
Efficient Air-Conditioning Beams Heat into Space - uoaei
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/solar/efficient-airconditioning-by-beaming-heat-into-space
======
leggomylibro
Huh - I'm always interested in ways to make A/C more energy efficient.
Squeezing and un-squeezing gas seems so COMPLICATED compared to how easy it is
to heat things up. Entropy is a cruel mistress. Anyways, it sounds like this
is the important bit:

-

So Raman and electrical engineering professor Shanhui Fan made panels
containing layers of silicon dioxide and hafnium oxide on top of a thin layer
of silver. These radiate in a unique way: They send heat directly into space,
bypassing the Earth’s atmosphere. The panels do this by emitting heat at
infrared wavelengths between 8 and 13 micrometers. To these waves, the Earth’s
atmosphere is transparent. What’s more, the panels reflect nearly all the
sunlight falling on them.

For the new fluid-cooling system, the researchers made radiative panels that
were each one-third of a square meter in area; they attached the panels to an
aluminum heat exchanger plate with copper pipes embedded in it. The setup was
enclosed in an acrylic box covered with a plastic sheet.

The team tested it on a rootop on the Stanford campus. Over three days of
testing, they found that water temperatures went down by between 3- and 5 °C.
The only electricity it requires is what’s needed to pump water through the
copper pipes. Water that flowed more slowly was cooled more.

-

So it sounds like how space stations kick out heat; The ISS uses that sort of
thing[1]. You flow coolant through things that heat up, like solar panels or a
warm environment, and then you pump it into these bricks that don't absorb
heat from light. The coolant warms up the bricks, which emit that heat as
infrared radiation. Planetside, I guess that you can't let the infrared
radiation be absorbed by the atmosphere, or it won't cool anything.

So, maybe this could take the compression out of our current cooling systems -
compress/heat up, expose to outside temp, let cool, decompress/cool, expose to
inside temp, repeat.

My main question would be, is it capable of cooling beyond the ambient outside
temperature? If so, how? I might be misunderstanding or missing something
about how the 'blasting energy away as IR radiation' thing works.

[1]:
[http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/HeatRejectionRadia...](http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/HeatRejectionRadiators.html)

~~~
ar813
I'm one of the authors / people working on this. Yep, radiators like the ones
on the ISS are pretty much the dominant/only ways to get heat out in space.

In response to your questions: yes, it can in fact cool below the ambient air
temperature entirely passively (even during the day! -- which adds real value
for cooling applications). We've shown in other recent work that you can use
this effect to cool as much as 45-50°C below the ambient air temperature, if
you insulate the radiator perfectly.

The reason this works here on Earth is that some upward thermal radiation
isn't absorbed and re-emitted back to you. So if you start at the air
temperature, looking upwards, you will be sending more heat out than the sky
sends back to you. This allows an upward-looking surface to cool itself down
until the heat going out and coming back to it balance out.

~~~
ohyes
Could you point the beams at something and heat it up? It seems like a waste
just sending it into space.

~~~
jdmichal
I can't think of any scenario where you would be better off recapturing that
IR beam instead of installing photovoltaics and capturing the stronger
sunlight.

Also, removing heat from the Earth is probably a positive at this point in
time.

~~~
ohyes
The problem is that the heat is in the wrong place, right? We're not going to
stop needing electricity. If you've got an IR beam and you can point it at
something you can heat whatever it is and run a generator.

You need to cool the building anyway, so the added energy from displacing the
beam to a (presumably turbine) generator would essentially be 'free.'

This is more efficient than the photovoltaic because you don't have to produce
install and maintain a photovoltaic (all of which costs some energy), and you
were going to cool this building with this method anyway (so there's little
downside to harvesting the energy aside from complexity, which is a concern).

I assume you'd need line of sight from the panel to the generator, which it
does seem would be tricky, but doesn't seem insurmountable. (Put the collector
on a tower for example, in most areas of the country I think it wouldn't have
to be higher than a few hundred feet). It just depends on how much heat you're
displacing and whether you can collect enough to run the generator.

