Question:
Somewhere I read a comment from L. Francis Herreschoff. He was asked what was the hull speed of one of his designs. He replied, "A thousand knots, if you apply enough power." As a long time sailor, I can report that it is not all that unusual to exceed the supposed theoretical hull speed. Only once in 35 years of sailing, though, have I exceeded hull speed for more than a few minutes at a time.
Response:
What actually happens in going supersonic….. Good post! In very shallow water, water waves around a boat can come much closer to resembling sound waves around a trans-sonic airplane. That’s because there’s much less change in wave speed as a function of wavelenth (speed of sound waves is independent of wavelength) so the wave energy can accumulate in one wave-front. It’s even possible, under the right combination of speed and depth, to get that "shock wave" extending out at right angles to the flow. In real-world situations, the way we usually see this is by observing a "spreading" of the trailing wave system in shallow water. — http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Response:
This should start a war, but anyway: A boat even a planning hull does not climb up on its bow wave. Interesting theory but please explain to me what you call the wave I’ve observed under the quarter of a planing vessel when the entire bow area is in the air ?
A very good question. The bow wave occurs at and infront of the point where boat meets water. If a hull is designed to "fly" then the new bow is actually way aft of the normal low speed position. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s bow wave is like the shock wave infront of an airplane. When an aeroplane goes supersonic has it not then broken through the shockwave in front of it? No, It can’t. — / Michael W. Madden _/ | 215 898-0939 / | -/ | I’d rather be sailing!
– / Michael W. Madden _/ | 215 898-0939 / | -/ | I’d rather be sailing!
Response:
= When an aeroplane goes supersonic has it not then broken through the shockwave in front of it? = Well, this is actually a bit of an oversimplification. Not a very relevant one in the discussion of planning boats but anyway. A bit less= simplified view could be described as below: =
[snip] Very good explaination, really. The point was that you can no more climb a bow wave than you can fly ahead of a planes shock wave. — = / Michael W. Madden _/ | 215 898-0939 / | -/ | I’d rather be sailing!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Something about the maxim that keel boats cannot plane has always bothered me. This summer, we met a lady that races a Laser 28..and we were aboard when she planed beating into the wind! This is a fin keeled boat too. She went from 5.5 to about 8.5kts. indicated, and we *felt* the acceleration, so it wasn’t something wierd with the speedo. How does this happen? Does the sail area alone push the boat up on the back edge of the bow wave? Even though she was beating are you sure that the predominant wafe was not abeam and was she really surfing ? — Regards, Al Saunders, R.I.N. Author: Small Craft Piloting and Coastal Navigation Author: Small Craft Celestial Navigation Instructor: Canadian Yachting Association http://www.globalserve.net/~cbeeson/alzarc.htm
Al, Positively, she was planning. When I reacted to the acceleration, she said that she does that regularly! She claims to have hit 11 kts. in this boat while beating! I can believe it, as the boat is *very* light and skittish. She races this boat exclusively, and has won some races. The Laser is under 5k lbs. I believe, which is light for a 28 ft. But a keel boat planning (and the boat actually rises a bit up out of the water) is what makes me wonder about how this is possible. Larry Demers
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Paul, Something about the maxim that keel boats cannot plane has always bothered me. This summer, we met a lady that races a Laser 28..and we were aboard when she planed beating into the wind! This is a fin keeled boat too. She went from 5.5 to about 8.5kts. indicated, and we *felt* the acceleration, so it wasn’t something wierd with the speedo. How does this happen? Does the sail area alone push the boat up on the back edge of the bow wave? This should start a war, but anyway: A boat even a planning hull does not climb up on its bow wave.
Interesting theory but please explain to me what you call the wave I’ve observed under the quarter of a planing vessel when the entire bow area is in the air ? It’s bow wave is like the shock wave infront of an airplane.
When an aeroplane goes supersonic has it not then broken through the shockwave in front of it? Planning actually happens when a boat breaks the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – suction under the stern. This suction occurs because gravity cannot fill the hole where the boat used to be fast enough. This can happen in several ways, but the most common is by lifting the entire boat out of the water. The upward force caused by the boats foward motion and the hull shape increases as the boat speed increases. As the boat rises it’s displacement decreases and the shape presented to the water changes. Eventually the boat reaches a balance between hull lift and drag and from there on the boat is said to be planning. Of course it’s easier to drill holes in the bottom and let air fill the vaccumn at the stern. — / Michael W. Madden _/ | 215 898-0939 / | -/ | I’d rather be sailing!
Response:
When an aeroplane goes supersonic has it not then broken through the shockwave in front of it?
Well, this is actually a bit of an oversimplification. Not a very relevant one in the discussion of planning boats but anyway. A bit less simplified view could be described as below: The shockwave of a supersonic aeroplane actually consists of several small waves. This is because the velocity of flow is different in different places along the surface of the wing, for example. As a result, different parts of the craft "Break the sound barrier" at different times, depending on the local flow velocities. What actually happens in going supersonic, is that the shockwave pattern generated by the aeroplane just changes shape. Think about the wing surface for a moment. When the flow velocity approaches sonic, it does so first at the point in the profile where the velocity is at its maximum. This is typically the thickest point of the profile. When the aircraft speed- and along with it the flow velocity over the wing surface- increases, the point of sonic velocity creeps forward until it reaches the leading edge of the wing. At this point the shockwave pattern changes shape from essentially normal to the surface to a sharp pointed "angle". The amount of change is governed by a lot of variables including the "bluntness" of the leading edge. The significance of the wave shape has to do with the pressure distribution before and after the wave. In front of the wave, the flow velocity is supersonic and pressure is low. After the wave, the velocity is typically subsonic and the pressure is high (Bernoulli). In the case of a shockwave which is normal to the flow, the drop in velocity and the associated rise in pressure is big. In a wave of, say 45 degrees, the effect is much smaller. This means that the flow over the surface of a supersonic aircraft may well be subsonic all the way. The shockwaves in front of all the leading edges take care of this. Now, the "bang" you hear when a supersonic aeroplane passes is *not* the sound of a "sound barrier breaking" but the audible indication of the very prapid pressure increase behind the shockwave. The fact that a lot of power is required to go supersonic is probably due to the fact that at the point when there exists a shockwave normal to the flow somewhere along the wing surface, the velocity drop is bound to be very detrimental to lift generated by the wing. In addition to this, the leading edge of the wing experienced a supersonic flow, while the trailing edge experienced a subsonic flow. This again leads to weird cordwise distribution of lift, which again has some effect to the controllability problems experienced by the pioneers of supeersonic flight. What has this to do with the bow wave of a planning boat hull? Not much! Even though the two phenomena look similar from the outside, they are not. The onset of planning has to do with dynamic lift of the hull, resulting in a change of the caracteristics of the wave pattern of the boat. This has been described by a lot of posters in this thread. The "breaking of the sound barrier" has to do with local velocity/pressure distributions along the surface. And again: I am not an expert on either of these subjects, so I am getting ready to don my flameproof clothing. Until then, timo
Response:
Windsurfers are light enough to plane. A 505 doesn’t experience a hull-speed limit either.
: : It seems to me that a surfboarder can reach very repspectable : speeds with no apparent means of locomotion at all. … : :This is on an inland lake where there are no significant waves :except for the occassional wake from a waverunner or small motor :boat. Surfers on this lake are dead in the water unless they :have a sail on their board! My favored theory remains that there :is some funny interaction between boat heel, water flow, and the :speedo, i.e., that it is a false reading. : :Russell : :– : Newton plain doesn’t work, even as an approximation, : except within certain limits. – Moggin Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a 20 years without a car, TV, or home page
Response:
Well I NEVER said keelboats can’t plane…. My apologies – that was directed at a previous post in the same thread. As for planing vs. aeration they are two paths to the same end. If we agree on a definition of planing: lifting the boat out of the water by means of lift generated by the forward motion of the boat in order to present a smaller displacement to to water, then the effect of planing is to reduce the energy required to fill the hole where the boat just was. i.e. smaller hole less energy. Aerating the stern also reduces the energy required to fill this hole by using air instead of water, about 80 times less work for the same volume. Transom aeration can be observed on large vessels operating *way* below hull speed. Again, it has nothing to do with planing. You can also plane without aerating the transom (Santa Cruz 27, for example). If we go with your novel "energy required to fill the hole in the water" theory, it seems to me that when the hole in the water fills, the energy is being returned. The boat has to work to push the water *out* of the hole, right? If the transom is aerated, isn’t the hole bigger? And if hydrodynamic instead of hydrostatic forces support the hull, doesn’t Newton’s third law (action = reaction) suggest that the water still gets pushed downward by the same amount, making the same size hole? I’m not trying to dismiss this way of looking at wave resistance – it probably ends up being equivalent to the standard techniques, if we’re careful with our energy accounting. But the popular misconception of transom aeration = planing is just that. — http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Response:
A few minuts might be possible on a large wave – but hours? (sailors exagerate). — http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
Paul, Once I was walking along and saw a fly fisherman with only one arm. I couldn’t believe it. There he was fly fishing with only one arm. I had to stop and ask him, "Did you catch anything?" He held up one hand and said I caught one, that big!" Sea Ya! Bart Senior, ASA Sailing Instructor ARS: KC5VUO copyright 1996
Response:
Something about the maxim that keel boats cannot plane has always bothered me. This summer, we met a lady that races a Laser 28..and we were aboard when she planed beating into the wind! This is a fin keeled boat too. She went from 5.5 to about 8.5kts. indicated, and we *felt* the acceleration, so it wasn’t something wierd with the speedo. How does this happen? Does the sail area alone push the boat up on the back edge of the bow wave?
Even though she was beating are you sure that the predominant wafe was not abeam and was she really surfing ? — Regards, Al Saunders, R.I.N. Author: Small Craft Piloting and Coastal Navigation Author: Small Craft Celestial Navigation Instructor: Canadian Yachting Association http://www.globalserve.net/~cbeeson/alzarc.htm
Response:
Even though she was beating are you sure that the predominant wafe was not abeam and was she really surfing ?
I’ve seen this behavior on my Hunter 23 in protected waters where the biggest waves are those generated by power boats. On a reach or run, we never break 4+ knots, but close hauled in a good breeze the knotmeter will hit 7 or even 8 for short distances. I have no idea why, and I have no way of measuring the speed more objectively. I have speculated that the heeling causes odd water flow over the speedo, but (a) this happens on both tacks, and (b) it happens mostly when we keep her on her feet. Beats me. I have a hard time believing we are actually going that fast in a 23′ keelboat, so I suspect it is something funky in how the speedo works … Russell — Newton plain doesn’t work, even as an approximation, except within certain limits. – Moggin
Response:
Paul, Something about the maxim that keel boats cannot plane has always bothered me. This summer, we met a lady that races a Laser 28..and we were aboard when she planed beating into the wind! This is a fin keeled boat too. She went from 5.5 to about 8.5kts. indicated, and we *felt* the acceleration, so it wasn’t something wierd with the speedo. How does this happen? Does the sail area alone push the boat up on the back edge of the bow wave?
This should start a war, but anyway: A boat even a planning hull does not climb up on its bow wave. It’s bow wave is like the shock wave infront of an airplane. Planning actually happens when a boat breaks the suction under the stern. This suction occurs because gravity cannot fill the hole where the boat used to be fast enough. This can happen in several ways, but the most common is by lifting the entire boat out of the water. The upward force caused by the boats foward motion and the hull shape increases as the boat speed increases. As the boat rises it’s displacement decreases and the shape presented to the water changes. Eventually the boat reaches a balance between hull lift and drag and from there on the boat is said to be planning. Of course it’s easier to drill holes in the bottom and let air fill the vaccumn at the stern. — / Michael W. Madden _/ | 215 898-0939 / | -/ | I’d rather be sailing!
