R-12 Contamination
Mark Shaw
Oulouhojian, president of MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society). The
thrust of it was the growing concern in the A/C repair industry about
R-12 being contaminated by the wrong refrigerant by some form of
substitute.
A low cost chemical analysis equipment is in the works to identify
contaminated systems, which will then not be serviced by anyone
who intends to recycle R-12. Reports indicate a lot of substances
from ammonia, alcohol, R-22 and hydrocarbon mixtures are being found.
The MACS concern is that this cross-contaminations will deplete the
supply of available R-12 at a faster rate than would normally occur
via leakage alone.
A similar story has been reported in local papers, but many people
still insist on using a cheap substitute to recharge a leaking system
and then find that nobody will repair it when a system failure occurs.
I know that R-12 substitutes have been a hot topic on this net, but
I think the casual A/C home service mechanic should be warned that
if they use any substitutes, then they had better be ready to perform
more service than just topping off leaky refrigerant. You may save
a few bucks now, but you will pay for it later.
And for those who believe that the whole R-12 to R-134a is a secret
conspiracy to soak the public for money with changeovers -- using a
substitute that may end up contaminating the R-12 supply base just
plays right into their hands!
Mark
John De Armond
>Interesting commentary in July issue of "Ward's Auto World" by Simon
>Oulouhojian, president of MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society). The
>thrust of it was the growing concern in the A/C repair industry about
>R-12 being contaminated by the wrong refrigerant by some form of
>substitute.
Hmm, my informal survey of the shops around this part of atlanta
awhile back showed an amazing correlation between the level of
concern and the level of exposure to MACS propaganda. Hmm.
>A low cost chemical analysis equipment is in the works to identify
>contaminated systems, which will then not be serviced by anyone
>who intends to recycle R-12. Reports indicate a lot of substances
>from ammonia, alcohol, R-22 and hydrocarbon mixtures are being found.
Could it be that they're finding stuff just because they're just
now starting to look? Could it be just like looking down one day
and actually seeing dirt? Considering that the same tanker trucks
were used pretty much interchangeably for propane, ammonia, other
light hydrocarbons and refrigerants until about 1987 or thereabouts,
it is no surprise that such things are showing up in freon. It is
even less surprising when one considers that many technicians used
the same service tank (used to transfer freon from bulk cylinders
to the work site) for all sorts of refrigerants. What MACS doesn't
do, because they can't, is demonstrate any harm beyond a vague
scare statement such as:
>The MACS concern is that this cross-contaminations will deplete the
>supply of available R-12 at a faster rate than would normally occur
>via leakage alone.
Rubbish. Most contamination other than water is of no consequence
and in any event, can and is removed by the remanufacturing stations.
A mix of R-12 and OZ-12 is functionally indistinguishable from
R-12. Ditto a mixture of R-12 and R-406a (ex ghg-12). By functionally
indistinguishable I mean that it provides the same cooling capacity,
it is identically compatable with the oils and materials involved and
it has no effect on component life. Refrigeration is NOT a chemical
process and does NOT require a chemically pure refrigerant.
>A similar story has been reported in local papers, but many people
>still insist on using a cheap substitute to recharge a leaking system
>and then find that nobody will repair it when a system failure occurs.
Wrongo! Assuming the driver had a shop install the substitute,
that shop will obviously continue servicing it. And if that shop
goes out of business, the owner can simply contact the mfr of the
refrigerant (from the tag attached to the system by the previous
tech) and find out what other shops use it. Or he can simply
vent the stuff in the privacy of his own home and then have it
refilled at any shop.
>And for those who believe that the whole R-12 to R-134a is a secret
>conspiracy to soak the public for money with changeovers -- using a
>substitute that may end up contaminating the R-12 supply base just
>plays right into their hands!
>Mark
Save it, Mark. Shilling for MACS is very unbecomming. What is happening
here is that MACS has lost in its campaign to gain a practical
monopoly for its member service shops via prostitution of the political
system, realizes that, and is now trying to accomplish their goals
through FUD. Fair enough. While I hold them in contempt for trying
to use the EPA to gain their monopoly, anyone is free to say what they
want and to a great extent, anyone who believes them will pay an
appropriate financial penalty for being stupid and/or gullible. But
what I can't figure out is this. Why are you, Mark, shilling for them?
Do you think you're doing anyone a service by propagating MACS' FUD?
By making it harder to get cheap substitutes accepted? Or are you
just trying to look important here on the net? I'm really
interested in knowing.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
to kill him.
Pete Paraska
....
>A mix of R-12 and OZ-12 is functionally indistinguishable from
>R-12. Ditto a mixture of R-12 and R-406a (ex ghg-12).
O.k., I've been away from the ghg-12 issue for awhile, but to my last
recollection, ghg-12 was a no-no according to the EPA or whatever.