If it were "I'm just trying to produce energy", I'd agree that the
photovoltaic is better, but if this system happened to be dual use and doing
two things we already want to do, it seems like it would be a pretty
substantial win.

~~~
diggernet
My understanding of this is that the amount of heat transmission depends on
the temperature of your target. You point it at outer space (cold), and you
get a win. You point it at some sort of IR collector (necessarily at ambient
temperature, or higher), and you've lost your cooling ability.

~~~
haser_au
So if you point it at a satellite, or the ISS, and run a generator? Would that
be a good backup power source for solar currently used?

~~~
diggernet
That's a great question. The thought of an orbiting IR collector crossed my
mind while typing that comment, but I didn't want to think about it hard
enough to address that. :)

The "beam" this generates is really more of a floodlight than a spotlight, so
only a tiny part of the energy would hit your satellite. If you could focus it
down to a narrow beam which hit only your satellite, my gut feeling is that
you would simultaneously be focusing the surface heat of the satellite onto
your panel. So once again, your panel would only "see" a hot surface, and
would lose the benefit of cold space.

Also, as others have calculated in other comments, the amount of energy coming
from the sun dwarfs what these panels radiate, so you are better off just
pointing your satellite collectors at the sun.

~~~
jdmichal
> Also, as others have calculated in other comments, the amount of energy
> coming from the sun dwarfs what these panels radiate, so you are better off
> just pointing your satellite collectors at the sun.

Especially in space! We lose a good amount of irradiation energy from the sun
to the atmosphere.

------
syntaxing
Sky cooling is a super neat phenomena. It's one of the main reasons why
sometimes at night, your car can frost even though the ambient temperature of
the air is higher than freezing.

~~~
gpvos
Sorry to be a pedant, but the singular form is phenomenon. Phenomena is the
plural.

------
Cshelton
Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use water run through a coil 6 ft
underground? In most areas that have the intense heat that running water over
the radiators actually would help, the ground 6 ft below is pretty easily
cooler than 5-10 degrees C. The electricity to pump 6 ft down couldn't be that
much more either...

And when it isn't as hot out, you can actually use the ground temp to radiate
heat out of the house by itself, no need for coils and a fan to run in ambient
air temp, right?

~~~
hwillis
Better solution: stop _creating_ heat in the home. Instead of using gas or
electricity to heat water, use a heat pump joined to the A/C. Store greywater
and heat _that_ up, then send it down the sewers. A liter of water has the
same heat capacity as 3 cubic meters of air and a person uses 300+ liters of
water per day, enough to cool 3200 square feet of house by 10 F.

~~~
jedberg
I wish there were viable commercial solutions for this.

The other day, when it was 106F outside and I had to dry some clothes, I found
it quite unfortunate that I was spending a bunch of energy to move hot air out
of my house, while at the same time spending a bunch of energy creating hot
air in my house to dry my clothes.

It would have been so nice if there were a reasonable way for me to take the
heat already in my house and push it through the dryer.

(I could have hung them to dry, but I live too close to the freeway to do that
-- they would have been dirtier than when I washed them)

~~~
coryrc
Your dryer should be in unconditioned space, at least during the summer.
That's easy if it's in its own room with a window. Summer: window open, door
closed. Winter: window closed, door open, vent inside.

~~~
allannienhuis
venting inside creates significant condensation and lint/dust issues. Not a
great idea (and I'm pretty sure against relevant building codes)

~~~
thinkling
There is such a thing as ventless clothes dryers, from major brands such as
Whirlpool, LG, etc. [1] We had an older one in an apartment we rented; it had
a water reservoir that collected the moisture which you had to empty into the
sink regularly.

[1]
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ventless+clothes+dryer](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ventless+clothes+dryer)

~~~
MrFoof
A large number of clothes dryers in Europe (save for the UK, which still uses
a lot of hotboxes) are condensation dryers. Some countries (Sweden I believe)
actually don't allow vented hotbox dryers for new construction due to building
codes explicitly barring them. Heat pump dryers have been around for about 3-4
years now, but condensation dryers have been around for decades.

In the US, but have been running Bosch condensation dryers for over a decade.
Previous rental had one and the immediate difference I noticed was how much
longer my clothes lasted from the cooler temps, so when I moved I bought my
own W/D. No regrets.

------
ChuckMcM
I am super excited they built a practical demonstration system out of this
technology. I would love it if more 'breakthrough' research took it to this
sort of proof of concept (I know it is hard to get funding for that sort of
project but it is so useful).

I would love to see self contained shade structures that would both shade and
lightly cool the air underneath them.

------
swsieber
Question - could one theoretically build a big enough array of this to
counter-act globally warming? Any back of the envelope math for what it would
take would be very interesting.

