News:

The ORG - No shonky business!

Main Menu

AC not cooling that well and need R12

Started by jsilvidi, 13 August 2010, 02:56 PM

AC not converted from R12

Keep R12
6 (54.5%)
Convert
5 (45.5%)

Total Members Voted: 6

thysonsacclaim

There are good points there, but:

1: R134a is being phased out in the US in 2012 as per the EPA website. Hydrocarbons or CO2 will be used instead of most of the hydrofluorocarbons on the market now.

2: Some the replacements are blends, which is worthy of caution like you noted. However, not all of them are.

3: The only problem you will have with R12 replacement refrigerants is whether they are compatible with the lubricant. Some work with mineral oil, which is what R12 used, some use synthetics and some can use BOTH. Envirosafe is safe for BOTH and specifically lists this quality. However, a thorough vacuuming of the system should always be done. You are right about Freeze 12, though, it is a blend.

4: They are not illegal or you couldn't buy a kit marketed for automotive use. There are very strict EPA regulations regarding this. The company has offices in the US and when I spoke to them, they confirmed. This is a rumor that has been helped spread by companies like Dupont, which would rather have us use their branded HFCs. Envirosafe is a flammability 2 gas, which makes it safe for automotive use (see: http://autorefrigerants.com/envirofaq.htm).

For the record:

Autoignition temperatures:

R134a: 1382 F / 750 C
Envirosafe: 1585 F / 863 C

This is per the MSDS for these chemicals, which can be Googled. You ride around in a car with 20+ gallons of gasoline, some of which is vaporous. It can be ignited with a pilot at -45 F and autoignites at 536 F. I'd be far more afraid of the gasoline than a few pounds of an HFC or HC.

Finally, anything that has Hydrogen and Carbon in it is probably flammable to some degree. Hydrocarbon is a term which refers to chemicals which contain Carbon and Hydrogen. Methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, and hexane are common examples. However, sugar can also be classified as a hydrocarbon.

Just because it is referred to as a hydrocarbon does not immediately imply it is treacherously flammable.

alabbasi

#16
Thanks for responding, as I understand, ES-12a is 70% propane, 30% butane blend with the butane used to carry the mineral oil.

I'm not sure where your looking but this is what the EPA website reads about Hydrocarbon based refrigerants and it's crystal clear.

It has been illegal since July 13, 1995 to replace CFC-12 with the HC-12a® formulation that was submitted for SNAP review in any refrigeration or A/C application other than industrial process refrigeration. The same prohibition for OZ-12® took effect on April 18, 1994. Because DURACOOL 12a® has the same chemical composition as the HC-12a® formulation that was submitted for SNAP review (i.e., Hydrocarbon Blend B), DURACOOL 12a® is also subject to the same restrictions.


If this applies to Duracool then it will apply to Envirosafe as it's similar, if not the same.


May hydrocarbon refrigerants be used to replace CFC-12, commonly referred to as "Freon® ," in cars?
No. It is illegal to use hydrocarbon refrigerants like HC-12a® and DURACOOL 12a® as substitutes for CFC-12 in automobile or truck air conditioning under any circumstances.


Is sale of hydrocarbon refrigerants legal?
Sale of substitute refrigerants listed under the SNAP program is not regulated under SNAP. However, statutes and regulations issued by other federal, state, or local agencies may control the sale of these products, including illegal advertising.


So while it may be legal to sell it, it's certainly illegal to use it.

Link is below

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc-12a.html

Why is this important? For the simple reason that if you are going around advising or installing propane in an automotive A/C unit and by some sort of freak accident, something happens that causes injuries to a third party. You will be liable even by making a recommendation on a forum. This is especially critical if your licensed a/c repair or you're in the automotive trade.

Here is the list of alternatives that can be used.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/lists/mvacs.html

ES-12a is not listed.

Now regarding your comment on the 20 gallon gas tank. I have heard this argument before and frankly speaking, it's retarded (no offense). Car manufacturers build cars with gas tanks that are positioned in areas of the car which are well protected.

This argument will only stand if they start mounting gas tanks in front of the radiator so that it's the first thing that will be crushed in a front end accident. This is where the a/c condenser sits and there's a line to it that goes right to the evaporator that sits under the dash and behind the firewall. It was never designed to carry a flammable gas and as a result, no safety measures have been considered for using a flammable gas.

I'm not arguing with the fact that propane does not cool efficiently, but it's not suitable for automotive applications. It works well in static refrigeration units like walk in freezers.

Lastly, R12 is still cheap at around twice the cost of R134. It requires no modification to your system. You just drop in or top up. Any shop can work on your car, all your components will remain under warranty and your not breaking the law. Given all these factors and when it comes to propane based refrigerants which are clearly illegal, is the juice really worth the squeeze?
With best regards

Al
Dallas, TX USA.

thysonsacclaim

I will have to look into the legality of the hydrocarbon replacements. I had not noticed any legal issues before, but thanks for posting the EPA link. I'll make some phone calls and look into it further, as there seems to be conflicting information on this.

