Talk:Heat pump and refrigeration cycle

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

Diagrams are flipped[edit]

The two close diagrams that explained how it works are flipped vertically and horizontally. It must confuse a lot of readers.

This is the drawback to google images on the web to illustrate the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:979:6A00:FE4D:7A58:5798:523F (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

Very confusing article, not up to usual Wikipedia Standards. Leaves a lot out.

Something has an efficiency rating of 200%? what's an efficiency rating?


Also the last sentence of the opening paragraph doesn't make sense. The line "Heat is moved from a cold place to a warm place. " implies there is already heat in a "cold place" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.44.73.79 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

perfect sense. Clever, isn't it. Midgley (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

heat pumps?[edit]

why does the whole article about heat pumps? there's virtually no info on the refrigeration cycle. should "heat pump cycle" and "refrigeration cycle" be split into 2 separate articles? Geekosaurus - 12:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

symmetry[edit]

Thus a heat pump may be thought of as a "heater" if the objective is to warm the heat sink (as when warming the inside of a home on a cold day)

Except that the usual way to warm a house when you have access to a high temperature heat source is direct contact with the heat source (heat equation only, no heat pump) instead of using a heat pump to make the snowy outdoors even colder. 84.227.254.183 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge concepts of "air conditioning" and "refrigeration"? Comments requested[edit]

Please see

I think that descriptions of "air cooling" are all the same concept but somehow started to be described in multiples places. I am seeking advice on what can be merged together and where. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heat pump and refrigeration cycle. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the COP section is weasly worded, and plainly incorrect to the point of being misleading, or the author was not educated in the matter.

Regardless, and, as is also mentioned by someone before me, (but helas I do not own an account yet(!) either) so I cannot delete that part or make a correct version.

That COP section was already mangled in 2013

Ending with that remark of "therefore we use fuel" is complete nonsense. That was just the last straw of nonsense, better deleted then incorrect filler nonsense.

"as edited by 144.118.166.187 (talk) at 18:14, 6 December 2013 (→‎Coefficient of Performance)."

Not even bothering to point to any reference. Later between 2013 and now a reference was added to that section, but it is still fully made up and simply incorrect.

The version before 6 december 2013 was sparse, and although the section could use a more average persons wordings and a few more sententes, it does not need to be a large section because the concept of COP is fundamental en simple to understand.

The removal or not mentioning that temperature and thermodynamics calculations must be done using an absolute temperature scale (so yeak usually Kelvin, derived from degrees Celcius but --corrected-- for the arbitrary offset from absolute zero of the melting point of water; when this is not even mentioned then the formulas make no sence at all, and yes then you can play around with weird things like negative temperatures, that does not exist in this context of classical mechanics/thermodynamics/physics.

So yeah, let "us" please remove or let me (aided by some someone who is native englisch) or someone else like the person that also commented earlier.

I understand that this topic of energy in general is rather sensitive and therefore prone to vandalism or misinformation, and thus this article is semi locked. I agree with the discission in this case.

However, the topic is nevertheless of such importance to have it well written and correct information to the best of our currect understandings. But this section, used by many cassualy to learn somthing, does a disservice to all.

Curator of this page,

if you may find time, or are even still active here,

please at least mark it as controversial and not well written, the whole page in its full.

remarks from the person before me----> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.202.103 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COP section is confusing[edit]

Since the article is semi-protected, and I am only a "once a year fixing small things" anonymous IP user, I cannot do it myself:

could someone delete the following sentence: However, in reality, as in home heating, some of QH is lost to the outside air through piping, insulation, etc., thus making the COPHP drop below unity when the outside air temperature is too low. Therefore, the system used to heat houses uses fuel.[2]


The first sentence is true for all kinds of heating systems, not only heat pumps. Oil/gas heaters also lose some energy through warm exhaust gases, making their COP smaller than 1. The last second seems to imply that a heat pump only requires "fuel" if the COP is below unity. This is not true. A heat pump always needs work input, the COP only determines how much heat is gained on the warm side for each unit of work.

  • A heat pump with COP of unity requires 1 unit of work (usually in form of electricity, not actual fuel) to bring 1 unit of heat to the building, and leaves the cool side as is. This is the same as a resistive electric heater/burning fuel etc.
  • A heat pump with COP of 2 requires 1 unit of work, to bring one additional unit of heat from the cool side to the hot side. Effectively this brings 2 units of heat to the house, cools the <outside/ground/whatever the cool side is> by 1 unit and takes one unit of electric work.
  • A heat pump with COP below 1 would imply that it heats the cool side instead of cooling it, due to poor design choices. This is highly unlikely in real designs, since resistive or fuel burning heaters would be used instead in those cases.

Comments from IP address[edit]

The following comments were inserted in the article on 26 November, from an IP address. See the diff. I will erase the comments from the article. Dolphin (t) 06:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add heat from the electricity required to power the mechanical processes.
Also add heat generated by inefficiencies in the processes of electricity generation.
Also add most likely CO2 generation (increasing heat absorption in the atmosphere from sunlight) caused by burning fossil fuels in the processes of electricity production.
I.e., refrigeration creates much more overall heat than cooling.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b067:f6e7:d9c2:e3fb:e73c:f1e6 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid Pumps in absorption refrigerators (heat pumps)[edit]

I think someone was confused, not least because the only reference in the section was internal to the article on absorption cycle as described by Einstein and Szilard, which itself stresses that there are no moving parts. I've removed the assertion that an electric pump shifts the solutions. Midgley (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heat_pump_and_refrigeration_cycle&oldid=1195082227"