore any more.


Quite possible.

I posted the history of Clarence Birdseye and the founding of General Foods, which by 1935, was supplying retail frozen foods to grocery and general stores all across the country.

I'm re-reading the biography by Mark Kurlansky, fascinating man, I highly recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/Birdseye-Adven...words=Birdseye

----------


## HVACTech

> Why not go there ? Because atoms is something luc knows a thing or two about ?  Screw refrigeration, I know just about nothing about that. I'm building my own oven but not my own fridge. Although I did build a more powerful Peltier cooled cooler to keep my caught fish in. 
> 
> Anyways, next question; is heat kinetic energy ?


heh, so. I asked another master of *applied thermodynamics*..  why the hell do the people freak out over this subject. ?  
we have both been observing this for years...

and he reminded me why the founders went to the pub specifically to discus "politics" 
"dogs and drunks don't lie"  

my understanding sir. is that the "nature" of heat. 
was confirmed in 93. when the* "Bose Einstein condensate"* was achieved and observed. 

today sir. the "nature" of waves is still not fully understood either. 

or, did I miss something?  

"waves" produce "energy" this took years to get rid of and take a measurement.

----------


## erowe1

> heh, so. I asked another master of *applied thermodynamics*..  why the hell do the people freak out over this subject. ?


That was the wrong question. Instead you should have asked him if latent heat was a method of heat transfer. He would have answered no, of course.

This is assuming that "master of applied thermodynamics" isn't just another of your code words for an HVAC Tech.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *not at all. and yes. it indeed is*.  like many other types. it has a very low COP (coefficient of performance) basically it is not worth jacking with. (too weak)
> 
> by erowe1's standard. "heat" only flows... downhill, higher to lower. this is why he cannot comprehend "heat pumps" 
> 
> _latent heat_, blows away ALL other heat *transfer* methods.
> 
> Mother nature understands this.   so, the question is.. why do the people, have such trouble with it? 
> 
> do you think that it violates his definition of Entropy?  mebbe?



The words radiation, conduction and convection are all nouns that point to verbs: radiate, conduct, and convect.  "Latent" is an adjective, describing a quality of a given substance.  "White Paint" is not a method of coloring houses, it is a quality of certain paints that may be used to color houses.  The *latency* of thermokinetic energy describes the *quality* of the amount of potential energy that may be transformed into kinetic.  A quality of high latency will create a larger thermokinetic differential, and therefore lends itself to mechanical refrigeration.  The problem is you are using the word completely wrong.

----------


## HVACTech

> The words radiation, conduction and convection are all nouns that point to verbs: radiate, conduct, and convect.  "Latent" is an adjective, describing a quality of a given substance.  "White Paint" is not a method of coloring houses, it is a quality of certain paints that may be used to color houses.  *The latency of thermokinetic energy describes the quality of the amount of potential energy that may be transformed into kinetic.*  A quality of high latency will create a larger thermokinetic differential, and therefore lends itself to mechanical refrigeration.  The problem is you are using the word completely wrong.


first off. I thank you for elevating the level of discourse Gunny 
unfortunately, the bolded text is dead wrong.  

here are the google search results for  "thermo kinetic energy" 
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...kinetic+energy
now that we can see that such a thing does not in fact exist.... (unless it is a hot babe burnin em off eh?)
shall we continue? 

when a hot babe looks at a menu, to determine the *"calories"*  I can assure you my friend. that "temperature" never crosses her mind or legs. 
the reason is, that a "calorie" is an itty bitty joule. (cute little $#@!ers. eh?)

"The thermochemical Btu is based on the thermochemical calorie which equals 4.184 joule exactly. Note that reference is often made to the calorie when in actual fact the kilocalorie (also called Calorie, large calorie or kilogram calorie) is meant. ( 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories)"
http://www.simetric.co.uk/sibtu.htm

*so, what does this mean?* it means that "heat" can and in fact is, measured in two ways. 
BTU's. Joules or calories measure the *quantity* of heat energy.
and then we have the *"concentration"* of thermal energy. 
*kinetic thermal energy*, (as you like to call it) or *temperature* in it's common vernacular, measured in either degrees Fahrenheit or the Celsius scale. 

*the difference between heat and temperature is not minor my friend.* 
 unless of course, you compare it to the difference between anarchy and MinArchy sir. 

