T.E.C.H. METHOD MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS by Gary R. Lloyd CMS
Jrc2905
it is kinda thin for the price. I would have liked some info on cleaning
procedures. The charts are great but seem more geared toward trouble shooting
than maintenance procedures. I am sure the T.E.C.H. METHOD LESSON SERIES (AC/R
TROUBLE SHOOTING) by Gary R. Lloyd CMS is good but kinda pricey. Also none of
the ads list the number of pages in the books, or should I say lessons. I would
like to buy T.E.C.H. METHOD LESSON SERIES (AC/R TROUBLE SHOOTING) by Gary R.
Lloyd CMS but would like someones opinion who has made the purchase.
REL
some may have different opinions from mine but here is a link to it
via google news groups
the subject of it is TECH method book reviewed, a personal opinion
so if your news server hangs on to messages that long it was posted
From: REL (rl...@hotmail.com)
Subject: TECH method book reviewed, a personal opinion
Newsgroups: alt.hvac
Complete Thread (21 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2002-07-10 00:12:16 PST
Iove doII
how about a stack of old newspapers 3 feet tall?
> I like it but
>it is kinda thin for the price.
yeah, i gotta admit, its rather pricey if all ya ever use it for is as a paper
weight.
I got TECH method acr/troubleshooting and i'm only kickin my butt for not
buying more than one copy. the book should be mandantory for every person even
remotely interested in hvac/hacr.
i aint no bible thumper ( speakin of which, what's your top price for a bible?
), but how's that parable go? give a man a fish, he eats for a day......teach
him to fish and he eats for a lifetime?
>Subject: T.E.C.H. METHOD MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS by Gary R. Lloyd CMS
>From: jrc...@aol.com (Jrc2905)
>Date: 7/26/2002 6:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020726211916...@mb-mq.aol.com>
Jrc2905
of charts to me is kinda thin and "it is not heavy enough to even qualify as a
paper weight (iovedoii)" To me maintenance involves cleaning coils which this
did not talk about,
some involve food products some are clean rooms so procedure is important.
I paid 29 dollars for this so I am entitled to my opinion. Maybe Gary will give
me a break on the price of his other books to shut me up.
Gary R. Lloyd
>Just got my book in the mail, not sure how coment will be taken.
I welcome all comments. Thanks. :)
>I like it but
>it is kinda thin for the price.
Totally rejecting the advice given me by friends in marketing, I went
through my books many times, removing as much as possible, shortening
and clarifying, making everything less technical, and getting rid of
what Turtle refers to as 50 cent words. Why? Because I hate digging
through all the crap to find the good stuff, and everything should be
as understandable as possible to as many people as possible.
As Einstein put it: "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not simpler."
>I would have liked some info on cleaning
>procedures.
That's a good idea. I tried to focus on what is not covered in depth
elsewhere. Perhaps in the next re-write. :)
>The charts are great but seem more geared toward trouble shooting
>than maintenance procedures.
To my mind, a maintenance procedure IS a trouble shooting procedure.
This book was meant to be a companion piece for the AC/R trouble
shooting book. Many companies start their new techs on maintenance
jobs. Using my procedures, the transition from inspections to service
calls is very easy and natural.
>I am sure the T.E.C.H. METHOD LESSON SERIES (AC/R
>TROUBLE SHOOTING) by Gary R. Lloyd CMS is good but kinda pricey. Also none of
>the ads list the number of pages in the books, or should I say lessons.
104 pages. Each one a bargain. :)
>I would
>like to buy T.E.C.H. METHOD LESSON SERIES (AC/R TROUBLE SHOOTING) by Gary R.
>Lloyd CMS but would like someones opinion who has made the purchase.
>
Gary
MechAcc
Is your software Windows XP compatible?
MechAcc
gerry
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:24:22 GMT, tme...@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd)
wrote:
>On 27 Jul 2002 01:19:16 GMT, jrc...@aol.com (Jrc2905) wrote:
>
>>Just got my book in the mail, not sure how coment will be taken.
>
>I welcome all comments. Thanks. :)
>
>>I like it but
>>it is kinda thin for the price.
>
>Totally rejecting the advice given me by friends in marketing, I went
>through my books many times, removing as much as possible, shortening
>and clarifying, making everything less technical, and getting rid of
>what Turtle refers to as 50 cent words. Why? Because I hate digging
>through all the crap to find the good stuff, and everything should be
>as understandable as possible to as many people as possible.
>
Interesting and rational!
When I worked for a defense contractor, the engineers had to write the
setup and test documentation. We had to audiences, techs and engineers
(some equipment was maintained by engineers, not techs).
The defense contractor I worked for well defined which was which and
"how to write" them for the intended audience.
I later moved to a process control company, every design engineer had
to take the field service classes. Reason - learning what audience
works on your crap.
Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
<VBG>.
There is a difference between a technical reference and a service
guide, that difference is large.
About the only suggestion I could make is more information on
servicing equipment when design conditions can't be met. Either
ambient conditions or making the best of an system improperly matched
to the load - all too common. It's not always feasible to just replace
a system which may require ripping the house apart for different air
handling capacity. It's amazing how many contractors just want to toss
in a bigger AC with no thought for air handling capacity.
gerry
.......
Personal home page - http://gogood.com
gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
~~
New to alt.hvac?
FAQ: http://home.att.net/~alt.hvac/
Charter: http://home.att.net/~alt.hvac/charter.htm
Netiquette: http://home.att.net/~alt.hvac/netiquet.htm
Jrc2905
troubleshooting. While they may be overlapping in some areas you still need to
approach maintenance in simple terms such as filters use (sometimes
construction of a filter system)
and replacement.
Your chart talks about air flow but not filters which is part of any
maintenance procedure.
My opinon is that you have reached the point that many is this field are at,
who instruct or write books, (you know so much that the basic stuff is kinda
forgotten, and not communicated.) I have seen really smart techs teach basic
classes and never explain superheat to students.
(Oh yeah, you never responded to my request for a discount on future
purchases.) :)
Gary R. Lloyd
My software runs in DOS, and can be launched in Windows.
Gary R. Lloyd
>Gary I am somewhat confused by your approach that maintenance is the same as
>troubleshooting. While they may be overlapping in some areas you still need to
>approach maintenance in simple terms such as filters use (sometimes
>construction of a filter system)
>and replacement.
>Your chart talks about air flow but not filters which is part of any
>maintenance procedure.
>My opinon is that you have reached the point that many is this field are at,
>who instruct or write books, (you know so much that the basic stuff is kinda
>forgotten, and not communicated.) I have seen really smart techs teach basic
>classes and never explain superheat to students.
I doubt seriously that I will ever write a book that cannot be
improved and expanded upon. I agree that it could be better, and you
make some very good suggestions. On the other hand, I think the book
is worth the price, although some may disagree. Actually, I think the
re-printable checklist alone is worth the price of the book, but my
opinion may be a little biased.
>(Oh yeah, you never responded to my request for a discount on future
>purchases.) :)
Your request was for a discount to shut you up, and I have no desire
to shut you up. :)
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:24:22 GMT, tme...@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd)
>wrote:
>
>>On 27 Jul 2002 01:19:16 GMT, jrc...@aol.com (Jrc2905) wrote:
>>
>>>Just got my book in the mail, not sure how coment will be taken.
>>
>>I welcome all comments. Thanks. :)
>>
>>>I like it but
>>>it is kinda thin for the price.
>>
>>Totally rejecting the advice given me by friends in marketing, I went
>>through my books many times, removing as much as possible, shortening
>>and clarifying, making everything less technical, and getting rid of
>>what Turtle refers to as 50 cent words. Why? Because I hate digging
>>through all the crap to find the good stuff, and everything should be
>>as understandable as possible to as many people as possible.
>>
>
>Interesting and rational!
Rational is my middle name, but I really suck at marketing... LOL
>When I worked for a defense contractor, the engineers had to write the
>setup and test documentation. We had to audiences, techs and engineers
>(some equipment was maintained by engineers, not techs).
>
>The defense contractor I worked for well defined which was which and
>"how to write" them for the intended audience.
>
>I later moved to a process control company, every design engineer had
>to take the field service classes. Reason - learning what audience
>works on your crap.
>
>Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
>information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
><VBG>.
Maybe I can get Marc to throw in a few formulas. He is fully capable
of burying us all in formulae. It's his native language. :)
>There is a difference between a technical reference and a service
>guide, that difference is large.
>
>About the only suggestion I could make is more information on
>servicing equipment when design conditions can't be met. Either
>ambient conditions or making the best of an system improperly matched
>to the load - all too common. It's not always feasible to just replace
>a system which may require ripping the house apart for different air
>handling capacity. It's amazing how many contractors just want to toss
>in a bigger AC with no thought for air handling capacity.
