I like this "how does X work actually?" Title more than the heat pump pun. Those type of absurd titles can be enticing, but not when I know the answer off the top of my head.
In Norway people are switching to heat system which uses heat from underground and also use the same system for cooling in summer. All of this is powered by renewable electricity. This switch picked up pace when energy prices went too high during last few years. Most important is using good insulation for the houses/ buildings!
Economies of scale are one thing of how a larger machinery is more efficient while a smaller cooling unit such as a blanket filled with bromine connected to both of a bed's headboards or footboards of a Trippler liquefier column to have a cooling reverse of a "Kang" or "Kans" for others. Stephen Boltzmann Equation combined with Cube Square Law means smaller objects underheat while larger objects overheat so a circuit board has a flange for a radiator heat exchanger while an off world space station has liquid droplets sprayed between booms.
if you transfer the heat from air conditioning underground instead of into the atmosphere, doesnt that mean it would have less impact to global warming? and you can use the heat stored underground for the heat pump in the winter as a sort of heat bank
when i first learned how AC works in College, I was blown away. lol But seriously, its such an elegant design that can change one's lifestyle. so simple, yet so good. car ac and home ac, as well refrigerators, all work similarly, but with a few differences and different refrigerants according to the application.
AC system used for cooling only , the same equipment with reverse valve make it works for heating and cooling which named "heat pump" which the video explains. the direction of refrigerant is changed with the reverse valve to make it works for heating.
The working principle between Condenser and evaporator is changing.Condeser is responsible for heat absorption from the House and the evaporator (copper coils from outside unit)to cool the heated refrigerant and turn it back to liquid,so during is happening the opposite
My main gripe with the explanation is the explanation of efficiency. It isn't necessarily a heat generator as it is a heat mover: it takes one unit of heat, moves some heat with it to a desired location, and expels the heat it needed to do this in the process of doing it. This is still excellent, but left some questions with regards to the thermodynamics issue. If we have a system with 100% efficiency, it can plug itself into itself to power itself. Let's try to remove it from its intended use. Say I put one of these bad boys in a position to heat up a bunch of water that'll move a turbine that'll transmit the heat as power (oversimplified). If the heat pump takes one unit of heat and "generates" a few more units of heat, this can feed back into itself and break rule 1. If what it does is instead use one heat to pump in heat from an outside reference point, that solves the problem because we've expanded the system. This is why wind turbines aren't perpetual motion machines, they rely on "heat" in the world to move air to spin their turbines so that they can transmit the heat into power. Will this be a reliable way to make power theoretically? Iunno I'm not an energy engineer. It'll require an initial investment of power that might yield multiplicatively more power, but there's still a lot of potential losses in the system that reduce potential output and a *lot* of upfront investments that defeat the whole point of the machine - we have easier ways of to spin a turbine - so I'm keeping my chips elsewhere.
There's some nuance to this discussion, but here is the basic idea: for *MOST* of the US, it simply isn't practical. Heat pumps (that is: reversing your AC system to provide heat in the Winter), require a climate that doesn't go much below 35-40 degF. So that's only the very Southern part of the US. It doesn't even cover all of Georgia. Once temps go below that 35 degF threshold, you might still mathematically be exchanging heat in the system, but not enough to actually warm a house. And the colder it gets, the less efficient it is, the more you need an auxiliary heat source. The claim in this video that it's "500% efficient" might be how the math works out, but no one cares what they equation says when their house is 58 degF in the Winter. They just want it warm. They're claiming this is done "regularly" in places like Norway, so if that's true, then they must be using a different refrigerant that what is commonly used in the US. It's physics, not magic. The common R's used here in US will not reject heat in freezing temps. That's just the physics of it. You will need an aux heater.
@@TheNudeBrewer There's a fairly straightforward solution, which is burrying the heat source. Which yes, does expand the costs a bit, and isn't practical in inner cities, but can definitely be done in any standalone house.
Using 90% vs 500% efficiency wasn't the best worded in my opinion. I think the word choice would mislead folks unfamiliar with the term efficiency to treat the figure as "500% energy efficient" when really it should say "500% efficient at transferring heat" which further aligns with your clarification near the end of the video. Or honestly just removing the word "efficiency" and just say "heat" or "hot air transferring" . The efficiency of energy transfer in a closed system is at most 100% and I know you further explained what you meant by 500% efficiency, it still feels weird to start off with it.
Yeah but a heat pump isn't exactly a closed system, is it? So it can easily reach efficeincies of over 100% without breaking any rules of thermodynamics.
