134a Refrigerant

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
. ..
> We're talking
> Science here

then show me something conclusive. no "could be's" which is all youve given
me thus far.

> and can anyone guess what your
> agenda is, or who *you* voted for

so call me a conservative and i wont whine about name calling. youre a
liberal. you wear it, you may as well own it. calling you a liberal isnt
"name calling", especially when its painfully obvious to anyone reading your
drivvel.


> what it
> would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

CONCLUSIVE evidence. no "could be, might be, probably is" crap.


> Can you understand that the atmosphere is
> not as simple as you make it out to be?

ive never tried to over simply it, but that doesnt change one basic point.
heavier gas does not rise above lighter gas.


> What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
> that one

your link means NOTHING. its not an "industry link". industry link would
suggest universal acceptance within the hvac industry. you quoted one
source from within the hvac industry. i work within the refrigeration/hvac
industry and have forgot more about it than you could begin to hope to know
so dont try to tell me how the hvac industry feels about anything.


> What would be conclusive evidence for you?

statement of fact from a _credible_ source without leaving the back-door for
when its proven wrong.


> That
> NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
> rising since 1980?

so tell me CONCLUSIVELY where its coming from. you cant. could it be
naturally occuring in the stratosphere and falling down? fact is you (or
your links) dont have any idea where its coming from which is why the
save-face is left in every document youve quoted.



> I posted that link... all you
> posted was a periodic table.

proving that the atomic weight of chlorine is heavier than oxygen and
carbon. heavier gases do not rise above lighter ones.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

Kentucky was a part of Europe when the Iridium was deposited:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ntinents.shtml
We are about a hundred years into the next polar flip:
http://www.crystalinks.com/poleshifts.html during which the northern and
southern hemispheres will remain separated via basic laws in physics
governing the earth's rotation, the same that determine the direction
water will funnel down into a drain.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Well... it's evidence of atmospheric effects crossing
> hemispheres... which you said couldn't happen.
>
> Tell me... how many times has the Earth flipped
> upside down since KT? Please supply a link, I
> collect real funny stuff.
> __
> Steve
> .

What do you except? A giant meteor hit the gulf of Mexico at near
equator Latitude. Along with covering the earth with ash, we probably
blasted rock out into the universe like the mars rock we have with
fossils. BUT our earth's northern and southern hemispheres will remain
separated via basic laws in physics governing the earth's rotation, the
same that determine the direction water will funnel down into a drain.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
>
> Well... it's evidence of atmospheric effects crossing
> hemispheres... which you said couldn't happen.
>
> Tell me... how many times has the Earth flipped
> upside down since KT? Please supply a link, I
> collect real funny stuff.
> __
> Steve
> .

Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "JohnM" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>
>
> I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
> NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
> __
> Steve
> believes in Science
> .

That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
every time I start it.

Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
at the south pole. If we are to give up everything that works well but
may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
never get anywhere. As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
hogwash was perpetrated. And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
than we ever have. And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.

When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
value of new cars- so the effect is still there.

Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
it's not.

John

Evidence exists that the polar vortex is a natural phenomenon and existed
before cfc's were widely used. Has to do with the large temperature
variation between the Antarctic continent and the surrounding ocean...the
land mass is supercooled during the Antarctic winter, and the increased
temperature varaiation causes massive upper-level winds that disperse the
atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic.

"Dave Milne" > wrote in message
. uk...
> well, I have no idea. However, to quote NASA:
>
> "but the link between CFC's and Ozone depletion, and the major factors
> creating the antarctic ozone hole, are considered by most researchers to
> be
> well established facts"
>
> Consequently, until I can be bothered to get a Chemistry degree, I'll err
> on
> the side of caution and do my best to tread lightly.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dave Milne" > wrote in message
>> . uk...
>> > I'm sure volcanoes will feel responsible and penitent if we start
>> > starving...
>> > It's like throwing litter - just because a place is untidy, that
>> > doesn't
>> > give us an excuse to make it worse. It's part of treading lightly in my
>> > book.
>>
>> but there is _no_ scientific evidence of refrigerant causing the
>> depletion
>> of the ozone. in fact, the atomic weight of chlorine is heavier than air
>> making it nearly impossible for it to ever reach the ozone anyway. it
>> all
>> boils down to money. when duponts patent expired on 12, suddenly it was
>> deemed "bad" for the environment.
>>
>> --
>> Nathan W. Collier
>> http://7SlotGrille.com
>> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
>>
>>
>
>

You're the kind of liberal that gives the rest of us a bad name. Rush is a
pompous ass, so I didn't even know he had agreed with it.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s50.htm

The theory is the cfc's break down spontaneously (some of the most
chemically stable compounds known) and release free clorine that "eat away"
ozone.


