“Use of the terms ‘heat pump’ and ‘reverse cycle’ to describe heating by refrigeration equipment is confusing to the public and lacks sales appeal,” said Claude W. Kniffin, air conditioning application engineer for Westinghouse Electric Elevator Co., during a talk before the Baltimore-Washington Section of the American Society of Refrigerating Engineers. 

In other words: The industry had the innovation — but not the messaging. Sound familiar?  

What’s ironic is that even some eight decades ago, the performance side of the story was compelling. Kniffin noted that existing “heat pump” systems were already delivering a coefficient of performance in the range of three to five times more heat than was supplied to operate them. He further pointed out that, even when electricity was generated from coal, these systems could deliver more usable heat than existed in the original fuel. 

Technically, the value proposition was there. The challenge was communicating it in a way that made a homeowner’s ears perk. 

Kniffin also outlined the two primary heat pump system types at the time — air-source and water-source — and said that water systems offer wider geographic applicability due to their higher level of heat source and their performance under peak heating conditions. And guess what? Design flexibility existed even then. Systems were already capable of reversing either refrigerant flow or the heat source fluid, though Kniffin noted that reversing the flow of the heat source liquid was less complicated. 

The fact that this method of heating by refrigeration hadn’t caught on yet seemed to shock Kniffin. A 1945 Electric Refrigeration News editor wrote on the subject, “Because heating by refrigeration provides excellent thermal efficiency, there should be an increasing number of installations after the war, particularly since such efficiency will permit conservation of the country's natural resources, said Mr. Kniffin.”  

If Kniffin were around today, he might smile at the strides this sector of the industry has made. Heat pumps are no longer a foreign concept — they’ve become central to decarbonization and continually see rapid growth across residential and commercial markets.  

And yet, the messaging challenge hasn’t entirely disappeared. The industry still wrestles with how to explain the technology in a way that resonates with homeowners. 

This raises a question that still feels very much relevant today: How much does terminology shape technology adoption? 

Really think about it. When a homeowner hears “heat pump,” do they immediately understand its value, or are they still going to ask their contractor if it cools, too? 

Would adoption be higher if heat pumps had some other name?