Talk:Refrigeration/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Keep it on ice

Haha, toxic chemicals. I think I'll just stick with the icebox, thanks. Why don't we merge refrigeration with refrigerators instead? It seems to make more sense to me. lots of love, the magnificent evvy

21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC...whatever that means)

Cool article

Thanks, Anome. It's a real cool article (brr!)

Ouch. Trekphiler 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Freeze frame

I can see that the article is unfinished. I look forward to when it's frozen.

Patently unclear

The article on James Harrison says that he had a patent for a ether liquid-vapour compression refridgeration system in 1855. This article says 1876 by Karl von Linde. Which is it? Auric The Rad 19:27, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

In it for the long haul

I've seen black inventor Frederick Jones credited with invention of the refrigeration unit for long-haul trucks. Comment? Trekphiler 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)durgesh pandey

Merge of refrigeration and refrigerator

First, the merge tags were added in such as way that the name of the article would be "refrigeration" and has nothing to do with which article is better or more complete. A refrigerator is the device used for refrigeration and there's not a lot about refigeration that does not involve refrigerators. The refrigeration article pretty talks almost exclusively of refrigerators (when I say "refrigerators", I'm referring to all refrigerators, not just home appliances). What do you guys think? -- Kjkolb 17:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What I thought about the two articles was that I expected the refrigeration page to be more about the process, possibly in terms of the science behind it, rather than about usage in refrigerators. I think the best solution would be to transfer all the portions mentioning refrigerators onto the refrigerator page and add more scientific fact to that refrigeration page. To compensate for the link between the two, we can create a short and simple "modern use" section with reference to the refrigerator page.--Jonthecheet 06:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I support Jonthecheet's idea. The Jade Knight 06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge. If motion fails, atleast move it to Unit Of Refrigeration per WP:MOS for Article Names. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I support Jonthecheet's idea in that I want to know how refrigerators actually work and what goes on in one...

Do not merge--Ted-m 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As it is, the merge should go *the other way*. rerigeration is a process completely different from the appliance that is a refrigerator. Refrigeration contains mostly stuf that belogns in refrigerator. Circeus 18:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No Merge - Let the refrigerator as a machine be left to its own article. Let refrigeration as a process be left to itself. It has been suggested that this article be reorganized, and I agree. I am also looking for someplace to link my red word ice making machine from another article and I think I can do it here if there is a little more historical integration and then applications lists with not so many breaks in the article. I would like to undertake organizing this. Refrigerator can be a "see also". Magi Media 04:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Magi Media


(durgesh pandey)

Merge of "Unit of refrigeration"

The article "Unit of refrigeration" had some incorrect information. It was corrected and merged into Vapor-compression refrigeration. The article "Unit of refrigeration" no longer exists as such and it is simply redirected to Vapor-compression refrigeration. Therefore, I removed the merge tag for "Unit of refrigeration" from this article. - mbeychok 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


(durgesh pandey)

This article needs improving

It has too little substantive text and too many links. For example, two of the sections ("Science and Technology" and "Speculative uses of refrigeration") have nothing but links ... no text at all. Another section ("Commerce") is almost the completly lacking anything but links. Also, the section on Thermodynamics of refrigerators is woefully inadequate and has no real discussion of the specific and pertinent thermodynamics that apply. I am therefore tagging this article as being in need of expert attention.- mbeychok 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You were right about the article needing improving. I have done the redact as I said I would and left the technical stuff in from the old article which has techno-nerd appeal. Magi Media 02:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Notes on the Merge

Now we all know that refridgeration is a process that happens IN a refridgerator, so why shouldnt we merge fridge with refridgeration? Kinda makes more sense to me that way, but maby thats just me...Teh Teck Geek 00:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The unsung invention (no merge)

I vote NO

I read that the refrigerator is considered the unsung invention of the 20th century. That much ability to generate clean wholesome chilling and freezing in one compact appliance within the home has changed the patterns and value of home food storage in terms of available family diet and sanitation. The refrigerator article needs to play up that "unsungness." So don't merge Magi Media 02:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Trucks