~~~
hwillis
Radiative forcing from global warming will be somewhere between 2.6 and 6.0
Watts/m^2 by the end of the century[1]. Currently it is around 1.75 W/m^2[2],
which translates to a total increase in absorption of 223 terawatts. That's
about 3x the total energy produced by all photosynthesis[3][citation needed],
and over 12x the energy in all forms consumed by humanity.

So, to a first estimate, no. It's absolutely beyond what we're capable of. To
a second estimate: these panels reject 70 W/m^2, so to counteract current
warming we would need to cover .625% of the earth's surface in them, which is
3.2 million square kilometers, which is over 6x the area you'd need to replace
all of humanity's energy use with solar power.

All in all, it doesn't make much sense.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#/media/File:...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#/media/File:Radiative-
forcings.svg)

[3]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)#Te...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_\(power\)#Terawatt_.281012_watts.29)

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_these panels reject 70 W /m^2_

What about plain mirrors? How efficiently do they reflect photons back into
space? Presumably they're highly efficient for visible light; how easy is it
to reflect infrared passively?

~~~
sjruckle
The problem with using mirrors as radiators is that they're terrible
radiators. They might be great at reflecting the sky-photons away, but they
won't launch their own photons away either.

Shiny things are great at reflecting incident radiation (which is why they're
good mirrors) but bad at radiating their own heat. Dull black things are bad
at reflecting but good at radiating. The technical terms are reflectance,
absorptance, and emissivity.

[http://www.optotherm.com/emiss-physics.htm](http://www.optotherm.com/emiss-
physics.htm)

------
oomkiller
I think the biggest question here is what saves more dirty energy. Obviously,
these units will compete with solar for roof space. The sun beats down in the
summer, where these panels would be most useful, but also where solar would
hit peak power generation. As long as solar can supply at least 20% of the
power required to cool the building, it seems like it will be a better option,
as solar is also useful for other things like charging electric cars during
the winter, when A/C is not required.

~~~
jws
Even on a flat roof, there is room to add radiator panels without compromising
solar space. The solar panels will be tipped up to the south some amount based
on their latitude, but you don't want to shade the low end of a panel with the
high end of the next one, so there is a gap between rows. A shaded gap.
Precisely the best spot to put radiator panels.

You could even imagine a combined product which would be a corrugated panel
alternating "uphill" solar and "downhill" radiator segments with the
dimensions tailored to the latitude. This could be installed flat on the roof.

~~~
dsr_
180 degree flip panels. Solar cells during the day, IR radiators at night.

~~~
phinnaeus
Plus it would look super cool if you got them to flip in a wave pattern across
your roof.

~~~
0xfeba
I can see it now: malware communicating across air-gapped systems by way of
flipping radiator panels on roofs.

~~~
kerkeslager
After the CRISPR malware transmitted via actual genes, I'd barely be
surprised.

~~~
0xfeba
That was a lot of hype and not much else. They modified the machines that were
reading the specially crafted DNA.

~~~
nerpderp83
Life always finds a way.

------
hourislate
Simply putting your outside AC Condenser Unit on the shady side of a house or
have a Tree or Bush shade it can significantly reduce your energy usage. They
units themselves are at least 20 Degrees cooler than being in direct sunlight.

There are also misting units that use approx 1-2 gallons of water a day
(equivalent to a toilet flush) that can also reduce energy consumption by up
to 30%.

Simple solutions for big savings.

~~~
EA
I disagree. There isn't much difference in the _air temperature_ of air "in
the shade" versus air not in the shade.

~~~
uoaei
Air temperature isn't the only thing that heats a condenser. Solar radiation
does that too.

------
biomcgary
For a better scaling version of this technology (roll-to-roll manufacture),
see:
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6329/1062](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6329/1062)

------
fpoling
Atmosphere is only transparent for thermal infrared without clouds. Clouds
emits and reflects ambient heat back to these panels heating them. But then
one does not need typically air-conditioning on a cloudy day :)

~~~
firebird84
Depends on where you live. :) Where I am, clouds do nothing.