QuoteNow regarding your comment on the 20 gallon gas tank. I have heard this argument before and frankly speaking, it's retarded (no offense). Car manufacturers build cars with gas tanks that are positioned in areas of the car which are well protected.

It is nice to avoid ad hominems when presenting your point, they detract from your argument.

While it is true that the gas tanks are generally well protected, my point is that in regards to flammability and combustibility of the chemicals used, gasoline is far more combustible than HFC12, 134a or Envirosafe. Judging by the MSDS, you can also see that R134a is actually more combustible than Envirosafe.

Gasoline must still come up from the tank through the fuel lines and into the injection lines. A hole or leak in any of these lines in the engine bay is dangerous and even more so than refrigerants given the low temperature required to ignite gasoline. However, you still aren't likely to ignite the gasoline without a spark. The auto-ignition temperature would require the gasoline to reach temperatures in excess of 500 degrees F before it would ignite on its own. You have other problems to worry about if your engine compartment is getting this hot.

In the above scenario, if the fuel pump is running, the gas will continue to flow for a while given the large quantity of gas in the tank, as long as the engine is running.

In a refrigerant system, the system is under pressure and there is a much more limited amount of chemical in the first place; generally only a few pounds worth. Because of the large difference in the pressure gradient (atmospheric pressure versus AC system pressure), the gas will escape fairly quickly in the event that a hole is present or is created. Slow leaks do occur, but this is generally due to porosity in the hoses which can come with age.

If you have a slow leak, you are probably not losing enough for it to be a problem for safety.

If you have a fast leak, it is likely to all escape before you can have a problem. A fully pressurized system will completely discharge in only a few seconds, to perhaps a minute, in the presence of a hole. The action of the compressor will continue to force the gas out as long as it is operating.

In any case, you will fully evacuate the refrigerant system far before you will the gas tank via a leak. You can reasonably argue that the longer the time the chemical is leaking, the more potential there is for a problem. Hence, I would rather experience a refrigerant leak before a gasoline leak.

And regarding the legality, I believe what you are referring to is case specific. It probably has to do with semantics and state laws, however it clearly states on the Enviro-Safe website that it is legal to use, as long as the system is retrofitted (which is what the Retrofit kit does):


Is it legal to use Enviro-Safe™ Refrigerant in automotive applications?

Yes, in most countries throughout the world.

However, in the United States, the US EPA adopted the SNAP (Significant New Alternative Policy) concerning R12 systems, global warming and ozone depletion.  Pre-1994 mobile air conditioning systems operated on CFC R12, which has been ruled environmentally unsafe because it contributes to global warming and ozone depletion.  All R12 systems must be retrofitted prior to using any alternative or environmentally safe refrigerant.  Please note:  In the United States, Enviro-Safe Refrigerant is not a drop in replacement for R12.

Enviro-Safe Refrigerant may be used to replace HFC 134a and R12 substitutes in the majority of states within the United States.  Enviro-Safe advises that you refer to your local, state and federal laws governing the sale and use of any refrigerant.

http://www.es-refrigerants.com/resources/faq/w/id/18/details.asp


Also, it is worth noting that 134a will be phased out soon. I cannot yet find what will be used, but it will probably be hydrocarbons or CO2.

alabbasi

Hello

Again, i'm not questioning the cooling properties of propane/butane mix. Whatever the Envirosafe website states is marketing as far as I'm concerned and discussing it is pointless when the EPA website is very clear about such gases being used in motor vehicles.

The EPA website does not list it on the list of approved alternatives so it's not approved.

Gasoline is flammable, it still does not change the fact that safety has been built into design of a car for many years for the handling of a gasoline and there are no safety measures in place for having propane in your A/C system. A 50 year old pickup truck ran perfectly well with the gas tank located behind the bench seat but at some point, it was relocated under the bed. The same applies to your your fuel pump example. If the engine is not getting fuel, then it will cut out and the fuel pump will turn off. The last car that I owned where the fuel pump will run constantly was a 73 MG.

I'm sure that under the right conditions, propane is difficult to burn, however in the event that the system leaks, it becomes very easy to burn and there are no fail safe mechanisms in place to prevent leaks from occurring. You only have to turn on your grill to see that.

A leak can be slow enough to take days to vent be enough to create an engine fire. I had my a/c leak over a space of 3 days and In the past and I could hear it hiss. It's not just on or off.

If your referring to adding a sticker and changing the fittings as retrofitting, this does not address the safety issues so i very much doubt that this will be acceptable in order to make it legal.

If you want to use it, then this is your prerogative. you may have done your reading and are willing to take your chances. But advising people who probably don't know any better is another thing.

If you buy cans or R12, it's very likely that you can completely charge your a/c for $60-100. If your a/c is leak free, then the charge will last many years. There is no shortage, and it's readily available.

Apart from the fact that it's illegal, for anyone reading this thread who considers propane as an attractive alternative to R12 in the US, when R12 is so affordable and readily available. It's likely that this person is cheap, and they are nursing along an a/c system which is in poor state, or untested. 

Because of this, they don't want to spring for R12 as they're worried that it will leak; so instead, they'll put a highly flammable gas in a leaky system.