Refrigerated trucks (or simply refrigerators) are used to transport perishable goods, such as, for instance, frozen foods, fruit and vegetables, and temperature-sensitive chemicals. Most modern refrigerators keep temperature -40...+20 °C and have a maximum payload of around 24 000 kg. gross weight (in Europe). Surprisingly, refrigerated trucks are most wanted in winter, when there is a significant demand to transport chemicals under relatively high (+10...+20 °C) temperature

This sounds a bit confusing to me. I would assume that while it's true that they are most in demand in winter, they way it's written now may be misleading. I'm guessing refridgerated trucks are used far most commonly for transporting food (at low temperatures) then chemicals (at low or high temperatures). However I'm guessing for various food safety and perhaps stricter temperature range requirements, refridgerated trucks are almost always used when food (except for some cases of fruit and vegetables) is being transported however when chemicals are being transport, they are less likely to be used unless the temperature is low (or high) enough for it to be a concern. Therefore, refridgerated trucks are in most demand in winter as they will be used for food and for chemicals whereas in summer they will be used for food but not so much for chemicals. Also this bit on winter needs further clarification in another area. Obviously for places without winter, the issue doesn't arise. But what about for places with a milder winter? Nil Einne 19:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

tdp Please do not merge -- simply two-way link the entries. The concept of refrigeration vs. the implementation of refreigeration (refrigerators) are two distinct elements of knowledge. One is abstract (potential) and ripe with "possibilities" which lead to, when combined with "concepts" from physics, chemistry, and engineering to probabilities and actualities --different machines using refrigeration or refrigerators. --tdp 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Refrigeration Lifespan

I was wondering if anyone knows of any links (in wikipedia or elsewhere) for the refrigeration lifespan of foods. For example, chocolate, fruits & eggs seem to last quite long in the refrigerator (>1 month), whereas bean sprouts & mushrooms cannot last more than 2-3 days. Is there any links on this anywhere on the internet? --Nathaniel 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Refrigeration technologies

Dears,

I wonder if it would be nice to classify all different kinds of refrigeration technologies and list their pros/cons. I just saw some, but there are several more not listed.... all the solid state ones (thermionic, thermelectric, magnetcaloric, electrocaloric, barocaloric, elastocaloric), stirling (thermoacoustic, pulse-tube), etc....

I would love to see a topic like that and am willing to contribute with the knowledge I have... --Grandonia 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, as a separate point on referigeration technologies, shouldn't there be some connection between all these articles on refrigeration and the article on the Joule-Thomson effect. Also, could someone who knows add a comparison of Joule-Thomson coolers with vapour compression coolers. I thought that they were the same thing, but maybe not in view of the phase change involved. Thanks
User:217.206.155.116: Yes, the Joule-Thomson effect (achieved by the expansion of a gas across a throttling device) is used in some types of refrigeration. However, that is quite different from the flash evaporization (which is achieved by the depressuring of a liquid across a throttling device) which is used in vapor-compression refrigeration.
PLEASE sign your talk page messages by ending them with four tildes like this ~~~~. That automatically signs and dates your messages. Also, please use the above + tab to enter a new message. That provides you with a form in which to first enter a Subject and then enter your new message. The form automatically provides subject Headings enters them in the Table of Contents at the page top.
The first responder to someone's new comment should enter the response just beneath the new comment (instead of using the above + tab) and indent the response by starting with a colon like this :. Any second responder, indent further by starting with two colons like this :: and any third responder, start with three colons like this ::: and so forth. If we don't follow these instruction, the result is jumbled mess. Regards, mbeychok 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


(durgesh pandey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.133.102 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I also vote against the merge

I also vote against the merge. The "refrigerator" is a kitchen appliance for home and restaurants. On the other hand, "Refrigeration" is about the how the process of producing refrigeration works and the various industrial methods of implementing refrigeration like Vapor-compression refrigeration, Absorption refrigeration, Gas absorption refrigerator, etc.

The merge tag was placed on this article almost 6 months ago and the votes since then have been:

Thus, 6 "Against" and 3 "For" looks like the "Againsts" definitely have won. Therefore, I am going to be Bold and remove the merge tag. - mbeychok 02:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Definition dejected

I thought my definition of Refrigeration as derived from the Meriam Webster version was adequate enough for an opening: Refrigeration is defined as a process of making or keeping [things] cold or cool, or freezing or chilling (as for food) for preservaton. The process of refrigeration can be characterized as done by either natural or artificial means, by whichever temperature can be lowered by transferring heat away from a space or a substance.