Has ghg-12 been blessed and now being called R-406a?
Can it be used as a direct replacement for R-12?
Pete
John De Armond
>In article <0dr8#4...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>....
>>A mix of R-12 and OZ-12 is functionally indistinguishable from
>>R-12. Ditto a mixture of R-12 and R-406a (ex ghg-12).
>....
>O.k., I've been away from the ghg-12 issue for awhile, but to my last
>recollection, ghg-12 was a no-no according to the EPA or whatever.
>Has ghg-12 been blessed and now being called R-406a?
Yes. Got a note from George earlier today, as a matter of fact.
Approval has been pending for some months but they got the written
confirmation today. ASHRAE assigned the official designation R-406a.
EPA approved it for any use except cars. Residual MACS political
influence that hopefully will dissipate. However, once you buy a
jug, what you do with it is your business.
>Can it be used as a direct replacement for R-12?
Yes. It is completely compatable with R-12 and materials.
Hats off to George. It's been a long battle. Hope he makes a mint on
it. He certainly deserves it.
Pete Paraska
>par...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Pete Paraska) writes:
>>Has ghg-12 been blessed and now being called R-406a?
>Yes. Got a note from George earlier today, as a matter of fact.
>Approval has been pending for some months but they got the written
>confirmation today. ASHRAE assigned the official designation R-406a.
>EPA approved it for any use except cars. Residual MACS political
>influence that hopefully will dissipate. However, once you buy a
>jug, what you do with it is your business.
My point exactly. I was ready to buy a 30 lb bottle of R-12 for my barely
leaking cars, but if George sells the R-406a cheaper or at the same price, I'd
gladly give him the bucks instead.
That brings up another question. Will Joe Blow be able to buy it in less that
30 lb quantities?
How can I find out more about how much it will cost when it's on the market?
George? You there?
Thanks again, John
Tom Graham
>confirmation today. ASHRAE assigned the official designation R-406a.
>EPA approved it for any use except cars. Residual MACS political
>influence that hopefully will dissipate. However, once you buy a
>jug, what you do with it is your business.
>
>>Can it be used as a direct replacement for R-12?
>
>Yes. It is completely compatable with R-12 and materials.
YESSS !!! Don't let this thread die - where and when will/is R-406a
available ???
--
Tom Graham Unocal Corporate Information Services
Phone: (714)693-5808 5460 E. La Palma Ave.
Internet: tom.g...@st.unocal.com Anaheim Hills, Ca 92807
Craig Linton
: YESSS !!! Don't let this thread die - where and when will/is R-406a
: available ???
Amen.
: --
The Crash-n-ator
>In article <0dr8#4...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>A mix of R-12 and OZ-12 is functionally indistinguishable from
>>R-12. Ditto a mixture of R-12 and R-406a (ex ghg-12).
>O.k., I've been away from the ghg-12 issue for awhile, but to my last
>recollection, ghg-12 was a no-no according to the EPA or whatever.
>
>Has ghg-12 been blessed and now being called R-406a?
>
>Can it be used as a direct replacement for R-12?
>
>Pete
>
>
John -
Do you know when it will be available ? Can we get at the local parts store?
Rick Lindstedt Email: ri...@sparky.uark.edu
University of Arkansas 87 IROC-Z
Fayetteville, AR "Chevy Thunder"
"I'm not under the alkafluence of inkahol that some thinkle peep I am,
it's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get".....B-)
Mark Shaw
I purposefully made sure I had both "MACS" and "R-12" in the
same post so that your Knee-Jerk Text Filter would catch it and
evoke a spirited response.
Unfortunately I was out of town this week and missed the details
of your rebuttal (my News reader truncated at art #62990), but I
understand it was a real jem....
That's the trouble with travelling, you miss all the neat stuff
that happens while you're away.
Maybe someone would care to post it to me?
Mark
John De Armond
>Wow, John you sure do not disappoint!
Glad to please, Mark. Taking shots at your posts is about like
an olympic shooter plinking at a few tin cans.
Hey, I bet it really pisses you off that EPA is at variance with
yours and MACS' desires. Why don't you drop George a note and
congratulate him on getting official approval for GHG-12, now
known as R-406a. I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Be a sport.
The world loves a good loser.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Mag. Unsolicited email published at my sole discretion
--
The government has 3 new savings bonds: The Steffie bond with no maturity,
the Gore bond with no interest and the Clinton bond with no principle.
Sivasankar Chander
: par...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Pete Paraska) writes:
: >Has ghg-12 been blessed and now being called R-406a?
: Yes.
Hip Hip Hurrah!
: Hats off to George. It's been a long battle. Hope he makes a mint on
: it. He certainly deserves it.
I second it.
Sivasankar Chander
"I speak for myself, not for my employer(s)"
Mark Shaw
a response (afterall, he _did_ ask me a specific question)......
