Jeeps Canada - Jeep Forums - 134a Refrigerant

Jeeps Canada - Jeep Forums (https://www.jeepscanada.com/)

- Jeep Mailing List (https://www.jeepscanada.com/jeep-mailing-list-32/)

- - 134a Refrigerant (https://www.jeepscanada.com/jeep-mailing-list-32/134a-refrigerant-28461/)

Re: 134a Refrigerant

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:L4mdnbvJXs13ezvfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
> You're making the assumption that I am a Bush-worshipping Dittohead.
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:YFhpe.636$%j7.521@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:EaCdnYeq9eRZyTjfRVn-tg@comcast.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.
> >
> > ??
> >
> This
> > means that CFC's hang around for hundreds of
> > years, until they hit the upper atmosphere.
> > __
> > Steve
>
> CFC's haven't been around for hundreds of years, that's why the model is
> flawed.

Top-posting *and* bottom posting... that's a new one on me!

Matt, when you can hang with the big dogs, come back...
otherwise, just get back on the porch.
__
Steve
..

Re: 134a Refrigerant

"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a663d2$0$14988$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> > news:42a55327$0$14971$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> >
> >> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>
> >>> "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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 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 is what I said. Well, I said that R12 and R134 do not paly well
> > together. I did not give a time span for the failure to occur. The point
> > is that R12 and R134 can not be mixed.
>
> I smell fudge.
>
> And who says they don't play well together? Or that they cannot be
> mixed? Here, read this page- the guy giving the advice there knows quite
> a lot about refrigerants..
>
> http://yarchive.net/ac/oils.html
>

YOU, for one said that they can't be mixed.

Everybody that I have ever talked to, for two.

> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >
> > The topic here is R12, a declining market in the USA. If the captured
> > R12 is collected, then it has value that offsets the cost of new R12.
> > This is the same as lowering the operating costs for the AC shops. If
> > R12 was sold at a high price, and there was no credit given for the
> > captured product, then the operating costs would be high. But if the
> > captured product is credited against purchases of new product, then the
> > actual cost of the new product is lowered. If somebody goes in and buys
> > a 30 pound tank of R12, it will cost upwards of $900, but I have no idea
> > what the captured product is worht in terms of a credit. What I will say
> > is that the odds are good that the OP hasn't got a tank of used R12 to
> > turn in, and he isn't going to use 30 pounds of R12 in a single car in
> > his entire life, and the life of his decendants. This means that he
> > isn't going to get his hands on R12 anytime soon in a quantity that is
> > actually useful to a guy working on his car in the driveway.
>
> I'm sorry, I misunderstood your statement concerning new and used
> refrigerants. I thought you were referring to new and used 134, not 12.
>
> 12 won't ever be reasonably priced again, unless the laws change.
> Prohibition of anything wil generally ensure the price of it goes up,
> and concentration of it in a few hands (those who own the approved
> machine) will tend to keep the price up, regardless of the value of used
> stuff.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't give a rat's ass why the equipment is expensive. It is
> > expensive, and most guys that work on the car in the driveway are not
> > going to have the equipment that is needed. And nobody is going to have
> > a bucket of liquid nitrogen that they can use to suck the R12 out of the
> > family sedan with.
>
> You don't care? You just accept the fact with a whipped "oh, well" and
> that's all? Interesting..
>
> Nobody has liquid N2? --------. I can get it, and I'll bet you can too.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 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..
> >>
> >
> > What I think doesn't matter either. NOBODY is going to walk into an auto
> > parts store inthe USA and buy a can of R12 and take it home and squirt
> > it into his car.
>
> Sad but true. But what I think still matters..
>
> >
> > R12 and R134 do not mix. You can not revert back to R12 in a system that
> > has been made to take R134, but you can still change an R12 system to
> > take R134.
> >
> > R134 is readily available at any auto parts store, and if they don't
> > have any it's only due to being out of stock at the moment.
>
> I did some googling and apparently the supply *is* an issue. I'm not
> sure anyone believes it's anything but a manufactured issue though..
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> 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..
> >>
> >
> >
> > Nobody is blaming you for the situation. Have all of the opinions you
> > want, and maybe something will change as a result. In the mean time, you
> > have to play by the rules that are in effect. I may or may not share
> > your opinion, but I still have to play by the same rules.
>
> Yes.. but I like my view of the rules more than yours.
>
> >
> > The rules say we have to use R134 if we want to charge our own A/C
> > system, and not spend a small fortune buying recovery equipment that
> > will never be fully utilized working on our own car at home in the
> > driveway.
>
> Yeah, blah. The rules say we're not allowed to make cheap and effective
> devices to do an excellent job with refrigerants, and leave us a single,
> shitty product to try to use. Very profitable for DuPont, the automotive
> industry and the people doing the work.
>
> I think the rules say that the release of R12 to the atmosphere is
> illegal- so how is one to convert to R134 and comply with the law in
> one's own driveway?
>
> And what's next? R744? That'll be the refrigerant for the common
> man</sarcasm>.. CO2- very high temps and pressure, 1/1300th of the
> greenhouse effect that R134 has (according to what I've found). It's a
> scam, just like the global warming scam. Profitable for a few, costly as
> hell for the rest of us.
>
> That's all for me.
>
> John

Re: 134a Refrigerant

"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a663d2$0$14988$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
> I smell fudge.
>
> And who says they don't play well together? Or that they cannot be
> mixed? Here, read this page- the guy giving the advice there knows quite
> a lot about refrigerants..
>
> http://yarchive.net/ac/oils.html
>

This link makes it clear that the lubricant in R12 is not suitable in a R134
system. It suggests there are cheaper options than buying a new car, but it
is clear that the R12 system will not function after R134 is installed
unless some sort of modification is made. Basically, the oils used in each
are the problem.

Re: 134a Refrigerant

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1oCpe.2273$%j7.2016@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m...
>> .....who do you call "mr president"? :-)
>
> Not W!

go ahead and admit it. you are an anti-american socialist. you wear it,
own it.

> I paid for those roads... you don't want to
> pay for them, then don't use them!

the depths of your ignorance are obvious. if you _really_ want to learn
about libertarians see http://harrybrowne.org

> http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/sitein...m/altview.html

if youre going to consider blatent liberal publications as credible sources
of information than im going to start quoting rush. dont make me do it.
:-)

> As you can see, Nate.... there was no 'liberation of
> Iraqi women'... they were free before.

so are you saying that the dictators own sons really didnt drive around
raping young virgin girls at will, or are you saying thats just part of your
socialist version of freedom? are saying that iraqi women really could be
educated, or that they didnt need education in your socialist version of
freedom?

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