Robert,

Since you are really into reading and copy/paste make sure you have read
this too: http://www.duracool.com/Duracool/faqs.html it is no less
believable then the EPA/FED stuff you shared with me (I've read all that
stuff before too!). Some of the stuff duracool writes contradicts your
comments, therefore someone is wrong. To error on the side of caution would
be your comment which I can respect.but sometimes logic prevails too. Both
have their agendas but the Duracool people cannot print lies and sell a
product/solution that kills, knowingly.

You comments that there is some irresponsibility here by me are most likely
hypocritical. The hardcore on this list that spout their overzealous ideas
on tires, rims and a/c substitutes are most likely the same people that
advocate brake upgrades, engine swaps, drive train swaps and install propane
heaters...which most likely when done by those who have not done their
homework are just or more dangerous. Its common sense when you deviate from
the factory spec there is some research and risk that needs reviewed, duh. I
read more about engine fires from leaky fuel lines then anything! Let's
assume those on this list are smart enough to do a little research if they
read there is an alternative refrigerant and weight all the pros/cons of a
product that is acceptable and legal. Many act like know-it-alls on this
list anyways, so I trust them to do some research before suing me over a
recommendation. I tend to think that if a company like www.duracool.com
<http://www.duracool.com/>  has all this great info and recommendations on
the web and their product was blowing up cars and drivers all over America
not only would it be known by you and I but Duracool's manufactures would be
out of business. Additionally these products have been used in other
industries legally for years with no issues. Many times in very confined
spaces at our facility for example. I'm quite sure there is some lobbying
reason why the ASE and Feds insist that r134a is still the best product for
the job, which in reality everyone knows it sucks for cooling! There is not
a HVAC or automotive professional that will tell you it's the best product
for the job! Remember there are products used all over the world (and
Europen often has better standards then the US) yet the US dumbs down some
things for silly reasons, this could be one!

This quote is weird logic: "However, the fact that EPA does not regulate the
use of second-generation substitutes does not necessarily mean that such use
is either legal or safe." Conversely it doesn't make it illegal or unsafe if
it was unregulated or not researched!

Yes if we all had the money to do things perfect then maybe we would all pay
over priced A/C work.but some of us find alternatives. My last A/C work on
my Saab (newer car) was over $1200 and I'm still not impressed with cooling
on that r134a system. Two summers ago I put HOTSHOT in my 88 saab (r12
original) and it still doing great and I didn't even swap out the
filter/dryer! A conversion to R134A would have been cost prohibitive and
most likely have failed anyways.

Lastly (legality aside) it's just stupid to go from R12 to R134A to get to
DURACOOL/HOTSHOT when you can go right from R12 to DURACOOL/HOTSHOT. With
all that expense it defeats the purpose of why someone would go this route!
Additionally, if you car is already R134A then why not stay with it.as you
can by that crap for a buck a can at FLAPS and keep recharging every month.

Yes those that are sure jetta rims will explode and 99 load rated tires will
kill them on a vanagon are not going to use duracool, but others of us that
see these products are used in other applications and work fine with no
statistical evidence to say they will not work will give them a try. There
is no onus on me do supply pro/con statistical research to any online group
for an idea that many do. Its common sense to do the research and if
Duracool sells a legal product that works that is good enough for me! Others
should know and do their own research.and if not the haters will do it for
them!

Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Fisher
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:09 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: AC convert

> You can legally use Duracool in R12 setups only after R134a conversion.

> Why?

> Because the EPA knows that "shops" don't do Duracool conversions and they

> know anyone who buys Duracool is venting the R12 into the atmosphere and

> not

> recycling the R12. Therefor they don't mind after a R134a conversion as

> they

> assume you had the R12 reclaimed via the a/c shop.

a.. What is a second-generation substitute? Does the SNAP program regulate

second-generation substitutes? Why can hydrocarbon refrigerants such as

HC-12aR and DURACOOL 12aR be used to replace HFC-134a in cars -- is using a

hydrocarbon replacement in an HFC-134a system safer than using it in a

CFC-12 system?

