Talk:Air conditioner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Car A/C petrol consumption

What proportion of petrol consumption are car air conditioners responsible for? Tarquin 17:05, 9 August 2003 (UTC)

It is suggested that there is a loss of 3 miles per gallon of fuel efficiency for car air conditioners. However that likely assumes a large luxury car. 198.31.97.254 19:37, 7 September 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, at highway speed, driving with the windows open uses even MORE gasoline than driving with the AC on and the windows closed. How is that possible? Because on modern cars, opening the windows basically ruins the aerodynamics of the car. It makes it so much less "slippery," that none other than the Society of Automotive Engineers says you'd be better off with the air conditioner on and the windows closed. [1] --Quasipalm 03:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Further, if you're already piloting a Rolls-Royce or Chevrolet Suburban, your mileage will not drop from 10 to 7 mpg. It is your Honda Civic or MINI which will take the hit, but what, from 30 to 27mpg? Better than soiling the seats! DesignerJimO 22:12, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

Image needed

A photo of a "classic" in-window air conditioner would be nice. More importantly, we need a diagram illustrating how the air is cooled and dehumidified (which is why I searched for this article in the first place). - dcljr (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added photos of an in-window air conditioner that's been stuck through a wall. --Carnildo 07:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The added photos are good, and there is a diagram illustrating the basic cycle. If no one objects we can remove the image request. -Dr Haggis - Talk 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed image request. -Dr Haggis - Talk 20:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fedders Old Air Conditioners

frameless

Eyg2181 21:08, 4 March 2006]

Too many abbreviations unclarified

""Freon" is a trade name of Dupont for any CFC, HCFC, or HFC refrigerant, the name of each including a number indicating molecular composition (R-11, R-12, R-22, R-134)."

CFC, HCFC, and HFC should be stated as to what they stand for. CFC I assume stands for chlorofluorocarbon. Stating what the R in ,(R-11, R-12, R-22, R-134), should be stated as well. Lengis 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"R" stands for refrigerant silly. And yes, CFC stands for chlorofluorocarbon. Mikiemike 18:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone is as wise as you, Mikiemike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.136.155 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 June 2006‎

Emerson quiet Kool

File:68 12.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyg2181 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 May 2006‎

"Classic" Air Conditioners

here is a few pictures of classic in window air conditioners.

this is a 27,000 BTU emerson quiet kool that i have in my living room.

this is a 5,200 btu emerson quiet kool that is in my bed room.

File:7d 1.jpg This is a 5,000 BTU White-Westinghouse that goes in my garage.

File:Emerson quiet kool.JPG This is a brighter picture of the emerson in my living room.

it is a fact that the old air conditioners are better than the newer ones.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyg2181 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 April 2006‎

Emerson Quiet Kool Wall Unit

File:Emerson quiet kool.JPG

As I said before, this is the wall unit i have in my living room.

File:EQK.jpg

This is the outside view of the same model unit, but a different airconditioner.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyg2181 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 April 2006‎

Australia

I have deleted the un-referenced claim that "air con" is a common abbreviation in Australia. I have been designing air conditioning systems for over 30 years in Australia and in my experience this term is very rarely used. By far the most common abbreviation is "A/C" or "A.C." or "HVAC" in some situations. A/C is used in relation to commercial applications and is the abbreviation used on most car air conditioning controls. Further, the term "air con" is not mentioned in Australia's national dictionary, the Macquarie.

If there is evidence to support the original claim, the original author (213.206.140.66) should provide a suitable authoritative reference when reinstating the text. IanWills 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

reverse cycle

No mention of ereverse cycle air conditioners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.10.132.124 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 9 June 2006

I think the person means a Heat Pump , which is basically an Air-Condition ran in reverse . In mild climates they work by attempting to cool the outside air even more and the hot side heats the inside of a building . below like 40 above outside temp they lose considerable efficiency and at lower temps they dont work at all , unless the source of heat is geothermal or underground water . Air to air designs can't work in moderate to severe cold . A simple air to air unit would work in Duluth, GA for example but not in Duluth, MN .

