Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

bigkev on Wed August 14, 2013 12:52 AM

Curious if anybody heard of this accident in Florida? Don't know if its true or not.

http://www.emersonstraw.com/hydrocarbon-refrigerants.php

NickD on Wed August 14, 2013 7:25 AM

It wasn't until the late 40's, "accidents" like this were called, "Acts of God". But it wasn't until the late 60's, attorneys like this guy learned there was a lot of money to be made. That word, "accidents" is more like pure stupidity, Like that kid that hit me, had no business even having a driver's license.

Case dragged on for over three years, my auto and health insurance that I was paying for covered all my medical costs. They sent a bunch of attorneys to my hearing to get a huge share of my claim. And the judge had mercy on this kid, limiting the claim to the amount of liability coverage he had. Then my attorney got his 30%, since the DMV was also present and they issued this driver's license, said let's sue them. Can't sue the government, and the same holds true here if HC's were used in stationary AC equipment.

Wasn't enough money left over for me to get a cup of coffee, so my attorney offered to buy me a cup of coffee. Sure they will hold the tech responsible for not using a refrigerant ID first. That site is an advertisement from a law firm. They don't give a darn about you, just a means for them to make a lot more money at the victims expense.

No longer an Act of God, but an act of crooks.

webbch on Wed August 14, 2013 1:23 PM

Strange. Guy had burns on his lower extremeties - must not have been an MVAC application. Appears the guy vented the refrigerant...possibly while smoking or near a source of ignition? Smells a little fishy, like a number of incriminating details have been left out, which is to be expected from a story by a lawyer on behalf of his client.

Is it legal to vent HC in the US?

HECAT on Wed August 14, 2013 2:10 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
Sure they will hold the tech responsible for not using a refrigerant ID first.

I second that.

-------------------------


HECAT: www.hecatinc.com You support the Forum when you consider www.ackits.com for your a/c parts.

FLUSHING TECHNICAL PAPER vs2.pdf 

TRB on Wed August 14, 2013 3:22 PM

Who are they suing? Vehicle owner or refrigerant supplier? Going to be hard to win a case with so much propaganda by the suppliers saying it is a direct replacement refrigerant for R12!

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

webbch on Wed August 14, 2013 3:39 PM

Not sure there was a vehicle involved in this incident at all. Burns on lower extremities is not consistent with working on a vehicle. Would expect face and arm burns to be more likely for an MVAC application.

The article DOES mention how leakage from a vehicle in conjunction with a lit cigarrette can cause problems, but doesn't state anything about whether the actual incident pertained to a vehicle application or not.

Even if it's not actually illegal (not sure), venting the HC will not earn him any points in court. The most likely outcome of any court ruling would be some kind of law mandating that you MUST identify the refrigerant before working on the system. Because we need more rules....

fireguywtc on Thu August 15, 2013 12:17 PM

A lit, but smoldering cigarette should not ignite any flammable gas. The exception, and its a big "if", is if somehow the person got the cigarette to spark enough to ignite the flammable mixture. Either by flicking it or dropping it. Seems unlikely to me though. The ignition source would more likely be from lighting a cigarette or something else with an open flame.

-------------------------
1970 Ford F250 4x4
2007 Ford F350

NickD on Thu August 15, 2013 4:43 PM

A lit cigarette won't do that, by lighting one would, especially if you are the third guy on the match. Low side port on my Supra is way way down there, but I assumed this is an HVAC application. So try suing the EPA on this issue. CFC's were okay, but they poked holes in Gore's brain.

Ha, practically any manual I read warns against smoking while working on fuel systems, but says nothing about using an acetylene torch. So I guess that is okay.

Practically all home HVAC's I see today are using silver soldered pipes, you definitely need a torch for that. But not a good idea to do this when the system is charged unless you are not playing with a full deck of cards. Bet Gore would try this.

HECAT on Fri August 16, 2013 10:40 AM

I guess the EPA is concerned.

-------------------------

HECAT: www.hecatinc.com You support the Forum when you consider www.ackits.com for your a/c parts.

