134a Refrigerant

Except, the liberals have banned R-12, based on their ozone
theories from satellite inferred frequencies, that were not in place
until after we were grown and out of school. Like, maybe these holes
have been with earth all along, and are necessary, like it's time to
melt the Antarctica, change the ocean currents to start the coming ice
age. A time to be born and a time to die.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "JohnM" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >> "JohnM" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >>
> >>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"JohnM" > wrote in message
> g.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>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.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
>
> >>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.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
>
> 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.
>
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> 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.

It's the way you liberals harp about it, as if we could change
anything, delusions of grander.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Exactly... the CFC's didn't cause the vortex, but the vortex
> exacerbates the CFC problem. Glad to see you're finally
> coming around...
> __
> Steve
> .

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Except, the liberals have banned R-12, based on their ozone
> theories from satellite inferred frequencies, that were not in place
> until after we were grown and out of school. Like, maybe these holes
> have been with earth all along, and are necessary, like it's time to
> melt the Antarctica, change the ocean currents to start the coming ice
> age. A time to be born and a time to die.



Nobody, especially me, is suggesting the rules are good, I am only
suggesting that they are in place. We have them for better or worse, and we
have to go by them until they change. I suspect they will never change
because the people that decide this sort of thing don't care that R12 is
really the cause of ozone depletion or not. They thought there was a link
once and crafted a stupid rule. There is no reason to uncraft the stupid
rule because R134 does the job. Maybe R134 doesn't do the job as
efficiently, but the load difference on an automotive system is negligible.
R134 makes your car cold enough that nipples stand erect and nuts shrivel,
what more do you need?

10-4.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> Nobody, especially me, is suggesting the rules are good, I am only
> suggesting that they are in place. We have them for better or worse, and we
> have to go by them until they change. I suspect they will never change
> because the people that decide this sort of thing don't care that R12 is
> really the cause of ozone depletion or not. They thought there was a link
> once and crafted a stupid rule. There is no reason to uncraft the stupid
> rule because R134 does the job. Maybe R134 doesn't do the job as
> efficiently, but the load difference on an automotive system is negligible.
> R134 makes your car cold enough that nipples stand erect and nuts shrivel,
> what more do you need?

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Yes it's physically impossible for our hemisphere to exchange
> atmospheres. Unless you can make the water in your sink to drain
> clockwise in our northern side.

?? What planet are you on? Are you saying that the air that's
one foot to the north of the equator never exchanges with
the air that's one foot to the south of the equator? Who makes
you exhale when you cross over? There's less than a 10% difference
in measured atmospheric CFC between north and south, btw...
it *does* even out.

> And I say polar flip, as in magnetic north and south poles, it's
> recorded in every rock:

What has the *magnetic* pole to do with our discussion?
You were citing crystal mysticism! Wacky!
__
Steve
..

JohnM wrote:
>> 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,
>[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>> died within a year. Pretty flippin scary. Makes me wonder what I'll come
>> down with when I'm 50.
>
>OK, I can see propane doing the job of moving the lubricant, it'll not
>yet freeze at -300F. Do you remember the low side pressure and temp on
>that system? I'd wonder if the propane ever evaporated..
>
>Nope, I didn't feel jumped on- I reread my post and realized that it
>really sounded bad, sounded like I was suggesting ammonia for automovie
>AC.. You were doing a service to anyone who might have read it to point
>that out, anyone who uses it quickly gains a great respect for it (the
>farmers, for instance) but it's very possible for someone to have a
>first experience with it and not last long enough to gain the respect. I
>wouldn't want to have to try to go to sleep if I were aware that my
>suggestion had brought something of that sort about, bringing attention
>to it was a good thing.
>
>I didn't know 134 was as bad as you relate- I knew it was worse stuff
>than you'd want leaking inside your car and that it can have effects
>seemingly out of proportion to the concentration inhaled, but holy cow
>that sounds bad. Really bad..
>
>Refrigeration interests me, it's mighty ingenious and one of those
>things that impresses me about humans- the fact that we do such things..
>I've got a decent grasp of phase changes, latent heat, that stuff, but
>only a little practical experience. If it weren't for the laws I'd have
>more experience, refrigeration guys near me charge big bucks and
>sometimes don't do a great job.
>
>John
>
>>>>>>Shoot a little propane in the system and enjoy -
>>>>>
>[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>>>
>>>John
>
--
John, Sorry I don't recall the pressures on the system. given some time, I
can go through my books, and find out what they should be though. The
temps seriously are around minus 300-400 degrees. Liquid oxygen is never
used because it's extremely explosive, and oxygen doesn't condense. When I
worked on those systems, the coolers contained evidence from the exon
valdeez oil spill. You weren't the only one offering up propane, I believe
chuck did to. Now, If I was stranded in the desert, and thats all I had to
make a system work, I'd damn well use it


Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/jeep-cars/200506/1

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

>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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

I'm not going to try and educate you, that's for our schools, but
then Liberals can't be bothered with facts, it be just another waste of
tax payer's money.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> ?? What planet are you on? Are you saying that the air that's
> one foot to the north of the equator never exchanges with
> the air that's one foot to the south of the equator? Who makes
> you exhale when you cross over? There's less than a 10% difference
> in measured atmospheric CFC between north and south, btw...
> it *does* even out.
>
> What has the *magnetic* pole to do with our discussion?
> You were citing crystal mysticism! Wacky!
> __
> Steve
> .

Oxygen by it's self is not flammable. All though that small amount
we trapped in a glass in high school chemistry, sure made the magnesium
burn brightly.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

> John, Sorry I don't recall the pressures on the system. given some time, I
> can go through my books, and find out what they should be though. The
> temps seriously are around minus 300-400 degrees. Liquid oxygen is never
> used because it's extremely explosive, and oxygen doesn't condense. When I
> worked on those systems, the coolers contained evidence from the exon
> valdeez oil spill. You weren't the only one offering up propane, I believe
> chuck did to. Now, If I was stranded in the desert, and thats all I had to
> make a system work, I'd damn well use it
>
> Message posted via CarKB.com
> http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/jeep-cars/200506/1

"JohnM" > wrote in message
m...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> > "JohnM" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >>Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >>
> >>>"JohnM" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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
> >>>.
> >>
> >>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
> >>every time I start it.
> >>
> >>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
> >>at the south pole.
> >
> >
> > Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> > *certainly* have bigger issues...
>
> Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..

"the reader binds up my computer" seems pretty plain
to me... unless you were exaggerating. No matter, the info
is out there in many other forms, if you'd care to read
it.

> >
> >
> >>If we are to give up everything that works well but
> >>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
> >>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
> >>never get anywhere.
> >
> >
> > Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> > saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> > that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> > 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
>
> Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?

The large pink unicorn that's not looking over your
shoulder!

> Can you think of many things?

Was that *any*? Or *many*? Make up your mind!

> And the people who are compelled to jump
> on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
> the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
> look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
> they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
> up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
> efficient.

Then use ammonia! Cheapest, most efficient, no
doubt about it! Unless you care about health issues...
you *did* mention toxicity, didn't you? Well, don't
you think that UV is 'toxic'? Try some and see!

> You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
> statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..

Make me! You need to learn how to form a proper
premise and support it... your lack of skill in this
matter is hardly my concern...

>
> What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
> contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
> keep you awake at night?

Cite, please.... (sigh...) we're not arguing about
GW... this is what is known as a 'red herring',
something to distract when one is losing an
argument.

> >
> >
> >>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
> >>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
> >>hogwash was perpetrated.
> >
> >
> > "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> > HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> > to make it one with scientific evidence.
>
> Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.

