charging the ac
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
If you guys aren't careful Lloyd Parker is going to show up again.
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
>
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
>
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
http://web.archive.org/web/200406161...cfm?UserID=130
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> If you guys aren't careful Lloyd Parker is going to show up again.
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> > manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> > of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
> >
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> If you guys aren't careful Lloyd Parker is going to show up again.
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> > manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> > of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
> >
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
http://web.archive.org/web/200406161...cfm?UserID=130
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> If you guys aren't careful Lloyd Parker is going to show up again.
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> > manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> > of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
> >
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> If you guys aren't careful Lloyd Parker is going to show up again.
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> > manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> > of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
> >
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
http://web.archive.org/web/200406161...cfm?UserID=130
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> If you guys aren't careful Lloyd Parker is going to show up again.
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> > manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> > of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
> >
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> If you guys aren't careful Lloyd Parker is going to show up again.
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> > manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> > of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
> >
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
I have suggested, by letter, to Ted and Hillary that they simply write a
bill requiring all natural and man-made ozone to immediately relocate to the
upper atmosphere but all I got in reply was a form letter thanking me for
'my continued support' and a request of a bribe... err... donation.
On another tack.... if you run air breathers at altitude you will force the
conversion of 3-O2 to 2-O3 ..
One of the things that confuses me about global warming and global cooling
is what caused it all the times before DuPont's CFCs?
Any what's with this magnetic shift business? Who caused that?
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Scott in Baltimore proclaimed:
>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>
>>> No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>> everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>> or
>>> caves.
>>>
>>> The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they
>>> wanted R-152 which
>>> is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>> rationale
>>> was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>> die
>>> a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in
>>> an
>>> accident.
>>
>>
>> And all these years I thought it was because of Dupont, the reefer
>> madness
>> people, created a molecule that was extremely stable. It was so stable,
>> it
>> remained in the upper atmosphere for a long time, killing all the ozone.
>
> For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
>
bill requiring all natural and man-made ozone to immediately relocate to the
upper atmosphere but all I got in reply was a form letter thanking me for
'my continued support' and a request of a bribe... err... donation.
On another tack.... if you run air breathers at altitude you will force the
conversion of 3-O2 to 2-O3 ..
One of the things that confuses me about global warming and global cooling
is what caused it all the times before DuPont's CFCs?
Any what's with this magnetic shift business? Who caused that?
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Scott in Baltimore proclaimed:
>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>
>>> No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>> everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>> or
>>> caves.
>>>
>>> The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they
>>> wanted R-152 which
>>> is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>> rationale
>>> was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>> die
>>> a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in
>>> an
>>> accident.
>>
>>
>> And all these years I thought it was because of Dupont, the reefer
>> madness
>> people, created a molecule that was extremely stable. It was so stable,
>> it
>> remained in the upper atmosphere for a long time, killing all the ozone.
>
> For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
>
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
I have suggested, by letter, to Ted and Hillary that they simply write a
bill requiring all natural and man-made ozone to immediately relocate to the
upper atmosphere but all I got in reply was a form letter thanking me for
'my continued support' and a request of a bribe... err... donation.
On another tack.... if you run air breathers at altitude you will force the
conversion of 3-O2 to 2-O3 ..
One of the things that confuses me about global warming and global cooling
is what caused it all the times before DuPont's CFCs?
Any what's with this magnetic shift business? Who caused that?
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Scott in Baltimore proclaimed:
>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>
>>> No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>> everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>> or
>>> caves.
>>>
>>> The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they
>>> wanted R-152 which
>>> is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>> rationale
>>> was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>> die
>>> a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in
>>> an
>>> accident.
>>
>>
>> And all these years I thought it was because of Dupont, the reefer
>> madness
>> people, created a molecule that was extremely stable. It was so stable,
>> it
>> remained in the upper atmosphere for a long time, killing all the ozone.
>
> For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
>
bill requiring all natural and man-made ozone to immediately relocate to the
upper atmosphere but all I got in reply was a form letter thanking me for
'my continued support' and a request of a bribe... err... donation.
On another tack.... if you run air breathers at altitude you will force the
conversion of 3-O2 to 2-O3 ..
One of the things that confuses me about global warming and global cooling
is what caused it all the times before DuPont's CFCs?
