Heat pump latest government offers

[Onoff]

On 03/11/2021 at 11:03, SteamyTea said:

So faith healers, homeopathic and reiki practitioners are scientists.

 

Don't forget reflexologists! 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Don't forget reflexologists! 

Just draw a picture of a person on the foot.  The big toe is the head, heel is the feet.

Then claim that bruising the tendons is 'breaking down the crystals'.

 

Still, I bedded a blonde by massaging her feet on a first date.

[Dave Jones]

12 hours ago, saveasteading said:

it was beyond my understanding.

 

 

that's ok there are quite a lot of people who believe in a magic man in the sky also.

[Onoff]

5 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

 

that's ok there are quite a lot of people who believe in a magic man in the sky also.

 

Do you mean aliens? 

[SteamyTea]

32 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

 

that's ok there are quite a lot of people who believe in a magic man in the sky also.

That is a bit sexiest, there are female gods as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_goddesses

 

[Onoff]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

That is a bit sexiest, there are female gods as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_goddesses

 

 

Like Nigella?

[Nickfromwales]

2 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Like Nigella?

?

[ToughButterCup]

14 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Well don't, because it is a misleading description....

 

But it's the most common description isn't it? And wrong. 

There - in one easy to read post - is a powerful illustration of why many people feel science is too hard   and so disengage.. 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

There - in one easy to read post - is a powerful illustration of why many people feel science is too hard   and so disengage.. 

But it is not a scientific description, it is a description said by lay people, to lay people.

And wrong.

 

Here is the Scientific description.

 

PV/T = C

 

where:

P = Pressure

V = Volume

T = Temperature in kelvin

C = A Constant.

 

The scientific description is shorter, easier to say and more correct.

Why complicate things.

[joe90]

14 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Well don't, because it is a misleading description.

It works just like a fridge, except the cold part is 'the outside' and the warm part 'is the back'.

But a fridge working in reverse would heat the inside and cool the outside ?. (It’s an explanation I use and people understand it ).

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, joe90 said:

But a fridge working in reverse would heat the inside and cool the outside

If you stick a fridge, freezer, A/C unit in a room, plug it in, switch it on, it will heat the room.  It cannot cool the room.

So the 'running in reverse' is just wrong.  If you replumbed it so the cold part was outside the fridge, and the hot part was inside the fridge, it would still heat the room.

What a HP does is draw on an secondary energy source, in the case of an ASHP, external air, a GSHP on moisture in the ground.

Then, though the magic of science, or science as I prefer to call it, it captures the higher energy molecules and uses that energy.

James Clerk Maxwell had a Daemon opening and closing a door between two compartments in a box.  The Daemon did not use any extra energy.  When it saw a fast moving, and therefore high energy, particle heading towards the door, it opened it and let it through, if it saw a slow moving particle traveling in the opposite direction, it let that though as well.

This had the effect of increasing the temperature on one side, and reducing it on the other.  This was a thought experiment to show the limitation of Second Law of Thermodynamics.

No one has shown it to work at the 100% efficiency level because of entropy.

Now this is all getting quite complicated and hard to explain.

So just use PV/T=C and explain it with a bicycle pump, or compressor.  As you compress the gas it gets hotter, as you release that compressed gas it gets cooler.

[ProDave]

41 minutes ago, joe90 said:

But a fridge working in reverse would heat the inside and cool the outside ?. (It’s an explanation I use and people understand it ).

I agree.  Think of it as you have "reversed" the position of the hot bit and the cold bit, not reversed the physics that operates it, then it makes sense to most people.

 

And most people understand you put the hot bit inside the house and the cold bit goes outside the house.  Then it does heat the house.

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

But it is not a scientific description, it is a description said by lay people, to lay people.

And wrong

....

The scientific description is shorter, easier to say and more correct.

...

 

That explanation avoids one  key issue:  everyone has a slightly different learning style or - better put - set of leaning styles  . Thank God.

 

One person's '... shorter, easier to say and more correct ... ' is White Noise to others. As is - to a non-chippy -  a bird's mouth , or - to a non-plumber - a half inch iron, or MoT1 to anyone who hasn't had to bother laying a foundation. And as for Thermal Mass......

 

Science needs to learn to communicate its content better to the general public.  Thank God some people realised that some time ago

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

That explanation avoids one  key issue:  everyone has a slightly different learning style or - better put - set of leaning styles

But it is only using tools and language learnt by 12 to 14 year olds at school. The Learning Style (mine is auditory) has little, if anything  to do with it at this level.

Claiming it does, is just accepting that failure get a point across is acceptable.

"Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" Volta.

 

[joe90]

25 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

And as for Thermal Mass......

Go and sit on the naughty step.

[SimonD]

48 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

Science needs to learn to communicate its content better to the general public.

 

Indeed it does, but

 

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

The scientific description is shorter, easier to say and more correct.