I don't care if you use it, but it's bad advice to present it to others as an alternative.
With best regards

Al
Dallas, TX USA.

thysonsacclaim

#19
The EPA strictly enforces advertising products that are not legal to use. The website explicitly states it can be used in most states legally. The company and website are located in the USA. While you claim it is purely marketing, I highly doubt the company would sell an unapproved product and explicitly state it is legal to do so.

That is just asking for legal problems, fines, law suits, etc. It clearly states it is illegal in R12 systems ONLY if they have not been retrofitted. If I was to pick between listening to random hearsay or a company which has its own legal experts and lawyers, I would definitely go for listening to the company. They would clearly NOT put themselves at such a liability, so openly.

QuoteThe EPA website does not list it on the list of approved alternatives so it's not approved.

It's NOT approved as DROP-IN replacement for R12. In other words, you MUST make changes (ie the fittings).

And YES the fittings ARE what is required by law. You can check this for yourself. This is the SAME for converting R12 to 134a. You MUST change the fittings, which is why they come in retrofit kits. They must be converted from Schrader valves to quick disconnected valves, which are sized differently on the low and high pressure sides. [See: http://www.autorefrigerants.com/Envirotechnical.htm]

What you fail to mention is that 134a is more volatile than E-S. This is clearly stated in the MSDS, which is considered a legal document. If the volatility and combustibility are lower than 134a, then most likely anything designed to be compatible with 134a will be sufficient. We put 134a into R12 systems. If it is okay for 134a, then by association it is okay for E-S. It ignites at a higher temperature, even at higher pressures.

QuoteApart from the fact that it's illegal, for anyone reading this thread who considers propane as an attractive alternative to R12 in the US, when R12 is so affordable and readily available. It's likely that this person is cheap, and they are nursing along an a/c system which is in poor state, or untested.  

You are also able to use less. .41 pounds of E-S is equivalent to 1 pound of R12. R12 is still more expensive than converting to 134a or E-S. E-S cools 40% better than 134a and 32% better than R12. Combined with the fact that it is cheaper, there is no problem aside from your alleged safety and legal issues, which are unfounded. Read the MSDS for all three products.

Quote
Because of this, they don't want to spring for R12 as they're worried that it will leak; so instead, they'll put a highly flammable gas in a leaky system.

That's a rather poor accusation. I would use 134a if it wasn't for the fact that E-S cools more efficiently and is pretty much the same price. It's probably a good idea to avoid making unfounded assumptions about people's intentions. And again, check the MSDS. 134a is MORE flammable than E-S.


EPA's Final Rule, issued April 1, 1994, states:

"In this final rule, the Agency has determined that second generation replacements, if they are non-ozone depleting and are replacing non-ozone depleting first generation alternatives, are exempt from reporting requirements under Section 612

'If an automotive system is "first generation" (has 134a fittings and contains no Freon ) it may accept a "second generation" refrigerant like ENVIRO-SAFE.'"

This is WHY you cannot convert directly from R12 to E-S but you can convert from 134a to E-S, directly. In other words, you already have the proper fittings in place. However, if you retrofit the system, you can replace R12 with E-S. You must have the fittings.

If you have retrofitted a car from R12 to 134a, you would know that you need the fittings and the decal for it to be legal in the US. The hoses are a non-issue for E-S, but its always a good idea to replace everything anyway.

alabbasi

I think you need to go back and read it more carefully. Adding new fittings and a sticker does not change the fact that HC based refrigerants are not legal for automotive use.

Again quoiting the EPA site:

May hydrocarbon refrigerants be used to replace CFC-12, commonly referred to as "Freon® ," in cars?

No. It is illegal to use hydrocarbon refrigerants like HC-12a® and DURACOOL 12a® as substitutes for CFC-12 in automobile or truck air conditioning under any circumstances.

I'm pretty sure this does not mean under any circumstances except for what it says on the envirosafe website.

I don't know what you mean about converting from R134 vs R12 to ES. Anytime you change refrigerants, you must evacuate the system, install fittings that are unique to that refrigerant and label accordingly. If ES is using R134 fittings, this re-enforces the fact that it's not approved by EPA (in case everything that I posted from the EPA web site doesn't drum that in already).

The only thing that "drop in" means is that it is compatible with R12 mineral oil. You have to evacuate the system, use unique fittings and label for any conversion.
With best regards

Al
Dallas, TX USA.

thysonsacclaim

#21
What it means is that newer non-ozone depleting gases are exempt from some of the regulations imposed upon first generation gases.

Pre-1994 mobile air conditioning systems operated on CFC R12, which has been ruled environmentally unsafe because it contributes to global warming and ozone depletion.  All R12 systems must be retrofitted prior to using any alternative or environmentally safe refrigerant.  Please note:  In the United States, Enviro-Safe Refrigerant is not a drop in replacement for R12.

Drop in replacement referring to the fact that you cannot simply put it in without making changes to the system. It is NOT referring to the mineral oil issue. In fact, it clearly states on the site that E-S is compatible with BOTH types of oil.

