Why is my A/C not very cold?

[5150MyU]

Me say no-but I always say no.

 

[soccerballtux]

I only have one last comment/question on this.

if this is so good, so many benefits, why oh why isnt the manufacturer using it, why doesnt the EPA put its stamp of approval on it?

I will not accept any conspiracy theories as evidence of why its not being used...

if I didnt know better, I would think that duracool was the holy grail for mobile air conditioning....why doesnt every manufacturer use it? gotta save them a ton of cash. plus work a heck of alot better than 134A..

because the EPA is gay aka they want us to move AGAIN from a refridgerant that's already much worse than R12 (when they said it was "an acceptable replacement") to something that's also an "acceptable replacement"? Lie to us twice; no, their stamp of approval, or lack of it in this case, means nothing.

 

[LTC8K6]

Propane is still used in most mobile refrigerators, I believe. In trailers, campers, etc.

 

[heymrdj]

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/macssubs.html

Or if that isn't clear enough:

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

I love how your answers all link to the EPA. Think outside of the global warming fundies. Not denying your information, but you're not using a credible source.

 

[Ferzerp]

I love how your answers all link to the EPA. Think outside of the global warming fundies. Not denying your information, but you're not using a credible source.

See how well that argument goes over in a court in a hypothetical scenario where you are selling the stuff as automobile refrigerant replacement on the internet and suddenly get a very inconvenient knock on your door. Amusingly, you use the phrase "global warming fundies" but the entirety of the reason you can't use it is based on direct physical safety.

This thread is all sorts of fail.

We have one guy vehemently claiming that propane doesn't burn (not exactly, but his argument is that it's difficult to ignite)
The same guy is claiming that a substance widely accepted to be non-flammable at standard oxygen levels and pressures (standard being anything you're going to encounter short of building a pressurized container with a pure oxygen atmosphere) is dangerous and going to burn easier than propane.

No one is arguing that it may function better as a refrigerant, but when you try to support that by making wild claims, it's hard to take you seriously. You come off like the hemp wackos, or the water car conspiracy theorists.

 

[heymrdj]

See how well that argument goes over in a court in a hypothetical scenario where you are selling the stuff as automobile refrigerant replacement on the internet and suddenly get a very inconvenient knock on your door. Amusingly, you use the phrase "global warming fundies" but the entirety of the reason you can't use it is based on direct physical safety.

This thread is all sorts of fail.

We have one guy vehemently claiming that propane doesn't burn (not exactly, but his argument is that it's difficult to ignite)
The same guy is claiming that a substance widely accepted to be non-flammable at standard oxygen levels and pressures (standard being anything you're going to encounter short of building a pressurized container with a pure oxygen atmosphere) is dangerous and going to burn easier than propane.

No one is arguing that it may function better as a refrigerant, but when you try to support that by making wild claims, it's hard to take you seriously.

No, Mr. Fail, the states have all decided where flamable refrigerants can and can't be used. Wisconsin, for example, allows flammable refrigerants in vehicles designed for them. As for why the EPA banned it, utterly and purely global warming. Here, from your own source, that way you know they are not lying.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc12alng.html

 

[Ferzerp]

Yes, what you've linked explains why flammable refrigerants aren't approved, and it directly references physical safety.

Flammable refrigerants pose a special challenge, because air conditioning and refrigeration systems in the US have been designed to use nonflammable refrigerants. They are not designed to protect users, service technicians, and disposal personnel from the possibility of fire. Therefore, the use of flammable refrigerants in existing systems may pose a risk not found with nonflammable fluids.
Although new systems may be designed to provide that protection, they are not specifically designed so today. Demonstrating that a flammable refrigerant can be used safely in current systems, whether existing or new, requires a comprehensive, detailed, scientifically valid risk assessment. EPA has required a risk assessment for flammable refrigerants since the inception of the SNAP program in 1994. An assessment must address potential leak scenarios such as collisions, servicing errors, and disposal procedures. In addition, it must consider ignition sources ranging from cigarette lighters or matches to sparks caused during a collision.

 

[heymrdj]

Yes, what you've linked explains why flammable refrigerants aren't approved, and it directly references physical safety.

Way to quote around the issue. Again flammable ones are allowed in systems designed for them. This is completely up to the manufacturer. The REAL reason, as listed on that page, is that they don't meet the clean air act. You're sounding like a fundie.



How did EPA make this determination?
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to establish a program to review substitutes for ozone-depleting substances, including refrigerants. EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program carries out this mandate. Manufacturers of substitutes must submit information to EPA about the products, including ozone depletion potential, global warming potential, and toxicity and flammability data. EPA then compares these characteristics to both the refrigerant being replaced and the other available substitutes.

 

[Ferzerp]

And no current automotive systems are designed for those refrigerants.

The reason you can't use them is because of the physical risk, nothing to do with anything else.

It's explicitly stated on that page.

Yes, things must meet those other standards as well, but that's not why you can't fill your car AC with propane. That's rejected on the flammability grounds. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at as the source you're citing explicitly agrees with me. It says the words ozone, and warming so suddenly you're blinded to what the source actually says?

 

[heymrdj]

And no current automotive systems are designed for those refrigerants.

The reason you can't use them is because of the physical risk, nothing to do with anything else.

It's explicitly stated on that page.