*and yes. this is in fact both the quotient and therefore the differential...* that people are $#@!ing with me about around here.

should I stop flogging them sir?
or,
should I continue?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTjIPuQS8UY

----------


## HVACTech

> That was the wrong question. Instead you should have asked him if latent heat was a method of heat *transfer.* He would have answered no, of course.
> 
> This is assuming that "master of applied thermodynamics" isn't just another of your *code words* for an HVAC Tech.


so, *me borrowed* @Suzanimal secret decoder ring...  (the resulting *friction* was VERY stimulating. sir. )
when the* Heat* FINALLY dissipated... 
*THAT girl* set me straight sir.  

"Refrigeration is a process of *moving heat* from one location to another in controlled conditions. *The work of heat transport* is traditionally driven by mechanical work, but can also be driven by heat, magnetism, electricity, laser, or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigeration

near as I can tell. she NEVER "transfers" anything bub. 
she creates it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Lmao! Thermal energy is kinetic. This is a big part of why fluids heat when you compress them and cool when you expand them. Latency is a measure of POTENTIAL energy not kinetic.

Boy, for a guy who is here trying to pretend he was the smartest guy in the human race, you sure do have a lot to learn.

----------


## acptulsa

> and used the term "fluids" loosely?


It's proper to use the term fluids in physics to describe both liquids and gases.  And since refrigerant exists as both in different parts of the system at any given moment, that's the only term to use without being 'loose' with it.

----------


## HVACTech

> It's proper to use the term fluids in physics to describe both liquids and gases.  And since refrigerant exists as both in different parts of the system at any given moment, that's the only term to use without being 'loose' with it.


thus, is it also proper to use the term  *adiabatic process*?  that would cover both. right or wrong? 

*why did you ignore that,* and why are you $#@!ing with me about it?

----------


## acptulsa

> thus, is it also proper to use the term  *adiabatic process*?  that would cover both. right or wrong?


I don't see why that wouldn't apply to a solid as well.  Solids are not fluid; in physics fluids are considered anything that assumes the shape of its container.  Even so, the adiabatic process could apply to a solid.  It's actually possible to compress a liquid enough that it becomes solid, despite the rise in temperature.

Beyond that, I suppose the reason I didn't bring it up is because it was completely irrelevant to the thing I was saying.




> *why did you ignore that,* and why are you $#@!ing with me about it?


If clearing up any confusion between the guy who is using engineering terms and the guy who is using physics terms is jacking with someone, then excuse me for living.  I'll leave you to pontificate in peace.

----------


## erowe1

> near as I can tell. she NEVER "transfers" anything bub. 
> she creates it.


"She" meaning "latent heat"? If that's what you mean then good. I'll take that. That's as close as we're going to get as an admission from you of being wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> and used the term "fluids" loosely?






> It's proper to use the term fluids in physics to describe both liquids and gases.


Wow.

Did HVAC Tech really think that including gases in the category "fluids" was using the term loosely?

And he's an expert in this stuff?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Wow.
> 
> Did HVAC Tech really think that including gases in the category "fluids" was using the term loosely?
> 
> And he's an expert in this stuff?


Wonder how long a compressor will last, compressing a fluid.

----------


## HVACTech

> I don't see why that wouldn't apply to a solid as well.  *Solids are not fluid;* in physics fluids are considered anything that assumes the shape of its container.  Even so, the adiabatic process could apply to a solid.  It's actually possible to compress a liquid enough that it becomes solid, despite the rise in temperature.
> 
> Beyond that, I suppose the reason I didn't bring it up is because it was completely irrelevant to the thing I was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> If clearing up any confusion between the guy who is using engineering terms and the guy who is using physics terms is jacking with someone, then excuse me for living.  I'll leave you to pontificate in peace.


*"Solids are not fluid;"*  hmm... let me think about that for a moment. 

I am simply unable to surmount* SUCH impeccable logic* sir. 

I shall bow my head and leave you to your musings sir.  

do you think AF left me any cookies?

----------


## HVACTech

> Wow.
> 
> Did HVAC Tech really think that including gases in the category "fluids" was using the term loosely?
> 
> And he's an expert in this stuff?


one, two.. skip a few eh?  