Enviro-Safe Refrigerant does not fall under or within the guidelines set forth by Congress concerning global warming or ozone depletion because it is an environmentally safe, non-global warming and non-ozone depleting product.

According to the US EPA website, under the SNAP rule, the EPA regulates/reviews substitutes for CFC R12.  Direct replacements for CFC R12 are called "first generation" substitutes.  HFC 134a is a replacement for R12 because it does not threaten the ozone layer and, therefore, it is a "first generation" replacement.  Enviro-Safe Refrigerant is considered a "second generation" substitute for HFC 134a and other CFC R12 substitutes.

Therefore, Enviro-Safe Refrigerant does not require "approval" to be used or sold as a HFC 134a or other CFC R12 substitute.


I suggest you read about SNAP more in depth to see why E-S is not regulated. I have a feeling the information on the site is outdated because:

"EPA Approves First Climate-Friendly Hydrocarbon Refrigerant in U.S."

http://www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Breaking_News/2010/07/20/EPA-Approves-First-Climate-Friendly-Hydrocarbon-Refrigerant-in-U-S

Clearly it says hydrocarbon. Clearly these are alkanes (such as propane):

"The refrigerant – the first hydrocarbon refrigerant approved by the EPA for sale in the United States - is a patented blend of ethane, propane, butane, and other hydrocarbons..."

I will stick to what their web site says. They are clearly more informed about this issue than both of us. I sincerely doubt they would put themselves in such legal jeopardy as to say, quite clearly, that it is legal for automotive use. If the company were based in China, perhaps I could see your point. However, they are based in the US.


alabbasi

I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this issue. Your argument is based on faith that the ES site is telling you the truth and feelings that the EPA is not moving as quickly as it should.

Go back and read the facts on the EPA website http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc-12a.html
ES-12a is no different to Duracool or HC-12a.

The EPA website cannot be more plain. It even states:

Note that EPA refers to the chemical composition of HC-12a® as Hydrocarbon Blend B. EPA considers any substance with that chemical composition, no matter what its trade name is, to be Hydrocarbon Blend B and to have the same legal status that HC-12a® has.

The part about converting from R134a instead of R12 is laughable, It's smoke and mirrors, probably created by lawyers in order to keep them from being sued.

If it's not a drop in replacement for R12 then what is it a drop in replacement for? Tomatoes?

How does adding R134 fittings to an R12 system and putting a label on it suddenly make it legal to use in the same R12 system pror to adding labels and fittings?

What is suddenly different from the system or is this some sort of loophole that they are trying to use to get them off the hook?

Are you really buying this?

As I said before, I could not care less if you use it or not. However, you're are promoting this product (which is basically over priced barbecue gas, and you can achieve the same results for $5 to charge your whole system using a small can that they sell for portable grills) and i'm responding so that other members can see the facts and make an informed decision.

I think that this is about as clear as I'm going to be able to get it so I don't plan on responding any further as I feel that trying to convince anyone who does not get it already will be a waste of my time.
With best regards

Al
Dallas, TX USA.

thysonsacclaim

#23
Im not 'buying' anything. I just think youre oversimplifying what is obviously a very complex issue.

There are exceptions to the rule and I do appreciate you presenting the points. I will check into it further.

On the issue of converting, it is pretty standard to have to change the fittings. Not doing so makes it illegal for gases that are regulated.

Again, it is not a drop in replacement in that you cannot dump it in without making changes. This is the same for converting to 134a from R12. You must change the fittings.

And yes, it is a loophole, as far as I can see. To convert from 134a to E-S is perfectly legal. However, converting from R12 to E-S requires that you put the system in a state useable for 134a (ie change the fittings).

Then it legally becomes a 134a system and since the eco-friendly refrigerants do not adhere to the same rules as 134a and R12, you can keep the fittings intact. They are, at this point, unregulated because there are no standards yet.

I completely understand your concerns and I really do appreciate you bringing your point of view in to this. I think it is great to have both sides of the story. However, the issue is clearly very complex and neither of us are experts.

I know you wont be replying to this again, however I will take due care to contact E-S again so I can clarify the issue further. I dont want anyone getting in trouble based on incorrect information.

I would like to get something in writing, which I will post here.

The main draw to E-S is not the price, it is the cooling efficiency and heat transfer rating. As far as it being simple propane, this is true. However, E-S is actually USP grade (medical grade), standard propane is not required to be 99.999% pure. It can have impurities, some of which could be detrimental to the system.

On a final note, the misconceptions about hydrocarbons are the same as they are for hydrogen and the Hindenburg and the proposed use in cars. It was not the gas that was the problem, but the exterior coating on the balloon, which was an aluminum, with similar composition to solid rocket fuel used in boosters by NASA, that are based on aluminum.

LPG and CNG are now commonly used in vehicle as fuel and are very safe systems.

This is a classic example used in college chemistry textbooks to highlight the misconceptions about gases and flammability and combustibility.

thysonsacclaim

#24
I just got off the phone with E-S and the EPA Branch in Atlanta, Georgia.