Any what's with this magnetic shift business? Who caused that?
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Scott in Baltimore proclaimed:
>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>
>>> No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>> everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>> or
>>> caves.
>>>
>>> The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they
>>> wanted R-152 which
>>> is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>> rationale
>>> was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>> die
>>> a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in
>>> an
>>> accident.
>>
>>
>> And all these years I thought it was because of Dupont, the reefer
>> madness
>> people, created a molecule that was extremely stable. It was so stable,
>> it
>> remained in the upper atmosphere for a long time, killing all the ozone.
>
> For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
>
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
I have suggested, by letter, to Ted and Hillary that they simply write a
bill requiring all natural and man-made ozone to immediately relocate to the
upper atmosphere but all I got in reply was a form letter thanking me for
'my continued support' and a request of a bribe... err... donation.
On another tack.... if you run air breathers at altitude you will force the
conversion of 3-O2 to 2-O3 ..
One of the things that confuses me about global warming and global cooling
is what caused it all the times before DuPont's CFCs?
Any what's with this magnetic shift business? Who caused that?
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Scott in Baltimore proclaimed:
>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>
>>> No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>> everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>> or
>>> caves.
>>>
>>> The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they
>>> wanted R-152 which
>>> is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>> rationale
>>> was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>> die
>>> a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in
>>> an
>>> accident.
>>
>>
>> And all these years I thought it was because of Dupont, the reefer
>> madness
>> people, created a molecule that was extremely stable. It was so stable,
>> it
>> remained in the upper atmosphere for a long time, killing all the ozone.
>
> For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
>
bill requiring all natural and man-made ozone to immediately relocate to the
upper atmosphere but all I got in reply was a form letter thanking me for
'my continued support' and a request of a bribe... err... donation.
On another tack.... if you run air breathers at altitude you will force the
conversion of 3-O2 to 2-O3 ..
One of the things that confuses me about global warming and global cooling
is what caused it all the times before DuPont's CFCs?
Any what's with this magnetic shift business? Who caused that?
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_I2dnSGF_9flma3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Scott in Baltimore proclaimed:
>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>
>>> No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>> everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>> or
>>> caves.
>>>
>>> The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they
>>> wanted R-152 which
>>> is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>> rationale
>>> was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>> die
>>> a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in
>>> an
>>> accident.
>>
>>
>> And all these years I thought it was because of Dupont, the reefer
>> madness
>> people, created a molecule that was extremely stable. It was so stable,
>> it
>> remained in the upper atmosphere for a long time, killing all the ozone.
>
> For which an impertinent question might be: How is it that all of the CFC
> manages to make it to the ozone layer, but none of the far larger output
> of ozone from pollution manages to make it there to resolve the issue?
>
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
As I mentioned R-152 is flammable and R744 is poisonous...If either vents to
your passenger compartment it can lead to a horrible death from burning or
suffocation.
Carbon Dioxide only requires 2% concentration to be fatal. Loss of
self-awareness, concentration, loss of reasoning, lengthening of reaction
times occur at lower concentrations.
If you breath in flaming gas it only takes one breath to sear your lungs
which will lead to a quick but painful death. Skin and tissue burns lead to
a slower painful death.
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:alc032lmm4j2s3m0rilb5falqh9jur967s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 11:33:51 -0400, "billy ray"
> <billy_ray@fuseSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>or
>>caves.
>>
>>The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they wanted
>>R-152 which
>>is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>rationale
>>was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>die
>>a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in an
>>accident.
>>
>>
>>
snip
snip
>
> R-152 is flammable but has fluid properties similar to R-12 which is
> why some were promoting it as a replacement for service. OEMs have
> rejected this because of the hazard of explosion in the cabin of a
> closed car if a leak occurs in an evaporator and the R-152
> acccumulates.
>
> R-744 is also known as Carbon Dioxide, it is only poisonous in higher
> concentrations. It is not considered a greenhouse gas even though it
> has a greenhouse potential... because it is a naturally occurring
> substance. The operating pressures are much (10x and more) higher
> than R-134a which will drive a complete investent cycle in the
> production and service sectors (compressors, heat exchangers,
> connecting lines, controls, service equipment etc.). So far the COP
> of these systems is slightly better than R-134a leading to reduced
> fuel consumption.
