"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%HYqe.21$kX4.8@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>

> They're not!

EXACTLY! your links are not conclusive. :-)


> > > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > > under
> > > electronic leak detectors:
> > > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > > refrigerants
> > > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > > detecting
> > > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > > in
> > > detecting a leak and will save you time."

> "will be more effective "... that's not conclusive!

but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly is!
:-)


> Your HVAC training links are not worthy of consideration...

TRANSLATION --> "i have no response because they clearly prove what youve
been saying"


> NOAA, Nate

......which says nothing beyond "could be's". :-)

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%HYqe.21$kX4.8@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>

> They're not!

EXACTLY! your links are not conclusive. :-)


> > > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > > under
> > > electronic leak detectors:
> > > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > > refrigerants
> > > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > > detecting
> > > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > > in
> > > detecting a leak and will save you time."

> "will be more effective "... that's not conclusive!

but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly is!
:-)


> Your HVAC training links are not worthy of consideration...

TRANSLATION --> "i have no response because they clearly prove what youve
been saying"


> NOAA, Nate

......which says nothing beyond "could be's". :-)

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%HYqe.21$kX4.8@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>

> They're not!

EXACTLY! your links are not conclusive. :-)


> > > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > > under
> > > electronic leak detectors:
> > > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > > refrigerants
> > > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > > detecting
> > > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > > in
> > > detecting a leak and will save you time."

> "will be more effective "... that's not conclusive!

but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly is!
:-)


> Your HVAC training links are not worthy of consideration...

TRANSLATION --> "i have no response because they clearly prove what youve
been saying"


> NOAA, Nate

......which says nothing beyond "could be's". :-)

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11ap2765v8ag284@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:2vYqe.19$kX4.18@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >> like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show
> >> refrigerant
> >> falls due to its weight.
>
> > Higher Knowlege... not for you.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response nate, i never expected you to prove me
> wrong".

Cute... for a dumbass.

>
>
> > Fool... what's the concentration of Freon?
>
> depends on how much is vented, but id bet its less than
> .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000001% of the total air
> around us. :-)

Let's see... that's ten to the negative 57th. Were you aware
that there are only ten to the 78th atoms in the observable
universe? I didn't think so... you being a dumbass and all...
You lose the bet... the computed number of atoms in
the planet earth is around ten to the 50th... your figure is
smaller than an atom on earth. What a dumbass.

Here's the link, if you're capable of understanding
algebra and chemistry:

http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qaearth.html

Now, dumbass, let's talk about the *real* 'concentration'
of CFC's in the atmosphere. Here's some info and
a link:

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-007/001-007.html

<>
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
This class of compounds is purely man-made in origin. It includes CFC-11 (CFCl3), CFC-12 (CCl2F2), CFC-113 (C2Cl3F3), and CCl4. These compounds have been used for many years as solvents, refrigeration fluids, spray-can propellants, and, more recently, as blowers in foam-making. Their concentrations have been measured in the atmosphere since 1978 (WMO, 1985). The annual growth rates for atmospheric concentrations have been 5% for CFC-11 (Fig.3) and CFC-12, and 1% for CCl4. The 1983 concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 were 200 pptv (parts per trillion by volume) and 320 pptv, respectively. The measured concentration of CFC-113 was 32 pptv in January 1985 and that of CCl4 was 140 pptv in 1979. The 1990 concentrations are about 280, 484, 60, and 146 pptv for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and CCl4, respectively (IPCC, 1990). Much attention has been focused on these compounds, because they are the primary agents causing the destruction of stratospheric ozone. They have long atmospheric lifetimes (75, 111, and about 50 years for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CCl4, respectively) (Wuebbles & Edmonds, 1988).
</>

Adding all those up, comes out to 970pptv...
definitely *not* zero. You were only off by
a factor of ten to the 48th... a number not
far from the number of atoms on earth.
What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
I mean, dumbass.