~~~
lucb1e
Interesting! Do you know some examples of places where clouds influence
temperature a lot and where it doesn't? And what causes this?

~~~
Roverlord
Maybe it's typical cloud base height?

------
mrfusion
I'd be curious if we could build a floating patch of these in the ocean and
put them in front of hurricanes to rob them of the hot water they need to
grow?

Anyone able to do the math? Keep in mind all the billions we spend on
hurricane damage.

~~~
schiffern
It would be a lot cheaper to do some cloud seeding or SRM ahead of the storm
to reflect away solar radiation into space.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management)

------
aphextron
Professor Fan has a few incredible, highly technical lectures about the
subject on YouTube if anyone's interested.[0] His work centers on
nanophotonics, which goes hand in hand with research surrounding photovoltaic
cell efficiency as well.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uazp_k_ckqc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uazp_k_ckqc)
[0]

------
fulafel
Howis this "20% energy savings" product different from their original "all
passive" pitch[1] from 2014?

[https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/green-
tech/solar/passive...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/green-
tech/solar/passive-radiators-cool-by-sending-heat-straight-to-outer-space)

------
mizzao
Couldn't beaming heat into space also buffer against global warming, as long
as the amount of heat transmitted > the energy spent to beam it? Especially if
we use renewable energy.

~~~
kakarot
I think that's kind of just applying a bandaid to a wound that already has an
infection. If you don't treat the underlying cause, (greenhouse gases) it's
still going to get worse. Still, a massive planetary array of space radiators
sounds badass.

~~~
beambot
At the risk over over-utilizing your metaphore... you still put on bandaids on
infections -- even if you're taking antibiotics or applying antiseptic
ointment.

------
agumonkey
Pretty neat idea.

This reminds me of sun free photovoltaics. Somehow people managed to transform
heat into coherent IR waves that could be converted by the usual PV cells.

~~~
captainpete
Thermophotovoltaics :)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermophotovoltaic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermophotovoltaic)

~~~
agumonkey
Yes this. For a reason I remember an article "sun free photovoltaics" hence my
comment. But I can't find it again on this page.. odd.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-
free_photovoltaics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-free_photovoltaics)

------
kardos
Is there any material that readily absorbs heat at wavelengths between 8 and
13 micrometers? Instead of beaming the heat to space, could you instead put
that special coating on a parabolic reflector and use it to heat up an
absorbing material at the focal point? And then put a frying pan on top of
that and cook an egg?

~~~
analog31
There's a statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that forbids you from
passively transferring heat from a cold body to a hot body.

~~~
kardos
Ah of course. So best case it can accelerate warming cold things to ambient
temperature

------
jmh530
How much does this save vs. replacing these panels with solar panels?

------
frevd
Does that mean we can cover the deserts with these plates that run purely on
solar energy and release energy as infrared radiation to combat Global
Heating?

~~~
frevd
Ah, sorry, duplicate question (see below). Well, even if it does not do much,
it's a start, and it shouldn't require putting in extra energy from power
plants.

------
vtange
If this system is scalable area-wise wouldn't it be a good idea to shield the
ice caps with this? A 3C to 5C degree difference could mean quite a bit in
preventing further ice melting, no?

~~~
jackhack
But that's just it -- it is NOT scaleable to any measure that would make a
difference. The manufacturing effort alone would require quantities of raw
material that would dwarf all construction efforts ever undertaken combined.
There is the issue of mining, refining, manufacturing, transporation... not to
mention the installation and maintenance of a hundred thousand square miles of
reflective shields in an incredibly hostile (to life) environment. Even if the
whole of humanity could agree this is the most pressing issue of civilization,
we would wreck the earth to save the ice. It would be easier to build a
shopping mall at the bottom of the ocean.

And the sun will just get warmer anyway. It is folly to think we can play God.
Climate change is normal, and natural. It has been happening since the
beginning of time, and will continue long after all traces of life on Earth
are gone. Who are we to attempt to interfere?

~~~
llukas
We already did play God by increasing CO2 in atmosphere. There is nothing
wrong in efforts to mitigate its effect.

