months.
FYI: this is called Usenet's everlasting September effect (or was it 'never
ending'?).
Bye,
W.J. Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
months.
FYI: this is called Usenet's everlasting September effect (or was it 'never
ending'?).
Bye,
W.J. Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
> To summarize:
> 1. We know CFCs make it into the stratosphere -- we've measured them there.
> 2. We know uv light breaks a Cl free radical off a CFC molecule -- simple
> chemistry.
> 3. We know a Cl free radical breaks down an ozone molecule -- again,
> simply chemisty.
> 4. We know CFCs are the primary source of Cl in the stratosphere because
> no other Cl source makes it up there AND the F concentration correlates
> with the Cl concentration there.
> 5. We know the CFC concentration in the stratosphere has been increasing
> for decades, correlating with the usage of CFCs.
> 6. We know the ozone layer has been degrading, correlating with the
> amount of CFCs making it up to the stratosphere.
1. What created(s) the "ozone layer"?
2. If UV is needed to create these "Cl free radicals" why are the "ozone
holes" always over the poles (usually the pole in its winter phase) and not
over the equator where direct sunlight would seem to have a much stronger
effect?
3. Why is the "ozone layer" now "healing" even though the CFC ban has not
been effect long enough to make any difference?
4. Does the level of solar activity have any effect on the "ozone layer"?
I followed one of the EPA links that someone posted and I saw no scientific
proof to back up the "hole" theory. The "data" was oversimplistic and was
as detailed as the claim "stuff causes cancer because it is bad for you".
It may be true but I refuse to take the words of bureauocrats as fact,
even if backed by scientists.
If anyone knows where I can access raw scientific data on this subject via
the net, please let me know. Summations mean little to me if the data is
not accessible. I'm willing to learn but I would like to see all the
"facts" before I buy into a theory.
BTW, I am interested in seeing this discussion continue but I think it may
be needlessly cluttering up a few extra NGs. If anyone has a suggestion as
to where to take it, I will follow. I am posting from rec.autos.simulators
and I think some of these guys may be getting tired of this thread.
Dan
Matt, you seem to be missing the point here. InterCool Energy (ICE) FRIGC
FR-12, marketed through Pennzoil Products Company, IS ALREADY APPROVED by
EPA. The spec sheet from InterCool states "It has been listed as SNAP
acceptable fy the U.S. EPA for use in all mobile applications." Also, FRIGC
FR-12 is described as "Listed by the EPA as an 'acceptable alternative' to
R-12 for the automotive aftermarket...."
--
"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net
income." -- Errol Flynn (and me too!)
Matt, you seem to be missing the point here. InterCool Energy (ICE) FRIGC
FR-12, marketed through Pennzoil Products Company, IS ALREADY APPROVED by
EPA. The spec sheet from InterCool states "It has been listed as SNAP
acceptable by the U.S. EPA for use in all mobile applications." Also, FRIGC
FR-12 is described as "Listed by the EPA as an 'acceptable alternative' to
R-12 for the automotive aftermarket...."
--
"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net
income." -- Errol Flynn (and me too!)
>Know what a little bird told me? If you put synthetic oil in your a/c and
>solder in a bigger orifice tube, you can run 134a in an r-12 system.
>Cost: about six bucks and an hour.
> Kev
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kevin Mather
>POD Engineering Dept.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the same heat exchanger, you will find a slight decrease in efficiency,
also.
MY theory for global warming is that it is not the CFCs we have pumped into
the atmosphere with our air conditioners, IT IS THE HEAT!
>:
>: Actually, Jeffery... I hear this all the time...and please don't think
I'm
>: picking on you... But ALL of the refrigerants are ozone-safe. I find it
>: amazing that you personally buy into the nonsense about them destroying the
>: ozone hole. What's even more amazing is that, while it's taken 50 years
of
>: production, and massive releases to damage the ozone they say, supposedly
>: it's already healing - and it's supposed to be due to the new laws.
>Wrong. It's been proven scientifically (a term you don't seem familiar
>with) that CFCs destroy the ozone layer. Gee, some fool could say the
>earth is flat too. Doesn't make it so. You might read up on the science
>of the situation before showing off your right-wing extremist views.
>:
>: I don't get it, freon-12 is almost harmless, i
>Destroys ozone on the stratosphere, leading to increased uv radiation on
>earth, leading to skin cancer, cataracts, and genetic mutations. Hardly
>harmless.
>: t's not poisonous unless burned,
>: but 134a is lethal.
>Not so. Both kill by suffocation.
>: And, it's 4 times the cost. I figure that's where the
>: REAL value of it is. You should be ashamed to have your agency used
>: politically to profit the maker of 134a.
>You should be embarrasseed by your rantings that are unsupported by any
>science.
>: I hope Arizona sticks with their
>: determination to re-start the production of r-12. The EPA lawsuit will
have
>: to PROVE the theory about ozone depletion, which it cannot do, and we'll be
>: done with this nonsense.
>:
>Well, AZ would first have to sue to overturn the federal ban, meaning
>they would have to prove CFCs are harmless. And they can't do that --
>every scientific study has shwon CFCs destroy the ozone. The developers
>of this theory won the Nobel Prize, something not given for a theory not
>accepted by science.
>A thought to ponder.
