this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
32 points (100.0% liked)

xkcd

9127 readers
157 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Isn't that a bit backward? Compress in the cooler area, radiate heat, bring it inside and expand, absorb heat, then carry it outside.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If you were trying to cool a room like with an air conditioner, yes. Heat pumps literally work in reverse, bringing heat in more efficiently than any resistive heater. They output more heat energy than they use, as they are moving heat, not generating it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

They're not only for heating though, they can cool as well.

I guess I interpreted the comic backward; they're heating the room not cooling it.

[–] Iron_Lynx 1 points 2 years ago

Counterpoint, the only real difference between a heat pump and an air conditioner is the fact that with the former, you can choose which side is the condenser that gives off heat, and which side is the evaporator that absorbs it. With a basic airco, those sides are fixed. Most cheap aircos are more rudimentary heat pumps.

[–] Dettweiler42 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's what I was thinking. Expansion/absorption happens in the air handler in the house, while compression/radiation happens outside.

For heating, it usually just turns on an electric coil in the air handler.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

They work in reverse too. A heat pump can heat more efficiently than a resistance heater.