"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
> news
>> Don't forget that the single biggest source of atmospheric fluorocarbons
> are
>> volcanoes.
>
> You are ignorant, or confused, or both.... or
> just evil
>
> Volcanos don't spew flourocarbons... you're
> thinking of Rush Limbaugh, aren't you? Well,
> megadittoes to you! Anyway, volcanos spew
> HCl, or hydrochloric acid. This stuff is very
> reactive and water-soluble and is purged
> from the atmosphere readily. *Chlorinated*
> fluorocarbons like R12, R22, Freon(tm) et al
> have an atmospheric half-life of around 100
> years... this is how they get up to the stratosphere
> and are broken down by UV, releasing the chlorine
> where it can do the most damage to the ozone
> layer.
>
> In other words, I urge everyone to *forget* that
> volcanos are the 'single biggest source of
> atmospheric fluorocarbons'... utter nonsense.
> Don't be a ditto head... educate yourself.
>
> http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

What's the cfc emission rate over the Antarctic land mass?

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > this is how they get up to the stratosphere
>> > and are broken down by UV
>>
>> please explain how they get to the stratoshpere.
>
> Everyone knows... it's the Polar Vortex! Unless you
> don't trust NASA...
>
> http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HALOE-Ozone.html
> __
> Steve
> .
>
>

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "JohnM" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" > wrote in message
.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I hadn't heard that there was any problem with making R134, and I am
>>>>>surprised that anybody is reporting trouble finding it.
>>>>>
>>>>>And, I agree, going back to R12 isn't gonna happen. It's very
>>>>>expensive, and there are seriouis compatibility issues that add to
>>>>>the cost. I think one is going to spend the summer with the windows
>>>>>rolled down before one goes back to R12.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>R12 is cheaper to produce than 134. It's pretty non-toxic too, which
>>>>can't be said for 134. Political creatures have made 12 expensive.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter that it is cheaper to make, it is essentially illegal
>>>to use in the USA. R12 eats the ozone layer, or whatever, and is a
>>>banned substance. It also does not play well with others in the
>>>neighborhood, R134 for example. If your system is designed to run on
>>>R134, it won't work right on R12 anyway, and if you want to convert your
>>>factory R12 system back to R12 after retrofitting it to R134, then it
>>>will be costly. You can't buy R12 on the open market, so you'll have to
>>>find a crook that will sell it to you, or pay to evacuate your system
>>>and refill it. You are not going to top off a low R134 system with R12,
>>>if for no other reason than the fittings are different sizes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Top off a 134 system with 12 and it's life will be measured in weeks, at
>>best.
>>
>
>
> Top off a 134 system with 12 and measure the life in hours - which is pretty
> much what I said earlier.
>

Not to be disputatious, but that's not at all what you said earlier. I'm
not going to quote you, just go back and look.
>
>
>
>
>>It does matter if it's cheaper to make, and it also matters if it's more
>>efficient (which it is). Laws being passed in the name of doing
>>something, anything, just to be seen to be doing something do not remove
>>the "mattering" of a subject which they address. The fact that
>>refrigeration now costs more, from every angle, for everyone, does matter.
>>
>>As another poster pointed out, it's not at all illegal to use.
>>
>
>
> It isn't illegal to use, but you can't simply open the valve and let it out,
> like was once the practice. It has to be captured now, and they make sure it
> is captured by raising the price. If they raise the price of the new
> refrigerant, then buy back the captured refrigerant, then the new
> refrigerant becomes reasonably priced.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Market pressure does not always affect
price- when the circle of producers is small enough market pressure can
simply affect production; if the supply is high, sometimes it's more
profitable to decrease production and allow the price to remain high.
Eventually it'll sell. I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm
saying that there are exceptions to the supply/demand law and it's
never safe to assume otherwise.