~~~
jackhack
If the efforts are effective, perhaps not. If. But just doing
something/anything isn't the same as solving the problem. Building an umbrella
over the ice caps is 1) not technologically possible and 2) the secondary
effects of the attempt would be extreme, making the original problem much
worse if one accepts the premise that human activity releasing CO2 causes
global warming.

Again, imagine the amount of fossil fuel needed for mining, manufacturing,
transportation, of a reflective panel that can cover 10% of the earth's
surface. If indeed CO2 is at the root of this problem, ask yourself if the
shade given by this sun shield would offset the manufacturing costs in terms
of CO2 release.

It would be more effective to simply plant more trees, or protect the Amazon
from logging or somehow convince China to stop building coal-fired power
plants, or the whole world to convert to nuclear power. etc.

Or just build a ladder to the moon. This is silly.

~~~
kardos
> or somehow convince China to stop building coal-fired power plants

They are already convinced: [https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-
Pacific/2017/0303/China...](https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-
Pacific/2017/0303/China-s-coal-consumption-drops-again-boosting-its-
leadership-on-climate-change)

~~~
jack9
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-
comp...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-
coal-plants-climate-change.html?mcubz=0)

I don't think so. There's not a lot of evidence "they" (meaning the CPC) are
convinced of global consequence to stop. The desire for growth outweighs any
actual concern for the future of the planet from their perspective. Without
direct evidence of outcome, a tyrannical social structure operates from the
top, expecting to deal with the future by sacrificing the bottom. The Aztecs,
the Pharaohs, the Romans, USSR etc all fell when they external sources
overwhelmed the existing mitigation methods (insidiously or violently) and
China will probably travel the same route. One might hope it's not the final
lasting dynasty 100 years from now.

------
seanalltogether
If these become popular, maybe you could create a new solar panel that absorbs
the wavelengths emitted by these air conditioners in order to create
electricity

...or better yet...

~~~
hwillis
These panels reject heat at a rate of up to 70 W/m^2. A good solar panel
absorbs 20% of incoming light, which typically peaks at about 1000 W, so a
solar panel reduces temperature by 3x as much.

So... you could just do that.

~~~
irrelative
Furthermore, air conditioning isn't lowering the temperature of a system by
the energy consumed. Rather, it acts like a heat pump which usually pumps more
energy that is used. So 200 J/s of electric power running a typical AC unit
would likely reject more than 200 J/s from a building.

------
dzonga
I thought such a system already existed.

------
davidhyde
A temperature drop of 3-5 degrees C is meaningless unless other variables are
supplied. For example, how much water was cooled? They tell you how long (3
days) but they don't let you how many panels they used either. Too many
'science' articles these days don't add up.

~~~
philipkglass
This is just a press release about the actual scientific publication. The
abstract provides more information:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017143](https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017143)

 _Cooling systems consume 15% of electricity generated globally and account
for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. With demand for cooling expected
to grow tenfold by 2050, improving the efficiency of cooling systems is a
critical part of the twenty-first-century energy challenge. Building upon
recent demonstrations of daytime radiative sky cooling, here we demonstrate
fluid cooling panels that harness radiative sky cooling to cool fluids below
the air temperature with zero evaporative losses, and use almost no
electricity. Over three days of testing, we show that the panels cool water up
to 5 ∘C below the ambient air temperature at water flow rates of 0.2 l min−1
m−2, corresponding to an effective heat rejection flux of up to 70 W m−2. We
further show through modelling that, when integrated on the condenser side of
the cooling system of a two-storey office building in a hot dry climate (Las
Vegas, USA), electricity consumption for cooling during the summer could be
reduced by 21% (14.3 MWh)._

And you can read the full article via sci-hub to get all the experimental
details.

~~~
kbenson
> the panels cool water up to 5 ∘C below the ambient air temperature at water
> flow rates of 0.2 l min−1 m−2, corresponding to an effective heat rejection
> flux of up to 70 W m−2.

Can someone translate that into layman terms? The chained negative exponents
are somewhat confusing. I would think 70 W m^2 would me square meters, but
what's 70 W m^-2? I assume it's not really mappable to dimensions at that
point...

~~~
ar813
Sorry, that's the convention of the journal. It's W/m^2 -- heat rejection per
unit area.