1:09 This should definitely be said as a disclaimer on the video. It is incredibly misleading to say heat pumps have 500% "efficiency" (should be COP) when by definition thermodynamic efficiency is less than 100% (and heat pumps don't even operate with a Carnot cycle!).
Up fronts costs are still damning, my family's old gas water heater broke end of last year. We wanted to get a more environment-friendly one but the cost to upgrade to a higher voltage electrical system and the fact that electricity is still more expensive than gas as an energy source made us choose the old route. Incentives are there but not where they need to be financially speaking.
And also, some technicians don't give a damn about working with refrigiants. Even though they know the effects it has on our climate and learn how to calculate GWP-values they still sometimes just release these gasses into our atmosphere. And I'm talking about professionals here.
No that is categorically not the first law of thermodynamics. Just because energy is conserved (which it isn't perfectly in atomic fission and fusion reactions) does not mean that it isn't lost. One unit into a toaster does not result in an equal amount of energy to the toast or pop tart.
My MIT colleagues and I share an interest on how quantum mechanics such as nuclear atomic reactions and cryogenics are a ray of hope against thermodynamic gloom and doom.
Heat pumps of geothermal are not new since ancient civilizations had water flowing over walls and even had water wheel turned fans to pump cold air from caves.
That's exactly what I was wondering! I got confused by how the title of the video in channel says that but then switched to "how does air conditioner actually work" when you open the video, it had me thinking that I accidentally watched a different video and had to click on this multiple times before noticing that they are in fact same video...mind boggling
Thank you for (at least very briefly) mentioning in-ground heat pumps. THESE are the real wave of the future for this. Much more efficient all year round due to the extremely consistent ground temps even a foot or two below the surface. The only real draw back to heat pumps is how poorly they perform in extreme hot or cold - but this is all solved with in ground systems.
Why convert a bunch of electric or chemical energy into thermal energy, when you can convert a little electric energy into kinetic energy to move a bunch of energy that's already in thermal form? (rhetorical, just using science terms to describe the difference between furnaces and heat pumps)
Dude independent of what system it is AC , a fridge our heat pump. They all have to have this 4 things: 1 Compressor 2 expansion valve 3 condensator 4 and evaporator. Plus the fluid that makes the heat exchanges possible.
Heat Loss: Some of the heat generated by burning gas escapes through the flue or chimney instead of heating the space. Incomplete Combustion: If the gas doesn't burn completely, some of the energy in the fuel isn't released. This can happen if the heater isn't maintained properly or if it's not operating under ideal conditions. Radiant Loss: Some heat is lost through the walls of the heater itself. This means heat radiates into areas where it's not needed, like into the basement or outside through poorly insulated walls. Standby Loss: When the heater is not actively heating, it still loses some heat to its surroundings. This is called standby loss, which occurs because the heater maintains a pilot light or keeps water warm in a tank.
In the video you made it seem to me like the compressor is inside and piston outside. Piston in video is after the coil but is at the beginning of Evap coil.
Without subsidies, installing heat pumps is cost prohibitive. Even with subsidies, well off people are the mostly the main beneficiaries. Installing a heat pump is only a small part of the equation. The transition won't happen without a middle ground. Otherwise, people will be priced out. Same goes for EVs, solar and battery storage.
It depends on the location too. Heat pumps are great in warmer climates, and not so great where it snows half the year. While switching existing units to heat pumps is costly, new constructions opting to install heat pumps instead of traditional AC would be the way to go.
Debate me on this one... there is a middle ground solution: Nuclear Power. most renewable such as Solar PV and Wind aren't reliable.. so until we can manage energy storage proficiently, distribute energy efficiently and control waste effectively, we should use nuclear power to generate electricity
Can someone explain wth a heat pump is? And why is it being compared to ACs? Her explanation for a "heat pump" is 100% the dame principle of an old window AC, so what gives?
Terrible script. Efficiency discussions of heat pumps and comparing it to fossil fuels is misleading or confuses people(unless that is the intention). Efficiency of heat pumps are only comparable to electric heaters that are 100% efficient not to fossil fuels. Then again, it should not be used as comparison as heat pumps will just exceed 100% easily. C.O.P. or coefficient of performance is a better term to use for explainers. Stress also that heat pumps basically absorbs, moves, release heat-no magic that multiplies its heat or energy. Additionally, heat pumps not only the best solution. Radiant heaters can also be as effective (upfront and operational cost) if you don't have to heat a whole room.
1:09 This should definitely be said as a disclaimer on the video. It is incredibly misleading to say heat pumps have 500% "efficiency" (should be COP) when by definition thermodynamic efficiency is less than 100% (and heat pumps don't even operate with a Carnot cycle!).
