Talk:Waste heat

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Other possible uses for waste heat?

First of all I need to confess, I am no expert on these things. I gather that the efficiency of a normal fossil fuel power plant is about 35%. To me that seems pretty rubbish. I would have thought that on an industrial scale, something better than that could be achieved. Near where I live, there is a big power station operating lots of those huge natural draft wet cooling towers. As you see the clouds of water vapour rising from them, you can not help but be struck by the waste of energy. It could hardly be more in your face!

Using cogeneration, as mentioned in this article, the waste can be reduced. In the 'cogeneration' article, the claim is made that cogeneration can potentially reach an efficiency of about 70%. Nice improvement!

Where it is not practical to use the heat in this way, more work could be got out of it using a stirling engine. I wonder why this is not done?--JB001 13:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question: apparently, stirling engines can be designed to function on low temperature differences (such as the low grade waste heat source of a power station), however, at present the resultant engine would be large, inefficient and uneconomical.--JB001 10:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthro heat

This is the same thing as anthro heat. I've restored Atmoz's stuff abot GW William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Anthro heat includes heat leakage. Waste heat does not. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do a merge, merge WH into AH, as AH is the more general term. WMC, you're an admin - can you do that change if you support it? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waste heat is the more common term [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its still a subset Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find a single WP:RS supporting the idea that heat leakage is classed as waste heat? WMC, Atmoz and Kim are all supporting the merge, but have not provided one single source to back up the assertion that waste heat includes heat leakage. If it doesn't, then waste heat is a subset of anthro heat, not a synonym. Back up your views, please - or revert your edit. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about. I saw two articles that described the same thing so I merged them. End of story. If reliable, secondary sources say they aren't, then fix it (or alternatively). -Atmoz (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article is little more than a stub. Concentrate on fixing it - there's plenty of room to cover all aspects whether waste or anthro oriented. When and if it grows to long, then break out fork articles. Focus on improving the article rather than bantering about technicalities. Vsmith (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and it's supposed to be correct. Anthro heat is NOT the same as waste heat. No-one who's effected or supported the redirect has managed to come up with a WP:RS to state that they are the same. There's a very simple solution: Make waste heat a redirect to anthropogenic heat, and move all existing content to AH. I can tidy up the result quite happily. No work, no proliferation, no errors: simple! Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Anthropogenic_heat - Boris notes the distinction between WH and AH. If there's only 1 article, it has to be AH (IMO). Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC) See also WP:BURDEN - it's for Atmoz to prove the original redirect (good faith) was correct. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous mistakes

Despite my repeated efforts, various editors keep reverting to error-filled versions of this article. Please don't

Continue to confuse AH and WH when they've not been able to come up with a single WP:RS to support this arbitrary merger.
Claim vehicles are large single sources - I know cars are big in the US, but really, they're not that big (but there are lots of them)

Please will those responsible revert this themselves, and then desist? Thanks awfully. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest single sources is not referring to individual power plants or cars.

Please respect consensus and stop accusung editors of reverting to error-filled versions, i.e. WP:AGF. You disagree on content, provide references that support your claims rather than simply edit warring and essentially attacking those who disagree with you.

Any waste heat discussed here would obviously be of anthro origin, we're not talking about heat wasted by volcanoes or natural respiration and decay of organisms. Vsmith (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of the editor making the redirect to prove its validity. See WP:BURDEN Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could have sorted this out using common sense - leaking heat is not waste heat (it may be a waste, but that's different). However, as you've asked here's a WP:RS for each term:

anthropogenic heat is heat generated by buildings, people, or machinery. www.epa.gov/heatisland/resources/glossary.htm
waste heat: Heat derived from the cooling process of electric power generating plants and which can cause thermal pollution of water courses, promoting algal bloom. (Source: MGH) http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?cp=9085 (IMO this is a narrow definition which is field-specific - I'm sure we could also find a suitable source for the use of the term waste heat in microelectronics. What we will NOT find is a source who will describe the heat loss from my roof in January as 'waste heat', despite its clear anthropogenic origin)

I think it really is time to put this to bed now. They're clearly not synonymous, and I'm not the only editor to have pointed this out. I can't see any rational grounds for refusing to recognise the clear difference between these terms any longer. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting hairs perhaps... Common sense says that leaking heat is waste heat, seems quite simple to me. But, we have specific sources now giving the two terms specific meanings defined for the specific uses of the researchers for those specific studies ... etc. And no, the specific heat loss from your roof is not likely to be sourced as anything in a published paper. Hence the conflict: common sense vs. peer reviewed studies, aw well.

