A reporter once asked Hemmingway what it took to be a good reporter... he said " you have to develop a built in shock proof crap detector".

At first it looked like Redfox knew lots about the chemistry of his product compared to other refrigerants... I thought he did a good job of the Duracool/R134a comparison.

So I asked him about a direct comparison of Duracool/R12 hoping for head pressures/latent heat/and whatever criteria is important for comparison....

Instead he gave an incredible amount of generalizations and several real ( I do not know if they were intentional ) misrepresentations of situations hoping the implied conclusions would point in the general direction of Duracool...

I am really disgusted and don't want to take the time to address all of them... so I am choosing this one for my example...

"Do you remember the side collision tests on Chevrolet gas tanks that NBC produced. It was a proven fraud. "---Redfox

I remember it very well.. and the fact that there was no question that the design placed only sheetmetal between a vehicle hitting the pickup from the side and the gas tank. I know of no other vehicle with the gas tank so unprotected. It does not take an engineer to figure this out.

When I was in Peace Officer training at San Marcos Texas in 1980 we were shown a list of cars which had problems with fuel tank rupture during accidents... I drove a Volkswagon at the time.. and my parents had a 1980 Toyota Corona. The Volkswagon, with no actual frame in the American car sense ... was pretty safe with respect to the fuel tank.. but the Corona was one of those cars which had no metal firewall between it and the passenger compartment... when hit from the rear fuel cascaded over the people inside the car.... I believe the early Mustangs had the same problem and that safety update information has been issued lately for that... Most people have heard on the news about the favorite car for police departments ( The Crown Vic ) having a problem with having placed the fuel tank in a crumple zone.. and those are being recalled and fixed.... and everyone knows about the Pinto.... the horrible fire deaths from bad fuel tank placement design....

The film crew of the television network was taking a perfectly good pickup ( except for the tank placement ) and another car and crashing them together.... But they needed it to catch on fire for more dramatic video....

So they provided an ignition source to make sure the fuel, which did not have to be rigged to splash under the vehicle, would catch fire for the demonstration.

To claim the demonstation was a fraud because they did not want (or could not afford) to wreck several vehicles in order to show the potential tragic effects of what happens when it was hit in a slow speed crash from the side is fraud in itself. All it takes for gas fumes is a hot exhaust pipe , if in fact the wreck did not cause sparks itself sufficient to cause ignition. It may have been " journalistic " fraud... but it was not a fraud in terms of showing the potential risk from a side mounted gas tank being ruptured in a minor collision.

EDIT ; Just today on the news they said GM had settled this suit for 500 million dollars and changed the design. Here is an interesting url about the history of this fuel tank mounting mistake

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=94&did=504
End of Edit

Several of you miss important qualifying words that I have used.. one is " unnecessary" when talking about fire risk....Herb, that is the second time you have posted that silly statement about banning gas cars.... I do think that gas cars deserve bladders and or racing type fuel cells which decrease the rupture risk. Note that new cars have " inertia switches' to cut the electricity to the electric fuel pump in a collision. This is so the fuel pump won't evacuate the contents of the gas tank onto the highway under the vehicle.. making the situation look exactly like those where the side gas tanks of the Chev pickup were breached by a very minor side collision.

Concerning the amount of fuel (in the form of combustible refrigerant ) needed to do harm... Here are the urls to a site about rodent control... notice what they are able to do with 3percent propane and 97 percent oxygen....

http://www.building.org/profiles/98056.html
http://www.rodexindustries.com/

In Grain elevator explosions it is Dust that is the fuel... mixed with the air and encountering a spark.. often times just from static electricity built up....

Steel can be burned with a match if the steel to air ratio is corret... try it with a steel wool pad if you don't believe me..

So it is not necessarily the amount of fuel.. but whether it happens to be at the right mixture with oxygen when the ignition source is encountered....

gsxr---"We have a better chance of being hit by lightning than being injured in a refrigent-related fire during a crash! "
I do not agree with your assessment of the relative risk.

I still hope Redfox will present an honest , factual comparison of the physics of Duracool vs R12.

got the car back from the indy.. he said it prolly needs a new compressor , but the compressor is on and the air was freezing coming out of the vents. it is a little hard to tell how cold it was due to the low ambient temperature today. i will try to talk to the indy again tomorrw for a more detailed explanation.

__________________
1984 300D Turbo - 231k....totalled 11/30/07 RIP

redfox,

I like the idea of Duracool 12a as a replacement for R12 since it is compatible with all refrigerant oils and seals, I suppose. Does the Duracool can have a 16 acme thread that is the same as R134a cans?

Where can I buy Duracool in California?

Yes, the duracool can has a 134a top. Personally I wouldn't know where to send you to buy it in CA. Most people pick up the phone and order. I ship FedEx Ground. It usually arrives in about 4 working days to CA.

Leathermang

You asked for a general comparison of R12 vs Duracool. I'll do my best. Duracool is non-corrosive and non-toxic. R12 is both corrosive and toxic. Duracool runs about 10 to 15 psi lower than R12 on the high side. It cools marginally better than R12. Duracool contains no chlorine or fluorine. Look those up in your dictionary. No lisence is needed to buy Duracool. It can be released to the atmosphere.

redfox,

Why isn't Duracool sold in autoparts stores like Kragen and Autozone?

Redfox, That is not actually what I asked for... (general) .. I asked for honest, factual...

You are a professional with many years experience ( from what you say )... I do not know enough to ask for the specific criteria which would do the best job of comparing the physics of the two refrigerants.. Here is your chance to shine... tell us what are the important criteria, compare R-12 and Duracool with regards to them... and tell us if there are any drawbacks to Duracool which we should know about...