>When we were kids, we could buy a set
> of guages and a can or two of R12 and go home and service the A/C system in
> the driveway. We can't do that anymore because the R12 has gone up in price.
> If we could capture the R12 that we used to release, then the cost of
> self-service would come way down. We can't capture the R12, so the cost of
> self-service is very high. The equipment needed to capture and recycle the
> R12 is expensive, and the only way to justify the cost is to ammortize it
> over many operations.

The reason why the recovery equipment is expensive is due to government
regulation. The cheapest recovery device I've heard of was a R12 tank,
with a line to the system, in a bucket; fill the bucket with liquid
nitrogen and give it a few minutes.. the refrigerant will not only
condense in the tank, it'll freeze. You won't get any more out with any
pump, no matter what. Pretty cheap, but not approved.

>
>
>
>
>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere? I won't get
>>into politics here, I'll just say that there's some subjects which get a
>>lot of attention that I put little stock in. Global warming is another.
>>I don't want to argue about it, if someone wants to argue I suggest they
>>do some open-minded googling.
>>
>>John
>
>
>
> It doesn't really matter what you think of the ozone depletion issue. There
> are rules that have been developed, and they arise out of the ozone
> depletion issue, and we have to live by the rules whether we agree with them
> or not. Personally, I think I suould be able to go into the vault and haul
> off a wheel barrel full of money, but there are bank robbing laws that I
> have to live by whether I agree with them or not.

Of course it matters what I think about the issue. You would surrender
your opinions for a rulemaker who would tell you what to do, and how?
Not me.

I disagree that the "rules that have been developed" have much at all to
do with the ozone issue. Perhaps that's just my natural skeptcism, but
that's my opinion.

Now, don't go telling me that what I think doesn't matter, and then go
on to tell me what you think, which, based on your reasoning, doesn't
matter? Leave the bank's money alone..

>
> So, we are back to Square One. Somebody is looking for R134 that he is
> having trouble sourcing. He didn't say, but I gathered from post that he
> has a system that once took R12, but has been retrofitted to R134, and he
> wanted to know about switching back to R12. I do not think he CAN switch
> back, 1.) because the laws will not allow a conversion in that direction,
> and 2.) because there are serious chemical reaction issues that arise if a
> full evacuation is not accomplished.
>
> None of the pollitical issues make a bit of difference. We have a reality
> that says R134 is required.

Yes.. but that reality is not my fault- I'm willing to have opinions
that aren't exactly politically correct. Join me, enough of us might be
able to restore some sanity to the world..

Think naughty thoughts;-)

John
>
>

Robb S via CarKB.com wrote:
> Your probably right about its boiling temp. I would have to refer to a
> pressure temperature chart to know for sure. I'll take your word on it,
> for the temps and cross referencing. I'm not aware of any systems out
> there that use just propane as a sole refrigerant. The ultra low systems
> I'm talking about use what is called a azotropic refrigerant. Which is 2
> or more refrigerants working together to form the desired results. In
> these Ultra Low applications, Propane is generally used with 3 or 4 other
> refrigerants in the system They all have different boiling points. I
> believe they use the propane in there in a small quantity because it aids
> in the oil flow through the system at those low temperatures. I'm not that
> familiar with those refrigerants though. I've only worked on a couple and
> that was about 5 years ago at NOAA in the Seattle Wa port. I had to add a
> few ounces of this, and a few ounces of that, etc.... to get the thing
> correct. I'm pretty sure thats the only reason the propane is added
> though, for the oil qualities. When getting to that low of a temperature,
> its pretty tricky with the refrigerants and the oils being used. I was
> fortunate enough to get a little experience working on them, to learn. But
> generally there are tech's who work on that stuff all the time and
> specialize in the ultra low stuff. If I had a service call today on one, I
> would probably try and locate someone more experienced for them, but would
> work on it and figure it out if they were in a pinch. Usually more
> efficient when someone is familiar with the system.
> I hope it didn't sound like I was jumping on you or anyone else about the
> propane or the amonia. If it did, I apppologize. That was not my intent.
> They are both excellent refrigerants, but damn, I just don't want to work
> on a system using them.
> There was a factory in Germany I think, using R 134a for its ac system in
> their cranes. They had piped the system in PVC tubing. Seriously, they
> did. They had multiple leaks in the systems on all of thier cranes, and
> ALL of the crane operators developed mysterious tumorous growths and all
> died within a year. Pretty flippin scary. Makes me wonder what I'll come
> down with when I'm 50.