Under the SNAP rule, EPA regulates substitutes for ozone-depleting

substances. CFC-12 depletes the ozone layer, so EPA reviews substitutes for

CFC-12; acceptable alternative refrigerants used to directly replace

ozone-depleting substances such as CFC-12 are called "first-generation"

substitutes. Certain first-generation substitutes, such as HFC-134a, do not

threaten the ozone layer, and EPA was not directed by Congress to review

substitutes for these refrigerants. Substitutes for non-ozone-depleting

first-generation substitutes (such as substitutes for HFC-134a) are called

"second-generation" substitutes.

However, the fact that EPA does not regulate the use of second-generation

substitutes does not necessarily mean that such use is either legal or safe.

For example, EPA is aware that many states prohibit the use of flammable

refrigerants in automobiles. In addition, local fire codes may restrict the

use of hydrocarbon refrigerants.

Finally, the safety of using hydrocarbon refrigerants such as HC-12aR and

DURACOOL 12aR in a system designed for HFC-134a is not likely to be very

different from the safety of using it in a system designed for CFC-12. Since

no valid risk assessment addressing the safety of hydrocarbon refrigerants

in either type of system has yet been submitted under the SNAP program, EPA

does not believe that hydrocarbon refrigerants have been proven to be a safe

substitute for either CFC-12 or HFC-134a in motor vehicle air conditioning

systems.

> Otherwise it is a fine alternative as is HOTSHOT if you can get it. No

> neither is anymore combustible then R134a.

a.. Since the autoignition temperature of HFC-134a is lower than that of

hydrocarbon refrigerants such as HC-12aR and DURACOOL 12aR, doesn't that

mean that HFC-134a is more flammable than these hydrocarbons?

According to both Underwriters Laboratories and the American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the main

standard-setting body for refrigerants in the U.S., hydrocarbons are

flammable materials. Flammability, as defined by the American Society for

Testing Materials (ASTM) E-681 standard test procedure for refrigerants,

means that a substance will ignite at atmospheric pressure when mixed in

some concentration in air at normal temperature and pressure. The minimum

and maximum concentrations at which ignition will occur are called the lower

and upper flammability limits in air. Hydrocarbons, like the components of

HC-12aR and DURACOOL 12aR, become flammable at concentrations as low as 2%

by volume. These values are well-established in published literature.

Autoignition temperature is a distinct measure from flammability limits in

air. Specifically, this test measures the temperature at which a substance

will spontaneously ignite, without any external ignition source like a match

or lighter.

Certain documents claim that because the autoignition temperature of

HFC-134a is below 750 degrees Celsius (1382 degrees Fahrenheit), it is

flammable, and because the autoignition temperature of hydrocarbon

refrigerant blends such as HC-12aR is above 750 degrees Celsius, it is

nonflammable. However, this statement misrepresents the procedure used by

Underwriters Laboratories to classify refrigerants.

UL first examines whether a refrigerant burns in air at some concentration

and normal pressure and temperature. If it does ignite under these

conditions, it is classified as flammable. Hydrocarbons, like the components

of HC-12aR and DURACOOL 12aR, are classified as flammable. (Note that

hydrocarbon refrigerant manufacturers recognize that their products are

flammable, and label containers for those products with the word

"flammable.")

If a refrigerant is not classified as flammable as a result of this test

procedure, UL then uses the autoignition temperature to distinguish between

practically nonflammable refrigerants (meaning the autoignition temperature

is below 750 degrees Celsius) and nonflammable refrigerants (meaning the

autoignition temperature is above 750 degrees Celsius). HFC-134a does not

ignite, regardless of concentration, at atmospheric temperatures and

pressures. This means that at atmospheric pressures and temperatures, if a

can of HFC-134a is opened and a lit match is placed in front of the can, the

HFC-134a will extinguish the match. HFC-134a is classified by UL as

practically nonflammable because its autoignition temperature is below 750

Celsius. Note that UL lists most alternative refrigerants as practically

nonflammable. HCFC-22, the refrigerant used in most home air-conditioning,

is also classified as practically non-flammable.