FLUSHING TECHNICAL PAPER vs2.pdf 

mk378 on Fri August 16, 2013 11:11 AM

Working on home systems, you should never fire up the torch before all the refrigerant is out and the line has been purged with nitrogen. Otherwise it's going to oxidize the copper on the inside of the line and contaminate the system with flakes of black stuff (copper oxide).

NickD on Sat August 17, 2013 7:11 AM

If the EPA already knows the existence of R-290, 22a, 22-A, R-22a, HC-22a, and CARE 40 and is widely advertised as a replacement for genuine R-22, why are they permitting the sale of these HC refrigerants? Who in the hell would pay around a hundred times the price for this stuff to use in home outdoor grille?

Then as I recall, the ozone depletion ratio of R-22 in theory is something like a hundred times less than R-12 where the ozone depletion of R-12 was never proved either! They are still selling R-22 home AC systems, and people are going deep into debt just to buy these way overpriced homes. With no suitable replacement for R-22, no other choice but to replace these R-22 systems at a cost they can't even afford. And talking about hundreds of million homes here.

And it sounds like, just like MVAC with R-12, the people that were suckered into buying these vehicles are going to be liable to meet the new EPA requirements instead of the manufacturers that made a darn good profit off of these items.

Here we go again, EPA is not there to protect the people, but just a handful of billionaires, should be investigated for pure corruption.

Just like R-12, we the people are like sheep, being treated nicely so they can lead us to slaughter.

wptski on Sat August 17, 2013 8:47 AM

Don't know how true this is but I read the Dupont the maker of R-12 pushed the ban on its own product just before the patent ran out on it. Hmm, some pretty good timing, hey?

NickD on Sat August 17, 2013 12:39 PM

Patent on R-12 expired a long long time ago, but they did get a brand new patent on R-134a to help with conspiracy theories.

Ha, this whole thing is about theories. But a theory is just a proposition or a hypotheses. Not a scientific fact until indisputably proven.

mhfd112 on Sat August 17, 2013 1:54 PM

I didn't go read the article, but if there was propane involved it is heavier than air. That would explain burns to the lower extremities.

NickD on Sun August 18, 2013 6:10 AM

Same with LP as opposed to natural gas, heavier than air and can really build up in a basement, where natural gas is lighter and goes up.

When I got that crazy idea of building a home out in the sticks in 1972, LP gas was 9 cents per gallon. But the local contractors were laying a piece of 3/8" copper tubing on the floor, insisted on black pipe well sealed. But in just two short years when that phony energy crisis hit, the price jumped over night from 9 cents per gallon to $1.56. So then instead of costing $72.00 to fill a thousand gallon tank, only to 80% maximum, it was $1,248.00, that hurt. One gallon is 90,000 BTU's as opposed to a therm of natural gas, 100,000 BTU's. In town, that only went up to 27 cents per therm.

Have friends with homes out in the sticks, paying over three bucks a gallon for LP gas, in town, natural gas is 87 cents a therm. Saving a bit on property taxes, but paying a lot more with the price of LP gas. Would never buy a home again using LP gas, besides the safety issues.

Leggie on Mon August 19, 2013 10:04 PM

When you release 16oz of those SuperCool, DuraCool or whatever without the expectation of what it is, that's comparable to popping a hole in a few cans of butane and letting it accumulate.

If the airflow isn't there, it will pool near the ground and ignite if there's a source of ignition present. This kind of fire from gasoline stored in garage or careless use of flammable solvent is rather common.

I wonder what were the circumstances leading to the release. If he "let it loose", it is illegal and an EPA certified tech is expected to not do that, therefore such would mean failed to exercise reasonable duty of care.

Just about all flammable vapors are heavier than air, including gasoline. Hydrogen and methane(which represents majority constituent in natural gas) are a few notable exceptions.

Leggie on Mon August 19, 2013 10:08 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
With no suitable replacement for R-22, no other choice but to replace these R-22 systems at a cost they can't even afford. And talking about hundreds of million homes here.



Actually, there is. A SNAP approved R22 drop in substitute is HFC-438A, called ISCEON MO99

NickD on Tue August 20, 2013 6:36 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: Leggie
Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
With no suitable replacement for R-22, no other choice but to replace these R-22 systems at a cost they can't even afford. And talking about hundreds of million homes here.







