If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Steve W. wrote:
> The US for one. ANY flammable blend is illegal. > > The EPA has made it illegal to use flammable refrigerants in motor > vehicle air conditioning systems. If you mouse around on the websites selling this stuff, you'll find them talking about "legal 2nd-generation drop-in" refrigerant. This is a bit of doublespeak. Here's how it works: It's illegal to replace R12 with hydrocarbon refrigerants, but it's not illegal to replace R134a with hydrocarbon refrigerants. A law against the latter was never written, 'cause there's no reason why anybody would ever replace R134a with hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, that legal omission is being treated as a loophole by those selling hydrocarbon refrigerants. The idea, they say, is to convert your system over to R134a (which is legal), then replace the R134a with hydrocarbons. Nudge nudge, not illegal, wink wink, elbow in the ribs, and if you happen, wink wink, to forget the "change to R134a" step, wink wink, why, that would be awful. Wink wink. Just terrible. Wink wink. > Each potential new refrigerant must be tested according to the American > Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) E-681 testing method to determine > flammability. In addition to testing the refrigerant itself, if a blend > contains a flammable component, the EPA requires leak testing to ensure > that the composition does not change during a leak and become flammable. Yep. EPA also knows the difference between chicken salad and chicken ****. The marketeers of hydrocarbon refrigerants tried playing leapfrog by renaming their product -- EnviroSafe, HC-12a, OZ-12, MX-12a, ES-12a, HC-12a, ("anything"-12a) -- every time EPA would ban the product. It did not take EPA long to ban the isobutane/isopropane blend itself, regardless of name. > There has also not been any single refrigerant or blend that is a direct > drop-in for R-12 in automotive air conditioning systems. Legally there is no such thing as a drop-in. This is to support and preserve the refrigerant recycling program. It's important for systems with R12 fittings to contain ONLY R12, systems with R134a fittings to contain ONLY R134a, etc. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message .umich.edu... > On Fri, 20 May 2005, Edward Strauss wrote: > >> It is no more dangerous than >> that large tank with gasoline that rides behind you when you are driving >> your vehicle. > > The fuel system is specifically designed to store and transport flammable > fluid. The A/C system is not. Tell that to the Pinto crispies. (and numerous others) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> > sorry, I came in late on this thread, but what is a safe non-flammable > alternative? There is an older car in the family that has an r12 > system that will need to be recharged when the leak is fixed. Why worry about an alternative? There's lots of R-12 still available and from what I understand R-134 prices have gone up so much lately that there's not much of a price difference. And, R-12 will probably give better results than an alternative (in a system designed for it). Get the leak fixed and re-charge with R-12. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> sorry, I came in late on this thread, but what is a safe non-flammable > alternative? R12, which is still available and legal in the US, or R134a. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:34:44 -0500, Steve > wrote:
> >> >> >> What country are they illegal in??? Yeah, I thought so... Read up >> on the stuff and see what you think. It is no more dangerous than >> that large tank with gasoline that rides behind you when you are driving >> your vehicle. That is my opinion... > > >The "large tank with gasoline that resides behind you" is subjected to >crashworthiness testing when the car was manufactured. Its in a >protected location, with various protections to prevent it from >spilling, rupturing, or bursting into flame. The AC condensor that is >the FIRST thing to break in a head-on collision is NOT crashworthiness >tested when filled with butane/propane blend. The blower motor inside >the car with the evaporator coil is not spark-arrested for use in an >environment where butane/propane might leak out. > >Do I think cars with propane/butane refrignerant are rolling time-bombs? >Not really. But its foolish to pretend that they don't have a higher >risk of fire or explosion. The question I'd ask myself, is "why take ANY >risk when there are so many safe, non-flammable alternatives?" Have you EVER heard of the use of this stuff actually causing harm? This hysteria reminds me of the "don't use your cell phone at a gas station or you'll blow up nonsense". |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005, Edward Strauss wrote: > > > The Maxi-Frig designation MX-12a is a dead giveaway. HC-12a, ES-12a > > > "EnviroSafe", etc. -- they're all the same illegal hydrocarbon blend. > > > > > > > > What country are they illegal in? > The US. It is not approved for automotive use in the U.S. It is not illegal to sell or own... People love to scream "illegal" from a keyboard. Run into a shop or store that has the stuff on a hot day and try screaming "illegal" and see how it goes... > > It is no more dangerous than > > that large tank with gasoline that rides behind you when you are driving > > your vehicle. > The fuel system is specifically designed to store and transport flammable > fluid. The A/C system is not. In a new vehicle. Once the years and rust sets in it is another story. In any serious motor vehicle accident there is always the threat of fire from the primary fuel source. Now we have hybrids that are a lovely mix of high voltage and gasoline. I would use Hot Shot in something like that just for spite. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Ashton Crusher > wrote: > Have you EVER heard of the use of this stuff actually causing harm? The EPA has the current number of injuries documented. Last time I checked, it was mostly service personnel who were injured due to the systems not being labeled as flammable. > This hysteria reminds me of the "don't use your cell phone at a gas > station or you'll blow up nonsense". It shouldn't. AFAIK, No government agency has set regulations regarding cell phone use at a gas station. Just like the last ten years, a new crop of respondents making the same old tired arguments. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Edward Strauss > wrote: > It is not approved for automotive use in the U.S. Actually, it is not approved for automotive use on public roads and highways. You can put it in your car and drive around your own private property all you want. > It is not illegal to > sell or own... No one said it was. The OP posted to rec.autos.tech, so it's implied that he was inquiring about using it in a street driven vehicle. > People love to scream "illegal" from a keyboard. Your imagination is running wild... > Run into a shop or store that has the stuff on a hot day and try screaming > "illegal" and see how it goes... Pointless since it's sold in droves at any hardware store, usually in the same isle as propane torches and soldering irons, or, in with the camping equipment. > > > > > It is no more dangerous than > > > that large tank with gasoline that rides behind you when you are driving > > > your vehicle. > > > The fuel system is specifically designed to store and transport flammable > > fluid. The A/C system is not. > > > In a new vehicle. Once the years and rust sets in it is another story. Exactly. So, adding another flammable failure point makes sense? > In any serious motor vehicle accident there is always the threat of fire > from the primary fuel source. Is it raining where you are, because I think your straw man is starting to rot. > Now we have hybrids that are a lovely mix > of high voltage and gasoline. I would use Hot Shot in something like that > just for spite. Cars have been high voltage and gasoline since 1975. FYI, the brand name "Hot Shot" refrigerant is an acceptable substitute according to the EPA. What was it you said about "screaming" from the keyboard? If you want to do something for spite, try robbing a bank, there's more money in it. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
aarcuda69062 > wrote:
> In article >, > Edward Strauss > wrote: > > It is not approved for automotive use in the U.S. > Actually, it is not approved for automotive use on public roads > and highways. You can put it in your car and drive around your > own private property all you want. You're right. You can also snort it. > > It is not illegal to > > sell or own... > No one said it was. The OP posted to rec.autos.tech, so it's > implied that he was inquiring about using it in a street driven > vehicle. Read back through the thread. > > People love to scream "illegal" from a keyboard. > Your imagination is running wild... Not really. Seems that people scream illegal or junk when something is in their opinion not fit for use. > > Run into a shop or store that has the stuff on a hot day and try screaming > > "illegal" and see how it goes... > Pointless since it's sold in droves at any hardware store, > usually in the same isle as propane torches and soldering irons, > or, in with the camping equipment. > So why scream illegal?? > > > > > > > > It is no more dangerous than > > > > that large tank with gasoline that rides behind you when you are driving > > > > your vehicle. > > > > > The fuel system is specifically designed to store and transport flammable > > > fluid. The A/C system is not. > > > > > > In a new vehicle. Once the years and rust sets in it is another story. > Exactly. So, adding another flammable failure point makes sense? To some people it does. > > In any serious motor vehicle accident there is always the threat of fire > > from the primary fuel source. > Is it raining where you are, because I think your straw man is > starting to rot. That is your opinion. > > Now we have hybrids that are a lovely mix > > of high voltage and gasoline. I would use Hot Shot in something like that > > just for spite. > Cars have been high voltage and gasoline since 1975. Ever seen how a hybrid is wired? A little bit more than an ignition system is involved. > FYI, the brand name "Hot Shot" refrigerant is an acceptable > substitute according to the EPA. > What was it you said about "screaming" from the keyboard? I chose the wrong brand. Would you accept maybe topping off R-12 with R-22 or should I think of something worse?? > If you want to do something for spite, try robbing a bank, > there's more money in it. Or you could just tell it like this. Maxi-Frig in a older vehicle that has a A/C system that is in decent shape could be a cost effective solution. It is not approved for automotive use by the EPA and all warnings should be read and understood before it's use. Robbing banks is illegal, Maxi-Frig is not. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|