Recharging A/C on 1999 Dodge Caravan

"Steve B." > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:49:38 +0200, epeart
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >I tried Recharging the A/C on my girlfriends 1999 Dodge Caravan Sport
today I got the kit " charger hose and 3 cans of 134a.
> > my end result It blows nothing but hot air. It was cooler before I
tried to recharge it. It would only take half a can and it's the
> >small can so decided to bleed out what was left inthe line by pressing in
the valve it still would only take half and it is the right connection
> > it can only fit one way am I doing something wrong? please help before
my girlfriend kills me
>
>
> #1 Venting the refrigerant from your system is a federal crime (a
> violation of the clear air act) . Even if you don't care about the
> environment it probably isn't the best idea to admit to a federal
> crime on a world wide public newsgroup.
>

Hey Steve, I just used part of a can of Dust Off Freeze Spray
this afternoon to find a thermal intermittent on a radio - the
stuff is 100% R134a - I guess I must not care about the
environment? The instructions
on the can say to apply directly to components to locate
thermal intermittents, they don't say anything about recovery.

I am confused about caring about the environment - the front
of the can says 100% Ozone Safe - and I just bought it brand
new about a week ago.

My wife also wants to know if she hates the environment
too - her hairspray can uses R134a as the propellant.

My kid also wants to know if he hates the environment too - he painted
his bike with spray paint last week - propellant is also r134a
in that can.

>
> In all honesty you are probably in over your head on this one. After
> venting the system the dryer really should be replaced and the system
> vacuumed.

What the hell? If you vent the system down to atmospheric then how
exactly does appreciable amount of outside air and moisture get in
and ruin the dryer? Unless you vent it then remove the schrader valve
perhaps and drive around for the next week with the system open.

> Your also dealing with a $400 compressor that you can
> easily ruin by adding an improper amount of refrigerant or oil.
>

That much is true - if he gets a new compressor - but you forgot
the money for all the extra parts and time he needs when he
fragments the compressor and it dumps metal filings into the refrigerant
lines.

Ted

"epeart" > wrote in message
...
>
> All I did was ask a simple question on installing the R134a, I've
installed Superchargers, Turbos fuel injection units rearends entire brake
systems mostly on euro cars and yes I don't know much about A/C
refridgeration But I've recharged BMW"s Nnd Audi's all 2000 and newer. So
don't be immature little asses when someone is asking for legitimate help.
This is what this forum is supposed to be about. I did take it to my friends
A/C shop and I was doing it correctly I just never vented out the gas like I
thought I did.
>

Let me ask you this - you say you installed all that stuff, how did you do
it? With your fingers? Of course
not, you used a wrench, socket set, and probably some other tools. I'm sure
you probably spent a lot
of money on tools.

So why then is it OK to spend all this money on tools to install this
supercharger of yours, then try to
use dicky little ****-ant $1.99 tools like that recharge kit on A/C work?

You need decent tools for A/C work just like you need for installing that
supercharger. One of the
basic fundamental tools for A/C work is a manifold guage set. Along with
that is a leak detector, a
vacuum pump, and a number of other tools.

No different than the number of other tools needed for the supercharger.

There's an old saying: "If the tools not right the guy's not bright"

You posted in this forum that you used crap tools for this job, of course we
all assume your a
moron. If I posted that I was having problems installing a supercharger in
a Euro car with nothing
more than an adjustable crescent wrench, you would think I'm a moron too.

Ted

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:53:06 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> wrote:


>> #1 Venting the refrigerant from your system is a federal crime (a
>> violation of the clear air act) . Even if you don't care about the
>> environment it probably isn't the best idea to admit to a federal
>> crime on a world wide public newsgroup.
>>
>
>Hey Steve, I just used part of a can of Dust Off Freeze Spray
>this afternoon to find a thermal intermittent on a radio - the
>stuff is 100% R134a - I guess I must not care about the
>environment? The instructions
>on the can say to apply directly to components to locate
>thermal intermittents, they don't say anything about recovery.
>
>I am confused about caring about the environment - the front
>of the can says 100% Ozone Safe - and I just bought it brand
>new about a week ago.
>
>My wife also wants to know if she hates the environment
>too - her hairspray can uses R134a as the propellant.
>
>My kid also wants to know if he hates the environment too - he painted
>his bike with spray paint last week - propellant is also r134a
>in that can.