The solution - cite the studies in separate sections of the article. Whether the article remains here or is renamed will await consensus following further development of the subjects or subsubjects covered. Write the article then discuss renaming and or splitting. Vsmith (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no hurry - the fate of the universe does not hang on this article. Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO common sense and WP:RS agree entirely - waste heat is heat you don't want. Waste heat is always anthropogenic, not so the other way round. So, if there's only one article, it's AH. Similar to if you had an article on lizard, and redirected animal into it - just doesn't make any sense. AH should therefore be restored immediately. You can then incorporate WH if you like. (I'd strongly advise keeping them separate, as they're about different subjects, one engineering, the other environmental) I'd rather someone else does the restore on AH, as my edits seem to be reverted on point of principle at the moment. In response to your second point, there is a hurry here, because the current article is complete rubbish from about the third word in - confusing two different terms. It's a total embarrassment to WP, not least because of the excruciating process: Despite me and Boris pointing out for days that the article is fundamentally incorrect (and proper process not having been followed) I've had to deal with endless reverts as I try and get it fixed. (Plus of course the usual character assassination, but that barely merits a mention these days). Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion and sources above clearly indicate the need to distinguish between AH and WH (regardless of whether there are 2 articles). Please will editors stop reverting edits that explain this difference. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add that CO2 laser treatments of genital warts is not only anthropogenic heat, but does not contribute significantly to GW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.140.138 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a waste! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.140.138 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's waste heat or not depends on whether the effect is thermal or not. Anyone got a RS for that :-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new section

I added a section on animals. Clearly waste, clearly not AH Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zomg - are you serious about this??? Got a reference? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is discussed in detail at thermoregulation. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those unaware of the existence of metabolic heat, or mystified by its regulation by sweating, etc, I have as requested added a reference. I suggest only a very small proportion of readers will need evidence that animals sometimes get too hot. Now, we do appear to have a WP:RS to demonstrate that WH is not always AH - unless of course anyone doesn't believe that non-human animals also get too hot. (not that I'm suggesting that stance would be petty or anything)Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref is about human heat regulation and therefore further evidence for the merger of AH here. Vsmith (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't your dog sweat? :-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AH merge

I merged in AH, making clear that there are subtle and important differences between the two concepts. I am leaving this message not to gripe or whinge, but in the hope that future generations will unearth it and be aware that, with further work, due respect for consensus and process (and doubtless some shouting), the AH section could perhaps one day be considered suitable to live independently once again. As a precaution, I have ritually flagellated myself for making this comment, so please feel no compulsion to invite me to do so again. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the two articles. You whined about it on the talk page, but nobody agreed with you. So you threw a hissy fit and went crying to momma. Momma didn't give you the answer you wanted, so now you claim it was your idea all along. Nice try rewriting your childish behavior, but that ain't gonna fly. Get your facts straight. -Atmoz (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphic Heat

Moved here from Help talk:Reverting. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any such form of heat created by humans that is not waste heat? If so, then why is "anthropomorphic heat" a subheading under "waste heat," and not the reverse?

Anthropomorphic Heat, defined by the American Meteorological Society, should be it's own page; "Waste Heat" should be a sub-heading.

Back in 2009, I created the Anthropomorphic Heat page (and spent a lot of time on it, including the drawing which is not being properly credited to me). My page got hijacked and merged here by the moderator controlling this page at the time. Ultimately, I got banned for arguing with it about this, and it became a subject for a vandalism dispute because that was the moderators only recourse. I gave up.

It's interesting to revisit this page, it's still backwards because cooking a meal, or heating an apartment, with HEAT is not "Waste Heat." Unless every single form of heat created by humans is waste.

I recommend renaming this page and recreating the Anthropomophic Heat page; and making the necessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.137.64 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Waste heat. 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) 06:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]