Response:
It seems to me that a surfboarder can reach very repspectable speeds with no apparent means of locomotion at all. …
This is on an inland lake where there are no significant waves except for the occassional wake from a waverunner or small motor boat. Surfers on this lake are dead in the water unless they have a sail on their board! My favored theory remains that there is some funny interaction between boat heel, water flow, and the speedo, i.e., that it is a false reading. Russell — Newton plain doesn’t work, even as an approximation, except within certain limits. – Moggin
Response:
I think you are confusing "transom aeration" with planing. On many boats the two phenomena happen to occur at about the same speed, but they’re unrelated. Your stern suction explanation seems to depend on local pressure on the hull being somewhat less than atmospheric before planing, but increasing again at the onset of planing. Can you explain why this would happen? And who ever said keelboats can’t plane? We see it every day.
Well I NEVER said keelboats can’t plan. My J27 can blow you away on little 6 inch waves and we love power boaters crossing behind us. As for planing vs. aeration they are two paths to the same end. If we agree on a definition of planing: lifting the boat out of the water by means of lift generated by the forward motion of the boat in order to present a smaller displacement to to water, then the effect of planing is to reduce the energy required to fill the hole where the boat just was. i.e. smaller hole less energy. Aerating the stern also reduces the energy required to fill this hole by using air instead of water, about 80 times less work for the same volume. — / Michael W. Madden _/ | 215 898-0939 / | -/ | I’d rather be sailing!
Response:
Even though she was beating are you sure that the predominant wafe was not abeam and was she really surfing ? I’ve seen this behavior on my Hunter 23 in protected waters where the biggest waves are those generated by power boats. On a reach or run, we never break 4+ knots, but close hauled in a good breeze the knotmeter will hit 7 or even 8 for short distances. I have no idea why, and I have no way of Russell —
It seems to me that a surfboarder can reach very repspectable speeds with no apparent means of locomotion at all. The surfer merely position the board as to be moving approximately parallel with a wave but poing slight ‘downill on the leading surface of the wave’. The surfer, due to gravity, will move ‘downhill’. The surfer does not move directly down the wave surface or it would be a short ride. He approximately parallels the frontal surface so that he is going slightly downhill in the direction of the wave but also along the frontal surface nearly parallel to the wave. In this manner the surfer can reach speeds of many times the speed at which the wave is being propogated forward. The same is true of a sailboat. In fact once you get the sailboat in a surfing situation you would actually increase your speed if you could instantaneously furl your sails to reduce forward movement wind resistance. Generally, to get a sailboat in a surfing situation requires large fast waves and because you lose much of your steering capability there is a high likelihood of broaching or pitchpoling. It is a great thrill but phenomenally dangerous. — Regards, Al Saunders, R.I.N. Author: Small Craft Piloting and Coastal Navigation Author: Small Craft Celestial Navigation Instructor: Canadian Yachting Association http://www.globalserve.net/~cbeeson/alzarc.htm
Response:
This should start a war, but anyway:….. Blam! Pow! Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat Ka-Boom! ….Planning actually happens when a boat breaks the suction under the stern….. I think you are confusing "transom aeration" with planing. On many boats the two phenomena happen to occur at about the same speed, but they’re unrelated. Your stern suction explanation seems to depend on local pressure on the hull being somewhat less than atmospheric before planing, but increasing again at the onset of planing. Can you explain why this would happen? And who ever said keelboats can’t plane? We see it every day. — http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Response:
First, is LWL the striaght line distance from bow to stern, or the two dimensional arc around the beam? Second, and possibly answered by the first, My gut feeling says a beamier boat will have a lower hull speed. Am I confused? There was an earlier post that suggested that a narrow beamed boat can "cut" through the bow wake much easier.
Hull speed is based on the standing wavelength of the wave train. Basically, at hull speed the boat sits in a trough between two crests–one wave length. Therefore the waterline length–beam is not a factor, effects hull speed. When the forces increase the boat cannot go faster, but something has to happen–conservation of energy. If a boat cannot plane, increasing power will force it underwater–it will sink deeper in the trough. My buddy Saul sank a dignghy once and the fellow who tried to tow him didn’t know this hot-rodded the tow boat and is sank it he trought it made. Saul like to brag he sank two boats in one day. Anyway, lots of overhang, means not only reserve buoancy, but a slight increase in hull speed as the waterline length increases as the boat sinks slightly. Reserve Buoancy is an important factor in chosing a boat–it keeps it from sinking. For boats that plane, the bow can come out of the water and the limitations of waterline lenght are overcome–you might call it warp speed. Hence a short boat on plane is just as fast or faster than a longer boat. For example the Pacific Cup was won a few years back by a Moore 24 with a busted radio, suprised everyone by winning over much bigger and usually faster SC70’s–much to the chagrin of the SC70 owners. Moore 24’s are about perfect for surfing for hours the waves of the Pacific–literally surfing the same wave for hours! So what does beam get you? More room inside, less pointing ability, less initial heel, greater righting moment (until the critical angle is reached), and increased planing ability (especialy for flat bottomed boats). Sea Ya! Bart Senior, ASA Sailing Instructor ARS: KC5VUO copyright 1996
Response:
…… Moore 24’s are about perfect for surfing for hours the waves of the Pacific–literally surfing the same wave for hours! …… Agree about Morre 24s, but I need to bring up pesky wave theory again and spoil the fun: In deep water, the "envelope velocity" or speed of energy propagation is only half that of the "phase velocity" or celerity, which is the speed of the wave profile. As a consequence of this, any one individual wave will always be losing energy to the wave behind it, and the life of any one wave is necessarily short. In real ocean conditions you will find nodes between even the most regular wave trains, where other wavelengths and wave periods take over. Every individual wave gradually moves to the front of its wave train (becuase it outruns its energy source) and dissipates. A few minuts might be possible on a large wave – but hours? (sailors exagerate). — http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Response:
It is easy to confuse hull speed with the amount of power needed to achieve such. I would argue that a boat with greater beam would probably need more power to reach hull speed but that its hull speed would not necessarily be less. Also, when calculating hull speed it’s important to take into account the fact that a boat’s LWL may be much greater while underway vs at rest. Many older designs such as mine, where not drawn to sail upright. Eric Machinist Grampian 31 Classic
Response:
Hull speed is based on the standing wavelength of the wave train. Basically, at hull speed the boat sits in a trough between two crests–one wave length. Therefore the waterline length–beam is not a factor, effects hull speed. When the forces increase the boat cannot go faster, but something has to happen–conservation of energy. Bart Senior, ASA Sailing Instructor ARS: KC5VUO copyright 1996
Bart, My understanding is that hulls with a LWL:Beam ratio of 10:1 or more aren’t limited by this formula because they cut through the bow wave. If this weren’t the case, then my Hobie 18 would be limited to 6.36 knots, not the 15 to 18 that is possible. I think, to this extent, beam DOES make a difference, although you’re probably correct in reference to monohull sailboats. My guess is that this is also the thing that allows destroyers to reach 32 knots without being 450 feet long. Brian McGee
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First, is LWL the straight line distance from bow to stern, or the two dimensional arc around the beam? It’s the straight-line distance. Even if the boat was very wide compared to it’s length (imagine a floating plank being towed sideways) the stern wave crest would still come up at a position which satisfied the speed-wavelength relationship V=SQRT(g*L/(2*pi)). Second, and possibly answered by the first, My gut feeling says a beamier boat will have a lower hull speed. Am I confused? There was an earlier post that suggested that a narrow beamed boat can "cut" through the bow wake much easier. Your intuition is correct. For two hulls of similar length and displacement, the one that’s narrower and deeper will generate less wave resistance. In fact the basic linearized mathematical models for computing wave resistance show that wave resistance is proportional to beam squared. Here’s a not-very-rigorous intuitive approach: Think of a boat being driven beyond hull speed as trying to climb the back of the bow wave or the "uphill" side of the concave water surface it creates, without having the "downhill" stern wave face to balance the forces. The narrower boat, having less waterplane, will feel smaller forces due to the adverse slope of the water surface. An absurdly narrow boat – again think of a plank, but this time turn it on edge and tow it the easy way – will feel vanishingly small resistance due to the "uphill" water surface. (I said this wasn’t very rigoruos, and there’s a serious flaw in this reasoning – but that will be "left as an exercise for the reader") 
All bets are off if the hull can plane, however, and in practice the wide boat often has the advantage (more sail-carrying power, more dynamic lift for planing). — http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Fishmeal should know, but I always thought that "hull speed" was the terminal speed that a boat could not exceed without planing. All other factors which control speed, e.g. beam, sail area, merely dictate how soon a boat reaches hull speed and how long it stays there. —
Response:
First, is LWL the striaght line distance from bow to stern, or the two dimensional arc around the beam? Second, and possibly answered by the first, My gut feeling says a beamier boat will have a lower hull speed. Am I confused? There was an earlier post that suggested that a narrow beamed boat can "cut" through the bow wake much easier. Thanks in advance. D. George Jensen San Diego, CA, USA
Response:
First, is LWL the straight line distance from bow to stern, or the two dimensional arc around the beam? It’s the straight-line distance. Even if the boat was very wide compared to it’s length (imagine a floating plank being towed sideways) the stern wave crest would still come up at a position which satisfied the speed-wavelength relationship V=SQRT(g*L/(2*pi)). Second, and possibly answered by the first, My gut feeling says a beamier boat will have a lower hull speed. Am I confused? There was an earlier post that suggested that a narrow beamed boat can "cut" through the bow wake much easier. Your intuition is correct. For two hulls of similar length and displacement, the one that’s narrower and deeper will generate less wave resistance. In fact the basic linearized mathematical models for computing wave resistance show that wave resistance is proportional to beam squared. Here’s a not-very-rigorous intuitive approach: Think of a boat being driven beyond hull speed as trying to climb the back of the bow wave or the "uphill" side of the concave water surface it creates, without having the "downhill" stern wave face to balance the forces. The narrower boat, having less waterplane, will feel smaller forces due to the adverse slope of the water surface. An absurdly narrow boat – again think of a plank, but this time turn it on edge and tow it the easy way – will feel vanishingly small resistance due to the "uphill" water surface. (I said this wasn’t very rigoruos, and there’s a serious flaw in this reasoning – but that will be "left as an exercise for the reader") All bets are off if the hull can plane, however, and in practice the wide boat often has the advantage (more sail-carrying power, more dynamic lift for planing). — http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First, is LWL the straight line distance from bow to stern, or the two dimensional arc around the beam? It’s the straight-line distance. Even if the boat was very wide compared to it’s length (imagine a floating plank being towed sideways) the stern wave crest would still come up at a position which satisfied the speed-wavelength relationship V=SQRT(g*L/(2*pi)). Second, and possibly answered by the first, My gut feeling says a beamier boat will have a lower hull speed. Am I confused? There was an earlier post that suggested that a narrow beamed boat can "cut" through the bow wake much easier. Your intuition is correct. For two hulls of similar length and displacement, the one that’s narrower and deeper will generate less wave resistance. In fact the basic linearized mathematical models for computing wave resistance show that wave resistance is proportional to beam squared. Here’s a not-very-rigorous intuitive approach: Think of a boat being driven beyond hull speed as trying to climb the back of the bow wave or the "uphill" side of the concave water surface it creates, without having the "downhill" stern wave face to balance the forces. The narrower boat, having less waterplane, will feel smaller forces due to the adverse slope of the water surface. An absurdly narrow boat – again think of a plank, but this time turn it on edge and tow it the easy way – will feel vanishingly small resistance due to the "uphill" water surface. (I said this wasn’t very rigoruos, and there’s a serious flaw in this reasoning – but that will be "left as an exercise for the reader") All bets are off if the hull can plane, however, and in practice the wide boat often has the advantage (more sail-carrying power, more dynamic lift for planing). — http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Paul, Something about the maxim that keel boats cannot plane has always bothered me. This summer, we met a lady that races a Laser 28..and we were aboard when she planed beating into the wind! This is a fin keeled boat too. She went from 5.5 to about 8.5kts. indicated, and we *felt* the acceleration, so it wasn’t something wierd with the speedo. How does this happen? Does the sail area alone push the boat up on the back edge of the bow wave?