Some users complain that the lower discharge temp(95 or so vs. 120 for old school furnances) makes them feel drafty or chilled but it might be worth the lower utility cost versus electric resistance heating or fuel oil/propane .

William Miller A.S. EET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.72.68 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 September 2009‎

Energy usage..

should be some mention of energy usage with re: to air conditioners. - Abscissa 23:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CFCs

Can an air conditioner be construcred in such way that the CFCs emitted from it can be filtered and doesnt harm the environment?

The aforementioned Persian cooling systems

"The aforementioned Persian cooling systems..." don't seem to be aforementioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 23:59, 17 June 2006‎ Gnosticator

yeah right they should have mentioned the mechanisms "ATLEAST"

Who is Wolff?

Mentioned in the article but no idea what it's referring to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.230.182 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 June 2006‎

Hot

It's so hot in Québec, it's 32 degrees celcius in my room, I need air conditioning please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.48.155 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 July 2006

Inappropriate link

The link at the bottom of the page, entitled "design failings of monoblock portable AC" is inappropriate for wikipedia, as it is un-scientific and contains an absurd amount of profanity!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.135.202 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 August 2006‎

It was very informative though. And I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to contain "how-to" material, but in our recent heatwave I was very glad to find the advice (still in the article) about increasing the efficiency of single-duct monoblock units! (it made a difference of several degrees). Where can it go, if it doesn't belong on WP? Vilĉjo 10:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is very informative, but the level of profanity is almost too much. If the author can't clean it up maybe it should be removedteddy 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Second law of thermodynamics?

Excuse my ignorance, but how does air conditioning NOT violate the 2nd law? Isn't it taking heat from a warm enviroment (inside of a building), and transfering it to a hotter enviroment (outside the building)? Doesn't this process in effect reverse the effects of entropy? Inforazer 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• 2nd law only states that the aforementioned process cannot occur spontaneously, as it requires energy to do that. Air conditioners DO use energy to induce a flow of heat that would not occur naturally. Santtus 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of the various units?

How about a picture (or drawings, just something to illustrate) the various types of air-conditioners units?

Window and through-wall units Evaporation coolers ... "Ductless", "duct-free", or "mini-split" air conditioners

Some of them are not very clear of how they are / looks like

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.133.69 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 November 2006‎

Cleanup

Article clean-up underway, as requested. This is a large, competitive industry, but please try not to include commercialism. 129.237.114.171 20:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Big step of clean up done -- split 'air conditioning' (theory/history) and 'air conditioner' (equipment). Now there are two, shorter articles with better defined purposes. 129.237.114.171 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this needed split is similar to refrigeration vs. refrigerator. 129.237.114.171 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

who is the author?

i want to know who is the author of this page? thanks

There is no actual author for this article. Since the article is released under GFDL, just mentioning it came from WP's AC article would be fine if citing it. Lincher 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverse cycle air conditioners

As mentioned above, there's nothing about reverse cycle air conditioners, neither here nor elsewhere in Wikipedia, that I can find. Do they have another name? --Chriswaterguy talk 14:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverse Cycle, Power Factor and Load Factor, Inverter technology

I have tried to add some mention of reverse cycle air conditioning - sitting here in Adelaide on a 37C day in the comfort of mine. Also there are other issues missing - I have touched on the Power Factor issue in the electricity distribution network - a major issue in extreme weather conditions, as the out of phase currents stress the distribution transformers, and the effect on load factor (peak to average use) of power overall in hot weather. Australian experience so may be different elsewhere. JohnT 08:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is. They are called Heat Pumps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyBob417 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Evaporative and Thermostats

The section on evaporative units did not mention the critical issues of Relative Humidity and air flow - evaporative performs poorly in high RH or with a closed up house / office. I also note that the section on thermostats fails to note anything about the very normal use of thermostats on all refrigeration cycle air conditioning units - used to both control the on / of cycle of the compressor, and to check for coil icing. Anyone have any views as to why it should not be mentioned? JohnT 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

and that is the air conditioner

Air conditioner and heat island effect

I believe, that besides all this information about the usefullness of air-conditioneers, there should be also (at least) some critical note, that by having nice fresh air inside, you heat the outside more with your system. This effect causes even more the urban heat island effect and should be included to an OBJECTIVE article about air conditioners. Thanks and sorry that I dont have enough time to include this section by myself... —133.78.120.149 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

