David, thanks for the comments. Helps some.

John Rodgers
88 GL Driver.

David Beierl wrote:

> At 04:10 PM 6/18/2003, John Rodgers wrote:
>
>> Strange that R-12 should suddenly become a "dangerous ozone depleteing
>> agent" and disappear from the market aobut the time it's patent ran out.
>>
>> Strange that the Flamability of 134a is well above that of R-12, yet
>> comparable refrigerants are referred to as dangerous.
>
>
> Um...anyone trying to burn R134a would have a tough time I think, like
> fluorine compounds in general it's wicked stable.  MSDS lists
> flammability
> as zero, what I'd expect. It doesn't contain chlorine which makes it a
> lot
> less active in breaking down ozone, but it's still a fluorocarbon.
>
>
>> Strange that  the  Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
>> Consumer Protection is warning consumers and businesses about  Duracool,
>> Enviro-Safe, HC 12a, OZ-12, and Maxi-Frig 12a,  Red-Tek 12a,  and others
>> as illegal refrigerants,
>
>
> I don't think it's the best-worded article, but it's focused on
> automotive
> use.  OZ-12, HC-12a and Duracool 12a are illegal for all uses *except*
> industrial process refrigeration.
>
>>  when the EPA website lists them and tells you
>> exactly which fittings are needed for each one to be safe for use, and
>> what tags and marking to use to be legal.
>>
>> Check this from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
>> consumer Protection website.
>>
>> Quote: "People are being told Red-TeK 12a and other illegal
>> hydrocarbon-based refrigerants are environmentally safe replacements for
>> R-12 and R-134a", Cardin says. "Nothing could be further from the
>> truth."
>
>
> I think that's a serious misstatement.  These blends are forbidden
> because
> of possible fire hazard, not for environmental issues.
>
>
>> R-12, commonly referred to as Freon, is an ozone-depleting substance no
>> longer manufactured in the U.S., and R-134a is the industry accepted
>> refrigerant replacement for use in vehicle air conditioning systems.
>> ***********
>
>
>
>> Why is the R-134a being considered the industry standard? I suspect it
>> is because the others are not allowed to compete.
>
>
> It's the industry standard because the industry -- the service industry
> that is -- looked at the horrifying array of equipment they'd have to buy
> in order to comply with EPA while working on multiple refrigerants and
> ran
> very hard toward supporting a single type.  Whether R134a was the best
> choice or even the best choice at the time, and what if any industry
> pressure was put on them I don't know.  R134a does have the very distinct
> advantage from the handling standpoint that it's a single compound rather
> than a physical mixture of different compounds which may separate in
> interesting ways.
>
>
>> My suspicion is that this is all a crock of BS, and that it is a market
>> control manuver to eliminate the competition.
>>
>> Why shouldn't there be alternate refrigerants available. How is it that
>> in a market place as big as America, in all the vehicles being
>> manufactured today, that ONLY one refrigerant is considered acceptable?
>>
>> I find something majorly wrong with this.
>
>
> Beta is better than VHS -- ask anybody. Quite a lot better actually.  But
> it lost in the market.  I think the blends came in too little, too
> late --
> they will find uses in other places with bigger installations no
> doubt, but
> I think they've lost the automotive market except for fringe-types like
> us.  I foresee a niche market for a few quite expensive shops that
> have the
> necessary equipment (one per blend...) to remove the blended refrigerants
> when service is needed on those systems, since it's illegal to discharge
> any of these refrigerants into the atmosphere.  It's also incidentally
> illegal to sell small cans of any of them to non-certified AC techs.  No
> doubt many people will evade both those restrictions, but some will be
> caught and made an example of.
>
> Maybe the backlash to the Patriot Busybody Acts will result in
> dismantling
> the EPA...
>
>
>> Lets see!! Hmmm, here's my Cervel refrigerator/freezer manual -yep,
>> kerosene burner provides the energy, ammonia is the gas ---- yep,
>> calculations show it will drop the temp to "zero" derees  then a small
>> fan to circulate cold air over the coils, thru the ducts into the cab,
>> hmmm, yep I think this is going to wok really well on that desert trip
>> this summer........yep. And it doesn't use 5 horsepower off the engine
>> to keep it running, just a few btu's off the  kerosene burner.....Yep!
>
>
> Two things about that Servel fridge -- if it's one of the old ones like I
> grew up with, the CPSC has deemed them hazardous after they caused 20
> deaths from CO poisoning in the 1980-90 decade; and Gould, the company
> that
> inherited the Servel liabilities is trying to buy them back for $100 each
> plus reasonable disposal costs.  The more recent Servel-brand machines
> made
> by Dometic are not included.  Some people prefer to keep them.
>
> The other thing is that those few BTUs from the kerosene would amount
> to a
> lot more than the energy costs for a compressor system of the same
> capacity.  I ran across an estimate from a study in Mauretania that
> showed
> a 16:1 energy advantage for the compressor system (although the
> absorption
> system still turned out cheaper overall -- in rural sections of
> Mauretania).  Of course if you could power it from exhaust heat that
> might
> be attractive -- and people are actively researching ways to make
> more-efficient absorption systems using cascaded cycles and
> super-insulated
> boxes and various other stuff.
>
> cheers,
> david
>
> --
> David Beierl - Providence RI USA --
> http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
> '84 Westy "Dutiful Passage"
> '85 GL "Poor Relation"
>