*"Thermal energy is kinetic. This is a big part of why fluids heat when you compress them and cool when you expand them. Latency is a measure of POTENTIAL energy not kinetic."*

*this guy cannot only compress liquids.* he can expand them, and make them do tricks!  
ye-ha! ride em cowboy!

*except pump heat I guess*. NOBODY can do that, right acptulsa?  

"The answer is yes, You can compress water, or almost any material. However, it requires a great deal of pressure to accomplish a little compression. For that reason, liquids and solids are sometimes referred to as being incompressible."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae15.cfm

----------


## erowe1

> this guy cannot only compress liquids. he can expand them, and make them do tricks!


No. He didn't say "liquids," he said "fluids," referring obviously to gases, which are fluids.

----------


## HVACTech

> No. He didn't say "liquids," he said "fluids," referring obviously to gases, which are fluids.


you will need to discuss that with acptulsa sir. 

"I don't see why that wouldn't apply to a solid as well. Solids are not fluid; in physics fluids are considered anything that assumes the shape of its container.* Even so, the adiabatic process could apply to a solid.* It's actually possible to compress a liquid enough that it becomes solid, despite the rise in temperature."

methinks that he is lost and wondering about that.  

(just don't mention heat pumps.. those are NOT possible)

----------


## erowe1

> you will need to discuss that with acptulsa sir. 
> 
> I don't see why that wouldn't apply to a solid as well. Solids are not fluid; in physics fluids are considered anything that assumes the shape of its container.* Even so, the adiabatic process could apply to a solid.* It's actually possible to compress a liquid enough that it becomes solid, despite the rise in temperature.
> 
> methinks that he is lost and wondering about that.


You're doing your dance routine again. It was you who thought that calling gases fluids was using the term fluids loosely.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

My Jeep A/C is very good at pumping heat when outside temp exceeds about 75.

As far as compressing liquids go, I usually compress my water. Takes up less space in the pantry that way. The only downside is that it gets heavy.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I have been here for over 8 years gunny. and *for ALL that time. I have been known as HVACTECH. this is NOT news sir*.
> 
> what prompted all this, was a very dim bulb $#@!ing with me about it.   sir? 
>  @Anti Federalist


Doesn't matter what you are known  as.  You quite obviously have no clue WTF you are talking about LOL!




> and now. I have you.  telling me this...
> "This is a big part of why *fluids* heat when you compress them and cool when you expand them."  
> 
> are you genuinely unaware of *Adiabatic Expansion and Compression* sir. really?


Expansion and compression that takes place without a change in the kinetic energy of a substances molecules.




> are are you just $#@!ing with me?


LOL I think you are $#@!ing with yourself by pretending to be knowledgeable about things when you are on a board full of people who know you are full of $#@!.  




> and used the term "fluids" loosely?


I am not using fluids loosely, a "fluid" is any substance that flows, like liquids, gasses, and plasmas.  The fact that a small number of fluids can be compressed or expanded without affecting the molecular kinetic energy does not change one iota of what I said.  Note that I did not say "ALL fluids."  You are simply looking to find fault where there is none in some misguided attempt to defend your imagined supremacy.




> An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a thermodynamic system and its surroundings. In an adiabatic process, energy is transferred only as work.[1][2] The adiabatic process provides a rigorous conceptual basis for the theory used to expound the first law of thermodynamics, and as such it is a key concept in thermodynamics.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process


I am quite versed in thermodynamics, thank you, I don't need Wikipedia to tell me things I already know.  I'm not the one pretending to be learned while actually being ignorant.  The fact that you have been caught way off of reality already several times in this thread, and you still keep pressing on like you think you are the god of all that is knowable, is very telling regarding your personality.




> why did YOU consider me a fool and a parts changer?


When you started saying stupid things like latency is a form of heat transfer.  I would still have given you the benefit of the doubt, but here you are, doubling down.  So, it is what it is.  You did it to yourself.  I mean, you could have been a man and a scholar and actually learned something, but that's not the course you chose.