>
>
> > ask some of your compatriots here.
>
> lol theyre laughing at you, only youre to stupid to realize it, and to
> ignorant to know when to quit. its cool, ill continue to post my links
> which are written by your engineers that prove you are dead wrong. :-)

How would you know? They're not lining up to
support you... and my personal email from this
little flamefest is going %100 my way. Not that
it matters, much.... you, and anyone that thinks
like you do, has their head in the sand.

>
> > What weapons? The ones that were destroyed?
>
> the ones everyone (without their head stuck in the sand) knows existed and
> still exist today. just look at the things we _did_ find.

You mean the explosives that were looted? The
high-tech stuff that can be used to make atom
bombs? The stuff that Rumsfeld let slip away?
It's being used to kill US soldiers in roadside
bombs every day... it will probably end up here,
since we did Iraq on the cheap. I don't know
of any WMD found, do you?



> > They were from HVAC training courses, fer chrissakes.
>
> --------! the second link is the operators manual for the leak detector
> that i personnally use. the leak detector AND manual which was designed and
> written by those same engineers you swear by. :-)

Call one... ask him. I double dare you... btw, have
you read the 'TOUBLESHOOTING' (sic) section
of your leak-checker manual?

Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
the NOAA... pure dumbass material, Nate. Go
back to school.

>
> > I posted NOAA quotes and links that you haven't
> > responded to
>
> now on top of being an ignorant fool, youre a LIAR. i know in your liberal
> seminars they teach you that if you tell a like often enough people will
> eventually believe it but that wont fly here. i responded MANY times to
> your links CLEARLY showing you the "could be's" that invalidates anything
> from being conclusive.

I have posted links you haven't responded to...
you never responded to this:

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/StratO3.html

<>
In the stratosphere, the region of the atmosphere between about 10 and 50
kilometers (6-30 miles) above the Earth's surface, ozone (O3) plays a vital
role by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Stratospheric
ozone is threatened by some of the human-made gases that have been released
into the atmosphere, including those known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Once widely used as propellants in spray cans, refrigerants, electronics
cleaning agents, and in foam and insulating products, the CFCs had been
hailed as the "wonder chemicals." But the very properties that make them
useful - chemical inertness, non-toxicity, insolubility in water - also make
them resistant to removal in the lower atmosphere.
CFCs are mixed worldwide by the large-scale motions of the atmosphere and
survive until, after 1-2 years, they reach the stratosphere and are broken
down by ultraviolet radiation. The chlorine atoms within them are released
and directly attack ozone. In the process of destroying ozone, the chlorine
atoms are regenerated and begin to attack other ozone molecules... and so
on, for thousands of cycles before the chlorine atoms are removed from the
stratosphere by other processes.
</>

When will you respond to this link I've posted twice now? And why
do I have to have been to a 'liberal seminar'? I hereby deny it...
I'm kicking your *** with my own two frontal lobes, no help necessary,
beyond standing on the shoulders of giants. Don't worry if you
don't get the reference... completely out of your league.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11ap2765v8ag284@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:2vYqe.19$kX4.18@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >> like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show
> >> refrigerant
> >> falls due to its weight.
>
> > Higher Knowlege... not for you.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response nate, i never expected you to prove me
> wrong".

Cute... for a dumbass.

>
>
> > Fool... what's the concentration of Freon?
>
> depends on how much is vented, but id bet its less than
> .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000001% of the total air
> around us. :-)

Let's see... that's ten to the negative 57th. Were you aware
that there are only ten to the 78th atoms in the observable
universe? I didn't think so... you being a dumbass and all...
You lose the bet... the computed number of atoms in
the planet earth is around ten to the 50th... your figure is
smaller than an atom on earth. What a dumbass.

