Maxi-Frig for R12/R134A ?

("Daniel J. Stern" >) scribbled:

> > Ask at www.aircondition.com, but since no information is given about
> > what the product is, I have great doubts. It may be like OZ-12, which
> > was nothing but a blend of propane and butane, something you definitely
> > don't want in a car.
>
> The Maxi-Frig designation MX-12a is a dead giveaway. HC-12a, ES-12a
> "EnviroSafe", etc. -- they're all the same illegal hydrocarbon blend.

.... and "free-zone" ? http://www.heco.net/freezone.html

[...]
"Free Zone does not contain flammable materials,
such as butane, isobutane, or propane."
[...]

--
<< http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com () >>
Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's ego.

In article >,
Edward Strauss > wrote:

> 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.

Yup, you can also drink it, rub it on your body or use it to
brush your teeth if 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.
>
> Read back through the thread.

I read the thread.
Didn't see any mention of off-road use.

>
>
> > > 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.

A reasonable assumption that the OP intended to use it in a
street driven vehicle, in which case, it being illegal, is not an
opinion, it is a matter of fact.
If in fact you and the OP and the others intend to use it off
road, Daniel and Steve and I will do everything we can to see
that you and the other off-road users receive a refund from your
ISP for us having wasted your bandwidth.

>
> > > 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??

Who screamed?
The context in which the question was asked is germane to whether
or not it would be used in an allowed or legal manner.


>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 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.

Some people are ridiculous.

>
> > > 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.

Yes it is. It also happens to be true.

>
> > > 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.

So what?

> > 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??

It's your compressor, if you want it to seize up, that's your
prerogative.
From a legal stand point, for an automotive system that falls
under EPA jurisdiction, topping off an R-12 system with -any-
other refrigerant including those that are acceptable* under
section 609 without first recovering the original refrigerant is
against the law.
(* R-22 is a component of many different substitute refrigerant
blends allowed under section 609 by the EPA)

> > 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.

I wouldn't tell it like that unless I knew for sure that the OP
or any other poster inquiring about it was not going to use it in
a vehicle that would be operated on a public street or highway.

>
> Robbing banks is illegal, Maxi-Frig is not.

Using hydrocarbon blend refrigerants in a motor vehicle on public
roads is illegal. There, no screaming, no opinion, just fact.
Hope this clears any confusion.
There is no such thing as a "drop in substitute" refrigerant that
can be used in a motor vehicle that is operated on public roads
and highways in the United States. No screaming, no opinion,
just fact.
It is illegal to vent any refrigerant from a motor vehicle into
the atmosphere, regardless of its use in the United States
whether it is ozone depleting or not, thusly making the use of
any hydrocarbon blend refrigerant impractical to use for all
intents and purposes. No opinion, no screaming.

There is no known "unique identifier" service fitting available
for hydrocarbon blend refrigerants for use in automotive
refrigerant systems, thus making it impossible to legally
retrofit an automotive air conditioning system for use on public
roads and highways in the United States.

Anything else you'd like clarified?

On Sat, 21 May 2005, aarcuda69062 wrote:

> > 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.

Well...not really, no. Propane and Butane aren't the same as Isopropane
and Isobutane. Also, camping fuel is almost always extremely wet. Running
camping fuel in a MVAC is a sure-fire ticket to an instantly saturated
filter-dryer and massive internal system corrosion.

"Edward Strauss" > wrote in message
...
> 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...
>
>

There are a number of products on the market that use flammable
hydrocarbons (propane, butane, isobutane in many combinations). Here are
a few that we know about: OZ-12, HC-12a, Duracool 12a, Enviro-safe, Red
Tek, Maxi-Frig, ES-12a and Auto Cool. According the EPA SNAP list, these
are illegal to use in mobile A/C systems. The following refrigerants are
EPA accepted, but contain up to 4% butane or isobutane: FRIG-C (FR-12),
R-406A/GHG/McCool, GHG-X4/Autofrost/Chill-it, Hot Shot (Kar Kool),
GHG-HP, GHG-X-5.

Following is a list of 18 states that have passed laws prohibiting the
sale of flammable refrigerants (hydrocarbons or
HC's) for use in mobile air conditioning systems including those used
off-highway.

Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, District of
Columbia

How do you like your crow served? Hot or cold?


