Jump to content

Talk:Air conditioning/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air conditioning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air conditioning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Air conditioning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air conditioning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Professional bodies

Why do we have a section on professional bodies (not sourced at that)? This seems entirely unnecessary, the whole article reads anyway as a promotion piece for air conditioning and this just makes it worse. The selecting of only certain countries is also not comprehensible so I have removed the whole section. ReyRichard (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it really could be considered blatant promotion, but meh no big deal on removing it either. The one I am more familiar with, ASHRAE, is pretty influential on efficiency standards, etc (the mechanical and energy codes, for example, often cite ASHRAE publications for design standards). As such, I would not be opposed to re-adding a less puffy bit on such organizations' impact on AC. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. ReyRichard (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

history section deficient

see Arab architecture and passive cooling, induced airflow, convection, Bernoulli, Venturi, Coandă effect

See: Pergola

G. Robert Shiplett 12:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

History: Social and health impacts of air conditioning.

This article includes superb technical info but begs for the addition of information on the social and health impacts of AC during its early adoption in mid 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge from air conditioner

I've re-merged this page with content taken from air conditioner. This was split in 2006 following the logic behind splitting refrigerator and refrigeration: however, that's led to the pages containing largely-overlapping content which is less well maintained for being split over two pages. In the process I removed a lot of material which was unsourced or plainly copyvio from the merged content.

Lots of work will be required to bring this article up to scratch, but with the newly-imported material this should be easier to do in the long run. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.148.79 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we need two articles?

Do we need two articles - HVAC and Air conditioning? Biscuittin (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Critics

I also have a feeling this page is a bit promotional and messy. I created a 'critics' section that hopefully will welcome some information about nowadays issues on the topic.

I'm removing this: "Air conditioning may have a positive effect on sufferers of allergies and asthma." since the opposite is also true for the many houses/companies that have a poor maintenance of their systems. Maybe someone can find references for the two sides.

Adding sections inside critics about: -environnement, needs info about ozone depletants still used in some countries -global warming,

I also think a section about energy issues should be created.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarnelhdkw (talk • contribs) 12:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"AC" or "A/C" ?

I'm told "in the industry" AC refers to Alternating Current, and A/C refers to Air Conditioning. Does anyone have any knowledge on this? --68.55.169.90 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think there is a standard either way. I have never seen "alternating current" abbreviated "A/C," but I have seen "air conditioning" abbreviated both ways. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
actually, 'in the industry" we will usually not need to make a distinction as we're smart enought to know by context. Verbally, NO ONE says "A slash C" and hardly anyone says AC after 440 or 220 or 110 (as in volts) anyway. Written it is usually just AC (for both/either) as it is faster. However, HVAC is the 'proper' term for air conditioning. (Heating, Ventilation, And Cooling; or Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning altho the last is somewhat redundant). Ken (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

General cleanup

I'm currently going through the entire article, trying to put everthing into a consistent format. Mostly I didn't remove information, I just re-ordered it and re-organised the sections (e.g. there were 3 different sections on the topic of refrigerants, containing very similar information). My plan is to be done within the next few days. Hopefully that will resolve some of the issues the article is having at the moment. Noggo (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a good start. The group of articles related to HVAC has a lot of overlapping and redundant coverage, and also topics that need better coverage. I am developing an info-bar template for HVAC related articles that will at least make it clearer which articles exist. I hope this will make it easier to understand the current setup, and how to improve it. If anybody knows of existing info-bars or lists relating to HVAC, I would appreciate hearing about them, so I don't re-invent the wheel. Reify-tech (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Reify-tech: you could start with Glossary of HVAC terms. Not an info-bar or a list, but it does have a distilled list of relevant concepts, many of which would be useful to include in an info-bar. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I went through the complete article now and re-arranged the existing information. Feel free to comment and correct :-) Noggo (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Noggo! The article has been in need of a good cleanup for a couple of years now. Keep up the good work! N2e (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, VQuaker, for the suggestion; I had just come across Glossary of HVAC terms on my own, and have incorporated some of it into the HVAC info-bar template I am developing. I suggest moving this discussion to Talk:HVAC, as that seems like the logical overview article for this entire group of topics. Reify-tech (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

---I remved the section on St George's hall being the first air conditioned building. The plaque is technically correct, the air was conditioned...it was heated. It is not exactly what the scope of this article falls to. http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/culture/2002/08/st_georges/air_con.shtml The first modern air conditioned builings were those designed by Carrier, though, I'll have to find a reasonable source to use for those. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Added GIF

I added a gif to explain how an air conditioner works. It shows the process. Please let me know if it's ok. --131.175.28.132 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Health Issues Junk Science

In the section "Health Issues" para 3, we have the unsupportable statement "Spending most of the time in AC environment could lead to lower immunity because, lack of free supply of oxygen hinders with normal functioning of white blood cells that fight bacteria." I'm deleting the para because the "supporting" reference is a newspaper article which supplies no evidence--and even fewer citations--that refrigerated (or any other type of) airconditioning removes oxygen from the air. If anybody can find valid science to support the claims in the para, then youse can put it back. 203.161.102.82 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had the chance to read that article but if anyone is considering reinserting those claims, please make sure the source satisfies WP:MEDRS, if not, do not include it. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

More Junk Science

In addition to the reappearance of the issues noted above by YuMa, paragraph 5 of "Health Issues" has been deleted.

The paragraph stated "AC achieves cooling through the process of evaporation. Due to this, mucous membranes in the nose and mouth get dry...". User:AgniKalpa, the author of the offending edit, seems to believe that air conditioners cause evaporation of water vapor, thus drying the air in the room. This is incorrect.