Here's the link, if you're capable of understanding
algebra and chemistry:

http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qaearth.html

Now, dumbass, let's talk about the *real* 'concentration'
of CFC's in the atmosphere. Here's some info and
a link:

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-007/001-007.html

<>
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
This class of compounds is purely man-made in origin. It includes CFC-11 (CFCl3), CFC-12 (CCl2F2), CFC-113 (C2Cl3F3), and CCl4. These compounds have been used for many years as solvents, refrigeration fluids, spray-can propellants, and, more recently, as blowers in foam-making. Their concentrations have been measured in the atmosphere since 1978 (WMO, 1985). The annual growth rates for atmospheric concentrations have been 5% for CFC-11 (Fig.3) and CFC-12, and 1% for CCl4. The 1983 concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 were 200 pptv (parts per trillion by volume) and 320 pptv, respectively. The measured concentration of CFC-113 was 32 pptv in January 1985 and that of CCl4 was 140 pptv in 1979. The 1990 concentrations are about 280, 484, 60, and 146 pptv for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and CCl4, respectively (IPCC, 1990). Much attention has been focused on these compounds, because they are the primary agents causing the destruction of stratospheric ozone. They have long atmospheric lifetimes (75, 111, and about 50 years for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CCl4, respectively) (Wuebbles & Edmonds, 1988).
</>

Adding all those up, comes out to 970pptv...
definitely *not* zero. You were only off by
a factor of ten to the 48th... a number not
far from the number of atoms on earth.
What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
I mean, dumbass.

>
>
> > ask some of your compatriots here.
>
> lol theyre laughing at you, only youre to stupid to realize it, and to
> ignorant to know when to quit. its cool, ill continue to post my links
> which are written by your engineers that prove you are dead wrong. :-)

How would you know? They're not lining up to
support you... and my personal email from this
little flamefest is going %100 my way. Not that
it matters, much.... you, and anyone that thinks
like you do, has their head in the sand.

>
> > What weapons? The ones that were destroyed?
>
> the ones everyone (without their head stuck in the sand) knows existed and
> still exist today. just look at the things we _did_ find.

You mean the explosives that were looted? The
high-tech stuff that can be used to make atom
bombs? The stuff that Rumsfeld let slip away?
It's being used to kill US soldiers in roadside
bombs every day... it will probably end up here,
since we did Iraq on the cheap. I don't know
of any WMD found, do you?



> > They were from HVAC training courses, fer chrissakes.
>
> --------! the second link is the operators manual for the leak detector
> that i personnally use. the leak detector AND manual which was designed and
> written by those same engineers you swear by. :-)

Call one... ask him. I double dare you... btw, have
you read the 'TOUBLESHOOTING' (sic) section
of your leak-checker manual?

Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
the NOAA... pure dumbass material, Nate. Go
back to school.

>
> > I posted NOAA quotes and links that you haven't
> > responded to
>
> now on top of being an ignorant fool, youre a LIAR. i know in your liberal
> seminars they teach you that if you tell a like often enough people will
> eventually believe it but that wont fly here. i responded MANY times to
> your links CLEARLY showing you the "could be's" that invalidates anything
> from being conclusive.

I have posted links you haven't responded to...
you never responded to this:

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/StratO3.html

<>
In the stratosphere, the region of the atmosphere between about 10 and 50
kilometers (6-30 miles) above the Earth's surface, ozone (O3) plays a vital
role by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Stratospheric
ozone is threatened by some of the human-made gases that have been released
into the atmosphere, including those known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Once widely used as propellants in spray cans, refrigerants, electronics
cleaning agents, and in foam and insulating products, the CFCs had been
hailed as the "wonder chemicals." But the very properties that make them
useful - chemical inertness, non-toxicity, insolubility in water - also make
them resistant to removal in the lower atmosphere.
CFCs are mixed worldwide by the large-scale motions of the atmosphere and
survive until, after 1-2 years, they reach the stratosphere and are broken
down by ultraviolet radiation. The chlorine atoms within them are released
and directly attack ozone. In the process of destroying ozone, the chlorine
atoms are regenerated and begin to attack other ozone molecules... and so
on, for thousands of cycles before the chlorine atoms are removed from the
stratosphere by other processes.
</>

When will you respond to this link I've posted twice now? And why
do I have to have been to a 'liberal seminar'? I hereby deny it...
I'm kicking your *** with my own two frontal lobes, no help necessary,
beyond standing on the shoulders of giants. Don't worry if you
don't get the reference... completely out of your league.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11ap2765v8ag284@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:2vYqe.19$kX4.18@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >> like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show
> >> refrigerant
> >> falls due to its weight.
>
> > Higher Knowlege... not for you.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response nate, i never expected you to prove me
> wrong".