The problem with heat pumps is they use vastly more electricity than buring some heat source. When they reach the floor of their capabilities they they are usung resistive heat to back up the heat pump. All this complexity and power usage makes fuel based heating simpler to maintain and use leas electricity. I know there is CO2 output but hey, the planet has never been greener. Heat pumps only make sense to replace resistive heat. In that case you are using vastly less electricity.
A heater burns fuel to create new heat from the energy locked up in the fuel. A heat pump just collects and moves existing heat from one place to another.
90% efficiency vs 500%? What... what even is being compared. What exactly is "efficiency" supposed to mean here. I would've assumed it meant the efficiency of the conversion from energy to heat, but that obviously can't be right. So what is it?
the 500% efficiency is measure in same amount of power and getting heat to where you want heat and work can both be measured in quantity of joules, their sum is conserved in system a resistor turn 1J of work into 1J of heat a heat pump move (some heat) from intake, spending (1J of work), and (1J + some joule) of heat arrives at exhaust there is a cap about how much heat can be moved for a system of Hot side with temperature H, Cold side with temperature C, and temperature Delta D = (H-C) (temperature are measured in kelvin) a perfect heat pump can move (H/D) joule of heat to hot side with 1J of work for H = 300K and C = 299K, the ratio of H/D is crazy 300x which means it only takes 1J of work to pull 299J of heat from cold , and 300J arrive at hot side (but the 1 degree delta is unrealistic, so the ratio is much smaller in actual use case) we don't really know the 500% efficiency claim is based on same amount of electrical power or same amount of fuel, both are possible for electrical power, heat pump will always be more than 100% efficient when measure in (exhaust heat/power consumption) for fuel cost, the heat to electricity conversion rate needs to be take into account (30% i suppose) heat pump will be more efficient when delta is small, and burning fuel directly will be more efficient when delta is large
PSA: This is why you should keep air vents clean for your refrigerator and air conditioning system. The components will have to work harder and will wear out faster if they struggle to circulate air.
I was fortunate to be born into a pretty well off family. My father uses most of the extra money we have to make our family more green. We got solar panels installed just like a year ago (well we did the paperwork more like 2 years ago but the process is incredibly slow and drowned in paperwork). We also got an electric boiler installed so that we use up as much of the solar power. And also whenever something breaks we buy an electric version of it. We are considering buying a EV and also considered a heatpump. I do realise that on the individual scale this will mean nothing but more and more of our neighbours are getting solar panels, heatpumps and such. And that gives me just glimpse of hope that if everyone who has the money will go green we may at least offset the emissions enough so that the ones who don’t have enough money to make the switch can keep using fossil for a bit longer.(Also idk why so little people talk about insulation when it comes to going green. Heating or cooling a poorly insulated building is like pumping water out of a sinking ship instead of patching the holes.)
Hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs) are no longer legal to use in the US. As a matter of fact we are currently switching to R-454b, which has a much lower Global Warming Potential (GWP)
I am currently considering installing a heat pump over an AC but I have an economic problem. It seems at the time of this comment, running a heat pump on electricity is more expensive then using a gas furnace in the winter.
It called HEAT PUMP because it pumps heat from low thermodynamic level to high thermodynamic level. Buy the way 1 - Heat pumps and Chillers are semantic of the same machine. By the way 2 - Kitchen Refrigerator works on the same principals... WOW
Outstanding information,with world crisis,rising inflation and economic instability due to poor governance, consider digital assets as a means to attain financial freedom.
Building wealth involves good habits and risks like putting money into solid investments like digital currencies,having a good financial manager is what people tend to shy away from,and it keeps hunting them in the near future after many losses, be disciplined and get certified manager, I pray that anyone reading this will be successful!!!
Americans: "Did you know there's this wonderous new technology called a 'heat pump'?" The Rest of the World: "You mean a reverse-cycle air conditioner? We've had those for decades."
As soon as one comes back from west of a continental divide hot humid air feels like a brick wall to consider how much heat is trapped by humid air able to hinder pressure versus volume efficiencies of fuels to heat to work.
You have made a classic false statement about heat pump "efficiency". NOTHING is more than 100% efficient; that is a second law of thermodynamics impossibility. Heat pump efficiency is defined by the THERMAL (heat) output (kW thermal) divided by the ELECTRICAL power input (kW electrical) to move the heat from one location to another. Thermal kW and electric kW are not equivalent; hence, your misnomered and misleading "efficiency" greater 100. This ratio is known as the Coefficient of Performance (COP). A good COP is considered to be between 3 and 5; that is, 3 to 5 units of heat output for every 1 unit of electrical input.