FINAL WORD after calling BOTH the EPA and Enviro-Safe:

It is NOT legal to put straight into an R12 system. The SNAP gases can be put into R12 systems with no modifications (ie you do not have to change the fittings).

It is legal to put straight into an R134a system.

However, by using the R134a retrofit kit (the decal and Schrader conversion to quick disconnect system), your R12 system is OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY then considered an R134a system. This is why that decal is REQUIRED by LAW. It is considered a legal statement that the system has been converted.

Therefore, it is perfectly legal to put the gas into the vehicle in an R12 system, as LONG as you retrofit the system as if you were going to fill it with R134a. The E-S kit comes with this.

Period. End of story. I encourage you to call both the EPA and E-S to confirm this is the case.

The link on the EPA site saying you cannot put it into an R12 system is CORRECT. However, once you convert the fittings and place the decal, it is NO LONGER LEGALLY CONSIDERED AN R12 SYSTEM

E-S:
Telephone: (309) 346-1110
Toll-Free: (888) 913-1110

EPA:
Phone: (404) 562-9900
Toll Free: 1-800-241-1754

Bottom line:

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO USE IN YOUR R12 SYSTEM IF YOU CONVERT IT TO BE ABLE ACCEPT R134a FIRST

There is absolutely no arguing with this. Call them BOTH yourself.


As I told you before, it is an issue of semantics.

Your argument clearly falls on its face and you should have looked into it further. The only thing you could continue to argue about, is the fact that it is propane. However, propane is used in all kinds of applications and gasoline vehicle are constantly being converted to CNG or LPG, particularly city buses, taxis and so forth.

If it is safe enough to use in a state where it is COMBUSTING, I see no problem with it being use as a refrigerant. If you have ever worked on a farm, you would know the majority of them now use vehicles which run on propane and carry massive tanks of it in the beds of the truck. If it is okay to carry several dozen pounds of it, I see no reason to worry about 1-2 pounds in the compressor.

THE ONLY RESTRICTION FOR HYDROCARBONS WERE THAT THEY ARE NOT YET APPROVED AS SNAP GASES; THOSE WHICH CAN BE DROPPED IN WITH NO MODIFICATIONS TO THE SYSTEM.

thysonsacclaim

I would also like to add that the gas R134a has been linked to non-malignant testicular tumors. It also decomposes it to very toxic gases. Exposure can also be lethal at 500,000 PPM. I am not sure about the toxicity of R12.

Propane and similar alkanes and cyclicalkanes to not have this problem. The only problem would be if you inhaled too much of it as to displace O2. This would require quite a bit of inhalation.

E-S is also scented with a very powerful Pine scent which would immediately let you know if there was a leak.

alabbasi

OK, you bated me back in to make one last post.

My argument is well detailed in the thread which is pretty clear and stands up well.  

1) If you want to use it then use it, but don't go recommending it to people who don't know any better. If for anything, at least consider your own liability.
2) R12 is still cheap, as is a number of alternatives out that which will cool well without being flammable, I mentioned one (R406a) which I have tested and works very well.
3) The retrofitting to R134 before using propane is a loop hole that would not stand up in the event that someone takes legal action against you if an accident occurs because the system in your car is not designed to run propane or R134 and there is more to an R134 system then just fittings that differentiate it from an R12 system. Adding fittings wont change that but it may allow you to fly under the radar as long as nothing happens. In the event that there is a problem, you won't have a leg to stand on.

Your argument reminds me of commercials that sell magic diet pills, all are advertised as perfectly safe and perfectly legal as long as you turn a blind eye to common sense.
With best regards

Al
Dallas, TX USA.

thysonsacclaim

1) I went through the effort of calling E-S and the Atlanta branch of the EPA. If they "don't know better," they can easily call both of those places and they will verify what I have said is true. I provided both of the numbers above. I am considering my liability, as I recently received MVAC certification, which I alluded to my desire to get earlier in this thread. Having these certifications carries greater liabilities than if you were someone without them. I am much more legally liable than anyone who does not have these certifications, if I did something that violated the EPAs regulations.

2) If you follow up on what is being done in Europe, and soon in the US, almost all HFCs and similar ozone-depleting and global warming refrigerants will soon be discontinued. 134a is on its way out in just a few years. Even Dupont and other companies are now working on and submitting approval for hydrocarbon based refrigerants or hydrocarbon blends. The only other chemical I saw being tested was CO2, which requires extraordinarily high pressures that will not function in standard systems without a complete overhaul (ie new everything to withstand the intense pressures).

3) You may consider it a loop hole, however the EPA explicitly made that concession to allow for second generation, non-ozone, low global warming effect refrigerants. It stands the legal test because the EPA explicitly allowed this in 1994, which is around when they began approving SNAP drop-ins and to make the process easier for better refrigerants for the future to be approved.