I try to steer clear of design and sizing questions. The TECH
procedures tend to make the best of the existing system, although I
will probably get further into fine tuning whenever time permits me to
do some more writing.
There is also a large difference between what a tech does for a living
and what a contractor/salesman does for a living. I claim no expertise
in any area other than trouble shooting. I have never designed or
sized a system, but once installed, I can squeeze every last BTU out
of it. :)
hvacrmedic
These are very relevant points, because there are a significant number
of mismatched systems out there. As a general rule when I find a
mismatched system I set superheat and move on. Oh I might tweak a fan
speed or something simple, but "days" could be spent trying to tweak
some systems, and in general the meager gain in efficiency will not
justify the service bill, that is if there "even is" a gain in
efficiency. An oversized condensing unit? Well there are at least four
options, run a heat strip with the cooling, pull return air straight out
of the attic, install a hot gas bypass control, or replace either or
both units with the correct size. I wouldn't touch the first two, but
might offer the third if the customer was in a bind and couldn't afford
the fourth.
RICHARD
Marc O'Brien
"Gary R. Lloyd" <tme...@gatecom.com> wrote in message
news:3d4414f7....@news.gatecom.com...
> >Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
> >information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
> ><VBG>.
>
> Maybe I can get Marc to throw in a few formulas. He is fully capable
> of burying us all in formulae. It's his native language. :)
This is kind of why I want to set up a subscription system. My vision is
that the TECH Method Forums that will be in operation during this next week
will, essentially, constitute a TECH Method Developers community with all
subscribers participating. It should be given a title of that sort. As the
form of each lessons extensions are agreed upon by the discussion process
there, new sheets will be printed off and posted to all the subscribers for
them to replace the relevant old sheets. The book binding mechanism must
then, of course, allow for this. For instance, I want to use a proper flow
chart application to redo the existing flow charts. Once completed, the
updated print offs will be mailed to all subscribers. The discussion board
might have a forum dedicated to each lesson within which we can hack out all
our compared observations and interpretations, then again, if any changes
are made to the sheets resulting from this, they will be printed off and
posted to all subscribers.
Gary, I have successfully transferred the lessons from my laptop to my PC.
I've printed off a draft version for me to sit in front of the TV with and
edit. I'm going to email a copy to you within the next hour or so.
profft
or harvest the plants to make the ink some feel you have immoraly
overcharged for your work. Me personally, I think you've set down on paper
your knowlege and experience, probably devoted 100's of hours refining it,
winoewing out the superfolous till you came up with what you consider to be
the best product it can be. I know I wouldn't want to lug some 10 lbs book
on a windy rooftop but that's me.
Value is in the eye of the beholder, terrible that a couple of good
capatalists should be treated so unfairly, maybe you should comeup with a
companion series, weighs about 10lbs and put all the superfolous stuff you
took out so they can flip back and forth trying to get the same info that's
in the original series. :-)
"Gary R. Lloyd" <tme...@gatecom.com> wrote in message
news:3d4414f7....@news.gatecom.com...
MechAcc
> Rational is my middle name, but I really suck at marketing... LOL
>
>
Gary,
Does the RSES Journal ask too much for advertisement. I notice you have a CMS
MechAcc
Noon-Air
How about a discount for retired Military????
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
I have no desire to shut them up, either. :)
Gary R. Lloyd
<SPAM...@fridgetech.comSPAM> wrote:
>
>"Gary R. Lloyd" <tme...@gatecom.com> wrote in message
>news:3d4414f7....@news.gatecom.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:19:45 -0400, gerry <gerrr...@gogood.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
>> >information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
>> ><VBG>.
>>
>> Maybe I can get Marc to throw in a few formulas. He is fully capable
>> of burying us all in formulae. It's his native language. :)
>
>This is kind of why I want to set up a subscription system. My vision is
>that the TECH Method Forums that will be in operation during this next week
>will, essentially, constitute a TECH Method Developers community with all
>subscribers participating. It should be given a title of that sort.
Hmmmmm... Interesting concept, Marc.
>As the
>form of each lessons extensions are agreed upon by the discussion process
>there, new sheets will be printed off and posted to all the subscribers for
>them to replace the relevant old sheets.
I like it. The book was always intended as a foundation to be built
upon.
>The book binding mechanism must
>then, of course, allow for this. For instance, I want to use a proper flow
>chart application to redo the existing flow charts. Once completed, the
>updated print offs will be mailed to all subscribers. The discussion board
>might have a forum dedicated to each lesson within which we can hack out all
>our compared observations and interpretations, then again, if any changes
>are made to the sheets resulting from this, they will be printed off and
>posted to all subscribers.
I would certainly have no objections to adding anything substantial
and constructive. The idea all along has been to help the service
tech. :)
>Gary, I have successfully transferred the lessons from my laptop to my PC.
>I've printed off a draft version for me to sit in front of the TV with and
>edit. I'm going to email a copy to you within the next hour or so.
I'm looking it over now. So far so good. :)
p...@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>>>
>>> Your request was for a discount to shut you up, and I have no desire
>>> to shut you up. :)
>>
>>How about a discount for retired Military????
>>
>
>I have no desire to shut them up, either. :)
>
>Gary
2 points for Gary :-)
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~
Please look at http://helpthecritters.com/ , my new domain for helping critters !!!
My personal WWW site is at http://www.pmilligan.net ,
featuring free HVAC, stock market, and other free software
Never color inside the lines in the coloring book.
Color instead where it pleases you to.
You can only color a page once, but there are always more pages.
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:24:22 GMT, tme...@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd)
>wrote:
>Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
>information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
><VBG>.
>
>There is a difference between a technical reference and a service
>guide, that difference is large.
You have probably heard me say that technically inclined people
usually don't 'get it', and sometimes experienced techs don't get it
until they use it. Here's the reason:
Conventional trouble shooting assumes a system with a single problem,
and a given set of symptoms for that problem.
In the field, systems often (usually?) have multiple problems, causing
conflicting symptoms. Conventional trouble shooting can't handle it.
TECH Method will take you through one layer of problems after another.
Hopefully this will give you a little different perspective as you
read through the book. :)
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
>Gee Gary, I guess because you didn't chop down the trees to make the paper,
>or harvest the plants to make the ink some feel you have immoraly
>overcharged for your work. Me personally, I think you've set down on paper
>your knowlege and experience, probably devoted 100's of hours refining it,
>winoewing out the superfolous till you came up with what you consider to be
>the best product it can be. I know I wouldn't want to lug some 10 lbs book
>on a windy rooftop but that's me.
>
>Value is in the eye of the beholder, terrible that a couple of good
>capatalists should be treated so unfairly, maybe you should comeup with a
>companion series, weighs about 10lbs and put all the superfolous stuff you
>took out so they can flip back and forth trying to get the same info that's
>in the original series. :-)
>
I'm thinking we can both survive a little criticism, :)
Gary R. Lloyd
Magazine advertisements are the sort of marketing strategy that
increases product name recognition, which can pay off handsomely in
the long run. Unfortunately, I've never had the deep pockets to wait
for long term payoffs. I've been putting my very limited resources
into venues where the payback is more immediate.
gerry
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:19:45 -0400, gerry <gerrr...@gogood.com>
>wrote:
>
>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:24:22 GMT, tme...@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd)
>>wrote:
>
>>Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
>>information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
>><VBG>.
>>
>>There is a difference between a technical reference and a service
>>guide, that difference is large.
>
>You have probably heard me say that technically inclined people
>usually don't 'get it', and sometimes experienced techs don't get it
>until they use it. Here's the reason:
>
>Conventional trouble shooting assumes a system with a single problem,
>and a given set of symptoms for that problem.
>
>In the field, systems often (usually?) have multiple problems, causing
>conflicting symptoms. Conventional trouble shooting can't handle it.
>
>TECH Method will take you through one layer of problems after another.
>
>Hopefully this will give you a little different perspective as you
>read through the book. :)
>
>Gary
>
Maybe I didn't phrase things the best - I realize the difference and
appreciated that the "stuff" I crave isn't deniable in the field. Thus
the <VBG> in my
>>Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
>>information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
>><VBG>.
It was intended as a complement! That's why I used some other
examples.
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
Thanks, Gerry. :)
It was my phrasing that was lacking, not yours. In fact, I recognized
the compliment, and attempted to reciprocate in a manner that would
ensure you receiving full benefit of the book, although in hindsight
it was probably not needed. :)
hvacrmedic
>
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:19:45 -0400, gerry <gerrr...@gogood.com>
> wrote:
>
> >[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:24:22 GMT, tme...@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd)
> >wrote:
>
> >Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
> >information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
> ><VBG>.
