Wait 24 hours before powering up A/C or fridge?

[DaveC426913]

TL;DR

This is always recommended by manufacturers. Is it necessary?

Is it just a precautionary thing? I mean, it can't hurt to wait 24 hours, but is it necessary?

 

[Bystander]

TL;DR: This is always recommended by manufacturers. Is it necessary?

Is it just a precautionary thing? I mean, it can't hurt to wait 24 hours, but is it necessary?

After power failure? Purchase? Installation? What's the circumstance? The appliance hasn't magically appeared in place....

 

[jedishrfu]

Apparently it has to do with the compressor lubricating oil. During transport and setup the unit may have been tipped allowing the oil to flow out of the compressor into the closed refridgerant lines leaving the compressor with little to no lubrication.

Turning the compressor on prematurely could damage the unit. It could overheat or moving parts would suffer excessive wear and tear.

The manufacturer doesn’t know how the unit was treated and so places a warning to not turn the unit on for at least 24 hrs to let the lubricating oil to settle.

It also allows the manufacturer some legal cover should they deny expensive warranty repairs because the customer didn’t follow recommendations.

 

[Baluncore]

It is not always necessary after transport.
It supposedly gives the liquid refrigerant, gas, and the lubrication, a chance to arrange its place in the system following the disturbance.

 

[DaveC426913]

After power failure? Purchase? Installation? What's the circumstance? The appliance hasn't magically appeared in place....

Oops. Anytime is has been moved.

 

[DaveC426913]

Apparently it has to do with the compressor lubricating oil. During transport and setup the unit may have been tipped allowing the oil to flow out of the compressor into the closed refridgerant lines leaving the compressor with little to no lubrication.

Turning the compressor on prematurely could damage the unit. It could overheat or moving parts would suffer excessive wear and tear.

This is much like what I hear, yes.

 

[DaveC426913]

supposedly

This is the crux of my question: supposedly.


I guess it is an intractible question.

It can't hurt to tell consumers to leave a device to settle for 24 hours. And no one is going to say 'no, go ahead, bounce it off a tampoline then fire it up immediately!'

It's like a zombie rule. It will live on whether or not it remains necessary. (A bit like requiring passengers to turn electronic devices off during takeoff.)

 

[Baluncore]

I guess it is an intractible question.

If your new refrigerator does not start to operate correctly, the manufacturer would tell you to turn it off for 24 hours, but by then, the food would have been wasted. So they tell you up front to keep it off for 24 hours, to cover their proverbials. They know you will turn it on immediately and check it is working before putting food in it. If it does not work, you will turn it off for 24 hours, like they suggested, and it will fix itself.

Here is a similar example.
In PF, when you change your watch status on a thread, the menu bar becomes unavailable for about 3 seconds, covered by an unnecessary "your changes have been saved" banner. Is it always necessary to delay, or is the manufacturer, Greg, enforcing the wait because sometimes it is necessary, to prevent PF from getting its notification knickers in a knot?

 

[DaveC426913]

If your new refrigerator does not start to operate correctly, the manufacturer would tell you to turn it off for 24 hours, but by then, the food would have been wasted. So they tell you up front to keep it off for 24 hours, to cover their proverbials. They know you will turn it on immediately and check it is working before putting foot in it. If it does not work, you will turn it off for 24 hours, like they suggested, and it will fix itself.

Here is a similar example.
In PF, when you change your watch status on a thread, the menu bar becomes unavailable for about 3 seconds, covered by an unnecessary "your changes have been saved" banner. Is it always necessary to delay, or is the manufacturer, Greg, enforcing the wait because sometimes it is necessary, to prevent PF from getting its notification knickers in a knot?

I'm not sure if that answers my question...

Is it true that I risk damaging my fridge/AC if I turn it on without waiting 24 hours?

 

[Baluncore]

Is it true that I risk damaging my fridge/AC if I turn it on without waiting 24 hours?

I don't think it will be damaged, but it may not cool properly.

There were some fridges in the 1960s that would stop working. Turning them off and upside down for 24 hours would fix them.

Some AC systems can reverse themselves internally, and freeze the house solid in winter. Turning them off for 24 hours can fix those.

 

[sophiecentaur]

In the days that people often used fridges with 'Absorption' units. the mix of fluids and the way they move around was a bit more subtle and I could imagine that a good shake would do some serious aggro as the natural convection could really be upset.. It's rare that a fridge would be rotated 'over-horizontal' so a short pause would probably be enough. The pump is always (?) at the bottom.
They work fine on sailing boats.

 

[berkeman]

Is it true that I risk damaging my fridge/AC if I turn it on without waiting 24 hours?

I asked my wife about this. She works with service providers that install new refrigerators and HVAC systems. She said that they test them right away when they install them, and don't wait 24 hours before having to go back to the home to do the test. They probably are real careful about not tilting the units when transporting from the distributor to the home, though.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I've always heard that if laid down on its side to turn it upright and wait the same amount of time that it was laid over. Of course there would be a limit. Imagine your brother leaves you in charge of watching his house while he's on a three week vacation. You play the practical joke the day he leaves and turn his fridge on its side. Sorry bro, going to have to wait three weeks to use the fridge now that you're back.

 

[jedishrfu]

With respect to the turn off your devices on airplanes rule. Veritaseum did a video on it. Basically, it wasn't because it affected flight comms, it was because the engineers believed it would cause havoc with cell towers as your phone traveling at 600 mph waltzes its way through tower after tower never able to maintain a connection.

However, cell towers are focused more on the ground than up in the sky and so it really wasn't an issue but the rule stuck even today. I think the airlines realized that passengers would get upset if a seatmate were on the phone talking up a storm.

I do know many frequent business travelers prefer it that way. It's the one time you're not tethered to your office and can actually work or rest. Your choice.

 

[DaveC426913]

With respect to the turn off your devices on airplanes rule. Veritaseum did a video on it. Basically, it wasn't because it affected flight comms, it was because the engineers believed it would cause havoc with cell towers as your phone traveling at 600 mph waltzes its way through tower after tower never able to maintain a connection.

Why would airlines pick up that ball and run with it? That seems like a Somebody Else's Problem problem.
I respect Veritasium , but is the story confirmed or speculative?

However, cell towers are focused more on the ground than up in the sky and so it really wasn't an issue but the rule stuck even today. I think the airlines realized that passengers would get upset if a seatmate were on the phone talking up a storm.

I do know many frequent business travelers prefer it that way. It's the one time you're not tethered to your office and can actually work or rest. Your choice.

Yes. A totally fake rationale. Not truth.

(Not that I disagree with the outcome - take off and landing is a good quiet time.)

But I'm after truth here, as opposed to lies-to-children.

 

[sophiecentaur]

it would cause havoc with cell towers as your phone traveling at 600 mph waltzes its way through tower after tower never able to maintain a connection.

It's not as straightforward as that. Cruising at a height of 9 - 12 km the geometry (hexagonal - ish) of ground cells would no longer apply. You're not just cruising through cells. The plane could be getting similar signal levels from several stations at once so the inverse square law would not be working as the designers planned. The selection algorithms in the base stations could well be operating at cross purposes.