For clarity, most air conditioners remove heat from a room by passing air over a coil in which the coolant, having passed from a higher pressure region to a lower pressure region, evaporates, dispersing the energy in the mass of the coolant over a larger volume, creating a volume of lower thermal energy relative to the air outside the coil. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that some of the heat in the air will be conducted through the metal of the coil into the coolant. The coolant is then forced into an area of higher pressure where the process is reversed, with the heat leaving the coolant outside the area to be cooled. The evaporation that results in cooling happens entirely within a sealed system, and can not remove moisture from the air as water vapor can not pass through the walls of the coil.

If User:AgniKalpa's belief were valid, the evaporation would add moisture to the air, not remove it.

The drying effect, as already explained earlier in the article, is caused by condensation of water vapor already in the air. The amount of condensation #and therefore, dehumidification# can be, and in many cases is, regulated by controlling the temperature of the coils. Specifically, keeping the coils above the dew point will prevent condensation, and may actually raise the relative humidity of the room by lowering the temperature while maintaining the absolute humidity.

Some air conditioners, as described in the section on "evaporative coolers", actually do use evaporation of water vapor. These systems do add water vapor to the air, raising the absolute humidity.

--Bruce Bertrand #talk# 05:25, 21 June 2013 #UTC#

Sorry, Bruce, you must have misunderstood his/point. It is not incorrect. It was not about the evaporative proccess within the unit, but the condensing process which happens to the air flowing over the evaporator coils' exterior. In fact, in moist areas such as the USA Gulf Coast, this dehumidification is more of a comfort factor than temperature reduction. The amount of water condensed from the evaporator coils from the interior space is significant and is disposed thru piping to the exterior. It can amount to gallons per day in large homes and is often recycled into lawn watering or other secondary uses. In extreme cases it CAN lead to drying of mucuous membranes. It is most definitley NOT junk Science. Ken (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Ken, I think you should reread the history of this article for User:AgniKalpa's insertions in their original context. Your comments confirm my points rather than refute them. --Bruce Bertrand (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Absorption cycle

Ammonia still used in heat powered refrigeration systems. Somebody may be knowledgeable enough to add content. 184.77.255.15 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In the heat pump section, the extremely brief description of the workings of an absorption heat pump is also extremely wrong. I think the mention of absorption heat pumps should stay, but the description should be removed. At least I try (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

environmental impacts

The Environmental impact section, under energy consumption, is completely ridiculous industry rah-rah crap: "Innovation in air conditioning technologies continues, with much recent emphasis placed on energy efficiency."

AC is a horrible energy sink, and it has to be for thermodynamic reasons (yeah, except evaporative, I know), and any reasonable person would conclude it should be a last resort behind everything else you can think of-- better ventilation, white roofs, green roofs, etc.

But I'm afraid this is the future of wikipedia: no one in their right mind thinks it's "fun" to write for it, so over time it's going to be industry shills and political operatives moving in to do spin control. -- Doom (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. @Doom:. WP:So fix it.
  2. New posts go at the bottom of the talk page. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we add a section on sexism?

WP:DNFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to a number of wikipedia approved authorised sources such as the Telegraph and Jezebel air conditioning is sexist. I feel it only right to help improve the diversity in inclusivity of wikipeida that a section be added to cover this important information. Udoks (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No source has been presented that says "air conditioning is sexist" with a straight face. I attempted a passable rewrite. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic

This section seems off-topic from the overall article. It may be more suited to an article on occupational sexism, not airconditioning (i.e. Occupational sexism). 124.171.32.15 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe hiding it away would be denying the impact and trying to sweep such issues under the rug so to speak. This is a real issues impacting the lives of real women just as much as the proclaimed health impacts this impacts the mental health of women in the workplace. It's my case that this is highly relevant to Wikipedia. Udoks (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely not appropriate for this article. I agree it's off topic. The content is also based on low-quality sources with click-baity titles. Deli nk (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
According to wikipedia's own allowance and their use in other sources they are more than reputable and in now way Click-Baitey titles. They are legitimate Wikipedia sources and such sites have been cited in a number of other articles including one recently cleared by Arbcom Udoks (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense, Arbcom does not clear sources or articles. Deli nk (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Nor are these sources breaking any of wikipedia's rules they are secondary sources and from a number of reputable publications Udoks (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is an aspect very clearly focussed on aircon "inappropriate" here? It is very well sourced, despite the doubly inaccurate "Completely based on the musings of one columnist in the Telegraph (not a reliable source on the subject)" claim. As to occupational sexism, then there is no reason why content can't appear in multiple locations. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The claims that "air conditioning plays a large role in the inherent sexism and oppression of women in the workplace" and "overuse of airconditioning in offices is purely to benefit men" are ridiculous. They are blatant exaggerations of what the crappy Washington Post and Telegraph articles say, and those two articles are themselves exaggerations of the primary source in Nature that only talks about "miscalculating metabolic rate on female thermal demand". The whole thing is an unseemly inappropriate made-up controversy. Deli nk (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
So re-write it in a more neutral fashion. But we have four sources making much the same point, one primary and three commenting upon it. Your "crappy" judgement is entirely OR. It is no reason to blank a whole section, just because you disagree with some conclusions drawn from it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If you are using "OR" to refer to WP:OR, then you are not interpreting that page correctly. My assessment of the Washington Post and Telegraph articles as crappy sensationalist nonsense is not WP:OR, it is my opinion of the quality of those sources. Surely you can see that the editor that wrote "air conditioning plays a large role in the inherent sexism and oppression of women in the workplace" and "overuse of airconditioning in offices is purely to benefit men", which is nowhere included in the cited articles, was the one was adding their own original research into Wikipedia? Deli nk (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is completely off topic and sensationalistic as written. The linked general interest articles are about office temperature setpoints; whether the air is conditioned or naturally ventilated is not particularly relevant. Somehow that is being extrapolated into "air conditioning is inherently sexist." Devoting an entire freaking section to this stupid clickbait is moronic; a sentence somewhere summarizing the ASHRAE and Nature standards for the disparate comfort ranges for men and women would be appropriate as that appears to have been missing. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Stupid Blickbait and moronic nonsense. I'm shocked you so flippantly dismiss the oppression of women by such systems and diminish those shedding light on such injustices like this. All the articles mentioned Air conditioning in some capacity and hiding the inherent sexism of this is just furthering peoples oppression. I posted on the talk page for this article over a week before I made edits. No-one cared then but suddenly it's like I've hit a nest of MRAs wanting to hide this information. How strange that suddenly so many people care about something others have already stated could be equally applicable here. Udoks (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
MRA? Anyways, I joined the discussion when I became aware of it. As explained above, there is nothing "inherently sexist" about the subject of this article, air conditioning. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There is when people like you deny the real world impact it has on women's working lives. You're denying women of information and education about how the patriarchy is oppressing them every day. You're contributing to sexism by trying to help hide it or excuse it like this. Udoks (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't deny anything, I explained it to you. Stop with the personal attacks, please. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion of someone's theory that the technology known as air conditioning has been abused by some male managers to oppress female workers (aside from the fact that it is itself sexist – who's to say that some female managers haven't oppressed male workers in exactly the same way? Where are the statistics to show otherwise?) belongs in this article no more than the potential and frequent use of handguns and kitchen knives specifically as instruments of domestic abuse belongs in those articles (where it does not appear). Air conditioning is a technology, just as those are implements, and technology and implements can be used and abused. It can just as easily be argued that companies that fail to provide air conditioning for their employees in hot and humid climates create unpleasant and inefficient work environments. I can tell you this much: my wife does not feel the least bit oppressed by air conditioning systems at her work or at home. General Ization Talk 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. This proposed content is WP:COATRACK of the highest order. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Patriarchal oppression is core and present in so many aspects of modern life and only by making such things visible and easily seen can we stop the oppression of women. It is not coat racking as this is relevant and real to millions of womens lives in relation to this subject. Why do you presume to speak for all women? Udoks (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Please re-read the WP:COATRACK essay, specifically the section on "The Criticism Gambit". The problem is not with the significance of the material, but the fact that its relationship to the rest of the article is tenuous at best. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Udoks, this is not the place to "explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue." VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Except this is not some throw away issue. Sexism and patriarchal oppression permeates all aspects of our society and to reach true equality we me call these injustices out. This is not attaching some additional issue this is an issue relevant to all areas of society and denying women easily access to it just furthers their oppression. Is it not denying those trying to right a great wrong by denying them and their work a place on this page? Is it not documenting those wrongs being righting by documenting the existence of their work? These items were reported on mainstream press sites.Udoks (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
If you haven't already, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And "these items" were speculated upon in lifestyle columns, not hard news articles, by commentators who, I suspect, had twinkles in their eyes when they wrote the articles. (You need, I think, a better sarcasm detector. Ever watch Andy Rooney?) In any case, neither of these are investigative reporters, and they were engaged in edgy social commentary based on "research by walking around", not in investigative journalism. Dvorak (whose article was basically just regurgitated by Lodi) even takes a playful poke at herself in her article ("Because we’re doing top-notch investigative work here."). Your attempt to portray either of these columns as hard evidence of anything is grossly misguided. The only scientific sources are the ones mentioned by Sanghani, about different metabolic rates for men and women and errors commonly made in configuring climate control systems. But the studies she cites make no claims that this is all a product of some vast male conspiracy – nor does Sanghani, other than her single use of the word "sexist" outside of the headline, by which she implies, perhaps correctly, that males are less impacted by this error than females due to their metabolisms. It's a long way from there to an assertion, much less documented evidence (which is what we need here), of systemic abuse of female workers. General Ization Talk 23:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You do realise you're all being trolled right?

According to wikipedia's own allowance and their use in other sources they are more than reputable and in now way Click-Baitey titles. [emph mine.] They are legitimate Wikipedia sources and such sites have been cited in a number of other articles including one recently cleared by Arbcom. The constant focus on "wikipedia approved sources" the obvious sarcasm in the above statement, there is no way this person is not trolling. As such I've hatted everything.Brustopher (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


In response, to "You do realize you are being trolled, right?", this topic has been discussed by feminist academics on Sky TV news and in news websites including "The telegraph", "Globe and Mail", "Australia ABC News", and "Time" magazine. While, I personally disagree that air conditioning is sexist, the goal of Wikipedia is to keep a neutral point of view and it's factually accurate this has been debated on liveTV and published in many sourcesby feminists. This was and still is a trending topic in 3rd wave feminist circles. It is legitimate to discuss whether it should be added and is possibly not a "troll" as user Brustopher suggested. If it were a troll, the implication might just be that trolls write for Time Magazine, The Telegraph, Globe and Mail, ABC Australia News, SkyTV News and so forth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNH0bmYT7os

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11760417/Air-conditioning-in-your-office-is-sexist.-True-story.html

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/is-air-conditioning-a-sexist-plot/article25943589/?arc404=true

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/greatmomentsinscience/freezing-in-office-because-air-conditioning-standards-sexist/8300132

http://motto.time.com/4464848/sexist-air-conditioning/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.180.129 (talk • contribs)

I do not see in any of those sources a claim that AC is inherently sexist. They do say that setting the AC at a temperature where men are comfortable and women are freezing is unfair, but that isn't really the fault of the underlying technology (which is the subject of this article). VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Future AC technologies paragraph needed

Freon is not the future of AC. Probably Magnetics or something with Thermocooling.--2605:6000:1A0D:1C0:0:94F:F47E:FDD1 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments requested on merging "air cooling" process descriptions from multiple Wikipedia articles

Right there are multiple articles which talk about the process of air cooling. This looks to me like forks of the same content, and I propose to merge it to one place. Can anyone else comment on whether this is the same concept, and if so, suggest the one place where this information should be?