If you think you just broke the code that would allow us to get infinite energy, then let me burst your bubble, because you need to understand 2 key concepts: 1: A heat pump's efficiency decreases the greater the temperature difference is between the source and the place you want to heat. A heat pump that is marketed as 500% efficient can drop down to say 200% if the temperature difference is 60 degrees Kelvin. 2: A Stirling engine's efficiency decreases the lower the temperature difference is between the two temperatures. When a Stirling engine is advertised as being 30% efficient, it usually refers to a temperature difference of at least 100 degrees Kelvin And there you have it: If you want your stirling engine to be 30% efficient you need to increase the temperature difference so much that your heat pump becomes too ineffective, and if you want your heat pump to reach 500% efficiency than you must have such a low temeprature difference that your stirling engine will barely have a handful of percentage points of efficiency. In other words, it won't work.
@@samcertified7178 But as a matter of fact, maybe a stirling engine coupled to a heat pump could be used to store energy from renewables. It could have some applications there if we bild efficient enough machines. However they won't go over 100% efficiency, obviously.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Hats off for Kevin Herrmann and his team for the animation in this video, its gorgeous!
It truly is beautiful
I like this "how does X work actually?" Title more than the heat pump pun. Those type of absurd titles can be enticing, but not when I know the answer off the top of my head.
What was the original absurd title?
@@iandrsaurri625something like "how does heat pump pumps"
@@iandrsaurri625 The future of air conditioners is heat?
I think
😂
Why does it need “actually” though, it’s just a weasel word
In Norway people are switching to heat system which uses heat from underground and also use the same system for cooling in summer. All of this is powered by renewable electricity. This switch picked up pace when energy prices went too high during last few years.
Most important is using good insulation for the houses/ buildings!
And now add solar panels and wind turbines with battery banks and you've got a near 100% fossil fuel free system! :)
Economies of scale are one thing of how a larger machinery is more efficient while a smaller cooling unit such as a blanket filled with bromine connected to both of a bed's headboards or footboards of a Trippler liquefier column to have a cooling reverse of a "Kang" or "Kans" for others.
Stephen Boltzmann Equation combined with Cube Square Law means smaller objects underheat while larger objects overheat so a circuit board has a flange for a radiator heat exchanger while an off world space station has liquid droplets sprayed between booms.
I feel like cold is more tolerable and livable than constant heat wave. people living out of tropics are lucky.
True. Sunlight and vegetations only causes poverty and infectious diseases.
if you transfer the heat from air conditioning underground instead of into the atmosphere, doesnt that mean it would have less impact to global warming? and you can use the heat stored underground for the heat pump in the winter as a sort of heat bank
when i first learned how AC works in College, I was blown away. lol
But seriously, its such an elegant design that can change one's lifestyle. so simple, yet so good. car ac and home ac, as well refrigerators, all work similarly, but with a few differences and different refrigerants according to the application.
Me listening how to heat a home while my city is at 40 degrees Celsius daily
Haha same here
same here
45 in my city.
48 in my city
51 in mine
"How air conditioners really work - and how they can be used for heating too"
Most, if not all, air conditioners can heat up the air, too.
That's why they're called air _conditioners_ instead of air _coolers._
AC system used for cooling only , the same equipment with reverse valve make it works for heating and cooling which named "heat pump" which the video explains. the direction of refrigerant is changed with the reverse valve to make it works for heating.
Thats why its called conditioner instead of cooler
Heat bows to AC, in silence, it'll sway.
The working principle between Condenser and evaporator is changing.Condeser is responsible for heat absorption from the House and the evaporator (copper coils from outside unit)to cool the heated refrigerant and turn it back to liquid,so during is happening the opposite
Technology connections gang rise up
🫡
Haha. YEAH!
o7
TC was on the heat pump train living that heat pump life like 10 years before all these wannabes. :scarf:
🫡
My main gripe with the explanation is the explanation of efficiency. It isn't necessarily a heat generator as it is a heat mover: it takes one unit of heat, moves some heat with it to a desired location, and expels the heat it needed to do this in the process of doing it. This is still excellent, but left some questions with regards to the thermodynamics issue. If we have a system with 100% efficiency, it can plug itself into itself to power itself.