You made up the "hate" part yourself. No where in my post did I say
that. My exact quote from above is "Even if you don't care about the
environment". 134a is ozone safe BUT it is also a green-house gas. I
don't write the laws nor do I lobby for the exceptions. I''m just
pointiing out to the OP that it isn't legal and shouldn't be admitted
to in a public forum. There is a several thousand dollar "nark
reward" if you turn someone in and they get prosecuted. Would it ever
happen to him? Doubtful but seems kind of silly to risk it to me.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:33:29 +0200, epeart
> wrote:

>
> i did take it to my friends A/C shop and I was doing it correctly
>I just never vented out the gas like I thought I did.


Your trying to tell me that a guy who installed a super charger and
did all that other wonderful stuff you did can't figure out how to
hold in a valve stem until the refrigerant leaks out?


In your original post you said you added half a can and it went from
warm to hot if I remember correctly. So what turned out to be the
actual problem with the system?

Steve B.

"Steve B." wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:33:29 +0200, epeart
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > i did take it to my friends A/C shop and I was doing it correctly
> >I just never vented out the gas like I thought I did.
>
> Your trying to tell me that a guy who installed a super charger and
> did all that other wonderful stuff you did can't figure out how to
> hold in a valve stem until the refrigerant leaks out?

Of course he couldn't figure out how to hold the valve stem in....He may
be a moron, but he didn't break the law, right?....yeah, that's right!

You're obviously good at figuring out how to fix things, but apparently
the other thing that you have to figure out is what this forum is
supposed to be for. It's where people with legitimate questions go to
be told that they need to consult a professional. Right guys?



epeart wrote:
>
> All I did was ask a simple question on installing the R134a, I've installed Superchargers, Turbos fuel injection units rearends entire brake systems mostly on euro cars and yes I don't know much about A/C refridgeration But I've recharged BMW"s Nnd Audi's all 2000 and newer. So don't be immature little asses when someone is asking for legitimate help. This is what this forum is supposed to be about. I did take it to my friends A/C shop and I was doing it correctly I just never vented out the gas like I thought I did.
>
> --
> epeart
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View this thread: http://www.carstalk.net/viewtopic-332601.html
>
> Send from http://www.carstalk.net

"Steve B." > wrote in message
...

> You made up the "hate" part yourself. No where in my post did I say
> that. My exact quote from above is "Even if you don't care about the
> environment". 134a is ozone safe BUT it is also a green-house gas. I
> don't write the laws nor do I lobby for the exceptions. I''m just
> pointiing out to the OP that it isn't legal and shouldn't be admitted
> to in a public forum. There is a several thousand dollar "nark
> reward" if you turn someone in and they get prosecuted. Would it ever
> happen to him? Doubtful but seems kind of silly to risk it to me.
>

Except that on Usenet, since it's so rediculous to forge names, there's
no proof that it is who it says it is. (you don't even have any proof that
this post is from the same person that replied to you yesterday, nor that
both posts actually go to the "real" Ted Mittelstedt (whichever one that
is, there's probably dozens of people worldwide with the same name as
me) So I don't think there is any risk there.

And my point also is that when the government makes stupid laws they
should be flouted and ignored. That is what the Declaration of
Independence is all about. With this refrigerant venting issue,
the real truth of it is that the majority use of R134a is rapidly
becoming all those OTHER uses, that are NON refrigerant uses,
where it's just vented to atmosphere.

The EPA mandated automotive refrigerant recovery when R12 was still
very prevalent, and the typical A/C service shop really wouldn't know
what the **** was in the system when it came in for service. So the
safest thing was to assume it was R12.

But that was a long time ago and this assumption is rapidly becoming
invalid with automotive A/C systems. It is unfair to place this burden
of recovery on A/C shops then turn around and say nothing to the
manufacturers of boat horns, insulation, dog barking collars,
and every damn thing else who sell tons of products who's entire
point is to dump R134a into atmosphere.

I'm sure you regularly flout and ignore the 55Mph speed limit on
your highways, why is this any different?

The other thing I find absolutely a laugh on this issue is using it as a
propellant in asthma inhalers. Here we have this - according
to the EPA - -d--n-g-e-r-o-u-s- whoooooooo!!!! environmentally
hazardous refrigerant - and sick people with asthma are squirting it
into their lungs!!!


Ted

"Robbie and Laura Reynolds" > wrote in message
...
> You're obviously good at figuring out how to fix things, but apparently
> the other thing that you have to figure out is what this forum is
> supposed to be for. It's where people with legitimate questions go to
> be told that they need to consult a professional. Right guys?
>

Gee, I thought it was where people go who are too cheap to spend the $20 on
a
used Factory Service Manual. (but more than happy to spend $15 on a
Chiltons)

I also thought it was were people go to bitch about the latest auto designs
out of DC, and bitch about the latest pooh-pooh ing of those designs from
Consumer Reports.