Cute... for a dumbass.

>
>
> > Fool... what's the concentration of Freon?
>
> depends on how much is vented, but id bet its less than
> .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000001% of the total air
> around us. :-)

Let's see... that's ten to the negative 57th. Were you aware
that there are only ten to the 78th atoms in the observable
universe? I didn't think so... you being a dumbass and all...
You lose the bet... the computed number of atoms in
the planet earth is around ten to the 50th... your figure is
smaller than an atom on earth. What a dumbass.

Here's the link, if you're capable of understanding
algebra and chemistry:

http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qaearth.html

Now, dumbass, let's talk about the *real* 'concentration'
of CFC's in the atmosphere. Here's some info and
a link:

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-007/001-007.html

<>
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
This class of compounds is purely man-made in origin. It includes CFC-11 (CFCl3), CFC-12 (CCl2F2), CFC-113 (C2Cl3F3), and CCl4. These compounds have been used for many years as solvents, refrigeration fluids, spray-can propellants, and, more recently, as blowers in foam-making. Their concentrations have been measured in the atmosphere since 1978 (WMO, 1985). The annual growth rates for atmospheric concentrations have been 5% for CFC-11 (Fig.3) and CFC-12, and 1% for CCl4. The 1983 concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 were 200 pptv (parts per trillion by volume) and 320 pptv, respectively. The measured concentration of CFC-113 was 32 pptv in January 1985 and that of CCl4 was 140 pptv in 1979. The 1990 concentrations are about 280, 484, 60, and 146 pptv for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and CCl4, respectively (IPCC, 1990). Much attention has been focused on these compounds, because they are the primary agents causing the destruction of stratospheric ozone. They have long atmospheric lifetimes (75, 111, and about 50 years for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CCl4, respectively) (Wuebbles & Edmonds, 1988).
</>

Adding all those up, comes out to 970pptv...
definitely *not* zero. You were only off by
a factor of ten to the 48th... a number not
far from the number of atoms on earth.
What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
I mean, dumbass.

>
>
> > ask some of your compatriots here.
>
> lol theyre laughing at you, only youre to stupid to realize it, and to
> ignorant to know when to quit. its cool, ill continue to post my links
> which are written by your engineers that prove you are dead wrong. :-)

How would you know? They're not lining up to
support you... and my personal email from this
little flamefest is going %100 my way. Not that
it matters, much.... you, and anyone that thinks
like you do, has their head in the sand.

>
> > What weapons? The ones that were destroyed?
>
> the ones everyone (without their head stuck in the sand) knows existed and
> still exist today. just look at the things we _did_ find.

You mean the explosives that were looted? The
high-tech stuff that can be used to make atom
bombs? The stuff that Rumsfeld let slip away?
It's being used to kill US soldiers in roadside
bombs every day... it will probably end up here,
since we did Iraq on the cheap. I don't know
of any WMD found, do you?



> > They were from HVAC training courses, fer chrissakes.
>
> --------! the second link is the operators manual for the leak detector
> that i personnally use. the leak detector AND manual which was designed and
> written by those same engineers you swear by. :-)

Call one... ask him. I double dare you... btw, have
you read the 'TOUBLESHOOTING' (sic) section
of your leak-checker manual?

Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
the NOAA... pure dumbass material, Nate. Go
back to school.

>
> > I posted NOAA quotes and links that you haven't
> > responded to
>
> now on top of being an ignorant fool, youre a LIAR. i know in your liberal
> seminars they teach you that if you tell a like often enough people will
> eventually believe it but that wont fly here. i responded MANY times to
> your links CLEARLY showing you the "could be's" that invalidates anything
> from being conclusive.

