Ouch! Some shops will evacuate for free to retain the R-12. I have one here in California, but usually you don't get something for nothing!

 

I've told my story of unsuccesfully repairing the Aero's A/C, twice by Ford, and three times myself. But my success story is with my Mustang. It only has 3 of those stupid slip-fit couplings in the lines, vs I think 8 in the Aero (rear A/C). I did the fix back in 1993, and filled it with something called HC-12a, an iso-butane based replacement for R-12. It's still blowing cold today.

Yes, iso-butane is explosive when exposed to open flames, but so is R-12 when it's saturated with the vapors of the petroleum based lubricant used in most R-12 systems. I wouldn't want to be around either stuff leaking in a hot engine compartment.

 

Being as I have my refrigerant license, I can't even knowingly and intentionally vent R-134a. All has to be recovered. I don't like hydrocarbon refrigerants. Say you have an evaporator leak. Then your car becomes a bomb if you light up a smoke.

 

The advantage is you don't need some high dollar piece of test equipment for checking leaks, just your $1.99 BBQ flame stick lighter and the phone number of your insurance carrier. A good thing is if you hate your vehicle this is a good time to change.
How many cars loose their world killing R-134a gas from accidents?
I'm surprised the government hasn't forced automobile manufactures to switch over to Ammonia refrigeration.

Oops, gota go back and watch Indy then NHRA later today, Go Greg Anderson.

.....=o&o>.....

 

Uhm, who said R-134a was world killing? In fact, who said that any refrigerant was world killing. I am all for doing things the legal way, but can anyone here provide any proof that any approved refrigerant (includeing R-12) caused any damage to any facet of the environment?

 

I was asking around at AC shops for R-12 and got this "world killing gas" from more than one shop including R-134a. R-134a "isn't as bad but still not good for the planet" also told. As far as the Ozone hole goes it seems to vary in size year to year even after R-12 was banned, controlled by mother nature.

.....=o&o>.....

 

All refrigerants are heavier than air, how do they get up to the Ozone layer. Also, the Ozone hole existed prior to the invention of freeon. Also, the hole is not a hole, but rather a thinning. Other parts of the Ozone, can fluctuate wildly over the corse of a day, up to 40% density, yet it results in very little final change in the amount of high frequency UV light reaching the surface. the Ozone layer at 10% density is almost as efficient at blocking UV-B and UV-C radiation as 100% density. How come Ozone breakdown cannot be simulated in a lab? How come the chemical reactions alleged to be involved do not occur in laboratory conditions? How come the phenomenon cannot be measured?

 

All good points as the world is told hear say and not facts or proven lab tests.
I'll have to ask that question how a heavyer than air gas can get to the ozone layer, good point.
Do any of the R-12 replacement gases work without any long term damage to a older R-12 system that I want to keep on R-12 and not convert to a different gas?
Not wanting to steal starter thread.
.....=o&o>.....

 

I remember reading somewhere that chlorine naturally occurs when volcanoes erupt, and they said that the chlorine and flourine levels in the air match the usage of R-12 over the period of time since it's introduction. R-134a is ozone friendly, but if you have your license you have to practice good refrigerant handling procedures. R-134a is supposedly a greenhouse gas and is supposed to be phased out in the next 40 years. I would like to see some evidence of the effects on our environment too. Also lightning supposedly repairs our ozone layer.

 

I've been working on an atmospheric chemistry project for the last 7 years, for a scientist who has been researching this very topic for the last 40 years. Here is a brief overwiev of the facts:

http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/science/index.cfm

Those with some background in this topic might find some of the doucments here of interest:

http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/docsLinks/index.cfm

The most recent developments have been published in the May 2006 issue of IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing:

http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/docsLinks/publications.cfm

but they are very technical. Some of the PPT presentations by Dr. Reinhard Beer are very informative and understandable by us mortals:

http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/docsLinks/presentations.cfm

Unfortunately, he only mentions in passing the effects of CFC replacements on the ozone life cycle, but there are measruable effects.

 

But my point is, can anyone prove this phenomenon is not a naturally occurring event. Can anyone prove that CFCs did the sort of damage they believe CFCs were responsible for? The Ozone hole was first discovered and monitored over a decade prior to the introduction of freon. It always grows and builds up dureing the warmup cycle, and then normalizes somewhat as the year progresses, followed by a repeat. So what is the chemical process that causes the reduction in ozone, and what is a good reason that naturally occuring chemicals do not cause this proccess? I checked out those links, and not one of the them was actually a scientific test proveing that this was the case. Tell me what the scientific method is and tell me how it relates to these studies?