>
> > > 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.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article >, ks says...
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>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?"
>
>
> 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.
> -------------
> Alex
>

Lots of people have had good luck with R-406A. The one car I've done, I
just went straight to R-134a because the system had been open 10 years
anyway. Its been working great for 3 years, in fact I just drove it 100+
round-trip miles to a car show today in 95-degree MUGGY weather- worked
great. I did do a thorough conversion, including flushing every line, a
new high-side hose, new O-rings, a new drier, and new expansion valve
(but that should be SOP on any major A/C job. The only extra thing I did
was a little re-engineering to change it from an EPR-valve system to a
cycling-clutch system, but if you're not converting an old Mopar that's
not usually an issue. I even re-used the old compressor that came with
the car that had been sitting for so long, I just drained all the
mineral oil out and didn't re-fill it with POE oil until 10 minutes
before I buttoned the system up and charged it (POE oil absorbs moisture
like brake fluid- can't leave a system sitting open with POE oil in it.)

Steve W. > wrote:

> "Edward Strauss" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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...
> >
> >

> There are a number of products on the market that use flammable
> hydrocarbons (propane, butane, isobutane in many combinations). Here are
> a few that we know about: OZ-12, HC-12a, Duracool 12a, Enviro-safe, Red
> Tek, Maxi-Frig, ES-12a and Auto Cool. According the EPA SNAP list, these
> are illegal to use in mobile A/C systems. The following refrigerants are
> EPA accepted, but contain up to 4% butane or isobutane: FRIG-C (FR-12),
> R-406A/GHG/McCool, GHG-X4/Autofrost/Chill-it, Hot Shot (Kar Kool),
> GHG-HP, GHG-X-5.

> Following is a list of 18 states that have passed laws prohibiting the
> sale of flammable refrigerants (hydrocarbons or
> HC's) for use in mobile air conditioning systems including those used
> off-highway.

> Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas,
> Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota,
> Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, District of
> Columbia

> How do you like your crow served? Hot or cold?


18 out of 50. Thats the best you can do?


> >
> > > > 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.



> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

aarcuda69062 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Edward Strauss > wrote:

> > 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.

> Yup, you can also drink it, rub it on your body or use it to
> brush your teeth if 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.
> >
> > Read back through the thread.

> I read the thread.
> Didn't see any mention of off-road use.
>
> >
> >
> > > > 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.

> A reasonable assumption that the OP intended to use it in a
> street driven vehicle, in which case, it being illegal, is not an
> opinion, it is a matter of fact.
> If in fact you and the OP and the others intend to use it off
> road, Daniel and Steve and I will do everything we can to see
> that you and the other off-road users receive a refund from your
> ISP for us having wasted your bandwidth.


Another is if a person can buy it where he lives and wants to try it
not saying he was even going to drive the car...
Nitpicking a subject can work either way.

>
> >
> > > > 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??

> Who screamed?
> The context in which the question was asked is germane to whether
> or not it would be used in an allowed or legal manner.

Did someone ask for permission or just wanted to know how and if something worked?


>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.

> Some people are ridiculous.
>
> >
> > > > 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.


> Yes it is. It also happens to be true.

Which is another opinion that is in your mind.

>
> >
> > > > 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.

> So what?

So why would you want to compare an ignition system to the electrical engineering behind a hybrid car?

Thats what.


>
> > > 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??

> It's your compressor, if you want it to seize up, that's your
> prerogative.
> From a legal stand point, for an automotive system that falls
> under EPA jurisdiction, topping off an R-12 system with -any-
> other refrigerant including those that are acceptable* under
> section 609 without first recovering the original refrigerant is
> against the law.
> (* R-22 is a component of many different substitute refrigerant
> blends allowed under section 609 by the EPA)


Nope, watch the head pressures, A little shot of R-22 can work wonders.


>
> > > 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.

> I wouldn't tell it like that unless I knew for sure that the OP
> or any other poster inquiring about it was not going to use it in
> a vehicle that would be operated on a public street or highway.


Thats why there are other people that will.


>
> >
> > Robbing banks is illegal, Maxi-Frig is not.

> Using hydrocarbon blend refrigerants in a motor vehicle on public
> roads is illegal. There, no screaming, no opinion, just fact.
> Hope this clears any confusion.
> There is no such thing as a "drop in substitute" refrigerant that
> can be used in a motor vehicle that is operated on public roads
> and highways in the United States. No screaming, no opinion,
> just fact.
> It is illegal to vent any refrigerant from a motor vehicle into
> the atmosphere, regardless of its use in the United States
> whether it is ozone depleting or not, thusly making the use of
> any hydrocarbon blend refrigerant impractical to use for all
> intents and purposes. No opinion, no screaming.

> There is no known "unique identifier" service fitting available
> for hydrocarbon blend refrigerants for use in automotive
> refrigerant systems, thus making it impossible to legally
> retrofit an automotive air conditioning system for use on public
> roads and highways in the United States.

> Anything else you'd like clarified?


You can preach all you want but it is not the reality of the situation. Once the temps start to rise
this stuff is being used all over the country. People use this stuff based on results. Telling people
that it is illegal does not mean anything when it is this easy to buy. Answering their questions and
allowing them to make their own choice is the way to go. You seem to enjoy enforcing you opinion
using the word illegal. I don't...