Let's try to remove it from its intended use. Say I put one of these bad boys in a position to heat up a bunch of water that'll move a turbine that'll transmit the heat as power (oversimplified). If the heat pump takes one unit of heat and "generates" a few more units of heat, this can feed back into itself and break rule 1. If what it does is instead use one heat to pump in heat from an outside reference point, that solves the problem because we've expanded the system. This is why wind turbines aren't perpetual motion machines, they rely on "heat" in the world to move air to spin their turbines so that they can transmit the heat into power. Will this be a reliable way to make power theoretically? Iunno I'm not an energy engineer. It'll require an initial investment of power that might yield multiplicatively more power, but there's still a lot of potential losses in the system that reduce potential output and a *lot* of upfront investments that defeat the whole point of the machine - we have easier ways of to spin a turbine - so I'm keeping my chips elsewhere.
AC *is* heat pump.
Apparently in USA a lot of AC just do not have the reverse capability.
Probably because oil and gas is cheap which isn't the case in europe.
Also, because we need gas to heat up water anyway, we might as well use the same boiler to heat the house up.
There's some nuance to this discussion, but here is the basic idea: for *MOST* of the US, it simply isn't practical.
Heat pumps (that is: reversing your AC system to provide heat in the Winter), require a climate that doesn't go much below 35-40 degF. So that's only the very Southern part of the US. It doesn't even cover all of Georgia. Once temps go below that 35 degF threshold, you might still mathematically be exchanging heat in the system, but not enough to actually warm a house. And the colder it gets, the less efficient it is, the more you need an auxiliary heat source.
The claim in this video that it's "500% efficient" might be how the math works out, but no one cares what they equation says when their house is 58 degF in the Winter. They just want it warm.
They're claiming this is done "regularly" in places like Norway, so if that's true, then they must be using a different refrigerant that what is commonly used in the US. It's physics, not magic. The common R's used here in US will not reject heat in freezing temps. That's just the physics of it. You will need an aux heater.
@@TheNudeBrewer There's a fairly straightforward solution, which is burrying the heat source. Which yes, does expand the costs a bit, and isn't practical in inner cities, but can definitely be done in any standalone house.
Using 90% vs 500% efficiency wasn't the best worded in my opinion.
I think the word choice would mislead folks unfamiliar with the term efficiency to treat the figure as "500% energy efficient" when really it should say "500% efficient at transferring heat" which further aligns with your clarification near the end of the video. Or honestly just removing the word "efficiency" and just say "heat" or "hot air transferring" .
The efficiency of energy transfer in a closed system is at most 100% and I know you further explained what you meant by 500% efficiency, it still feels weird to start off with it.
I was thinking the same thing. That part made me raise an eyebrow. Great comment.
Yeah but a heat pump isn't exactly a closed system, is it? So it can easily reach efficeincies of over 100% without breaking any rules of thermodynamics.
Yeah, for heat pumps and refrigerators we usually measure the efficiency in the form of "coefficient of performance".
1:09 This should definitely be said as a disclaimer on the video. It is incredibly misleading to say heat pumps have 500% "efficiency" (should be COP) when by definition thermodynamic efficiency is less than 100% (and heat pumps don't even operate with a Carnot cycle!).
Up fronts costs are still damning, my family's old gas water heater broke end of last year. We wanted to get a more environment-friendly one but the cost to upgrade to a higher voltage electrical system and the fact that electricity is still more expensive than gas as an energy source made us choose the old route. Incentives are there but not where they need to be financially speaking.
Daaaamnn! These TED Ed animations are so good.
"seems like magic, but it's just physics"
that's why I've wanted to be a physicist since I was child!
The animation is flawless! 👌
4:30 Just let the wizard have his day once will ya. 😂
3:05 also refrigerants like R22 can deplete the ozone layer.
And also, some technicians don't give a damn about working with refrigiants. Even though they know the effects it has on our climate and learn how to calculate GWP-values they still sometimes just release these gasses into our atmosphere. And I'm talking about professionals here.
No that is categorically not the first law of thermodynamics. Just because energy is conserved (which it isn't perfectly in atomic fission and fusion reactions) does not mean that it isn't lost. One unit into a toaster does not result in an equal amount of energy to the toast or pop tart.
My MIT colleagues and I share an interest on how quantum mechanics such as nuclear atomic reactions and cryogenics are a ray of hope against thermodynamic gloom and doom.
but its true if we ignore the resistance offered by the toaster.
Second law of thermodynamics enters the chat
These heat pumps are also becoming inverter driven as well and some ductless brands can still heat in below freezing weather efficiently
Heat pumps of geothermal are not new since ancient civilizations had water flowing over walls and even had water wheel turned fans to pump cold air from caves.
Cogeneration has limits
Ted keeps on educating us 👍
Try "Just Have A Think"
Who’s ted
Shouldn’t the title be “The future of heat is actually air conditioning”
That's exactly what I was wondering!
