How to temporary chill a car with non-working AC.

Save us all some time and simply go **** yourself, asshole.


On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:55:46 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 PJM > wrote:
>
>>>>> No, a material can not contain heat. Heat, as Threeducks said,
>>>>> applies only to thermal energy in transit. From Halliday / Resnick:
>>>>> Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, Wiley 1988: Page 464: "Heat is
>>>>> energy that flows between a system and its environment by virtue of a
>>>>> temperature difference that exists between them"
>
>>>> That definition is bull****. It is wrong.
>
>> >No, that is your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Heat is one way
>> >energy can be transfered from one object to another. For heat transfer
>> >to exist, you need a finite temperature difference between objects.
>
>> I'm too busy to play with the semantics. And that's all it is.
>
>Spazzing on about "semantics" is the mark of an idiot caught with his
>intellectual pants not only down, but torn and full of poo.
>
>But sure, fine, whatever, I'll play: You're right and the entire rest of
>the world is wrong. Here's a cookie. While I've got your omniscient
>attention, perhaps you can share with us your correct definitions of
>"green" and "wet" and "42"? I've been just slavishly adhering to the
>explicitly defined definitions for those terms, just goin' along with the
>rest of the world, but I'm sure you have more accurate definitions, so
>please elucidate!
>
>DS


Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:51:49 -0400, Threeducks
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:55:26 GMT, Randolph > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"James C. Reeves" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Threeducks" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>|
>>>>>| A system does not contain "heat". Heat is simply a method of
>>>>>| transfering energy between the system and it's surroundings.
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought that *any* material with a temperature above "absolute zero" contains
>>>>>"heat".
>>>>
>>>>No, a material can not contain heat. Heat, as Threeducks said, applies
>>>>only to thermal energy in transit. From Halliday / Resnick: Fundamentals
>>>>of Physics, 3rd edition, Wiley 1988:
>>>>
>>>>Page 464: "Heat is energy that flows between a system and its
>>>>environment by virtue of a temperature difference that exists between
>>>>them"
>>>
>>>
>>> That definition is bull****. It is wrong.
>>>
>>> They should correct their book, if it contains such nonsense.
>>
>>Then they must need to correct every text book on thermodynamics ever
>>written.
>
>
> Sounds like they have some work to do ;-)
>
>
>>> By that definition, if you heat a rock to 200 F, and then
>>>place it in 200 F water, the rock no longer contains heat energy at
>>>the moment you submerse it, because none will transfer to the water,
>>>which is already at the same temperature. Once you take it out of the
>>>water, now it suddenly contains heat energy again ???? Nonsense.
>>
>>No, that is your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Heat is one way
>>energy can be transfered from one object to another. For heat transfer
>>to exist, you need a finite temperature difference between objects.
>>
>>The rock never contained "heat" energy. It had an internal energy,
>>which is based on temperature and its heat capacity.
>
>
> I'm too busy to play with the semantics. And that's all it
> is.

No, it's not.

Please explain where the "heat" goes when the working fluid in a
refrigeration cycle is throttled through a valve.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:00:58 -0400, Threeducks
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:51:49 -0400, Threeducks
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:55:26 GMT, Randolph > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"James C. Reeves" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Threeducks" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>|
>>>>>>| A system does not contain "heat". Heat is simply a method of
>>>>>>| transfering energy between the system and it's surroundings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought that *any* material with a temperature above "absolute zero" contains
>>>>>>"heat".
>>>>>
>>>>>No, a material can not contain heat. Heat, as Threeducks said, applies
>>>>>only to thermal energy in transit. From Halliday / Resnick: Fundamentals
>>>>>of Physics, 3rd edition, Wiley 1988:
>>>>>
>>>>>Page 464: "Heat is energy that flows between a system and its
>>>>>environment by virtue of a temperature difference that exists between
>>>>>them"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>7 That definition is bull****. It is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> They should correct their book, if it contains such nonsense.
>>>
>>>Then they must need to correct every text book on thermodynamics ever
>>>written.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like they have some work to do ;-)
>>
>>
>>>> By that definition, if you heat a rock to 200 F, and then
>>>>place it in 200 F water, the rock no longer contains heat energy at
>>>>the moment you submerse it, because none will transfer to the water,
>>>>which is already at the same temperature. Once you take it out of the
>>>>water, now it suddenly contains heat energy again ???? Nonsense.
>>>
>>>No, that is your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Heat is one way
>>>energy can be transfered from one object to another. For heat transfer
>>>to exist, you need a finite temperature difference between objects.
>>>
>>>The rock never contained "heat" energy. It had an internal energy,
>>>which is based on temperature and its heat capacity.
>>
>>
>> I'm too busy to play with the semantics. And that's all it
>> is.
>
>No, it's not.
>
>Please explain where the "heat" goes when the working fluid in a
>refrigeration cycle is throttled through a valve.