Response:
Question:
I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not agree, … References please. —
in reference to. Dodge Boy
Response:
That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, Please read "Satellite confirmation of the dominance of chlorofluorocarbons in the global stratospheric chlorine budget" by James M. Russell III, Mingzhao Luo, Ralph J. Cicerone, & Lance E deaver in Nature, vol 379, 8 February, 1996.
Please read what I said. The chlorine radical damages the ozone not the the CFC its self. The CFC is a source of the chlorine radical, but there are other sources, Carbontetrachloride, Methylchloride, so the number of chlorine radicals is the important number. That gives a total amount, not just part which the CFC number will give you. Dodge Boy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ _____/ – Steve Jobs, from interview in WIRED magazine, 2/96.
I am impressed how easy it is to do science if you just make up the facts as you go along. First measurments of ozone levels in the antarctic go back at least to the 50s and the ozone hole was not discovered until the early 80s although in retrospect, by looking back at the data, it became clear that it was already beginning in the late 70s. This is all from Robert Parson’s FAQ. Parson, being a scientist and hence restricted to facts rather than imagination, gives detailed references for all his assertions. — Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University Evanston Illinois
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole.
References? The short answer is that the results from Halley Bay have been posted numerous times to this newsgroup and they show significantly lower Antarctic column ozone in the late 1980s than in earlier years; also, measurements by the Nimbus 7 Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer show no ozone hole in the early years of the satellite lifetime (1980) and a developing hole later. The long answer and the references are in the FAQ. Barry Schlesinger
Response:
: : 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed : for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. : : Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the : ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, : and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing : in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was : no hole. Sorry, you’re wrong. Scientists have monitored Antarctic ozone levels since the 50s. That’s why we know the hole began in the 70s. You obviously have never read a scientific source on the issue. : : What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? : Clouds (water vapor) blocks NONE of the uv radiation. That’s why you can get a sunburn just as easily on a cloudy day. You really should look into the SCIENCE instead of making baseless claims.
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. UV levels were measured by explores in the 30’s,50’s and 60’s. Remember the permanent stations were started back then. Early Cosmic ray experiments were also performed, so rest assured that valid data was collected.
Where might one read about this? I was unaware that someone had solved the problems associated with calibration of UV sensitive PM tubes across decades. I am not sure why you appear to think that cosmic ray experiments are valid for O3 anyway. And the fact that the hole is growing is not based on two data point, an assumed 0 and a current observation. It is based on close to 30 years of monitoring an increaseing in time and size, hole. Except maybe for the last couple of years where the hole may be decreasing.
Not entirely correct. Measurements of sufficient accuracy exist only from 1979. This is not quite yet 20 years (there is a good discussion of this in the article "Global Average Ozone Change from November 1978 to May 1990", by J. R. Herman, in the J. Geophysical Res., Vol 96, (1991). I have not seen a refutation of the points raised which prove that the record prior to 1979 is not useful. If you have, let me know. [deleted] Regards, Harold —– "Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it." —Edmund Burke,1791
Response:
That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent,
Please read "Satellite confirmation of the dominance of chlorofluorocarbons in the global stratospheric chlorine budget" by James M. Russell III, Mingzhao Luo, Ralph J. Cicerone, & Lance E deaver in Nature, vol 379, 8 February, 1996. —
Response:
I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not agree, …
References please. —
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole.
UV levels were measured by explores in the 30’s,50’s and 60’s. Remember the permanent stations were started back then. Early Cosmic ray experiments were also performed, so rest assured that valid data was collected. And the fact that the hole is growing is not based on two data point, an assumed 0 and a current observation. It is based on close to 30 years of monitoring an increaseing in time and size, hole. Except maybe for the last couple of years where the hole may be decreasing. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day?
What difference does this make? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ /.
Lets see, plot drug use versus stiffened drug laws, proportional corralation. Plot increase in budget def. versus republican or demacrat in the white house, indicates that to reduce the defi, elect democrats. What else, plot crime rate versus percentage of americans living on the farm, we should all go back to the farm. Statistics aint cause and effect. People with red cars have more accidents than other colours, so ban red cars. Smoking is inversely corr. to seatbelt use, so if we make seatbelt use manditory, smoke should decrease.
Response:
9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage.
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ _____/ – Steve Jobs, from interview in WIRED magazine, 2/96.
Response:
: : The bulk of the research into this was done by NOAA, and EPA. I believe it is best to : get first hand information, than second hand information that has been edited numerous : times. And I have quoted EPA and NOAA in numerous sources before. You’ve quoted NO scientific journals, and you haven’t provided CITATIONS for anything. : Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. : I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not : agree, or appearently from your point of view these people are no longer members of the : scientific community once they take up a position contrary to yours. : Yeah, there are crackpots calling themselves scientists who claim the world is 4000 years old, evolution is wrong, etc. Just because 1 or 2 nuts hold contrary views does not mean they are right or have anything to contribute. Look at what the scientific community accepts. : 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. : That is strange as CFC’s are not the only source of stratospheric chlorine, this would : tend to indicate that CFC’s are not as big a problem as you believe. Considering that : Methylchloride, Carbontetrachloride, and even HCFC’s are a source of stratospheric : chlorine that tend to prove you statment completely wrong. Uh, no, you are wrong. When data refutes your idea, you must discard or modify your idea. My "statement" was based on facts; yours on your "idea." : : 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. : That also would be hard to believe as Methylchoride and Carbontetrachloride do not : contain Flourine. Which is exactly why those are NOT significant contributors to stratospheric Cl. Again, when data refutes your idea, it is folly to cling to it. : 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. : According to the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and Goddard there was. Sorry, you are wrong, there was NOT. There was NO measurable increase in stratospheric Cl after Pinatubo. If you have a source that says otherwise, cite it. (And I mean CITE — volume, chapter, date, page, etc.) : : 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. : Again CFC’s are not the only source of Chlorine in the stratosphere. They are the largest source and the only significant source at this time. : So what you are trying to say here is that Aerosols, Carbontetrachloride, and : methylchloride could be put back in use, because the CFC levels match 100% the ozone : depleation level. Therefore only CFC’s and nothing else is effecting the ozone layer. Aerosol sprays USED CFCs! If this is an example of your "data," I’m not surprised you’re consistently wrong. : That is hard to believe because Chlorine Oxide is unstable, and UV ligh breaks it down : into the free chlorine radical, and two Oxygen atoms combine to form O2. So, ClO levels : are almost no existent. Also the Cl radical can react 100 times, before combining with : another element, so if the numbers match, then the chemistry of what they think is : happening needs to looked at again. Again, if data refutes your idea, change it. We HAVE detected and measured ClO in the stratosphere. In fact, that was the datum that confirmed the CFC-O3 connection. Please read a scientific article or book. : : 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed : for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. : No, that is when it was dicovered. : Wrong again! We’ve monitored Antarctic ozone since the 50s. We discovered the hole in the 70s because that’s when it appeared. : 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. : No it hasn’t, 94 was up from 93. (Environment Canada) Sorry, either you’re misinformed or you’re misinterpreting data. If you’d read some scientific sources, you’d find that both ground and satellite measurements say the ozone depletion IS getting worse. : : 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to : agree with it. : The prospect of make money has a tendency to do that to companies. Wrong again! The chemical companies opposed banning CFCs because their production was so profitable. They only came around when they became convinced of the science. : : 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this. : Yes and at one time the scientific community supported blood letting to cure infection, : but it didn’t make them right. What I’m saying is research the opposing opinion more : they may have something of value to contribute to the solution. Wrong yet again. Do "scientists" who advocate creationism have something of value to contribute? So those who continue to advocate cold fusion? Don’t assume that just because 1 or 2 people believe something it means the scientific community hasn’t accepted something else.
Response:
: : Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who : services your car "for consideration" is required to use : recovery equipment. Do you disagree? : : Yes, but what are we talking about here. : I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals : and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair : operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging : a system does not require recovery and repair. Auto AC units are leaky, : that are by nature not sealed to the same degree as a home unit. It is : entirely withing the scope of title VI and EPA policy that not every : AC charge also require a full repair. At least, that is the interp. : that Region IV and the Commonwealth have taken One person posted the EPA regs. A licensed technician can NOT discharge Freon into the air, and recharging a system without fixing a leak is doing just that. We are not talking about ordinary escapage, but a leak.
Response:
I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging a system does not require recovery and repair. [... deletions ...] One person posted the EPA regs. A licensed technician can NOT discharge Freon into the air,
That’s true. and recharging a system without fixing a leak is doing just that.
Perhaps, but according to my information, the EPA does not require automotive AC leaks to be repaired. This is the information that I have from the Mobile Air Conditioning Society (MACS). If you’ve got something that says different, then please post it. "EPA Q & A Q: Does the EPA require that all leaks in motor vehicle air conditioners be repaired? A: The EPA does not require that leaks be repaired, although it recommends that vehicle owners consider repairing leaks to reduce emissions and extend the useful life of their air conditioner. Repair of leaking systems will help vehicle owners avoid the need to continue to refill systems with high-priced refrigerant. EPA recognizes that good service practices include recovering and recycling refrigerant and performing leak detection. If a leak is identified, the customer should be presented with all the options for service, including repair. If leak repair is not chosen, the technician may refill the system if requested to do so by the customer (unless a state or local leak repair requirement exists)." MACS Certification Training Manual, Revised 5/96, pg. 26 Approved by the U.S. EPA for Technician Training Requirements under Section 609 of the Clean Air Act The back of the manual has the following text: "Where possible, the information contained in this manual identified as “EPA Q & A” and “EPA Tips” have been excerpted from EPA fact sheets; however this information is intended only as an overview, not a detailed accounting of the subject regulations."