Yes, things must meet those other standards as well, but that's not why you can't fill your car AC with propane. That's rejected on the flammability grounds. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at as the source you're citing explicitly agrees with me. It says the words ozone, and warming so suddenly you're blinded to what the source actually says?

Your issue is thinking that the EPA WANTS to even try to allow those refrigerants. You can say all day that they are giving things an honest chance. Like most government agencies with a hand in specialities that generate revenue, the EPA is not interested in allowing ones that are not patent held and generate revenue. 4oz of propane is NOT dangerous. It is far more dangerous to have a fuel hose burst under the engine bay (have you ever seen that happen? I have..it's not pretty). They are setting artifically high requirements to maintain a status quo. The page addresses the SNAP issues, you're putting on your blinders to read it as a flammability issue.

 

[Ferzerp]

So basically, epa conspiracy theories and if I don't accept them, I have blinders? Ok.

Fair enough. I think that's the extent of the usefulness of this conversation in light of that info

 

[heymrdj]

So basically, epa conspiracy theories and if I don't accept them, I have blinders? Ok.

Fair enough. I think that's the extent of the usefulness of this conversation in light of that info

Again you shut your eyes. If you want to be the fool that's on you. If you can successfully explain the realities of the flammability requirements the EPA has set you may be able to redeem yourself.

 

[Raizinman]

I thought we were all done with this!?

R1234 which is schedule to be out in all 2013 vehicles and newer, this refrigerant is flammable, just so you know.

From the EPA Website:
Is it legal to replace HFC-134a in a motor vehicle with hydrocarbon refrigerants such as DURACOOL 12a® and HC-12a®?
In certain circumstances, the replacement of HFC-134a in a motor vehicle with hydrocarbon refrigerants might be permitted. At a minimum, in order to avoid violating the Clean Air Act, the motor vehicle A/C system must have either been originally designed for use with HFC-134a refrigerant, or must have been previously retrofitted from CFC-12 to HFC-134a refrigerant, AND no sham retrofit must have occurred to convert the system to the hydrocarbon refrigerant. In order to avoid violating other laws, the replacement of the refrigerant must not violate any state or local prohibition on the use of flammable refrigerants in motor vehicle A/C systems.

So according to the EPA, you can retrofit Duracool to your R134 vehicle. All perfectly legal.

Let’s not also forget federal law: H. R. 2057 (The Right To Repair Act): To protect the rights of consumers to diagnose, service, maintain, and repair their own motor vehicle.

In Texas, they had a law prohibiting the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants in a vehicles A/C system. Three years ago they researched hydrocarbon refrigerants and repealed that law. It is now OK to use hydrocarbon refrigerants in vehicles A/C systems in Texas. More states are moving toward hydrocarbon refrigerants than moving away from it.

 

[Ferzerp]

More power to you then (I can admit when I'm wrong, and it looks like on the legality in some circumstances I am), but stop trying to claim that the risk is less than a non-flammable compound.

 

[Raizinman]

More power to you then (I can admit when I'm wrong, and it looks like on the legality in some circumstances I am), but stop trying to claim that the risk is less than a non-flammable compound.

Ferzerp - I had thought I knew quite a bit about hydrocarbon based refrigerants, but the questions you posed caused me to re-evaluate and re-research my understanding of these refrigerants. You are right, anything flammable such as propane must have some risk even if there is not one incident of an accident. Either way, Duracool has really impressed me to the point that I'm in negotiation with them for a distributorship. If I do get a distributorship, let me know if you want to purchase any Duracool, and I'll sell you your first order at cost.

 

[BUTCH1]

How about this stuff, invented by a mechanic in Hawaii http://www.hcr188c.com/default.aspx just the energy savings alone would be staggering, they are already making compressors for it and it can be used in existing R-134a systems. He's up against global billion dollar company's (DuPont), that might be the only challenge left, amazing that you only need about 30% of this blend vs R-134a..

 

[Raizinman]

How about this stuff, invented by a mechanic in Hawaii http://www.hcr188c.com/default.aspx just the energy savings alone would be staggering, they are already making compressors for it and it can be used in existing R-134a systems. He's up against global billion dollar company's (DuPont), that might be the only challenge left, amazing that you only need about 30% of this blend vs R-134a..

This is basically just a similar gas as Duracool. There are actually many. The claims of this company are basically the same as Duracool. I could not find pricing or a USA distributor whereas you can purchase Duracool in various states including Iowa.

 

[skyking]

at that point, hard wire the compressor and have it run non stop

My truck had been rigged that way when I got it. I assumed there was a failure in the PCM, it controls the AC along with a ton of other functions.
You flipped a toggle switch when you wanted AC.
Recently I restored the wiring back to normal, and guess what, the PCM and AC functions just fine. Not very cold, but fine.
The truck came from Texas and I suspect they did it as a desperate attempt to beat the Texas heat.
If I put it on recirc it keeps up with 100 degree days, barely.

 

[AmandaTech11]

AmandaTech11... Do not post in an old thread such as this just start a new thread with your question or...?

AT Moderator
Bartman39



Have you changed out the winter Freon with summer Freon?

 

[BUTCH1]

Have you changed out the winter Freon with summer Freon?

Your 1st post and you necro a 6yr old thread?, you won't be here long.