"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jD9qe.2327$751.676@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> It is a science of probabilities

horseshit. your beliefs are unproven.


> EPA? Read further down! You have an EPA
> cert? How ironic! NATE is an EPA partner...

nate is abiding by the LAW and nothing more.

> are you the Site Manager?

im a service tech, that is just one of many multi million dollar rack
systems that i am solely responsible for.


> You never gave a link
> supporting your assertion, btw... that's a little telling,
> don't you think?

<SIGH>.....fine. my statement is that refrigerants cannot make it to the
stratosphere because they are heavier than air therefore they fall. when
attempting to detect a refrigerant leak using an electronic leak detector
you run your probe BENEATH where you suspect the leak. why? because the
refrigerant FALLS!

from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
electronic leak detectors:
"Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
detecting a leak and will save you time."

from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use)
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."

now stephen, tell me again all about how the hvac industry agrees with you?
tell me again how refrigerants rise above the air.

of course, we already know you simply cannot admit to it.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jD9qe.2327$751.676@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> It is a science of probabilities

horseshit. your beliefs are unproven.


> EPA? Read further down! You have an EPA
> cert? How ironic! NATE is an EPA partner...

nate is abiding by the LAW and nothing more.

> are you the Site Manager?

im a service tech, that is just one of many multi million dollar rack
systems that i am solely responsible for.


> You never gave a link
> supporting your assertion, btw... that's a little telling,
> don't you think?

<SIGH>.....fine. my statement is that refrigerants cannot make it to the
stratosphere because they are heavier than air therefore they fall. when
attempting to detect a refrigerant leak using an electronic leak detector
you run your probe BENEATH where you suspect the leak. why? because the
refrigerant FALLS!

from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
electronic leak detectors:
"Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
detecting a leak and will save you time."

from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use)
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."

now stephen, tell me again all about how the hvac industry agrees with you?
tell me again how refrigerants rise above the air.

of course, we already know you simply cannot admit to it.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jD9qe.2327$751.676@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> It is a science of probabilities

horseshit. your beliefs are unproven.


> EPA? Read further down! You have an EPA
> cert? How ironic! NATE is an EPA partner...

nate is abiding by the LAW and nothing more.

> are you the Site Manager?

im a service tech, that is just one of many multi million dollar rack
systems that i am solely responsible for.


> You never gave a link
> supporting your assertion, btw... that's a little telling,
> don't you think?

<SIGH>.....fine. my statement is that refrigerants cannot make it to the
stratosphere because they are heavier than air therefore they fall. when
attempting to detect a refrigerant leak using an electronic leak detector
you run your probe BENEATH where you suspect the leak. why? because the
refrigerant FALLS!

from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
electronic leak detectors:
"Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
detecting a leak and will save you time."

from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use)
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."

now stephen, tell me again all about how the hvac industry agrees with you?
tell me again how refrigerants rise above the air.

of course, we already know you simply cannot admit to it.

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

 

Not having another Waco.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>

> ?? Like that would stop another McVey...
> __
> Steve
> .

 

Not having another Waco.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>

> ?? Like that would stop another McVey...
> __
> Steve
> .

 

Not having another Waco.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>

> ?? Like that would stop another McVey...
> __
> Steve
> .

 

Not having another Waco.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>

> ?? Like that would stop another McVey...
> __
> Steve
> .

 

Anyone with half a brain would know we would be in for the long
haul, I was sent Germany thirty years after the war to keep those ****
in line.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
>
> Believe it or not, it's not a humanitarian mission.
> It was never sold as such.
>
> If it *was* to be a war of liberation, there were plans
> drawn up that would have taken much better care of
> the populace... these plans were chucked by Wolfowitz
> et al because they would have cost more than was
> politically sellable at the time.
>
> I don't believe in selling the troops short... they're
> our kids, and deserve our support. But I'm *not*
> going to let all this distract me from the big problem...
> the US people were lied to in a systematic way.
> Blindly following Bush is getting us in deeper...
> the truth about the occupation has to come out.
> I'm sorry if returning troops don't like what they
> read... but it's not lies.
> __
> Steve
> .

 

Anyone with half a brain would know we would be in for the long
haul, I was sent Germany thirty years after the war to keep those ****
in line.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
>
> Believe it or not, it's not a humanitarian mission.
> It was never sold as such.
>
> If it *was* to be a war of liberation, there were plans
> drawn up that would have taken much better care of
> the populace... these plans were chucked by Wolfowitz
> et al because they would have cost more than was
> politically sellable at the time.
>
> I don't believe in selling the troops short... they're
> our kids, and deserve our support. But I'm *not*
> going to let all this distract me from the big problem...
> the US people were lied to in a systematic way.
> Blindly following Bush is getting us in deeper...
> the truth about the occupation has to come out.
> I'm sorry if returning troops don't like what they
> read... but it's not lies.
> __
> Steve
> .

 

Anyone with half a brain would know we would be in for the long
haul, I was sent Germany thirty years after the war to keep those ****
in line.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
>
> Believe it or not, it's not a humanitarian mission.
> It was never sold as such.
>
> If it *was* to be a war of liberation, there were plans
> drawn up that would have taken much better care of
> the populace... these plans were chucked by Wolfowitz
> et al because they would have cost more than was
> politically sellable at the time.
>
> I don't believe in selling the troops short... they're
> our kids, and deserve our support. But I'm *not*
> going to let all this distract me from the big problem...
> the US people were lied to in a systematic way.
> Blindly following Bush is getting us in deeper...
> the truth about the occupation has to come out.
> I'm sorry if returning troops don't like what they
> read... but it's not lies.
> __
> Steve
> .