Boy, what a disappointment! ;-)

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve B." > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:49:38 +0200, epeart
>> > wrote:
>>
>> #1 Venting the refrigerant from your system is a federal crime (a
>> violation of the clear air act) . Even if you don't care about the
>> environment it probably isn't the best idea to admit to a federal
>> crime on a world wide public newsgroup.
>>
>
> Hey Steve, I just used part of a can of Dust Off Freeze Spray
> this afternoon to find a thermal intermittent on a radio - the
> stuff is 100% R134a - I guess I must not care about the
> environment? The instructions
> on the can say to apply directly to components to locate
> thermal intermittents, they don't say anything about recovery.

This explains alot about the issue. The thing I don't understand is how
freeze spray (a pinpoint refrigerant) isn't considered a refrigerant. Of
course, dustoff would then become a refrigerant if inverted and used like
freeze spray.

Handling HFC-134a
Venting HFC-134a Refrigerant
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act prohibits releasing HFC-134a into the
atmosphere. The prohibition on venting HFC-134a has been in effect since
November 1995.

Section 609 Regulatory History
In March, 1996, EPA proposed a rule to require recycling of HFC-134a. The
rule proposed standards for recover-only and recover/recycle equipment and
rules for training and testing technicians to handle this equipment. EPA
requested comments from the public about this proposed rule, and, after
reviewing the comments, published a final rule on December 30, 1997. This
final rule will become effective on January 29, 1998. For more information
about this rule, see the fact sheet "Summary of Final Rule Governing
Substitutes for CFC-12 Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners"
available through the Hotline and the web site.

Approved Equipment
Technicians who repair or service HFC-134a MVACs must recover the
refrigerant and either recycle it on-site, or send it off-site to a
reclamation facility so that it may be purified according to ARI Standard
700. Technicians must use EPA-approved equipment to perform the refrigerant
recovery and recycling. Recover/ recycle equipment cleans the refrigerant so
that oil, air and moisture contaminants reach acceptably low levels. A list
of approved recover/recycle and recover-only equipment is available from the
Hotline and the web site listed above. Note that certain EPA-approved models
can recycle both CFC-12 and HFC-134a refrigerants.


> I am confused about caring about the environment - the front
> of the can says 100% Ozone Safe - and I just bought it brand
> new about a week ago.

Doesn't matter.... The EPA says....

>
> My wife also wants to know if she hates the environment
> too - her hairspray can uses R134a as the propellant.
>
There is NO R134a in ANY hairspray.

> My kid also wants to know if he hates the environment too - he painted
> his bike with spray paint last week - propellant is also r134a
> in that can.
>

There is NO R134a in ANY spray paint.

>>
>> In all honesty you are probably in over your head on this one. After
>> venting the system the dryer really should be replaced and the system
>> vacuumed.
>
> What the hell? If you vent the system down to atmospheric then how
> exactly does appreciable amount of outside air and moisture get in
> and ruin the dryer? Unless you vent it then remove the schrader valve
> perhaps and drive around for the next week with the system open.
>
>> Your also dealing with a $400 compressor that you can
>> easily ruin by adding an improper amount of refrigerant or oil.
>>
>
> That much is true - if he gets a new compressor - but you forgot
> the money for all the extra parts and time he needs when he
> fragments the compressor and it dumps metal filings into the refrigerant
> lines.
>
> Ted
>

BTW: in the links above, the EPA mentions that they are contemplating
restricting sales of HFC 134a.

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steve B." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:49:38 +0200, epeart
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> #1 Venting the refrigerant from your system is a federal crime (a
> >> violation of the clear air act) . Even if you don't care about the
> >> environment it probably isn't the best idea to admit to a federal
> >> crime on a world wide public newsgroup.
> >>
> >
> > Hey Steve, I just used part of a can of Dust Off Freeze Spray
> > this afternoon to find a thermal intermittent on a radio - the
> > stuff is 100% R134a - I guess I must not care about the
> > environment? The instructions
> > on the can say to apply directly to components to locate
> > thermal intermittents, they don't say anything about recovery.
>
> This explains alot about the issue. The thing I don't understand is how
> freeze spray (a pinpoint refrigerant) isn't considered a refrigerant. Of
> course, dustoff would then become a refrigerant if inverted and used like
> freeze spray.
>

Freeze spray isn't considered a refrigerant because of a political decision
made by the EPA that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Bob, I cannot believe that you live in the United States and are a grown
adult and still don't understand how government works. All government
beaucracies constantly work to self-preserve. They do this by constantly
working to expand their sphere of influence.

The EPA is a beaucracy and right now they have power over AC
refrigerant servicing that they obtained a decade ago when the effects of
ozone damage by chlorinated refrigerants were extremely obvious to
everyone, and extremely provable. We as a people in our fear gave them
this power.

