 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / March 2007R12, R134, what's next?
How long is patent for R134 valid? Pretty soon I think, right? Isn't it about time for some environmental catastrophe to be discovered, which will force us all to switch from R134 to some new patented formulation? How come we don't hear about the ozone hole anymore? It was all the rage in the early 90s, and I am fairly certain that R12 is still widely used outside united states. viktor > How come we don't hear about the ozone hole anymore? It was all the > rage in the early 90s, and I am fairly certain that R12 is still > widely used outside united states. The ozone hole started closing up on its own, decades ahead of schedule. This reveals that the theories of how heavier-than-air R12 slowly gets into the upper atmosphere to allegedly cause the hole are a pantload. The refrigerant that was released before the R12 ban should still be finding its way up there and doing damage, not to mention that which is still used in developing countries. However, the ozone hole is a natural phenomenon that cycles due to natural processes, irrespective of any action taken by us. Fortunately, I purchased large quantities of R12 for my own use when it was still cheap. Looks like I may need to do that with incandescent light bulbs next, given current rumblings from the enviro-nazis.  SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) "Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message > Looks like I may need to do that with incandescent > light bulbs next, given current rumblings from the enviro-nazis. Your disdain for the environment and your fellow man in general would indicate that you are an enviro-anarchist. Do you eat a snake for breakfast every day? <HLS@nospam.nix> > "Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do you eat a snake for breakfast every day? It indicates to me he's poor (R12 car) and dumb (lack of facts, grasp of simple logic), therefore lacking the facilities to do any real damage to anything. We'll move on. - D > It indicates to me he's poor (R12 car) Why does having an R-12 car indicate he's poor? Keeping collector cars is USUALLY a sign of at least some degree of disposable income. Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in article <5-mdnTZU_ZFmq2XYnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@texas.net>... > > It indicates to me he's poor (R12 car) > > Why does having an R-12 car indicate he's poor? Keeping collector cars > is USUALLY a sign of at least some degree of disposable income. Many of the larger car collectors treat their collections as *investments*, NOT the use of disposable income. I might spend a few thousand of my disposable income to enjoy driving a muscle car. The well-to-do collector buys an old Packard for $100,000 and sits on it until it's worth $500,000. > It indicates to me he's poor (R12 car) and dumb (lack of facts, grasp of > simple logic), therefore lacking the facilities to do any real damage to > anything. We'll move on. LOL! Your ASSumptions just make an an a.s out of you. Do you think it is *cheap* to restore and maintain a fleet of classic vehicles, little one? You must be *extremely* young and stoopid! SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) > LOL! Your ASSumptions just make an an a.s out of you. Do you think it is > *cheap* to restore and maintain a fleet of classic vehicles, little one? > You must be *extremely* young and stoopid! Why are you all assuming that the OP has a classic just because it uses R-12? Hell, my 93 Ford Ranger uses R-12 and I doubt anyone would consider it classic or vintage. And I have my own stash of R-12... >> LOL! Your ASSumptions just make an an a.s out of you. Do you think it is >> *cheap* to restore and maintain a fleet of classic vehicles, little one? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > R-12? Hell, my 93 Ford Ranger uses R-12 and I doubt anyone would > consider it classic or vintage. And I have my own stash of R-12... Because he fixes the AC on it. > Because he fixes the AC on it. If you knew many people involved in the classic car and hot-rod hobbies you would realize that many of us prefer a "hands-on" approach. You don't have to be "poor" to gain satisfaction from doing your own repairs and maintenance. This is the case whether it is doing an oil change, a tune-up, an engine rebuild, repairing an air conditioning system, or -- if one has the skills and equipment -- doing a complete restoration or customization of a vehicle that others looked upon as a discarded junker. I am certainly not wealthy on the scale of the Al Gores, John Kerrys, and John Edwardses of the world who flagrantly use prolific resources to fuel their jet-set lifestyles while berating the rest of us to conserve. But I do OK. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) >>Because he fixes the AC on it. > > If you knew many people involved in the classic car and hot-rod > hobbies you would realize that many of us prefer a "hands-on" approach. Uh, Roger? I think we're in violent agreement. Don't chew *my* butt, I haven't taken a car to a mechanic in *years.* I do everything except paint and body. > You don't have to be "poor" to gain satisfaction from doing your own > repairs and maintenance. Nope, you just have to be smart. "Roger Blake" > LOL! Your ASSumptions just make an an a.s out of you. Do you think it is > *cheap* to restore and maintain a fleet of classic vehicles, little one? > You must be *extremely* young and stoopid! Aviation and yacht racing is expensive. Restoring cars isn't. Your posts - you sound like white trash. - D > Aviation and yacht racing is expensive. Restoring cars isn't. It's all relative, and depends on the type of car and thoroughness of the restoration. (And at least with aviation, the type of aircraft. I have certainly known middle-class folks who own their own small planes.) > Your posts - you sound like white trash. Your posts - you sound like a feckless young imbecile. Not to worry, perhaps someday you will grow out of it. "Dood." SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) > "Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Your disdain for the environment and your fellow man in general > would indicate that you are an enviro-anarchist. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I often make comments similar to what Roger made, and I DO care about the environment. But 99.999% of the organized environmental movements today aren't about protecting the environment, they're about POWER over people. Controlling what people do, what people buy, where they live, what laws get passed, what companies get contracts, and generating fears to motivate loyalty.... the list is long. Oh sure, if it helps the environment along the way that's a bonus, but its really about control. Witness the proposed bans on incandescent lamps. That's absolutely brain-dead stupid and potentially harmful to the environment. If you want to write legislation reducing energy consumption, then mandate a particular EFFICIENCY, don't ban a technology. GE responded to the ban by promptly announcing a new line of incandescant technlogy lamps that are MORE efficient than compact flourescents. Oh, and incandescants don't contain mercury and other toxins that CFLs do, either. But if the incandescant ban laws get passed, the more efficient and cleaner lamps will be banned because they're the "wrong" technology. THAT, my friend, is typical of your modern "environmentalist" movement. >> "Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > will be banned because they're the "wrong" technology. THAT, my friend, > is typical of your modern "environmentalist" movement. MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment. "Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition. Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said. "My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said. She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze. The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted. Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures. "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability." http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_03_11_archive.html#2568834022769890166 SignatureSteve W. > ... But 99.999% of the organized > environmental movements today aren't about protecting the environment, > they're about POWER over people. Controlling what people do, what people > buy, where they live, what laws get passed, what companies get > contracts, and generating fears to motivate loyalty.... Congrats, you broke the code! SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) > > "Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Witness the proposed bans on incandescent lamps. I dont know that I have heard that bans on incandescents are near reality. I can live with high efficiency long life lamps, of whatever high efficiency technology, if need be. (I prefer it to daylight savings time, actually). Given: there are a lot of nuts in the forest...BUT we do have some really serious environmental concerns that are not being addressed because it is "not in the USA's best economic interests" to do anything about it. People like Roger just seem to be against anything that would require cooperation. > People like Roger just seem to be against anything that would require > cooperation. I have seen virtually nothing from the enviro-nazi camp that merits "cooperation." Just lie after lie after lie, thinly disguising a socialist/communist agenda. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) >> People like Roger just seem to be against anything that would require >> cooperation. > > I have seen virtually nothing from the enviro-nazi camp that merits > "cooperation." Just lie after lie after lie, thinly disguising a > socialist/communist agenda. Their idea of compromise is "do what we say and we'll let you live." SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > > People like Roger just seem to be against anything that would require > > cooperation. > > I have seen virtually nothing from the enviro-nazi camp that merits > "cooperation." Just lie after lie after lie, thinly disguising a > socialist/communist agenda. Unfortunately, the treatments available for paranoia and antisocial behavior just haven't improved enough to help you, Roger... > I dont know that I have heard that bans on incandescents are near reality. > I can live with high efficiency long life lamps, of whatever high efficiency [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > People like Roger just seem to be against anything that would require > cooperation. I can't say I completely agree. The US and Europe lead the world in environmentally sound practices, with the exception of the US population's vehicle-miles-travelled. And that CAN'T change unless we shrink our borders. I have ZERO tolerance for the people who think we should castrate ourselves to go the next mile while allowing so-called "developing countries" to pollute more than we did in the 1950s and 60s. We can go ahead, sacrifice our standard of living, and achieve carbon-neutral economy if we want, but it won't do squat to clean up the world until the playing field gets a WHOLE lot more even! Its time for China, Mexico, India, the African nations, etc. to rise to the same level of environmental practice that Europe, Canada, the US, Japan, etc. are at now. please provide an identifiable example of one-such "... serious environmental concerns that are not being addressed because it is "not in the USA's best economic interests"..." actually, it sounds more like people like you are ready to rally behind whatever eco-hysteric cause is touted most loudly by Al Gore or any one of dozens of Hollywood-types... > Given: there are a lot of nuts in the forest...BUT we do have some really > serious environmental concerns that are not being addressed because it > is "not in the USA's best economic interests" to do anything about it. > > People like Roger just seem to be against anything that would require > cooperation. > please provide an identifiable example of one-such "... serious > environmental concerns that are not being addressed because it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whatever eco-hysteric cause is touted most loudly by Al Gore or any one > of dozens of Hollywood-types... I think it is better to err on the side of caution than on the side of reckless indiscretion. A number of highly competent and respected scientific authorities, NASA included, are coming to a common thread that we are in trouble. I could give a sh.t less about Gore. He wasn't worth a damn as a candidate and I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. The preponderance of scientific data are beginning to tell a story. Perhaps it is not a story that you like to hear, and it could be erroneous, but when serious science points out a potential problem, only a fool would bury his head in the sand. The consequences are all too serious to be taken lightly. Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in article <slrnevfoeu.75d.rogblake10@moog.netaxs.com>... > Looks like I may need to do that with incandescent > light bulbs next, given current rumblings from the enviro-nazis. The sheer unmitigated duplicity of the environmental whackos starts to show through when they try to convince you to buy "energy efficient" flourescent bulbs to replace household incandescents on one hand while condemning flourescent bulbs for their mercury content on the other hand. I'm guessing there is some sort of corporate deal/money backing the tree-huggers on this changeover to increase the sales of the screw-in flourescents - much like the R-12/R-134 scam was designed to force R-12 off the market and increase the sale of R-134. > The ozone hole started closing up on its own, decades ahead of schedule. > This reveals that the theories of how heavier-than-air R12 slowly gets into > the upper atmosphere to allegedly cause the hole are a pantload. A while back, I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations using figures from NASA and envirowhackos. I wildly overestimated world R12 production since its invention, and placed ALL of it into a cubic mile of stratosphere, and using NASA's estimate that 1 molecule of R12 destroys 100,000 molecules of ozone, I couldn't destroy all the ozone in that cubic mile, even when I shut off the sun's ability to make new ozone there. Now, my calculations could be off by an order of magnitude or two. But when you consider how hugely many cubic miles of stratosphere there are, it begins to be clear that my figures can't possibly be that far off. It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole or global warming. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> >> The ozone hole started closing up on its own, decades ahead of schedule. >> This reveals that the theories of how heavier-than-air R12 slowly gets [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole or > global warming. Besides, isn't ozone a major component of smog? pump the smog from LA and Mexico City up to the hole in the ozone layer and solve three problems at once. > > It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do > > anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mexico City up to the hole in the ozone layer and solve three problems at > once. How do you propose doing that when ozone in the lower atmosphere breaks down in less than 15 seconds? >> > It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever >> > do anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How do you propose doing that when ozone in the lower atmosphere breaks > down in less than 15 seconds? Couldn't say. Why don't we give it to GreenPeace, they've got all the answers, don't they? >> > It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever >> > do anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Couldn't say. Why don't we give it to GreenPeace, they've got all the > answers, don't they? That's not a real answer from you. >> > It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do >> > anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How do you propose doing that when ozone in the lower atmosphere > breaks down in less than 15 seconds? That's why the cities never had smog, because ozone decomposes so fast down here. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do > anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's why the cities never had smog, because ozone decomposes so fast > down here. Did you get that from the same source that told you mankind can't cause major damage to Earth? Ozone at the surface comes from nitrogen oxide reacting with O2. >> It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do >> anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > cause major damage to Earth? Ozone at the surface comes from > nitrogen oxide reacting with O2. The news services used to report that scientists said that ozone was a major component of smog. Obviously, you have proven them wrong. Now will you get the weather forecasters to quit issuing those bogus ozone alerts? SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > >> It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do > >> anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole or [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The news services used to report that scientists said that ozone was a > major component of smog. Obviously, you have proven them wrong. You're not reading correctly. >> >> > clifto wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You're not reading correctly. So you haven't proven them wrong? SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do > anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole > or global warming. The research shows that that is exactly what happened however, arrogant or not. > "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote... >> It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The research shows that that is exactly what happened however, arrogant or > not. If you keep repeating it, you might start to believe it. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> HLS@nospam.nix wrote in article <Ir%Jh.8238$FG1.6673@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>... > > It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do > > anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole > > or global warming. > > The research shows that that is exactly what happened however, arrogant or > not. Apparently, the "researchers" are banking on the possibility that the developed world doesn't own calculators. Take the State of Rhode Island. It is 1212 square miles......according to my Rand-McNally Atlas. Multiply that by 640 acres per square mile and you find that the State of Rhode Island has 775680 acres....... Multiply that by 43560 square feet per acre, and you come up with 33,788,620,800 (That's 33 Billion with a "B") square feet of land in the State of Rhode Island. Now, if you were to take the world population of six billion, stand them shoulder-to-shoulder in Rhode Island - the smallest state in the United States - giving every man, woman, and child a five square foot plot to stand on, the entire world population would easily fit within the State of Rhode Island borders. So, what you are saying is that the impact of an area the size of the State of Rhode Island - a fly speck on the planet earth - has the potential to change the ENTIRE WORLD ENVIRONMENT? And, your "researchers" expect intelligent people to believe that poppycock??? Even if all of mankind displaced an area the size of Texas, it would be such a miniscule portion of the entire world so as to be near-insignificant. The term "environmental whacko" seems so limited....... They never allow facts to get in the way of their "truths"... > And, your "researchers" expect intelligent people to believe that > poppycock??? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They never allow facts to get in the way of their "truths"... Believe what you want.... Environment is a broad subject. Recent surveys, which I am sure many of you will not believe anyway, indicate that there are now only about 10% of the fish in the sea that there were a few decades ago. That was a resource we thought was impossible to kill off because it was so vast. But we seem to be managing it. This is a result of overfishing and pollution, apparently. New studies published just last week estimate that the northern polar ice cap will disappear totally, and will not refreeze, within the century. Earliest models show it will happen by 2040, but others say it might last until nearer 2100. IF TRUE ( and we can argue whether it is or not...neither of us knows, one way or the other) this seems serious, for our children. Most of us are old enough that we can continue to crap in our nests and will not live to see the outcome. HLS@nospam.nix wrote in article <AQALh.8489$yW.7198@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>... > > And, your "researchers" expect intelligent people to believe that > > poppycock??? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > continue to crap in our > nests and will not live to see the outcome. Do you EVER read what you write? You are suggesting that a resource that comprises 75 percent of the earth's surface cannot, somehow, provide enough resources to support a pinpoint the size of Rhode Island........... ....and THAT makes sense to you? I would suggest that there are still enough edible resources in the world's oceans to bury the State of Rhode Island several feet deep - perhaps hundreds of feet deep...... .....and, in environmental whacko language, ocean's are a self-renewing resource. Figures never lie, but liars DO figure......... > Figures never lie, but liars DO figure......... I am NOT a liar,am not uneducated, and am not stupid... Scientific data IS up for interpretation, and there is a certain amount of error inherent in every measurement. There is also the human tendency to deny data which is inconvenient. If you dont like the scenario, then just say it isnt so. Which are you? HLS@nospam.nix wrote in article <KQFLh.10159$P47.3873@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>... > > Figures never lie, but liars DO figure......... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you > dont like the scenario, then just say it isnt so. Which are you? Actually, I am questioning the way it is all being presented in such conveniently negative terms..... ......and, I wasn't calling you, specifically, a liar - just those who throw about these meaningless numbers. The term "ten percent" can have an awfully wide range of meanings. For example, if you take a blue collar, clock-punching, working stiff and say he is only making ten percent of what he once made, that could be tragic.. But, if you tell me Bill Gates is ONLY making ten percent of what he used to make, that STILL puts him heads and shoulders above the median. What is the "scientific" number upon which the ten percent figure in reference to the ocean's resources is based? What methodology was used to determine the exact inventory of resources? Was the original assessment way too high due to mis-informed, inaccurate, or mis-leading - assumptions?.......or an error in the original inventory methodology? Is the figure represented by the term "ten percent" closer to what has been the actual 100 percent figure over the years? Why are these "scientists" so afraid to give us the actual figures instead of the "sky-is-falling" percentage representation?.......number of actual consumable resources left in the ocean? ...average consumption per person?....resource to per-capita ratios....etc. Could it be that the doomsday "s-i-f" percentage representation would appear to lend more credence to their pronouncements? Do they believe we. the great unwashed, are too stupid to process the information? Or are they afraid of being discovered saying, "poor, POOR, Bill Gates!"? Who is to say that an ocean with "only ten percent" of what was once *believed* to be its inventory of resources will not be able to sustain life on the planet - especially when mankind is represented by the comparitive flyspeck of Rhode Island and the ocean's represent 75 percent of the rest of the world? And, who is to say that the figure they base their "ten percent" on is accurate to start with - and not overinflated? I'm just saying that pretty much ANY pronouncement from ANY expert or group known - or believed - to have a particular agenda requires a healthy dose of cynicism. What, exactly, is the truth - the actual facts....the numbers - behind the statement? Do this a few of times and you will surprise yourself with the regularity that "concerned people" lie...... ......which, unfortunately, too many people consider to be a fair tactic if the overall goal - or assumption of power - is achieved. I do beg to differ, NO climatological research exists to support your claim, what does exist is modeling and