2y ago

Ancient Iranian Air Conditioning

lemmy.world Ancient Iran had air conditioning - Lemmy.world

Sharing this post from mildyinteresting Community because I think you'll be interested in it over here in the solarpunk community

Sorry if I have accidentally reposted it

You're viewing a single thread.

86 comments

Looking at this image got me thinking, we should really use natural technology first amd supplement it with artificial technology as that would save more power and lower maintenance demands
- Swamp coolers are great for low humidity environments, and we continue to use them there. Unfortunately, they're not great where humidity gets high.
  
  However, this is not a simple swamp cooler - it's a ground heat sink system powered by natural convection.
  If it were just a swamp cooler - yes. I have experimented with pure swamp coolers and they're not very effective near a sea.
- All technology, by definition, is artificial. But there is a continuum of environmental impact depending on the technology and environment—digging a hole in the dirt with a wooden stick has negligible effects on the health of the local ecosystem; digging a hole in the dirt with a nuclear pulse device not so much.
  But nuclear pulse devices are excellent for propulsion if you need to move stuff between planets, and have negligible environmental impact in the already radiation-soaked vaccuum of space.
  
  All technology, by definition, is artificial.
  Probably passive (taking advantage of energy and natural laws already present in the environment, like wind and convection) vs. active (making use of secondary forms of power like electricity, burning fuels, etc.) is a better distinction. If all you gotta do is e.g. at most open some vents at one time of day and close them at another, and not rely on the delivery of external power sources from human industry, calling it "passive" is pretty fair.
  
  I like this passive vs. active distinction. A sailboat vs. a motor ship. And a hybrid approach that uses naturally occuring energy flows when feasible; artificial energy sources when not.
- Generally the issue is space/foot print. The efficiency energy wise is usually pretty good, but the amount of space vs what area gets covered (and this is forgetting bells and whistles like actually controlling the temperature) is usually abysmal. This only works on a small scale for few people that are willing to forgo accuracy and control.
  
  Thank-you for commenting that because I hadn't considered that
  Though I do think tempreture control can be done with technology supplementation
  For example having technology read the tempreture in an area and then close a vent to stop natural cold or hot air once the desired tempreture is reached
  Edit: and have technology supplement cool pr warm air if there isn't enough of that from natural air
  And I am wondering how much the air tower itself can be made smaller while retaining function
- How do you define "natural" vs "artificial" here, and what's to say modern air conditioning doesn't already build on what we know from old methods?
  
  What do you think they could have meant?
  
  I don't know.
  
  The post is an example.
  
  The question remains: what makes this natural and AC artificial?
  
  Right... And you don't see any glaring differences between to two?
  
  There are differences, obviously, but I don't know which of those differences would make one of them natural. Nature didn't create either of them; they are both man-made constructions.
  
  But using your intuitions, which one do you think the person responded to above meant as more natural?
  Probably the one that doesn't use electricity, right?
  It feels like being obtuse for no reason.
  
  You are correct
  I used the words "natural technology" because it felt like the best word to describe natural solutions like the air tower in the image
  
  So, electricity is unnatural and hence bad? Is that the point being made here? Because the original opinion was that we should focus on natural solutions over artificial ones, and I asked the question in an effort to understand why they would say that.
  Instead of arguing against a guess (or "intuition") of what they mean, I think it's constructive to find out exactly what they mean first. That way we're not just talking past one another in the typical, polarized internet fashion.
  
  That's not what being said at all
  Electricity is a form of energy but its created using other forms of energy and there are losses from conversion becsuse we don't have 100% efficency so it would be better to use other forms of energy that are naturally present when possible to avoid losses of energy from converting them to electricity
  Then you only need to use electricity as necessary
  
  Where did I say any of that?
  I'm not arguing for good or bad anything. What do you think this conversation is?
  Reread this discussion. I was exclusively talking about how it's blatantly obvious that a tunnel with water to chill air is more natural than an AC unit - and you're pretending to not understand that.
  Stop trying to fight and we wouldn't be taking past each other.
  OP didn't even say one was worse or better. He just said to look for lower maintenance and energy use. And again - that's blatantly obvious between an AC unit and a TUNNEL WITH WATER.
  
  What I'm talking about is natural technology like the air cooling tower in the image
  And artificial technology that's made using electricity and circuit boards
  I do believe relying on natural stuff and supplementing it with technology to enhance and / or expand upon a feature of a technology or to serve as a feature that cannot be attained by natural means
  Technology supplementation should only be really used when necessary
- But, that won't make NEARLY as much money for everybody that wants to sell you shitty solutions.

86 comments