> >
> >There is a difference between a technical reference and a service
> >guide, that difference is large.
>
> You have probably heard me say that technically inclined people
> usually don't 'get it', and sometimes experienced techs don't get it
> until they use it. Here's the reason:
>
> Conventional trouble shooting assumes a system with a single problem,
> and a given set of symptoms for that problem.
>
> In the field, systems often (usually?) have multiple problems, causing
> conflicting symptoms. Conventional trouble shooting can't handle it.
>
Well Gary, you finally spilled enough beans to save me 120 bucks;-)
What I've compiled for myself, and use every day, is probably a
streamlined version of your own observations, but then I haven't seen
your work, so I'll let you decide. In short, given any trouble-shooting
flowchart, there is a sort of conservation principle involved, which is
to say, any system parameter will reflect a vector sum of its
components, components that are generated respectively by different
problems in the system. In layman's terms this just means that if a
particular problem in the system acts to raise the value of a parameter
while another factor acts to lower it, then the actual value of that
parameter will lie somewhere between the values produced by one or the
other of those problems acting alone on the system. If for instance we
simultaneously have low indoor airflow and low outdoor airflow, the
effect on the parameter "suction pressure" will be:
Low indoor air flow= low suction
Low outdoor air flow = high suction
then,
Low indoor + low outdoor = normal suction (plus or minus depending on
respective severity of the problems)
The value of this approach is that we can expand our flowchart to cover
multiple problems with relative ease. I have a cooling system chart in
hand (use it extensively), that covers every combination of up to three
general causes, and intend to expand it until it is exhaustive, that is,
when I find time to do so, and when those combinations are encountered
in the field to verify those deductions. Surprisingly there are very few
pairings of compound problems that exhibit all of the same symptoms.
Even those that do initially can be sorted out by taking additional
measurements. In effect an exhaustive flowchart can be formulated by
simply including an exhaustive list of measured system parameters, that
is, by taking more than the standard measurements. Some of the
relationships can even be formalized into actual vector equations, when
percentages of restrictions etc. are graphed against their corresponding
effects on other parameters in the system, but I do not intend to take
my studies that far. I don't engineer, I just re-engineer. Much less
time consuming and more profitable to the company;-)
Here's one for you. I correctly deduced this compound problem the other
day with only subcooling, superheat, ambient, indoor db, and high and
low pressures. Complaint: Unit freezing up overnight, but had been
turned the night before my visit. When I arrived the conditions were:
Ambient 85F
indoor db 74F (t-stat reading)
200 psig. head
subcooling 5F
60 psig. suction
superheat 1 deg F
running a good stream out of the condensate line
High efficiency 3.5 ton Lennox condenser, split system.
Not a clue at that point what was inside, except that it was in the
attic.
What's your best guess?
What is posted here is the only data that I had at the time that I made
my diagnosis. The customer was standing over my shoulder the whole time,
and was impressed that I had called such a complicated problem without
having inspected the rest of the system (I even ventured to explain to
him what the previous tech had done to the system and why). I don't
always get it right mind you, but this one put the parameter vector
principle described above to a good test, and it passed with flying
colors.
RICHARD
p...@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>Here's one for you. I correctly deduced this compound problem the other
>day with only subcooling, superheat, ambient, indoor db, and high and
>low pressures. Complaint: Unit freezing up overnight, but had been
>turned the night before my visit. When I arrived the conditions were:
>
>Ambient 85F
>indoor db 74F (t-stat reading)
>200 psig. head
>subcooling 5F
>60 psig. suction
>superheat 1 deg F
>running a good stream out of the condensate line
>
>High efficiency 3.5 ton Lennox condenser, split system.
>Not a clue at that point what was inside, except that it was in the
>attic.
>
>What's your best guess?
OK, I'll bite. Low airflow. What else ? Plus low setpoint
at night, dropping pressures and thus dropping the back pressure the
few pounds remaining between it and trouble, causing the ice up.
Then ( after the airflow is corrected ), maybe dirty condensor
and undercharge as the other parts of your 'compound' problem ?
>What is posted here is the only data that I had at the time that I made
>my diagnosis. The customer was standing over my shoulder the whole time,
>and was impressed that I had called such a complicated problem without
>having inspected the rest of the system (I even ventured to explain to
>him what the previous tech had done to the system and why). I don't
>always get it right mind you, but this one put the parameter vector
>principle described above to a good test, and it passed with flying
>colors.
>
>RICHARD
hvacrmedic
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:27:40 -0500, hvacrmedic <hvacr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Here's one for you. I correctly deduced this compound problem the other
> >day with only subcooling, superheat, ambient, indoor db, and high and
> >low pressures. Complaint: Unit freezing up overnight, but had been
> >turned the night before my visit. When I arrived the conditions were:
> >
> >Ambient 85F
> >indoor db 74F (t-stat reading)
> >200 psig. head
> >subcooling 5F
> >60 psig. suction
> >superheat 1 deg F
> >running a good stream out of the condensate line
> >
> >High efficiency 3.5 ton Lennox condenser, split system.
> >Not a clue at that point what was inside, except that it was in the
> >attic.
> >
> >What's your best guess?
>
> OK, I'll bite. Low airflow. What else ? Plus low setpoint
> at night, dropping pressures and thus dropping the back pressure the
> few pounds remaining between it and trouble, causing the ice up.
>
> Then ( after the airflow is corrected ), maybe dirty condensor
> and undercharge as the other parts of your 'compound' problem ?
Two of those four are correct, (I'm not gonna tell you which two) but
the other two aren't even close. Try again, and this time take into
consideration the subcooling, and the fact that a previous tech had
tweaked something to try and stop the freezing problem;-)
RICHARD
p...@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
Well, it's only the first two that I would have called, except
for your talk about 'compound problem'.
I do assume no TXV that someone's been dicking with.
So, I figured get the airflow right ( filter, fan, evap coil,
closed registers, whatever the issue is ) back and head go up,
bringing the head up a bit high for a super-efficiency unit, suggsting
dirty condensor, which on cleaning then drops the pressures again (
but the low superheat and sub cool are now corrected ).
OK, I give, drop the other one :-)
hvacrmedic
What you've overlooked is that once having cleaned the condenser, the
suction pressure will drop even more, and superheat will drop to a
negative value, while subcooling will increase to a more normal value.
Then increasing indoor air flow will raise suction and superheat back
up, but it will drop subcooling back to its original low value. Adding
refrigerant to obtain a good subcooling value will then drop superheat
back down to an improper low value. You are left with the inevitability
of an overfeeding condition.
Just for fun, here are the symptoms caused by the compound problem you
diagnosed, as expressed in my particular logical form. First piston,
followed by TXV.
Piston system:
Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head, normal to high
subcooling
Low setpoint = exactly the same as above, however not a factor when I
checked the system.
Remember that we have the actual conditions: low suction, "very low"
superheat, low
head, "very low" subcooling,
which is obviously no match to the low airflow condition when it is
taken by itself.
Including your dirty condenser yields:
Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head,
high subcooling
Dirty condenser = +high suction, +low superheat, + high head,
+low subcooling
Vector sum gives: normal suction, very low superheat, normal head,
normal subcooling
Very close, but the normal subcooling won't let it work.
Adding your low charge:
Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head, high
subcooling
Dirty condenser = +high suction, +low superheat, +high head, +low
subcooling
Low charge = +low suction, +high superheat, +low head, +low
subcooling
Vector sum gives: low to normal suction, low superheat, low head, low
subcooling
The low superheat doesn't exactly match our "very low" (even "extremely
low") superheat, which is taking into consideration the extremity of the
factors required to produce 1 deg superheat and 5 deg subcooling. It is
difficult to imagine a charge that is low enough
to starve the condenser coil but that still manages to slug the
compressor. This would require about zero indoor airflow, which is
directly contradicted by the suction pressure reading, ,and by the
stream of condensate pouring out (which is incidentally why that was
mentioned:-)
Doesn't add up.
Leaving off the dirty condenser gives:
Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head, high
subcooling
Low charge = +low suction, +high superheat, +low head, +low
subcooling
Vector sum gives: very low suction, normal superheat, very low head,
normal subcooling
Nope, that won't work at all!
TXV system:
Low airflow = low suction, normal superheat, low head,
normal to high subcooling
Dirty condenser = +high suction, +normal superheat, +high head,
+low to normal subcooling
Low charge = +low normal or high suction, normal to high superheat,
low to normal head , high subcooling
Vector sum gives: normal suction, normal to high superheat, low to
normal head, high subcooling
The superheat and subcooling don't match. In fact the low superheat
recorded
isn't compatible with a TXV system period, or then again is it?