This article has become useless

I looked at this article hoping for (a) history of air conditioning, and (b) diagrams of how air conditioners work. There's nothing like that here. I clicked a random archived copy (one from July 2006), and found both of those things. This article seems to have be edited and re-edited and edited some more, to the point that it is fairly bare-bones and lacks A LOT of useful, pertinent, and interesting information. People come to Wikipedia for accurate, clear, objective, COMPLETE information on different topics. This article, for reasons I don't understand, used to be great and is now bad. Why did this happen, and what can we do to fix it? Why were the diagrams removed? Why was the history removed? All that stuff is useful, educational, and interesting. Piercetheorganist 10:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I Think the reason for this is that some of the stuff is covered by Air Conditioning. Personally i would merge the articles, though i doubt that has a lot of support. Alternatively create two article Air Conditioning Units and Air Conditioner Theory or similar.User A1 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The topic of Air Conditioning is rather lengthy, particularly if you want to include History of air conditioning, a discussion of applications, central air conditioning, energy efficiencies, and a host of other miscellaneous oddball air conditioning topics. The theory of air conditioning, of course, must be discussed somewhere. All this information is too long for one article, particularly since someone decided to merge Central air conditioning into Air conditioner. Therefore, two articles on this topic came into existence: Air conditioning and Air conditioner. In theory, it would be nice to merge these two into a single article, but it would become much too long. Somewhere along the line, somebody did not realize the implication of this division and started duplicating information in both these articles. That, along with vandalism and incorrect reverts, have unfortunately made a mess out of the Air conditioning - Air conditioner article duo. It will take some effort and possibly time to sort this situation out. H Padleckas 03:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made some progress fixing up this article, but it is still not perfect. More remains to be done. Mentioning the ideal gas law does little, if any, good to help a non-technical reader understand how an air conditioner works. I think I will take that out on the next edit. H Padleckas 22:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam and Copyvios

Hello,

The level of copyvio on this page is becoming tragic. I keep finding chunks of air conditioning "information" being cut and pasted from various locations around the internet. This web page is becoming difficult to follow as an article, and i find myself taking chunks out of it. I would welcome any comments people have as to how to tackle this issue. Perhaps a listing of what this article should and should not contain is in order. Comments? User A1 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some of it is hard to tell which is a copy of which. Either way, the spam rate comment still stands. User A1

Health implications

It's stupid to say it doesn't have health implications. When you come from the hot outside air into an cold air conditioned room you're likely to get a cold because of the sudden temperature change. Same applies to standing right in front of the AC so that the airflow blows directly on you. You'll get one hell of a headache. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.121.78.33 (talk) 15:43, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Got some news for you, scientists have discovered that colds are caused by a virus, NOT from cold air! Therefore you won't get a cold from going into an air conditioned room, going outside without a jacket on, going out in the cold with wet hair, etc! For Christ's sake, stop spreading these ridiculous old wives tales.Bwd234 (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Until there is a single fact on this section, I think the entire portion should be deleted. It currently is biased and uninformed.132.160.235.13 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

wall mounted units

When I vacationed in Australia in 2003, I found that many hotels had these wall mounted units, often on non-exterior wall. I've never seen them in use in the USA. The Sunday newspaper ads in Australia were filled with these units. I could never understand how the heat is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mre5765 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As a saleman specialised in air conditioning and heating systems, I really am surprised to find this page with no mention whatsoever of the wall mounted units. Wall mounted units are superior to what is refered in this article as "Window and through-wall units" in every possible way except for the total price and the fact that wall mounted units absolutly need experienced technicians to install them correctly.