If your supplier , in his training program , said to you " Don't learn about R-12 so you will have " plausable deniability " when asked about the relative merits or problems.. Tell us that....

Mercedes Man

To answer your question, most of the major chains have shut us out probably because of corporate ties. Many of the independantly owned parts houses do sell our product. Autozone here in Madison TN buys from me to sell to their commercial customers, but they cannot buy to sell across the counter.

Leathermang

It is obvious that if I were to answer your question the way you wanted me to you wouldn't understand it. Proverbs 12:1 whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

Good Night

Redfox, Well, that is twice you have invoked religion/god instead of dealing with physics... You lose.

Both the shuttle and station use anhydrous ammonia as the refrigerant. It is a very efficient cooler requiring low power to push through the vapor cycle but it is toxic at low ppm's and it dehydrates eye/lung/skin tissue fairly easily. That's why you don't see it in general use. I've heard stories about workers in the 1920's getting killed because they were exposed. The R12/R22 were created to be safer. Also saw a post about spraying R12 on fighter jet wings. Actually it's probably R11. Until about 13 years ago we bought it in 55 gallon drums but the price shot up when R12 took off and it was not cost effective. I think it's banned too due to ozone depletion concerns. It's an excellent cleaner and is still in use in cleaning components for use in some oxygen systems that are corroded or damaged by alternate cleaners.
As for getting R12 overseas, I think American companies moved production to Central America because it still sells for about $3.50 a 12 oz. can down there.

leathermang, re: relative risk - I freely admit that I have no facts to back up my assertion, and that it is purely my opinion. I kind of base it on the fact that I have seen no reports of either occurance in the media personally. Again, just my $0.02, and as usual you get what you pay for.

redfox, et al, re: Duracool - R-12 ain't corrosive. As mentioned before, it's the combination of moisture, oils, and refrigerant that forms acid - not just refrigerant and the proper oils (using the wrong combination DOES create acid, such as putting R-12 in a R-134a system, and vice-versa, but we WERE discussing a pure R-12 system, so that should be irrelevant.) And as jcyunh (sp?) pointed out earlier, refrigerants have different temp curves related to ambient conditions. Even if Duracool does perform equally to R-12 (which I have not seen documented on their website, which they obviously would if it were true, hmm?) at SOME temperatures, that doesn't mean it will at ALL temperatures. Was it "latent temp of vaporization" I think? This really becomes a serious issue in extreme climates.

I'm NOT knocking Duracool as a good product in general, ONLY the point that it is NOT better than R-12 in all respects... mostly just that it's cheap, doesn't require a license to purchase, and works with multiple oils. AutoFrost's website has some excellent technical information, it's worth poking around and reading up...

__________________
Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!

I have learned a great deal of the R12 and its alternatives on this particular thread. I found this forum is really helpful and informative in many ways.

However, sometimes I found some people taken too personal on some issues. This forum is supposed for peolpe to share their experiences and express their views on certain subjects. It is not about who wins or loses.



Have a good nite


David

________________
1985 300D Turbo

Well, despite Dave M's heroic efforts to the contrary we're off topic here, so I figured I'd just add fuel to the fire To be up front, I'm basically in favor of using R12 (I also have my 609 certification). I do have R134 in my 300 SD, and it actually cools pretty well - vent temps in the low 40s on a mid 80s day. I know several people who use Duracool, and are very pleased with it. I know of no one who uses Duracool who doesn't think its an improvement over R134. I seriously doubt that across the board that Duracool is better than R12. However, here are the other factors that need to be considered with alternative refrigerants:

1. Per Big Brother EPA, there are no drop in replacements for R12. Any "topping off" of R12 with another product is using that refrigerant in a way that is inconsistent with its approval, and one that hasn't been tested. Duracool and every other SNAP refrigerant that is approved may replace a system already converted to R134. Admittedly many people will consider this a "what they don't know won't hurt them" situation . . .

2. Some states won't allow the sale of hydrocarbon refrigerants for mobile use. My state of Virginia is one. I read of Louisiana fining a dealer who sold Envirosafe for automotive applications. YMMV.

3. OK, this is admittedly a rare one, but I am aware of an instance where a user of Duracool in a leaky system had his engine run away. . . apparently the propane got sucked into the intake and it was off to the races.. the story is here. As far as I know, this is only an issue with diesels, and could be an issue with any of the hydrocarbon blends. Of course, if you fix the system so it doesn't leak like a sieve its probably no big deal. But once your system is tight you may as well put in good ol' R12.

__________________
Tjohn

82 300 SD
77 450 SL (gone)

Tjohn - excellent post - I agree with all your points!

__________________
Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!

Gsxr, I have no facts either in the form you refer to.... my view is based on general principles of physics...and risk avoidance....
Here is my thinking on the lack of media reports on this... If one had a medium sized wreck sufficient to breach the fuel system and it caught on fire... I do not think many people would be trying to decide if having combustible gas let loose in the crash mix caused any problem because with the fuel available one has to assume two other sources of ignition would be there... shorts in the electrical system and sparks from metal to metal violent contact.
Because I share the view that R-12 is the best with regards to the physics involved putting a combustible gas in harms way in case of an accident seems an unnecessary risk.

dc88168, When a person with financial interest in an answer comes on the forum , makes mulitiple misrepresentations, and uses the Bible when avoiding carefully crafted quesions designed to give them every opportunity to describe the advantages of their product.... they lose.
Perhaps I would not understand his answer... but others on this forum would ... and could decipher it for (me) us....The form of the interchange makes it much more likely that the answer is not there to present....So diversionary tactics were used....