9000 air-conditioning service?

Oh, I dunno. I'm about 8,000 trees ahead on the planted-vs-cut score, and I hope that I'm helping in that regard?

Reply to
Dave Hinz
Loading thread data ...

If my reply appears directly below yours in the tree, like right now, I am replying to you. So obviously I didn't reply to you in my prior post.

Reply to
yaofeng

Your reply doesn't appear directly below _anything_, as there is no tree. Have you not noticed that everyone else in Usenet includes context, as I am doing here, to show what and who they are replying to?

Maybe everyone else is wrong, and you've got it right. Yeah, that's probably it.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

lets check the specs. R-12 Vapor Density: 4.26 (Air = 1.0) at 25°C (77°F)

formatting link
R-134a Vapor Density: 3.6 (Air=1.0) @ 25°C (77°F)
formatting link
It looks to me like both are heavier than air, thus neather should ever get up to the ozone layer. I belive they actualy found high levels of freon in the fish by a manufacturing plant. I guess the ozone is replesihed from the sea ;-)

Stephen B.

Reply to
Stephen B.

You only speak for yourself. Don't everyone me. There are variuos ways to post in alt.auto.saab. I do from google. The default setting is no context included.

I am not a computer expert. My guess is neither are you. If I am wrong, please educate me how to include context in my google setting. There must be a way to change my google setting to include context. I just have not gotten around doing it. By the same token there must be a way to display tree in the environment you are in. You would have known if you are one.

Now I am replying to you.

Reply to
yaofeng

I would not be so sure that your argument is the definitive proof R-12 doesn't ever get to the atmosphere to destroy the ozone layer. I am no chemist or chemical engineer. But if it is that simple, the world wide effort to ban the production and use of R-12 which has been in effect for decades is a farce.

I know to some people it is.

Reply to
yaofeng

It's probably a bit more complicated than that, but yes, it's hard to make something that dense, go up a long way and stay there.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Yeah, because lawmakers would _never_ pass a law that wasn't logical or scientifically accurate...

Reply to
Dave Hinz

That is a flaw with google. Choosing to accept an unwise default is like choosing to crap in your pants because that's where your ass happens to be at the time.

You said it yourself, there's a clicky-box to turn it on. And you have no idea of the extent of my computing experience.

Maybe you could google for it.

Because you don't care enough to communicate effectively.

You're right, I am not a tree.

I made my suggestion in the hope that I could show you that by not including context, you're not communicating clearly. Even when you do communicate as clearly as you can, I have yet to see you write anything here of any value.

And now, I am killfiling you. Feel free to respond; I shall not see it. You're not worth the effort to read.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

ROFL - Thanks Dave.

-Fred W

Reply to
Malt_Hound

Well either way, the ozone layer is important enough that I'd rather make some relatively simple changes today rather than risk finding out I was wrong when it's too late.

R-134a does NOT have the same effect on ozone, it's an HFC (hydroflourocarbon), which lacks the chlorine molocules of both R-12 which is a CFC(chlorofluorocarbon) or R-22 which is an HCFC (hydrochlorofluorocarbon). It's the chlorine that reacts to rapidly break down ozone, and CFC's are very stable compounds which means they hang around for a long time in the atmosphere. The hydrogen molecule in HCFC's causes them to break down much more quickly so they have only 5% the ozone depletion factor as CFCs. HFC's have no ozone depletion factor but they are considered a greenhouse gas so it's still illegal to vent them to the atmosphere, that part seems a bit strange to me since those little air duster cans are tetrafluoroethane which is just R-134.

As for whether or not CFC's caused the hole in the ozone, we can measure significant quantities of the compound in the upper atmosphere, it's just basic chemistry that chlorine rapidly breaks down ozone, that's all the evidence I need to say go with the nearly trivial change to R-134.

Reply to
James Sweet

It's just one of those things in life that's easily avoided so why chance it? I'm not convinced that smoking cigarettes would kill me, nor am I convinced that large quantities of pesticides are harmful, or that wading in PCB containing oil is bad for me, playing with mercury or any number of other things like that but I acknoledge that there's evidence out there showing these things are bad for me and therefore I choose not to do them and it doesn't make my life appreciably harder.

Now cars for example I can plainly see are harmful to the environment but I have no feasible alternative at the moment so I'll just have to live with any negative effects.

Reply to
James Sweet

If we're going to "Do something...anything...", we should pick the right things to spend our efforts on. I haven't seen the research to show that R-12 is a real threat. Yes, it destroys ozone, but low-altitude ozone is a pollutant - it only becomes an asset at high altitude, where the heavy CFC can't get to.

Sorry, I should have said "on the ozone layer", not "on ozone". Unless you can show me a peer-reviewed study showing that CFCs can and do get into the ozone layer?

Hm, I use this substance called "compressed air", which, depending on where the compressor is, is fairly neutral in that regard. Seems to work for me.

Can you show me that information? I've tried a couple times and only come up with alarmist sites with lots of rants on them, which I have a hard time taking seriously.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Your reply is extremely out of context. If you look at my post (directly above yours) I am specifically questioning whether CO2 is directly responsible for global warming. Nothing else. I never questioned these other pollutants that you mention, including freon.

-Fred W

Reply to
Malt_Hound

The environmentalists would say that these are irrelevant. The CO2 you and your neighbours produce was absorbed by the plants or animals you consumed to begin with. The CO2 our cars produce has been stored under the earth for millions of years and is only now coming out into the biosphere.

I haven't made up my mind about that.

X.

Reply to
Xenna

Thanks for what?

I thought you guys had a disagreement based on content not form. And Dave had a disagreement based on form. Or is this just about collectively shutting up someone you don't like?

X.

PS: I thought even slrn had threads...

Reply to
Xenna

Relax. This is internet. No one can shut anyone up.

Reply to
yaofeng

I think he was thanking me for making him laugh?

No, my problem with whoever it was the non-context giver, was that he repeatedly posted a standalone sentence with nothing to indicate who or what he was talking to or about. I pointed out that this makes his posts hard to understand, and suggested that he notice that convention is to include enough context to let people know WTF he's talking about.

I never could tell what he was talking about. If his goal is to communicate, he's not doing it well for the reasons I suggested.

It does. It also has a "show only unread messages". A thread display only helps if the other messages are also unread and therefore displayed.

There's a reason that the "include some context so people know what the heck you're talking about" convention developed. There's a difference between being ignorant of it, and in choosing to continue to communicate poorly. He chooses to not quote, I choose not to read him. I'm not shutting him up, I'm just not bothering to read his posts.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

My "Thanks" was for the chuckle. I had never seen that particulat analogy before and it struck me as humorous. You do have a sense of humor, don't you?

Perhaps not...

-Fred W

Reply to
Malt_Hound

OK, I get it now.

I must admit my scatological sense of humor is seriously underdeveloped. Hence my misinterpretation.

X.

Reply to
Xenna

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.