In article >,
Edward Strauss > wrote:


> Another is if a person can buy it where he lives and wants to try it
> not saying he was even going to drive the car...
> Nitpicking a subject can work either way.

Fine. the first nit was yours, so is the last.


> > Who screamed?
> > The context in which the question was asked is germane to whether
> > or not it would be used in an allowed or legal manner.
>
> Did someone ask for permission or just wanted to know how and if something
> worked?

What good would asking permission here do?
No one here can grant permission to the OP.
The OP didn't ask whether it worked.
He originally asked:
>> Has anyone used Maxi-Frig? It sounds too good to be true?
The answers that you seem to take issue with do in fact address
the question that he posed.



> > So what?
>
> So why would you want to compare an ignition system to the electrical
> engineering behind a hybrid car?
>
> Thats what.

Don't know, you brought up high voltage hybrid cars...

> > It's your compressor, if you want it to seize up, that's your
> > prerogative.
> > From a legal stand point, for an automotive system that falls
> > under EPA jurisdiction, topping off an R-12 system with -any-
> > other refrigerant including those that are acceptable* under
> > section 609 without first recovering the original refrigerant is
> > against the law.
> > (* R-22 is a component of many different substitute refrigerant
> > blends allowed under section 609 by the EPA)
>
>
> Nope, watch the head pressures, A little shot of R-22 can work wonders.

A little shot of R-22 where?

> > > 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.
>
> > I wouldn't tell it like that unless I knew for sure that the OP
> > or any other poster inquiring about it was not going to use it in
> > a vehicle that would be operated on a public street or highway.
>
>
> Thats why there are other people that will.

**** the rules, 'eh?

> > Using hydrocarbon blend refrigerants in a motor vehicle on public
> > roads is illegal. There, no screaming, no opinion, just fact.
> > Hope this clears any confusion.
> > There is no such thing as a "drop in substitute" refrigerant that
> > can be used in a motor vehicle that is operated on public roads
> > and highways in the United States. No screaming, no opinion,
> > just fact.
> > It is illegal to vent any refrigerant from a motor vehicle into
> > the atmosphere, regardless of its use in the United States
> > whether it is ozone depleting or not, thusly making the use of
> > any hydrocarbon blend refrigerant impractical to use for all
> > intents and purposes. No opinion, no screaming.
>
> > There is no known "unique identifier" service fitting available
> > for hydrocarbon blend refrigerants for use in automotive
> > refrigerant systems, thus making it impossible to legally
> > retrofit an automotive air conditioning system for use on public
> > roads and highways in the United States.
>
> > Anything else you'd like clarified?
>
>
> You can preach all you want but it is not the reality of the situation.

Actually, it IS the reality of the situation.
Choosing to ignore the laws of the US is hardly considered to be
reality.

> Once
> the temps start to rise
> this stuff is being used all over the country.

No shortage of stupid people out there.

> People use this stuff based
> on results.

All the while ignoring the consequences.

> Telling people
> that it is illegal does not mean anything when it is this easy to buy.

Well, Henry (the OP) did ask if it was too good to be true.
Pardon us for giving the answer he was looking for.

> Answering their questions and
> allowing them to make their own choice is the way to go.

Exactly what was done.

> You seem to enjoy
> enforcing you opinion
> using the word illegal. I don't...

You seem to have trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.

mjt wrote:

>
> ... and "free-zone" ? http://www.heco.net/freezone.html
> "Free Zone does not contain flammable materials,
> such as butane, isobutane, or propane."

It is primarily r134a mixed with r142b (I'm to lazy to check up on that
right now) and a petrolium-based lubricant.

I assume the r142b is rich in CFCs, so that might be the major
drawback. If everything the website said was actually true about
Freezone, it would be fairly decent. They even mention that it
requires unique fittings, but how many people are really going to use
them? I thought the concept of charging it as a liquid to preserve the
built-in lubricant was interesting. I mean, seeing that the lubricant
is "blended at the factory and won't fractionate" why would that be a
concern?

Toyota MDT in MO

Comboverfish wrote:

>
> It is primarily r134a mixed with r142b (I'm to lazy to check up on that
> right now) and a petrolium-based lubricant.
>
> I assume the r142b is rich in CFCs, so that might be the major
> drawback. ...

I think that's also known as Freeze-12. As I understand it, the 142 is
there to act as a carrier for the R-12 compatible mineral oil (which would
be there in a former R-12 system that wasn't flushed). That's what
supposedly makes it a replacement for R-12. The 142 will also leak out
before the 134, leaving the system without a carrier for the oil which will
probably result in compressor failure. I guess if the system was completely
leak-free it would work OK, but I'm not sure there is such a thing.