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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
freon
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Coasty wrote:
> To correct your ignorance and you may want to click on the link go to > the technical link and read the EPA authorization on a direct > replacement. http://www.freeze12.com/ Link says "Freeze 12 is EPA acceptable for mobile applications subject to the use conditions applicable to vehicle air conditioning". What part of the use conditions have you forgotten from the certification you claim to have? What part of "Every single refrigerant requires unique service fittings, appropriate hose materials and identification labels" is hard for you to understand? "Direct replacement" (or "drop-in") has a legal meaning: it means a refrigerant, other than that for which a system was designed, that may legally be installed into the system with no system changes. Legally, Federally, there is NO refrigerant other than R12 that may legally be introduced into an R12 A/C system without installing barrier hoses, refrigerant-specific service fittings, and refrigerant retrofit callout labels. None. Not your Freeze-12 stuff, not FRIGC, not any of the other EPA acceptable refrigerants, and certainly none of the unacceptable ones. Therefore, your assertion that Freeze-12 is a "direct replacement" is simply incorrect. > I was not talking about the stuff on EBAY most of it is crap and contains > contaminates along with being illegally imported from Mexico There are enormous stockpiles of genuine, clean, uncontaminated, US-made R12 from before the manufacturing ban. That's most of what's being sold on eBay; US Customs is very good at catching Freon smugglers. > I am licensed and certified Universal and Automotive So am I. s.608 and s.609, bud. Not that s.609 (MVAC) means anything; anyone with 15 minutes and $15 can take the open-book test online and get a 609 card. As far as your beloved Freeze-12: It's nothing but R134a with a proportion of R142b added in as a crutch for oil miscibility. Its heat carrying capacity is poorer than that of R134a, which in turn is poorer than R12. There is no reason to mess with this ridiculous crap; a properly-done R134a conversion will be more satisfactory and less expensive. > Coasty > SEMPAR PARATUS > (ALWAYS READY) Always ready to spread misinformation and half-truths, as it seems. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Len G wrote:
> Go into a staples or some place that sells compressed air, if it doesn't > say environmentally friend then read the whole label chances are its > 134a, go to an electronics supply house, not radio shack, though they > might have it and look for some component cooler or freeze spray, again > its 134a. The stuff sold as air dusters is often R134a, but doing as you implicitly suggest and charging it into an A/C system is foolhardy. Why? Because it's not even close to being pure or dry. It doesn't have to be, for dusting the Oreo crumbs out of your keyboard. It DOES have to be, for use in an A/C system. Charging an A/C system with wet/impure refrigerant is a sure-fire recipe for expensive system damage. After the filter-dryer is saturated and can sequester no more moisture -- which is not at all difficult; the dryer is not meant to handle more than tiny amounts of residual moisture -- the remaining moisture reacts with the refrigerant at high temperatures to form aggressive Hydrofluoric acid, which eats thin aluminum voraciously (evaporator, condenser). Moisture also freezes in TXVs and orifice tubes, causing a clog that reduces system performance to near zero and sends head pressure skyrocketing. And finally, all the impurities in duster-grade gas further reduce system performance as noncondensibles. Putting duster-grade R134a in an A/C system is *almost* as poor an idea as charging an A/C system with camping fuel, for the same (wet/impure) reason. The camping fuel idea is somewhat more knotheaded, for reasons that have already been done to death in this forum. DS (waiting for those two idiots to make vague and unsupported assertions) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > The stuff sold as air dusters is often R134a, ... It really gets me that it's illegal (in the U.S., at least) to vent R134 from a car's A/C system but there's no problem with venting it from those 'air' dusters and other products in which it's used as a propellant. From what I understand, you can't buy R134 at all in Canada without a license but those dusters. etc. that use it are OK for anyone to buy & use. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Z.Z. wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: > It really gets me that it's illegal (in the U.S., at least) to vent R134 > from a car's A/C system but there's no problem with venting it from > those 'air' dusters and other products in which it's used as a > propellant. It seems inconsistent, but it makes sense -- more or less -- when you think about it. One single rule (you may not vent gas from auto air conditioners, period) greatly reduces the chances of improper procedures being followed -- to say nothing of accidental CFC releases -- in the field. > From what I understand, you can't buy R134 at all in Canada without a > license but those dusters. etc. that use it are OK for anyone to buy & > use. True. Canada's auto A/C regulations are more restrictive than those of the US. It's illegal in Canada, for instance, to charge an auto A/C system with R12. If an R12 system needs to be evacuated to make a repair, it may not legally be refilled with R12. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > It seems inconsistent, but it makes sense -- more or less -- when you > think about it. One single rule (you may not vent gas from auto air > conditioners, period) greatly reduces the chances of improper > procedures being followed ... I guess that could be a consideration. But it seems to me that if the goal truly is to limit the emission of (supposedly) ozone-depleting and/or greenhouse gasses there'd be some limits on using them in aerosol cans as well. I mean, most automotive A/C system hold, what?, a couple pounds of refrigerant, mostly r-134 these days. Even assuming that all that 134 will eventually leak out, how much more will be emitted from spray cans over the same time period? The 134 in your car's A/C should last several years, barring some catastrophic failure. In that time, you'll likely release many times that amount in propellant in the various spray cans you use...deoderant, spray paint, canned 'air', etc. I'd think that over a given time period, many time more r-134 would be released from spray cans than from car A/C systems. But then, laws aren't always made based on valid scientific knowledge or logic... > > True. Canada's auto A/C regulations are more restrictive than those of > the US. It's illegal in Canada, for instance, to charge an auto A/C > system with R12. If an R12 system needs to be evacuated to make a > repair, it may not legally be refilled with R12. I didn't know that. See the last sentence in my previous paragraph. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Z.Z." > wrote in message ... > Daniel J. Stern wrote: > > > > > It seems inconsistent, but it makes sense -- more or less -- when you > > think about it. One single rule (you may not vent gas from auto air > > conditioners, period) greatly reduces the chances of improper > > procedures being followed ... > > I guess that could be a consideration. But it seems to me that if the > goal truly is to limit the emission of (supposedly) ozone-depleting > and/or greenhouse gasses there'd be some limits on using them in aerosol > cans as well. I mean, most automotive A/C system hold, what?, a couple > pounds of refrigerant, mostly r-134 these days. Even assuming that all > that 134 will eventually leak out, how much more will be emitted from > spray cans over the same time period? The 134 in your car's A/C should > last several years, barring some catastrophic failure. In that time, > you'll likely release many times that amount in propellant in the various > spray cans you use...deoderant, spray paint, canned 'air', etc. I'd think > that over a given time period, many time more r-134 would be released > from spray cans than from car A/C systems. But then, laws aren't always > made based on valid scientific knowledge or logic... > Oh, it's even worse than that. I've got a can here, Chemtronics Freez-IT, the label says 100% R134a. Next to it is another can Falcon Dust Off Freeze Spray, same thing. You can go to Fry's and they have pallets of the stuff they sell for a couple bucks to the general public. Both these are intended to be used to find thermal problems in electronic gear. I use them in the shop when freeing stuck bolts - heat the thing the bolt is stuck in up with a propane torch, then when it's good and hot, soak the bolt in Freeze Spray and remove. And not only is R134a used in these products, it's also used in blown-in insulation and a lot of other products where it quickly outgasses to the atmosphere. And as far as R12 goes, what everyone seems to miss is that as time passes the R12 that is evacuated from existing refrigerant systems and is reclaimed, it is going to be sold again, then used to fill auto A/C systems which ultimately will leak. This process will continue until there are no more cars that take R12, which probably will take another 20 years to have happen. But once it does happen the price of R12 will drop, and eventually people will be sitting on old R12 that has become worthless, then where do you think it will go? Do you think people will pay to dispose of it? I doubt it I think they will landfill it and ultimately the containers will rust and the R12 will escape. The only way to truly get R12 out of the environment is to burn it on the ground in an incinerator, or allow it to escape where eventually natural processes in the stratosphere will destroy it. And, nobody is burning R12 in incinerators now, (it's worth too much) and I can almost guarentee that most R12 in use now will never end up incinerated. And the same thing is going to happen to the R134a that is produced. The only way to stop the release of refrigerant is to stop manufacturing it. All the laws on releasing R134a and R12 while servicing A/C systems are merely feel-good, they