Proposal: Cut all sections of any article talking about the science of air cooling, paste that content to "Heat pump and refrigeration cycle", and point other articles there.

Pbsouthwood I am claiming that the four articles linked above are all forks of one concept. I am not sure what the concept is called - maybe heat cycle - but these four articles have some basic science concept in common and are each describing it in their own way. Instead of talking about it in multiple places, I propose to greatly cut the linked sections of all of these articles, and instead direct all scientific explanation of the fundamental concept to one place. Parts of the explanation which are specific to each article can stay, but the generalities need to only be discussed in one place. You are correct - I have not made clear what exactly I will do, but since these articles are very popular and get about 150,000 views per month, I thought that I would post here before making big changes to multiple popular articles. After I make a move, I will seek other feedback. As an example of what I will do, see Talk:Phosphates_in_detergent. This is not quite the same situation, but in that case, I started a new article by combining "phosphates in detergent" content spread over 4 articles into one article. I felt that the same conversation was happening independently in different places when actually the content should have been in one article with other articles referring to the central place. I do not need any particular review now, and I will describe what I do as I go forward, but for now I wanted to give notice that I was planning relatively big changes to several related articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say completely different scopes, there is overlap, but maybe not enough to split common material out from all of the listed articles and reduce them by enough to be worth the effort. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think there is value in presenting the application of the science behind the air conditioner, that is, relating the scientific principles to the working system, describing how specifically an air conditioner system works applying the refrigeration cycle. I find that the "Refrigeration Cycle" section has a lot of potential. Sadly its all tangled up with confusing references to the cooling system of a car motor (??).Danielixto (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral I have no strong feelings about this. I think it could work to some extent, but not convinced it is worth the effort. Not my effort, and I trust that you will not leave the articles in worse condition than when you start. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support conditionally Your proposal has considerable merit, since the existing coverage of fundamental principles of cooling is overlapping, partially redundant, and lacking in depth. The poor structure of the HVAC articles has led to intermittent and scattered attempts to improve coverage, but relatively few contributions by knowledgeable industry professionals (often of poor or primarily promotional quality).
I encourage you write a trial version of an artlcle, but reserve judgement until it is apparent whether or not it could be the seed of a worthwhile improvement. What you are proposing is a significant amount of work, but has the potential for major enhancements in the coverage, usability, and educational value of these related Wikipedia articles.
A major reason I created the Template:HVAC was to collate the various scattered articles in one place so readers can find them, but also so that overlaps and gaps in coverage would become more apparent to editors. It might be useful to organize a WP:WikiProject on HVAC, but I haven't decided whether it would be worth the effort or not. Reify-tech (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Authority on Terminology

First we begin this article with saying "Air conditioning is the process of removing heat and moisture" (because that's somehow the non scholar way of using the word). Then we later say "In the most general sense, air conditioning can refer to any form of technology that modifies the condition of air" and this is actually the correct terminology, even though professionals use the former. Are we going to abide by non intellectuals to determine the definition of this terminology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Efficiency section

The section on efficiency specifically relates to the USA, and uses units that make no sense to most people in the world. Can somebody rewrite it to be more neutral? Groogle (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is the information about Lewis H. Latimer.

The information about Carrier is treated like he is the original creator and patent holder of cooling technology. Latimer's patent expired the year prior to Carrier filing his patent. https://patents.google.com/patent/US334078. This article needs to include information about L.H. Latimer. Its a white washing of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.101.204.54 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Efficiency of heat pumps vs. electric resistance heating

From the article:

The heat pump is significantly more energy efficient than electric resistance heating.

I'd like to see that statement clarified. An electric resistance heating unit may be considered to be 100 percent efficient because it converts all of the applied electrical energy into heat and radiates all of it into the room in which the heating unit is installed. A heat pump converts most of the applied electrical energy into heat (some energy is expended in driving the unit's fan to pull air through the evaporator), but some of that heat is lost to the outdoors through radiation from the compressor and refrigerant piping that is not in the building's interior. Therefore, the heat pump cannot achieve the efficiency of the resistance heating unit.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it the reason the heat pump is more efficient overall is because it transfers more heat energy than the energy of the electricity used to power it.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Ask yourself, why would anyone spend that much more money on a heat pump if it can't be as efficient as resistance heating? Careful how you define "efficient" - the definition here is critical. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Heat pump efficiency

The Heat pump section says cold weather heating efficiency goes down with temperature because the evaporator freezes up. While that may be true (I can't tell because there isn't a single source citation in this entire section), the main reason has to do with thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle. This section could use a re-write. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Rooftop packaged systems