New Jersey ?

Or perhaps it is transferred from outside ( warmer ) to inside
( cooler ) the system, through the evaporator, due to the change in
pressure ..... just a wild guess ......

What's being argued here is the sematics of saying 'thermal
energy' vs 'heat energy', and while the former is perhaps more
correct, the later does perfectly well.




Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 wrote:

> Save us all some time and simply go **** yourself, asshole.

Your intellect is a shining beacon, a brilliant burst of light across
the morass of stupidity that is the world. I hope you always wear your
seatbelt and don't smoke cigarettes, for all wisdom and knowledge shall --
alas, lackaday -- die with you.

"Burt Squareman" > wrote in
news:1095912573.CUwJIIJdzU+zN/edNxyAJg@bubbanews:

> The A/C system in an `89 old Honda is completely dead. They
> quoted a price of about $1500 to fix but the car's worth as much as
> that. I like to put in a 700 watt 117V portable or standard home air
> conditioner in the trunk but worry it may drain the battery. Is it
> possible to make a difference by continuously pumping chilled
> waters (filled with icicles) into the entire liquid line (tube) that runs
> thru the evaporator?

A 700W home air conditioner? Haha!
The car has outlived its usefulness if it isn't worth fixing. Replace it.
Or fix it if you just like the car. Summer will come again next year, you
know. Or you could just go without air conditioning. I recently owned a
Honda Civic with non-existant A/C. How I hated that car (not just because
of no A/C). And yes I live in the south. So long as you don't need to
wear business attire or shuttle people around, it works just fine for short
distances. You can get one of those cheap plastic fans to plug into your
cigarette lighter. You can probably get one with a blue LED these days for
the tuner look.

Rodney

wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:00:58 -0400, Threeducks
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:51:49 -0400, Threeducks
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:55:26 GMT, Randolph > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"James C. Reeves" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Threeducks" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>|
>>>>>>>| A system does not contain "heat". Heat is simply a method of
>>>>>>>| transfering energy between the system and it's surroundings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought that *any* material with a temperature above "absolute zero" contains
>>>>>>>"heat".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, a material can not contain heat. Heat, as Threeducks said, applies
>>>>>>only to thermal energy in transit. From Halliday / Resnick: Fundamentals
>>>>>>of Physics, 3rd edition, Wiley 1988:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Page 464: "Heat is energy that flows between a system and its
>>>>>>environment by virtue of a temperature difference that exists between
>>>>>>them"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>7 That definition is bull****. It is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> They should correct their book, if it contains such nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>Then they must need to correct every text book on thermodynamics ever
>>>>written.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like they have some work to do ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> By that definition, if you heat a rock to 200 F, and then
>>>>>place it in 200 F water, the rock no longer contains heat energy at
>>>>>the moment you submerse it, because none will transfer to the water,
>>>>>which is already at the same temperature. Once you take it out of the
>>>>>water, now it suddenly contains heat energy again ???? Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>No, that is your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Heat is one way
>>>>energy can be transfered from one object to another. For heat transfer
>>>>to exist, you need a finite temperature difference between objects.
>>>>
>>>>The rock never contained "heat" energy. It had an internal energy,
>>>>which is based on temperature and its heat capacity.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm too busy to play with the semantics. And that's all it
>>>is.
>>
>>No, it's not.
>>
>>Please explain where the "heat" goes when the working fluid in a
>>refrigeration cycle is throttled through a valve.
>
>
> New Jersey ?
>
> Or perhaps it is transferred from outside ( warmer ) to inside
> ( cooler ) the system, through the evaporator, due to the change in
> pressure ..... just a wild guess ......
>

Nope. There is no heat loss when you pass a fluid through a throttling
expansion, but there is a significant temperature drop. Now it's
becoming clear that you don't really understand how a refrigeration
cycle works.

> What's being argued here is the sematics of saying 'thermal
> energy' vs 'heat energy', and while the former is perhaps more
> correct, the later does perfectly well.

