Remember ROVAC? The working fluid was the air blown out into the passenger compartment (a similar cycle to what the air conditioning on jet airplanes uses. It worked, but the compressor and ducting were bigger than the car's engine :-) Jets can use the air cycle because they just bleed the compressed air off the jet engines themselves right before it enters the combustors, cool it in a heat exchanger, then let it expand and get REALLY cold on the way into the passenger compartment.
Because he fixes the AC on it.
One of these days when I have some time, I plan to re-do the whole process and put it up on my web site. Right now, it's a fair amount of work that has to wait for car repairs.
I didn't expect to convince anyone by mentioning it. I was saying that I convinced myself, and outlined the procedure I used.
You're looking at "sources" where the CFCs actually hit the air. I was looking at "sources" as in manufacturers. The stuff in your aerosol cans came from the manufacturers, so it was in my estimates.
It's all relative, and depends on the type of car and thoroughness of the restoration. (And at least with aviation, the type of aircraft. I have certainly known middle-class folks who own their own small planes.)
Your posts - you sound like a feckless young imbecile. Not to worry, perhaps someday you will grow out of it. "Dood."
R-12 certainly works better in a system that was designed for it. To give the devil his due, a properly-designed R-134 system should cool just as well.
The R-12 restrictions were brought to us by the same chicken-littles who have stood firmly in the way of the U.S. developing its own energy resources, and who have developed the "human-caused global warming" religion as a means of social control and gaining power.
Neither are particularly toxic. R-134 systems (particularly conversions) are more sensitive to moisture contamination as the oil used absorbs more mositure. In addition, R-134 is less efficient. So it may not perform well in an older system, particularly if that system was just adequate with R-12.
If you knew many people involved in the classic car and hot-rod hobbies you would realize that many of us prefer a "hands-on" approach.
You don't have to be "poor" to gain satisfaction from doing your own repairs and maintenance. This is the case whether it is doing an oil change, a tune-up, an engine rebuild, repairing an air conditioning system, or -- if one has the skills and equipment -- doing a complete restoration or customization of a vehicle that others looked upon as a discarded junker.
I am certainly not wealthy on the scale of the Al Gores, John Kerrys, and John Edwardses of the world who flagrantly use prolific resources to fuel their jet-set lifestyles while berating the rest of us to conserve. But I do OK.
That said, it is POSSIBLE to do R-134 conversion jobs that work just as well as the thing did with R-12. It means changing out the evaporator at the very least, though.
Hey, anything that encourages people to recycle old refrigerants is a good idea to my mind.
--scott
How do you propose doing that when ozone in the lower atmosphere breaks down in less than 15 seconds?
Couldn't say. Why don't we give it to GreenPeace, they've got all the answers, don't they?
That's why the cities never had smog, because ozone decomposes so fast down here.
Daniel Stern, is that you?
:-)
Toyota MDT in MO
That's not a real answer from you.
Did you get that from the same source that told you mankind can't cause major damage to Earth? Ozone at the surface comes from nitrogen oxide reacting with O2.
The news services used to report that scientists said that ozone was a major component of smog. Obviously, you have proven them wrong.
Now will you get the weather forecasters to quit issuing those bogus ozone alerts?
You're not reading correctly.
So you haven't proven them wrong?
Uh, Roger? I think we're in violent agreement. Don't chew *my* butt, I haven't taken a car to a mechanic in *years.* I do everything except paint and body.
Nope, you just have to be smart.
Not even that, necessarily. Sometimes all it takes is adding an auxiliary electric fan. When I converted my '66 and '69 Mopars, I also converted the systems from using an evaporator pressure regulator (prevents evaporator freeze-up by throttling the refrigerant return flow volume to the compressor) to using a thermostatic switch to cycle the compressor clutch instead. They now cool a hot cabin down *faster* than they did with the original EPR system and R-12. Same compressor, same evap and condensor, and in the case of the '69 I didn't even add an auxiliary fan.
No, but after knowing Dan for 16 years I've picked up more than a few lighting facts. Plus I'm an EE and my house is completely converted to CFLs with the exception of the spot lighting in the kitchen :-)
Recent article in Popular Science (July, 2006 page 61) quoted an estimated savings in a 25 bulb house, at present electricity rates of 9.78 cents per KWH, of $1250 over the seven year life of the CFL, compared to incandescents.
A penny saved....
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required