Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Those with concerns for thee environment aren't "Leftists".
Jeepers!
In YOUR opinion maybe.
Those with concerns for thee environment aren't "Leftists".
Jeepers!
In YOUR opinion maybe.
MB uses liquid CO2 for AC?
- Thread starter supton
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: quint
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: quint
And in an ironic twist to reduce the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, they fill their system with....CO2.
Except the CO2 that is leaked out has less impact. Don't feel like looking it up, but I recall something about how other refrigerants would cause chemical reactions etc. Much larger impact.
Plus tress and plants could absorb that CO2. R12 not so much.
Yea I know... was just being tongue in cheek about the irony of using more CO2 to combat the effects of too much CO2. The ongoing impact of the chemical reactions of the various other refrigerants is the issue, I do get all of that.
I normally steer clear of these types of threads, they tend to get out of hand very quickly....
So there's GOOD C02 and Baaaaaaaaad CO2 now?
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: quint
And in an ironic twist to reduce the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, they fill their system with....CO2.
Except the CO2 that is leaked out has less impact. Don't feel like looking it up, but I recall something about how other refrigerants would cause chemical reactions etc. Much larger impact.
Plus tress and plants could absorb that CO2. R12 not so much.
Yea I know... was just being tongue in cheek about the irony of using more CO2 to combat the effects of too much CO2. The ongoing impact of the chemical reactions of the various other refrigerants is the issue, I do get all of that.
I normally steer clear of these types of threads, they tend to get out of hand very quickly....
So there's GOOD C02 and Baaaaaaaaad CO2 now?
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Propane works very, very similarly to R-12 in air conditioning systems- the gas/liquid transition temperature and pressure are very close and it readily transports ordinary, old-school mineral lubricating oil. It was a leading candidate to replace R-12, but the flammability issue and industry pressure nixed it except in the quasi-illegal aftermarket realm (regulated shops are at risk if they use it, but you can do whatever you want to your own car without much fear). Now I know, its not really more flammable in a car accident than the oil-loaded mist that can spray out of an R-12 or R-134a system... but I would be a little bit worried about an evaporator leak that lets propane settle into the lowest part of the ductwork... then you start the car and turn on the blower with its arcing commutator... even that's not likely to produce a deadly explosion, but could make enough of a "fuh-WHUMP" to do some damage and injury.
And come on, seriously: Haven't R-134a systems been the most reliable AC systems any of us have ever had? My first R-134a system was in a 1993 vehicle, and it had ONE issue over the course of 250,000 miles- the original evaporator was prone to corrosion and was replaced under a recall. I've converted two old R-12 systems to R-134a (one using an original 1969 Chrysler RV2 compressor), and they've been booking along fine for 10 YEARS! I wouldn't want to go back to R-12 OR propane, necessarily, given how well 134a is working out despite all the dire fears that were rampant in the 1990s.
And what about 134a makes in more reliable that 12? 12 doesn't work it's way through flex hoses and seals as fast as 134. If 12 were to be used in systems upgraded to 124 specs, IT would be "reliable" as well.
Propane works very, very similarly to R-12 in air conditioning systems- the gas/liquid transition temperature and pressure are very close and it readily transports ordinary, old-school mineral lubricating oil. It was a leading candidate to replace R-12, but the flammability issue and industry pressure nixed it except in the quasi-illegal aftermarket realm (regulated shops are at risk if they use it, but you can do whatever you want to your own car without much fear). Now I know, its not really more flammable in a car accident than the oil-loaded mist that can spray out of an R-12 or R-134a system... but I would be a little bit worried about an evaporator leak that lets propane settle into the lowest part of the ductwork... then you start the car and turn on the blower with its arcing commutator... even that's not likely to produce a deadly explosion, but could make enough of a "fuh-WHUMP" to do some damage and injury.
And come on, seriously: Haven't R-134a systems been the most reliable AC systems any of us have ever had? My first R-134a system was in a 1993 vehicle, and it had ONE issue over the course of 250,000 miles- the original evaporator was prone to corrosion and was replaced under a recall. I've converted two old R-12 systems to R-134a (one using an original 1969 Chrysler RV2 compressor), and they've been booking along fine for 10 YEARS! I wouldn't want to go back to R-12 OR propane, necessarily, given how well 134a is working out despite all the dire fears that were rampant in the 1990s.
And what about 134a makes in more reliable that 12? 12 doesn't work it's way through flex hoses and seals as fast as 134. If 12 were to be used in systems upgraded to 124 specs, IT would be "reliable" as well.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Trav
They are just following the order of the disciples of the climate change religion, it probably sucks like anything else that claims to be green.
Bring back R12!!! In the end, the leftists don't want us prols to have any AC at all. "Environmental policy" don't cha know.
I love my R-12 charged 88 E-150 AC, nice and cold. Way better than a 134 conversion would have been.
Originally Posted By: Trav
They are just following the order of the disciples of the climate change religion, it probably sucks like anything else that claims to be green.
Bring back R12!!! In the end, the leftists don't want us prols to have any AC at all. "Environmental policy" don't cha know.