Well, it certainly didn't mention anything about
ozone, now, did it? We're not here to debate
the virtues of R134... that's another red herring.
Let me help you... you assert that R12 does not
damage the ozone layer.... you called it 'hogwash'.
I posted links supporting my assertion that it
does... links written by NASA, the organization
that took us to the Moon. Go ahead, attack NASA!

> >
> >
> >>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
> >>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
> >>than we ever have.
> >>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
> >>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
> >
> >
> > As long as Bush does what he does best...
> > the head in the sand thing, I mean...
>
> If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.

I don't see that assertion anywhere... nope, I didn't make
it. It relates to the link below... our President is foot-
dragging on the third world issue you cite. Take it up
with him, if you like.

> >
> > Here's an interesting link:
> >
> >
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
> >
> > and quote:
> > <>
> > It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap,
and
> > the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be
more
> > expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> > replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> > World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> > maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> > The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> > opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> > promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be
$15-$20
> > million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> > ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or
alternatively
> > two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has
imposed
> > on the CFC industry.
> > </>
>
> There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
> you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
> you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
> issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
> it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
> be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
> refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
> third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
> as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
> have been bribed.

China and Mexico want to do business here... they'll toe
the line, *especially* with some subsidies. Hey, it's their
cancer too!

> >
> >
> >>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
> >>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
> >>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
> >>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
> >>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
> >>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
> >>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
> >
> >
> > The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> > *alone* will drive R12 away.
>
> Bull****. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
> there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.

Yeah, they'll be buying Chevies.... riiiight.

> What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
> allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
> with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
> it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..

Your assgenda is showing... cite, please.

> >
> >
> >>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
> >>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
> >>it's not.
> >
> >
> > Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> > world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> > you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> > the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> > you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
>
> Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
> intelligence.

The 'go somewhere else' was not an argument, it
was a suggestion... the 'civilized, developed world'
thing was the argument. Pay attention!

>
> Here, an interesting page;
>
>
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html

Nice site... here's a quote:

<>
CFCs are meanwhile banned on a global scale (Montreal Protocol on
substances that deplete the Ozone layer-1987 and further amendments). Due
to their long lifetime it will take about another 50 years until the CFCs
released so far are removed again in the stratosphere and the ozone
equilibrium is hopefully stable again. It is assumed that around 2000 the
maximum has been reached and the ozone hole during the last years was rather
stable in its size. However, exceptions are always possible. In 2002 there
has been no significant ozone hole observed. The reason was simple: It was
too warm and the polar vortex has not been formed in the usual way. Once
again an example that atmospheric processes sometimes ignore any prediction.
But in 2003 the hole was back to its former size, the second largest ever
observed.
</>

I fail to see how this supports your argument...

>
> Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
> under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
> would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
> situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
> *everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.

Do you assert that R12 refrigerant will *never* be released?
Hubris..... alternatives are available.... plenty of them.

Here's a scary link:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...zone_layer.htm

and quote:
<>
The amount of UV reaching the earth's surface has been shown to correlate
with the extent of ozone depletion. In 1997 UV-B levels continued to rise at
a rate of 2% per annum. Increased UV levels at the earth's surface are
damaging to human health, air quality, biological life, and certain
materials such as plastics. Human health effects include increases in the
incidence of certain types of skin cancers, cataracts and immune deficiency
disorders. Increased penetration of UV results in additional production of
ground level ozone, which causes respiratory illnesses. Biologically, UV
affects terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, altering growth, food chains and
biochemical cycles. In particular, aquatic life occurring just below the
surface of the water, where plant species forming the basis of the food
chain are most abundant, are adversely affected by elevated levels of UV
radiation. The tensile properties of certain plastics can be affected by
exposure to UV radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone also alters the
temperature distribution in the atmosphere, resulting in indeterminate
environmental and climatic impacts.
</>

>
> Now what was it you said about those two words..

What two words? "Jeff Gannon"?
__
Steve
..