Rooftop packaged systems don't really belong in the "Split central (ducted) system" section, since they are not split systems. Should this be moved to the "Air-only central air conditioning" section? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Alejandro Rodriguez 2690 (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Lead Section Content Update?11:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello I have a question regarding the lead section in the 3rd paragraph. In sentence 2 of the 3rd paragraph I believe the statistics can be updated from 2018 to 2020 from the article "Air Conditioning Biggest Factor in Growing Electricity Demand" by Martin Armstrong in Statista.com in which he says there 1.9 billion air conditioner units in the world and expected 5.5 billion to be sold by 2050 according to International Energy Agency (IEA).

should this be updated in the artcile? link: https://www.statista.com/chart/14401/growing-demand-for-air-conditioning-and-energy/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20latest%20figures,the%20next%2030%20years%20though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro Rodriguez 2690 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Updating just the lead is the wrong way to do this. See WP:LEAD. The lead summarizes the article. First you put the information somewhere in the body of the article, then if it seems important enough, you add it to the lead. Unfortunately that paragraph already violates the policy. I went ahead and fixed that. If you want to update the numbers, first do it in the "Environmental impacts" section, then copy the numbers to the lead.
I was unable to read the source you cited. If you can track down the information at the IEA web site I think that would be a better way to do it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Water and salt

HLHJ: Please carry on your discussions here, on the talk page, not in the edit summaries or template fields.

This statement is a problem: "In the 17th century, the Dutch inventor Cornelis Drebbel demonstrated 'Turning Summer into Winter' as an early form of modern air conditioning for James I of England by adding salt to water." Adding salt to water does not lower the temperature. Now you're saying that you don't know what the source you cited means by this, because you don't have access to the source. Please don't add material to Wikipedia articles without citing a source, and actually checking that source yourself. The text says nothing about ice. Maybe it means ice, but you don't know that, do you? And if it did, that wouldn't make sense for air conditioning. Ice melts at 0° which is plenty cold enough to cool off a room. Lowering the temperature below that wouldn't make any sense. But it's pointless to speculate about that. We need a source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

GA-RT-22, I didn't add the content on Cornelis Drebbel to the article. I think I did move it, but it was already present when I began to edit.[1] I didn't notice it said "water" rather than "ice", which was rather silly of me. I mean, "water" is a hypernym of ice, but rarely used as such in colloquial English; I failed to see through my own biasses there. I didn't know what Drebbel did, but guessed; that's why I wrote that it presumably had something to do with freezing point depression. I meant to just quickly satisfy your curiosity, while making it clear that it was only an educated guess, not supported by a source. I have now found some sources that support this supposition and added them.
While content in biographies of living people must be cited, it is not Wikipedia policy that all content must be cited. Especially in physics, it is common to include uncited content. If anyone thinks the content is unverifiable, they can ask the person who added it to verify it by citing a reliable source (and remove it if none is forthcoming), but if the content is verifiable, finding a source, or just leaving it uncited, is better than challenging sound content. It's not uncommon for a subject expert to write large tracts of uncited material which are then gradually cited; this process works so well that people often get the impression that every statement must be cited. In this case you clearly thought the information was probably inaccurate (understandably, as it was counter-intuitive enough to be used as a magic trick), so challenging it and requesting verification was perfectly reasonable. HLHJ (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right, I mistakenly thought that you had added that content, and I'm sorry for that. I was not suggesting we remove this, just that it required clarification, because as written it made no sense. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No worries, GA-RT-22, it is a lot better with the cited info. I've tried to clarify the different stages of historical development a bit more; unfortunately this causes even more overlap with the "Operating principles" section. Perhaps it should be merged with the history section, methods with development dates attached. The individual examples do seem excessive to me, and a bit randomly-picked. I'm not sure the article has room to discuss these individual inventions/uses by specific place and person; perhaps that content should move to other articles, an the history section should focus on technique development rather than events. Generally, the interior-environment control content on Wikipedia is a bit confusing; there are lots and lots of articles with overlapping scopes, and it's hard to find a specific bit of information. Even just in this article, whether "air conditioning" includes humidifying as well as dehumidifying seems to vary by section (and be regional dialect of English). Possibly the ontology of the whole article set needs a systematic sorting out. What do you think? HLHJ (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the History section might work better if it were re-done chronologically, and the non-history bits like Traits and most of Techniques moved into the Operating principles section. This would expose where there is overlap. There is also overlap between History/Refrigerant development and Environmental impacts/Refrigerants. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, GA-RT-22. I'm afraid I lack the knowledge needed to make a chronological account representative. I'm not sure if it would make sense coming entirely before the techniques section, especially as a single technique will be used in multiple different places at different times. There is a fair amount of overlap. HLHJ (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Citelead

It's not a big issue and let's leave the citations in the lead, however my motivation for removing them was MOS:CITELEAD which suggests that citations are only recommended for challengeable material or direct quotes and that redundant citations are not encouraged. What I didn't do is confirm that all claims in the lead are indeed supported by citations within the body of the article so they may not actually be redundant. Possibly it's best to leave them there for the time being. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Frederick Jones

An anon I added the following text, quoted in its entirety:

Although Willis Carrier is largely credited with inventing the modern air conditioner, Frederick Jones, an African-American, invented the first portable air conditioning unit. His invention was used largely in field military hospitals keeping wounded soldiers comfortable while they recovered from injuries sustained while fighting. Jones had at least 60 patents on various inventions including refrigeration for food transport trucks.

There was no source nor real detail. So, true? Or not? --Calton | Talk 13:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, where it doesn't matter if something is true, only that something is verifiable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
See also Frederick McKinley Jones. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Who coined the term 'air conditioning'?

The fifth paragraph in the History/Development section credits Stuart W. Cramer with coining the term 'air conditioning'. The photograph at the right of this section credits Willis Carrier with that action. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTVKenney (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As usual - This article lies

The first operating hvac was made by a french medical doctor. He was (story omitted) in the tropics treating a person. The "usual methods" he'd have used to keep a fever lower were not available. He devised an excellent plan. This history is not incorrect: wikipedia has lied about the origins for political purposes.

The reason this is important is it was not theorty it was infact the first practical HVAC system in use and today's designs still use the same principle (but not the same refrigerant). THE CITATION: from historian documentary James Burke's "How the Universe Changed" series.

I editing that in the main article - IT WAS CANCEL CULTURED.

I EDITING IN THE ARTICLE "air conditioning is not just for comfort", and quickly listed major impact of society: such as keeping distributed food cool

THAT ALSO WAS DELETED

wikipedia is a worthless piece of trash— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:480:a4c0:4ecc:6aff:fe8e:47d (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't want to get in the way of your persecution complex, but did you mean James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed"? It would be helpful to use citations when you add material; it would also be helpful to be more specific. Which episode? You might also mean his other series "Connections", which definitely outlines a brief history of HVAC, including a doctor that patents a device while attempting to control malaria in a tropical setting. This was in episode 16: "Eat, Drink and Be Merry" at about the 30:19 mark - was that it? Kuru (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Which house was the first to have A/C?

The article presents two contradictory claims:

A: "In 1914, the first domestic air conditioning was installed in Minneapolis in the home of Charles Gilbert Gates." (Offering a source.)
B: "Built in 1933, Meadowmont House is believed to be the first private home in the United States equipped with central air conditioning." (NOT offering any source.)

If B cannot be backed up with a reliable source, it has to be removed. Arminden (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I think the difference is the word 'central'. I will clarify the text and add a source for Meadowmont House. PeterEastern (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@PeterEastern: hi. I found out, and added to the text, that Gates died months before his house was finished, so that his A/C might never have been used. Maybe that's what was meant. Minding how absolutely huge the 1914 device was, I guess it was also meant for the whole house, so 'central', too. I'm curious now what you'll find out. If nothing comes out of your search, please consider putting the 1933 story back in, with the claim to be the first presented as just that, a claim. It's a good information apart for that unclear or contradictory point. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of this article does seem a bit bonkers to me at present. My guess is that is is still showing its heritage as being a merge some time back of two articles (air conditioning and air conditioners).

By way of example, here is a quick review of the top level headings:

  • The first top-level heading is 'History' which containing a 'passive techniques' section which contains another 'history' section. The rest of this top-level 'history' section goes on to cover a number of techniques with some historical context.
  • The next top-level heading is 'Operating principles' section which describes the method of operation of a number of difference cooling techniques (but without any obvious mapping to earlier 'history' section)
  • 'Humidity control' comes next and is honoured with a top level item for some reason unlike any other technique.
  • 'Efficiency' is next, but this only covers the efficiency of air conditioners
  • 'Installation types' again only cover air conditioners (and in some cases includes some historical information)
  • 'Uses' only air conditioners
  • 'Health effects' only air conditioners
  • 'Environmental impacts' only air conditioners
  • 'Economic impacts' only air conditioners

Personally I think we should consider reorganising the article into a series of top level sections heading for each technique, ie the first top-level heading for 'Air Conditioners', and then others for the other major methods discussed. All the relevant content for each method can then be organised until the relevant heading. In my view this process may expose that the article is primarily about air conditioners, but that is something we can come back to in due course possibly.