I have posted links you haven't responded to...
you never responded to this:

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/StratO3.html

<>
In the stratosphere, the region of the atmosphere between about 10 and 50
kilometers (6-30 miles) above the Earth's surface, ozone (O3) plays a vital
role by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Stratospheric
ozone is threatened by some of the human-made gases that have been released
into the atmosphere, including those known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Once widely used as propellants in spray cans, refrigerants, electronics
cleaning agents, and in foam and insulating products, the CFCs had been
hailed as the "wonder chemicals." But the very properties that make them
useful - chemical inertness, non-toxicity, insolubility in water - also make
them resistant to removal in the lower atmosphere.
CFCs are mixed worldwide by the large-scale motions of the atmosphere and
survive until, after 1-2 years, they reach the stratosphere and are broken
down by ultraviolet radiation. The chlorine atoms within them are released
and directly attack ozone. In the process of destroying ozone, the chlorine
atoms are regenerated and begin to attack other ozone molecules... and so
on, for thousands of cycles before the chlorine atoms are removed from the
stratosphere by other processes.
</>

When will you respond to this link I've posted twice now? And why
do I have to have been to a 'liberal seminar'? I hereby deny it...
I'm kicking your *** with my own two frontal lobes, no help necessary,
beyond standing on the shoulders of giants. Don't worry if you
don't get the reference... completely out of your league.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11ap2765v8ag284@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:2vYqe.19$kX4.18@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >> like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show
> >> refrigerant
> >> falls due to its weight.
>
> > Higher Knowlege... not for you.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response nate, i never expected you to prove me
> wrong".

Cute... for a dumbass.

>
>
> > Fool... what's the concentration of Freon?
>
> depends on how much is vented, but id bet its less than
> .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000001% of the total air
> around us. :-)

Let's see... that's ten to the negative 57th. Were you aware
that there are only ten to the 78th atoms in the observable
universe? I didn't think so... you being a dumbass and all...
You lose the bet... the computed number of atoms in
the planet earth is around ten to the 50th... your figure is
smaller than an atom on earth. What a dumbass.

Here's the link, if you're capable of understanding
algebra and chemistry:

http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qaearth.html

Now, dumbass, let's talk about the *real* 'concentration'
of CFC's in the atmosphere. Here's some info and
a link:

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-007/001-007.html

<>
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
This class of compounds is purely man-made in origin. It includes CFC-11 (CFCl3), CFC-12 (CCl2F2), CFC-113 (C2Cl3F3), and CCl4. These compounds have been used for many years as solvents, refrigeration fluids, spray-can propellants, and, more recently, as blowers in foam-making. Their concentrations have been measured in the atmosphere since 1978 (WMO, 1985). The annual growth rates for atmospheric concentrations have been 5% for CFC-11 (Fig.3) and CFC-12, and 1% for CCl4. The 1983 concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 were 200 pptv (parts per trillion by volume) and 320 pptv, respectively. The measured concentration of CFC-113 was 32 pptv in January 1985 and that of CCl4 was 140 pptv in 1979. The 1990 concentrations are about 280, 484, 60, and 146 pptv for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and CCl4, respectively (IPCC, 1990). Much attention has been focused on these compounds, because they are the primary agents causing the destruction of stratospheric ozone. They have long atmospheric lifetimes (75, 111, and about 50 years for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CCl4, respectively) (Wuebbles & Edmonds, 1988).
</>

Adding all those up, comes out to 970pptv...
definitely *not* zero. You were only off by
a factor of ten to the 48th... a number not
far from the number of atoms on earth.
What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
I mean, dumbass.

>
>
> > ask some of your compatriots here.
>
> lol theyre laughing at you, only youre to stupid to realize it, and to
> ignorant to know when to quit. its cool, ill continue to post my links
> which are written by your engineers that prove you are dead wrong. :-)

How would you know? They're not lining up to
support you... and my personal email from this
little flamefest is going %100 my way. Not that
it matters, much.... you, and anyone that thinks
like you do, has their head in the sand.

>
> > What weapons? The ones that were destroyed?
>
> the ones everyone (without their head stuck in the sand) knows existed and
> still exist today. just look at the things we _did_ find.

You mean the explosives that were looted? The
high-tech stuff that can be used to make atom
bombs? The stuff that Rumsfeld let slip away?
It's being used to kill US soldiers in roadside
bombs every day... it will probably end up here,
since we did Iraq on the cheap. I don't know
of any WMD found, do you?



