134a Refrigerant
#241
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> > news:42a29c52$0$14983$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> >
> >> 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.
> 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. 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.
> 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.
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.
#242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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
opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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
#243
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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
opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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
#244
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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
opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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
#245
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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
opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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
#246
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
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
#247
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
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
#248
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
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
#249
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
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
#250
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co 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
..