I will be interested in other people's thoughts.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Also... I have been having a look at what other articles there are in Wikipedia that are within scope and that should in my view be better summarised in this article: Ventilation (architecture), Ventilative cooling, Passive cooling, Passive ventilation, Passive house/Passivhaus, Heat recovery ventilation, Exhaust air heat pump. PeterEastern (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I have now done an initial restructure of the content as per the above proposal. History section still needs work, but before doing much more work on this it would be good to see if people are happy with this change in principle. PeterEastern (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for asking, PeterEastern, and apologies for the belated reply. The scope here is a problem. The scopes of the articles in this whole area of knowledge are a mess and badly need cataloguing and rationalizing. We could totally say that this article is about "air conditioning", a term the article inconsistently says was coined by each of two Americans for vapour-compression mechanical systems, and the article should therefore be dedicated to these alone. Or we could say that the term originally only refers to systems that control temperature and (non-incidentally) humidity, and so that's the scope, and have separate broad-topic articles for isolated Techniques for cooling air and Techniques for humidifying and dehumidifying air. That would have a lot of overlap. We could include or exclude heat pumps and hybrid heat pump/vapour compression devices. Or we could decide that "air con" is too annoyingly loose a term to have a useful scope, and make the page a disambiguation for its various meanings. But if the scope of this article is the cooling of air, sometimes altering the humidity, we should cover the various techniques in proportion to their global and historical weight.
There is currently, as you pointed out, no scope which the article represents with due weight. We need to decide on the scope and state it clearly in the lede, an then the content needs to represent the scope. This looks hard to do. If included in the scope, I'm very much of the view that passive techniques should be better summarised in this article; I'd made some preliminary efforts at doing that. Currently, the techniques used throughout most of history are skimmed over in the history section, which focusses on chemical and mechanical vapor-compression methods. The history section mentions but does not link to, list or describe passive techniques, then skips ice-making and ice storage methods. Then, in a section called "development", there is very detailed description of chemical elaborations of ice-storage methods, and an even more detailed discussion of vapor-compression-based elaborations. It gives the impression that most techniques were developed in Europe and the US, and that techniques developed elsewhere are not counted as development. Passive techniques, used by most of the world's population, are detailed in an "Other techniques" section at the very end of the article. The sections on "Types", "Operation", and "Impacts", as you say, apply only to electrically-powered mechanical systems, and only touch on heat pumps. The overall effect is that the type of system most likely to be familiar to Wikipedia editors is portrayed as the, or the standard, aircon system.
Invention claims on techniques which were fairly simple combinations of existing new technologies, and were thus being developed in parallel in many different places, tend to be a bit unencyclopedic anyway, and often focus on the nationalities of the various claimants rather than on the inventions. Could we move a bunch of the who-did-what-when details to, say "History of chemical and mechanical air cooling", to try and keep the level of detail for each technique more proportional to due global and historic weight? We could amalgamate the "history" and "operating principles" technique, as the history is a history of the development of operational principles, and a description of principles can easily have dates. "Types" could be a subheading of operating principles, likewise with dates, and with info on reasons for development of each type; the distinction between "operating principles" adn "types" seems to be a bit arbitrary, except that "types" focusses a lot on ducting, which could be split out. There is extant content on passive-technique efficiency/performance and impacts which could go into the relevant sections, too. HLHJ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks HLHJ. To be honest I had moved on from this article having devoted a significant chunk of time to it. Personally I think it will be easier and more likely that we end up with a good authoritative article if we reduced the scope of the article (and the title) to 'air conditioners' and focused almost entirely on the history, operation, deployment and implications of having 1.6 billion (or even 5.6 billion) of these devices on the planet. Clearly such a subject would be 'notable' by WP standards and is move clearly bounded in scope. This would however raise the question as to whether to maintain a separate article for more general management of temperature under the existing title. As an alternative this current article could be improved in the way you have outlined above. If that is what you would like to do then I would support you in that work. It seems to come down to a decision as to whether to split, move or develop the article. PeterEastern (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi to @Bluerasberry, @PeterEastern, @HLHJ
I possess some knowledge and literature on the topic of Air Conditioning. But my scope is probably exactly what you all have been missing... Most importantly -- I have a 2000 page text book to reference directly in my possession.I wish to share this information and knowledge in my possession. But, I need help with the following:
  1. I just joined wiki. The extent of my typing experience doesn't venture much further than YT or /r/ ...
  2. Grammatical mistakes undoubtebly
  3. Need to learn [everything] proper format for citations and referencing *
Polypsychosis (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I would support a split where we pull out an article covering refrigerant-based air conditioners and leave the remainder to be developed to cover the more general subject of air cooling/conditioning (including an overview of how refrigerant-based air conditioners fit into that). Once that split is done then some more thought could be given as to how to rationalise the various articles that touch on the subject of air cooling. If there is support for this then I suggest we start a formal 'split' consultation. Once that was done I would be happy to continue to work on the various articles touching on mechanical air conditioners (heat pump, air source heat pump, geothermal heat pump, refrigerant, HVAC etc to make sure they work well together as a whole. I would leave others to work on the non-refrigerant cooling related articles. PeterEastern (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A well-defined sociological scope, or a well-defined functional scope, or a well-defined technological scope, or an intersection of a set of these, would make for a good article. Interlinked broad-concept functional-scope articles on the history of heating, cooling, humidifying, drying, and air-filtering indoors spaces would also work. This is currently an odd hybrid with no clear scope. I think part of the problem is that the terminology is not very mature and PR jargon hasn't helped (Glossary of HVAC terms is nowhere near complete, even for notable terms with articles). So we probably need to define our own ontology to some extent. What sort of correlations are there between sociological and technological scopes here?
Merging heat-pump content seems like an excellent idea. It's strange that we often miss important concepts too basic for experts to write upon (e.g. Stable and unstable stratification, which needs more HVAC content). We probably need a summary section with a big DO NOT EXPAND HERE comment. Could we do the same for component technological concepts, like ducting systems? HLHJ (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@HLHJ I You rang Sir?
I do believe conversations about all things air conditioning would be an eye sore if condensed (no pun intended) all on this one page. General field of study for air conditioning spans (North American standards) by Brief Content - 10 Sections...Each section contains several Units. All this spans 1800 pages. But some Sections aren't relevant here. Like Controls and Theory or tools and safety right? So that would leave us wth ..
1.Air-Conditioning (Heating and Humidification) - Electric Heat, Gas Heat, Oil Heat, Hydronic and Indoor Air Quality
2. Air-Conditioning (Cooling) - Psychrometrics, Comfort, Air distribution, operating conditions, Installations, Energy Auditing (not even factoring Commercial versus Residential versus Industrial types of Air Con.....)
3.Weather Systems -Heat Gains+ Losses in Structures (tricky area --i'd avoid it) by Calculation of building Envelope..., Air Source Heat Pumps and Geothermal heatpumps
4.Commercial Air Con. and Chilled Water/Glycol systems (i'd avoid this too) -High+Low pressure Absorbtion, Cooling Towers, RoofTop and Packaged units, Variable Flow, Variable Volume, Pneumatic controlled, Building Controled and automated systems like Occupancy sensor controlled rooms (other sensors too, thermostat controls, programable logic controllers, etc) This is a huge Section including maintenance, operations, and Temperature/Pressure conversions (and much more)
--Notice how i didn't really touch the fundamental stuff though and i think that should be the focus if anyone wishes to work on this with me i may be able to better organize and refine this since i'm not seeing the fundamental stuff i'd hope to see on a wiki page devoted to the topic of Air Con.
Side Note* ((AC is not the greatest abreviation or reference to use because AC can often be mistaken with Alternating Current..written AC or VAC ...A/C could suffice for air conditioning but when ppl from other trades(mechanics and electrical) may not realize the difference . important to differentiate there so somebody new doesnt mistake the abrev .....)) Polypsychosis (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Polypsychosis: Great ideas. I would have to look again, but I do not think Wikipedia even has articles for your points 2, 3, and 4. Those seem like independent topics. You sound like you know the industry - is this how professionals would discuss this?
I was asking about this some years ago and nowadays I have less time to do research on this, but if you are writing, I would be happy to support and comment. You are proposing a big undertaking so I hope you find a way to start with any small piece you like.
What do you mean by "fundamental stuff"? Like describing the technology, and the physics and science behind the technology? Thanks for the ping and ping me again please in conversation. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Polypsychosis and Bluerasberry: I agree that this is a wp:broad-concept article. We have articles on Heating, Humidification, Electric heating, Gas heating, Oil heating (heating oil), Hydronic heating and Indoor Air Quality, Cooling, Psychrometrics, Comfort, Air distribution (a wp:Disambiguation page), Energy audit, passive cooling, passive heating, building envelope, thermal bridge, air source heat pump and Ground source heat pump, (Geothermal heatpump redirects there), Heat exchanger, Glycol chiller, vapor-compression refrigeration, Absorption refrigerator, Cooling tower, windcatcher, Air handler (covering rooftop and packaged units), Variable refrigerant flow, Automatic balancing valve#Constant and variable flow systems, Variable air volume, HVAC control system, Pneumatic thermostat (a section of thermostat), Programmable thermostat, Occupancy sensor, and programmable logic controller (broader). Obviously not all that content will fit in one article! But this article could be a better overview, and a better index to the more detailed content. Polypsychosis, do you favour any of the proposed ways of restructuring the content we discussed earlier in this section? I also apologize for unintentionally ignoring your request for general editing help; I'll post on your talk page about that. HLHJ (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
It is challenging to identify where to begin. Both of you have mentioned heating - is that part of the discussion on air conditioning? Currently the article says that air conditioning means cooling. I have not looked at this in years and I am unsure what to do.
HLHJ - you list wiki articles. Some of those I would call technology, and some I would call science. Polypsychosis your list of 4 concepts are what I would call industry practice, and seems to be a mix of technology and its application in buildings.
Who are our readers? These are my guesses of the audience:
  1. A student who wants an abstract scientific explanation of air conditioning, such as for high school
  2. A student who wants history and contemporary social issues (energy use, environment) about air conditioning, such as for undergraduate college civics study
  3. A tradesperson who wants the article to reflect common knowledge of HVAC
  4. Industry enthusiast who want all of the major concepts listed from the field broadly
Happy to talk things through but really unsure of how to organize. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Likewise unsure, Bluerasberry . I listed articles related to Polypsychosis's list of topics. I think "air conditioning" was invented as a marketing term implying complete control of air parameters, temperature, humidity, gasses and aerosols. I seem to recall that this was originally critical to the reliability of industrial processes; if your assembly line is working smoothly, you want conditions to stay stable. Air con is cheaper than, say, making parts out of invar. Then the high-status high-tekky term got used for domestic air cooling. I should go find sources for this, if they aren't in the article. "Air conditioning" may not be a good scope for a coherent article, since a huge diversity of techniques are used for a huge diversity of purposes. Personally, I'm most interested in the pre-electrical techniques, and how they influenced historic architecture, but that's just me. And... do we count insulation? There's a fuzzy border there. HLHJ (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Description of ductless "split" system

