134a Refrigerant

absolutely right, tornados, and the way water drains in the
opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

JohnM wrote:
><snip>
> 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

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.









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

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/jeep-cars/200506/1

"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
..

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> absolutely right, tornados, and the way water drains in the
> opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.

Another howler! How do you explain the global
iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
the other?
__
Steve
bemused
..

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Can't argue with a Luddite... do you believe we
> > went to the Moon? Trust NASA? BTW, you've
> > used the 'L' word... now can I equate you with
> > Tim McVey? What branch of militia do *you*
> > belong to?
>
> lol let me get this straight. because i require _proof_ you equate me
with
> tim mcveigh? how assinine. you cant make your argument so you try to
cloud
> the discussion with ridiculous statements....another typical seminar
liberal
> tactic that failed miserably.

No, because you started the name-calling, I can
call you whatever I want. I chose to tar you with
the extreme right... completely apropos for what
you chose to tar me with. "Go negative early...
never give up"... I think I'll adopt Newt's credo
AFA you're concerned...

Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia... what
about our trips to the Moon? Dodging the question,
F-.

You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
stratosphere... here's a link, by an HVAC industry
periodical:

http://www.hpac.com/member/archive/0108data.htm

Realize that there are literally tens of thousands
more of these links... show me *one* for your
side.

> > Science always leaves room for doubt... that's
> > the nature of science.
>
> WRONG. you have fact and then you have agenda driven blind speculation.
> "room for doubt" just goes to show that youre presenting opinion as fact,
> another typical seminar liberal tactic.

Still on with the 'L' word? I'll give you two back... Jeff
Gannon, your buddy. (that was four, you got a bonus!)

Science, by definition, is self-modifying. You want
surety, go to church. Science is all about probabilities.

Do you assert that Science doesn't leave room
for doubt? That's the problem here... you don't
have the first clue how Science is done. You
can say something is a scientific 'fact'... but
it can be proven wrong the next day. Science
is done on a preponderance of evidence...
but at *no* time can a completely sure conclusion
be drawn. Mathematics is the only science that
can approach this level of certainty... and Gödel
showed that it cannot remain both complete and
consistant. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
removed certainty from Physics. All other
sciences are based on these two.

Any time Science doesn't leave 'room for doubt',
it ceases to be Science, and becomes Faith.
You can have your Faith... just don't call it
Science.
__
Steve
..

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
. ..
> No, because you started the name-calling

horse****. are you suggesting that you arent a liberal? c'mon tell the
truth.....you voted for kerry, and gore before him. :-)

> I chose to tar you with
> the extreme right.

once again i call horse****. you compared me with tim mcveigh who was a
domestic terrorist, and not a right wing conservative. on second thought, i
know you liberals look at _all_ right wing conservatives in the same manner
as we would look at tim mcveigh. your comparison is truly amongst the most
assinine statements ive ever read in any newsgroup. a new low that screams
of your own ignorance and agenda.


> Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia

simply not worthy of response as i have no intention of lowering myself to
your red hearrings and desperate attempt at getting off the subject that all
ive asked for is conclusive evidence. all you can provide is "could be's".



> You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
> your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
> stratosphere.

horse****. i conceeded that i have no proof of duponts patent running out.
my assertion of chlorine is a simple matter of atomic weight that anyone can
look up.
from http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/ the atomic weight of oxygen is
15.9994. the atomic weight of carbon is 12.0107. the atomic weight of
chlorine is 35.453 or OVER TWICE that of oxygen. heavier gasses do not
float above lighter gases.


> Science, by definition, is self-modifying.

make all the excuses you care to, you can NOT show me one single bit of
CONCLUSIVE evidence to back up your liberal whinings because it simply does
not exist.

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

I do not think he CAN switch
>back, 1.) because the laws will not allow a conversion in that direction

FYI, it isn't illegal to switch back to a R 12 system. Theres nothing in
the laws that says R 12 is illegal to use, only manufacture and release to
the atmosphere. If I wanted to build a new R 12 system right now I could,
but no one does because it's cost prohibitive.
FYI for the group as well......
R 22 is currently on schedule to be phased out, and I believe R 134a is
being phased out as well. There are new refrigerants they want us to start
using, and I can't remember the number off the top of my head, but the new
ones will be running at 400+ PSI. I don't even want to try to hook up my
gauges to that system while it is running....

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/jeep-cars/200506/1

And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Another howler! How do you explain the global
> iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> the other?
> __
> Steve
> bemused
> .

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! How do you explain the global
> > iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> > crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> > the other?
> > __
> > Steve
> > bemused
> > .
> And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
> http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
> atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
> times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?