But I must defer, though dejectedly, to a definition made by a proclaimed chemical engineer User:Mbeychok Magi Media 03:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Magi Media, please don't take my revisions as a personal affront. But ".. by whichever temperature can be lowered by transferring heat away .." just simply didn't make any sense. I am positive that part was not in the Meriam Webster dictionary. Also, ".. keeping [things] cold or cool .." wasn't exactly very encyclopedic, was it? Things?? :) <== That's a smile and I hope there are no hard feelings. -mbeychok 04:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah c'mon, Mybechok, you know....things! Shoes, marbles, food, bugs, glasses, automobile tires, food, (I said food)...you know... things! All kinds of things. ITEMS! I should have said items. Magi Media 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Pack it in

I've seen Mike Cudahy credited with introducing refrigeration to the meat packing industry. Comment? Trekphiler 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the "The Montreal Protocol" section content be moved to the Montreal Protocol article?

Although I Wikified and re-formatted the the "Montreal Protocol" section of this Refrigeration article added by User:75.24.212.178, I think most of it really belongs in the Montreal Protocol article. I think it needlessly lengthens this article. It could be briefly mentioned in this article and linked to the Montreal Protocol for those who want more details.

What do others think? - mbeychok 07:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's a very relevant piece of information in regard to the subject and I wouldn't have known about it if it wasn't in here! Sorry. I have a problem with the following terribly horrible incomplete information:
"The Freon patents were initially held by the automotive industry who used it for auto air-conditioning, but the product was far too useful to limit to automotive use. By 1930 Freon was available on the open market."
How did this happen?? What was done to free the use? Were the patents declared null and void, or what was the arrangement? --194.251.240.114 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Would not a brief few sentences and a link to the Montreal Protocol article have led you to the complete article? It seems to me that would have sufficed and would not burden this Refrigeration article needlessly. - mbeychok 00:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Information on the Montreal Protocol or any other political discussion belongs somewhere else. Perhaps in an article entitiled "The Montreal Protocol". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveOak25 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Could editors please refrain from deleting the section until some sort of consensus is reached? Three now four unexplained blankings look like vandalism.--Old Moonraker (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not vandalism. The deleted portion had no information on how mechanical refrigeration works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveOak25 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You need Wikipedia:Consensus before doing something like that. The quote from .114, above: " That's a very relevant piece of information in regard to the subject and I wouldn't have known about it if it wasn't in here " shows that you don't have it yet.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Does the Montreal Protocol not have it's own article? Please explain why it needs to have two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.157.174 (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC) SteveOak25 (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, user SteveOak25, you are missing something: Wikipedia:Etiquette in respect of achieving consensus and respecting the views of other editors. A correct way to deal with the duplication might be as suggested by Mbeychok, above: Have a brief few sentences here with a {{main|Montreal Protocol}} link to the complete article. I don't know why this wasn't followed up at the time. Blanking all of the the material five times without an explanation seems to me to be vandalism. Furthermore, it puts you in violation of the three revert rule. --Old Moonraker (talk)

Page Edit and a few other things

I modified the first section in agreement with the following comment;
"Mechanical work?? In the first line, the statement is that mechanical work is required because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But surely it's just work in general. E.g. the ammonia based fridge uses a heat source and has no moving parts, and even a normal fridge just uses Joule-Kelvin expansion to cool down. Then there's magnetic cooling etc. Grj23 11:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"

Also- I disagree with the merge, and I DO think the Montreal Protocol stuff goes into the Montreal Protocal Wiki.
Finally- I think we should try not to use the word "freon" as it is a trademarked name, but has also been used in the industry to apply to all refrigerants much like the word "coke" is used by some to refer to all carbonated beverages. We should say CFC- based refrigerant, refrigerant, or name the actual type when it is necessary. johntindale 20:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

johntindale, thanks for your edits of the article. I only want to let you know that I made just a very few minor copy edits to improve the grammar/flow of your edits. Regards, - mbeychok 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting two of the "External links" as well as the "clean-up" tag in that section

I deleted the external link Refrigeration World because it was a blog and did not contain any useful content. I also removed the external link The Food Refrigeration and Process Engineering Research Centre because it was simply publicising a university research center.