The section on ″mini-splits″ says such systems ″... typically supply conditioned and heated air to a single or a few rooms...″. Does this not describe a ducted system? I would think a ductless system would supply a conditioned fluid to be passed through a HX in that single room. Air already in that room would be passed over the other side of that HX, warming or cooling it. No supplying of air (and no ducts) required.

What I came here to find was what sort of fluid is pumped to that in-room HX, whether a phase-change occurs there (so different return plumbing is required), if high-pressure plumbing is required, and finally whether it is a challenge to make that pluming flexible enough that attached devices (compressor/condenser, HX) can be moved a bit for servicing or accessing adjacent surfaces. Can enough heat be moved by, say, water, to supply the in-room HX? I doubt it, but have no experience with these devices and don't know. And I don't think the article answers the questions.

I also wonder what is ″mini″ about a ductless system. Are there maxi-splits? Captain Puget (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There are some Floor standing air condtioners SugarMash (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Floor Standing Air Condtioners

There are some floor standing air conditioners that exists and are similar to split types and found on some countries SugarMash (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

user:Reywas92 adding unrelated edits to the article

user:Reywas92 adding unrelated edits to the article. The said section talks about air source heat pumps only, and these known to loose heating performance below 5*C, because ice forms on the outdoor unit heat exchangers and blocks airflow. זור987 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The NREL source they cited is titled "Even in Frigid Temperatures, Air-Source Heat Pumps Keep Homes Warm From Alaska Coast to U.S. Mass Market" - what makes you think that isn't about air source heat pumps? MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see this title, and user:Reywas92 didn't made clear that this talks about air-source heat pumps. Also: Until recently, air source heat pumps were popular mainly in the middle east countries like Israel, where the temperatures usually don't drops below 5*C, and all air-source heat pumps here in Israel, lose the ability to heat when the temperatures goes below 5*C and switching to defrost mode. זור987 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Do Floor standing A/Cs counts? SugarMash (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"Climatized" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Climatized has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14 § Climatized until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_conditioning/Archive_2&oldid=1230426026"