> > They were from HVAC training courses, fer chrissakes.
>
> --------! the second link is the operators manual for the leak detector
> that i personnally use. the leak detector AND manual which was designed and
> written by those same engineers you swear by. :-)

Call one... ask him. I double dare you... btw, have
you read the 'TOUBLESHOOTING' (sic) section
of your leak-checker manual?

Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
the NOAA... pure dumbass material, Nate. Go
back to school.

>
> > I posted NOAA quotes and links that you haven't
> > responded to
>
> now on top of being an ignorant fool, youre a LIAR. i know in your liberal
> seminars they teach you that if you tell a like often enough people will
> eventually believe it but that wont fly here. i responded MANY times to
> your links CLEARLY showing you the "could be's" that invalidates anything
> from being conclusive.

I have posted links you haven't responded to...
you never responded to this:

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/StratO3.html

<>
In the stratosphere, the region of the atmosphere between about 10 and 50
kilometers (6-30 miles) above the Earth's surface, ozone (O3) plays a vital
role by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Stratospheric
ozone is threatened by some of the human-made gases that have been released
into the atmosphere, including those known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Once widely used as propellants in spray cans, refrigerants, electronics
cleaning agents, and in foam and insulating products, the CFCs had been
hailed as the "wonder chemicals." But the very properties that make them
useful - chemical inertness, non-toxicity, insolubility in water - also make
them resistant to removal in the lower atmosphere.
CFCs are mixed worldwide by the large-scale motions of the atmosphere and
survive until, after 1-2 years, they reach the stratosphere and are broken
down by ultraviolet radiation. The chlorine atoms within them are released
and directly attack ozone. In the process of destroying ozone, the chlorine
atoms are regenerated and begin to attack other ozone molecules... and so
on, for thousands of cycles before the chlorine atoms are removed from the
stratosphere by other processes.
</>

When will you respond to this link I've posted twice now? And why
do I have to have been to a 'liberal seminar'? I hereby deny it...
I'm kicking your *** with my own two frontal lobes, no help necessary,
beyond standing on the shoulders of giants. Don't worry if you
don't get the reference... completely out of your league.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11ap2dt25dni668@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:%HYqe.21$kX4.8@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >> lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>
> > They're not!
>
> EXACTLY! your links are not conclusive. :-)

Nothing would be, to you... dropout.

> > > > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > > > under
> > > > electronic leak detectors:
> > > > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > > > refrigerants
> > > > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > > > detecting
> > > > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > > > in
> > > > detecting a leak and will save you time."
>
> > "will be more effective "... that's not conclusive!
>
> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly is!

Outdoors?

> > Your HVAC training links are not worthy of consideration...
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response because they clearly prove what youve
> been saying"

Pitiful! 'translation'... just how *much* HS did you
actually make it through?
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11ap2dt25dni668@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:%HYqe.21$kX4.8@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >> lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>
> > They're not!
>
> EXACTLY! your links are not conclusive. :-)

Nothing would be, to you... dropout.

> > > > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > > > under
> > > > electronic leak detectors:
> > > > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > > > refrigerants
> > > > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > > > detecting
> > > > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > > > in
> > > > detecting a leak and will save you time."
>
> > "will be more effective "... that's not conclusive!
>
> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly is!

Outdoors?

> > Your HVAC training links are not worthy of consideration...
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response because they clearly prove what youve
> been saying"

Pitiful! 'translation'... just how *much* HS did you
actually make it through?
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11ap2dt25dni668@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:%HYqe.21$kX4.8@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >> lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>
> > They're not!
>
> EXACTLY! your links are not conclusive. :-)

Nothing would be, to you... dropout.

> > > > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > > > under
> > > > electronic leak detectors:
> > > > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > > > refrigerants
> > > > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > > > detecting
> > > > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > > > in
> > > > detecting a leak and will save you time."
>
> > "will be more effective "... that's not conclusive!
>
> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly is!

Outdoors?

> > Your HVAC training links are not worthy of consideration...
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response because they clearly prove what youve
> been saying"

Pitiful! 'translation'... just how *much* HS did you
actually make it through?
__
Steve
..