4) Also, almost any refrigerant can be used in a system as long as it can operate at the required pressures and temperature and is legal to use. You just need to ensure you are compensating for the gas volume. As I said before, when you retrofit an R12 system with the decal and fittings, it legally becomes a 134a system, which then allows it to be converted to newer non-ozone, non-global warming gases. The primary difference between most AC systems is the operating temperature, lubricant and whether barrier hoses are required. As long as the gas can cool efficiently in the system and is legal, it can be used. The fittings are the primary problem as different gases use different fittings, and in most case you will need to change them accordingly. However, the EPA explicitly allows second generation gases to be deregulated in this regard, allowing them to use 134a quick-disconnect fittings. This was done to facilitate growth and R&D for better refrigerants.

5) R134a works PERFECTLY fine in R12 systems. The systems do not vary much at all because they ALL work on the exact same concept and even use the same components. The only problems any ever has is in regards to the barrier hoses due to the molecular size difference and the fact that 134a does not displace heat as efficiently as R12. This has nothing to do with the R12 system, but the actual properties of the gas itself. A quick look around and you will see that many of the components use for vehicles pre- and post R12 were exactly the same receiver driers, condensers, fans and compressors. Go ahead and check vehicles for which the model did not change but where the refrigerant did. The only changed by many companies was the gas being used. Later on, they made slight modifications to attempt to improve the cooling of 134a, but this has very little effect and is not a major mechanical difference. They merely made them more efficient by reducing friction. The systems are essentially the same as they have been for ages. If you put R12 into one of the newer, more efficient 134a compressors, it would also cool better than older R12 systems simply because they did things to reduce friction, etc, to compensate for the fact that 134a does not transfer heat as effectively as R12.

6) Look at the latest trend in what is currently being submitted for next-generation refrigerant replacements. It is almost certain that hydrocarbon blends will be used. Europe is completely phasing out 134a by 2017 and the US will start the process in 2012. Check the latest submissions to the EPA, and you will see all the gases being put forward for approval in MVAC and HVAC are alkane hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon blends (ethane, propane, butane, isobutane, et al).

7) And no, it is not magic diet pills argument. I am surprised for the amount of disrespect you show when trying to have a reasonable, logically formulated and factual argument. It is really not a good show of character to constantly insult people, when I have never insulted you or your arguments. I have merely pointed out the information I found and encouraged you to check it on your own to verify it since you repeatedly refused to accept it. Your failure to do this does not reflect anything on my argument.

Would you like my MVAC license number? Perhaps you should apply for the certification as well. It is fairly inexpensive and allows you to purchase R12 directly, as well as other gases which consumers generally cannot buy and in quantities larger than those available to consumers. It is a very informative certification to have and you will learn about the various semantics that are involved when dealing with the EPA and refrigerant systems.

Give the information from the EPA, E-S, MVAC certification and my background in organic chemistry and biochemistry, and certification with the American Chemical Society, I am fairly certain I have a sound argument with regards to this issue. Would you like my CV as well as my ACS and MVAC license numbers? I don't take lightly the fact that you continue to disregard the information I have provided, but am more than willing to supply you with all of the information I have available. Even without my CV or license number, you could easily call E-S and the EPA to confirm everything I have said to be true.

If you continue to deny these facts, I encourage you to please call the EPA and ask for yourself instead of continuing to disagree with what I have said. What I was told by them and E-S is rock solid and legal sound information.

What I will say is that yes, if you convert to something besides 134a or R12, most companies will not discharge it YET (but will soon have to, because fairly soon the refrigerants will be changing anyway). Since the hydrocarbon blends are all using alkanes, which is a particular type of organic compound which includes ethane, methane, propane, butane, etc... these are all very simple to to separate from one another. It is done in the same manner that crude petroleum is fractioned. They have different molecular weights, and you can use distillation or centrifugal force systems to easily separate them from one another. Therefore, I would not be surprised that when HCs are used commonly, they will be able to evacuate any HC you have, since they are fairly easy to separate from one another and purify.

Some of your other points were good as well (gas blends leaking at different rates, etc).

However, it is misguided to think the propane is any more dangerous than anything else that is is in a vehicle. Propane was used for decades in refrigerators before the advent of electricity and the systems were very safe. In fact, they are still used in parts of the world without readily available access to electricity. Even the models from the early 20th century still function perfectly, provided there are no leaks. I actually own one of these models because I live in Florida. We lose power frequently here during the hurricanes and it is important to be able to keep perishable items cold in the event of an emergency.

In the absence of a pilot or spark, it is not as easy to ignite as you believe. Propane is a very light gas and dissipates fairly quickly, particularly given the small amount required in an MVAC system.

By organic standards, this is a very small compound:
   H  H H
    |  |  |
H-C-C-C-H
    |  |  |
   H  H  H

Weighing only 44.1 g/mol^(−1), it is a bit heavier than air which will make it actually sink in the presence of it, which is primarily Nitrogen, not rise and collect under the hood as you may assume. Please don't forget that CNG and LPG (a combo of propane and butane) are commonly used as vehicle fuels all the time. Do you really think a few pounds of propane in an AC system is more dangerous than the city buses which carry probably much more than several dozen pounds of propane, which is probably under higher pressures? If that were the case, I'm sure everyone would be terrified to drive around CNG or LPG powered vehicles.