Why complicate things.

 

seems to me to presume that science isn't messy, full of complexity, and shrouded in various scales of grey, particularly at the forefront of knowledge.

 

I do think there's a limit to how accessible you can make some parts of science without dumbing it down to descriptions like a fridge in reverse that make the general public more comfortable in their understanding but make a scientist shudder...

 

59 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

One person's '... shorter, easier to say and more correct ... ' is White Noise to others.

 

Yup, a vast number of people really don't want to look at an equation as it usually means they also need to know what the components parts are of that equation - pandora's box.

[ProDave]

Re the scientific explanation.

 

It makes me cringe when someone tries to explain heat pumps by talking about compressing gasses and evaporation etc.  While he is technically correct, as in the joke thread above, most people will simply not understand.  Why can't they just say something like "it extracts some heat from the air by cooling the air a bit, and puts that heat into your house"  Most people would understand that.

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, SimonD said:

2 hours ago, ToughButterCup said:

Science needs to learn to communicate its content better to the general public.

 

Indeed it does, but

But how often does @ToughButterCup go out and buy apopularr science book?

1 hour ago, SimonD said:

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

The scientific description is shorter, easier to say and more correct.

Why complicate things.

 

seems to me to presume that science isn't messy, full of complexity, and shrouded in various scales of grey, particularly at the forefront of knowledge.

That is because the liberal arts who run publishing and media insist 'on a narrative'.

It has made the whole presentation messy and complicated.  As I said earlier, most science uses pre-GCSE levels.

1 hour ago, SimonD said:

2 hours ago, ToughButterCup said:

One person's '... shorter, easier to say and more correct ... ' is White Noise to others.

 

Yup, a vast number of people really don't want to look at an equation as it usually means they also need to know what the components parts are of that equation - pandora's box.

That is the fault of our education system that rewards the wrong things.  Education has not been dumbed down, just that different things are assessed these days.

Also, mathematics is not science.  It is just the language used.  So claiming that equations puts people off, should be liked to people disliking red wine and cheese 'because it can be French'.

 

Richard Feynman was asked to explain, in 3 minutes, what was involved in him being awarded a Noble Prize.

"If I could explain it is 3 minutes, it would not be worth a Noble" was his reply.

 

Worth spending 1/718,812 of your life watching this.

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by SteamyTea

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

But it is only using tools and language learnt by 12 to 14 year olds at school.

 

No. 

I am very suprised you wrote that sentence.

 

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

...The Learning Style (mine is auditory) has little, if anything  to do with it at this level....

 

Shocked at the one above.....

 

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

...

Claiming it does, is just accepting that failure get a point across is acceptable.

...

 

And stunned at this one.

 

Suprised because of the assumptions made about 12 to 14 year olds, shocked because of your failure to understand that Learning Style underpins every exchange of information , and stunned  because of the logical fallacy embedded in the final statement.

[SteamyTea]

12 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

But it is only using tools and language learnt by 12 to 14 year olds at school.

 

No. 

I am very suprised you wrote that sentence.

Why are you surprised, at undergrad level that is all you need initially.  If a 12 year old has not learnt to add, subtract, multiply and divide, then that is a worse scandal than the Post Office locking up people.

12 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

...The Learning Style (mine is auditory) has little, if anything  to do with it at this level....

 

Shocked at the one above.....

Why, has it never occurred to you why I don't have telly.

Sometimes people just have to remember facts, like BIDMAS. You cannot pass English Language courses with text speak, even though they impart knowledge and understanding.

12 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

...

Claiming it does, is just accepting that failure get a point across is acceptable.

...

 

And stunned at this one.

Why, if you teach, as we both have, we should go home distraught that we have failed, not accept it.

 

 

  

12 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

logical fallacy

You do like using that, but is just a distraction and an irrelevance.

Go back to my Volta quote.

Edited November 22, 2021 by SteamyTea

[ToughButterCup]

@SteamyTea lets agree to disagree. I don't want to annoy you any more than I have done.

[Marvin]

1 hour ago, SimonD said:

Yup, a vast number of people really don't want to look at an equation as it usually means they also need to know what the components parts are of that equation - Pandora's box.

 

Its a mathematics thing!  You don't learn it you can't use it!

 

The two most important subjects to be learnt to a good level: Communication and mathematics. And the other one I recommend is Yard Sticks - the ability to stand back and view the probable outcome. 

[markc]

Now now you two, play nice 

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

@SteamyTea lets agree to disagree. I don't want to annoy you any more than I have done.

Not annoyed at all.

Just don't think it is appropriate to apply scientific methods to the arts and then claim it as 'fact'.

 

[ToughButterCup]

43 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

...

  You do like using that, (Logical Fallacy)  but [it] is just a distraction and an irrelevance.

...

 

So it's OK to present fallacious argument ?