I then deleted the "clean-up" on the "External links" section because it was no longer warranted after removing the above mentioned two links. - mbeychok 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential references

  • "Climate Control and Refrigeration - History Resources". Retrieved 2007-05-20.
  • "#207 Refrigeration Research Museum (1890 - 1960) - Landmarks". Retrieved 2007-05-20.

Tom Harrison Talk 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Usage of word "vapor" rather than "vapour".

The word has two spellings, namely "vapor" and "vapour". It is my understanding that Wikipedia policy regarding words that have alternative spellings is that the spelling used in the earliest chronological introduction of such words in an article shall be used in that article from then on.

The word "vapor" was first introduced in this article on 11:58, April 11, 2006 when it was added in the then existing "Technology" section as a link to the Vapor-compression refrigeration article. Prior to that time, neither "vapor" or "vapour" had yet appeared in the article.

The word "vapour" was later introduced on 01:54 May 14, 2006 by User:Surendra mohnot ... at which time both words "vapor" and "vapour" appeared in the article.

Since the first introduction of the word was "vapor" on April 11, 2006, I am accordingly revising all of the occurrences of "vapour" to "vapor". - mbeychok 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Latent heat of fusion

The non-cyclic refrigeration section gives a latent heat of fusion for water of 333.1 kJ/kg while the Unit of Refrigeration section uses 334.5 kJ/kg in its derivation. My guess is the different numbers were each taken from some source and are probably both "true" in some sense, i.e. there are two ways to define the process and each one yields a different value for the LHF. I'll leave it to someone with more experience on the matter to fix them or at least provide some explanation for the discrepancy. --AndrewBuck 17:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

AndrewBuck, you have opened up a real can of worms and rightly so.
  • Many online sources divulged by a Google search use 79.71 calories per gram.
  • There are two commonly used definitions of a calorie: the International Steam Table value is 4.1868 J/calorie and the Thermochemical Calorie value is 4.184 J/calorie ... see the online IUPAC definitions of a calorie at [1] ... and not a single source for heat of fusion values (that I found) defined which calorie was used.
  • If we use 79.72 cal/gram and either 4.1868 J/cal or 4.184 J/cal, we obtain 333.77 kJ/kg or 333.55 kJ/kg, respectively.
  • If we use 79.71 cal/gram and either 4.1868 J/cal or 4.184 J/cal, we obtain 333.73 kJ/kg or 333.51 kJ/kg, respectively.
I want to think about this a bit and decide which one of the above four values (i.e., 333.77, 333.73, 333.55 or 333.51 kJ/kg) would be most appropriate for this article on Refrigeration. Any comments by others regarding this topic would be welcomed. - mbeychok 20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
After considerable thought, I decided that the correct heat of fusion for this article should be based on the value of 79.72 cal/gram using the thermochemical calorie = 4.184 Joules, which translates to 333.55 kJ/kg (as in the Heat of fusion article). Thus, the "Non-cyclic refrigeration" section was revised to say that the heat of fusion is 333.55 kJ/kg ≈ 144 Btu/lb ... and the "Unit of refrigeration" section was revised to use the same value for the heat of fusion.
I think we are indebted to AndrewBuck for having brought this subject up. - mbeychok
Thank you very much mbeychok, I was not expecting this to be resolved so quickly. You are a true testament to the power of the Wikipedia community. --AndrewBuck 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Extra methods of refridgeration

In following article, several extra methods (passive and active) have been noted. Look trough the document and add the ones not yet mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

Document:

Thanks; KVDP (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Refrigerated coil

I'm afraid this has caused me some confusion: it states that "Avicenna invented the refrigerated coil", with the link going to dehumidifiers. Surely the point is that Avicenna was using a cooled coil for condensing his distillate and had in no sense invented refrigeration (although many sources state this). --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Avicenna's coil was water-cooled and not refrigerated; his innovation was in the shape of the pot lid and coil (see here). I'm removing this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Refrigeration/Archive_1&oldid=396695751"