134a Refrigerant

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
<..>
>he _defined_ freon as a compound. to quote: "freon is a
> compound".
>
> mistaken? dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freon
> defines it as:
>
> "A trademark used for a variety of nonflammable gaseous or liquid
> fluorinated hydrocarbons employed primarily as working fluids in
> refrigeration and air conditioning and as aerosol propellants."
>
> it is a trademark used. it is not a compound, a mixture, or anything else.
> im right, youre wrong, now spin and lie like a good liberal.

No Nate, you were simply being a pedantic little prick attempting to
deflect the core of the discussion with a bit of minutia. You had made
the statement that CFCs were mixtures. Mixtures and compounds are not
the same thing. I am aware that Freon is a registered trademark, but it
has become so generic that to the common man if you were to use the word
they instantly know what you are talking about. An excellent example of
this is to search E-Bay (tm) for Freon. Hundreds of hits for Freon-12
and Freon Sniffers, and Freon conversion kits. As an "Industry Insider"
you, of course, are daily exposed machinations of DuPont's legal
department is trying to reassert some level of branding.
http://www.answers.com/topic/genericized-trademark
As a final note, when I skin a knuckle working on my jeep, I put a
bandaid on it.

--
jeff

The operative word in my question was "YOU" and you failed again.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> It would be much easier to let others tell the tale...
>
> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...mical+compound
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound
>
> Particularly edifying are the following, from Wiki:
>
> <>
> A chemical compound is a chemical substance formed from two or more elements, with a fixed ratio determining the composition. For example, dihydrogen monoxide (water, H2O) is a compound composed of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom.
>
> In general, this fixed ratio must be fixed due to some sort of physical property, rather than an arbitrary man-made selection. This is why materials such as brass, the superconductor YBCO, the semiconductor aluminium gallium arsenide, or chocolate are considered mixtures or alloys rather than compounds.
> </>
> __
> Steve
> .

Point is I have "3.14" memorized, you obviously couldn't remember,
otherwise you wouldn't have written: "3..."
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Another howler! It *damn* sure doesn't equal Pi...
> Pi is one of the *irrational* numbers... that means,
> for you folk that haven't had advanced math as
> Bill and I have, that it *can't* be represented as
> a ratio of integers. 22/7 is only good out to three
> digits... if you can rattle off 3.1415927 like a phone
> number, you don't need that 22/7 thing anyway.
> __
> Steve
> .

NO WHERE HAVE I STATED "Volume Change = Density" They obviously
different by definition. I said creates, like an explosion by ignition.
Dense!!!!!!!!!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/


jeff wrote:
>
> Here you state [Volume Change = Density].
> Are you saying I am wrong in calling you on such an obviously incorrect
> statement, or are you saying that you think you have made a correct
> statement?
>
> Again, you are still attempting, albeit rather poorly, to describe what
> happened, and not how and why. Here is a free hint: "Hydrogen Bonding".

Paraphrase: Gobblygook.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> No Nate, you were simply being a pedantic little prick attempting to
> deflect the core of the discussion with a bit of minutia. You had made
> the statement that CFCs were mixtures. Mixtures and compounds are not
> the same thing. I am aware that Freon is a registered trademark, but it
> has become so generic that to the common man if you were to use the word
> they instantly know what you are talking about. An excellent example of
> this is to search E-Bay (tm) for Freon. Hundreds of hits for Freon-12
> and Freon Sniffers, and Freon conversion kits. As an "Industry Insider"
> you, of course, are daily exposed machinations of DuPont's legal
> department is trying to reassert some level of branding.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/genericized-trademark
> As a final note, when I skin a knuckle working on my jeep, I put a
> bandaid on it.
>
> --
> jeff

Here is what you wrote:
L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> new density.

Let's parse your statement:
[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore

[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
which leaves the meat or your statement:

volume change is their new density.

If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.

this leaves "volume is density"

Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
manner?



L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
> NO WHERE HAVE I STATED "Volume Change = Density" They obviously
> different by definition. I said creates, like an explosion by ignition.
> Dense!!!!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
>
> jeff wrote:
>
>>Here you state [Volume Change = Density].
>>Are you saying I am wrong in calling you on such an obviously incorrect
>>statement, or are you saying that you think you have made a correct
>>statement?
>>
>>Again, you are still attempting, albeit rather poorly, to describe what
>>happened, and not how and why. Here is a free hint: "Hydrogen Bonding".

Your deductive powers are seriously flawed! You really need help,
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
> Your deductive powers are seriously flawed!
The parsing of your statement was straight forward. No deductive powers
involved at all, simply a carving up of a statement to the core
assertion. Show the flaws.

> You really need help, grabbing for straws like this.
straws???




>>Here is what you wrote:
>>L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
>> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>> > new density.
>>
>>Let's parse your statement:
>>[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>>
>>[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
>>which leaves the meat or your statement:
>>
>>volume change is their new density.
>>
>>If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
>> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>>
>>this leaves "volume is density"
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
>>manner?

You really think you may substitute "equal" for "is" in my
statement "volume change is their new
density"??????????????????????????? That does not make volume equal
density, no more than an apple equals and orange. Dense!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> The parsing of your statement was straight forward. No deductive powers
> involved at all, simply a carving up of a statement to the core
> assertion. Show the flaws.

"jeff" > wrote in message
news:9SQBe.9$N91.5@trnddc08...

> No Nate, you were simply being a pedantic little prick attempting to
> deflect the core of the discussion with a bit of minutia.

_wrong_. if youre going to step into my industry and try to explain
something to me youd better do your homework first. your statement was
_wrong_.

> You had made the statement that CFCs were mixtures.

show me.

> I am aware that Freon is a registered trademark, but it has become so
> generic that to the common man if you were to use the word they instantly
> know what you are talking about.

exactly....the "common man" typically doesnt know **** about refrigeration
or refrigerants. if you want to talk the talk like the big man who knows
something about either youd better step up and learn what youre talking
about. _nobody_ within the industry uses the term "freon" because it is a
brand name. "refrigerant" is both the proper terminoloy _and_ the commonly
used reference by those who know what theyre talking about. only those
ignorant to the industry would use the word "freon" and only the foolish
would defend it.


> An excellent example of this is to search E-Bay (tm) for Freon.

lol well there it is.....ebay = biblical credibility! :-)

oh wait im sorry, you liberals have no use for such foolishness.

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