134a Refrigerant
06-12-2005 | 08:21 PM
#971
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mf1re.80$kX4.58@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
spin all you wish, i proved you wrong and its obvious that it burns. :-)
> They're not lining up to
> support you
heh....its been such easy work that "support" simply isnt required.
> my personal email from this
> little flamefest is going %100 my way.
BUWHAHAHA! the old "my email" ploy. i _knew_ it was only a matter of time
before you resorted that that one. :-)
> Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
> the NOAA.
the NOAA statement is nothing more than "could be's". my link, written by
the very engineers you seem to worship, clearly states that refrigerant
falls due to its weight with no room for doubt. you can pout, cry, whine,
or attempt to spin off the issue as many times as you like but the statement
is absolute and conclusive. here ya go. :-)
from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
electronic leak detectors:
"Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
detecting a leak and will save you time."
from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use):
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."
:-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:Mf1re.80$kX4.58@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
spin all you wish, i proved you wrong and its obvious that it burns. :-)
> They're not lining up to
> support you
heh....its been such easy work that "support" simply isnt required.
> my personal email from this
> little flamefest is going %100 my way.
BUWHAHAHA! the old "my email" ploy. i _knew_ it was only a matter of time
before you resorted that that one. :-)
> Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
> the NOAA.
the NOAA statement is nothing more than "could be's". my link, written by
the very engineers you seem to worship, clearly states that refrigerant
falls due to its weight with no room for doubt. you can pout, cry, whine,
or attempt to spin off the issue as many times as you like but the statement
is absolute and conclusive. here ya go. :-)
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."
from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use):
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."
:-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:21 PM
#972
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mf1re.80$kX4.58@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
spin all you wish, i proved you wrong and its obvious that it burns. :-)
> They're not lining up to
> support you
heh....its been such easy work that "support" simply isnt required.
> my personal email from this
> little flamefest is going %100 my way.
BUWHAHAHA! the old "my email" ploy. i _knew_ it was only a matter of time
before you resorted that that one. :-)
> Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
> the NOAA.
the NOAA statement is nothing more than "could be's". my link, written by
the very engineers you seem to worship, clearly states that refrigerant
falls due to its weight with no room for doubt. you can pout, cry, whine,
or attempt to spin off the issue as many times as you like but the statement
is absolute and conclusive. here ya go. :-)
from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
electronic leak detectors:
"Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
detecting a leak and will save you time."
from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use):
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."
:-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:Mf1re.80$kX4.58@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
spin all you wish, i proved you wrong and its obvious that it burns. :-)
> They're not lining up to
> support you
heh....its been such easy work that "support" simply isnt required.
> my personal email from this
> little flamefest is going %100 my way.
BUWHAHAHA! the old "my email" ploy. i _knew_ it was only a matter of time
before you resorted that that one. :-)
> Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
> the NOAA.
the NOAA statement is nothing more than "could be's". my link, written by
the very engineers you seem to worship, clearly states that refrigerant
falls due to its weight with no room for doubt. you can pout, cry, whine,
or attempt to spin off the issue as many times as you like but the statement
is absolute and conclusive. here ya go. :-)
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."
from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use):
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."
:-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:21 PM
#973
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mf1re.80$kX4.58@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
spin all you wish, i proved you wrong and its obvious that it burns. :-)
> They're not lining up to
> support you
heh....its been such easy work that "support" simply isnt required.
> my personal email from this
> little flamefest is going %100 my way.
BUWHAHAHA! the old "my email" ploy. i _knew_ it was only a matter of time
before you resorted that that one. :-)
> Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
> the NOAA.
the NOAA statement is nothing more than "could be's". my link, written by
the very engineers you seem to worship, clearly states that refrigerant
falls due to its weight with no room for doubt. you can pout, cry, whine,
or attempt to spin off the issue as many times as you like but the statement
is absolute and conclusive. here ya go. :-)
from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
electronic leak detectors:
"Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
detecting a leak and will save you time."
from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use):
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."
:-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:Mf1re.80$kX4.58@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
spin all you wish, i proved you wrong and its obvious that it burns. :-)
> They're not lining up to
> support you
heh....its been such easy work that "support" simply isnt required.
> my personal email from this
> little flamefest is going %100 my way.
BUWHAHAHA! the old "my email" ploy. i _knew_ it was only a matter of time
before you resorted that that one. :-)
> Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
> the NOAA.
the NOAA statement is nothing more than "could be's". my link, written by
the very engineers you seem to worship, clearly states that refrigerant
falls due to its weight with no room for doubt. you can pout, cry, whine,
or attempt to spin off the issue as many times as you like but the statement
is absolute and conclusive. here ya go. :-)
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."
from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
leak detector that i personally use):
"Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
of finding such."
:-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:22 PM
#974
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gi1re.83$kX4.59@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
>> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly
>> is!
>Outdoors?
that statement is absolute. atomic weight does not change being in or out
of doors.
nice try, liberal. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:Gi1re.83$kX4.59@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
>> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly
>> is!
>Outdoors?
that statement is absolute. atomic weight does not change being in or out
of doors.
nice try, liberal. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:22 PM
#975
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gi1re.83$kX4.59@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
>> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly
>> is!
>Outdoors?
that statement is absolute. atomic weight does not change being in or out
of doors.
nice try, liberal. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:Gi1re.83$kX4.59@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
>> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly
>> is!
>Outdoors?
that statement is absolute. atomic weight does not change being in or out
of doors.
nice try, liberal. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:22 PM
#976
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gi1re.83$kX4.59@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
>> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly
>> is!
>Outdoors?
that statement is absolute. atomic weight does not change being in or out
of doors.
nice try, liberal. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:Gi1re.83$kX4.59@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
>> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly
>> is!
>Outdoors?
that statement is absolute. atomic weight does not change being in or out
of doors.
nice try, liberal. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:22 PM
#977
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gi1re.83$kX4.59@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
>> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly
>> is!
>Outdoors?
that statement is absolute. atomic weight does not change being in or out
of doors.
nice try, liberal. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:Gi1re.83$kX4.59@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
>> refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly
>> is!
>Outdoors?
that statement is absolute. atomic weight does not change being in or out
of doors.
nice try, liberal. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:23 PM
#978
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42ACC8D0.3D95B864@***.net...
> Howard Dean, head of the Democratic party, doesn't seem so strange
> anymore.
lol aint it the truth!
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:42ACC8D0.3D95B864@***.net...
> Howard Dean, head of the Democratic party, doesn't seem so strange
> anymore.
lol aint it the truth!
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:23 PM
#979
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42ACC8D0.3D95B864@***.net...
> Howard Dean, head of the Democratic party, doesn't seem so strange
> anymore.
lol aint it the truth!
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:42ACC8D0.3D95B864@***.net...
> Howard Dean, head of the Democratic party, doesn't seem so strange
> anymore.
lol aint it the truth!
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
06-12-2005 | 08:23 PM
#980
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42ACC8D0.3D95B864@***.net...
> Howard Dean, head of the Democratic party, doesn't seem so strange
> anymore.
lol aint it the truth!
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:42ACC8D0.3D95B864@***.net...
> Howard Dean, head of the Democratic party, doesn't seem so strange
> anymore.
lol aint it the truth!
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com