R12 replacement "Enviro-Safe"?
Toby Cowger
Has anyone tried this Enviro-Safe stuff yet? It seems a little too
good to be true: compatible with R12 and R134a systems, less flammable
than R134a, they don't say anything about needing a license to buy it,
and the price is reasonable.
The link I was looking at is
Thanks,
Toby
R Smith
alternatives over at www.aircondition.com
Aloha
Rob Smith
"Toby Cowger" <to...@vcd.hp.com> wrote in message
news:8mevpu$guq$1...@news.vcd.hp.com...
C. E. White
>
> Has anyone tried this Enviro-Safe stuff yet? It seems a little too
> good to be true: compatible with R12 and R134a systems, less flammable
> than R134a, they don't say anything about needing a license to buy it,
> and the price is reasonable.
>
> The link I was looking at is
>
> http://www.btt.org/ES.html
>
> Thanks,
> Toby
Hmmmm...I looked at the MSDS for this stuff. It says it is 100% Alkanes
(well it can have a small percentage of some special smelly stuff). For
those of us who aren't familiar with the the term, I copied the
following text from (
http://kids.infoplease.lycos.com/ce6/sci/A0803365.html ):
alkane , any of a group of aliphatic hydrocarbons whose molecules
contain only single bonds (see chemical bond). Alkanes have the general
chemical formula CnH2n+2. An alkane is said to have a continuous chain
if each carbon atom in its molecule is joined to at most two other
carbon atoms; it is said to have a branched chain if any of its carbon
atoms is joined to more than two other carbon atoms. The first four
continuous-chain alkanes are methane, CH4; ethane, C2H6; propane, C3H8;
and butane, C4H10.
The web site linked to above ( http://www.btt.org/ES.html ) has a claim
that "ENVIRO-SAFE is flammable, but its ignition temperature is 1585ºF
at both 5 psi and 0 psi (which is better than the DuPont R-134a's
ignition temperature of 368ºF at 5 psi and 1411ºF at 0 psi).
The DuPont MSDS for HF-134a (
http://www.dupont.com/msds/40_37_2187fr.html ) claims:
"HFC-134a is not flammable at temperatures up to 100 deg C (212 deg F)
at atmospheric pressure. However, mixtures of HFC-134a with high
concentrations of air at elevated pressure can become combustible at
ambient temperature. As the temperature of the mixture is increased,
lower pressure (but still greater than atmospheric pressure) can create
the same effect. Therefore, HFC-134a should not be mixed with air under
pressure for leak testing or other purposes. In general, HFC-134a should
not be used or allowed to exist with high concentrations of air above
atmospheric pressure."
Both statements seem to be leaving some wiggle room. I personally
believe HFC-134a is not at risk for ignition as used in an A/C system.
Methane et al are easily ignited.
The DuPont web pages has a lot of good information on using HF-134a. It
is probably a good site to check out after you read the Enviro-Safe site
( http://www.dupont.com/suva/na/usa/products/134a.html ).
Regards,
Ed White
N. Nelson
> Has anyone tried this Enviro-Safe stuff yet? It seems a little too
> good to be true: compatible with R12 and R134a systems, less flammable
> than R134a, they don't say anything about needing a license to buy it,
> and the price is reasonable.
>
> The link I was looking at is
>
> http://www.btt.org/ES.html
>
> Thanks,
> Toby
Nope, you don't need a licence to buy it. Matter of fact, -anyone- can
walk into their local friendly hardware or camping supply store and buy
camp stove fuel (that's what this stuff is ya know) ....Nothing illegal
about it at all.
Now, putting it in a mobile air conditioning unit....yes that definitely
IS illegal, as are all "sham retrofits" according to EPA rules and
guidelines.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/134a_12a.html
(legal status of the 134a loophole)
http://www.aircondition.com/wwwboard/alternative/messages/503.html
(accidents using HC12a)
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/enforce/sprint.html
(sprint gets fined)
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/enforce/nbm.html
(2 charged in felony violation of the clean air act)
http://www.macsw.org/pr093097.html
(R134 scare hype)
The preceding 5 links should give enough clarity as to whether it would be
wise to use this product in an automobile air conditioning system.
The big hint that it is a scam is the part where they have you install the
R134a fittings and then recharge with the propane/butane
mixture....clearly against regulations
--
Neil Nelson
***********************************
Send Lawyers Guns and Money,
The shit has hit the fan. WZ
***********************************
It's good to be back!
***********************************
Kevin Mouton
>
> Has anyone tried this Enviro-Safe stuff yet? It seems a little too
> good to be true: compatible with R12 and R134a systems, less flammable
> than R134a, they don't say anything about needing a license to buy it,
> and the price is reasonable.
>
> The link I was looking at is
>
> http://www.btt.org/ES.html
>
> Thanks,
> Toby
As with most scams it is too good to be true. It has it's dissadvantages
and should not be used to top off any A/C system.
--
* WARNING * Reply address may contain anti spam.
Just take out the trash to reply.
Kevin Mouton
Automotive Instructor
http://www.eatel.net/~kevinm/homepage.htm
"If women don't find you handsome,
they should at least find you handy" Red Green
kingsnake
<cewh...@interpath.com> wrote:
>carbon atoms; it is said to have a branched chain if any of its carbon
>atoms is joined to more than two other carbon atoms. The first four
>continuous-chain alkanes are methane, CH4; ethane, C2H6; propane, C3H8;
>and butane, C4H10.
They are also known as straight-chain paraffins. "Paraffin wax" and
"petroleum Jelly" are refined from the heavy bottoms, and are mostly
longer paraffin chains, hence the nickname "paraffin wax".
It's no worse than our equally poor nickname for gasoline - we call it
"gas". Anythinh shorter than five carbons, though, usually is ..
well, a gas at room temp and atmospheric pressure. I know ... I am
ranting and raving about semantics! :-)
-John
kingsnake
>
> less flammable than R134a,
Cute! Was that a typo? ;-)
-John
kingsnake
>
>Has anyone tried this Enviro-Safe stuff yet? It seems a little too
>good to be true: compatible with R12 and R134a systems, less flammable
>than R134a, they don't say anything about needing a license to buy it,
>and the price is reasonable.
>
>The link I was looking at is
>
>http://www.btt.org/ES.html
I have never seen a page so full of mis-information about HC
refrigerants. I hope to see these guys exposed very soon by EPA and
FTC members.
Furthermore, it is the local fire regulations which usually prohibit
it's use in air conditioning. In some areas or countries, it is
perfectly legal for use in small residential applications, but no
where that I am aware of in the US, without an inspection,
certification, and operating permit from the local fire department.
Know your codes before you willy-nilly install this stuff! You could
probably get away with using it in your own equipment, but I wouldn't
recommend it's sale to every Tom, Dick and Harry.
And, delete that URL from your bookmarks! That page is FULL of errors.
Phooey.
-John
bi_teendude17
does? Gasoline needs much higher temperature to ignite it, but it doesn't
require alot of energy per molecule to ignite. When you concentrate
sunlight on black piece of paper with a magnifying glass it gives enough
temperature and energy to ignite paper, though not enough temperature to
ignite gasoline. In contrast static electricity charged in your body
discharging gives enough temperature to ignite gasoline, but not enough
energy to ignite paper. Electrical discharges can easily reach tens of
thousands of degrees for short moment.
>
>
> The web site linked to above ( http://www.btt.org/ES.html ) has a claim
> that "ENVIRO-SAFE is flammable, but its ignition temperature is 1585ºF
> at both 5 psi and 0 psi (which is better than the DuPont R-134a's
> ignition temperature of 368ºF at 5 psi and 1411ºF at 0 psi).
>
> The DuPont MSDS for HF-134a (
> http://www.dupont.com/msds/40_37_2187fr.html ) claims:
>
> "HFC-134a is not flammable at temperatures up to 100 deg C (212 deg F)
> at atmospheric pressure. However, mixtures of HFC-134a with high
> concentrations of air at elevated pressure can become combustible at
> ambient temperature. As the temperature of the mixture is increased,
> lower pressure (but still greater than atmospheric pressure) can create
> the same effect. Therefore, HFC-134a should not be mixed with air under
> pressure for leak testing or other purposes. In general, HFC-134a should
> not be used or allowed to exist with high concentrations of air above
> atmospheric pressure."
>
No. Unless A/C tech is stupid enough to fill the half of system with R-134a
and another half with oxygen. That new alkane based refrigerant can pose a
risk of becoming flame gun. If you were lighting your cigarrette when the
evaporator happened to rupture it will send flammable gas into passenger
compartment and gets ignited by lighter.
bi_teendude17
Care to post the link to MSDS? couldn't find it at their site.
Robert Jerin
news:3akooskgi6urg8npd...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Aug 2000 17:50:54 GMT, to...@vcd.hp.com (Toby Cowger) wrote:
>
> >
> >Has anyone tried this Enviro-Safe stuff yet? It seems a little too
> >good to be true: compatible with R12 and R134a systems, less flammable
> >than R134a, they don't say anything about needing a license to buy it,
> >and the price is reasonable.
I believe this should be a definative answer to questions about R-12
"replacements":
The Wild West Refrigerants
- Ward Atkinson, MACS Technical Advisor
When I see and hear the claims made by some distributors of alternative
refrigerants, it seems to me a shame that unlike in the old western movies,
we don't have a John Wayne to corral the medicine doctor touting his magic
remedies off the back of the wagon.
In recent weeks there have been several published articles taking MACS, the
automotive manufacturers and my reputation to task. It's understood that the
U.S. is the land of opportunity and that anyone with an idea or a product
has the right to promote it and offer it for sale. Given that statement the
next one to remember is "Buyer Beware."
One product, GHG-X4, also known by other names (e.g. Chill-It), has received
considerable press. An article in the Summer 1997 issue of a publication
directed to automotive teachers had an editorial endorsement for the guest
writer and the product. Articles in another trade publication have guest
articles by the inventor and the technical director of the supplier
promoting the product.
I wonder how a product is developed without an understanding of the many and
varied technical requirements of millions of A/C systems on the road. If it
were really that easy, auto manufacturers would not have spent millions of
dollars of research money on R134a, including laboratory and vehicle
testing, to assure that it would meet the needs of the consumer.
Starting at the beginning, except for R134a, there is not one alternate
refrigerant listed by the EPA that has addressed the following very minimal
SAE industry requirements for an alternate refrigerant. The SAE retrofit
documents were requested by the EPA, to provide a smooth transition from
R12, and were published in 1994. These documents include requirements that
directly affect your equipment and your customer's A/C system.
Without going into great detail, here are a few of the basic requirements of
any alternate refrigerant being considered for mobile A/C use.
SAE Air Conditioning Documents Requirements For Alternate Refrigerants
SAE J1657: Refrigerant Properties Hose Requirements
SAE J1658: Refrigerant Consistency
SAE J1659: Vehicle Testing
SAE J1662: Material Compatibility: Desiccant, Hoses & Seals, Plastics
It's not that the auto industry engineers are against new innovation. But
when you develop a new product replacing an existing product, there are
always some minimum requirements to be met. So why don't these alternate
refrigerant suppliers provide and publish the information that they can meet
all these minimum SAE requirements?
Test Results
Some contend that MACS has not provided "real world" information and that
running the A/C system on max. cooling is the way to compare refrigerants.
However, we should not forget that a vehicle parked in the sun on a hot day
can send a temperature load in excess of 130° F into the evaporator at
start-up. That's when the refrigerant must provide the maximum cooling
performance. The customer wants to be cool now, not some time later after
the inside of the vehicle has been lowered to 80 degrees. In effect, the
loss of a couple of degrees in the panel outlet air temperature will not be
noticed by the vehicle's owner. A greater concern is what does the
refrigerant do to the parts in the A/C system that can result in increased
costs to the owner.
The MACS refrigerant study presented at the 1997 Las Vegas convention was
run right in Florida not far from the back yard of the Chill-it supplier.
Based on the published remarks of J.R. Fortunato representing McMullen Oil,
the MACS testing of the A/C system was not realistic. As we previously
pointed out, the MACS test was to determine the capacity of the refrigerant
under the maximum load requirements. This type of high load is typical of
any system running max-cooling after being parked in the sun.
As Mr. Fortunato stated, his test was based upon his experience in the
Florida mobile A/C business. His choice was to run the Honda test on
max-cooling or recirculating air. A chart comparing the system charged with
R12 and Chill-it was printed in a recent trade publication. He claimed that
Chill-it produced 9 degree colder air as compared to R12. We have taken the
liberty to plot this published data in a graph form to allow direct
comparison of the data. First, during the entire test period the system high
side pressure using the Chill-it exceed the R12 pressures [Figure 1]. One
unexplained data point reported from the chart at 15 minutes was lower than
the other Chill-it pressures, but still above the R12 pressure.
Now, when it comes to the panel outlet temperatures, we find that the R12
temperature never went below 40° F. But, the Chill-it temperature was
recorded in the range of 31 degrees. Now most people will recognize that
there is a temperature increase between the evaporator core surface
temperature and the panel outlet temperature. Based on that fact, the core
surface must have been lower than the 31 degrees listed in the published
chart [Figure 2].
The last time I checked, "Mother Nature" allows water (evaporator
condensate) to freeze at 32° F. If we assume the Honda A/C engineers believe
the "Mother Nature" rule, that is why they cycled the compressor clutch to
prevent core freeze-up, thus limiting the panel outlet air temperature to
the 40° F range. On the other hand, Mr. Fortunato's data indicates a similar
clutch cycle rate with a 9 degree colder panel temperature. If he had
followed SAE J1659 Vehicle Testing, it identifies how to check for
evaporator freeze-up. This is a critical technical requirement in
maintaining customer satisfaction. Based on the recorded 31° F panel air
temperature, a refrigerant control change is required to prevent evaporator
freeze-up. When the freeze setting is established for this system, most
likely the panel temperature will be similar to the R12 temperature of 40°
F. The end result will probably indicate a similar panel temperature using
Chill-it as compared to R12, but with increased high side pressure. By the
way, the MACS data was run in an ambient range of 90 degrees as indicated on
the published information. However, no weather conditions are indicated for
these Chill-it results. It seems obvious that with the Honda R12 pressures
being below 170 psig, the ambient was not very warm.
In any case, in warmer weather operation, when higher R12 pressures occur,
will you be happy with the pressures being 10% higher due to the alternate
refrigerant?
Before anyone starts another word campaign on how great any refrigerant
might be, first let's look at all of their SAE J document test results. That
is, if we can find any test information that has complied with all the SAE
requirements. There was a lot of effort made by experts from the mobile A/C
industry to develop these minimum SAE requirements for any alternate
refrigerant. If these minimum requirements cannot be met, then the
refrigerant is not a good candidate for use in any existing mobile A/C
system.
Field Experience
There is also considerable field information regarding A/C system material
compatibility problems with certain refrigerants. Blend refrigerants that
contain R22 will experience hose and seal deterioration problems. This
problem is not confined to only the vehicle A/C system. Problems with hoses
and seals in recovery/recycling equipment will also occur.
These material problems have been reported from the field. Damage of A/C
systems is documented from a Florida new car dealership that had been told
that the blend refrigerant was a direct replacement. Other reports have
indicated both system and equipment failures.
The cut-away hose found in [Figure 3] shows the damage to the inner hose and
the release of the separated material causing plugging of the condenser
inlet. The outer surface of the hose had no indication of the internal
failure. This silent type of failure is difficult to identify and costly to
the consumer.
Since the phase-out of CFC's began, MACS has endeavored to provide factual
industry information as it becomes available. This industry has gone through
major changes in a short period of time and some early concerns did not
materialize. However, the customer and the service industry is now receiving
the brunt of contamination and refrigerant problems. Some have criticized
MACS and our efforts to keep you informed, but the Society pledges its
continued vigilance.
The auto industry and MACS continue to recommend using R12 as long as
practical and if you must retrofit, use R134a. Just remember: only R134a has
met the minimum SAE J requirements. Until the other alternate refrigerants
subject their product to the minimum SAE J requirements, and publish the
results you and your customer are test subjects.
As the sun sets in the "New Wild West," I will be watching for that last
covered wagon with "Drop In" painted on the side to leave town.
DATE: August, 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
© Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999 Mobile Air Conditioning Society Worldwide. All
rights reserved
--
"Human beings are the only animal that allow their children to come back
home"
Bill Cosby
C. E. White
bi_teendude17 wrote:
> Care to post the link to MSDS? couldn't find it at their site.
>
> >
> > Hmmmm...I looked at the MSDS for this stuff. It says it is 100% Alkanes
If was on a link from a page linked to the page given in the original note.
To save time:
http://www.btt.org/ESMSDS.html
Regards,
Ed White
ghg...@my-deja.com
"Robert Jerin" <banje...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> kingsnake <gyr...@gyrogearloose.com> wrote in message
> news:3akooskgi6urg8npd...@4ax.com...
> > On 4 Aug 2000 17:50:54 GMT, to...@vcd.hp.com (Toby Cowger) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Has anyone tried this Enviro-Safe stuff yet? It seems a little too
> > >good to be true: compatible with R12 and R134a systems, less flammable
> > >than R134a, they don't say anything about needing a license to buy it,
> > >and the price is reasonable.
>
> I believe this should be a definative answer to questions about R-12
> "replacements":
>
> The Wild West Refrigerants
> - Ward Atkinson, MACS Technical Advisor
>
> When I see and hear the claims made by some distributors of alternative
Ward Atkinson is a paid automotive industry lobbiest to force R-134a and
R-134a retrofit procedures upon all of us, lobby in rules to the EPA, etc,
and to stomp out all the other alternatives.
How well does R-134a cool in most cases compared to gold 'ole R-12?
How long do R-134a systems last between failures compared to the old R-12
systems that used mineral oil?
There are other "ozone safe" refrigerants (e.g R-134 [not 134a], and
hydrocarbons [blends of propane/isobutane]) and many transistion blends like
GHG-X4, Autofrost (R-406A) that only cause 1/20 or less ozone damage of R12
available and work fine in existing cars (using the same mineral oil that
R-12 did)). Many of these work well enough or better than the original R-12,
in the original mineral oil and system components to be called "drop-in's".
Ward lobbied in EPA rules to force conversions (using EPA accepted
refrigerants) to all use unique threaded retro-fit fittings, different for
each refrigerant, "therefore" there could not be such a thing as a "drop-in"
since he lobbied in the EPA rule requiring fittings, and a drop-in needs no
fittings. He then lobbied the EPA to make it "illegal" to call any
refrigerant a "drop in" for R12. (we had a letter from the EPA stating that
R-406A WAS A DROP-IN to R12 [stationary refrigeration in 3rd world
countries], and posted it on www.autofrost.com after Ward got the EPA to make
the word "drop-in" illegal to use. Ward was furious and got the EPA to
rescind the "drop-in" letter that the EPA (Jeff Wells) had previously given
us.
The auto industry has even gone to the trouble to have a "special" light
green O-ring developed that would instantly "dissolve" in most of the
alternative refrigerants, after they studied R-406A and R-414A (GHG-X4) for a
couple of years. They then "Promote' this light green O-ring (works only in
R12 and R134a) and try to stomp us out.
Why do you think the auto industry "wants" R-134a (and PAG oil - notice how
they hate Poe/Ester oils that most retrofitters use?).
PAG oils absorb moisture about 1000-10,000 times more than did the original
mineral oil that R-12 used. PAG oils (except Daphne - which is very rare)
are destroyed by even traces of R12 and other chlorinated refrigerants. R12
systems (and R406A/Autofrost) using mineral oil are easily serviced and
"dried out" with a good vacuum of 45 mins or so.
Moisture is VERY BAD for any refrigerantion or A/C system, except those that
use (often illegally pure hydrocarbons such as propane/isobutane blends such
as Duracool and Enviro-safe to replace R12).
over 100ppm (parts per million) of water in a system with R12 or R134a (or
all legal blends) will slowly react with the fluorocarbons to form acids that
eat away at the system from the inside, eventually making holes in the
evaporator and/or condensor. The acids also create "sludge" (aluminum
chloride or fluoride) pastes that can also plug up the expansion device.
More often than not, the "dryer" in the system is not shipped with properly
"sealed" caps on it.. IF a dryer is properly sealed, when the end caps are
removed, it will "hiss" or "suck". IF the dryer does not hiss or suck when
the caps are removed, it may not have a good "seal" and "breathe" in/out
air/humidity as the atmospheric pressure changes while it sets on the shelf
and becomes totally water logged. Even if totally water logged, an R12 or
(Autofrost) system with mineral oil will be dried out enough by the service
vacuum to last many years.
Enter R-134a with it's PAG oil systems will "suck" in mositure every second
that it is open to the air for servicing. THe PAG oil is so volatile that it
will not give back it's mositure during the service vacuum before
charging..and once wet, it will stay that way. AFter charging in the R134a,
the moisture goes to work forming acids that "eat" out the evaporator and
condensor. In fact, by adding just the right amount of moisture, cars can be
made to "fail" just right after their 3 year warranties are up, just like
radiators do from thermal stress crackings. Once the R134a system fails and
gets more mositure, the replacement PAG oil is often "very" wet and just
speeds up the failure of the repaired system to just a few months.
We bought several samples of GM brand New PAG oil, from different sources and
sent them to Integral Sciences refrigerant testing lab, and found they all
had in the range of 800ppm of moisture in them, in the unopened bottles!
The standard for moisture in refrigerants is 10ppm !
One might has well urinate into the A/C system before closing it up. This
super wet oil will lead to the next failure in just a few months from then
on. How many cars do you know that, once they failed an evaporator or
condensor on R-134a just kept right on failing every few months?
I was so appalled at how "wet" so many of the R-134a systems are, that before
marketing my high performance replacement for R134a refrigerant (GHG-X8 or
"Cooltop"), that I had to add a chemical dehydrating agent (cryo-chem
Dry-Pak) that converts moisture into harmless silicone oil that doesnt take
part in the corrosion reactions. I could not see being charged into a system
and have that system fail 3-4 months later due to an eaten out evaporator
from the "wet" PAG oil.. It would then be "my fault". IF one would have
charged in "dry" R134a into the same wet system, the same failure would have
resulted.
Why do you think the industry wants "wet" R-134a systems? Simple. All abount
money. Once your warranty is out, and your evaporator eats thru, and now you
whole system is wet and cannot easily (by procedures the techs are trained
in) dried out, it will keep failing and costing arms and legs to keep
running, until you "trade for a new car" Now you have the answer. You now
know Ward's agenda along with MACS and the others.
The key was to use PAG oil with 1000-10,000X the moisture grabbing power
instead of mositure ignoring mineral oil (that R12 used) that can be dried
out with a service vacuum. See the other side of the story on
www.autofrost.com.
--ghg, inventor Autofrost (R-406A), Chillit (GHG-X4 now R-414A) R-12
substitues and GHG-X7 and GHG-X8 (Cooltop) R-134a substitutes
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
capdick
of approved replacement refrigerants. Does anyone know where to find
this list?
Thanks
RM
C. E. White
>
> It was my understanding that the EPA regulations were to include a list
> of approved replacement refrigerants. Does anyone know where to find
> this list?
> Thanks
Robert Jerin
news:8neihj$7dt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> It was my understanding that the EPA regulations were to include a list
> of approved replacement refrigerants. Does anyone know where to find
They are not "approved" rather they are deemed "acceptable"
Bj