I got confused by how the title of the video in channel says that but then switched to "how does air conditioner actually work" when you open the video, it had me thinking that I accidentally watched a different video and had to click on this multiple times before noticing that they are in fact same video...mind boggling
Sounds like a title Vox would use
@@dhruvakgowda9389 i actually got suggested that video after watching this one
Magnificent explanation
Thank you for (at least very briefly) mentioning in-ground heat pumps. THESE are the real wave of the future for this. Much more efficient all year round due to the extremely consistent ground temps even a foot or two below the surface. The only real draw back to heat pumps is how poorly they perform in extreme hot or cold - but this is all solved with in ground systems.
The animation and transitions are so damn smooth!
Why convert a bunch of electric or chemical energy into thermal energy, when you can convert a little electric energy into kinetic energy to move a bunch of energy that's already in thermal form? (rhetorical, just using science terms to describe the difference between furnaces and heat pumps)
Getting to learn new things in our day to day lives, We love you guys,
Really cool illustrations
Keep pumping these videos to keep the heat up on Heat-Pumps 😉
Ah the ol' boomer joke comment.
word play is great
😮
Technology Connections does a great video on this as well
Rothschild ? Didnt anyone else catch that
Yes
Not the same family
Thanks I had an exam tomorrow!
Dude independent of what system it is AC , a fridge our heat pump.
They all have to have this 4 things:
1 Compressor 2 expansion valve 3 condensator 4 and evaporator.
Plus the fluid that makes the heat exchanges possible.
I hope it is NOT an English Grammar exam!
@@dantetre 😂😂
*It's better to be cool than hot.*
You’re both ❤
@@DefinitelyNotAFerret 2nd to you tho
Please answer me. How can a gas heater be less then 100.0% efficient ?
Heat is carried out in the poisonous exhaust
Heat Loss: Some of the heat generated by burning gas escapes through the flue or chimney instead of heating the space.
Incomplete Combustion: If the gas doesn't burn completely, some of the energy in the fuel isn't released. This can happen if the heater isn't maintained properly or if it's not operating under ideal conditions.
Radiant Loss: Some heat is lost through the walls of the heater itself. This means heat radiates into areas where it's not needed, like into the basement or outside through poorly insulated walls.
Standby Loss: When the heater is not actively heating, it still loses some heat to its surroundings. This is called standby loss, which occurs because the heater maintains a pilot light or keeps water warm in a tank.
Thermodynamics is one of the richest fields in Physics!
Currently taking up Thermo 2. And this explains it in summary. Nicee
TIL heat pumps and air conditioners are similar but not the same. Heat pumps can do both cooling and heating, where as ACs can only cool.
I love how nothing was mentionned of the problem of global heating of the outside air by all those units installed.
Come on Ted Talk.
In the video you made it seem to me like the compressor is inside and piston outside. Piston in video is after the coil but is at the beginning of Evap coil.
Soo like a transistor?
Nice video!
I love this artstyle
What’s it called
Infographic style
I literally had a sales person in my house for a quote for one of these as this video was uploaded. 😂
Without subsidies, installing heat pumps is cost prohibitive. Even with subsidies, well off people are the mostly the main beneficiaries. Installing a heat pump is only a small part of the equation. The transition won't happen without a middle ground. Otherwise, people will be priced out. Same goes for EVs, solar and battery storage.
It depends on the location too. Heat pumps are great in warmer climates, and not so great where it snows half the year.
While switching existing units to heat pumps is costly, new constructions opting to install heat pumps instead of traditional AC would be the way to go.
Debate me on this one... there is a middle ground solution: Nuclear Power. most renewable such as Solar PV and Wind aren't reliable.. so until we can manage energy storage proficiently, distribute energy efficiently and control waste effectively, we should use nuclear power to generate electricity
Can someone explain wth a heat pump is? And why is it being compared to ACs? Her explanation for a "heat pump" is 100% the dame principle of an old window AC, so what gives?
I love this channel
Terrible script. Efficiency discussions of heat pumps and comparing it to fossil fuels is misleading or confuses people(unless that is the intention). Efficiency of heat pumps are only comparable to electric heaters that are 100% efficient not to fossil fuels. Then again, it should not be used as comparison as heat pumps will just exceed 100% easily.
C.O.P. or coefficient of performance is a better term to use for explainers. Stress also that heat pumps basically absorbs, moves, release heat-no magic that multiplies its heat or energy.
Additionally, heat pumps not only the best solution. Radiant heaters can also be as effective (upfront and operational cost) if you don't have to heat a whole room.
1:09 This should definitely be said as a disclaimer on the video. It is incredibly misleading to say heat pumps have 500% "efficiency" (should be COP) when by definition thermodynamic efficiency is less than 100% (and heat pumps don't even operate with a Carnot cycle!).
