Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Tech questions that don't fit above forums

Moderator: Team

justahoby
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Temporarily in Stephenville, Texas, USA from Thunder Bay, Canada
Contact:

Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by justahoby » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:39 pm

Now I have been reading the pros and cons.
How it's not dangerous, or is dangerous. If there is no air in the system, or if there is.
It only takes a few ounces.
r134 is illegal in Australia , hc refigerants illegal here. Ect ect ect.
I am rather neutral and would like to see where this topic goes.

Let me start with this link, how it can be dangerous if your very stupid. :lol:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DjtowzVzl_4

Up for debate, make it informational rather than just argument only.
What ever you do, always be safe..and legal ( just have to say that as That's all I can say for all continents here).
As I'm approaching 40,I still think I'm 20. What the hell is wrong with me?

jake197000
Pro
Pro
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by jake197000 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:57 pm

that video nas been every where.if tuo flood a car with a flamible gas its going to ignite.ive done auto ac for 40 years.its extremlel rare for on evaporator to gush like that .if u have a leak ,fix it. i wont worry to much about it unless itrun at higher pres.is it a drop in if so id run it.

justahoby
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Temporarily in Stephenville, Texas, USA from Thunder Bay, Canada
Contact:

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by justahoby » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:05 pm

jake197000 wrote:that video nas been every where.if tuo flood a car with a flamible gas its going to .
That's the funny part. They sprayed it all over in there, then lit it.. Retards.
Now a system not far from here blew up some years ago, they blamed it on propane.... But I am surprised they didn't look into homicide as it killed most of the family in a station wagon. I suspect it had way too much in it .

To note: hydrocarbon fuels are heavier than air, a slow leak would be by your feet.
Now a blower might change that
As I'm approaching 40,I still think I'm 20. What the hell is wrong with me?


justahoby
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Temporarily in Stephenville, Texas, USA from Thunder Bay, Canada
Contact:

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by justahoby » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:50 am

I would have to agree with one of their points , what's worse? 5 oz of butane ( in a vacuumed system with no air),or 30 gallons of gasoline at 60 mph ( with air and sloshing around).
They seem very high strung on regulating it being in air conditioning , r600a working well with 7 psi low side and a bit above 20high side( very low pressure as a freon at a fraction of volume of r134 a) , yet cans of butane( r 600) and isobutane( r 600a) and micro torches sit on the shelf at wall mart, and people have yet to blow their head off with a curling iron.

Propane runs higher pressures ,
R134 is said not to be flammable , yet has a listed flashpoint of 1400 F..?? :-s
As I'm approaching 40,I still think I'm 20. What the hell is wrong with me?

justahoby
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Temporarily in Stephenville, Texas, USA from Thunder Bay, Canada
Contact:

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by justahoby » Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:05 am

I might add, I sleep in my house, not in my car.
Would you rather be awake in case of fire or explosion and get out with a few burns, or asleep in your bed ?
As I'm approaching 40,I still think I'm 20. What the hell is wrong with me?

ijames
Expert
Expert
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:44 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by ijames » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:05 pm

danfoss_r290_en.pdf
Danfoss propane abstract
(38.02 KiB) Downloaded 191 times
One point barely alluded to in that article is that hydrocarbons have been used in refrigerators and freezers in Europe for over 10 years now, with basically no safety issues. I am a little skeptical about the claim of much greater efficiency for hydrocarbons, though. I have read a couple of comparison papers where they studied R134a, propane, HFO1234yf (the R134a replacement in Europe and one day here), isobutane, and a few other choices, and while the experimental data backed up the theoretical predictions the overall efficiencies were within maybe 10-15 percent of each other. The hydrocarbons do look good in terms of weight of the charge, but this is just due to the lower molecular weight compared to a mostly perfluorinated molecule; it takes essentially the same number of molecules to move the same amount of heat in a given system and a savings of 8-16 ounces given a total system weight of 20+ pounds isn't very significant.

For example, I've attached an undated abstract from Danfoss (major European compressor manufacturer). It is from after 2000 but I don't remember where I found it. They found less than 10% difference in efficiency.

justahoby
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Temporarily in Stephenville, Texas, USA from Thunder Bay, Canada
Contact:

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by justahoby » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:56 am

ijames wrote:
danfoss_r290_en.pdf
One point barely alluded to in that article is that hydrocarbons have been used in refrigerators and freezers in Europe for over 10 years now, with basically no safety issues. I am a little skeptical about the claim of much greater efficiency for hydrocarbons, though. I have read a couple of comparison papers where they studied R134a, propane, HFO1234yf (the R134a replacement in Europe and one day here), isobutane, and a few other choices, and while the experimental data backed up the theoretical predictions the overall efficiencies were within maybe 10-15 percent of each other. The hydrocarbons do look good in terms of weight of the charge, but this is just due to the lower molecular weight compared to a mostly perfluorinated molecule; it takes essentially the same number of molecules to move the same amount of heat in a given system and a savings of 8-16 ounces given a total system weight of 20+ pounds isn't very significant.