simulation predicting what the outcome *might be* (if the underlying mathematics are correct) if global warming was in-fact occurring... this is not remotely-related to your unfounded statement that research shows any such thing... more unfounded hysteria... >> It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do >> anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole >> or global warming. > > The research shows that that is exactly what happened however, arrogant or > not. > I do beg to differ, NO climatological research exists to support your > claim, what does exist is modeling and simulation predicting what the > outcome *might be* (if the underlying mathematics are correct) if global > warming was in-fact occurring.. Computer modeling and simulation is used in hundreds of industries to save millions of dollars in testing. It has proven it's worth over and over and over. In fact one of the earliest industries to do it was the military industrial complex. If anything, the climatologists are johnny-come-latelys to the science of computer modeling. If you want to dispute the global warming models then your welcome to attack the input data being used to feed the models. But attacking the models themselves show your nothing more than an ignorant blowhard. Ted "clifto" > Now, my calculations could be off by > an order of magnitude or two. > But when you > consider how hugely many cubic miles of stratosphere there are, it begins > to be clear that my figures can't possibly be that far off. Uh huh... post up your math. I'd love to see it. > It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do > anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole > or global warming. Might want to wildly guess at other sources of CFC as well - like just about every aerosol can on the planet, at the time. - D > "clifto" >> Now, my calculations could be off by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Uh huh... post up your math. I'd love to see it. One of these days when I have some time, I plan to re-do the whole process and put it up on my web site. Right now, it's a fair amount of work that has to wait for car repairs. I didn't expect to convince anyone by mentioning it. I was saying that I convinced myself, and outlined the procedure I used. >> It's incredibly arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly ever do >> anything to cause such major change to Earth as damaging the ozone hole >> or global warming. > > Might want to wildly guess at other sources of CFC as well - like just about > every aerosol can on the planet, at the time. You're looking at "sources" where the CFCs actually hit the air. I was looking at "sources" as in manufacturers. The stuff in your aerosol cans came from the manufacturers, so it was in my estimates. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > Fortunately, I purchased large quantities of R12 for my own use when > it was still cheap. Looks like I may need to do that with incandescent > light bulbs next, given current rumblings from the enviro-nazis. I am just curious, so please don't take this question as an offensive. Why do you need to stock up on the incandescent bulbs? What is it about the fluorescents that you don't like? (my house is full of incandescents) bob z. > offensive. Why do you need to stock up on the incandescent bulbs? > What is it about the fluorescents that you don't like? Don't like much of anything about them, from the weird way they look (the spiral jobbies) to the color balance to the 60hz flicker that causes headaches and eyestrain on long exposure. Not to mention that, as others have pointed out in detail, the idea that they are some kind of environmental panacea is a fetid load of dingoes' kidneys. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) > Don't like much of anything about them, from the weird way they look > (the spiral jobbies) to the color balance to the 60hz flicker that > causes headaches and eyestrain on long exposure. Not to mention that, > as others have pointed out in detail, the idea that they are some > kind of environmental panacea is a fetid load of dingoes' kidneys. Who cares how they look? If you don;t like the spiral jobbies you can find them that look just like a regular incandescent bulb. The latest CF's are not your old fashioned fluorescents. You can get then in a bunch of color temps and they're not 60 Hz any more. I like them because they give a lot more light for less power and a lot less heat so brighter bulbs can be used, i.e. a 100W (equivalent) in a 60W fixture. Give them a try, you might be surprised. The fact that the environmentalists supposedly love them doesn't mean they're totally without merit. >>offensive. Why do you need to stock up on the incandescent bulbs? >>What is it about the fluorescents that you don't like? > > Don't like much of anything about them, from the weird way they look > (the spiral jobbies) to the color balance to the 60hz flicker that > causes headaches and eyestrain on long exposure To be fair, neither CFLs (the spiral jobbies) nor modern F32T8 4-foot long flourescents flicker at 60 HZ anymore. The electronic ballasts up-convert to a frequency in the kilohertz range where the eye can't detect any flicker at all. And the color rendering index of flourescents IS getting much better, but its still not as flat-spectrum as incandescent. > To be fair, neither CFLs (the spiral jobbies) nor modern F32T8 4-foot > long flourescents flicker at 60 HZ anymore. The electronic ballasts > up-convert to a frequency in the kilohertz range where the eye can't > detect any flicker at all. And the color rendering index of flourescents > IS getting much better, but its still not as flat-spectrum as incandescent. Daniel Stern, is that you? :-) Toyota MDT in MO >>To be fair, neither CFLs (the spiral jobbies) nor modern F32T8 4-foot >>long flourescents flicker at 60 HZ anymore. The electronic ballasts [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Toyota MDT in MO No, but after knowing Dan for 16 years I've picked up more than a few lighting facts. Plus I'm an EE and my house is completely converted to CFLs with the exception of the spot lighting in the kitchen :-) > No, but after knowing Dan for 16 years I've picked up more than a few > lighting