You're worried about a collision involving the gas escaping and somehow spontaneously exploding. It requires a pilot to ignite it in the first place, unless you already have a fire or flame in the engine compartment, it is not simply going to explode on its own. You should actually acquire .41 pounds of propane and see how small of an explosion it actually is. It would fill a medium sized balloon!

And remember, 134a auto-ignites at a lower temperature anyway! Again, check the MSDS. It is fairly easy to Google them.

If you don't agree, that's fine. But don't spread misinformation. I have thoroughly looked into this and it is entirely legal provided you follow the proper procedures, which are the same as converting from R12 to 134a.

alabbasi

#28
In response to your points one by one.

1) I don't plan on spending any more time on this. I have 3 jugs of R12 for my personal use. It's cheap and readily available and 100% legal.

2) There are plenty of approved non flammable blends on sale today. They are listed on the EPA website as compatible alternatives to R12.

3) It's a loop hole, you even conceded to that in a prior post (before editing). Adding fittings and a label is not a modification to the system. R134 systems support higher pressures which means that the system is more robust by nature and lined hoses are used. I don't know if this has a bearing or not, but the law is clear about replacing R12 with ES-12a. Adding an extra step so that you can say "well, i did not replace R12 with ES-12a, I replaced R12 with R134 and then with ES-12a (except, I did not change the oil, flush the system or add R134a) is not exactly kosher. It's a loophole right?

4) Your explanation here reinforces the fact that it's a loophole.

5) If you feel this way, then why not covert to R134? It's readily available and anyone who works on the car won't trash their supply because you have R134 fittings and another gas in place.

6) Trends do not represent existing law.

7) No disrespect intended, I thought that you made a bad assumption by indicating that if it's on the ES website, then it must be true. The EPA website states:   May hydrocarbon refrigerants be used to replace CFC-12, commonly referred to as "Freon® ," in cars?No. It is illegal to use hydrocarbon refrigerants like HC-12a® and DURACOOL 12a® as substitutes for CFC-12 in automobile or truck air conditioning under any circumstances.

As you indicated that you felt that the EPA would regulate better. I used the example of diet pills as I thought it was a good example. One would expect that the FDA would regulate better, but they did not, people died and others got sued.

Another bad assumption is to assume that you're the only person who has certification. It's not rocket science. What makes you think that I don't?

I guess you need to re-read my postings, to summarize once again, seeing as you're making a lot of insinuations about my misguided viewpoint, I will clarify for you.

You wrote: Propane was used for decades in refrigerators before the advent of electricity and the systems were very safe.

I'm not arguing with the fact that propane does not cool efficiently, I've said this many times on this tread. The law states that it's not suitable for applications in a car's A/C as it's currently designed because it has not been tested. It works well in static refrigeration units like walk in freezers.

As I posted this already, what's your point about propane being used in fridges before the advent electricity?

Did the fridge really come before the advent of electricity?

You wrote: You're worried about a collision involving the gas escaping and somehow spontaneously exploding. It requires a pilot to ignite it in the first place

Right, a loose plug wire is enough to cause that, agreed? I'm worried about the exceptions, not the norm, this is why safety measures are usually put in place right?

Again going back to the EPA website, they state the same thing:

Why is it legal to use hydrocarbon refrigerants as CFC-12 substitutes in industrial process refrigeration, but not elsewhere?
EPA has not yet received data that adequately address the safety issues of hydrocarbon refrigerants in applications other than industrial process refrigeration. Flammability risks depend on the type of refrigeration or air-conditioning system. Industrial process refrigeration, for instance, does not include air conditioning, which pipes refrigerated air directly into occupied areas. Industrial process refrigeration generally refers to complex customized appliances used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing industries. Direct risk to human health is reduced in industrial process refrigeration; for example, access to areas near the system is typically restricted. In addition, other regulations exist to protect the safety of industrial workers.


Do you not understand the above statement? You wrote: If you don't agree, that's fine. But don't spread misinformation

I've referenced once source and that's the EPA website. Are you suggesting that the information on the EPA website is false?

Given that the EPA has not yet received data that adequately address the safety issues of hydrocarbon refrigerants in applications other than industrial process refrigeration. Do you think that adding R134 fittings on top of the R12 fittings will suddenly address the safety issues?

Envirosafe took a different approach to the issue then Duracool or OZ Technologies who wanted to sell the same product as an R12 alternative. They were not allowed to as there is legislation in place regulating alternatives of R12.

OZ techologies petitioned the EPA on a number of occasions without success. See the following letter: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc12cov3.html

Again, safety was the concern.

As R134 is still readily available and legal, it appears that there is no regulation in place for alternatives to R134 so Envirosafe is using this as a loop hole to get around having to submit data to address safety issues. This does not make it safe and I suspect that once R134 is phased out, we will see the similar regulation as we have for R12.

It's clear that you feel very strongly that you're in the right here and I've stated before, if you decide to use it, then it's your prerogative. You seem to have all the data which the EPA does not have. Why don't you present it to the EPA? Why do you think that Enviosafe has not done so already?