>
> As far as following service procedures... come on, be responsible - or
> do you still dump drain oil in the back yard to kill the weeds.
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
your passenger compartment it can lead to a horrible death from burning or
suffocation.
Carbon Dioxide only requires 2% concentration to be fatal. Loss of
self-awareness, concentration, loss of reasoning, lengthening of reaction
times occur at lower concentrations.
If you breath in flaming gas it only takes one breath to sear your lungs
which will lead to a quick but painful death. Skin and tissue burns lead to
a slower painful death.
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:alc032lmm4j2s3m0rilb5falqh9jur967s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 11:33:51 -0400, "billy ray"
> <billy_ray@fuseSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>or
>>caves.
>>
>>The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they wanted
>>R-152 which
>>is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>rationale
>>was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>die
>>a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in an
>>accident.
>>
>>
>>
snip
snip
>
> R-152 is flammable but has fluid properties similar to R-12 which is
> why some were promoting it as a replacement for service. OEMs have
> rejected this because of the hazard of explosion in the cabin of a
> closed car if a leak occurs in an evaporator and the R-152
> acccumulates.
>
> R-744 is also known as Carbon Dioxide, it is only poisonous in higher
> concentrations. It is not considered a greenhouse gas even though it
> has a greenhouse potential... because it is a naturally occurring
> substance. The operating pressures are much (10x and more) higher
> than R-134a which will drive a complete investent cycle in the
> production and service sectors (compressors, heat exchangers,
> connecting lines, controls, service equipment etc.). So far the COP
> of these systems is slightly better than R-134a leading to reduced
> fuel consumption.
>
> As far as following service procedures... come on, be responsible - or
> do you still dump drain oil in the back yard to kill the weeds.
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
As I mentioned R-152 is flammable and R744 is poisonous...If either vents to
your passenger compartment it can lead to a horrible death from burning or
suffocation.
Carbon Dioxide only requires 2% concentration to be fatal. Loss of
self-awareness, concentration, loss of reasoning, lengthening of reaction
times occur at lower concentrations.
If you breath in flaming gas it only takes one breath to sear your lungs
which will lead to a quick but painful death. Skin and tissue burns lead to
a slower painful death.
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:alc032lmm4j2s3m0rilb5falqh9jur967s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 11:33:51 -0400, "billy ray"
> <billy_ray@fuseSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>or
>>caves.
>>
>>The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they wanted
>>R-152 which
>>is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>rationale
>>was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>die
>>a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in an
>>accident.
>>
>>
>>
snip
snip
>
> R-152 is flammable but has fluid properties similar to R-12 which is
> why some were promoting it as a replacement for service. OEMs have
> rejected this because of the hazard of explosion in the cabin of a
> closed car if a leak occurs in an evaporator and the R-152
> acccumulates.
>
> R-744 is also known as Carbon Dioxide, it is only poisonous in higher
> concentrations. It is not considered a greenhouse gas even though it
> has a greenhouse potential... because it is a naturally occurring
> substance. The operating pressures are much (10x and more) higher
> than R-134a which will drive a complete investent cycle in the
> production and service sectors (compressors, heat exchangers,
> connecting lines, controls, service equipment etc.). So far the COP
> of these systems is slightly better than R-134a leading to reduced
> fuel consumption.
>
> As far as following service procedures... come on, be responsible - or
> do you still dump drain oil in the back yard to kill the weeds.
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
your passenger compartment it can lead to a horrible death from burning or
suffocation.
Carbon Dioxide only requires 2% concentration to be fatal. Loss of
self-awareness, concentration, loss of reasoning, lengthening of reaction
times occur at lower concentrations.
If you breath in flaming gas it only takes one breath to sear your lungs
which will lead to a quick but painful death. Skin and tissue burns lead to
a slower painful death.
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:alc032lmm4j2s3m0rilb5falqh9jur967s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 11:33:51 -0400, "billy ray"
> <billy_ray@fuseSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>or
>>caves.
>>
>>The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they wanted
>>R-152 which
>>is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>rationale
>>was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>die
>>a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in an
>>accident.
>>
>>
>>
snip
snip
>
> R-152 is flammable but has fluid properties similar to R-12 which is
> why some were promoting it as a replacement for service. OEMs have
> rejected this because of the hazard of explosion in the cabin of a
> closed car if a leak occurs in an evaporator and the R-152
> acccumulates.