Well, "thermal energy" isn't really correct, either. Internal energy
and enthalpy are the two correct terms used to describe the amount of
energy contained in a fluid.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:06:37 -0600, "motsco_ _" <"motsco_
> wrote:

>Burt Squareman wrote:
>> The A/C system in an `89 old Honda is completely dead. They
>> quoted a price of about $1500 to fix but the car's worth as much as
>> that. I like to put in a 700 watt 117V portable or standard home air
>> conditioner in the trunk but worry it may drain the battery. Is it
>> possible to make a difference by continuously pumping chilled
>> waters (filled with icicles) into the entire liquid line (tube) that runs
>> thru the evaporator?
>>
>> Thanks
>=========================
>
>I have a good air conditioner sitting in the middle of my garage . . . I
>sometimes us it to HEAT the room on a chilly morning. An air conditioner
> generates more HEAT than COLD, if the backside is not vented out a window.

Man, we got some real rocket scientists in here.

I recommend that you do fix the AC if you feel it's a problem..there
are always used units online or at ur local junk shop that can easily
used to replace it..if not just go ahead and drive with ur windows
open hahaha...


dizzy > wrote in message >. ..
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:06:37 -0600, "motsco_ _" <"motsco_
> > wrote:
>
> >Burt Squareman wrote:
> >> The A/C system in an `89 old Honda is completely dead. They
> >> quoted a price of about $1500 to fix but the car's worth as much as
> >> that. I like to put in a 700 watt 117V portable or standard home air
> >> conditioner in the trunk but worry it may drain the battery. Is it
> >> possible to make a difference by continuously pumping chilled
> >> waters (filled with icicles) into the entire liquid line (tube) that runs
> >> thru the evaporator?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >=========================
> >
> >I have a good air conditioner sitting in the middle of my garage . . . I
> >sometimes us it to HEAT the room on a chilly morning. An air conditioner
> > generates more HEAT than COLD, if the backside is not vented out a window.
>
> Man, we got some real rocket scientists in here.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:31:59 GMT, wrote:

> What's being argued here is the sematics of saying 'thermal
>energy' vs 'heat energy', and while the former is perhaps more
>correct, the later does perfectly well.


It's rare that I find myself agreeing with Paul.
But he has a point. While technically incorrect to refer to enthalpy as
"heat", due to teh dynamic nature of heat, it is ridiculous to split hairs
over semantics, as many textbooks use the two terms interchangeably.
Even the 1911 unabridged Webster's dictionary included both definitions for
the term "heat", altough more modern dictionaries seem to have dropped the
former.

One can argue that since heat is *generated*, it has to be moving -- going
somewhere -- therefore, it is a dynamic phenomenon. A change of enthalpy
constitutes heating or cooling. It was pointed out to me, that heat (even
latent heat) can only move across a non-zero temperature gradient [thank you,
Daestrom].

However, the concept of "heat" being synonymous with "enthalpy" is going to
remain in the minds and textbooks of many, rightfully or wrongfully so, for
many tears to come. It's preposterous to go on and on and on about it, when
it is clear that we are are really talking about the same thing.

You are all acting like a bunch of 10-year-olds!

This kind of reminds me of a classic Looney Tunes dialog:

Bugs: I tell you it did!
Sam: Did not!
Bugs: Did, too!
Sam: Did not!
Bugs: Did, too!
Sam: Did not!
Bugs: Did, too!
Sam: Did not!
Bugs: Did, too!
Sam: Did not!
Bugs: Did not!
Sam: Did, too!
Bugs: Ok Doc, if you say so!







--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:58:07 -0400, Threeducks > wrote:

>Nope. There is no heat loss when you pass a fluid through a throttling
>expansion, but there is a significant temperature drop. Now it's
>becoming clear that you don't really understand how a refrigeration
>cycle works.


You mean expansion valves, orifices, tubes, and the like don't cause a
negligible friction loss? :-)

Shame on you! :-)


All joking aside, throttling (metering) does indirectly cause a heat loss of
fluid to air, as it forces condensation of the working fluid (latent heat),
and there is resultant desuperheating and subcooling (sensible heat) involved
as well.


[Now I'm gonna sound ridiculous, to prove a point:]

(well, _two_ points)

1) Without substantial throttling, little useful heat would be pumped,
since there would be no real compression.

2) And since no system is 100% efficient, throttling definitely *does*
cause heat loss.


But a little bit of heat is lost across the metering device, as well as in
the piping, coils, etc. <g>

Do you see where we could go with this? It's ludicrous, after awhile.

Of course Paul does know how refrigeration works.
But he's still a jerk most of the time. :-)



--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info