Two-hose portable air conditionings solve a pressing design flaw in the original machines

Some technology that costs more money isn’t necessarily better or improved over their cheaper counterparts.

I l gained this fairly abruptly as I kept upgrading my smartphones year after year.

The phone manufacturers convince you that the new model is necessary with a handful of many replaces over the previous iteration. But time plus time again, I found that each new phone would lose some of the things that I liked about the previous 1. Once I finally realized that these “improvements” are just minimal fluctuations to justify rereleasing the same device at a higher price each consecutive year, I quit upgrading my cell phones until something happened to make them quit working. These complications abound in other industries as well. Many people will tell you that you need to replace your window air conditioning to a portable unit if you haven’t already. They see the higher price for portable air conditionings plus their ease of use as 2 factors proving their superiority over window units. Sadly, this is borderline smoke plus mirrors when you compare it to other misleading attempts at marketing. A portable air conditioning in its original form is inefficient because it needs to pull cool air from your condo plus use it to cool its internal compressor. Then the air is pushed outside as heat. Window air conditionings already have their compressors outside the window, so this is a self-inflicted design flaw. Two-hose portable cooling systems are better because the air used to cool the compressor is pulled in from outside, however it doesn’t remove their inefficiency completely.

heating device