OK, I can see propane doing the job of moving the lubricant, it'll not
yet freeze at -300F. Do you remember the low side pressure and temp on
that system? I'd wonder if the propane ever evaporated..

Nope, I didn't feel jumped on- I reread my post and realized that it
really sounded bad, sounded like I was suggesting ammonia for automovie
AC.. You were doing a service to anyone who might have read it to point
that out, anyone who uses it quickly gains a great respect for it (the
farmers, for instance) but it's very possible for someone to have a
first experience with it and not last long enough to gain the respect. I
wouldn't want to have to try to go to sleep if I were aware that my
suggestion had brought something of that sort about, bringing attention
to it was a good thing.

I didn't know 134 was as bad as you relate- I knew it was worse stuff
than you'd want leaking inside your car and that it can have effects
seemingly out of proportion to the concentration inhaled, but holy cow
that sounds bad. Really bad..

Refrigeration interests me, it's mighty ingenious and one of those
things that impresses me about humans- the fact that we do such things..
I've got a decent grasp of phase changes, latent heat, that stuff, but
only a little practical experience. If it weren't for the laws I'd have
more experience, refrigeration guys near me charge big bucks and
sometimes don't do a great job.

John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> JohnM wrote:
>
>>>>>Shoot a little propane in the system and enjoy -
>>>>
>>[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>>
>>>use it in, what the manufacturer intended it for.....or used in THEIR
>>>system.
>>
>>You're talking liquid O2 temps there, propane boils, at atmospheric
>>pressure, around -44F. Oxygen boils at -297.. you sure about that temp?
>>I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know heaps about refrigeration, but
>>I know some and this is a pretty low temperature.
>>
>>
>>>2. Anhydrous Amonia is also an excellent refrigerant, but ranks extremely
>>>low in the safety areas as well. And it is primarily used only in
>>
>>[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>>
>>>And never would if it would ever be exposed to people in any way-shape or
>>>form...... JUST TOO SCARY for me........
>>
>>I didn't suggest anyone use propane as a replacement for R22, I just
>>pointed out an interesting fact while free-associating; it's a perfect,
>>cheap, compatible replacement. I'm pretty certain it's illegal,
>>otherwise it'd be used in place of R22. Anyone interested can look it
>>up. Using it where a leak could be exposed to people or a enclosed area
>>would be a bad idea.
>>
>>As far as the research, it's already been done- google will find lots of
>>info on it for you.
>>
>>I made a mistake in the way I wrote concerning ammonia. As you state,
>>it's an excellent refrigerant, but if anyone were to use it in their car
>>or house they'd be inviting disaster. It's Mean Stuff, a good whiff of
>>it will damage a person (or other animal) for life. I erred in failing
>>to point that out, my free-association was going and I didn't catch it.
>>My mistake, and it's good you responded and pointed it out.
>>
>>R134a is also bad stuff- nothing like ammonia, but worse than you'd
>>expect for something that's allowed to be risked in a closed enviroment
>>like an automobile. Again, google it for reliable information.
>>
>>John
>
>

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Well... it's evidence of atmospheric effects crossing
> > hemispheres... which you said couldn't happen.
> >
> > Tell me... how many times has the Earth flipped
> > upside down since KT? Please supply a link, I
> > collect real funny stuff.

> Kentucky was a part of Europe when the Iridium was deposited:
>
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ntinents.shtml

The earth has not flipped over... the continents have
drifted, but not that much since KT. BTW, when I
say KT, that refers to the Cretaceous-Tertiary
Boundary where the iridium layer is found.
The KT boundary was formed 63 million years
ago at the end of the Cretaceous era... watch the
animation on the above link (you'll have to look
carefully, the animation covers almost a billion
year period).


> We are about a hundred years into the next polar flip:
> http://www.crystalinks.com/poleshifts.html during which the northern and
> southern hemispheres will remain separated via basic laws in physics
> governing the earth's rotation, the same that determine the direction
> water will funnel down into a drain.

Hilarious! 'Crystallinks.com'... 'Psychic... Therapist...
Reiki Master... Teacher'.

Here's a big funny: "In my opinion - the Earth will loose
its magnetics - the grids that form the consciousness
of our reality will collapse - as we shift into the next
level of consciousness".

I wasn't aware that you were a devotee, Bill! What
color is *your* aura? Had any psychic cleansing
done lately?
__
Steve
..