Response:
The levels are low, but that’s relative. The level of everything in the stratosphere is low. Let’s compare apples and apples. If you say a level is low you must be in reference to
something, and you clearly stated chlorine levels were low in the stratosphere. And I believe that you meant this in relation to other chemicals in the stratosphere. And since the Cl radical is regenerated in the reaction, one Cl atom can destroy numerous ozone molecules. According to the EPA 100 Ozone molecules are destroyed by each chlorine radical. For sources, try the FAQ. Try Science, Nature, Chemical & Engineering News, and numerous meterology and geology journals. The bulk of the research into this was done by NOAA, and EPA. I believe it is best to
get first hand information, than second hand information that has been edited numerous times. And I have quoted EPA and NOAA in numerous sources before. : The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. : Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any : of the research. Wrong. A Nobel is awarded only when the scientific community is in agreement about the research, theory, and implications. Yes, they reviewed the information. So their information is from the same source. I
myself like to have more than one source of information. I understand that they used more than one source, but in a decision as important as this more information should have been collected. : The scientific community is not in total agreement, Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not
agree, or appearently from your point of view these people are no longer members of the scientific community once they take up a position contrary to yours. : And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point : of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my : end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have : some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in : the auto industry. Please do, but you must cite SCIENTIFIC journals or books. You must explain why: 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. That is strange as CFC’s are not the only source of stratospheric chlorine, this would
tend to indicate that CFC’s are not as big a problem as you believe. Considering that Methylchloride, Carbontetrachloride, and even HCFC’s are a source of stratospheric chlorine that tend to prove you statment completely wrong. 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. That also would be hard to believe as Methylchoride and Carbontetrachloride do not contain Flourine. 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. According to the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and Goddard there was. 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. Again CFC’s are not the only source of Chlorine in the stratosphere. 5. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the Cl level there. 6. The decrease in stratospheric ozone mathes the F level there. 7. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the usage of CFCs. So what you are trying to say here is that Aerosols, Carbontetrachloride, and
methylchloride could be put back in use, because the CFC levels match 100% the ozone depleation level. Therefore only CFC’s and nothing else is effecting the ozone layer. 8. We have seen the products of the Cl-O3 reaction, ClO, in the stratosphere, at levels again matching the above. That is hard to believe because Chlorine Oxide is unstable, and UV ligh breaks it down
into the free chlorine radical, and two Oxygen atoms combine to form O2. So, ClO levels are almost no existent. Also the Cl radical can react 100 times, before combining with another element, so if the numbers match, then the chemistry of what they think is happening needs to looked at again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. No, that is when it was dicovered. 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. No it hasn’t, 94 was up from 93. (Environment Canada) 11. The uv radiation at ground level has been increasing. Agreed 12. The Nobel Prize committee awarded Sherwood and Molina the Chemistry prize for this work. Agreed 13. The leaders of the industrialized nations (including a Republican US president) were convinced of this. What does the political affiliation have to do with anything, or are you impling that
your position is based on political affliation as well as the information at hand. If this is the case I suggest you expand you sources of information to politicaly neutral sources or at least get information from both points of view and make an informed opinion based of both sides of the argument. 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to agree with it. The prospect of make money has a tendency to do that to companies. 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this. Yes and at one time the scientific community supported blood letting to cure infection,
but it didn’t make them right. What I’m saying is research the opposing opinion more they may have something of value to contribute to the solution.
Response:
You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill I am sorry I am going to have to disagree with you. I just finished getting my EPA certification to work on all types of refrigeration systems including automotive. The books and instuctor quoted federal regulations. The long and short of it is that if someone is EPA certified (And they have to be to work on a/c units) then they can recieve a $10,000 fine for releasing refrigerant to the atmosphere. In other words they can be fined for recharging a leaky system. Steve
Nope, I stand by my orginal statement, that a system can be recharged without needed additional repairs. I would direct you attention to the U.S.EPA’s board at ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov,,, go to the clean air act section, title VI.
Response:
Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements. You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture.
Anyone who performs automotive AC service "for consideration" is required to use approved recovery equipment. That rule is not limited to "large quantity users" or those that are part of "certain industrial classifications." The EPA web site which you referred to spoke of the following exception, which was only applicable before 1/1/93: "[Sec. 609] (c) SERVICING MOTOR VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONERS.-Effective January 1, 1992, no person repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration may perform any service on a motor vehicle air conditioner involving the refrigerant for such air conditioner without properly using approved refrigerant recycling equipment and no such person may perform such service unless such person has been properly trained and certified. The requirements of the previous sentence shall not apply until January 1, 1993 in the case of a person repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration at an entity which performed service on fewer than 100 motor vehicle air conditioners during calendar year 1990 and if such person so certifies, pursuant to subsection (d)(2), to the Administrator by January 1, 1992. " http://134.67.104.12/html/caaa/title-6.htm It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who services your car "for consideration" is required to use recovery equipment. Do you disagree?
Response:
Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who services your car "for consideration" is required to use recovery equipment. Do you disagree?
Yes, but what are we talking about here. I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging a system does not require recovery and repair. Auto AC units are leaky, that are by nature not sealed to the same degree as a home unit. It is entirely withing the scope of title VI and EPA policy that not every AC charge also require a full repair. At least, that is the interp. that Region IV and the Commonwealth have taken
Response:
: That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free : chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, but chorine radical levels are, now : CFC are to break down into Chlorine radicals. But an earlier post said they detected : low levels chlorine in the upper atmosphere, but again no source was given for this. The levels are low, but that’s relative. The level of everything in the stratosphere is low. And since the Cl radical is regenerated in the reaction, one Cl atom can destroy numerous ozone molecules. For sources, try the FAQ. Try Science, Nature, Chemical & Engineering News, and numerous meterology and geology journals. : : : Hair spray, Freon; all those : : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. : : The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. : Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any : of the research. Wrong. A Nobel is awarded only when the scientific community is in agreement about the research, theory, and implications. : The scientific community is not in total agreement, Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. : And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point : of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my : end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have : some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in : the auto industry. Please do, but you must cite SCIENTIFIC journals or books. You must explain why: 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. 5. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the Cl level there. 6. The decrease in stratospheric ozone mathes the F level there. 7. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the usage of CFCs. 8. We have seen the products of the Cl-O3 reaction, ClO, in the stratosphere, at levels again matching the above. 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. 11. The uv radiation at ground level has been increasing. 12. The Nobel Prize committee awarded Sherwood and Molina the Chemistry prize for this work. 13. The leaders of the industrialized nations (including a Republican US president) were convinced of this. 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to agree with it. 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this.
Response:
This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at Hand?"
I just had the compressor on my father’s 84 Cutlas replaced. While I was waiting, I discussed the new freon with the manager of the A/C company. He told me that they had done some experimenting with the new freon and old A/C units. The bottom line was that they changes some seals and the old units worked OK with the new freon. He says there is some lost eficiency, but that the cooling is acceptable, even here in Texas. Anyone who tells you different is just trying to sell you an expensive upgrade. Total cost for the change over should be about $120.00. It would be less when you need a new compressor anyway. Rebuilds are now available. Its a pain in the ass, but not the end of the world.! Sherwin Rubin
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements. You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture. It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
I am sorry I am going to have to disagree with you. I just finished getting my EPA certification to work on all types of refrigeration systems including automotive. The books and instuctor quoted federal regulations. The long and short of it is that if someone is EPA certified (And they have to be to work on a/c units) then they can recieve a $10,000 fine for releasing refrigerant to the atmosphere. In other words they can be fined for recharging a leaky system. Steve
Response:
The only use for [Freon] is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging.
My understanding is that the EPA does not require DIYers to have a recovery machine in order to purchase Freon — they only require that you have a Federal license. Having a recovery machine is only a requirement for people who perform AC service "for consideration," e.g. anything other than free service. Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements.
Response:
Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements.
You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture. It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
Response:
First I did a direct quote, and do not believe everything in the article, but it is wrong to edit out what I do not agree with. The information from the article on freon was presented in its entirety, for you to make your opinions on with out editing help from me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, : Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at : Hand?" : : According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of : R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, : consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the : stuff a year! No, it uses 0 tons a year, since no auto comes with R12 anymore. The only use for it is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging. Yes, the industry does use that much, because the industry doesn’t only include car
manufactures, but the aftermarket as well which is working on the older cars, that still use R-12. : In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? : Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work : on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. There are conversion kits available. Volvo, for example, has one for $45. The kit your reffering to includes adaptors to vaccum out the R-12, and then replace it
with R-134a. The R-12 and R134a equipment use different attaching nipples to prevent mixing the two, as this will not work. Now an R-134a system uses a larger condesor and evaporator, because it is less efficent. The $45 kit you reffer to will not include the condensor or evaporator of larger capacity. This will result in an system A/C that will have temps 10 to 15 dergree F, higher than the system did with R-12, so if your system could keep your car at 75 degrees on a 100 degree day, with the cheap convertion it will be between 85 and 90. The conversion that includes the nessary parts to keep the operating parameters in the spec range can cost up to $1200. The cheap kits are avalible for almost everything, and most people complain about the quality of the A/C, once they are installed. : : Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save : us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been : proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they : are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. Wrong. We’ve measured CFCs in the stratosphere. Gases do not stratify like this. If they did, you’d have all the CO2 at ground level and all the O2 higher up and we’d all suffocate. Use a little common sense! Again I agree. As I stated above I quoted the entire section, but do not agree with all
of it. The process is called difussion. Again I wish to know who "we" is? : CFC lvels in the : atomosphere are natural; not man made. There are NO natural sources of CFCs. That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free
chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, but chorine radical levels are, now CFC are to break down into Chlorine radicals. But an earlier post said they detected low levels chlorine in the upper atmosphere, but again no source was given for this. : Hair spray, Freon; all those : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any
of the research. The scientific community is not in total agreement, if they were all research would stop, and we would still be using phlogisten theory, instead of the atomic theory of chemistry. Since you’ve made numerous scientific mistakes already, your credibility in areas of science is less than zero. And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point
of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in the auto industry. Please read a scientific book or journal! I have read scientic based information, auto industry information, after all they have
done loads of research, PBS, etc… I suggest that you also check some more sources to increase your own credibility.
Response:
This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at Hand?" According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the stuff a year! In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. Most cars and trucks built after 1994 have R-134a air conditioners already in place, but if you mode of transportation si pre-’94, then you might as well paint a big target on your forehead. This isn’t hype, this isn’t speculation, this isn’t scare tactics – this is fact. Sure, there’s always the illegally imported Freon from Russia, India, and places like that. But there’s something you need to know about that stuff. It’s not much like our domestic R-12. It’s far inferior to the old R-12 and has high levels of moisture, non-absorbale gases, and a host of other contaminates. It’s generally far more corrosive than domestic stuff too. So, if you refill your A/C with "Boris Brand" Freon, you’re likey going to damage your system. Then, if you take it to a repair shop for repairs, their federally required R-12 recyling equipment will also likely be damaged by it, and they can legally charge you to repair the machine! It’s not worth the risks involved. Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. CFC lvels in the atomosphere are natural; not man made. Hair spray, Freon; all those things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The EPA’s main job is to keep creating imaginary hazards so they can keep drawing a paycheck. <end Though I present this information to you. Also R134a is now believed to cause cancer. Dodge Boy
Response:
: This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, : Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at : Hand?" : : According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of : R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, : consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the : stuff a year! No, it uses 0 tons a year, since no auto comes with R12 anymore. The only use for it is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging. : In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? : Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work : on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. There are conversion kits available. Volvo, for example, has one for $45. : : Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save : us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been : proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they : are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. Wrong. We’ve measured CFCs in the stratosphere. Gases do not stratify like this. If they did, you’d have all the CO2 at ground level and all the O2 higher up and we’d all suffocate. Use a little common sense! : CFC lvels in the : atomosphere are natural; not man made. There are NO natural sources of CFCs. : Hair spray, Freon; all those : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. Since you’ve made numerous scientific mistakes already, your credibility in areas of science is less than zero. Please read a scientific book or journal!
Response:
I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not agree, … References please. —
in reference to. Dodge Boy
Response:
: : 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed : for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. : : Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the : ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, : and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing : in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was : no hole. Sorry, you’re wrong. Scientists have monitored Antarctic ozone levels since the 50s. That’s why we know the hole began in the 70s. You obviously have never read a scientific source on the issue. : : What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? : Clouds (water vapor) blocks NONE of the uv radiation. That’s why you can get a sunburn just as easily on a cloudy day. You really should look into the SCIENCE instead of making baseless claims.