~~~
kbenson
Oh, I get it now. I totally missed that there wasn't a division there. That
makes complete sense now that it was pointed out, I'm just not used to seeing
stuff in that format apparently. :)

------
SeriousM
Meh. Get rid of the big cow farms and you have removed the biggest threat to
the climate. This solution here is nice, but it's just a small amount compared
to the big players.

~~~
adrianN
Agriculture only contributes 10% or so in the US. Hardly the "biggest threat".

------
pavement

      into space
    

Hmmm, that seems like a click-bait statement. Between the air conditioner and
even low earth orbit, there's plenty of atmosphere that will soak up some of
the beam's heat, no?

~~~
mikeyouse
No offense, but did you read the article? It's directly addressed:

> _So Raman and electrical engineering professor Shanhui Fan made panels
> containing layers of silicon dioxide and hafnium oxide on top of a thin
> layer of silver. These radiate in a unique way: They send heat directly into
> space, bypassing the Earth’s atmosphere. The panels do this by emitting heat
> at infrared wavelengths between 8 and 13 micrometers. To these waves, the
> Earth’s atmosphere is transparent. What’s more, the panels reflect nearly
> all the sunlight falling on them._

A little further research shows that the atmosphere is opaque at numerous
wavelengths and it's probably safe to assume that they intentionally targeted
the opaque ones:
[https://i.imgur.com/eUmTltm.png](https://i.imgur.com/eUmTltm.png)

~~~
iRobbery
While i understand you both.

A title is a title. And the title claims 'heat' not reflecting infrared
wavelengths between 8 and 13 micrometers. And imho 'heat' is more then certain
ranges of infrared wavelengths. So in that sense i can see why somebody uses
the word clickbait in regards to this title.

edit joke While i'm just afraid the moon will start to condensate /edit

~~~
kbenson
It's removing heat from a system by radiating it into space. That it's
radiated using infrared is irrelevant, since it does cool the system it is
attached to. Even "beam" is appropriate in this instance. There's no "bait" in
the "click-bait", it's exactly as advertised.

~~~
pavement
Listen, a little tl;dr is not too much to ask for around here, especially when
the salient point is buried 7 paragraphs in, when it should be present in the
leading sentence. Forgive me for not locating the relevant passage, while
quickly skimming this and 100 other articles, while at work.

Furthermore, regarding cloud cover, I am dubious of the premise that even the
specified wavelengths penetrate otherwise opaque cloud cover. Sure, maybe that
portion of the spectrum penetrates the typical atmospheric mix, including
light water vapor, on an otherwise clear day, but, color me unsurprised if it
fails to penetrate smog, diesel and particulate pollution, and other common
dust constituents in cloud nuclei. I mean, even radar can be blinded by dense
storm clouds.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's a 100% miracle cure. Maybe it's that
awesome. I hope I really am just a big dummy, too lazy to read a blurb more
than three sentences long.

~~~
kbenson
> Listen, a little tl;dr is not too much to ask for around here

Then ask for a summary, or point out that it's not well written for easy
dissemination of facts.. There's no need to call a title out as click bait
when it isn't. There's plenty of click-bait titles to go around, we don't need
to malign accurate titles without cause. A click-bait title isn't just wrong
or unclear, it's purpose is to _intentionally_ mislead people for views. An
accusation of click-bait is similar to an accusation of lying, which is
different than being unclear or incorrect. As such it should be reserved for
cases where there's evidence to back it up, otherwise discourse breaks down,
in the same way accusing someone of lying when they are unclear (or you are
unclear on their meaning) doesn't lead to useful discussion.

You have questions regarding the veracity of the statement? Sure, figure that
out, and _then_ make a statement about how accurate it is. If you aren't part
of the signal, you're part of the noise.

~~~
iRobbery
apparently you don't really know what clickbait is, though i do know what you
mean, and i think thats correct, though not more correct then to say the title
has a clickbait factor.

And if you think this title wasn't thought of to maximise clickthroughs
(again, regardless of the content of the article as clickbait ONLY applies to
the title) ... you are very naive..

Other titles could be, getting rid of excess heat via infrared into space.
Which would be less interesting to majority of people, as people read it, and
think 'oh airconditioning, i got that... oh a new unit that beams into space
... neato...'