facts. Plus I'm an EE and my house is completely converted to > CFLs with the exception of the spot lighting in the kitchen :-) Recent article in Popular Science (July, 2006 page 61) quoted an estimated savings in a 25 bulb house, at present electricity rates of 9.78 cents per KWH, of $1250 over the seven year life of the CFL, compared to incandescents. A penny saved.... HLS@nospam.nix wrote in article <yHALh.8485$yW.7511@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>... > > No, but after knowing Dan for 16 years I've picked up more than a few > > lighting facts. Plus I'm an EE and my house is completely converted to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > A penny saved.... How many pennies will be saved when it comes to re-cycling the mercury contained in the CFLs? CFLs are certainly much easier for Mr. "environmentally-conscious" homeowner to hide in the regular trash than the long flourescent tubes, so I'll bet you see a marked reduction in flourescent re-cycling. How much will it cost in eye problems for people trying to read and do close tolerance work under the harsh light that is flourescent? I'm not against the CFLs. I have several in my shop and home. I am against the attempts to dictate to me as to what I can use in a country that allegedly offers freedom of choice. It's NOT about saving the environment.......It's a power struggle. >>No, but after knowing Dan for 16 years I've picked up more than a few >>lighting facts. Plus I'm an EE and my house is completely converted to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > A penny saved.... And you can buy decent CFLs in 8-packs for a couple of dollars per bulb now. And the CRI is good. No reason not to go there. However, I'd say only about 30% of the ones I've bought actually last 7 years. 2-3 years is more typical. ah yes, that well-known bastion of irrefutable science -- "Popular Science"... it is nearly as good a source of science-fact as "60-Minutes" is a good source of news... or nearly as good as "Consumer Reports" is as a source of valid automotive information... or nearly as good a source as "Al Gore" is as a source of climatological data.... > Recent article in Popular Science (July, 2006 page 61) quoted an estimated > savings > in a 25 bulb house, at present electricity rates of 9.78 cents per KWH, of > $1250 over > the seven year life of the CFL, compared to incandescents. > ah yes, that well-known bastion of irrefutable science -- "Popular > Science"... it is nearly as good a source of science-fact as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > $1250 over > > the seven year life of the CFL, compared to incandescents. This isn't difficult science even for you, Kowalski...Simple calculations. Or, maybe that would be difficult for you. > In article <1173862616.585155.110...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, vmpole...@gmail.com wrote: > Fortunately, I purchased large quantities of R12 for my own use when > it was still cheap. Looks like I may need to do that with incandescent > light bulbs next, given current rumblings from the enviro-nazis. Mr. Blake, If R12 is really not the cause of the ozone problem, which is suspicion I also share, is there any reason for Governments to continue to prohibit its use? I know that my older car with R12 AC puts out MUCH colder air than the feeble cooling produced by my newer R134 truck. My own experience suggest R12 works better. What are the pros and cons of R12 and R134? my understanding is R12 has undesirable property will produce toxic gas if exposed to sufficient heat. But I have also heard that R134 is itself a toxic gas (no need to burn it to produce toxicity). Thanks. Viktor > ... > What are the pros and cons of R12 and R134? ... I have also heard that R134 is itself a toxic > gas (no need to burn it to produce toxicity). R-134 is what is in most of those 'canned air' products that are used to clean computers, etc. It's also used as the propellant in some medical inhalers. While anything can be toxic under the right (wrong?) conditions, I don't think R-134 is particularly toxic in those situations. If your R-134 truck is not cooling well, there's probably something wrong (perhaps poor design). All my R-134 vehicles cool very well (and I live in Phoenix where it frequently hits 110+ in the summer). In a system designed for it, R-134 will work every bit as well as R-12 in a system designed for it. >> ... >> What are the pros and cons of R12 and R134? ... I have also heard that R134 is itself a toxic >> gas (no need to burn it to produce toxicity). > > R-134 is what is in most of those 'canned air' products that are used to > clean computers, etc. Mine is R-152a. Falcon Dust-Off, found nearly everywhere. > It's also used as the propellant in some medical > inhalers. I doubt it. Please name a product. > While anything can be toxic under the right (wrong?) > conditions, I don't think R-134 is particularly toxic in those situations. From CAS 811-97-2: Overexposure may cause dizziness and loss of concentration. At higher levels, CNS depression and cardiac arrhythmia may result from exposure. Vapors displace air and can cause asphyxiation in confined spaces. At higher temperatures, (>250°C), decomposition products may include Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) and carbonyl halides. HF is a real treat. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > > While anything can be toxic under the right (wrong?) > > conditions, I don't think R-134 is particularly toxic in those situations. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > HF is a real treat. Neither R12 nor R134 are particularly toxic. If you are overexposed, essentially you suffocate. At temperatures over 250 Celsius, a lot of ordinarily nontoxic chemicals can break down to less friendly components. Most MSDs (Material Safety Data Sheet) information will give you worst case possibilities. I know of people who have been killed being careless with HF. Do you, Clifto, have any information of people who have been killed by exposure to halogenated refrigerants? >> > While anything can be toxic under the right (wrong?) >> > conditions, I don't think R-134 is particularly toxic in those [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > halogenated > refrigerants? That's a really wild analogy. No, but I know of people who have been killed by exposure to hydrogen cyanide. So apparently you don't think R-134a leaking rapidly onto a hot exhaust manifold, as after a collision, could hurt anyone. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > So apparently you don't think R-134a leaking rapidly onto a hot > exhaust manifold, as after a collision, could hurt anyone. Could, but most likely wont. Hydrogen cyanide is poisonous, but is unlikely to be formed in concentrations large enough and confined enough to cause an actual problem. That is why it was not a very good choice as a military weapon. I am one of the lucky ones who can smell cyanide at low levels. Lots of people can't. >> So apparently you don't think R-134a leaking rapidly onto a hot >> exhaust manifold, as after a collision, could hurt anyone. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lucky ones who > can smell cyanide at low levels. Lots of people can't. You haven't been following the thread. It doesn't form cyanide, it forms hydrogen fluoride. VERY dangerous stuff, as in amputate any body parts it touches. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > Mine is R-152a. Falcon Dust-Off, found nearly everywhere. I have several cans at work that contain 134a. I don't remember the brands. I won a bet with a co-worker about it. He didn't believe me either. >> It's also used as the propellant in some medical >> inhalers. > > I doubt it. Please name a product. OK...Ventolin inhalers use it: http://www.ventolin.com/howtouse.html. Look near the bottom of this page: http://www.ventolin.com/howtouse.html. I have an Albuterol inhaler made by Warrick Pharmaceuticals that uses dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12) as a propellant...says so right on the label...but it's pretty old. Look on the web and you'll find several articles about R-12 in inhalers being replaced by non-CFC, often R-134a. Search for 'inhaler propellants'. You believe me now...or do you still not want to be confused by the facts? >> Mine is R-152a. Falcon Dust-Off, found nearly everywhere. > > I have several cans at work that contain 134a. I don't remember the > brands. I won a bet with a co-worker about it. He didn't believe me either. I made the mistake of thinking I had some myself, but upon further checking I found out I was mistaken. In fact, I thought the Falcon Dust-Off had it, through confusion of the chemical name with something else. >>> It's also used as the propellant in some medical >>> inhalers. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You believe me now...or do you still not want to be confused by the facts? Now that you came up with some facts, there's no confusion. It's not a lot to ask for. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > If R12 is really not the cause of the ozone problem, which is > suspicion I also share, is there any reason for Governments to > continue to prohibit its use? It's politically correct and shuts up the enviroterrorists. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > continue to prohibit its use? I know that my older car with R12 AC > puts out MUCH colder air than the feeble cooling produced by my newer > R134 truck. My own experience suggest R12 works better. R-12 certainly works better in a system that was designed for it. To give the devil his due, a properly-designed R-134 system should cool just as well. The R-12 restrictions were brought to us by the same chicken-littles who have stood firmly in the way of the U.S. developing its own energy resources, and who have developed the "human-caused global warming" religion as a means of social control and gaining power. > What are the pros and cons of R12 and R134? my understanding is R12 > has undesirable property will produce toxic gas if exposed to Neither are particularly toxic. R-134 systems (particularly conversions) are more sensitive to moisture contamination as the oil used absorbs more mositure. In addition, R-134 is less efficient. So it may not perform well in an older system, particularly if that system was just adequate with R-12. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) >> continue to prohibit its use? I know that my older car with R12 AC >> puts out MUCH colder air than the feeble cooling produced by my newer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the devil his due, a properly-designed R-134 system should cool just as >well. That said, it is POSSIBLE to do R-134 conversion jobs that work just as well as the thing did with R-12. It means changing out the evaporator at the very least, though. >The R-12 restrictions were brought to us by the same chicken-littles >who have stood firmly in the way of the U.S. developing its own >energy resources, and who have developed the "human-caused global >warming" religion as a means of social control and gaining power. Hey, anything that encourages people to recycle old refrigerants is a good idea to my mind. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>>continue to prohibit its use? I know that my older car with R12 AC >>>puts out MUCH colder air than the feeble cooling produced by my newer [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > well as the thing did with R-12. It means changing out the evaporator > at the very least, though. Not even that, necessarily. Sometimes all it takes is adding an auxiliary electric fan. When I converted my '66 and '69 Mopars, I also converted the systems from using an evaporator pressure regulator (prevents evaporator freeze-up by throttling the refrigerant return flow volume to the compressor) to using a thermostatic switch to cycle the compressor clutch instead. They now cool a hot cabin down *faster* than they did with the original EPR system and R-12. Same compressor, same evap and condensor, and in the case of the '69 I didn't even add an auxiliary fan. > > How come we don't hear about the ozone hole anymore? It was all the > > rage in the early 90s, and I am fairly certain that R12 is still [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This reveals that the theories of how heavier-than-air R12 slowly gets into > the upper atmosphere to allegedly cause the hole are a pantload. CFCs go up because of wind, and even scientists who think that CFCs & ozone are no big deal don't deny that CFCs are floating up in the stratosphere. Where did you get your information? >> > How come we don't hear about the ozone hole anymore? It was all the >> > rage in the early 90s, and I am fairly certain that R12 is still [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ozone are no big deal don't deny that CFCs are floating up in the > stratosphere. Where did you get your information? The official doctrine of the ecoterrorists is that wind lifts these VERY heavy molecules up 100,000 feet, where they float because they're heavier than air and remaining there, kill ozone molecules faster than the sun can make them; but the same wind that can lift the incredibly heavy Freon molecules can't lift the ozone molecules we complain about on the ground, because they're too heavy and even if they got lifted they'd fall again because they're heavier than air. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > The official doctrine of the ecoterrorists is that wind lifts these VERY > heavy molecules up 100,000 feet, where they float because they're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on the ground, because they're too heavy and even if they got lifted > they'd fall again because they're heavier than air. Terrestrial ozone doesn't reach the stratosphere because it breaks down in a few seconds, but terrestrial CFCs do rise up there because they last roughly a century down here. If you don't believe that CFCs can drift into the ozone layer, how do you explain them being found there by detectors in satellites, planes, and balloons? >> The official doctrine of the ecoterrorists is that wind lifts these VERY >> heavy molecules up 100,000 feet, where they float because they're [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > down in a few seconds, but terrestrial CFCs do rise up there because > they last roughly a century down here. As I pointed out, that's why cities never had smog and why they never issue ozone alerts. > If you don't believe that CFCs can drift into the ozone layer, how do > you explain them being found there by detectors in satellites, planes, > and balloons? Defective detectors. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > The official doctrine of the ecoterrorists is that wind lifts these VERY > heavy molecules up 100,000 feet, where they float because they're [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > As I pointed out, that's why cities never had smog and why they never > issue ozone alerts. But NOx emissions don't stop, and NOx generates ozone. > > If you don't believe that CFCs can drift into the ozone layer, how do > > you explain them being found there by detectors in satellites, planes, > > and balloons? > > Defective detectors. No, really. How do you explain it? It seems that you can't. >> The official doctrine of the ecoterrorists is that wind lifts these VERY >> heavy molecules up 100,000 feet, where they float because they're [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But NOx emissions don't stop, and NOx generates ozone. But it breaks down in a few seconds, certainly long before it could cause smog. >> > If you don't believe that CFCs can drift into the ozone layer, how do >> > you explain them being found there by detectors in satellites, planes, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, really. How do you explain it? It seems that you can't. I just did. You even quoted it. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> > How long is patent for R134 valid? Pretty soon I think, right? The change had nothing to do with patents in the first place... The patents for R12 went out in the 1950's, and a number of companies were making that product. There is now a global ban relating to chlorofluorocarbons, but it is not totally phased out yet. Measurements by the Japanese and by NASA have showed that the ozone hole is healing and the CFC levels are dropping.. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030730080139.htm I just had my 90 Reatta converted to R134, and it works fine, is easy to come by. I had to replace the compressor anyway, due to a leak, so went the whole way. You are wrong about r12 being used alot outside of the US. Europe is big on this subject and will be using CO2 next as will the US. > You are wrong about r12 being used alot outside of the US. Europe is > big on this subject and will be using CO2 next as will the US. There are some iodinated hydrocarbons which are now being bandied as better compounds for the future as well. CO2 is certainly a viable candidate, as long as the systems are engineered to hold up with its use... You may remember some years ago, a compressed air chiller was patented and developed for a while. It worked, more or less, but was dropped before any real attempts to commercialize it. >>You are wrong about r12 being used alot outside of the US. Europe is >>big on this subject and will be using CO2 next as will the US. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > developed for a while. It worked, more or less, but was dropped before any > real attempts to commercialize it. Remember ROVAC? The working fluid was the air blown out into the passenger compartment (a similar cycle to what the air conditioning on jet airplanes uses. It worked, but the compressor and ducting were bigger than the car's engine :-) Jets can use the air cycle because they just bleed the compressed air off the jet engines themselves right before it enters the combustors, cool it in a heat exchanger, then let it expand and get REALLY cold on the way into the passenger compartment. > Remember ROVAC? The working fluid was the air blown out into the > passenger compartment (a similar cycle to what the air conditioning on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > before it enters the combustors, cool it in a heat exchanger, then let > it expand and get REALLY cold on the way into the passenger compartment. ROVAC was what I was remembering. Hilsch tubes can generate some pretty cold temperatures, and use nothing but compressed air (or other gas). They have some instrumental applications, but doubt there is any hope for auto air conditioning. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.