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole.
References? The short answer is that the results from Halley Bay have been posted numerous times to this newsgroup and they show significantly lower Antarctic column ozone in the late 1980s than in earlier years; also, measurements by the Nimbus 7 Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer show no ozone hole in the early years of the satellite lifetime (1980) and a developing hole later. The long answer and the references are in the FAQ. Barry Schlesinger
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ _____/ – Steve Jobs, from interview in WIRED magazine, 2/96.
I am impressed how easy it is to do science if you just make up the facts as you go along. First measurments of ozone levels in the antarctic go back at least to the 50s and the ozone hole was not discovered until the early 80s although in retrospect, by looking back at the data, it became clear that it was already beginning in the late 70s. This is all from Robert Parson’s FAQ. Parson, being a scientist and hence restricted to facts rather than imagination, gives detailed references for all his assertions. — Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University Evanston Illinois
Response:
I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not agree, …
References please. —
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. UV levels were measured by explores in the 30’s,50’s and 60’s. Remember the permanent stations were started back then. Early Cosmic ray experiments were also performed, so rest assured that valid data was collected.
Where might one read about this? I was unaware that someone had solved the problems associated with calibration of UV sensitive PM tubes across decades. I am not sure why you appear to think that cosmic ray experiments are valid for O3 anyway. And the fact that the hole is growing is not based on two data point, an assumed 0 and a current observation. It is based on close to 30 years of monitoring an increaseing in time and size, hole. Except maybe for the last couple of years where the hole may be decreasing.
Not entirely correct. Measurements of sufficient accuracy exist only from 1979. This is not quite yet 20 years (there is a good discussion of this in the article "Global Average Ozone Change from November 1978 to May 1990", by J. R. Herman, in the J. Geophysical Res., Vol 96, (1991). I have not seen a refutation of the points raised which prove that the record prior to 1979 is not useful. If you have, let me know. [deleted] Regards, Harold —– "Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it." —Edmund Burke,1791
Response:
That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, Please read "Satellite confirmation of the dominance of chlorofluorocarbons in the global stratospheric chlorine budget" by James M. Russell III, Mingzhao Luo, Ralph J. Cicerone, & Lance E deaver in Nature, vol 379, 8 February, 1996.
Please read what I said. The chlorine radical damages the ozone not the the CFC its self. The CFC is a source of the chlorine radical, but there are other sources, Carbontetrachloride, Methylchloride, so the number of chlorine radicals is the important number. That gives a total amount, not just part which the CFC number will give you. Dodge Boy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —
Response:
That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent,
Please read "Satellite confirmation of the dominance of chlorofluorocarbons in the global stratospheric chlorine budget" by James M. Russell III, Mingzhao Luo, Ralph J. Cicerone, & Lance E deaver in Nature, vol 379, 8 February, 1996. —
Response:
9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage.
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ _____/ – Steve Jobs, from interview in WIRED magazine, 2/96.
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole.
UV levels were measured by explores in the 30’s,50’s and 60’s. Remember the permanent stations were started back then. Early Cosmic ray experiments were also performed, so rest assured that valid data was collected. And the fact that the hole is growing is not based on two data point, an assumed 0 and a current observation. It is based on close to 30 years of monitoring an increaseing in time and size, hole. Except maybe for the last couple of years where the hole may be decreasing. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day?
What difference does this make? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ /.
Lets see, plot drug use versus stiffened drug laws, proportional corralation. Plot increase in budget def. versus republican or demacrat in the white house, indicates that to reduce the defi, elect democrats. What else, plot crime rate versus percentage of americans living on the farm, we should all go back to the farm. Statistics aint cause and effect. People with red cars have more accidents than other colours, so ban red cars. Smoking is inversely corr. to seatbelt use, so if we make seatbelt use manditory, smoke should decrease.
Response:
: : The bulk of the research into this was done by NOAA, and EPA. I believe it is best to : get first hand information, than second hand information that has been edited numerous : times. And I have quoted EPA and NOAA in numerous sources before. You’ve quoted NO scientific journals, and you haven’t provided CITATIONS for anything. : Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. : I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not : agree, or appearently from your point of view these people are no longer members of the : scientific community once they take up a position contrary to yours. : Yeah, there are crackpots calling themselves scientists who claim the world is 4000 years old, evolution is wrong, etc. Just because 1 or 2 nuts hold contrary views does not mean they are right or have anything to contribute. Look at what the scientific community accepts. : 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. : That is strange as CFC’s are not the only source of stratospheric chlorine, this would : tend to indicate that CFC’s are not as big a problem as you believe. Considering that : Methylchloride, Carbontetrachloride, and even HCFC’s are a source of stratospheric : chlorine that tend to prove you statment completely wrong. Uh, no, you are wrong. When data refutes your idea, you must discard or modify your idea. My "statement" was based on facts; yours on your "idea." : : 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. : That also would be hard to believe as Methylchoride and Carbontetrachloride do not : contain Flourine. Which is exactly why those are NOT significant contributors to stratospheric Cl. Again, when data refutes your idea, it is folly to cling to it. : 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. : According to the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and Goddard there was. Sorry, you are wrong, there was NOT. There was NO measurable increase in stratospheric Cl after Pinatubo. If you have a source that says otherwise, cite it. (And I mean CITE — volume, chapter, date, page, etc.) : : 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. : Again CFC’s are not the only source of Chlorine in the stratosphere. They are the largest source and the only significant source at this time. : So what you are trying to say here is that Aerosols, Carbontetrachloride, and : methylchloride could be put back in use, because the CFC levels match 100% the ozone : depleation level. Therefore only CFC’s and nothing else is effecting the ozone layer. Aerosol sprays USED CFCs! If this is an example of your "data," I’m not surprised you’re consistently wrong. : That is hard to believe because Chlorine Oxide is unstable, and UV ligh breaks it down : into the free chlorine radical, and two Oxygen atoms combine to form O2. So, ClO levels : are almost no existent. Also the Cl radical can react 100 times, before combining with : another element, so if the numbers match, then the chemistry of what they think is : happening needs to looked at again. Again, if data refutes your idea, change it. We HAVE detected and measured ClO in the stratosphere. In fact, that was the datum that confirmed the CFC-O3 connection. Please read a scientific article or book. : : 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed : for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. : No, that is when it was dicovered. : Wrong again! We’ve monitored Antarctic ozone since the 50s. We discovered the hole in the 70s because that’s when it appeared. : 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. : No it hasn’t, 94 was up from 93. (Environment Canada) Sorry, either you’re misinformed or you’re misinterpreting data. If you’d read some scientific sources, you’d find that both ground and satellite measurements say the ozone depletion IS getting worse. : : 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to : agree with it. : The prospect of make money has a tendency to do that to companies. Wrong again! The chemical companies opposed banning CFCs because their production was so profitable. They only came around when they became convinced of the science. : : 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this. : Yes and at one time the scientific community supported blood letting to cure infection, : but it didn’t make them right. What I’m saying is research the opposing opinion more : they may have something of value to contribute to the solution. Wrong yet again. Do "scientists" who advocate creationism have something of value to contribute? So those who continue to advocate cold fusion? Don’t assume that just because 1 or 2 people believe something it means the scientific community hasn’t accepted something else.
Response:
The levels are low, but that’s relative. The level of everything in the stratosphere is low. Let’s compare apples and apples. If you say a level is low you must be in reference to
something, and you clearly stated chlorine levels were low in the stratosphere. And I believe that you meant this in relation to other chemicals in the stratosphere. And since the Cl radical is regenerated in the reaction, one Cl atom can destroy numerous ozone molecules. According to the EPA 100 Ozone molecules are destroyed by each chlorine radical. For sources, try the FAQ. Try Science, Nature, Chemical & Engineering News, and numerous meterology and geology journals. The bulk of the research into this was done by NOAA, and EPA. I believe it is best to
get first hand information, than second hand information that has been edited numerous times. And I have quoted EPA and NOAA in numerous sources before. : The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. : Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any : of the research. Wrong. A Nobel is awarded only when the scientific community is in agreement about the research, theory, and implications. Yes, they reviewed the information. So their information is from the same source. I
myself like to have more than one source of information. I understand that they used more than one source, but in a decision as important as this more information should have been collected. : The scientific community is not in total agreement, Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not
agree, or appearently from your point of view these people are no longer members of the scientific community once they take up a position contrary to yours. : And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point : of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my : end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have : some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in : the auto industry. Please do, but you must cite SCIENTIFIC journals or books. You must explain why: 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. That is strange as CFC’s are not the only source of stratospheric chlorine, this would
tend to indicate that CFC’s are not as big a problem as you believe. Considering that Methylchloride, Carbontetrachloride, and even HCFC’s are a source of stratospheric chlorine that tend to prove you statment completely wrong. 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. That also would be hard to believe as Methylchoride and Carbontetrachloride do not contain Flourine. 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. According to the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and Goddard there was. 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. Again CFC’s are not the only source of Chlorine in the stratosphere. 5. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the Cl level there. 6. The decrease in stratospheric ozone mathes the F level there. 7. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the usage of CFCs. So what you are trying to say here is that Aerosols, Carbontetrachloride, and
methylchloride could be put back in use, because the CFC levels match 100% the ozone depleation level. Therefore only CFC’s and nothing else is effecting the ozone layer. 8. We have seen the products of the Cl-O3 reaction, ClO, in the stratosphere, at levels again matching the above. That is hard to believe because Chlorine Oxide is unstable, and UV ligh breaks it down
into the free chlorine radical, and two Oxygen atoms combine to form O2. So, ClO levels are almost no existent. Also the Cl radical can react 100 times, before combining with another element, so if the numbers match, then the chemistry of what they think is happening needs to looked at again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. No, that is when it was dicovered. 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. No it hasn’t, 94 was up from 93. (Environment Canada) 11. The uv radiation at ground level has been increasing. Agreed 12. The Nobel Prize committee awarded Sherwood and Molina the Chemistry prize for this work. Agreed 13. The leaders of the industrialized nations (including a Republican US president) were convinced of this. What does the political affiliation have to do with anything, or are you impling that
your position is based on political affliation as well as the information at hand. If this is the case I suggest you expand you sources of information to politicaly neutral sources or at least get information from both points of view and make an informed opinion based of both sides of the argument. 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to agree with it. The prospect of make money has a tendency to do that to companies. 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this. Yes and at one time the scientific community supported blood letting to cure infection,
but it didn’t make them right. What I’m saying is research the opposing opinion more they may have something of value to contribute to the solution.
Response:
: : Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who : services your car "for consideration" is required to use : recovery equipment. Do you disagree? : : Yes, but what are we talking about here. : I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals : and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair : operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging : a system does not require recovery and repair. Auto AC units are leaky, : that are by nature not sealed to the same degree as a home unit. It is : entirely withing the scope of title VI and EPA policy that not every : AC charge also require a full repair. At least, that is the interp. : that Region IV and the Commonwealth have taken One person posted the EPA regs. A licensed technician can NOT discharge Freon into the air, and recharging a system without fixing a leak is doing just that. We are not talking about ordinary escapage, but a leak.
Response:
I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging a system does not require recovery and repair. [... deletions ...] One person posted the EPA regs. A licensed technician can NOT discharge Freon into the air,
That’s true. and recharging a system without fixing a leak is doing just that.