Ah I miss you ANNA!
Excellent animations
Ted Ed didn't have to go so hard with the animations
Is this different from normal ACs already prevalent in tropical countries?
You see that exhaust heat coming out of the back of your AC? Yeah well, turn your AC around, and tadaa, you have a heat pump.
I feel like the carnot cycle and heat pumps are the engineering equivalent of "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell"
"The latent heat of vaporization!"
Those ultra efficient heat pumps are so expensive to buy that it offsets efficiency savings. The basic ones are worth it.
"Industrial Electrochemical Processes" by Kuhn since freon can also be produced by photo chemistry so please do not censor.
The problem with heat pumps is they use vastly more electricity than buring some heat source. When they reach the floor of their capabilities they they are usung resistive heat to back up the heat pump. All this complexity and power usage makes fuel based heating simpler to maintain and use leas electricity. I know there is CO2 output but hey, the planet has never been greener.
Heat pumps only make sense to replace resistive heat. In that case you are using vastly less electricity.
Looked like a cool infotainment video till I read Rothschild 💀
yeah, the Rothschild have a bad history and wierd rumors
Why is that ? I don't get it.
Great, informative video!
Shoutout to all my hvac techs
A heater burns fuel to create new heat from the energy locked up in the fuel.
A heat pump just collects and moves existing heat from one place to another.
90% efficiency vs 500%? What... what even is being compared. What exactly is "efficiency" supposed to mean here. I would've assumed it meant the efficiency of the conversion from energy to heat, but that obviously can't be right. So what is it?
the 500% efficiency is measure in same amount of power and getting heat to where you want
heat and work can both be measured in quantity of joules, their sum is conserved in system
a resistor turn 1J of work into 1J of heat
a heat pump move (some heat) from intake, spending (1J of work), and (1J + some joule) of heat arrives at exhaust
there is a cap about how much heat can be moved
for a system of Hot side with temperature H, Cold side with temperature C, and temperature Delta D = (H-C) (temperature are measured in kelvin)
a perfect heat pump can move (H/D) joule of heat to hot side with 1J of work
for H = 300K and C = 299K, the ratio of H/D is crazy 300x
which means it only takes 1J of work to pull 299J of heat from cold , and 300J arrive at hot side
(but the 1 degree delta is unrealistic, so the ratio is much smaller in actual use case)
we don't really know the 500% efficiency claim is based on same amount of electrical power or same amount of fuel, both are possible
for electrical power, heat pump will always be more than 100% efficient when measure in (exhaust heat/power consumption)
for fuel cost, the heat to electricity conversion rate needs to be take into account (30% i suppose)
heat pump will be more efficient when delta is small, and burning fuel directly will be more efficient when delta is large
also i agree that video is just repeat the same thing and being empty in context
It is a wonderful tech but not for those places that easily get flooded during rain
Very interesting 👏 👏 👏
Is this logic the same for heat pump dryers? Those seem to be all the rage for new home renos lately.
Truly fascinating and now I understand how my…..kitchen appliances work.
PSA: This is why you should keep air vents clean for your refrigerator and air conditioning system. The components will have to work harder and will wear out faster if they struggle to circulate air.
"Liquid Air" by Sloane and Chemical Engineering" May 1985 on cryogenics so please do not censor,
I was fortunate to be born into a pretty well off family. My father uses most of the extra money we have to make our family more green. We got solar panels installed just like a year ago (well we did the paperwork more like 2 years ago but the process is incredibly slow and drowned in paperwork). We also got an electric boiler installed so that we use up as much of the solar power. And also whenever something breaks we buy an electric version of it. We are considering buying a EV and also considered a heatpump. I do realise that on the individual scale this will mean nothing but more and more of our neighbours are getting solar panels, heatpumps and such. And that gives me just glimpse of hope that if everyone who has the money will go green we may at least offset the emissions enough so that the ones who don’t have enough money to make the switch can keep using fossil for a bit longer.(Also idk why so little people talk about insulation when it comes to going green. Heating or cooling a poorly insulated building is like pumping water out of a sinking ship instead of patching the holes.)
Doesn't ac more or less work the same way...what's the difference between them
A single valve
I believe exactly the same way? Just air cons are 1 way. Heat pumps do both
This animation is stunning
Hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs) are no longer legal to use in the US. As a matter of fact we are currently switching to R-454b, which has a much lower Global Warming Potential (GWP)
How can I make a video like that ??
so do AC with heating function has heat pump or not all of them?