simply delay the inevitable. Sooner or later no matter how many charge/reclaim/charge cycles that a pound of R134a or R12 goes through, it will inevitably end up in an auto system that goes bad and leaks. The only A/C servicing laws that do any good at all are the ones that make it illegal to fill a R134a system that you know has a serious leak in it (as opposed to a potential leak that may happen in the future) as these help to slow down the global consumption of R134a by a slight amount. Ted |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:38:47 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> wrote: > >"Z.Z." > wrote in message ... >> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> >> > >> > It seems inconsistent, but it makes sense -- more or less -- when you >> > think about it. One single rule (you may not vent gas from auto air >> > conditioners, period) greatly reduces the chances of improper >> > procedures being followed ... >> >> I guess that could be a consideration. But it seems to me that if the >> goal truly is to limit the emission of (supposedly) ozone-depleting >> and/or greenhouse gasses there'd be some limits on using them in aerosol >> cans as well. I mean, most automotive A/C system hold, what?, a couple >> pounds of refrigerant, mostly r-134 these days. Even assuming that all >> that 134 will eventually leak out, how much more will be emitted from >> spray cans over the same time period? The 134 in your car's A/C should >> last several years, barring some catastrophic failure. In that time, >> you'll likely release many times that amount in propellant in the various >> spray cans you use...deoderant, spray paint, canned 'air', etc. I'd think >> that over a given time period, many time more r-134 would be released >> from spray cans than from car A/C systems. But then, laws aren't always >> made based on valid scientific knowledge or logic... >> > >Oh, it's even worse than that. I've got a can here, Chemtronics Freez-IT, >the label says 100% R134a. Next to it is another can Falcon Dust Off >Freeze Spray, same thing. You can go to Fry's and they have pallets of >the stuff they sell for a couple bucks to the general public. Both these >are intended to be used to find thermal problems in electronic gear. I >use them in the shop when freeing stuck bolts - heat the thing the bolt is >stuck in up with a propane torch, then when it's good and hot, soak the >bolt in Freeze Spray and remove. > >And not only is R134a used in these products, it's also used in blown-in >insulation and a lot of other products where it quickly outgasses to the >atmosphere. > >And as far as R12 goes, what everyone seems to miss is that as time >passes the R12 that is evacuated from existing refrigerant systems and >is reclaimed, it is going to be sold again, then used to fill auto A/C >systems which ultimately will leak. This process will continue until >there are no more cars that take R12, which probably will take another >20 years to have happen. But once it does happen the price of R12 >will drop, and eventually people will be sitting on old R12 that has >become worthless, then where do you think it will go? Do you think >people will pay to dispose of it? I doubt it I think they will landfill it >and ultimately the containers will rust and the R12 will escape. > >The only way to truly get R12 out of the environment is to burn it >on the ground in an incinerator, or allow it to escape where eventually >natural processes in the stratosphere will destroy it. And, nobody is >burning R12 in incinerators now, (it's worth too much) and I can >almost guarentee that most R12 in use now will never end up >incinerated. > >And the same thing is going to happen to the R134a that is produced. > >The only way to stop the release of refrigerant is to stop manufacturing >it. All the laws on releasing R134a and R12 while servicing A/C systems >are merely feel-good, they simply delay the inevitable. Sooner or later >no matter how many charge/reclaim/charge cycles that a pound of >R134a or R12 goes through, it will inevitably end up in an auto system that >goes bad and leaks. > >The only A/C servicing laws that do any good at all are the ones that >make it illegal to fill a R134a system that you know has a serious leak in >it >(as opposed to a potential leak that may happen in the future) as >these help to slow down the global consumption of R134a by a slight >amount. > > >Ted > Assuming the environment has some capacity to "digest" the r12 either by chemical means or simply because it just dissipates into space, the longer you drag out the release, the less damaging the R12 (and any other refrigerant) will be. So I don't see it as just "delay" but as a "taking longer" so it allows natural processes more time to take care of things. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
134a Refrigerant | Rich Hampel | Jeep | 1090 | August 23rd 05 06:43 AM |
freon | tom | Chrysler | 45 | August 5th 05 09:27 PM |
A/C pipe leaking freon | HND | Honda | 12 | July 25th 05 07:52 PM |
A/C problem | MPClark | Jeep | 18 | July 2nd 05 12:32 AM |
Help: Recharging AC on 96 G Voyager SE | The White Family | Chrysler | 6 | June 2nd 05 08:39 PM |