Perhaps, but according to my information, the EPA does not require automotive AC leaks to be repaired. This is the information that I have from the Mobile Air Conditioning Society (MACS). If you’ve got something that says different, then please post it. "EPA Q & A Q: Does the EPA require that all leaks in motor vehicle air conditioners be repaired? A: The EPA does not require that leaks be repaired, although it recommends that vehicle owners consider repairing leaks to reduce emissions and extend the useful life of their air conditioner. Repair of leaking systems will help vehicle owners avoid the need to continue to refill systems with high-priced refrigerant. EPA recognizes that good service practices include recovering and recycling refrigerant and performing leak detection. If a leak is identified, the customer should be presented with all the options for service, including repair. If leak repair is not chosen, the technician may refill the system if requested to do so by the customer (unless a state or local leak repair requirement exists)." MACS Certification Training Manual, Revised 5/96, pg. 26 Approved by the U.S. EPA for Technician Training Requirements under Section 609 of the Clean Air Act The back of the manual has the following text: "Where possible, the information contained in this manual identified as “EPA Q & A” and “EPA Tips” have been excerpted from EPA fact sheets; however this information is intended only as an overview, not a detailed accounting of the subject regulations."
Response:
: That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free : chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, but chorine radical levels are, now : CFC are to break down into Chlorine radicals. But an earlier post said they detected : low levels chlorine in the upper atmosphere, but again no source was given for this. The levels are low, but that’s relative. The level of everything in the stratosphere is low. And since the Cl radical is regenerated in the reaction, one Cl atom can destroy numerous ozone molecules. For sources, try the FAQ. Try Science, Nature, Chemical & Engineering News, and numerous meterology and geology journals. : : : Hair spray, Freon; all those : : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. : : The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. : Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any : of the research. Wrong. A Nobel is awarded only when the scientific community is in agreement about the research, theory, and implications. : The scientific community is not in total agreement, Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. : And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point : of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my : end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have : some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in : the auto industry. Please do, but you must cite SCIENTIFIC journals or books. You must explain why: 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. 5. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the Cl level there. 6. The decrease in stratospheric ozone mathes the F level there. 7. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the usage of CFCs. 8. We have seen the products of the Cl-O3 reaction, ClO, in the stratosphere, at levels again matching the above. 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. 11. The uv radiation at ground level has been increasing. 12. The Nobel Prize committee awarded Sherwood and Molina the Chemistry prize for this work. 13. The leaders of the industrialized nations (including a Republican US president) were convinced of this. 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to agree with it. 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this.
Response:
Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements. You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture.
Anyone who performs automotive AC service "for consideration" is required to use approved recovery equipment. That rule is not limited to "large quantity users" or those that are part of "certain industrial classifications." The EPA web site which you referred to spoke of the following exception, which was only applicable before 1/1/93: "[Sec. 609] (c) SERVICING MOTOR VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONERS.-Effective January 1, 1992, no person repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration may perform any service on a motor vehicle air conditioner involving the refrigerant for such air conditioner without properly using approved refrigerant recycling equipment and no such person may perform such service unless such person has been properly trained and certified. The requirements of the previous sentence shall not apply until January 1, 1993 in the case of a person repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration at an entity which performed service on fewer than 100 motor vehicle air conditioners during calendar year 1990 and if such person so certifies, pursuant to subsection (d)(2), to the Administrator by January 1, 1992. " http://134.67.104.12/html/caaa/title-6.htm It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who services your car "for consideration" is required to use recovery equipment. Do you disagree?
Response:
This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at Hand?"
I just had the compressor on my father’s 84 Cutlas replaced. While I was waiting, I discussed the new freon with the manager of the A/C company. He told me that they had done some experimenting with the new freon and old A/C units. The bottom line was that they changes some seals and the old units worked OK with the new freon. He says there is some lost eficiency, but that the cooling is acceptable, even here in Texas. Anyone who tells you different is just trying to sell you an expensive upgrade. Total cost for the change over should be about $120.00. It would be less when you need a new compressor anyway. Rebuilds are now available. Its a pain in the ass, but not the end of the world.! Sherwin Rubin
Response:
Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who services your car "for consideration" is required to use recovery equipment. Do you disagree?
Yes, but what are we talking about here. I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging a system does not require recovery and repair. Auto AC units are leaky, that are by nature not sealed to the same degree as a home unit. It is entirely withing the scope of title VI and EPA policy that not every AC charge also require a full repair. At least, that is the interp. that Region IV and the Commonwealth have taken
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements. You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture. It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
I am sorry I am going to have to disagree with you. I just finished getting my EPA certification to work on all types of refrigeration systems including automotive. The books and instuctor quoted federal regulations. The long and short of it is that if someone is EPA certified (And they have to be to work on a/c units) then they can recieve a $10,000 fine for releasing refrigerant to the atmosphere. In other words they can be fined for recharging a leaky system. Steve
Response:
You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill I am sorry I am going to have to disagree with you. I just finished getting my EPA certification to work on all types of refrigeration systems including automotive. The books and instuctor quoted federal regulations. The long and short of it is that if someone is EPA certified (And they have to be to work on a/c units) then they can recieve a $10,000 fine for releasing refrigerant to the atmosphere. In other words they can be fined for recharging a leaky system. Steve
Nope, I stand by my orginal statement, that a system can be recharged without needed additional repairs. I would direct you attention to the U.S.EPA’s board at ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov,,, go to the clean air act section, title VI.
Response:
Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements.
You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture. It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
Response:
The only use for [Freon] is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging.
My understanding is that the EPA does not require DIYers to have a recovery machine in order to purchase Freon — they only require that you have a Federal license. Having a recovery machine is only a requirement for people who perform AC service "for consideration," e.g. anything other than free service. Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements.
Response:
First I did a direct quote, and do not believe everything in the article, but it is wrong to edit out what I do not agree with. The information from the article on freon was presented in its entirety, for you to make your opinions on with out editing help from me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, : Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at : Hand?" : : According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of : R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, : consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the : stuff a year! No, it uses 0 tons a year, since no auto comes with R12 anymore. The only use for it is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging. Yes, the industry does use that much, because the industry doesn’t only include car
manufactures, but the aftermarket as well which is working on the older cars, that still use R-12. : In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? : Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work : on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. There are conversion kits available. Volvo, for example, has one for $45. The kit your reffering to includes adaptors to vaccum out the R-12, and then replace it
with R-134a. The R-12 and R134a equipment use different attaching nipples to prevent mixing the two, as this will not work. Now an R-134a system uses a larger condesor and evaporator, because it is less efficent. The $45 kit you reffer to will not include the condensor or evaporator of larger capacity. This will result in an system A/C that will have temps 10 to 15 dergree F, higher than the system did with R-12, so if your system could keep your car at 75 degrees on a 100 degree day, with the cheap convertion it will be between 85 and 90. The conversion that includes the nessary parts to keep the operating parameters in the spec range can cost up to $1200. The cheap kits are avalible for almost everything, and most people complain about the quality of the A/C, once they are installed. : : Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save : us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been : proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they : are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. Wrong. We’ve measured CFCs in the stratosphere. Gases do not stratify like this. If they did, you’d have all the CO2 at ground level and all the O2 higher up and we’d all suffocate. Use a little common sense! Again I agree. As I stated above I quoted the entire section, but do not agree with all
of it. The process is called difussion. Again I wish to know who "we" is? : CFC lvels in the : atomosphere are natural; not man made. There are NO natural sources of CFCs. That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free
chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, but chorine radical levels are, now CFC are to break down into Chlorine radicals. But an earlier post said they detected low levels chlorine in the upper atmosphere, but again no source was given for this. : Hair spray, Freon; all those : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any
of the research. The scientific community is not in total agreement, if they were all research would stop, and we would still be using phlogisten theory, instead of the atomic theory of chemistry. Since you’ve made numerous scientific mistakes already, your credibility in areas of science is less than zero. And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point
of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in the auto industry. Please read a scientific book or journal! I have read scientic based information, auto industry information, after all they have
done loads of research, PBS, etc… I suggest that you also check some more sources to increase your own credibility.
Response:
: This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, : Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at : Hand?" : : According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of : R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, : consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the : stuff a year! No, it uses 0 tons a year, since no auto comes with R12 anymore. The only use for it is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging. : In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? : Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work : on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. There are conversion kits available. Volvo, for example, has one for $45. : : Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save : us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been : proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they : are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. Wrong. We’ve measured CFCs in the stratosphere. Gases do not stratify like this. If they did, you’d have all the CO2 at ground level and all the O2 higher up and we’d all suffocate. Use a little common sense! : CFC lvels in the : atomosphere are natural; not man made. There are NO natural sources of CFCs. : Hair spray, Freon; all those : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. Since you’ve made numerous scientific mistakes already, your credibility in areas of science is less than zero. Please read a scientific book or journal!
Response:
This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at Hand?" According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the stuff a year! In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. Most cars and trucks built after 1994 have R-134a air conditioners already in place, but if you mode of transportation si pre-’94, then you might as well paint a big target on your forehead. This isn’t hype, this isn’t speculation, this isn’t scare tactics – this is fact. Sure, there’s always the illegally imported Freon from Russia, India, and places like that. But there’s something you need to know about that stuff. It’s not much like our domestic R-12. It’s far inferior to the old R-12 and has high levels of moisture, non-absorbale gases, and a host of other contaminates. It’s generally far more corrosive than domestic stuff too. So, if you refill your A/C with "Boris Brand" Freon, you’re likey going to damage your system. Then, if you take it to a repair shop for repairs, their federally required R-12 recyling equipment will also likely be damaged by it, and they can legally charge you to repair the machine! It’s not worth the risks involved. Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. CFC lvels in the atomosphere are natural; not man made. Hair spray, Freon; all those things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The EPA’s main job is to keep creating imaginary hazards so they can keep drawing a paycheck. <end Though I present this information to you. Also R134a is now believed to cause cancer. Dodge Boy
Response:
I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not agree, … References please. —
in reference to. Dodge Boy
Response:
: : 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed : for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. : : Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the : ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, : and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing : in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was : no hole. Sorry, you’re wrong. Scientists have monitored Antarctic ozone levels since the 50s. That’s why we know the hole began in the 70s. You obviously have never read a scientific source on the issue. : : What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? : Clouds (water vapor) blocks NONE of the uv radiation. That’s why you can get a sunburn just as easily on a cloudy day. You really should look into the SCIENCE instead of making baseless claims.
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole.
References? The short answer is that the results from Halley Bay have been posted numerous times to this newsgroup and they show significantly lower Antarctic column ozone in the late 1980s than in earlier years; also, measurements by the Nimbus 7 Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer show no ozone hole in the early years of the satellite lifetime (1980) and a developing hole later. The long answer and the references are in the FAQ. Barry Schlesinger
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ _____/ – Steve Jobs, from interview in WIRED magazine, 2/96.
I am impressed how easy it is to do science if you just make up the facts as you go along. First measurments of ozone levels in the antarctic go back at least to the 50s and the ozone hole was not discovered until the early 80s although in retrospect, by looking back at the data, it became clear that it was already beginning in the late 70s. This is all from Robert Parson’s FAQ. Parson, being a scientist and hence restricted to facts rather than imagination, gives detailed references for all his assertions. — Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University Evanston Illinois
Response:
I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not agree, …
References please. —
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. UV levels were measured by explores in the 30’s,50’s and 60’s. Remember the permanent stations were started back then. Early Cosmic ray experiments were also performed, so rest assured that valid data was collected.