All of them. You are probably from Europe, where every AC have cool and heat mode.
@@siux94 exactly, here we have heat pumps amd Ac as separate things so idk why is both separate things even a thing
"Heatpumps can be 500% efficient"
**laughs in New Hampshire winter**
I understand some restrictions due to climate change but the freon today is way overpriced and don’t work as well as it did years ago….
Seems like magic but it's physics.
❤
Just take out and install your AC outside-in during the winter & inside-out in the summer. 🤷🏼♂️
Thermoacoustic, magnetocaloric, & Ranque's vortex tube to refrigerate so please do not censor.
I am currently considering installing a heat pump over an AC but I have an economic problem. It seems at the time of this comment, running a heat pump on electricity is more expensive then using a gas furnace in the winter.
Gas heat is more satisfying than heat pump heat. You can’t change my mind.
Rothchild 😶
BY CIRCULATING AIR - a wise guy quote lol
Can you tell us how a cpu/ processor work in a computer
I am drifting deep.
It called HEAT PUMP because it pumps heat from low thermodynamic level to high thermodynamic level.
Buy the way 1 - Heat pumps and Chillers are semantic of the same machine.
By the way 2 - Kitchen Refrigerator works on the same principals... WOW
Yes your fridge is a heat pump
Ann WHO?
Thank you Rothschild
When an American uses heat pump, it is eco friendly? I （SE Asian）got told repeatedly to use less A/C, because it worsens climate change.
This doesn’t work for places like Canada or Sweden
Everyone should support massive alternative energy. Down with petrochem, up with anything else.
Outstanding information,with world crisis,rising inflation and economic instability due to poor governance, consider digital assets as a means to attain financial freedom.
Building wealth involves good habits and risks like putting money into solid investments like digital currencies,having a good financial manager is what people tend to shy away from,and it keeps hunting them in the near future after many losses, be disciplined and get certified manager, I pray that anyone reading this will be successful!!!
Thank so much for the advice been seeking means of being successful in the digital market,do you recommend any professional ?
I don’t really do but luckily Anna Dorris Arthur is the best I can recommend so far..
Please how do I reach out to her? I’m in need of her assistance.
+1838
Americans: "Did you know there's this wonderous new technology called a 'heat pump'?"
The Rest of the World: "You mean a reverse-cycle air conditioner? We've had those for decades."
Hey I am subbed to you
Our nation India is burning😢 this summer
It's not even summer yet....
As soon as one comes back from west of a continental divide hot humid air feels like a brick wall to consider how much heat is trapped by humid air able to hinder pressure versus volume efficiencies of fuels to heat to work.
You have made a classic false statement about heat pump "efficiency". NOTHING is more than 100% efficient; that is a second law of thermodynamics impossibility.
Heat pump efficiency is defined by the THERMAL (heat) output (kW thermal) divided by the ELECTRICAL power input (kW electrical) to move the heat from one location to another. Thermal kW and electric kW are not equivalent; hence, your misnomered and misleading "efficiency" greater 100.
This ratio is known as the Coefficient of Performance (COP). A good COP is considered to be between 3 and 5; that is, 3 to 5 units of heat output for every 1 unit of electrical input.
WE LOVE TED TEAM😊
We will be hearing olefins a lot in the future
Love from India🇮🇳💝
They changed the title lmfao
500% efficiency heat pump:
1 joule electric -> 5 joule heat
*30% efficient stirling engine*
5 joule heat -> 1.5 joule electric
If you think you just broke the code that would allow us to get infinite energy, then let me burst your bubble, because you need to understand 2 key concepts:
1: A heat pump's efficiency decreases the greater the temperature difference is between the source and the place you want to heat. A heat pump that is marketed as 500% efficient can drop down to say 200% if the temperature difference is 60 degrees Kelvin.
2: A Stirling engine's efficiency decreases the lower the temperature difference is between the two temperatures. When a Stirling engine is advertised as being 30% efficient, it usually refers to a temperature difference of at least 100 degrees Kelvin
And there you have it: If you want your stirling engine to be 30% efficient you need to increase the temperature difference so much that your heat pump becomes too ineffective, and if you want your heat pump to reach 500% efficiency than you must have such a low temeprature difference that your stirling engine will barely have a handful of percentage points of efficiency.
In other words, it won't work.
@@texanplayer7651 It was in fact a joke. If this worked someone would already be doing it. However the explanation is still pretty good so thanks.
@@samcertified7178 But as a matter of fact, maybe a stirling engine coupled to a heat pump could be used to store energy from renewables. It could have some applications there if we bild efficient enough machines. However they won't go over 100% efficiency, obviously.