RICHARD
hvacrmedic
O.k. You've probably gone to bed by now, like the other normal non-ENTP
types out there, but I can't stand the suspense, so I'll just finish
this so I can go to bed myself. Anyway, I doubt that I'll have time to
finish tomorrow, already six jobs lined up, and those are just my
cancellations from yesterday. I can't help it if I charge enough
overtime.
Here we go: Each and ever way that I examined these figures I came up
with an overfeeding condition, but having never met an expansion valve
that fails in this direction, at least none so badly, so I, like you,
continued to grasp for a piston system solution. When I could find none,
I was forced to lean toward an overfeeding TXV, and the associated
conditions that would give me the observed values. Success!, which I
will outline below. All it took was a trip into the attic to confirm,
saw that bastard from the hatch. Here is the final conclusion that I
drew, and why it had to be correct.
Overfeeding was the only solution to the low superheat and low
subcooling. Once having made my mind up about this I reasoned, "this TXV
has been fucked with", exactly as "you" put it;-) Now why would anyone
open a TXV up like this except to raise suction pressure in order to
what?, you guessed it, prevent freezing of the coil. Now if this was
that techs solution then he must have decided that there was
insufficient airflow, and since he chose the option of opening the TXV,
then the low airflow condition must still exist. So here you have two of
the three conditions in one simple step. The third, low charge, was
deduced as follows. If airflow is increased then suction pressure will
rise, head pressure will rise, superheat will not change (TXV), and
subcooling will decrease even more. Then if I close the TXV back to its
factory setting the suction pressure will decrease again, head pressure
will drop back again, and subcooling will increase but not quite to a
normal value (low+low+high=low). I will then still have low to normal
suction pressure, low head pressure, normal superheat, and normal to low
subcooling. The charge is low. Using the above format I get:
Overfeeding = high suction, low to very low superheat, low head, low
subcooling
Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head, high subcooling
Low charge = low suction, high superheat, low head, low subcooling
Vector sum gives: low suction, low to very low superheat, low to very
low head, low subcooling
Exactly what I was looking at. There may be other combinations that will
produce these symptoms, but I cannot imagine what they might be. If I
ever come across this set of readings again, I'll know what to look for,
and if the problem is different than this, well when I figure out what
the "real" problem is then I'll be able to tell you what that other
possible compound problem is that corresponds to these readings, if it
exists;-) In the world of formal logic they call a conclusion derived in
this manner a "form" or a "tautology", and once having been derived it
will be true on any other occasion, and can be applied reliably without
knowing or remembering its means of derivation. The flow chart that I
use is just a series of forms derived in this manner. This one wasn't on
the list because I just hadn't considered running across a wide open
TXV, and even so, many of my forms have yet to be confirmed in the
field. There are complications, such as the fact that in a TXV system a
low charge can either decrease or increase suction pressure, depending
upon the degree of undercharge, the TXV itself, the system that it is
installed in, and ambient conditions. It's a work in progress. I should
probably just buy a book with a good flowchart, but I don't know of any
in existence that includes an exhaustive reference to compound problems,
which is why I have been compiling my own. Watch out Gary:-)
RICHARD
Bill
(Jrc2905) wrote:
> All I said is that for 29 dollars it was kinda thin 7 pages of text and 8
pages
> of charts to me is kinda thin and "it is not heavy enough to even qualify as a
> paper weight (iovedoii)" To me maintenance involves cleaning coils which this
> did not talk about,
> some involve food products some are clean rooms so procedure is important.
> I paid 29 dollars for this so I am entitled to my opinion. Maybe Gary
will give
> me a break on the price of his other books to shut me up.
You have the maintenance booklet which goes with TECH Method.
The water info alone is worth the $.
Could be you don't have a grasp of the basics to understand what you are
looking at.
Changing/checking the filter is basic.
TECH Method isn't for untrained people.
If you don't know how to clean a coil you have problems that TECH Method
will never address.
--
Bill
wrote:
The flow chart that I
> use is just a series of forms derived in this manner. This one wasn't on
> the list because I just hadn't considered running across a wide open
> TXV, and even so, many of my forms have yet to be confirmed in the
> field. There are complications, such as the fact that in a TXV system a
> low charge can either decrease or increase suction pressure, depending
> upon the degree of undercharge, the TXV itself, the system that it is
> installed in, and ambient conditions. It's a work in progress. I should
> probably just buy a book with a good flowchart, but I don't know of any
> in existence that includes an exhaustive reference to compound problems,
> which is why I have been compiling my own. Watch out Gary:-)
>
> RICHARD
I don't think Gary has anything to worry about. : )
I think you would appreciate TM tho.
--
Bill
<gerrr...@gogood.com> wrote:
> Ok, when I read the T.E.C.H manuals, I feel starved for technical
> information - information generally _NOT_ needed to fix such equipment
> <VBG>.
Same here. Made me dig into all kinds of areas.
> About the only suggestion I could make is more information on
> servicing equipment when design conditions can't be met. Either
> ambient conditions or making the best of an system improperly matched
> to the load - all too common. It's not always feasible to just replace
> a system which may require ripping the house apart for different air
> handling capacity. It's amazing how many contractors just want to toss
> in a bigger AC with no thought for air handling capacity.
>
> gerry
Anything outside the "envelope" isn't practical to write a book on.
Mismatched equipment will never work right and the best that can be done is
run it till it dies and put in a new one.
--
Gary R. Lloyd
>probably just buy a book with a good flowchart, but I don't know of any
>in existence that includes an exhaustive reference to compound problems,
>which is why I have been compiling my own.
I would say you have already progressed beyond most of the trouble
shooting books out there. This isn't the way I do it, but I can see
where our paths may eventually merge.
I would suggest that you widen your list of parameters to include
dT's, TD's, approaches, etc., and don't believe what you know, but
only what you have tested.
You will eventually see patterns emerging, with certain parameters
dominant. Streamlining should be the final step.
Or... for a measly $119 you can avoid a lot of research, but I
wouldn't want to spoil your fun. Who knows, someday we may compete or
even collaborate. Either way, it's all for the good. :)
>Watch out Gary:-)
I'm watching. :)
hvacrmedic
If I had Marc's engineering prowess I would have already developed a
palm program that would spit out, not only all of the problems with the
system based upon input of the relative variables, but it would even
describe the magnitude of each problem affecting the system. The physics
is there, has been for some time, it's just a matter of someone trudging
through it. What I presented was a very general argument, but in most
cases even this basic superposition method will quickly narrow down the
possibilities to two or three at the most, that is, given compounded
problems in the system, which can then be filtered out by taking
additional measurements. Given only one problem it is precise enough
already, but if the time were taken to ascribe actual values to the
degrees of change induced in the parameters, then the accuracy would
improve dramatically and be practical for accurately diagnosing
compounded problems with minimal fuss. Given the actual slopes of the
curves of the relationships between the parameters in the system, this
procedure could produce infallible results every time. So if we end up
collaborating I believe that a mathematician will have to be brought in
as well to sort out the finer details.
RICHARD
PS. I usually do check dT etc. but when the odds are that its going to
be just a leak, then those measurements are not time wise. I call them
in as they are required;-)
Jrc2905
and I should have bought the Basic Maintenance Inspection" book. But hey all
coils are the same, right.
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
I just happen to have a couple trouble shooting programs, also
available at my website. :)
Marc O'Brien
"hvacrmedic" <hvacr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D44F3B4...@yahoo.com...
I'm keen to restrict my discussion contributions to the (under-development)
TECH Method forums, but we have a fellow here showing a high perceptive
aptitude, so I thought I might prod at him :)
> What you've overlooked is that once having cleaned the condenser, the
> suction pressure will drop even more,
It couldn't be any other way
> and superheat will drop to a
> negative value,
Why?
> while subcooling will increase to a more normal value.
Sounds about right, so in effect, what your saying is "both the evap and the
condenser have increased liquid quantites?
> Then increasing indoor air flow will raise suction and superheat back
> up,
It couldn't be any other way.
> but it will drop subcooling back to its original low value.
Why?
> Adding
> refrigerant to obtain a good subcooling value will then drop superheat
> back down to an improper low value.
Perhaps, but is that an increase in subcool with constant saturated
discharge or is that an increase in both?
> You are left with the inevitability
> of an overfeeding condition.
Perhaps, though this is only relevent to the last two statements and is no
logic child of any of the previous, surely? You started off talking about
one thing and then skipped the subject completely.
> Just for fun, here are the symptoms caused by the compound problem you
> diagnosed, as expressed in my particular logical form. First piston,
> followed by TXV.
>
> Piston system:
> Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head, normal to high
> subcooling
You sure?