Where might one read about this? I was unaware that someone had solved the problems associated with calibration of UV sensitive PM tubes across decades. I am not sure why you appear to think that cosmic ray experiments are valid for O3 anyway. And the fact that the hole is growing is not based on two data point, an assumed 0 and a current observation. It is based on close to 30 years of monitoring an increaseing in time and size, hole. Except maybe for the last couple of years where the hole may be decreasing.
Not entirely correct. Measurements of sufficient accuracy exist only from 1979. This is not quite yet 20 years (there is a good discussion of this in the article "Global Average Ozone Change from November 1978 to May 1990", by J. R. Herman, in the J. Geophysical Res., Vol 96, (1991). I have not seen a refutation of the points raised which prove that the record prior to 1979 is not useful. If you have, let me know. [deleted] Regards, Harold —– "Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it." —Edmund Burke,1791
Response:
That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, Please read "Satellite confirmation of the dominance of chlorofluorocarbons in the global stratospheric chlorine budget" by James M. Russell III, Mingzhao Luo, Ralph J. Cicerone, & Lance E deaver in Nature, vol 379, 8 February, 1996.
Please read what I said. The chlorine radical damages the ozone not the the CFC its self. The CFC is a source of the chlorine radical, but there are other sources, Carbontetrachloride, Methylchloride, so the number of chlorine radicals is the important number. That gives a total amount, not just part which the CFC number will give you. Dodge Boy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —
Response:
That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent,
Please read "Satellite confirmation of the dominance of chlorofluorocarbons in the global stratospheric chlorine budget" by James M. Russell III, Mingzhao Luo, Ralph J. Cicerone, & Lance E deaver in Nature, vol 379, 8 February, 1996. —
Response:
9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage.
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ _____/ – Steve Jobs, from interview in WIRED magazine, 2/96.
Response:
Wrong. There has been no documentation about the beginning of the ozone hole. Scientists starting looking at ozone levels in the 70’s, and happened to find a hole. Since it has been viewed to be increasing in size since then, it has been *assumed* that at one time there was no hole.
UV levels were measured by explores in the 30’s,50’s and 60’s. Remember the permanent stations were started back then. Early Cosmic ray experiments were also performed, so rest assured that valid data was collected. And the fact that the hole is growing is not based on two data point, an assumed 0 and a current observation. It is based on close to 30 years of monitoring an increaseing in time and size, hole. Except maybe for the last couple of years where the hole may be decreasing. Also, what percentage of UV is blocked by ozone? What percentage is blocked on a cloudy day?
What difference does this make? Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / / "You plot the growth of the NEA and the dropping / /_/ / / / of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional." _____/ _/ _/ /.
Lets see, plot drug use versus stiffened drug laws, proportional corralation. Plot increase in budget def. versus republican or demacrat in the white house, indicates that to reduce the defi, elect democrats. What else, plot crime rate versus percentage of americans living on the farm, we should all go back to the farm. Statistics aint cause and effect. People with red cars have more accidents than other colours, so ban red cars. Smoking is inversely corr. to seatbelt use, so if we make seatbelt use manditory, smoke should decrease.
Response:
: : The bulk of the research into this was done by NOAA, and EPA. I believe it is best to : get first hand information, than second hand information that has been edited numerous : times. And I have quoted EPA and NOAA in numerous sources before. You’ve quoted NO scientific journals, and you haven’t provided CITATIONS for anything. : Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. : I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not : agree, or appearently from your point of view these people are no longer members of the : scientific community once they take up a position contrary to yours. : Yeah, there are crackpots calling themselves scientists who claim the world is 4000 years old, evolution is wrong, etc. Just because 1 or 2 nuts hold contrary views does not mean they are right or have anything to contribute. Look at what the scientific community accepts. : 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. : That is strange as CFC’s are not the only source of stratospheric chlorine, this would : tend to indicate that CFC’s are not as big a problem as you believe. Considering that : Methylchloride, Carbontetrachloride, and even HCFC’s are a source of stratospheric : chlorine that tend to prove you statment completely wrong. Uh, no, you are wrong. When data refutes your idea, you must discard or modify your idea. My "statement" was based on facts; yours on your "idea." : : 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. : That also would be hard to believe as Methylchoride and Carbontetrachloride do not : contain Flourine. Which is exactly why those are NOT significant contributors to stratospheric Cl. Again, when data refutes your idea, it is folly to cling to it. : 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. : According to the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and Goddard there was. Sorry, you are wrong, there was NOT. There was NO measurable increase in stratospheric Cl after Pinatubo. If you have a source that says otherwise, cite it. (And I mean CITE — volume, chapter, date, page, etc.) : : 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. : Again CFC’s are not the only source of Chlorine in the stratosphere. They are the largest source and the only significant source at this time. : So what you are trying to say here is that Aerosols, Carbontetrachloride, and : methylchloride could be put back in use, because the CFC levels match 100% the ozone : depleation level. Therefore only CFC’s and nothing else is effecting the ozone layer. Aerosol sprays USED CFCs! If this is an example of your "data," I’m not surprised you’re consistently wrong. : That is hard to believe because Chlorine Oxide is unstable, and UV ligh breaks it down : into the free chlorine radical, and two Oxygen atoms combine to form O2. So, ClO levels : are almost no existent. Also the Cl radical can react 100 times, before combining with : another element, so if the numbers match, then the chemistry of what they think is : happening needs to looked at again. Again, if data refutes your idea, change it. We HAVE detected and measured ClO in the stratosphere. In fact, that was the datum that confirmed the CFC-O3 connection. Please read a scientific article or book. : : 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed : for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. : No, that is when it was dicovered. : Wrong again! We’ve monitored Antarctic ozone since the 50s. We discovered the hole in the 70s because that’s when it appeared. : 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. : No it hasn’t, 94 was up from 93. (Environment Canada) Sorry, either you’re misinformed or you’re misinterpreting data. If you’d read some scientific sources, you’d find that both ground and satellite measurements say the ozone depletion IS getting worse. : : 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to : agree with it. : The prospect of make money has a tendency to do that to companies. Wrong again! The chemical companies opposed banning CFCs because their production was so profitable. They only came around when they became convinced of the science. : : 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this. : Yes and at one time the scientific community supported blood letting to cure infection, : but it didn’t make them right. What I’m saying is research the opposing opinion more : they may have something of value to contribute to the solution. Wrong yet again. Do "scientists" who advocate creationism have something of value to contribute? So those who continue to advocate cold fusion? Don’t assume that just because 1 or 2 people believe something it means the scientific community hasn’t accepted something else.
Response:
The levels are low, but that’s relative. The level of everything in the stratosphere is low. Let’s compare apples and apples. If you say a level is low you must be in reference to
something, and you clearly stated chlorine levels were low in the stratosphere. And I believe that you meant this in relation to other chemicals in the stratosphere. And since the Cl radical is regenerated in the reaction, one Cl atom can destroy numerous ozone molecules. According to the EPA 100 Ozone molecules are destroyed by each chlorine radical. For sources, try the FAQ. Try Science, Nature, Chemical & Engineering News, and numerous meterology and geology journals. The bulk of the research into this was done by NOAA, and EPA. I believe it is best to
get first hand information, than second hand information that has been edited numerous times. And I have quoted EPA and NOAA in numerous sources before. : The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. : Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any : of the research. Wrong. A Nobel is awarded only when the scientific community is in agreement about the research, theory, and implications. Yes, they reviewed the information. So their information is from the same source. I
myself like to have more than one source of information. I understand that they used more than one source, but in a decision as important as this more information should have been collected. : The scientific community is not in total agreement, Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. I have read journals and there are members of the scientific community that do not
agree, or appearently from your point of view these people are no longer members of the scientific community once they take up a position contrary to yours. : And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point : of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my : end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have : some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in : the auto industry. Please do, but you must cite SCIENTIFIC journals or books. You must explain why: 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. That is strange as CFC’s are not the only source of stratospheric chlorine, this would
tend to indicate that CFC’s are not as big a problem as you believe. Considering that Methylchloride, Carbontetrachloride, and even HCFC’s are a source of stratospheric chlorine that tend to prove you statment completely wrong. 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. That also would be hard to believe as Methylchoride and Carbontetrachloride do not contain Flourine. 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. According to the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and Goddard there was. 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. Again CFC’s are not the only source of Chlorine in the stratosphere. 5. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the Cl level there. 6. The decrease in stratospheric ozone mathes the F level there. 7. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the usage of CFCs. So what you are trying to say here is that Aerosols, Carbontetrachloride, and
methylchloride could be put back in use, because the CFC levels match 100% the ozone depleation level. Therefore only CFC’s and nothing else is effecting the ozone layer. 8. We have seen the products of the Cl-O3 reaction, ClO, in the stratosphere, at levels again matching the above. That is hard to believe because Chlorine Oxide is unstable, and UV ligh breaks it down
into the free chlorine radical, and two Oxygen atoms combine to form O2. So, ClO levels are almost no existent. Also the Cl radical can react 100 times, before combining with another element, so if the numbers match, then the chemistry of what they think is happening needs to looked at again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. No, that is when it was dicovered. 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. No it hasn’t, 94 was up from 93. (Environment Canada) 11. The uv radiation at ground level has been increasing. Agreed 12. The Nobel Prize committee awarded Sherwood and Molina the Chemistry prize for this work. Agreed 13. The leaders of the industrialized nations (including a Republican US president) were convinced of this. What does the political affiliation have to do with anything, or are you impling that
your position is based on political affliation as well as the information at hand. If this is the case I suggest you expand you sources of information to politicaly neutral sources or at least get information from both points of view and make an informed opinion based of both sides of the argument. 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to agree with it. The prospect of make money has a tendency to do that to companies. 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this. Yes and at one time the scientific community supported blood letting to cure infection,
but it didn’t make them right. What I’m saying is research the opposing opinion more they may have something of value to contribute to the solution.
Response:
: : Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who : services your car "for consideration" is required to use : recovery equipment. Do you disagree? : : Yes, but what are we talking about here. : I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals : and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair : operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging : a system does not require recovery and repair. Auto AC units are leaky, : that are by nature not sealed to the same degree as a home unit. It is : entirely withing the scope of title VI and EPA policy that not every : AC charge also require a full repair. At least, that is the interp. : that Region IV and the Commonwealth have taken One person posted the EPA regs. A licensed technician can NOT discharge Freon into the air, and recharging a system without fixing a leak is doing just that. We are not talking about ordinary escapage, but a leak.
Response:
I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging a system does not require recovery and repair. [... deletions ...] One person posted the EPA regs. A licensed technician can NOT discharge Freon into the air,
That’s true. and recharging a system without fixing a leak is doing just that.
Perhaps, but according to my information, the EPA does not require automotive AC leaks to be repaired. This is the information that I have from the Mobile Air Conditioning Society (MACS). If you’ve got something that says different, then please post it. "EPA Q & A Q: Does the EPA require that all leaks in motor vehicle air conditioners be repaired? A: The EPA does not require that leaks be repaired, although it recommends that vehicle owners consider repairing leaks to reduce emissions and extend the useful life of their air conditioner. Repair of leaking systems will help vehicle owners avoid the need to continue to refill systems with high-priced refrigerant. EPA recognizes that good service practices include recovering and recycling refrigerant and performing leak detection. If a leak is identified, the customer should be presented with all the options for service, including repair. If leak repair is not chosen, the technician may refill the system if requested to do so by the customer (unless a state or local leak repair requirement exists)." MACS Certification Training Manual, Revised 5/96, pg. 26 Approved by the U.S. EPA for Technician Training Requirements under Section 609 of the Clean Air Act The back of the manual has the following text: "Where possible, the information contained in this manual identified as “EPA Q & A” and “EPA Tips” have been excerpted from EPA fact sheets; however this information is intended only as an overview, not a detailed accounting of the subject regulations."
