R1234YF

Moderators: Nacho, Tom Greenleaf, ACProf, acsource

R1234YF

Postby cornbinder89 » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:04 pm

Interesting read,: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,3,3,3-T ... oropropene
It seams that more and better test are needed! I seen this again and again, something is reported to be cleaner, and better, laws are passed to mandate its use (although written not do specify a particular product, they are often written so only one will meet the requirements) then it is found to be more harmful then what it replaced. Flammable, forms an acid so strong it can etch glass when burned? I don't want the stuff any car!
cornbinder89
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:10 pm
Location: Lyman, IA
Favorite Refrigerant: R134a

Re: R1234YF

Postby blue_can » Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:59 pm

However it does look like R-1234yf will be the long term replacement for R-134a. It looks like new equipment will be needed. I see that you can now buy gauges and recovery/recycle machines for R-1234yf. Having said that I don't think small portable recovery machines are still available.

I think quite a few vehicles for the current model year are coming out with R-1234yf.
blue_can
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:27 pm
Favorite Refrigerant: R134A

Re: R1234YF

Postby cornbinder89 » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:44 pm

German companys are pulling out of their cars and running 134A,paying the fine rather then run it. There is a good video of a test, showing it burning. More then likely we'll end up with CO2 but that runs about 4x the pressure. CO2 being a "greenhouse gas", I'm not sure how that will work.
134a was supposed to solve the problem, but they keep moving the goal post!
I think the high pressure CO2 requires will end up making it not a long term choice. The higher the pressure the harder it will be to contain it.
R1234YF was chosen because it will run in the same system as 134a, requiring no re-engineering, different oil but same compressor and pressures.
It is funny, the ones who come up with regulations sit in AC/heated offices and come up with all this crap. May be they should start reduceing greenhouse gases by working without heat or A/C before they tell the rest of us what to do!
cornbinder89
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:10 pm
Location: Lyman, IA
Favorite Refrigerant: R134a

Re: R1234YF

Postby blue_can » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:52 pm

Yes I'm aware of the controversy surrounding the flammability of R-1234yf. I think some of these manufacturers are pushing for CO2 instead although that has various operating challenges of their own (as we discussed in another thread).

From a greenhouse gas point of view CO2 would be the best candidate out of the current refrigerants since the Global Warming Potential of all refrigerants are benchmarked against CO2. CO2 is considered to have a GWP of 1 against say R-134 which is around 1300 or thereabouts.

R-1234yf is supposed to have a low GWP which is why supposedly it is being used to replace R-134a. I'm not sure about how good it is as a refrigerant in terms of heat removal capacity and other properties compared to existing refrigerants.
blue_can
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:27 pm
Favorite Refrigerant: R134A

Re: R1234YF

Postby Z2TT » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:14 pm

We should have designed systems to work with hydrocarbons long time ago if damage to the ozone layer really was the concern, obviously not as most of the fluorocarbons that get put into a/c systems leak out via unsuspecting leaks as no vehicle manufacturer has check-up intervals for a/c systems to pick up leaks early.

I have heard a rumour that R1234YF is slightly less efficient than R134a.
Z2TT
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:57 pm
Favorite Refrigerant: R12

Re: R1234YF

Postby Tom Greenleaf » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:16 pm

See if I can copy some very real published stuff on this bull and count me in the 3% that thinks we are wasting good $$ and time thinking refrigerants are a cause of anything just a political and money game when it's totally proven that R-12 was as close as ever achieved by mankind to the capability in caloric heat transfer of good old H2O or water! Take my word for it caloric value of water (pure) is 1 (ONE) that is. R-134a is about .8 so we lost 20% and it likes to leak. Patents run out so let's say it too is ruining the world and change that one too. OMG - the waste of effort is beyond calculation for a product already perfect - don't but non toxic except if purposely burned so I understand.
********************
Some writings by experts with more credentials than the Pentagon could hold wrote this and you'll never hear much about it because there's too much motivation to mess with things that already work IMO and WE pay for it.
I can't prove or disprove the following which is quite a read but hard to argue with if you ask me. Make up your own minds based on uncorrupted facts and beware of the constant bull to downright lies. This info gets squelched effectively quite apparently because I would bet nobody ever heard of this person and the observations right in your face are so credible!
__________________________________________________________

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?


Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree; this is a good summary.






PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland.


Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.





Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.



I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....


well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland which has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.



I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.





Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.





Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.



And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.


Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.





Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just "Climate Change" - you know why?



It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down.


And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.



It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.



But, hey, relax...give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: I didn't write that just passing it along. No way I can prove this person even exists by me alone,

T
ImageImage
MetroWest, Boston
Image
______________________________
User avatar
Tom Greenleaf
 
Posts: 4549
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:40 am
Location: Marlborough, MA. USA
Favorite Refrigerant: R-12+134a

Re: R1234YF

Postby Z2TT » Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:06 pm

Not to open a can of worms or anything thats not my intention : - even though it is generally accepted by techs that R134a is Less efficient than R12, I cant find any data to tests / papers carried out to support it.

All information I have found shows that if anything R134a is the same if not more efficient, higher latent heat of vapourization, higher refrigerating effect. The only downside I see is ofcourse it significantly higher pressures on high side. All compressor tech articles appear to state that R134a is not less efficient. I'm just trying to find some scientific information on it.

Cheers.
Z2TT
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:57 pm
Favorite Refrigerant: R12

Re: R1234YF

Postby Tom Greenleaf » Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:50 pm

Z2TT,

TMK there was mess with patent issues I think back to early 90s unknown to me with DuPont who invented R-12/Freon.

Check - I thing you'll find it has the caloric value of water = 1. 134a is about .8 so designs had to make up the 20% loss and have at expense of using alloys and barrier hoses as it's a smaller molecule that much more apt to leak. Fine - better rubber products but alloys don't hold up as well for strength nor corrosion.

However using R-12 in devices made for 134a doesn't get you more BTUs of heat transfer designs of what will happen where so I would be a waste and not legal so that's not going to work.

It really doesn't matter now a nobody is going back now no matter what.

I just have a problem what any product works and did for decades on end why change it?

T
MetroWest, Boston
Image
______________________________
User avatar
Tom Greenleaf
 
Posts: 4549
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:40 am
Location: Marlborough, MA. USA
Favorite Refrigerant: R-12+134a

Re: R1234YF

Postby Nacho » Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:15 am

We got two new cars in 2015: A Fiat 500 and a Chevy Trax. A couple of days ago, I noticed that almost a year after buying the Fiat, the it uses R1234yf. It has a different port for the discharge, but the same for suction. Cools fine. The Trax was supposed to use the same stuff, but something happened and GM decided to go back to R134a. I didn't care much about the new stuff until one of our family cars came with it from the factory. Then I began reading: it is flammable, 10 times as expensive, cooling efficiency is "slightly less", Mercedes Benz and VW decided against it, and several other Chrysler products are now using it. It requires a "reinforced" evaporator, and the recovery equiment costs 3,600 euros. The stuff is getting more controversial that R134a did around 20 years ago. It can safely be retrofitted to R134a. By 2018 it is estimated that about 50% of new cars will have it, but R134a is not going away, at the moment.
User avatar
Nacho
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:41 am
Location: Hermosillo, Sonora, MEXICO
Favorite Refrigerant: R134a


Return to A/C Questions and Opinions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Google [Bot] and 7 guests

cron