For example, I've attached an undated abstract from Danfoss (major European compressor manufacturer). It is from after 2000 but I don't remember where I found it. They found less than 10% difference in efficiency.
I have seen this argument before , but also heard molecular size has a lot o do with it also, in some systems the factory still had to increase size of system for r134. On the other hand, Ihave a retrofitted junkyard pieced together system in my 69 pickup from different year r12 gm parts that will absoloubtly freeze your ass off in the texas sun with r134a. i used a low pressure switch from a 1993-1994 ( one of those years when they switched) chevy pickup that is for r134 as it has r12 threads being a change over year of freon.. It works well with 320z .I can put my hot soda in front of it and it will be cold in 5 minutes.

Now the question outside of efficiency of moving heat from one location to the other would not always be the issue, but working pressures required to drive a unit in terms of mechanical efficiency would be a bigger question.
Butane requires lower pressures, propane higher. I guess depending on the difference in high and low pressures would mean more than just initial with these considerations also.
As I'm approaching 40,I still think I'm 20. What the hell is wrong with me?

ijames
Expert
Expert
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:44 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by ijames » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:15 pm

Each system needs to be optimized for the refrigerant, but once you do that and then measure power in versus heat transferred the end result is what I'm saying is within 10-15% for each refrigerant. For example, I can't say exactly why but R134a needs a bigger and/or more efficient condenser than R12, and (from the vapor pressure-temperature chart) the evaporator needs to be 1-3 psi lower pressure than R12 to get the same capacity and cold air temperature. That's why some of the early retrofits didn't perform well, but do that and you can have icicles as you now enjoy.

Personally, I'm all for hydrocarbon refrigerants. They are cheap, efficient, have zero ODP, aren't bad as greenhouse gases, and to me the risks are minimal. Legally, in the US they are not allowed in mobile refrigeration systems and would be a pain to use because you couldn't ever take it to a shop with any refrigerant in the system because it would contaminate their recovery unit. They are allowed in industrial fixed installations (not for occupied spaces), and are now allowed in home appliances in small quantities. Maybe in 20 years they will finally be approved in cars here, sigh.

tresi
Member
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by tresi » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:49 pm

I wonder how many people that afraid of hydrocarbon refrigerants realize that if someone would happen to fill the cooling system with 100% anti freeze a pinhole leak can make an explosive mist? Years ago I read that GM tested this and blow some hoods off of cars with antifreeze.

Kevin Johnson
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7035
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:41 am

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by Kevin Johnson » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:42 am

tresi wrote:I wonder how many people that afraid of hydrocarbon refrigerants realize that if someone would happen to fill the cooling system with 100% anti freeze a pinhole leak can make an explosive mist? Years ago I read that GM tested this and blow some hoods off of cars with antifreeze.
I think you need to revise your post because "explosive" crosses the line. "Blow" appears to pass muster.
always, annihilate, apocalyptic, asphyxiating, bad, Band-Aid, big time, brakes like an “X” car, cataclysmic, catastrophic, Challenger, chaotic, Cobain, condemns, Corvair-like, crippling, critical, dangerous, deathtrap, debilitating, decapitating, defect, defective, detonate, disemboweling, enfeebling, evil, eviscerated, explode, failed, flawed, genocide, ghastly, grenadelike, grisly, gruesome, Hindenburg, Hobbling, Horrific, impaling, inferno, Kevorkianesque, lacerating, life-threatening, maiming, malicious, mangling, maniacal, mutilating, never, potentially-disfiguring, powder keg, problem, rolling sarcophagus (tomb or coffin), safety, safety related, serious, spontaneous combustion, startling, suffocating, suicidal, terrifying, Titanic, unstable, widow-maker, words or phrases with a biblical connotation, you’re toast

Matt Gruber
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1496
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:32 am
Location: near Daytona Beach FL

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by Matt Gruber » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:09 am

in 2008 i replaced the HVAC heat pump/ac.
at first i wanted the new.
but for a new 3 ton system the old R22 was about 30% less amps! Higher working pressure on the new, about 30% higher #-o
my ac use here in FL stays under $34/month!
.
.
tame a lumpy cam for the street, more street torque! see my article, archived in the waybackmachine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130707064 ... TGRU/carb/
Great manners equals more fun.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by exhaustgases » Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:49 pm



ijames
Expert
Expert
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:44 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: Hydrocarbon refigerant . Do or not Do?

Post by ijames » Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:24 pm

exhaustgases wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl4qOySVru0

This would be safer.
This and other youtube videos show how to charge a system with HC-152a (1,1-difluoroethane) from "dustoff" or "canned air" type products, using a side-tapper to seal to the can. Yes, if you match the pressures HC152a is a pretty good drop in for R134a, and it is more efficient. However, it is flammable and is only approved by the EPA for use in new vehicles with relief valves and warning labels and the correct fittings. Like the hydrocarbon refrigerants it is not approved for use in any kind of mobile retrofit, for R134a or R12, so you have all the same legal and safety issues as with the hydrocarbon choices. Your choice, I just wanted it to be an informed choice.

PS: Please, please, it is 1,1-difluoroethane, pronounce it as one, one, then five syllables: di (like die), fluoro (fluor, like floor, then o, like oh), ethane (eh like the e in egg, then thane, rhymes with pain). Every single video I forced myself to watch had it wrong [-X . At least that's how chemists in the US say it.

Post Reply