I DO find myself questioning the recent "scientific" evidence that the Ozone
Layer is already healing itself due to the ban on CFCs (Which haven't even
been fully implemented, as yet).
>: : (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>: :
>: : >But the vast majority of the scientific community has accepted the
>: : >CFC-ozone link, because there's a ton of evidence to support it and none
>: : >to refute it.
>: : >
>: : >
>: :
>: : Not so. That vast majority only believe it harms the ozone so they will
>: : get more cash from the US government to stury how to "fix" the problem.
>: : The money these guys get is very substantial andif I was being handed
over
>: : that kind of cash i would tell you that the moon was made of green
cheese.
>: :
>: :
>: : Gene
>Uhh, no. One molecule of chloroflourocarbon (any type) can destroy
>like fifty thousand molecules of ozone. Granted, the government says some
>types of things expel far more dangers than they actually do, CFC's still
>kill ozone.
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kevin Mather
>POD Engineering Dept.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I work for Hertz right now as a summer job, they go through so
many cars a day, when we get a car that has something wrong with
it I fill out a slip and send it to the garage, I clean and
inspect the cars and we don't spend more than ten minutes
cleaning any car. I think the place I work at must rent over 300
cars a day, if one of those gets wrecked it is the price of doing
buisness.
I am not saying that I agree with wrecking cars, but to try and
blacklist someone from rental car companies would be impossible.
>>Know what a little bird told me? If you put synthetic oil in your a/c and >Possibly true, with one MAJOR exception. You sure better purge the old system >Using the same heat exchanger, you will find a slight decrease in efficiency, >MY theory for global warming is that it is not the CFCs we have pumped into
>>solder in a bigger orifice tube, you can run 134a in an r-12 system.
>>Cost: about six bucks and an hour.
>> Kev
>>--
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Kevin Mather
>>POD Engineering Dept.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>of all CFCs and the old oil first! Mixed with R134a (as I understand it), you
>got corrosion problems. Also (minor if you don't mind constant topping off of
>the system) is that the hoses for R-12 are too porous for R134a.
>also.
>the atmosphere with our air conditioners, IT IS THE HEAT!
[ huge snip ]
rec.autos.simulators
Well said. Otherwise rec.autos.simulators will start crossposting endless
speculations on Microprose GP II over your way. Not recommended ... :-)
James
--
James Bevan
NeXTMail & MIME welcome
Jerrause
these coursed in school. Octane is, for those who dont already know, is
c8h18. Oct means 8, get it?
Therefore you have 8 carbons. Another ex: Hexane: = c6h14 (6 carbons)
Noe you all know what octane is
Thanks,
CT
Hawaii: Cole
"If you dont like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk"
Just butting in to this interesting conversation...
A point I haven't seen brought up that I read in "Time" and another magazine whose
name eludes me is: Cfc's destroy ozone, most scientists will agree, the question is
how much damage are humans really responsable for. When Mount Pinatubo (spelling)
exploded the estimate was that it threw out more ozone destroying chemicals in its
multiple eruptions than humans have expelled in 500 YEARS or more. Kinda makes you
wonder how much good banning cfc's will do.
note...these numbers aren't exact (hence no quote marks) but this is the jist of
what I read twice. I will endeaver to find the exact wording.
Randy Simcox
>>>You are probably right. Seems like I have seen someone like this at a
>>stop
>>>light on Capitol Blvd, Raleigh, NC. Some idiot is setting at the light
>>with
>>>a Lincold Continental. I thought the brakes had over heated in the
>>rear at
>>>first. Maybe they had, but they had because the guy was power braking
>>the
>>>thing at wideopen. The rear wheels were spinning so fast, they weren't
>>even
>>>squalling. Left dual marks all the way across the intersection. Guy
>>looked
>>>to be in his mid thirties to 40's. You could see him laughing and
>>grinning
>>>like a idiot to his riding partner. He sat there for at least 45 to 50
>>>seconds like that. Had to be pretty tough on the whole driveline. I
>>respect
>>>teh 4.6L after that, anything that can take that kind of abuse that
>>long
>>>is pretty tough.
>Except that the Continental is front wheel drive....
>--
>Jordan Blessing L1 Master Tech
Later,
TurboDave
David L. Pearce
1984 Laser XE Turbo
Uh, I think freon was a major cause of ozone depletion, not global
warming. BTW, there are other ODCs (ozone depleting chemicals), the
list is quite long, running into the 100s and the DoD is stopping use
of them ASAP without shutting down the total Defense Dept. and all
electronics manufacture (a major user of ODCs) in the country for the
Dod.
>>Know what a little bird told me? If you put synthetic oil in your a/c and
>>solder in a bigger orifice tube, you can run 134a in an r-12 system.
>>Cost: about six bucks and an hour.
>> Kev
>>--
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Kevin Mather
>>POD Engineering Dept.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Possibly true, with one MAJOR exception. You sure better purge the old system
>of all CFCs and the old oil first! Mixed with R134a (as I understand it), you
>got corrosion problems. Also (minor if you don't mind constant topping off of
>the system) is that the hoses for R-12 are too porous for R134a.
>Using the same heat exchanger, you will find a slight decrease in efficiency,
>also.
>MY theory for global warming is that it is not the CFCs we have pumped into
>the atmosphere with our air conditioners, IT IS THE HEAT!