It is an incredible omission, so much in fact that it give me a great doubt in the credibility of the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.73.176 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

centrol air

how come the a coil freeze up 1 1/2 ton

lol no idea d00d —70.142.56.131 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers

22-Sep-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2005" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I inserted titles/authors/dates on some unsigned comments, then moved the heat-island topic (May/2007) into date order. Over the years, various large images have been removed from the talk page. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This format would have crashed the archive bot, so I removed the year headers. Hopefully the page will be easier to navigate with the older discussions archived. Jminthorne (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FILTER

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WOULD CAUSE AN AIR CONDITIONER FILTER NOT TO GET DIRTY AT ALL AFTER 2 MONTHS. THERE IS NO SIGN OF DUST ON IT. IT'S LOOKS THE SAME AS IT DID WHEN WE PUT IT IN. BARBARA —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJDP1495 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The article Cylinder unloaders should be merged into this article, because it is unlikely it could be expanded to make a good article. If it is too technical or too much detail for this article it should be deleted. --Sophitessa (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea, if more information on how it works can be found User A1 (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone feels like doing this, go for it. I know nothing about air conditioning technology so I'm not going to make an attempt. --Sophitessa (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jminthorne (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ground heat pump/deep sea heat pump implementation

Perhaps it can be mentioned that ground or deep sea heat pumps can also be used. The schematic should show a house being cooled by outside air being redirected into the ground or deep sea (eg filtered; by a pipe) and then blown in via fan into the house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.172.175 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Types of air conditioner equipment

• Heat and Cool Units should be edited and made as section head. (an airconditioner has both heat and cold generator)

• Evaporative coolers
• Absorptive chillers

Should be removed from this article to Air cooler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.91.30 (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree, common term is "air conditioner". For the record, a move suggestion has been made on air conditioner and air conditioning as well as evaporative cooler User A1 (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

The image noted at this article is only capable of cooling; it is thus not an air conditioner. Please remove image to more suitable article — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 August 2009‎

"Air conditioner" is a general term that can apply to small cooling-only units as well as more complex equipment. If you have a specific graphic in mind that is appropriate from a copyright standpoint, by all means add it! Jminthorne (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

I think WP:V is pretty clear on this -- there is no guarantee of editorial oversight on the linked page http://<!-- disrupt blacklisted link-->yourhandymanzone.com/Your_Handyman_Zone_How_To_Pages_Home_Improvement_Zone_Cooling_Ventilation_Systems_Coolers_Increase_Cool_Air_Draft_Flow_Into_House.htm. , and therefore must be considered to be a self-published source.

The relevant sections on WP:V state

• Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight
• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers

This document fails all of these tests, and I therefore state that it is not up to other editors to find a better source, that is reversing the onus of proof in the favour of incorrect information. It is up to editors who place the citation to confirm the quality of information and other editors to remove the citation if the information is most likely reliable, or to remove the citation and information if the information is possibly not reliable. This is all very clearly stated on WP:V, particularly in the seciont "Burden of evidence" Namely The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores materialUser A1 (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The bit of WP:V that's most relevant is probably "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Now, I don't know anything about this handyman site except what I see on the page, but it appears to be published by Best Opportunities Unlimited LLC; I would presume the exercise editorial control over the page contents, lacking an indication to the contrary, and I don't see anything about the information that's particularly suspect, extremist, promotional, rumor based, or whatever. If you object to it as a source, say why clearly. And if you remove a citation, why not either put a citation needed tag, or remove the material it supported if you're questioning it, or even better, be constructive and add an actual better source? You get to choose how you want to contribute, but simply removing a source is not a very good choice. Your interpretation of the burden of proof section as suggesting "other editors to remove the citation if the information is most likely reliable" is a new one I've never seen before and can't imagine the logic of. Dicklyon (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see where we are going to agree on this, but so far we are having a spirited discussion! There is no evidence of editorial oversight on that page, one must therefore assume there is no verifiable editorial oversight -- verifiability requires the ability to check and verify. I am of the opinion that the mere existence of a citation is in essence the editors whom have maintain these pages, such as your and myself, agreeing that the citation satisfies certain quality constraints. The logic is that one must maintain citation quality, or otherwise anyone could add citations of dubious quality, and demand that the be left in place.