Response:
: That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free : chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, but chorine radical levels are, now : CFC are to break down into Chlorine radicals. But an earlier post said they detected : low levels chlorine in the upper atmosphere, but again no source was given for this. The levels are low, but that’s relative. The level of everything in the stratosphere is low. And since the Cl radical is regenerated in the reaction, one Cl atom can destroy numerous ozone molecules. For sources, try the FAQ. Try Science, Nature, Chemical & Engineering News, and numerous meterology and geology journals. : : : Hair spray, Freon; all those : : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. : : The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. : Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any : of the research. Wrong. A Nobel is awarded only when the scientific community is in agreement about the research, theory, and implications. : The scientific community is not in total agreement, Bzzt. Wrong. Please read some scientific books or journals. : And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point : of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my : end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have : some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in : the auto industry. Please do, but you must cite SCIENTIFIC journals or books. You must explain why: 1. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the CFC level there. 2. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the F level there. 3. There was no increase in the Cl level in the stratosphere after Pinatubo. 4. The Cl level in the stratosphere matches the usage of CFCs. 5. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the Cl level there. 6. The decrease in stratospheric ozone mathes the F level there. 7. The decrease in stratospheric ozone matches the usage of CFCs. 8. We have seen the products of the Cl-O3 reaction, ClO, in the stratosphere, at levels again matching the above. 9. The hole over Antarctica began in the 70s, just the 30-40 years needed for CFCs to diffuse to the stratosphere after their first usage. 10. The ozone depletion has gotten worse ever year. 11. The uv radiation at ground level has been increasing. 12. The Nobel Prize committee awarded Sherwood and Molina the Chemistry prize for this work. 13. The leaders of the industrialized nations (including a Republican US president) were convinced of this. 14. The chemical companies, who first vehemently opposed this, came to agree with it. 15. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports this.
Response:
Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements. You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture.
Anyone who performs automotive AC service "for consideration" is required to use approved recovery equipment. That rule is not limited to "large quantity users" or those that are part of "certain industrial classifications." The EPA web site which you referred to spoke of the following exception, which was only applicable before 1/1/93: "[Sec. 609] (c) SERVICING MOTOR VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONERS.-Effective January 1, 1992, no person repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration may perform any service on a motor vehicle air conditioner involving the refrigerant for such air conditioner without properly using approved refrigerant recycling equipment and no such person may perform such service unless such person has been properly trained and certified. The requirements of the previous sentence shall not apply until January 1, 1993 in the case of a person repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration at an entity which performed service on fewer than 100 motor vehicle air conditioners during calendar year 1990 and if such person so certifies, pursuant to subsection (d)(2), to the Administrator by January 1, 1992. " http://134.67.104.12/html/caaa/title-6.htm It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who services your car "for consideration" is required to use recovery equipment. Do you disagree?
Response:
This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at Hand?"
I just had the compressor on my father’s 84 Cutlas replaced. While I was waiting, I discussed the new freon with the manager of the A/C company. He told me that they had done some experimenting with the new freon and old A/C units. The bottom line was that they changes some seals and the old units worked OK with the new freon. He says there is some lost eficiency, but that the cooling is acceptable, even here in Texas. Anyone who tells you different is just trying to sell you an expensive upgrade. Total cost for the change over should be about $120.00. It would be less when you need a new compressor anyway. Rebuilds are now available. Its a pain in the ass, but not the end of the world.! Sherwin Rubin
Response:
Agreed, but according to my information, a technician who services your car "for consideration" is required to use recovery equipment. Do you disagree?
Yes, but what are we talking about here. I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging a system does not require recovery and repair. Auto AC units are leaky, that are by nature not sealed to the same degree as a home unit. It is entirely withing the scope of title VI and EPA policy that not every AC charge also require a full repair. At least, that is the interp. that Region IV and the Commonwealth have taken
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements. You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture. It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
I am sorry I am going to have to disagree with you. I just finished getting my EPA certification to work on all types of refrigeration systems including automotive. The books and instuctor quoted federal regulations. The long and short of it is that if someone is EPA certified (And they have to be to work on a/c units) then they can recieve a $10,000 fine for releasing refrigerant to the atmosphere. In other words they can be fined for recharging a leaky system. Steve
Response:
You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill I am sorry I am going to have to disagree with you. I just finished getting my EPA certification to work on all types of refrigeration systems including automotive. The books and instuctor quoted federal regulations. The long and short of it is that if someone is EPA certified (And they have to be to work on a/c units) then they can recieve a $10,000 fine for releasing refrigerant to the atmosphere. In other words they can be fined for recharging a leaky system. Steve
Nope, I stand by my orginal statement, that a system can be recharged without needed additional repairs. I would direct you attention to the U.S.EPA’s board at ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov,,, go to the clean air act section, title VI.
Response:
Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements.
You are almost correct, certain large quanity users and those that are part of certain industrial classification are required to do capture. It is an a miscommunication that repairs need to be performed before recharging, althought the contractor’s that the EPA hired to teach the repair shops spread this falsehood. You can still get your system recharged without the expensive repair bill
Response:
The only use for [Freon] is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging.
My understanding is that the EPA does not require DIYers to have a recovery machine in order to purchase Freon — they only require that you have a Federal license. Having a recovery machine is only a requirement for people who perform AC service "for consideration," e.g. anything other than free service. Also, there is no Federal law which requires anyone, professional mechanic or DIYer, to fix automotive Freon leaks instead of just re-charging. State and local laws may be different, of course. My information comes from an AC training manual provided by the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), which quotes EPA regulations and public statements.
Response:
First I did a direct quote, and do not believe everything in the article, but it is wrong to edit out what I do not agree with. The information from the article on freon was presented in its entirety, for you to make your opinions on with out editing help from me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, : Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at : Hand?" : : According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of : R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, : consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the : stuff a year! No, it uses 0 tons a year, since no auto comes with R12 anymore. The only use for it is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging. Yes, the industry does use that much, because the industry doesn’t only include car
manufactures, but the aftermarket as well which is working on the older cars, that still use R-12. : In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? : Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work : on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. There are conversion kits available. Volvo, for example, has one for $45. The kit your reffering to includes adaptors to vaccum out the R-12, and then replace it
with R-134a. The R-12 and R134a equipment use different attaching nipples to prevent mixing the two, as this will not work. Now an R-134a system uses a larger condesor and evaporator, because it is less efficent. The $45 kit you reffer to will not include the condensor or evaporator of larger capacity. This will result in an system A/C that will have temps 10 to 15 dergree F, higher than the system did with R-12, so if your system could keep your car at 75 degrees on a 100 degree day, with the cheap convertion it will be between 85 and 90. The conversion that includes the nessary parts to keep the operating parameters in the spec range can cost up to $1200. The cheap kits are avalible for almost everything, and most people complain about the quality of the A/C, once they are installed. : : Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save : us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been : proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they : are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. Wrong. We’ve measured CFCs in the stratosphere. Gases do not stratify like this. If they did, you’d have all the CO2 at ground level and all the O2 higher up and we’d all suffocate. Use a little common sense! Again I agree. As I stated above I quoted the entire section, but do not agree with all
of it. The process is called difussion. Again I wish to know who "we" is? : CFC lvels in the : atomosphere are natural; not man made. There are NO natural sources of CFCs. That brings up another thing. CFC’s them selves do not damage the ozone the free
chlorine radical does. So CFC levels are irelivent, but chorine radical levels are, now CFC are to break down into Chlorine radicals. But an earlier post said they detected low levels chlorine in the upper atmosphere, but again no source was given for this. : Hair spray, Freon; all those : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. Acutualy the Nobel prize commitee awarded a prize for research, but they didn’t do any
of the research. The scientific community is not in total agreement, if they were all research would stop, and we would still be using phlogisten theory, instead of the atomic theory of chemistry. Since you’ve made numerous scientific mistakes already, your credibility in areas of science is less than zero. And your side of the argument has just as many holes, and I’m willing to change my point
of view if you can fill them in, and state sources. I will try to do the same, on my end, but I many cases this will this will be difficult on both sides. I think I have some credibility, I have a degree in business, with a minor in Chemisty, and I work in the auto industry. Please read a scientific book or journal! I have read scientic based information, auto industry information, after all they have
done loads of research, PBS, etc… I suggest that you also check some more sources to increase your own credibility.
Response:
: This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, : Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at : Hand?" : : According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of : R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, : consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the : stuff a year! No, it uses 0 tons a year, since no auto comes with R12 anymore. The only use for it is recharging older auto a/cs. And you must, by law, have a license to buy it, have recovery equipment to capture any released, and fix any leaks instead of just recharging. : In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? : Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work : on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. There are conversion kits available. Volvo, for example, has one for $45. : : Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save : us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been : proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they : are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. Wrong. We’ve measured CFCs in the stratosphere. Gases do not stratify like this. If they did, you’d have all the CO2 at ground level and all the O2 higher up and we’d all suffocate. Use a little common sense! : CFC lvels in the : atomosphere are natural; not man made. There are NO natural sources of CFCs. : Hair spray, Freon; all those : things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The scientific community and the Nobel Prize committee say otherwise. Since you’ve made numerous scientific mistakes already, your credibility in areas of science is less than zero. Please read a scientific book or journal!
Response:
This is a quote from the November 1996 issue of Mopar Collectors Guide, Page 10, "Get Set to Sweat, Freon Supplies Drying Up- End of World at Hand?" According to the EPA, there are between 80 and 150 million pounds of R-12 stockpiled in the United States. While that may sound like a lot, consider this. The auto industry uses 35 to 40 million pounds of the stuff a year! In just two years we could be out of freon! Then what? Then you have the costly conversions to make your air conditioner work on the less effcient R-134a or you’re going to sweat like hell. Most cars and trucks built after 1994 have R-134a air conditioners already in place, but if you mode of transportation si pre-’94, then you might as well paint a big target on your forehead. This isn’t hype, this isn’t speculation, this isn’t scare tactics – this is fact. Sure, there’s always the illegally imported Freon from Russia, India, and places like that. But there’s something you need to know about that stuff. It’s not much like our domestic R-12. It’s far inferior to the old R-12 and has high levels of moisture, non-absorbale gases, and a host of other contaminates. It’s generally far more corrosive than domestic stuff too. So, if you refill your A/C with "Boris Brand" Freon, you’re likey going to damage your system. Then, if you take it to a repair shop for repairs, their federally required R-12 recyling equipment will also likely be damaged by it, and they can legally charge you to repair the machine! It’s not worth the risks involved. Just think, all of this from the simpletons at the EPA who want to save us from the dreaded CFC gassed refrigerant. Never mind that it has been proven time and again that CFC,s do not rise into the ozone layer – they are heavier-than-air and sink to the ground. CFC lvels in the atomosphere are natural; not man made. Hair spray, Freon; all those things we grew up with and took for granted are harmless. The EPA’s main job is to keep creating imaginary hazards so they can keep drawing a paycheck. <end Though I present this information to you. Also R134a is now believed to cause cancer. Dodge Boy
Response:
(The state agencies are in the Administrative arm of the state government.) 