John De Armond Writes:
> Hmm, my informal survey of the shops around this part of atlanta
> awhile back showed an amazing correlation between the level of
> concern and the level of exposure to MACS propaganda. Hmm.
Who cares where the concern comes from? If the shops start to treat
the problem in this manner, who says they cannot say, do, and charge
what they want? Surely, as an avowed governmental interference hater,
you are not suggesting that there ought to be a _law_ forcing them
to see the world as you see it.
> Rubbish. Most contamination other than water is of no consequence
> and in any event, can and is removed by the remanufacturing stations.
> A mix of R-12 and OZ-12 is functionally indistinguishable from
> R-12. Ditto a mixture of R-12 and R-406a (ex ghg-12). By functionally
> indistinguishable I mean that it provides the same cooling capacity,
> it is identically compatable with the oils and materials involved and
> it has no effect on component life. Refrigeration is NOT a chemical
> process and does NOT require a chemically pure refrigerant.
Refrigeration is not be a chemical process, but the standard to which
the R-12 must be recycled locally at the repair shops; or reclaimed by
processing houses must meet SAE 1991 (you do have a 1994 copy of the SAE
Handbook ?). In that standard the level of purity is:
"The contaminants in this recycled refrigerant 12 shall be limited to
moisture, refrigerant oil, and noncondensable gases, which shall not
exceed the following level:
3.1 Moisture - 15 ppm by weight
3.2 Refrigerant Oil - 4000 ppm by weight
3.3 Noncondensable Gases (Air) - 330 ppm by weight. "
Maybe my math is a little rusty, but 1 lb of any other component in
a 30 lb recycle tank is a far cry higher than 330 ppm.
Of course you could always just sell the reclaimed freon without
warranting that it meets SAE 1991, which means you might as well
leave in 4000 ppm moisture, fingernail clippings or whatever.
Also, granted the reclaim houses could somehow extract the non-allowed components (known as contaminants to the industry) at an elevated cost
to the end consumer. The local repair shops cannot afford to do this
at all.
> Save it, Mark. Shilling for MACS is very unbecomming. .......
> ...................................................................But
> what I can't figure out is this. Why are you, Mark, shilling for them?
> Do you think you're doing anyone a service by propagating MACS' FUD?
> By making it harder to get cheap substitutes accepted? Or are you
> just trying to look important here on the net? I'm really
> interested in knowing.
>
> John
Well, let's see,
1) I don't work for the A/C industry.
2) I don't work for MACS.
3) I don't sell A/C products.
4) I don't receive money from special interests.
5) I don't work for the government.
You, on the other hand....
1) Operate your own magazine that you promote on the net.
2) Claim to have a hand in developing a substitute for R12.
3) Claim to have a hand in getting the substitute approved.
4) Claim to be an automotive consultant/expert on A/C.
If anyone has a personal axe to grind on this issue, it certainly
isn't me! The only reason I posted the commentary by MACS is to
inform the net about what the "other" side is thinking and planning.
I chose to do this because "Wards Auto World" is an industry
magazine that is not normally available to the general public.
And no, the magazine has nothing to do with Ward Atkinson who
is strong member of MACS and president of Sun Test Enginnering.
Unlike you, I believe there are risks in any plan of action
regarding auto A/C at this time. Regardless of your vision of
how the world looks in Atlanta or elsewhere, if some A/C shop
thinks it is not going to accept work on cross-pollinated
systems, then that's the way it is. I think it is a great
disservice to suggest to people that they can use/do whatever
you think will work and then claim that there are no other
financial consequences.
Should you inspire an new A/C DIY'er to try the simple task of
recharging their system with your sacred substitute and then
leave any major repairs that might occur to the mercy of the
whims and costs of the rest of the marketplace? I think not.
That is, unless there is a John De Armond A/C Insurance Corp
which is going to pick up the tab. Get real, John, the world
does not always work as you think it does or should. Nor can
you guarantee that it will across the complete world.
As for importance on the net. You mean that there is something
to being important on the net? Do you win money, a prize, a
plaque? Let's see, it I push around the awards and trophies I
already have hanging on the walls, maybe I could fit another
one in....
Sorry, John, I don't need the net for validation. Do you?
Mark
MARK...@delphi.com
I have an air conditioning problem, I hope someone can give me some advice
on. It's on a 1988 Toyota Camry with dual air. (economy and regular modes)
It quit working, putting out warm air and I had a local garage look at it.
They found very high pressures on the High side and abnormal low readings
on the low end. They suspected the evaporator valve had failed. They
installed the new valve and new filter dryer and the system still didn't
operate with similar readings as before. The shop found that my old
filter dryer had lost its contents (drying agent) into the system. It has
combined with the system fluids and has the consistency of grease. Is
there any way to clean the system? Is it going to be more expensive than
the value gained? The local shop doesn't have a clue on repairing it.
