134a Refrigerant

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Kerry lost Ohio by three thousand votes, it doesn't take a
> mathematician to figure out that is a direct result of thirty years Roe
> vs Wade. Moral Republicans keeping and taking responsibility their
> mistakes.

That's a huge margin! You're right, it was a complete
mandate from the American populace!

How come abortion-on-demand is still legal? W
is well into his second term... hell, we don't even
have prayer in school!
__
Steve
..

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
> m...
> > What refrigerant is in your late-model car?
>
> .....who do you call "mr president"? :-)

Not W!

> > Oh, if you're Libertarian... get off my damn
> > roads!
>
> ?

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

> > Don't you think we could have made more
> > points that way by invading Sudan?
>
> ...so take care of sudan next.

No... Saudi Arabia's next!

>> debacle? i love how you liberals (who claim to stand for human rights)
>> overlook that iraq is free from tyranny. iraqi women are now allowed to
GO
>> TO SCHOOL, to hold jobs, to live as equal citizens. no stephen, id say
iraq
>> has been an overwhelming success to date. that could change tomorrow,
but
>> as it is right now with bush leading the way iraq is a success.


> > That's why we went to Iraq? To free
> > their women?
>
> its certainly an added benefit, and one that you liberals always fail to
> mention or recognize. had it been clinton or kerry who invaded iraq under
> the same circumstances you would have celebrated the accomplishment.

An added benefit? For thousands dead, hundreds of
billions spent? It boggles the frickin' mind! Women
had it better under Saddam than they do now under
most other Arab countries... you NeoCons seem to
forget that W trashed one of the only secular governments
in the region. Perhaps you're confusing Afghanistan
with Iraq.... you certainly wouldn't be alone, W himself
got pretty confused about that.

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

<>
It was Saddam's revolution that ended Iraqi backwardness. Education,
including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More
important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was e
nded by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.
I used to drive past the Mustansariya University on my way home from
downtown Baghdad. It was miraculous -- I use the word advisedly -- it was
nothing short of miraculous to see hundreds of girl-students thronging the
campus, none in "burkhas" or "chador" -- the head-to-toe black cape that
was, and is, essential dress for women in most of the Islamic world -- and
almost all in skirts and blouses that would grace a Western university.
</>

As you can see, Nate.... there was no 'liberation of
Iraqi women'... they were free before. Your ignorance
speaks volumes... shelves of volumes. Perhaps if
you'd educate yourself more, you'd get a different
perspective.
__
Steve
..

"Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> Evidence exists that the polar vortex is a natural phenomenon and
existed
> >> before cfc's were widely used. Has to do with the large temperature
> >> variation between the Antarctic continent and the surrounding
ocean...the
> >> land mass is supercooled during the Antarctic winter, and the increased
> >> temperature varaiation causes massive upper-level winds that disperse
the
> >> atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic.
> >
> > Exactly... the CFC's didn't cause the vortex, but the vortex
> > exacerbates the CFC problem. Glad to see you're finally
> > coming around...

> So you're admitting that cfc's don't cause the ozone hole. Thank you.
>

Matt, come back when you learn how to read. Of course,
CFC's don't cause the ozone hole... *God* caused the
ozone hole, to pay us back for Mormonism and 'Friends'.
__
Steve
..

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> ?? thats the SAME CRAP youve been posting! ill quote and capitalize
my
> >> point that removes the whole "conclusive" thing im asking for: "They
have
> >> found that the emissions of the human-produced halocarbons, plus the
much
> >> smaller contribution from natural sources, COULD account for all of the
> >> stratospheric chlorine."
> >> "could". nothing conclusive there.
> >
> > You won't be persuaded... we all realize this.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot provide conclusive evidence, nate"

You won't be persuaded... we all realize this.


>
> ......i already told you that! :-)

>
>
>> > Why is it not all Argon
>> > down here? By your ignorance, we should all be dead
>> > now... the Oxygen layer would be several thousand feet up.

> > It's one percent of the air
> > we breathe
>
> DUH! the concentration isnt high enough to cause a problem.

DUH! Keep saying it... it's a good look for you...

You want it both ways.... Chlorine can't rise, because it's
heavier than air. Argon doesn't fall, because it's concentration
is small. Just exactly what grade in school did you complete?

>
>
> > How about if I tell you that I've been a tech
>
> id have to ask you to prove it by showing your epa certification. id be
> glad to show you mine.

I didnt' say a 'licensed' tech...

>
> > How about if I tell you that
> > the effects of this vented refrigerant can't be
> > hidden, and are cumulative?
>
> i would ONCE AGAIN ask you for conclusive evidence.