 

Careful observations made since the 70's by various agencies indicated a steady decline in the concentration of stratospheric ozone. Cyclic variations in strat O3 were observed during this time, but the change in overall average concentrations have exceeded the variations. This decline slowed down around 1996, and the average concentration appeared to have leveled off, but still showing the minor cyclic variations. Some would argue that it's a natural phenomenon, but most scientists believe it is the result of the reduction in the production and of CFCs since the late 80's. Whatever the cause of the decline and the cesation of the decline, the fact remains that the strat O3 concentration is measureably lower than it was in the 70's, when it was first tracked.

CFCs were developed in the 1930's, long before it was discovered that it destroyed the strat O3. CFCs are an excellent working fluid because they are very stable, unless exposed to high energy UV radaition, such as in the strat. There they break down and release their chlorine atoms (Cl) that react with the O3 molecule to form chlorine monoxide (ClO) and O2:

Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2

Then the ClO reacts with free atomic oxygen, also in the strat, to form more O2 and releases the Cl:

ClO + O -> O2 + Cl

The free Cl atom then goes on to react with more O3. It's a catalytic converter that continues to eat up O3 and O to produce O2, which has no UV shielding capability.

We don't have direct proof that if I released the R12 from my car today that it will destroy a certain amount of O3 in the strat tomorrow. But the chemical process is well known, the transport of ground level CFC to the strat is well known, and the effects are well documented. At the same time, we are finding better ways of measuring the effects. With better instrumentation, we will be able to make that direct connection. But if we ignore all the warning signs, by the time we do find your proof, it may be too late.

Let me know if you want references.

 

Xlt4wd90:

But back to the Question Khantyranitar asked,
"All refrigerants are heavier than air, how do they get up to the Ozone layer?"

That's always what I wondered.

I'm more concerned about all the Microwave/Phone Towers they keep putting up. Plus all the Satellite Dishes & Wireless Internet.
It is causing a change in the Electro-Magnetics of the Earth and Sky.
The Weather is affected by Electro-Magnetics and now we are seeing Tornados and Hurricanes in places that never had any.
Plus other weird Weather.........

As I learned in School "For every action, there is a equal and opposite reaction"

JaY

 

Notice, since 1910, global volcanic activity has increased. When Mount St. Helens erupted, it released more chlorine gases than the entire industrial world does in a year. And guess what, these gases where shot into the stratosphere. The ocean releases chlorine gases in enormous quantities. In fact, normal biological processes in the ocean create more chlorine gases per year than the entire industrial world has produced to date. Now, is there one shred on any real evidence that CFC has ever been found in the Ozone? If so, how did it get there. Also note, that mixing chloride and ozone together in a fridige low pressure test chamber, and exposeing it to direct UVC energy results in no decay in the ozone in the chamber. Also, you may claim that CFCs were invented in the 1930s, but CFCs were not found in consumer products until the 1950s.
Heck, the "global warming phenomenon" is a bunch of bogus lies too, since the average global temperature has decreased by 2 degrees since 1820. In fact, if you measure the average temeratures worldwide for the last hundred years, you will see and average increase of 2 degrees, but to get this result, you have to include the unusually high averages found from 1908 - 1929. Since then the actual average temperature has decreased. When Krakatoa erup[ted, the average world temperature dropped by 5 degrees, which clearly shows, major natural events make the most severe human efforts look like a raindrop in the ocean.

In fact, the most severe change in climate that we can actually prove humans were the cause of was the elimination of wolves in most of North America. This reulted in an increase in deer and elk poulations, which caused a decrease in the growth on new forests due the the excessive consumption of the young trees. The older trees begin to die, resulting in deforestation and death of older forests, and unhealthy forests. This in turn results in increased ground temperatures in some areas, which can have an affect on local weather. This phnomenon is very well ducumented in Yellowstone, where these trends could be dated trough tree rings to the point in time the the wolves were eliminated. The trend rapidly began reverseing when the wolves were reintroduced. When one can eliminte outside factors, and actually see what happens when the single variable is removed and reintroduced, that is science. Now, to claim that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causeing global warming, which is not proven to even exist, one would have to date to when excessive amounts of CO2 began entering the atmosphere, and then see where it actually came from, the eliminate that source, and see what happens.

 

Gobal warming, ozone depleion is in the same category as telling ghost stories around a campfire.

ken