> OK all you haters let the tread begin!

Y'all can believe what you want to believe... no skin off me. You can put

these compounds in your car if you choose to... not gonna affect me any. I

have two issues here: One, people recommending products and procedures, or

advocating their use without mentioning that they have considerable baggage

to go along with them, for instance the possible legalities involved with

using hydrocarbon refrigerants in your car. I think mentioning the one

without mentioning the other is irresponsible.

Two, people come here to get and exchange information from and with the

supposedly well-informed. I realize that this can be vague by its very

nature but making statements such as yours above are misleading at best.

Here's the section addressing Kim Brennan's statement on retrofitting the

retrofit:

a.. What is a "sham retrofit" of a motor vehicle A/C system?

EPA does not regulate the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants such as HC-12aR

and DURACOOL 12aR as substitutes for HFC-134a in motor vehicles. Certain

materials have circulated claiming that by first converting a system from

CFC-12 to HFC-134a, the system may then be converted to use a hydrocarbon

refrigerant without violating the original prohibition against using

hydrocarbons as substitutes for CFC-12. Thus, the question arises about the

definition of a legitimate retrofit. This definition hinges on two distinct

principles: complying with the conditions placed on using HFC-134a under the

SNAP program, and the intent of the retrofit.

In accordance with the SNAP rules, a retrofit from CFC-12 to HFC-134a must

meet certain requirements. The CFC-12 must be completely recovered in

accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act.

Fittings designed for use with HFC-134a must be permanently attached to the

system. These fittings mechanically prevent the mixing of HFC-134a with

CFC-12 and other refrigerants. Finally, the system must be labeled, and the

label must contain detailed information as described by the SNAP rule. Some

vehicles also require the installation of a compressor shutoff switch.

Performing these activities complies with the letter of the SNAP

regulations.

Even such compliance may not, however, indicate a legitimate retrofit. For

example, HFC-134a should be used with a different lubricating oil from

CFC-12; if the lubricant is not changed, the air conditioner will not work.

Similarly, a vehicle must be charged with the correct amount of HFC-134a in

order for the air conditioner to work. Failure to take these steps indicates

that the technician does not truly intend to convert the vehicle's air

conditioner to work with HFC-134a, and the subsequent installation of a

hydrocarbon refrigerant such as HC-12aR or DURACOOL 12aR may violate the

prohibition against using hydrocarbon refrigerants as CFC-12 substitutes.

Other indications of a sham retrofit also exist, including the timing of the

retrofit. In general, if a car arrives in a repair shop containing CFC-12

and leaves containing a hydrocarbon refrigerant, it is likely that it

underwent a sham retrofit, regardless of what actually occurred in the shop.

Generally, if HFC-134a is charged into a system and then immediately

removed, such a temporary retrofit to HFC-134a was likely intended solely to

allow the use of HC-12aR, DURACOOL 12aR, or other hydrocarbon refrigerant in

a car designed to use CFC-12. EPA is currently investigating several

complaints, and believes indications such as those described above support

finding a Clean Air Act violation.

The whole of it can be read here:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc12alng.html

Like I said, it's no nevermind to me if you're gonna use this stuff... the

likelihood of you blowing yourself to that great Vanagon graveyard in the

sky (not the one in Pahrump) while next to me in traffic is nil... and I

seriously doubt the refrigerant police are waiting around to nail you on the

first hot day of the year, but- I think we should make an effort here to be

as complete and accurate in our information as we can be, so people can make

the best informed decision they can.

Cya,

Robert

--

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006