You won't be persuaded... we all realize this.
I posted an article noting that CFC's had been
found in the stratosphere, along with their
breakdown products, in the right concentrations
to support the proposed mechanisms.

> > What do conservatives have, clusterf*cks?
>
> realistic goals. :-)

Like the liberation of Iraq? Like finding bin Laden?

> > No, refrigerant is vented so freely because the tech is
> > lazy... and doesn't give a damn.
>
> i cant believe that it all boils down to laziness. sure some of it does,
> but the majority knows better. ive never met another tech who believed
that
> refrigerant was hazardous to our environment. if i believed it were i
would
> take great precautions, and i know my fellow technicians would as well.

You already asserted that you follow the rules...
were you lying *then*, or are you lying *now*?


> > Yeah, I go to cheeseball HVAC techs for my
> > atmospheric science, just like you do... not.
>
> you claimed the hvac industry agrees with your idealogy. i know better.

Cite, or smoke crack.

> > kinda funny that it
> > ****es you off, saving your descendants from
> > skin cancer and all....
>
> it doesnt "**** me off". i simply hate bad information, particulary when
> its driven by ANY political agenda.

Bad information! BAD! Go to your room!
I posted stuff from scientists... can you post
stuff from scientists? You haven't, so far...
if wishes were fishes, you'd smell like the Fulton
Fish Market.

> > Then why is it there in conjunction with CFC's?
>
> show me something CONCLUSIVE that proves refrigerant cfc's are there.
until
> then ill continue to point out that youre spouting agenda driven
speculation
> and belief, but nothing factual or proven in any way.

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html

<>
Several pieces of evidence combine to establish human-produced halocarbons
as the primary source of stratospheric chlorine. First, measurements have
********shown that the chlorinated species that rise to the
stratosphere******* are primarily manufactured compounds [mainly CFCs,
carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and the hydrochlorofluorocarbon
(HCFC) substitutes for CFCs], together with small amounts of hydrochloric
acid (HCl) and methyl chloride (CH3Cl), which are partly natural in origin.
Second, researchers have measured nearly all known gases containing chlorine
in the stratosphere. They have found that the emissions of the
human-produced halocarbons, plus the much smaller contribution from natural
sources, could account for all of the stratospheric chlorine. Third, the
increase in total stratospheric chlorine measured between 1980 and 1998
corresponds to the known increases in concentrations of human-produced
halocarbons during that time.
</>

Post a link... this one *shows* that manufactured chlorinated species
*rise to the stratosphere*. It's from the NOAA... go ahead, impugn
them.
__
Steve
..

"Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
...
> You're making the assumption that I am a Bush-worshipping Dittohead.
>
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> 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
..

"JohnM" > wrote in message
m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > "JohnM" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>
> >>> "JohnM" > wrote in message
> >>> m...
> >>>
> >>>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "JohnM" > wrote in message
> >>>>> 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? Bull****. 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,
> ****ty 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

"JohnM" > wrote in message
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.

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
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

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
m...
> You won't be persuaded... we all realize this.

TRANSLATION --> "i cannot provide conclusive evidence, nate"

> You want it both ways.... Chlorine can't rise, because it's
> heavier than air.

sure it can be blown around in the wind but it wont reach the stratosphere.
not without a volcanic push.

> Argon doesn't fall, because it's concentration
> is small.

i hope youre just changing what i say to fit your argument, and that you
really arent that dense. i never said that it doesnt fall. i said that its
concentration wasnt enough to cause a problem.


> I didnt' say a 'licensed' tech...

TRANSLATION --> "im full of ****, nate". :-)


> You already asserted that you follow the rules...
> were you lying *then*, or are you lying *now*?

i stated that i follow the rules. HOWEVER, if i thought that what i did was
harmful to the environment i stated that i would take greater precautions
(such as low loss hose fittings which arent required under the current
rules). now, unless youre trolling you shouldnt try so hard to be an ass
and actually try to read what someone says.


>> you claimed the hvac industry agrees with your idealogy. i know better.
>
> Cite, or smoke crack.

you yourself admitted to hearing the tech vent in your garage. on the
surface the hvac industry has to play the game but in the field its another
matter entirely.


> I posted stuff from scientists

lol and you think that gives your statements ANY credibility at all? :-)
once upon a time your "scientists" thought the earth was flat! for every
liberal scientist there is a conservative scientist who knows better.


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

And your point is? Really Stephen, you aren't going to change any minds
here, and the more you try the more of an asshole you become. You've become
what you love to hate...most Conservatives resort to personal attacks when
they can't win an argument on facts.

Buh-bye. (plonk)

>
> 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
> .
>
>