I love my R-12 charged 88 E-150 AC, nice and cold. Way better than a 134 conversion would have been.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: quint
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: quint
And in an ironic twist to reduce the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, they fill their system with....CO2.
Except the CO2 that is leaked out has less impact. Don't feel like looking it up, but I recall something about how other refrigerants would cause chemical reactions etc. Much larger impact.
Plus tress and plants could absorb that CO2. R12 not so much.
Yea I know... was just being tongue in cheek about the irony of using more CO2 to combat the effects of too much CO2. The ongoing impact of the chemical reactions of the various other refrigerants is the issue, I do get all of that.
I normally steer clear of these types of threads, they tend to get out of hand very quickly....
So there's GOOD C02 and Baaaaaaaaad CO2 now?
There's CO2 that I make, and then there's CO2 that you make...
Originally Posted By: quint
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: quint
And in an ironic twist to reduce the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, they fill their system with....CO2.
Except the CO2 that is leaked out has less impact. Don't feel like looking it up, but I recall something about how other refrigerants would cause chemical reactions etc. Much larger impact.
Plus tress and plants could absorb that CO2. R12 not so much.
Yea I know... was just being tongue in cheek about the irony of using more CO2 to combat the effects of too much CO2. The ongoing impact of the chemical reactions of the various other refrigerants is the issue, I do get all of that.
I normally steer clear of these types of threads, they tend to get out of hand very quickly....
So there's GOOD C02 and Baaaaaaaaad CO2 now?
There's CO2 that I make, and then there's CO2 that you make...
My dad still has a couple of the 30lb jugs of R-12.. Wonder how much its worth these days.. He still has a couple of older cars that haven't been converted.
Originally Posted By: spackard
Originally Posted By: supton
What kind of pressures are going to be required in order to carry the required heat load?
Googling, can find 135 bar high 90 bar low.
That's 1958psi/1305psi. Pretty much puts it up out of the DIY crowd to service.
> Since the critical temperature of carbon dioxide is rather low (31.06°C, 87.908°F), using air-cooling gas coolers in the carbon dioxide refrigeration system might have the poor heat rejection function of high pressure side of the system when ambient temperatures are higher than the critical temperature of carbon dioxide.
I googled up this link
http://www.achrnews.com/articles/94092-co2-as-refrigerant-the-transcritical-cycle
seems to suggest closer to 1000psi than 2000psi.
Originally Posted By: supton
What kind of pressures are going to be required in order to carry the required heat load?
Googling, can find 135 bar high 90 bar low.
That's 1958psi/1305psi. Pretty much puts it up out of the DIY crowd to service.
> Since the critical temperature of carbon dioxide is rather low (31.06°C, 87.908°F), using air-cooling gas coolers in the carbon dioxide refrigeration system might have the poor heat rejection function of high pressure side of the system when ambient temperatures are higher than the critical temperature of carbon dioxide.
I googled up this link
http://www.achrnews.com/articles/94092-co2-as-refrigerant-the-transcritical-cycle
seems to suggest closer to 1000psi than 2000psi.
I used to load industrial refrigerant in NJ and the plant also made propane.
Originally Posted By: supton
Link
How is that going to stack up against "traditional" refrigerants? What kind of pressures are going to be required in order to carry the required heat load?
CO2 IS a "traditional" refrigerant, just like mamonia and Propane and Butane.
They ceased to become "traditional" when a guy called Kettering and a company called dupont started a scare campaign about them in favour of the CFCS.
As the "traditional" CFCs were phased out, every new patent was a worse refrigerant.
Manufacturers are sick of playing the patent catchup game, and going back to simple
I can now buy a bar fridge with a decent energy rating that's got butane refrigerant in it...nearly double the energy rating of the same sized fridge on 134.
As to greehnouse, losing the charge from the 134 system in my Caprice is about the same GHG as driving 4,500 miles.
Link
How is that going to stack up against "traditional" refrigerants? What kind of pressures are going to be required in order to carry the required heat load?
CO2 IS a "traditional" refrigerant, just like mamonia and Propane and Butane.
They ceased to become "traditional" when a guy called Kettering and a company called dupont started a scare campaign about them in favour of the CFCS.
As the "traditional" CFCs were phased out, every new patent was a worse refrigerant.
Manufacturers are sick of playing the patent catchup game, and going back to simple
I can now buy a bar fridge with a decent energy rating that's got butane refrigerant in it...nearly double the energy rating of the same sized fridge on 134.
As to greehnouse, losing the charge from the 134 system in my Caprice is about the same GHG as driving 4,500 miles.
I haven't put R134 in any of my R12 cars. Look at the charts, and you'll the substantial difference in efficiency.
And that's with almost all R12 systems having used serpentine condensers, and most R134 systems using cross flow condensers. Using a propane based refrigerant (Envirosafe), and replacing my original tube-and-fin serpentine condenser with a cross flow, I get 33F vent temps in 98 degree weather with 95% humidity.