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
..

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
>"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> "Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> > > Can't argue with a Luddite... do you believe we
>> > > went to the Moon? Trust NASA? BTW, you've
>> > > used the 'L' word... now can I equate you with
>> > > Tim McVey? What branch of militia do *you*
>> > > belong to?
>> >
>> > lol let me get this straight. because i require _proof_ you equate me
>> with
>> > tim mcveigh? how assinine. you cant make your argument so you try to
>> cloud
>> > the discussion with ridiculous statements....another typical seminar
>> liberal
>> > tactic that failed miserably.
>>
>> No, because you started the name-calling, I can
>> call you whatever I want. I chose to tar you with
>> the extreme right... completely apropos for what
>> you chose to tar me with. "Go negative early...
>> never give up"... I think I'll adopt Newt's credo
>> AFA you're concerned...

>
> horse****. are you suggesting that you arent a liberal? c'mon tell the
> truth.....you voted for kerry, and gore before him. :-)
> once again i call horse****. you compared me with tim mcveigh who was a
> domestic terrorist, and not a right wing conservative. on second thought,
i
> know you liberals look at _all_ right wing conservatives in the same
manner
> as we would look at tim mcveigh. your comparison is truly amongst the
most
> assinine statements ive ever read in any newsgroup. a new low that
screams
> of your own ignorance and agenda.

Keep squealing... it's not Science. We're talking
Science here... and can anyone guess what your
agenda is, or who *you* voted for, or what it
would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

>> Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia... what
>> about our trips to the Moon? Dodging the question,
>> F-.

> simply not worthy of response as i have no intention of lowering myself to
> your red hearrings and desperate attempt at getting off the subject that
all
> ive asked for is conclusive evidence. all you can provide is "could
be's".

You *could be* a member of a militia... you can't
prove that you aren't. Not *conclusively*, anyway...

>> You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
>> your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
>> stratosphere... here's a link, by an HVAC industry
>> periodical:
>>
>> http://www.hpac.com/member/archive/0108data.htm
>>
>> Realize that there are literally tens of thousands
>> more of these links... show me *one* for your
>> side.

> horse****. i conceeded that i have no proof of duponts patent running
out.
> my assertion of chlorine is a simple matter of atomic weight that anyone
can
> look up.
> from http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/ the atomic weight of oxygen is
> 15.9994. the atomic weight of carbon is 12.0107. the atomic weight of
> chlorine is 35.453 or OVER TWICE that of oxygen. heavier gasses do not
> float above lighter gases.

Unless there is a mixing mechanism... the Polar Vortex.
Ever seen a thunderhead? Do you understand the forces
at work? Can you understand that the atmosphere is
not as simple as you make it out to be?

What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
that one... theres a double buttload more of those.
You don't have a leg to stand on, Nate... that's why
you started the name calling to begin with.

>> > > Science always leaves room for doubt... that's
>> > > the nature of science.
>> >
>> > WRONG. you have fact and then you have agenda driven blind
speculation.
>> > "room for doubt" just goes to show that youre presenting opinion as
fact,
>> > another typical seminar liberal tactic.
>>
>> Still on with the 'L' word? I'll give you two back... Jeff
>> Gannon, your buddy. (that was four, you got a bonus!)

What, no response? Male prostitute, run of the WH,
W's buddy? Nice fluffy softball questions? C'mon,
Nate, take the bait! Rove'll back you up!

>> Science, by definition, is self-modifying. You want
>> surety, go to church. Science is all about probabilities.

> make all the excuses you care to, you can NOT show me one single bit of
> CONCLUSIVE evidence to back up your liberal whinings because it simply
does
> not exist.

What would be conclusive evidence for you? That
NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
rising since 1980? I posted that link... all you
posted was a periodic table. According to *you*,
what I cited NASA measuring should be completely
impossible... by your backyard 'science' reckoning.

>> Do you assert that Science doesn't leave room
>> for doubt? That's the problem here... you don't
>> have the first clue how Science is done. You
>> can say something is a scientific 'fact'... but
>> it can be proven wrong the next day. Science
>> is done on a preponderance of evidence...
>> but at *no* time can a completely sure conclusion
>> be drawn. Mathematics is the only science that
>> can approach this level of certainty... and Gödel
>> showed that it cannot remain both complete and
>> consistant. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
>> removed certainty from Physics. All other
>> sciences are based on these two.
>>
>> Any time Science doesn't leave 'room for doubt',
>> it ceases to be Science, and becomes Faith.
>> You can have your Faith... just don't call it
>> Science.

Well?
__
Steve
..