Actually, there is. A SNAP approved R22 drop in substitute is HFC-438A, called ISCEON MO99

Didn't know that, obviously not keeping up. But why a 25 pound cylinder? Just like a three pound can of coffee, same size can, but only two pounds in them today. Any kind of trick to make us think we are getting a bargain.

mk378 on Tue August 20, 2013 8:15 AM

Maybe it's not as dense. R-410a has always been sold at net weight 25 lbs because it is less dense than R-22. The cylinder is a larger volume than a R-22 one but only holds 25 lb of R-410a.

Professionals buying them don't really care how much is in a cylinder because whatever it is, they'll pass the cost to the customer.

Edited: Tue August 20, 2013 at 8:18 AM by mk378

HECAT on Tue August 20, 2013 9:34 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: Leggie
Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
With no suitable replacement for R-22, no other choice but to replace these R-22 systems at a cost they can't even afford. And talking about hundreds of million homes here.







Actually, there is. A SNAP approved R22 drop in substitute is HFC-438A, called ISCEON MO99

There are more SNAP approved than just 438a.

-------------------------


HECAT: www.hecatinc.com You support the Forum when you consider www.ackits.com for your a/c parts.

FLUSHING TECHNICAL PAPER vs2.pdf 

Leggie on Tue August 20, 2013 11:15 PM

Quote


There are more SNAP approved than just 438a.

MO99 (R438a) is what came to my mind. Nu22B (R422b) is another one. These are "drop-in" for existing systems which means it can directly substitute R22 with no further work in many cases. This is just like Freeze 12 that works in R12 systems without any changes.

R134a is not a direct drop-in as it requires additives or an oil change.

R410A in contrast can not be made to work in a R22 system at all. It is a substitute for R22 in applications that were traditionally R22.


Quote
Didn't know that, obviously not keeping up. But why a 25 pound cylinder? Just like a three pound can of coffee, same size can, but only two pounds in them today. Any kind of trick to make us think we are getting a bargain.

I'm not sure. The density of R22 and MO99 are almost the same.

R410A is also 25 lbs, but there's good reason for it. 410A is 85% the density of 22 at 115F, so 25 lbs of 410A and 30 lbs of 22 take up the same space. The cylinder needs to have adequate expansion space under all conditions anticipated so it doesn't rupture.

Generally liquid volume is more relevant in refrigeration application but unlike oil, its not possible to handle refrigerant in open air, so measure it by weight.


Edited: Tue August 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM by Leggie

bigkev on Wed August 21, 2013 3:33 AM

What about a cracked heat exchanger and the pilot is still lit? Thats all I could think of this when I seen they where selling this stuff in my local farm supply store as a replacement for r22. Or what if your working on an outside unit and you push the contactors down just to see if the compressor runs, that creates a small spark. What if he went outside and noticed the gas smell so he pulled the ac disconnect so it wouldn't run, that could create a spark. Just to many scenarios that make this seem dangerous. I guess they use the stuff in parts of europe but I would assume their techs are a lot more wary of explosive gas, maybe better training and possible warning sticker and special adapters for the valves should be used for this stuff.

NickD on Wed August 21, 2013 5:27 AM

Tend to think in terms of my little 3 ton unit was able to hand carry to my back yard. Local hospital just replaced their AC unit on top of a ten story building, about the size of a semi-trailer. Had to bring in two huge cranes to lift it up there. Heard a rumor they even have taller buildings in Chicago. AC systems I never even looked at.

Now this is something I know nothing about. Anybody here work on these things?

mk378 on Wed August 21, 2013 7:49 AM

Tall buildings use water loops to move heat around instead of long runs of air duct or refrigerant lines. Ultimately the heat removed from the building ends up being dissipated by a central cooling tower, installed either on the roof or off to the side. Helicopters are commonly used to deliver and remove rooftop equipment that is too large to bring up through the elevator.

wptski on Wed August 21, 2013 7:54 AM

The Ford manufacturing plant that I retired from had many helicopter lifts to put equipment on the roof because cranes won't reach. The area below was cleared of workers during the lift.

I see that mk378 beat me to it.

Edited: Wed August 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM by wptski