----------


## HVACTech

as promised. 

this is a low pressure, evaporating side gauge. *the entire low side absorbs heat.* 
this gauge is a compound gauge, what that means is that it is capable of reading both positive and negative pressures. 
the reference point is atmospheric pressure. 14.7 PSI at sea level.
therefore, zero is 1 ATM. positive pressures are measured in PSI, negative pressures in IN.HG  (inches of mercury) 

the information that I need* to measure system performance*. is saturated suction temperature. (SST) 
this is the actual temperature of the "freon" "boiling" _inside_ the evaporator coils.  
to determine SST I read right down the needle to the inner scale that you can see are marked in degrees Fahrenheit. (F) 

this gives me the number that I will use to determine superheat. (superheat is heat gain beyond the evaporating temp or SST.)
what I use this for is to determine the amount of liquid that is escaping from my coil. low superheat is good for performance but dangerous for my compressor. 

*so, what we are doing is measuring the completeness of the phase change.* _why? because it is the phase change that moves the heat!_  
and that is why the machine exists in the first place!
it is,_ in fact._ a heat transfer system. 

on the high side we do the samething to measure subcooling. (cooling below the point of condensation)
_AGAIN this is done to measure the phase change._ 

I started this thread.. in a response to this..
it's seems that this offended someone....

----------


## HVACTech

> Doesn't matter what you are known  as.  You quite obviously have no clue WTF you are talking about LOL!
> 
> _When you started saying stupid things like latency is a form of heat transfer._  I would still have given you the benefit of the doubt, but here you are, doubling down.  So, it is what it is.  You did it to yourself.  I mean, you could have been a man and a scholar and actually learned something, but that's not the course you chose.



so,_ it is NOT the phase change_ that moves the heat?  would you please state that for the record sir?  

can plasma electrically conduct AC power Gunny?  can you name even one common example of plasma...
 to help other people understand the world better?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Not offended in the least.

Just curious if some sort of ego-compensation, strictly restricted to HVACTechs, is going on.

I mean, there are more than a couple of skilled mechanics, craftsmen, autobody men, professionals of all sorts and stripes, and some very brilliant academics as well, on this board, and none seem to feel the urge to boast and crow and bull$#@! about their trade or craft or education like you do.

Freon fumes maybe?




> I started this thread.. in a response to this..
> it's seems that this offended someone....

----------


## HVACTech

> No. He didn't say "liquids," he said "fluids," referring obviously to gases, which are fluids.


are we having this discussion for our own benefit sir? 
if so, I did not start it for that reason. 

soon, this will be my new home!  (they seem to like our founders and the CONstitution. _much unlike this place_)

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/

see all those bold red disclaimers? 
those are to stop me from telling you how to check a capacitor. 
I am sure that YOU know how right? it is the sameway that you check a 9 volt battery of course!
how dumb are these people?

----------


## HVACTech

> Not offended in the least.
> 
> Just curious if some sort of ego-compensation, strictly restricted to HVACTechs, is going on.
> 
> I mean, there are more than a couple of skilled mechanics, craftsmen, autobody men, professionals of all sorts and stripes, and some very brilliant academics as well, on this board, and none seem to feel the urge to boast and crow and bull$#@! about their trade or craft or education like you do.
> 
> Freon fumes maybe?


you are a hoot sir!  
so, "Freon" is a substance?  
or,
does it not exist anymore? 

as fate would have it sir. I understand that, it is the specific heat of water... that drives tornadoes and hurricanes. 
I did NOT discover this. it was taught to me by another man.

I never really talked about it very much, until YOU started $#@!ing with me about it.  

nobody else *ever had the balls to do that*. that makes YOU *"special"* sir!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> you are a hoot sir!  
> so, "Freon" is a substance?  
> or,
> does it not exist anymore?


Headline thread from your future home:

*Freon is coming back and we can proudly call it Freon again*

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread....it-Freon-again

----------


## HVACTech

> Wow.
> 
> Did HVAC Tech really think that including gases in the category "fluids" was using the term loosely?
> 
> And he's an expert in this stuff?


as this thread is about heat pumps. yes. that would be a VERY loose definition. 

*yes, heat pumps exist. yes, they really DO pump heat. not only that, I work on them often.* 

I am not the one who is making a fool of myself.

----------


## erowe1

> as this thread is about heat pumps. yes. that would be a VERY loose definition.


No. That would not be a very loose definition at all, especially when the context is heat pumps, which use gases and liquids that are commonly called fluids, a term that covers both of those states, precisely in the context of heat pumps.




> I am not the one who is making a fool of myself.


You are. You just lack the critical judgment to recognize it.