I've had a few people honk at me or knock on my window to warn me that I had a radiator leak from the AC in my Caprice dropping so much water. It literally looks like a small faucet running. It takes only a couple of minutes for the water to cross the street and make a puddle.
For giggles, I've put my AC on Max with passengers. I invariably get a "turn that ____ing thing down!".
And that's with almost all R12 systems having used serpentine condensers, and most R134 systems using cross flow condensers. Using a propane based refrigerant (Envirosafe), and replacing my original tube-and-fin serpentine condenser with a cross flow, I get 33F vent temps in 98 degree weather with 95% humidity.
I've had a few people honk at me or knock on my window to warn me that I had a radiator leak from the AC in my Caprice dropping so much water. It literally looks like a small faucet running. It takes only a couple of minutes for the water to cross the street and make a puddle.
For giggles, I've put my AC on Max with passengers. I invariably get a "turn that ____ing thing down!".
This thread makes me wonder what I could swap the R134a in the Jeep to without too much effort. The A/C in it is pretty good already, but not phenomenal (and good luck getting the vent temps under 45* at any ambient temp, I've never been able to).
Mercedes had concerns with R-1234yf being flammable if the AC system was breached in a crash from what I recall.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I haven't put R134 in any of my R12 cars. Look at the charts, and you'll the substantial difference in efficiency.
And that's with almost all R12 systems having used serpentine condensers, and most R134 systems using cross flow condensers. Using a propane based refrigerant (Envirosafe), and replacing my original tube-and-fin serpentine condenser with a cross flow, I get 33F vent temps in 98 degree weather with 95% humidity.
I've had a few people honk at me or knock on my window to warn me that I had a radiator leak from the AC in my Caprice dropping so much water. It literally looks like a small faucet running. It takes only a couple of minutes for the water to cross the street and make a puddle.
For giggles, I've put my AC on Max with passengers. I invariably get a "turn that ____ing thing down!".
Not all R12 systems convert well, but its a lot better than the naysayers claimed. I converted both my '66 and '69, kept the same condensors and evaporators, and they work great- mid-30s vent temps with the fan on high. The trick (for Mopars of that era, anyway) was to eliminate the evaporator pressure regulator (EPR) valve and install a thermal switch to cycle the clutch when the return line drops below freezing. Chrysler used the EPR valve to (more or less) ramp down the load on the compressor as the return refrigerant approached 32F by introducing a controlled restriction in the return line so that the compressor moved less and less refrigerant as the evaporator cooled off. It was less efficient, but you didn't get the surge sensation of starting and stopping the compressor- but it reduced the capacity a bit as well. Take it out and you solve two problems going to R-134a: 1) you get back a lot of capacity that the EPR valve takes away, and 2) EPR valves don't work at all with R-134a though because the pressure vs. temp curve is so fundamentally different and that caused a lot of people to think the conversion "didn't work" when it actually could have.
I haven't put R134 in any of my R12 cars. Look at the charts, and you'll the substantial difference in efficiency.
And that's with almost all R12 systems having used serpentine condensers, and most R134 systems using cross flow condensers. Using a propane based refrigerant (Envirosafe), and replacing my original tube-and-fin serpentine condenser with a cross flow, I get 33F vent temps in 98 degree weather with 95% humidity.
I've had a few people honk at me or knock on my window to warn me that I had a radiator leak from the AC in my Caprice dropping so much water. It literally looks like a small faucet running. It takes only a couple of minutes for the water to cross the street and make a puddle.
For giggles, I've put my AC on Max with passengers. I invariably get a "turn that ____ing thing down!".
Not all R12 systems convert well, but its a lot better than the naysayers claimed. I converted both my '66 and '69, kept the same condensors and evaporators, and they work great- mid-30s vent temps with the fan on high. The trick (for Mopars of that era, anyway) was to eliminate the evaporator pressure regulator (EPR) valve and install a thermal switch to cycle the clutch when the return line drops below freezing. Chrysler used the EPR valve to (more or less) ramp down the load on the compressor as the return refrigerant approached 32F by introducing a controlled restriction in the return line so that the compressor moved less and less refrigerant as the evaporator cooled off. It was less efficient, but you didn't get the surge sensation of starting and stopping the compressor- but it reduced the capacity a bit as well. Take it out and you solve two problems going to R-134a: 1) you get back a lot of capacity that the EPR valve takes away, and 2) EPR valves don't work at all with R-134a though because the pressure vs. temp curve is so fundamentally different and that caused a lot of people to think the conversion "didn't work" when it actually could have.
Pretty sure most gasses can be used as a refrigerant. Mixes such as the air we breathe works if you have a means to compress and expand it. I do it every day in the cryo air sep business.
The CO2 we use mostly comes mostly as a byproduct of the oil, fuel and chemical business. The CO2 in the soda you enjoy probably originated from a hydrochem process. I see this every day as well.
The CO2 we use mostly comes mostly as a byproduct of the oil, fuel and chemical business. The CO2 in the soda you enjoy probably originated from a hydrochem process. I see this every day as well.
You can buy CO2 HVAC systems.
- Status