I don't mean to sound repetitive, but there really much more that i can say that I have not said before. If either you or Envirosafe can convince the EPA, then you will convince me.
With best regards

Al
Dallas, TX USA.

thysonsacclaim

#29
Why do you continue to argue instead of calling your local EPA branch office? They will explain everything to you and why the SNAP laws exist and why second-generation gases are deregulated at this point.

Give them a call instead of bringing up the same quote on the website. I brought this quote to the attention of E-S and the EPA agent. The quote is referring a direct change from R12 to E-S with no retrofit. If you read about the SNAP gases, the reason they are approved as SNAP gases is because they require no modification (you DO NOT even need to change the fittings).

The companies were trying to get SNAP approval so people would not have to alter their systems (ie change fittings).

"Why is it legal to use hydrocarbon refrigerants as CFC-12 substitutes in industrial process refrigeration, but not elsewhere?"

Again, here they are referring to it as a direct replacement, without modifications. It is no longer legally a CFC-12 system when you convert it.

It took me about 15 minutes to get an EPA agent on the line and another 5 minutes to ask him these questions.

QuoteAnother bad assumption is to assume that you're the only person who has certification. It's not rocket science. What makes you think that I don't?

It's not, but it is completely filled with semantics. Most of it is about learning the legalities (ie a system retrofitted from refrigerant A to refrigerant B is no longer considered to be a Refrigerant A system). The mechanics behind it are very simple. However, if you have MVAC or HVAC certification, you do learn this things and you find out quickly that the EPA is very convoluted.

Out of curiosity, I asked further about venting the gases. The agent said hypothetically, if you filled your system with air (like that we breathe), the moment it is charged into that system, it can legally NOT be vented, even though it is completely harmless. Again, it is about semantics and legalities.

I am not questioning the potential for safety problems, merely stating they aren't very likely. If you would rather be on the safe side, use 134a.

What I am questioning is your continued assertion that it is illegal to do so. It is not.

As far as your comparison of the FDA to the EPA... the EPA has always had more gusto than the FDA in the recent past. Fortunately, they are both cracking down a lot more on false advertising, etc.

So finally:

I am not disagreeing with your thoughts on safety.

I am disagreeing with your thoughts on the legality.

If you really do think it is illegal, by god call the EPA and report E-S or at the very least, ask for clarification. This is what I did and they both gave me the same answer. I really wouldn't consider it a loop hole after speaking with them again. None of the non-ozone depleting, non-global warming gases are regulated the same way as the old CFCs, regardless of what they're made of. They did this on purpose.

QuoteDid the fridge really come before the advent of electricity?

Yes, it did actually. Vaporous gas refrigerators pre-date AC electrical grids, with the first being designed in 1824. They have no moving parts and typically last quite a bit longer than the newer types which use compressors.
http://www.warehouseappliance.com/HowLPfridgeWorks.html

QuoteR134 systems support higher pressures which means that the system is more robust by nature and lined hoses are used.

Actually, R134a requires 124PSI versus 117PSI in R12 in order to cool efficiently. This is a very small difference. You should look into the Ideal Gas Law (pV=nRT). It determines how gases work in various conditions. You should also note that the HI pressure shut off switch in most systems is in excess of 300-450 PSI. Meaning, the temperature of the atmosphere would have to exceed ~190F in order to shut the system down, unless of course you have over charged it.

The pressure of a gas is directly correlated to the amount of space it is filling and its density in that space. Therefore, R12 requires less pressure due to the fact that it cools more efficiently. It is 120.91 g/mol, versus 102.03 g/mol for R134a. 134a requires barrier hoses NOT because of pressure, but because with the extra few pounds of pressure, it is small enough to slip through the pores of the hoses and because it is much more toxic than R12.

Propane, even though it is smaller than 134a, requires less poundage charge for charge. This is because it cools more efficiently. Accordingly, the less mass inside the compressor, then less pressure there will be. Also, because it is a smaller molecule, it has less kinetic energy, meaning it creates less heat in the system when the molecules bounce around (large things have more kinetic potential).

QuoteNo disrespect intended, I thought that you made a bad assumption by indicating that if it's on the ES website, then it must be true. The EPA website states:   May hydrocarbon refrigerants be used to replace CFC-12, commonly referred to as "Freon® ," in cars?No. It is illegal to use hydrocarbon refrigerants like HC-12a® and DURACOOL 12a® as substitutes for CFC-12 in automobile or truck air conditioning under any circumstances.

In regards to this, check to see if it is legal for 134a. You will see that it is perfectly legal to replace E-S with 134a. This further enforces the fact that it is NOT illegal to to replace R12 with E-S, as long as you have the system in a manner for R12 SNAP replacements, such as 134a.

QuoteI've referenced once source and that's the EPA website. Are you suggesting that the information on the EPA website is false?

No. I'm suggesting it doesn't have all of the information there, which is why I asked you why don't you call your local branch office and ask about the legalities?



And finally, I'm fairly certain there are at least a few people on this forum who run converted vehicles on LPG. Should they run in shock and horror from their cars? No. Just use common sense. Hairspray is more flammable than propane.