"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11dfim8sma1bea3@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:keJBe.1505$zw4.845@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
> >I find all kinds of references to it otherwise... I claim
> >popular use.
>
> .....what a dumbass. you cannot change an entire industry because it fits
> your argument. liar.

Show the lie... or FOAD.

> > Typical Republicon... avoid the issue, attack the source,
> > claim cheating when no evidence is shown.
>
> more babble. i nailed you on it. i recognize my limitations and
> immediately own it. you lie, make excuses, and attempt to dazzle us with
> -------- in hopes of hiding your blatent ignorance.

You don't have a clue about your limitations... imagine you,
an HVAC tech, making pronouncements about atmospheric
science! That shows *extreme* hubris... you deserve what
you get.

> > Suppose you tell me why the head pressure control
> > couldn't be bypassed, as long as a) ambient doesn't
> > drop
>
> because its irrelevant dumb ***. the criteria was subzero temps otherwise
> you would have no excuse not to change the HMC.

No, the criteria was replacement of the HMC on a rooftop...
it could have started leaking, or otherwise malfunctioned.
You're *really* grasping at straws now... trying to weasel
in another condition! I must be right!

> > But you did indeed back away from your
> > complaining about, then using, a brand name.
>
> liar. i complained about his definition of a brand name.

Oohh.... calling me a liar some more! **** up a rope.
If you'd had half a brain in your head, you'd have
said "Freon is a brand, Freon 22 is a compound!"...
but that half a brain went wanting.

> > He described Freon as a compound.
>
> wrong liar. he _defined_ freon as a compound. to quote: "freon is a
> compound".

You gonna do some Clintonesque squirming about
the definition of 'is'? Can you name a Freon that
is not a compound?

> > you said
> > it was not. That is most certainly mistaken.
>
> mistaken? dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freon
> defines it as:
>
> "A trademark used for a variety of nonflammable gaseous or liquid
> fluorinated hydrocarbons employed primarily as working fluids in
> refrigeration and air conditioning and as aerosol propellants."
>
> it is a trademark used. it is not a compound, a mixture, or anything else.
> im right, youre wrong, now spin and lie like a good liberal.
>
> liar.

Keep squirming... it's fun to watch!
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11dio288pondf74@corp.supernews.com...
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:J7qdnSYAmfL1kUTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> > Just curious, are you qualified to work on old York commercial A/C units?
>
> yes. the only area i dont consider myself qualified on yet is ground
> source/geo thermal. i have field experience and can work through most
> issues but have no formal training on them yet. ill be in the next course
> offered by water furnace.

Do you do cryo?
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11dio288pondf74@corp.supernews.com...
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:J7qdnSYAmfL1kUTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> > Just curious, are you qualified to work on old York commercial A/C units?
>
> yes. the only area i dont consider myself qualified on yet is ground
> source/geo thermal. i have field experience and can work through most
> issues but have no formal training on them yet. ill be in the next course
> offered by water furnace.

Do you do cryo?
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11dio288pondf74@corp.supernews.com...
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:J7qdnSYAmfL1kUTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> > Just curious, are you qualified to work on old York commercial A/C units?
>
> yes. the only area i dont consider myself qualified on yet is ground
> source/geo thermal. i have field experience and can work through most
> issues but have no formal training on them yet. ill be in the next course
> offered by water furnace.

Do you do cryo?
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11dio288pondf74@corp.supernews.com...
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:J7qdnSYAmfL1kUTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> > Just curious, are you qualified to work on old York commercial A/C units?
>
> yes. the only area i dont consider myself qualified on yet is ground
> source/geo thermal. i have field experience and can work through most
> issues but have no formal training on them yet. ill be in the next course
> offered by water furnace.

Do you do cryo?
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:42D7F4EF.730FC99D@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! It *damn* sure doesn't equal Pi...
> > Pi is one of the *irrational* numbers... that means,
> > for you folk that haven't had advanced math as
> > Bill and I have, that it *can't* be represented as
> > a ratio of integers. 22/7 is only good out to three
> > digits... if you can rattle off 3.1415927 like a phone
> > number, you don't need that 22/7 thing anyway.

> Point is I have "3.14" memorized, you obviously couldn't remember,
> otherwise you wouldn't have written: "3..."

Recall the beforeposts:
Bill:
>>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>>new density.
Me:
>Bill's new science... volume = density!
>That's even better than Pi = 3... and
>explains the supposed 'weightiness' of
>his scientific posts. Taken by volume,
>they *are* impressive!

I merely compared it to Pi = 3... I never
asserted that you asserted that Pi = 3.
How's that for complex?
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:42D7F4EF.730FC99D@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! It *damn* sure doesn't equal Pi...
> > Pi is one of the *irrational* numbers... that means,
> > for you folk that haven't had advanced math as
> > Bill and I have, that it *can't* be represented as
> > a ratio of integers. 22/7 is only good out to three
> > digits... if you can rattle off 3.1415927 like a phone
> > number, you don't need that 22/7 thing anyway.

> Point is I have "3.14" memorized, you obviously couldn't remember,
> otherwise you wouldn't have written: "3..."

Recall the beforeposts:
Bill:
>>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>>new density.
Me:
>Bill's new science... volume = density!
>That's even better than Pi = 3... and
>explains the supposed 'weightiness' of
>his scientific posts. Taken by volume,
>they *are* impressive!

I merely compared it to Pi = 3... I never
asserted that you asserted that Pi = 3.
How's that for complex?
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:42D7F4EF.730FC99D@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! It *damn* sure doesn't equal Pi...
> > Pi is one of the *irrational* numbers... that means,
> > for you folk that haven't had advanced math as
> > Bill and I have, that it *can't* be represented as
> > a ratio of integers. 22/7 is only good out to three
> > digits... if you can rattle off 3.1415927 like a phone
> > number, you don't need that 22/7 thing anyway.

> Point is I have "3.14" memorized, you obviously couldn't remember,
> otherwise you wouldn't have written: "3..."

Recall the beforeposts:
Bill:
>>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>>new density.
Me:
>Bill's new science... volume = density!
>That's even better than Pi = 3... and
>explains the supposed 'weightiness' of
>his scientific posts. Taken by volume,
>they *are* impressive!

I merely compared it to Pi = 3... I never
asserted that you asserted that Pi = 3.
How's that for complex?
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:42D7F4EF.730FC99D@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! It *damn* sure doesn't equal Pi...
> > Pi is one of the *irrational* numbers... that means,
> > for you folk that haven't had advanced math as
> > Bill and I have, that it *can't* be represented as
> > a ratio of integers. 22/7 is only good out to three
> > digits... if you can rattle off 3.1415927 like a phone
> > number, you don't need that 22/7 thing anyway.

> Point is I have "3.14" memorized, you obviously couldn't remember,
> otherwise you wouldn't have written: "3..."

Recall the beforeposts:
Bill:
>>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>>new density.
Me:
>Bill's new science... volume = density!
>That's even better than Pi = 3... and
>explains the supposed 'weightiness' of
>his scientific posts. Taken by volume,
>they *are* impressive!

I merely compared it to Pi = 3... I never
asserted that you asserted that Pi = 3.
How's that for complex?
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:42D8187C.A0FE8C47@***.net...
> You really think you may substitute "equal" for "is" in my
> statement "volume change is their new
> density"??????????????????????????? That does not make volume equal
> density, no more than an apple equals and orange. Dense!

But according to Nathan, you just defined delta volume
as density! Density is mass per unit volume, btw...
__
Steve
..