> Low setpoint = exactly the same as above, however not a factor when I
> checked the system.
> Remember that we have the actual conditions: low suction, "very low"
> superheat, low
> head, "very low" subcooling,
> which is obviously no match to the low airflow condition when it is
> taken by itself.
I don't understand, it doesn't ring.
> Including your dirty condenser yields:
>
> Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head,
> high subcooling
Low superheat AND high subcool?? And you're not assuming any adjustement to
charge?
> Dirty condenser = +high suction, +low superheat, + high head,
> +low subcooling
There is logic here, this is probably the first thing you've said in this
post that makes immediate sense. Increased head pressure is achieved by an
increase in discharge vapour density and heat content, suction superheat
reduces because an expansion devices capacity is more pressure dependant
than liquid temperature dependant and at the same time the compressors
volumetric eff is reduced.
>
> Vector sum gives: normal suction, very low superheat, normal head,
> normal subcooling
Lol.
That's as far as I'm going to go, the assumptions appear floored to me while
the two dimentioned vectors are surely a natural way of thinking.
Plot an x and y axis, the x axis is relative pressure and the y axis is
relative subcool, then for the evaporator the y axis is relative superheat.
All you're doing here is enslaving a natural mental process :)
Marc O'Brien
http://fridgetech.com Ltd
Marc O'Brien
> O.k. You've probably gone to bed by now, like the other normal non-ENTP
I thought you might be an ENTP, are you the same who wrote thoughts on
electrical theory? You've changed your handle, surely?
> Here we go: Each and ever way that I examined these figures I came up
> with an overfeeding condition, but having never met an expansion valve
> that fails in this direction, at least none so badly, so I, like you,
> continued to grasp for a piston system solution. When I could find none,
> I was forced to lean toward an overfeeding TXV, and the associated
> conditions that would give me the observed values. Success!, which I
> will outline below. All it took was a trip into the attic to confirm,
> saw that bastard from the hatch. Here is the final conclusion that I
> drew, and why it had to be correct.
>
> Overfeeding was the only solution to the low superheat and low
> subcooling. Once having made my mind up about this I reasoned, "this TXV
> has been fucked with", exactly as "you" put it;-)
Yawn :(
> Now why would anyone
> open a TXV up like this except to raise suction pressure in order to
> what?, you guessed it, prevent freezing of the coil. Now if this was
> that techs solution then he must have decided that there was
> insufficient airflow, and since he chose the option of opening the TXV,
> then the low airflow condition must still exist. So here you have two of
> the three conditions in one simple step. The third, low charge, was
> deduced as follows. If airflow is increased then suction pressure will
> rise, head pressure will rise, superheat will not change (TXV), and
> subcooling will decrease even more.
Why will subcool reduce?
You must be ENTP, I think you're like me, you quickly invent a system of
logic for the occasion during a few minutes of deep deep enthusiasm and
thought, then you go on for the rest of your life using it almost from a
subconscious level. Tomorrow you would be bored of this line of thinking and
it would kill you to retrace your tracks for the sake of some compilation,
ENTP's swiftly move onto the next mental challenge and the next and the next
leaving people with the impression that they've been studying each challenge
for years, not minutes :)
I hope I meet you sometime, Richard, we would have great fun arguing :)
Marc O'Brien
> "Gary R. Lloyd" wrote:
> If I had Marc's engineering prowess I would have already developed a
> palm program that would spit out, not only all of the problems with the
> system based upon input of the relative variables, but it would even
> describe the magnitude of each problem affecting the system.
The logic and numbers would be too easy while the amount of logic statements
would many.
On the X axis plot relative challenge and on the Y axis plot relative
repetitiveness, where do you think the ENTP prefers to play? :)
However, these days I don't have a company paying me a salary, I have to pay
me a salary, so it looks like it might very well happen.
> The physics
> is there, has been for some time, it's just a matter of someone trudging
> through it.
Oh, shit, been there and done that, during my apprenticeship, I could look
at plant logs and tell what compressor it was and how unloaded it was etc
etc.
> What I presented was a very general argument, but in most
> cases even this basic superposition method will quickly narrow down the
> possibilities to two or three at the most, that is, given compounded
> problems in the system, which can then be filtered out by taking
> additional measurements. Given only one problem it is precise enough
> already, but if the time were taken to ascribe actual values to the
> degrees of change induced in the parameters, then the accuracy would
> improve dramatically and be practical for accurately diagnosing
> compounded problems with minimal fuss. Given the actual slopes of the
> curves of the relationships between the parameters in the system, this
> procedure could produce infallible results every time. So if we end up
> collaborating I believe that a mathematician will have to be brought in
> as well to sort out the finer details.
Simple algebra and proportional continuities would suffice, you would need
to find someone willing to labour through the logic statements.
I'm hoping that over the next few weeks business is going to quieten down,
then I'll try put together a simple system log analyser for palm and see how
long I can go before getting bored :)
I could quickly, easily convert Gary's software for Palm, as long as I keep
up the pace doing such things then often I can get them done before getting
bored.
hvacrmedic
>
> "hvacrmedic" <hvacr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D44F3B4...@yahoo.com...
>
> I'm keen to restrict my discussion contributions to the (under-development)
> TECH Method forums, but we have a fellow here showing a high perceptive
> aptitude, so I thought I might prod at him :)
>
> > What you've overlooked is that once having cleaned the condenser, the
> > suction pressure will drop even more,
>
> It couldn't be any other way
>
> > and superheat will drop to a
> > negative value,
>
> Why?
Good point. Where does that leave me?
How about: After cleaning the coil nothing will change, because it was
already clean:-)
>
> > while subcooling will increase to a more normal value.
>
> Sounds about right, so in effect, what your saying is "both the evap and the
> condenser have increased liquid quantites?
See above.
>
> > Then increasing indoor air flow will raise suction and superheat back
> > up,
>
> It couldn't be any other way.
>
> > but it will drop subcooling back to its original low value.
>
> Why?
Because increasing return decreases subcooling.
>
> > Adding
> > refrigerant to obtain a good subcooling value will then drop superheat
> > back down to an improper low value.
>
> Perhaps, but is that an increase in subcool with constant saturated
> discharge or is that an increase in both?
Either/or, who knows? Its a hypothetical unit that doesn't exist anyway,
cannot exist, because the given parameters do not support the dirty coil
(The real coil was not dirty). We can do whatever we want once we reduce
the load on the condenser by cleaning, because that was magic in
itself:-)
>
> > You are left with the inevitability
> > of an overfeeding condition.
>
> Perhaps, though this is only relevent to the last two statements and is no
> logic child of any of the previous, surely? You started off talking about
> one thing and then skipped the subject completely.
Given that all of the other parameters are correct with the exception
of superheat, which "was" the conclusion, not that this particular
argument led to that conclusion coherently, but my original thought
process did. Anyway, these final parameters are tautologies with an
overfeeding condition. The step you missed was the algebraic
substitution of terms, whose implicitness I thought most would have
grasped. Maybe I assume too much. I suppose I should practice being a
reader of my writing.
>
> > Just for fun, here are the symptoms caused by the compound problem you
> > diagnosed, as expressed in my particular logical form. First piston,
> > followed by TXV.
> >
> > Piston system:
> > Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head, normal to high
> > subcooling
>
> You sure?
>
No. I'm only sure about death and taxes.
> > Low setpoint = exactly the same as above, however not a factor when I
> > checked the system.
> > Remember that we have the actual conditions: low suction, "very low"
> > superheat, low
> > head, "very low" subcooling,
> > which is obviously no match to the low airflow condition when it is
> > taken by itself.
>
> I don't understand, it doesn't ring.
It isn't a bell.
>
> > Including your dirty condenser yields:
> >
> > Low airflow = low suction, low superheat, low head,
> > high subcooling
>
> Low superheat AND high subcool?? And you're not assuming any adjustement to
> charge?
Migration.
>
> > Dirty condenser = +high suction, +low superheat, + high head,
> > +low subcooling
>
> There is logic here, this is probably the first thing you've said in this
> post that makes immediate sense. Increased head pressure is achieved by an
> increase in discharge vapour density and heat content, suction superheat
> reduces because an expansion devices capacity is more pressure dependant
> than liquid temperature dependant and at the same time the compressors
> volumetric eff is reduced.
>
> >
> > Vector sum gives: normal suction, very low superheat, normal head,
> > normal subcooling
>
> Lol.
>
> That's as far as I'm going to go, the assumptions appear floored to me while
> the two dimentioned vectors are surely a natural way of thinking.
>
> Plot an x and y axis, the x axis is relative pressure and the y axis is
> relative subcool, then for the evaporator the y axis is relative superheat.
> All you're doing here is enslaving a natural mental process :)
The "all you're doing" doesn't seem an appropriate response, unless it
was meant to signify a sort of "aha" revelation. Formal logic is
"nothing more" than enslaving our natural mental processes, do you
disagree?. So on these grounds then, I gladly accept your compliment,
however intended. Moreover I rather think of it as "formalizing" a
natural mental process, which is otherwise wont to run helter skelter
and without direction or reason. Moreover the general framework is
sound, whether or not I have laid the foundation stones into their
correct positions, or upside down as the case may be:-) Like I said, its
a work in progress, and I can use all the input that I can get. I would
really rather that someone "else" use my analytical approach with the
correct engineering data to produce a comprehensive multiple
problem/symptom troubleshooting "listing". I would like to have a book
that I could look into and say, "Ok. this list of measurements pretty
much matches the ones that I just recorded, so here are the problems
with the unit (all of them). And more importantly I would like for it to
always be correct:-) Large book no doubt, but it would be indispensable
if the listings were organized in a structured fashion; alphabetized
more or less. That way you could flip to the relevant page rather
quickly. Why don't we have one? Don't doctors have such books? Well
let's see, vertigo, nausea, headaches..flip flip flip .yes here it
is...says it could be....hmmm....well four thousand pages of
possibilities here. No tellin what you got Mr. Jones, we're probably
going to have to keep you here till we figure it out.
Ok I think I just answered my own question;-)
RICHARD
BTW, yes I am the same RICHARD that you think I am. My paper, whose
subject is incidentally more up my ally than this stuff:-) has been
revised and streamlined, and at last typo corrected. Not really the same
paper at all anymore. Cause for some real discussions elsewhere, but I
just got tired of it. LOL:-) e-mail me for URL if you'd like a gander.
Good address in header.
p...@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>(The real coil was not dirty). We can do whatever we want once we reduce
>the load on the condenser by cleaning, because that was magic in
>itself:-)
*Told you* I was good :-)
>process did. Anyway, these final parameters are tautologies with an
>overfeeding condition. The step you missed was the algebraic
>substitution of terms, whose implicitness I thought most would have
>grasped.
Turtle, you wanna take a stab at translating that one ? :-)
> Maybe I assume too much. I suppose I should practice being a
>reader of my writing.
With lines like the above, *many* of us need to practice
reading your writing :-)
>> Low superheat AND high subcool?? And you're not assuming any adjustement to
>> charge?
>
>Migration.
Migration does not occur during the running cycle. Unless you
use African Freon, of course....
And since superheat / subcool don't happen during the *off*
cycle, they rarely happen alongside migration :-)
>The "all you're doing" doesn't seem an appropriate response, unless it
>was meant to signify a sort of "aha" revelation. Formal logic is
>"nothing more" than enslaving our natural mental processes, do you
>disagree?.
I swear, you're starting to sound like some sort of college
boy :-)
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
>Marc O'Brien wrote:
>> That's as far as I'm going to go, the assumptions appear floored to me while
>> the two dimentioned vectors are surely a natural way of thinking.
>>
>> Plot an x and y axis, the x axis is relative pressure and the y axis is
>> relative subcool, then for the evaporator the y axis is relative superheat.
>> All you're doing here is enslaving a natural mental process :)
>
>The "all you're doing" doesn't seem an appropriate response, unless it
>was meant to signify a sort of "aha" revelation. Formal logic is
>"nothing more" than enslaving our natural mental processes, do you
>disagree?. So on these grounds then, I gladly accept your compliment,
>however intended. Moreover I rather think of it as "formalizing" a
>natural mental process, which is otherwise wont to run helter skelter
>and without direction or reason. Moreover the general framework is
>sound, whether or not I have laid the foundation stones into their
>correct positions, or upside down as the case may be:-) Like I said, its
>a work in progress, and I can use all the input that I can get. I would
>really rather that someone "else" use my analytical approach with the
>correct engineering data to produce a comprehensive multiple
>problem/symptom troubleshooting "listing".
Someone else did, and rejected it as a limited, cumbersome, and flawed
approach. Perhaps you will have better results. :)
>I would like to have a book
>that I could look into and say, "Ok. this list of measurements pretty
>much matches the ones that I just recorded, so here are the problems
>with the unit (all of them). And more importantly I would like for it to
>always be correct:-) Large book no doubt, but it would be indispensable
>if the listings were organized in a structured fashion; alphabetized
>more or less. That way you could flip to the relevant page rather
>quickly. Why don't we have one?
Because you haven't written it yet.
>Don't doctors have such books? Well
>let's see, vertigo, nausea, headaches..flip flip flip .yes here it
>is...says it could be....hmmm....well four thousand pages of
>possibilities here. No tellin what you got Mr. Jones, we're probably
>going to have to keep you here till we figure it out.
What the world needs is TECH Method medical diagnostics. :)
hvacrmedic
Not one. But I have held my own against some top notch physicists, that
is, when they ventured into the areas that I am versed in:-)
But now, after Marc's observations, I must eat crow and admit that I
fabricated two of the initial conditions out of lack of remembrance of
them, and used my incorrect superheat glide to do so. I more or less
worked out the initial conditions from the problems, which I "did"
remember. How I could have gotten reversed on the superheat glide when
constructing this argument I'll never know, "Of Course" superheat rises
as return air drops, and I have this correct in all of my self written
charts. I don't know about myself sometimes:-) I suppose that I confused
the drop in suction line temp with reduced superheat, a common error. I
had only 3 hours sleep for the 48 hours previous to that post, so that
might have contributed to my delusion:-)
Now after having corrected this egregious error in my mind, your
diagnosis with the given (incorrect measurements) might have been
correct.
Let's see:
Low indoor airflow = "high" superheat, low suction pressure, low head
pressure, high subcooling
So this alone was still incorrect.
Adding dirty condenser gets:
Dirty condenser = low superheat, high suction pressure, high head
pressure, low subcooling
These two problems tend to cancel their effects on respective
measurements, so it is still incorrect.
Adding low charge gets:
Low charge= high superheat, low suction, low head, low subcooling.
Looks like we end up wit a net higher than normal superheat, so that is
also incorrect.
So it looks as if we were both incorrect, but even so it also looks like
a piston system cannot produce the values that I gave under any
conditions, So we still have to have an over metering TXV to get the low
superheat, or perhaps on an off chance a way oversized piston. Looks
like either of these alone would produce the measurements that I listed,
so at least it wasn't an impossible combination:-)
On another note, I looked up the ticket on that job, after Marc's reply,
because I realized that I must have posted bogus info in order to arrive
at the right conclusion with the wrong superheat relationship in mind.
What I found was that all of the values were correct, except head
pressure and subcooling value, which actually were: Normal head and 20F
subcooling. Now when I get time, (on lunch now), but when I get home
this evening I'll put my method to work again, with the "proper"
superheat relationships in place, and see if produces a correct
diagnosis. I assume that it will, because those "were" the problems, and
these "were" the values. The reason the guy called was because the unit
started freezing up again, and since all other things remained unchanged
this could only have meant a loss of charge. The previous tweaking of
the TXV worked to compensate for the low airflow, but it couldn't
compensate for loss of charge. BTW the low air flow turned out to be due
to an undersized blower section, which is why I suppose the previous
tech did what he did.
RICHARD
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:03:17 -0500, hvacrmedic <hvacr...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>I would
>>really rather that someone "else" use my analytical approach with the
>>correct engineering data to produce a comprehensive multiple
>>problem/symptom troubleshooting "listing".
>
>Someone else did, and rejected it as a limited, cumbersome, and flawed
>approach. Perhaps you will have better results. :)
I don't mean to discourage you here. Your approach has the very
important advantage of being an extension of conventional trouble
shooting methods. As such, it would be widely considered right until
proven wrong.
An unorthodox approach, such as mine, has the very serious
disadvantage of being considered wrong until proven right. The only
way it can become respectable is if/when it is accepted by the powers
that be, who are essentially clueless when it comes to real world
trouble shooting. They are absolutely convinced that conventional
trouble shooting works.
I have been in the position of proving myself, on a customer by
customer basis, for the past 15 years. It has been an uphill battle
all the way.
p...@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>But now, after Marc's observations,
Never, ever try to B.S. O'Brien about refrigeration :-)
> I must eat crow and admit that I
>fabricated two of the initial conditions out of lack of remembrance of
Sounds amoral to me :-)
>Now after having corrected this egregious error in my mind, your
>diagnosis with the given (incorrect measurements) might have been
>correct.
>
>Let's see:
>
>Low indoor airflow = "high" superheat, low suction pressure, low head
>pressure, high subcooling
On what planet does low airflow give you high superheat ????
Not this one !!!!!
>So this alone was still incorrect.
No, it was spot-on. And later you say "BTW the low air flow
turned out to be due to an undersized blower section, which is why I
suppose the previous tech did what he did. "
>Adding dirty condenser gets:
>
>Dirty condenser = low superheat, high suction pressure, high head
>pressure, low subcooling
>
>These two problems tend to cancel their effects on respective
>measurements, so it is still incorrect.
How does dirty condensor give you low superheat ???
>So it looks as if we were both incorrect, but even so it also looks like
>a piston system cannot produce the values that I gave under any
>conditions,
Never say never :-)
>What I found was that all of the values were correct, except head
>pressure and subcooling value, which actually were: Normal head and 20F
>subcooling.
Well, geez, there goes my 'dirty condensor' if I'd have known
that !!!!! GIGO !!!!!
>these "were" the values. The reason the guy called was because the unit
>started freezing up again, and since all other things remained unchanged
>this could only have meant a loss of charge.
No, it could mean many other things.
Intermittent fan failure ( long term overheat, dead spot in
winding causing periodic start failure, etc )
The guy owns 17 Airdales who are all shedding, and the filter
or coil plugged up fast
His wife doesn't like drafts, so she went around closing
registers ( I've had this one happen !!! )
And others, I'm sure.
Really, you're searching for a Holy Grail that doesn't exist.
This simply can not be reduced to a set of absolutes, a formula where
you plug in numbers and it spits out diagnoses.
Mike
something
Gary R. Lloyd
>tried going to your website..looks like your domain is up for sale or
>something
I'm thinking Marc is in there switching things around. Try this:
http://www.gatecom.com/~tmethod/
p...@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Couldn't resist the price. Wanna buy it back ? :-)
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:11:39 GMT, tme...@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd)
wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:26:07 GMT, "Mike" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
Gary R. Lloyd
Gary
http://www.techmethod.com
http://www.techmethod.co.uk
hvacrmedic
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:41:06 -0500, hvacrmedic <hvacr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But now, after Marc's observations,
>
> Never, ever try to B.S. O'Brien about refrigeration :-)
>
> > I must eat crow and admit that I
> >fabricated two of the initial conditions out of lack of remembrance of
>
> Sounds amoral to me :-)
>
> >Now after having corrected this egregious error in my mind, your
> >diagnosis with the given (incorrect measurements) might have been
> >correct.
> >
> >Let's see:
> >
> >Low indoor airflow = "high" superheat, low suction pressure, low head
> >pressure, high subcooling
>
> On what planet does low airflow give you high superheat ????
> Not this one !!!!!
You think I didn't know that?. Marc set out to confuse me, which is why
he questioned areas that were correct, I was just giving him here what
he was after. I'll bet he left that one a bit confused.
To can play at any game;-)
>
> >So this alone was still incorrect.
>
> No, it was spot-on.
<snipped>
Disregard the statements in that post Paul, it was not what it might
have seemed to most, nor was it even intended for you, but I see by your
comment about B.S. that you did pickup on a little of the rusing flying
around.
Now here is what I do know, that I did in fact get the "subcooling"
argument backwards in places, but I never err on superheat in the field.
Why? because my Carrier slide rule tells me so. When indoor db rises
superheat rises. When outdoor temp drops, superheat rises. Says so right
there next to Carrier Corp. Why Marc would follow such a statement as
"superheat will drop even more" with "Are you sure?", well I suppose its
just part of being the personality type that he is. OTOH I know what I
know, but then sometimes I derive things on the fly, based upon what I
know, or at least what I think I know, which saves me the effort of
having to memorize the universe. Unfortunately, as handy as it is to be
able to deduce knowledge on the fly, it is easy to overlook factors, or
to misplace them. All that I'm saying is that sometimes my mental system
hits 24 carat gold, and sometimes it hits pure shit. On such occasions,
I just patch the hole and move on. Every error made gets me that much
closer to being able to spout my internal musings without making any. My
brain is an example of evolution in progress, and I make no attempt to
tell it "All right that's enough evolving, just settle on the beliefs
you have now, and call it good". Seems to me that's what a lot of people
do.
If you like electrical theory then here is an example of my logical
processes at their finest (I'm not biased or anything:) The paper that I
mentioned to Marc, or rather that he mentioned to me:
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Electromagnetism: First Principles
What the hell, most around here won't follow it well enough anyway to
get their panties in a wad like some in another group did.
RICHARD
p...@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>
>You think I didn't know that?. Marc set out to confuse me, which is why
>he questioned areas that were correct, I was just giving him here what
>he was after. I'll bet he left that one a bit confused.
>To can play at any game;-)
>
>Disregard the statements in that post Paul, it was not what it might
>have seemed to most, nor was it even intended for you, but I see by your
>comment about B.S. that you did pickup on a little of the rusing flying
>around.
Ummm.... yeh, I got it, I was just playing, too..... yeh.,
that's the ticket !
>Now here is what I do know, that I did in fact get the "subcooling"
>argument backwards in places, but I never err on superheat in the field.
>Why? because my Carrier slide rule tells me so. When indoor db rises
>superheat rises. When outdoor temp drops, superheat rises. Says so right
>there next to Carrier Corp.
Screw what Carrier says, tell me how outside temp changes
superheat inside ? Most especially with a TXV as in the case that
started this thread ?????
>
>If you like electrical theory then here is an example of my logical
>processes at their finest (I'm not biased or anything:) The paper that I
>mentioned to Marc, or rather that he mentioned to me:
>
>http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
>Electromagnetism: First Principles
>
>What the hell, most around here won't follow it well enough anyway to
>get their panties in a wad like some in another group did.
I suspect you're right. What group found it upsetting,
alt.psycho.headcase.looniesthatcanreadthatshit ???? :-)
hvacrmedic
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:13:49 -0500, hvacrmedic <hvacr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >You think I didn't know that?. Marc set out to confuse me, which is why
> >he questioned areas that were correct, I was just giving him here what
> >he was after. I'll bet he left that one a bit confused.
> >To can play at any game;-)
> >
> >Disregard the statements in that post Paul, it was not what it might
> >have seemed to most, nor was it even intended for you, but I see by your
> >comment about B.S. that you did pickup on a little of the rusing flying
> >around.
>
> Ummm.... yeh, I got it, I was just playing, too..... yeh.,
> that's the ticket !
I take it you're not buying? Truth is, now this "is" the truth:-), I'm
one tired SOB, and though I did err somewhere, obviously, it was not
with superheat. I suppose you missed the "Of Course", as in "aha" at the
beginning of that mess. I did have an "aha" however when I wet a
condenser today to straighten out the mess about subcooling that had
gotten into my head. Hey, the Carrier chart that was passed of to me has
this one wrong. Fuck me for trusting them. From now on, if I haven't
seen it, it doesn't happen. What's worse is that the same common sense
(that I once had) told me that the chart was wrong at first sight, but I
stuck in in my folder anyway, out of pure blind trust, which someone
around here recently said was probably not a virtue;-)
>
> >Now here is what I do know, that I did in fact get the "subcooling"
> >argument backwards in places, but I never err on superheat in the field.
> >Why? because my Carrier slide rule tells me so. When indoor db rises
> >superheat rises. When outdoor temp drops, superheat rises. Says so right
> >there next to Carrier Corp.
>
> Screw what Carrier says, tell me how outside temp changes
> superheat inside ? Most especially with a TXV as in the case that
> started this thread ?????
But you didn't know it was a TXV.
>
> >
> >If you like electrical theory then here is an example of my logical
> >processes at their finest (I'm not biased or anything:) The paper that I
> >mentioned to Marc, or rather that he mentioned to me:
> >
> >http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
> >Electromagnetism: First Principles
> >
> >What the hell, most around here won't follow it well enough anyway to
> >get their panties in a wad like some in another group did.
>
> I suspect you're right.
Now I only meant that most wouldn't "follow" it, not to say they
couldn't understand it if only they could follow it;-)
What group found it upsetting,
> alt.psycho.headcase.looniesthatcanreadthatshit ???? :-)
Now that you mention it, yeah, that's a better name for it;-) I guess
that made me one to, probably why I left it behind to talk about real
things, like homoaners, slipped disks, and motorcycles. I think it was
you and Steve that started with the fancy stuff talk, wasn't it? Now
look what you two have done, you got me back to thinkin';-)
RICHARD
hvacrmedic
You win Gary, put me on the list. Do you take cash? I don't believe my
better half would approve of the expenditure, so I'll have to find a way
to bypass her;-)
I seem to be growing a tad dyslectic in my older age, can't seem to keep
my left and right and up and down where they belong at times. Probably
from too much thinking, so I'd probably be better off just reading what
someone else has popped neurons creating, at least until I get a second
wind:-)
Now, mind you, I think my addition method deserves some merit, because
it allows a systematic approach to troubleshooting multiple problems,
even if it will not always be precise. In which case, like I said, a few
extra measurements will be in order. I use it, but mostly for comparing
everything but subcooling, just because I'm still not clear about its
ups and downs, with the exception that it varies up and down with
charge, which is about the only time, or reason, that I track it.
