I'm with derve do everything you can possibly do to NOT loosen one of the conectors while the vehicle is parked in a non enclosed well ventilated area. Definately do Not leave the vehicle unatended for 10 to 15 minutes so the system will be unable to fully evacuate as this procedure would most assuringly be bad.
Don't ever remember R134 being tauted as wonder refrigerant that would save the world, just that it was "less bad" than R12. Don't remember it being anything but a stop-gap refrigerant either.
The R1234 schedule of implimentation for new vehicles is weird to follow, and there are no mandates to eliminate or restrict R134 for repair and maintenance purposes that I've seen.
foxtrapper wrote: Don't ever remember R134 being tauted as wonder refrigerant that would save the world, just that it was "less bad" than R12. Don't remember it being anything but a stop-gap refrigerant either. The R1234 schedule of implimentation for new vehicles is weird to follow, and there are no mandates to eliminate or restrict R134 for repair and maintenance purposes that I've seen.
Well it was. I've been working in this industry since 1989 and went through the change. There were other alternatives, and they chose that one because they fully believed it did not harm the environment. Some very smart people used to think the earth was flat...
1234 will be in OEM systems within 5 years, but not likely all of them. I'm on the SAE sub-committee that is overseeing it.
Edit - Not sure why I put it that way, but for clarity I'm not on the SAE sub-committee that is determining the implementation of 1234, I'm on the sub-committee for testing systems that use 134 and 1234. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, just typing fast while trying to actually work at work.
dculberson wrote: The mechanism where R12 bonds to ozone is pretty well understood.
This may be true, but if I've learned one thing from getting old, it's that what many times is represented as a scientific fact is later proved wrong. That doesn't mean that we should reject what we "think" we do know, but I think it's always good to keep in mind that everything we know was determined by people, and people, even really smart ones, are many times wrong.
bravenrace wrote:dculberson wrote: The mechanism where R12 bonds to ozone is pretty well understood.This may be true, but if I've learned one thing from getting old, it's that what many times is represented as a scientific fact is later proved wrong. That doesn't mean that we should reject what we "think" we do know, but I think it's always good to keep in mind that everything we know was determined by people, and people, even really smart ones, are many times wrong.
You're right, but it's best to go with the best available knowledge (that might be proved wrong later on) than just your hunch that it might be wrong. Newton and Lamarck's theories both turned out to be wrong, but both were a step in the right direction and an improvement on what was the current knowledge at the time.
bravenrace wrote:dculberson wrote: The mechanism where R12 bonds to ozone is pretty well understood.This may be true, but if I've learned one thing from getting old, it's that what many times is represented as a scientific fact is later proved wrong. That doesn't mean that we should reject what we "think" we do know, but I think it's always good to keep in mind that everything we know was determined by people, and people, even really smart ones, are many times wrong.
Science works pretty dang well, and chemistry is not the dark art it used to be. Agreed that people can - and usually do - get things wrong, though. It's too bad people have to be involved in so many things, life would be so great without them.
(I like to say - science is rational and works great, scientists are irrational shiny happy people.)
In reply to dculberson:
I'm a scientific person myself, so I understand. But everything we think we know is based on something else we think we know, and so on.
I'm not arguing, or saying what gameboy may have interpreted me as saying, just stating that we were wrong with R12 and 134A and apparently CO2, and because of that I am uncertain that 1234 is the answer, that's all. If science has proven anything, it's that science isn't absolute.
bravenrace wrote:foxtrapper wrote: Don't ever remember R134 being tauted as wonder refrigerant that would save the world, just that it was "less bad" than R12. Don't remember it being anything but a stop-gap refrigerant either. The R1234 schedule of implimentation for new vehicles is weird to follow, and there are no mandates to eliminate or restrict R134 for repair and maintenance purposes that I've seen.Well it was. I've been working in this industry since 1989 and went through the change. There were other alternatives, and they chose that one because they fully believed it did not harm the environment. Some very smart people used to think the earth was flat... 1234 will be in OEM systems within 5 years, but not likely all of them. I'm on the SAE sub-committee that is overseeing it.
Funny thing is, I'm sorta in the industry as well, and for about as long, and went through the change also. I'm not on any SAE committee's, and I'm not a refrigeration guy (though I do have some licenses), but I am on the governmental side of the environmental regulations. And like I said, at least from our perspective, R134 was never anything but "less bad", and a temporary measure.
And flat earth thinking works fine for most folk in their every day life.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to dculberson: I'm a scientific person myself, so I understand. But everything we think we know is based on something else we think we know, and so on. I'm not arguing, or saying what gameboy may have interpreted me as saying, just stating that we were wrong with R12 and 134A and apparently CO2, and because of that I am uncertain that 1234 is the answer, that's all. If science has proven anything, it's that science isn't absolute.
I'm not arguing, either, but I don't think we were wrong with R12. You put R12 and ozone together, they react a given way. That's not a guess or opinion, they can test those things and have.
The funny thing to me was that we were using that crap for everything. It was even used in hair spray as propellant for cryin' out loud! It's funny to go from "hosing everything in sight down with R12" to "it's illegal to even make R12."
A funnier thing is that Dupont, who could have made tons of R-12 before it was banned from production but was legal to use, stopped making any more. They may have already stopped making R-134a.
dculberson wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to dculberson: I'm a scientific person myself, so I understand. But everything we think we know is based on something else we think we know, and so on. I'm not arguing, or saying what gameboy may have interpreted me as saying, just stating that we were wrong with R12 and 134A and apparently CO2, and because of that I am uncertain that 1234 is the answer, that's all. If science has proven anything, it's that science isn't absolute.I'm not arguing, either, but I don't think we were wrong with R12. You put R12 and ozone together, they react a given way. That's not a guess or opinion, they can test those things and have. The funny thing to me was that we were using that crap for everything. It was even used in hair spray as propellant for cryin' out loud! It's funny to go from "hosing everything in sight down with R12" to "it's illegal to even make R12."