>
> R-744 is also known as Carbon Dioxide, it is only poisonous in higher
> concentrations. It is not considered a greenhouse gas even though it
> has a greenhouse potential... because it is a naturally occurring
> substance. The operating pressures are much (10x and more) higher
> than R-134a which will drive a complete investent cycle in the
> production and service sectors (compressors, heat exchangers,
> connecting lines, controls, service equipment etc.). So far the COP
> of these systems is slightly better than R-134a leading to reduced
> fuel consumption.
>
> As far as following service procedures... come on, be responsible - or
> do you still dump drain oil in the back yard to kill the weeds.
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: charging the ac
As I mentioned R-152 is flammable and R744 is poisonous...If either vents to
your passenger compartment it can lead to a horrible death from burning or
suffocation.
Carbon Dioxide only requires 2% concentration to be fatal. Loss of
self-awareness, concentration, loss of reasoning, lengthening of reaction
times occur at lower concentrations.
If you breath in flaming gas it only takes one breath to sear your lungs
which will lead to a quick but painful death. Skin and tissue burns lead to
a slower painful death.
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:alc032lmm4j2s3m0rilb5falqh9jur967s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 11:33:51 -0400, "billy ray"
> <billy_ray@fuseSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>or
>>caves.
>>
>>The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they wanted
>>R-152 which
>>is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>rationale
>>was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>die
>>a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in an
>>accident.
>>
>>
>>
snip
snip
>
> R-152 is flammable but has fluid properties similar to R-12 which is
> why some were promoting it as a replacement for service. OEMs have
> rejected this because of the hazard of explosion in the cabin of a
> closed car if a leak occurs in an evaporator and the R-152
> acccumulates.
>
> R-744 is also known as Carbon Dioxide, it is only poisonous in higher
> concentrations. It is not considered a greenhouse gas even though it
> has a greenhouse potential... because it is a naturally occurring
> substance. The operating pressures are much (10x and more) higher
> than R-134a which will drive a complete investent cycle in the
> production and service sectors (compressors, heat exchangers,
> connecting lines, controls, service equipment etc.). So far the COP
> of these systems is slightly better than R-134a leading to reduced
> fuel consumption.
>
> As far as following service procedures... come on, be responsible - or
> do you still dump drain oil in the back yard to kill the weeds.
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
your passenger compartment it can lead to a horrible death from burning or
suffocation.
Carbon Dioxide only requires 2% concentration to be fatal. Loss of
self-awareness, concentration, loss of reasoning, lengthening of reaction
times occur at lower concentrations.
If you breath in flaming gas it only takes one breath to sear your lungs
which will lead to a quick but painful death. Skin and tissue burns lead to
a slower painful death.
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:alc032lmm4j2s3m0rilb5falqh9jur967s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 11:33:51 -0400, "billy ray"
> <billy_ray@fuseSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>No, we did it because some panty-waste tree hugging bureaucrat wants
>>everyone, except his privileged cadre, to revert to living in grass huts
>>or
>>caves.
>>
>>The environmental --------- wackos protested this move because they wanted
>>R-152 which
>>is flammable or R-744 which is a poisonous greenhouse gas. Their
>>rationale
>>was if you wanted air conditioning you had to be prepared and willing to
>>die
>>a horrible death if you did not maintain the system or were involved in an
>>accident.
>>
>>
>>
snip
snip
>
> R-152 is flammable but has fluid properties similar to R-12 which is
> why some were promoting it as a replacement for service. OEMs have
> rejected this because of the hazard of explosion in the cabin of a
> closed car if a leak occurs in an evaporator and the R-152
> acccumulates.
>
> R-744 is also known as Carbon Dioxide, it is only poisonous in higher
> concentrations. It is not considered a greenhouse gas even though it
> has a greenhouse potential... because it is a naturally occurring
> substance. The operating pressures are much (10x and more) higher
> than R-134a which will drive a complete investent cycle in the
> production and service sectors (compressors, heat exchangers,
> connecting lines, controls, service equipment etc.). So far the COP
> of these systems is slightly better than R-134a leading to reduced
> fuel consumption.
>
> As far as following service procedures... come on, be responsible - or
> do you still dump drain oil in the back yard to kill the weeds.
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth