GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>
>
>>The new systems designed
>>for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the overall volume of
>>refrigerant sold has gone way down.
>
>
>
> Hahaha.. That's funny. Consumption has gone down because we don't
> dump as many tons of refrigerant as we used to. Now, we "RECOVER"
> refrigerant. Systems are also operating at a lower pressure so ther is
> less leakage as well.
Recovery has also played a part, I forgot to add that. My only disagreement would be
that many (surely less than half) shops were already using recovery equipment long
before R134 was mandated. As far as lower pressures, nope. They're within a few PSI if
R12 systems.
Back in the 60s and 70s it was not uncommon for an MVAC system to hold a 4-5 pound
charge. Todays systems generally take right around 2-2.5 pounds, with many small cars
holding less than a pound. Barrier hoses used in cars since 1993 keep permeation loss
to nearly nothing and leak much less at crimped connections. Lip type compressor shaft
seals are much less leak prone then the old type ceramic seals. R134 systems also
require an HPCO instead of a blowoff valve, which vented R12 into the atmosphere, if
the head pressure gets too high.
Recovery, smaller systems, and tighter systems have cut consumption to,
probablty,less than half of what it was 20 years ago. Hardly a boon to the chemical
companies. The only thing that would seem to offset this is that there are more
vehicles being produced.
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>
>
>>The new systems designed
>>for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the overall volume of
>>refrigerant sold has gone way down.
>
>
>
> Hahaha.. That's funny. Consumption has gone down because we don't
> dump as many tons of refrigerant as we used to. Now, we "RECOVER"
> refrigerant. Systems are also operating at a lower pressure so ther is
> less leakage as well.
Recovery has also played a part, I forgot to add that. My only disagreement would be
that many (surely less than half) shops were already using recovery equipment long
before R134 was mandated. As far as lower pressures, nope. They're within a few PSI if
R12 systems.
Back in the 60s and 70s it was not uncommon for an MVAC system to hold a 4-5 pound
charge. Todays systems generally take right around 2-2.5 pounds, with many small cars
holding less than a pound. Barrier hoses used in cars since 1993 keep permeation loss
to nearly nothing and leak much less at crimped connections. Lip type compressor shaft
seals are much less leak prone then the old type ceramic seals. R134 systems also
require an HPCO instead of a blowoff valve, which vented R12 into the atmosphere, if
the head pressure gets too high.
Recovery, smaller systems, and tighter systems have cut consumption to,
probablty,less than half of what it was 20 years ago. Hardly a boon to the chemical
companies. The only thing that would seem to offset this is that there are more
vehicles being produced.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>
>
>>Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
>>chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
>
>
> The main reason is greed.
I guess you could say that. If decreasing production of a non profiatble product to
raise production of a profitable product is greed, then I guess you're correct. I
would tend to call it a good business move, though.
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>
>
>>Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
>>chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
>
>
> The main reason is greed.
I guess you could say that. If decreasing production of a non profiatble product to
raise production of a profitable product is greed, then I guess you're correct. I
would tend to call it a good business move, though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>
>
>>Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
>>chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
>
>
> The main reason is greed.
I guess you could say that. If decreasing production of a non profiatble product to
raise production of a profitable product is greed, then I guess you're correct. I
would tend to call it a good business move, though.
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>
>
>>Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
>>chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
>
>
> The main reason is greed.
I guess you could say that. If decreasing production of a non profiatble product to
raise production of a profitable product is greed, then I guess you're correct. I
would tend to call it a good business move, though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>
>
>>Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
>>chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
>
>
> The main reason is greed.
I guess you could say that. If decreasing production of a non profiatble product to
raise production of a profitable product is greed, then I guess you're correct. I
would tend to call it a good business move, though.
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>
>
>>Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
>>chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
>
>
> The main reason is greed.
I guess you could say that. If decreasing production of a non profiatble product to
raise production of a profitable product is greed, then I guess you're correct. I
would tend to call it a good business move, though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The debate is over.
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:15:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
wrote:
>Ok - out of desperation, I'll call your raise and raise right back with a
>France.
Be careful. Your jesting Internet threat could result in a mass surrender.
Where are we going to find enough croissants for 40,000,000 prisoners?
--
Bob
wrote:
>Ok - out of desperation, I'll call your raise and raise right back with a
>France.
Be careful. Your jesting Internet threat could result in a mass surrender.
Where are we going to find enough croissants for 40,000,000 prisoners?
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The debate is over.
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:15:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
wrote:
>Ok - out of desperation, I'll call your raise and raise right back with a
>France.
Be careful. Your jesting Internet threat could result in a mass surrender.
Where are we going to find enough croissants for 40,000,000 prisoners?
--
Bob
wrote:
>Ok - out of desperation, I'll call your raise and raise right back with a
>France.
Be careful. Your jesting Internet threat could result in a mass surrender.
Where are we going to find enough croissants for 40,000,000 prisoners?
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The debate is over.
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:15:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
wrote:
>Ok - out of desperation, I'll call your raise and raise right back with a
>France.
Be careful. Your jesting Internet threat could result in a mass surrender.
Where are we going to find enough croissants for 40,000,000 prisoners?
--
Bob
wrote:
>Ok - out of desperation, I'll call your raise and raise right back with a
>France.
Be careful. Your jesting Internet threat could result in a mass surrender.
Where are we going to find enough croissants for 40,000,000 prisoners?
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:41:52 GMT, "Eric G."
<NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> Gave us:
>Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in
>news:qd90b2t3cohhi0fm65st1hjqmds081pkiv@4ax.com :
>
>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
>> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>>
>>> The new systems designed
>>>for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the
>>>overall volume of refrigerant sold has gone way down.
>>
>>
>> Hahaha.. That's funny. Consumption has gone down because we don't
>> dump as many tons of refrigerant as we used to. Now, we "RECOVER"
>> refrigerant. Systems are also operating at a lower pressure so ther is
>> less leakage as well.
>>
>
>Doesn't 134a run at a HIGHER pressure than 12 did?
>
I do not know. I am certainly no expert, and was under the
impression that it was the other way around.
Oh well.. a new mystery!
<NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> Gave us:
>Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in
>news:qd90b2t3cohhi0fm65st1hjqmds081pkiv@4ax.com :
>
>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
>> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>>
>>> The new systems designed
>>>for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the
>>>overall volume of refrigerant sold has gone way down.
>>
>>
>> Hahaha.. That's funny. Consumption has gone down because we don't
>> dump as many tons of refrigerant as we used to. Now, we "RECOVER"
>> refrigerant. Systems are also operating at a lower pressure so ther is
>> less leakage as well.
>>
>
>Doesn't 134a run at a HIGHER pressure than 12 did?
>
I do not know. I am certainly no expert, and was under the
impression that it was the other way around.
Oh well.. a new mystery!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:41:52 GMT, "Eric G."
<NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> Gave us:
>Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in
>news:qd90b2t3cohhi0fm65st1hjqmds081pkiv@4ax.com :
>
>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
>> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>>
>>> The new systems designed
>>>for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the
>>>overall volume of refrigerant sold has gone way down.
>>
>>
>> Hahaha.. That's funny. Consumption has gone down because we don't
>> dump as many tons of refrigerant as we used to. Now, we "RECOVER"
>> refrigerant. Systems are also operating at a lower pressure so ther is
>> less leakage as well.
>>
>
>Doesn't 134a run at a HIGHER pressure than 12 did?
>
I do not know. I am certainly no expert, and was under the
impression that it was the other way around.
Oh well.. a new mystery!
<NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> Gave us:
>Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in
>news:qd90b2t3cohhi0fm65st1hjqmds081pkiv@4ax.com :
>
>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:45:01 -0400, Tom Adkins
>> <newton5@remove.comcast.net> Gave us:
>>
>>> The new systems designed
>>>for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the
>>>overall volume of refrigerant sold has gone way down.
>>
>>
>> Hahaha.. That's funny. Consumption has gone down because we don't
>> dump as many tons of refrigerant as we used to. Now, we "RECOVER"
>> refrigerant. Systems are also operating at a lower pressure so ther is
>> less leakage as well.
>>
>
>Doesn't 134a run at a HIGHER pressure than 12 did?
>
I do not know. I am certainly no expert, and was under the
impression that it was the other way around.
Oh well.. a new mystery!