----------


## HVACTech

> Headline thread from your future home:
> 
> *Freon is coming back and we can proudly call it Freon again*
> 
> http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread....it-Freon-again


Gunny likes to use the word "coolant" why are you making fun of him sir?  

I would consider that to be in poor taste. and that an apology is therefore in order sir.

----------


## HVACTech

> No. *That would not be a very loose definition at all*, especially when the context is heat pumps, *which use gases and liquids* that are commonly called fluids, a term that covers both of those states, precisely in the context of heat pumps.


Hmmm...let me think about that for a mome... uh... NO. 

to blur the distinction would be transgender babe. 
given that a heat pump ONLY employs liquids and gasses to transfer heat...

or, did that point STILL fly over your head sweetie?

----------


## erowe1

> Hmmm...let me think about that for a mome... uh... NO. 
> 
> to blur the distinction would be transgender babe. 
> given that a heat pump ONLY employs liquids and gasses to transfer heat...
> 
> or, did that point STILL fly over your head sweetie?


To blur what distinction?

The word fluid includes both liquids and gases, just like the word child includes both boys and girls. It doesn't blur the distinction between them. And especially in the context of heat pumps, in which the refrigerant changes between liquid and gaseous forms, the word fluid is entirely appropriate.

You disagree. That's fine. You can be wrong.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Gunny likes to use the word "coolant" why are you making fun of him sir?  
> 
> I would consider that to be in poor taste. and that an apology is therefore in order sir.


You asked:




> you are a hoot sir!  
> so, "Freon" is a substance?  
> or,
> does it not exist anymore?


So I answered it:

Yes, it is a substance and,

Yes, it does exist.

Your own comrades at your suggested website showed that.

----------


## HVACTech

> this question popped onto my radar the other day.. and it would appear.. that even people who purport to know about such things...
> *can't even look it up!!*   WTF?  
> 
> WHY would this be?  is there a reason?     I am willing to explain it. I will simplify it as much as is possible. (artistic license) 
> *once the 4TH method of heat transfer is understood..  I promise.. you will never look up into the sky, and see a "cloud" the same!* 
> 
> *this technology is slightly older than the transistor, but not by much.*   today, very few are aware that there was no frozen food section at the grocery, until 1955. coolers were rare and food storage was a problem. 
> 
> this problem was so severe, that Albert Einstein himself.  invented one in order to solve the problem of food storage. (it failed)
> ...


Dude! WTF why have you not learned that this subject upsets the people?  

*you know to expect the people to be upset* when you show up on a jobsite right? 
why are you pretending like you have never performed service for a bunch of hot hairdressers? 
did THEY ask HOW the heat is transferred?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdXjm8pZMws

----------


## Suzanimal

> so, *me borrowed* @Suzanimal secret decoder ring...  (the resulting *friction* was VERY stimulating. sir. )
> when the* Heat* FINALLY dissipated... 
> *THAT girl* set me straight sir.  
> 
> "Refrigeration is a process of *moving heat* from one location to another in controlled conditions. *The work of heat transport* is traditionally driven by mechanical work, but can also be driven by heat, magnetism, electricity, laser, or other means.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigeration
> 
> near as I can tell. she NEVER "transfers" anything bub. 
> she creates it.


Where did you find my decoder ring? I lost it years ago. Did I drop it by a heat pump or something?

----------


## HVACTech

> You asked:
> 
> 
> 
> So I answered it:
> 
> *Yes, it is a substance and,
> 
> Yes, it does exist.*
> ...


therefore.. can I quote* YOU* that *"Freon"* is a *"substance"* sir?  
would this be a reasonable supposition?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> therefore.. can I quote* YOU* that *"Freon"* is a *"substance"* sir?  
> would this be a reasonable supposition?


Yeah, sure, wahtever.

----------


## HVACTech

> To blur what distinction?
> 
> *The word fluid* includes both liquids and gases, _just like the word child includes both boys and girls. It doesn't blur the distinction between them. And especially in the context of heat pumps,_ in which the refrigerant changes between liquid and gaseous forms, the word fluid is entirely appropriate.
> 
> You disagree. That's fine. You can be wrong.


uh, can we get arrested for you writing that? 
or,
 are you trying to impress me. that* the word "fluid" indicates flow and conformity?*

----------