A little thought on this today (approaching things like I used to), led
me to the conclusion that subcooling "must" drop as ambient drops, if
for no other reason than that as SCT drops subcooling gets pinched. It
can never be greater than dT between ambient and SCT. So If that dT
drops to a smaller value than the original subcooling value then
subcooling has no choice but to be lower.
Ah, I feel better now. I've got at least one wheel back on track;-)
RICHARD
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
>You win Gary, put me on the list. Do you take cash? I don't believe my
>better half would approve of the expenditure, so I'll have to find a way
>to bypass her;-)
>
A money order will do nicely, Richard. :)
hvacrmedic
My wife is a banker who knows all the other bankers in town, literally,
and they all know me by sight because I go with her to all of the
events. I can't walk into a single one without a report getting back to
her, but I guess I'll give it a try;-)
RICHARD
Gary R. Lloyd
wrote:
Have your girlfriend pick up the money order for you. ;)
toma...@gmail.com
i have been looking for more then 2 years.
please someone reach out to me and help me out.
John
toma...@gmail.com
John
Gary R. LLoyd CMS I would sell for $200 if anyone is interested.
John
Zinger
Everything is now controlled by electronics and High efficiency
Mechanicals. Standard procedure is by Super Heat and Sub cooling
factors. Maybe someones outhouse is in need of ass wipe.
--
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
John
> On 7/25/2017 5:43 PM, John wrote:
>> I have a copy of TECH Method Lesson Series, 1988, ac/r Trouble Shooting by
>> Gary R. LLoyd CMS I would sell for $200 if anyone is interested.
>>
>> John
>
> That's a joke. 1988 is totally obsolete in today's modern equipment.
> Everything is now controlled by electronics and High efficiency
> Mechanicals. Standard procedure is by Super Heat and Sub cooling
> factors. Maybe someones outhouse is in need of ass wipe.
Also high efficiency etc. is there too. It's mainly a course on
principles and physics of ac and they haven't changed.
dhi...@yahoo.com
Dennis
Brto
Hello. I have Gary Lloyd's T.E.C.H. METHOD MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS Book Sets
for Sale On eBay
anyone interested please let me know.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/hvac/re-t-e-c-h-method-maintenance-inspections-by-gary-r-lloyd-48486-.htm
Brto
Brto
You haven't even read the books, have you?
Brto
Correction: I have the full troubleshooting sets, brand new, for sale on ebay.
I am the author's son in law and have been authorized to sell them.
Brto
http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/showthread.php?19701-Refrigeration-101
Zinger
> replying to Zinger, Brto wrote:
> You haven't even read the books, have you?
to be a spammers advertising Products system.
The Newsgroup was primarily designed for the interchange of Ideas etc
for the Professionals.
The Secondary design was to help out those of the public that had no
where else to seek aid.
You are none of the above!!!
Our Sister Newsgroup is designed for those that wish to exchange and to
design HVAC Products and to delve into the Physics of such.
1988 is ancient in today's modern HVAC systems! You are selling crap.
I am well educated in Thermodynamics and have Controlled a HVAC Company
for a number of Decades. There have been vast changes since 1988. The
Physics of High efficiency was just barely getting started in 1988, It
has traveled eons since them.The same for the Cooling industry. Air
conditioners and refrigeration systems are vastly different with
different types of Gases and the method of charging them has changed
greatly. I highly recommend that all Candidates for this very well
paying industry sign on to a minimum 2 year Tech School or better yet,
Get a University degree in Thermodynamic Engineering. Most Unions are
tied to ACCA or ASHRAE with NATE training. Here are the requirements for
most states.
2 Years Votech school
2 years apprenticeship
4 years Journeyman
1 Year Master
Then Contractor.
The first 4 years can be done in 2 if you work in the industry while in
school. You cannot work unless a master is running the job. The master
cannot contract work. The contractor cannot work the job but can
contract it. Basically all contractors are also masters.
All upgrades are based on practical factors, classes, and written tests.
There is no way that a 1988 course can handle all of that.
http://www.acca.org/home
https://www.ashrae.org/
http://www.natex.org/site/1/Home
PaxPerPoten
> Correction: I have the full troubleshooting sets, brand new, for sale on
> ebay.
> I am the author's son in law and have been authorized to sell them.
>
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
PaxPerPoten
> You may want to check this out. A good place to get started.
>
> http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/showthread.php?19701-Refrigeration-101
>
>
Bill
> On 8/11/2017 6:44 PM, Brto wrote:
>> replying to Zinger, Brto wrote:
>> You haven't even read the books, have you?
>
> First off, I will point out to you that this Newsgroup was not created
> to be a spammers advertising Products system.
>
> The Newsgroup was primarily designed for the interchange of Ideas etc
> for the Professionals.
>
> The Secondary design was to help out those of the public that had no
> where else to seek aid.
Bill
> On 7/25/2017 5:43 PM, John wrote:
>> I have a copy of TECH Method Lesson Series, 1988, ac/r Trouble
>> Shooting by
>> Gary R. LLoyd CMS I would sell for $200 if anyone is interested.
>>
>> John
>
> That's a joke. 1988 is totally obsolete in today's modern equipment.
>
>
Zinger
> Zinger wrote:
>> On 8/11/2017 6:44 PM, Brto wrote:
>>> replying to Zinger, Brto wrote:
>>> You haven't even read the books, have you?
>>
>> First off, I will point out to you that this Newsgroup was not created
>> to be a spammers advertising Products system.
>>
>> The Newsgroup was primarily designed for the interchange of Ideas etc
>> for the Professionals.
>>
>> The Secondary design was to help out those of the public that had no
>> where else to seek aid.
>
> Bunch of experts here (ha), but no one posts shit! Lighten up! : )
living in this business give it away for free anyway? As for
spamming..It isn't acceptable anywhere on usenet.
Leper
How many months and how many Newsgroups has he spammed and not one sale!
Bill...you have better things to do.
>
--
Machiavelli wrote:It is necessary for the state to deal in lies and half
truths,
because people are made up of lies and half truths. Even Princes.' And
certainly, by definition all Ambassadors and politicians
John
Bill
diagnostics (haven't got it yet)! : )
Simon
Now on ebay and Amazon "TECH Method Gary Lloyd" will pull it up
Simon
The knowledge touted today as the cutting edge of checking a system is based
on the plagiarization of Mr Lloyds work. The physics is the same as 100+ years
ago. Maybe in another 45 years when copyright expires they can just print Mr
Lloyds work instead of stealing parts and putting it out as their individual
work or a corporations. Too bad these geniuses haven't actually grasped what
he has written. If you were well educated about thermodynamics in our trade
then you would have read posts from or about Mr Lloyd and would have never
posted what you did. Here's a link to a thread you might benefit from.
http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/showthread.php?19701-Refrigeration-101
a number of Decades. There have been vast changes since 1988.
Zinger
> The knowledge touted today as the cutting edge of checking a system is
> based
> on the plagiarization of Mr Lloyds work. The physics is the same as 100+
> years
> ago. Maybe in another 45 years when copyright expires they can just
> print Mr
> Lloyds work instead of stealing parts and putting it out as their
> individual
> work or a corporations. Too bad these geniuses haven't actually grasped
> what
> he has written. If you were well educated about thermodynamics in our
> trade
> then you would have read posts from or about Mr Lloyd and would have never
> posted what you did. Here's a link to a thread you might benefit from.
> http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/showthread.php?19701-Refrigeration-101
that one person is the overall expert is pure lunacy. You probably were
not even born in 1988. Soooo.. From this station which has educated many
licensees and engineers...
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/' _'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' Fuck /' ')
\ You' /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
>
>> I am well educated in Thermodynamics and have Controlled a HVAC
>> Company for
> a number of Decades. There have been vast changes since 1988.
--
Zinger
> Now on ebay and Amazon "TECH Method Gary Lloyd" will pull it up
cocksuker and leave room for those that are asking for and getting good
information.
sam
--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/hvac/re-t-e-c-h-method-maintenance-inspections-by-gary-r-lloyd-48486-.htm
sam
--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/hvac/re-t-e-c-h-method-maintenance-inspections-by-gary-r-lloyd-48486-.htm