• I would presume the exercise editorial control over the page contents

This presumption cannot be verfied, and therefore it is not a valid to assume this with no evidence.

Verifiability is about verifying the stated info in the source, not verifying the quality of the source. Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you object to it as a source, say why clearly.

Assertion: Does not satisfy WP:V, which I initially thought was pretty clear. We are clarifying this now.

Not specific enough to be useful. Lack of editorial oversight is more specific, but the only reason you give is that you can't verify that it has editorial oversight; I'd argue that it must have, as I don't see a way to edit it myself, i.e. it's not like a forum or a blog. Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• be constructive and add an actual better source.

I'll quote limited time here, i have ~250 pages on my watchlist. Others that I would like to advance are more important to me, and take priority.

I have over 4000 on mine; I understand about the time, but wonder why you'd jump in and just remove a source. Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your interpretation of the burden of proof section

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material cannot be more clear or applicable to our current situation. I am removing the source as an objection based on quality and verfiability. Any editor how restores this now has to prove to consenus (which currently is only myself, yourself and Experiencedearth ) that this is a quality reference. By analogy I am saying 'objection' in a consensus environment. Others must address this objection before moving forwards.

I don't think it is possible, in general, to prove the quality of a source. Your reading of WP:V is extremely idiosyncratic. The burden of proof is about showing that the text comes from a reliable source, not about proving how reliable the source is. Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• And if you remove a citation, why not either put a citation needed tag.

Probably would have been a good idea at the time, and I will certainly take more care in future

Anyway, must dash. User A1 (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this falls within the grey lining and should be left alone until more experienced moderators review this. OZSimplicity007 (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of edits between A1 and MatthewCummins

Apologies if not putting this talk text in the right spot I just made a number of edits to the Portable Air Conditioners section which I believed was poorly written and under referenced. User A1 then not only removed most of my edit but also large sections of previous content that has been there some time, also making his own spelling mistakes in the process. Also, in additon to removing the refernce I added he has also broken one of the previously existing reference links and the list of references now has a faulty link in the list which I am not sure how to fix.

I am not going to change anything further here for now on the article as I have no intenstion of getting into some type of edit war with anyone without further discussion first, however other than adding some technical info on condensation which is correct but not clearly written I believe this recent edit has taken things backwards. Opinions anyone

MatthewCummins —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Added section heading to separate this from Auto archival. Feel free to change it if you think it's inflammatory. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Books and journals are verifiable sources of information. A website from a vendor is less so. Secondly, Most portable airconditioners are refrigeration based rather than evaporative - how can anyone assert this without a reference to a survey of in-operation devices? However, thanks for fixing my typos. I will update the link table, however I may (if i get around to it) find some better references than vendor websites. User A1 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly The website I linked to at portableairconditioner.com.au is NOT a vendor website. If you actually checked rather than presuming, you would notice is an information site dedicated to the subject of portable and other air conditioners, and has no advertising at all, nothing for sale, and no links to external sites of vendors - I checked before referring to it. There was a vendor link to a different site in the text you removed, but based on my check of edit history this was added a long time ago, and definitely not by me. The site with the link I added is also not my site - the site is not the point, more you have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

On a separate point, I agree the sentence about most portable air conditioners being based on refrigeration is poorly written and needs verification or rewording as I made the rookie mistake of writing what I know to be true rather than citing a source. The reason I put this in at all (although I didn't word it well) is that this section on portable air conditioners relates only to refrigerated air conditioning systems. Until my edit it made no mention of the fact that portable air conditioners can also be evaporative, nor does it even indicate that other types of portable air conditioners even exist. I know they do for a fact as I personally had one in my room growing up in Australia some 20 years ago and have seen others in use more recently since. I do not have a citation or reference on these yet (including on the site I referenced - no mention there either) and do not know if they are still sold. I am however willing to putting the time into researching further online to find cit-able references and further adapt this section to include information on evaporative portable air conditioners if it is agreed this information will be useful (providing properly cited). MatthewCummins