Fast forward 10 years and now that the world has banned chlorinated
refrigerant production, it is only a matter of time before all chlorinated
refrigerants and other gasses leak away and complete their ozone damage.
Then the Earth's natural processes will begin to heal the ozone layer and
when that happens the entire reason for the EPA having control over
AC refrigerant service will disappear. The EPA's beaucracy knows this
and so as normal beaucracies do is moving to self-preserve by finding
another scarecrow to use to fight off attempts to take away it's
now-unnecessary
control over AC servicing. That scarecrow is global warming and the
EPA is claiming R134a refrigerant leaks are contributing to it, thus they
must
retain their power over AC servicing, as well as the beaucracy that
exists to administer this.

This is not a scientific finding by the EPA (that R134a refrigerant has
anything to do with global warming) It is purely a political finding.
Global warming makes a perfect scarecrow since because while
scientists just about all agree that it exists, nobody really knows
for sure what the real causes are. Until the research is completed
that identifies those causes, anybody can say that any possible
human activity they don't understand or don't like, from AC
servicing to farting cows, is a cause and thus must be regulated.

Industry knows this, and the EPA knows that industry knows this.
Therefore as new uses for R134a are proposed and put into practice
the EPA cuts deals with industry. They agree to ignore use of R134a
in products like freeze spray, dust off spray, dog barking collars,
asthma inhalers, insulation, and so on. In exchange for not making
trouble for industry, industry agrees to ignore the EPA's control over
AC servicing.

Government has a long, long history of making scientific decisions
that are based on politics, and not science. They did it in the bad old
days when they agreed that Negros were genetically inferior to
whites. They did it during the Scopes monkey trial when they agreed
that evolution wasn't scientific. They did it during WW2 when they
agreed to inter Japanese Americans. They did it during the 70's when they
kept adjusting forest statistics to continue to permit logging companies
to cut old growth until there isn't any left today. They did it during the
80's when they agreed that damming rivers didn't have anything to do
with destroying fish runs. They did it during the 90's when they
agreed that air bags are just as safe as seat belts. They are doing it
today when they pass laws allowing people to be charged with murder
for killing fetuses who have not yet developed into babies who have any
measurable brain activity, but who happen to be inside the wombs
of mothers who are murdered.

If the EPA really wanted to make a difference they would be focusing
on the more likely causes of global warming - such as combustion - and
moving to limit combustion by such things as raising fuel efficiency
standards for automobiles. Instead, they pussy foot around the elephants
in the room while attacking the mice with a vigor.

>
> > I am confused about caring about the environment - the front
> > of the can says 100% Ozone Safe - and I just bought it brand
> > new about a week ago.
>
> Doesn't matter.... The EPA says....
>

But it DOES matter.

If Joe repairs an A/C system in a motor vehicle in his garage by releasing
a pound of R134a, he is extending the usable life of the vehicle. Suppose
he
extends that life by 2 years.

That is a ton's less of steel production that the world needs for those 2
years
because Joe isn't replacing that car with a new one. A new car that to
produce, will emit far, far more damaging pollution than the release of
R134a will.

One of the side effects of the throwaway society is that we are moving into
a model of shorter vehicle lifetimes. This is great for the car companies
who get to produce more and more cars every year. It is terrible for the
environment because more and more production means more and more
pollution.

The average MPG of cars has barely increased in over 25 years. Thus
the argument that newer cars emit less pollution simply so
we should all throw away our old cars to save the environment doesen't wash.
They are still burning the same amount of gas per mile and the law of
diminishing returns means that eventually the pollution output of
new vehicles will be the same as old, as long as the MPG stays the
same.

So, ultimaately this comes down to do you want to save the environment
or follow the law. Sure, if a
vehicle owner has the money it is better for the environment if they
pay an AC shop to properly reclaim the R134a. But if the vehicle
owner doesen't have the money to pay a repair shop - and AC work
is incredibly expensive - it is better for the environment if they
fix the AC themselves and dump R134a and keep the car for a few
more years, than haul it off the a wrecker because it's undrivable. And in
many areas of the country, AC isn't just an option, it means the
difference between a vehicle that is drivable, and one that isn't.

>
> BTW: in the links above, the EPA mentions that they are contemplating
> restricting sales of HFC 134a.
>

The EPA would have restricted sales of 134a back when it was
developed if they had had the political ability to do so. They didn't then
and there is even less chance that they will now. Every time the price
rises on a can of R134a, the money that industry gets for keeping R134a
available off the shelf rises, and that makes it harder and harder to go
up against the industry lobby.

Ted