I meant we were wrong about R-12 to start using it in the first place, not wrong about phasing out.
bravenrace wrote: I meant we were wrong about R-12 to start using it in the first place, not wrong about phasing out.
Heheh, okay, sorry about that.
Fun fact: IIRC, Dupont's patent on R-12 ran out about the same time 134a came into play.
AFAIK, none of these refrigerants (excepting CO2) exists in nature.
All of it that exists has been created within less than 100 years.
Anyone know how much has been produced to date?
It's a good bet that ALL of it has wound up in our atmosphere.
Just sayin'
Edit: Turns out the last statement is wrong, according to Wiki, lots of it gets dissolved into our seawater, where it apparently will linger just about forever....
(chilled shrimp, anyone?)
Kenny_McCormic wrote: Fun fact: IIRC, Dupont's patent on R-12 ran out about the same time 134a came into play.
Oh my goodness! What are you trying to imply!? 
1988RedT2 wrote:Kenny_McCormic wrote: Fun fact: IIRC, Dupont's patent on R-12 ran out about the same time 134a came into play.Oh my goodness! What are you trying to imply!?
Never say never.
dculberson wrote:bravenrace wrote: I meant we were wrong about R-12 to start using it in the first place, not wrong about phasing out.Heheh, okay, sorry about that.
But it was better (at least safer) than what was in use at the time. At the time was develeopd, there were no rockets that could investigate the upper atmosphere. So who knew it was harmful?
I don't know when Dupont's patent for R-12 expired, but R-12 was developed about 1931. There are a lot of odd coincidences surrounding Dupont, refrigerants and bans. But Dupont did try to fight the phasing out of R-134a.
R12 was developed in response to toxicity problems with its precursor ammonia. It seems that the old ammonia cooled refrigerators could leak and if it happened at night when the occupants were sleeping they were done for.
Curmudgeon wrote: R12 was developed in response to toxicity problems with its precursor ammonia. It seems that the old ammonia cooled refrigerators could leak and if it happened at night when the occupants were sleeping they were done for.
Not quite. It was CFC's, of which R12 is one of, that were developed as a replacement for various refrigerants, including ammonia.
Ammonia refrigeration is still rather common, particularly in older or very large commercial applications.
I'd prefer to do it halfway responsibly- if all I was going to do was to have an accident that cracked the system open, the truck would have had one before I found that it was pressurized.
If I can't find someone locally who can do it (I'm thinking I may call up a residential A/C service... there HAVE to be a TON of old household systems- like mine in fact- that are from the 80's and likely still have R-12 in them...), I'm thinking that what I may do is since I'm scrapping the whole truck anyway is to cut the frame and firewall such that I can remove the whole system intact.
I do know of ONE place that still deals with R-12: the shop up North of Cinci that specializes in DeLoreans. Many of them- my own included- still have their original systems running R-12, and the guy there has a huge stock of it and the equipment to service it. I can then just haul the whole system up there with me and have him evacuate it- and hopefully bank what refrigerant is in the system for when I need the D's system charged up. 
Seems like there should be somebody that can recover that for you. Maybe you just haven't found the right place yet?
Another way to do it (partially) would be to get a tank and have put it in a deep vacuum. Then hook it up to your system. You'll recover whatever amount you can until the pressures equalize. Not ideal, but better than blowing it off.
Again, I have an R-12 recovery unit in need of repair that I'll give you. I actually have three of them that need repaired, so you could take your pic. If you are near Cinci, I'll be at the U of C on the evening of Oct 18th and could bring it to you. No problem either way, just offering.
In reply to bravenrace:
I just talked to one of the residential services, and while they don't do it themselves, they did suggest that I see if any of the automotive places have any containers with 'contaminated refrigerant' in them- and that if they do, they should be able to evacuate the R-12 into that container without issue.
I'm unfortunately down in Lexington and won't be around Cinci at that time, but I do have friends up there who might be able to snag the recovery unit from you. I assume it's capable of both evacuating and filling? Does it have a tank?
I had considered just getting a vacuum pump and an air tank and using that setup to pull out the refrigerant- but honestly, I'd prefer not dealing with the legal implications of doing it myself if I can get away with it.
Brian wrote: still have an r12 machine at the shop
Still got a set of R12 gauges in the back of my van, along with about 5 pounds of R12. As was stated before, those old systems are leaky...
In reply to Ashyukun:
No, all three are recovery only units. I do have one tank.
GameboyRMH wrote:bravenrace wrote:You're right, but it's best to go with the best available knowledge (that might be proved wrong later on) than just your hunch that it might be wrong. Newton and Lamarck's theories both turned out to be wrong, but both were a step in the right direction and an improvement on what was the current knowledge at the time.dculberson wrote: The mechanism where R12 bonds to ozone is pretty well understood.This may be true, but if I've learned one thing from getting old, it's that what many times is represented as a scientific fact is later proved wrong. That doesn't mean that we should reject what we "think" we do know, but I think it's always good to keep in mind that everything we know was determined by people, and people, even really smart ones, are many times wrong.
Newton wasn't wrong. His math is fine, it fits his model perfectly. His model is relatively large things traveling at relatively slow speeds. His model wasn't intended for anything else.
Vent it to atmosphere. It will never get to the ozone layer, it's too high.
You'll need to log in to post.