Thanks.
Mark
Rainbow V 1.02 for Delphi
John De Armond
>filter dryer had lost its contents (drying agent) into the system. It has
>combined with the system fluids and has the consistency of grease. Is
>there any way to clean the system? Is it going to be more expensive than
>the value gained? The local shop doesn't have a clue on repairing it.
The traditional fix has been to flush such systems with R-11 but
since that now sends the econazis into hysteria, not to mention
that it costs several hundred dollars for the R-11, alternatives
are needed. George Goble (of GHG-12 fame) has had very good luck flushing
contaminated systems with n-heptane. The characteristics are similar
to R-11 with the exception that it is flammable so the flushing
must be done outdoors. Not having a handy supply of heptane, I've
devised a method of using liquid propane. I simply feed liquid
propane from a 20 lb cylinder into the chunk of system to be flushed.
On the other end of the system, install a ball valve. The ball valve
is the "expansion device". Properly operated, liquid propane will
flow to the valve and flash to gas as it escapes. You can either
run a hose from the valve to a safe place and have an assistant
flare it off or dilute it with lots of air (I use a 36" chicken coop
fan). Propane is a very good solvent and will clean the system well.
Figure on tossing the compressor, as it will be eaten up by the
abrasive desiccant. Be sure to disassemble all fittings and look
for screens. They can stick them in the darndest places.
Assuming you can do this work yourself, it is most cost-effective.
Even if you take it somewhere to be charged afterwards, cleaning
it yourself is very cost-effective.
George Goble
>MARK...@delphi.com writes:
>
>that it costs several hundred dollars for the R-11, alternatives
>are needed. George Goble (of GHG-12 fame) has had very good luck flushing
>contaminated systems with n-heptane. The characteristics are similar
>to R-11 with the exception that it is flammable so the flushing
It is actually iso-pentane.. boils around 77F or so like R-11.
About $450 for a 55 gal drum from Phillips 66, Borger, TX.
Propane would work also, but one has to keep it at enough pressure
so it does not get cold before it exits or it will not get
all the crap out. Keeping up the pressure, usually means reducing
the flow.. Nothings beats R-11 (or isopentane), pushed thru
with 200 PSI of dry nitrogen for a good flush. John, did you put
some nitrogen "head" on the propane to get the pressure up?
--ghg
*> ...standard level of purity is:
*>
*> "The contaminants in this recycled refrigerant 12 shall be limited to
*> moisture, refrigerant oil, and noncondensable gases, which shall not
*> exceed the following level:
*> 3.1 Moisture - 15 ppm by weight
*> 3.2 Refrigerant Oil - 4000 ppm by weight
*> 3.3 Noncondensable Gases (Air) - 330 ppm by weight. "
*>
*> ...1 lb of any other component in a 30 lb recycle tank is ... higher than
*> 330 ppm.
John De Armond writes:
>> Hate to tell you this but other refrigerants are NOT noncondensables.
Are we twisting the specs here a bit to justify our objectives? Literally
interpreted, anything other than R12 is a contaminant and those contaminants
are limited to moisture, oil, and noncondensables. There is zero allowance for
condensables other than R12. What d'ya say, John?
Bob Gray gr...@utopia.nrl.navy.mil
John De Armond
>In article <-4y8...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>MARK...@delphi.com writes:
>>
>>that it costs several hundred dollars for the R-11, alternatives
>>are needed. George Goble (of GHG-12 fame) has had very good luck flushing
>>contaminated systems with n-heptane. The characteristics are similar
>>to R-11 with the exception that it is flammable so the flushing
>It is actually iso-pentane.. boils around 77F or so like R-11.
Sorry 'bout that. brain fade, I guess.
>Propane would work also, but one has to keep it at enough pressure
>so it does not get cold before it exits or it will not get
>all the crap out. Keeping up the pressure, usually means reducing
>the flow.. Nothings beats R-11 (or isopentane), pushed thru
>with 200 PSI of dry nitrogen for a good flush. John, did you put
>some nitrogen "head" on the propane to get the pressure up?
nah. Just did it the old fashioned way - a hot water hose washing down
the propane tank. What I do when I use this technique is to allow
the propane to flow at a reasonable rate for a bit until I am sure
the whole system was full of liquid and then pop the ball valve
wide open for a second. The very high velocity gas/liquid mix
seem to do a good job of sweeping everything out. The worst system I
cleaned this way was an extremely severe burnout on a refrigerator caused
by a Green Plug. This was the mother of all burnouts because the green
plug kept it cooking without tripping the thermal overload. The
odor almost nauseated me when I, er, recycled the old freon :-)
A couple of quick blasts as described with propane followed by an argon
purge (no N2 handy) revealed no odor and an acid swipe came up negative.