If you are looking for an R-12 Freon substitute, and don't want to go to R-134a, you might be interested in what is apparently the only other substitute that does not require a license: ENVIRO-SAFE ES-12a.

According to the info posted on their web site, it is up to 32% more efficient than R-12 and much more efficient than R-134a, resulting in less wear on the refrigeration system, substantial energy savings and reduced operating costs. Further, they claim the compressor will only load approximately 2-3 hp. The molecule used is slightly larger than R-12 (and thus much larger than R-134a), which means the hoses, seals and o-rings will not need to be changed. They also sell a version of the product with a leak detector/stop leak.

I can't speak to all of their claims, but I did evacuate the MoPar Cool Aire A/C system on my 1963 Dodge Dart GT, and installed only ENVIRO-SAFE. After a month of use, the product seems to be as cold as advertised. The evaporator is reading between 36 and 40 degrees on a typically hot Phoenix, Arizona day.

Prices seem to vary quite a bit, but I purchase two cases (12 cans each) at a price of about $5.00 per can. Here are some of the sites that describe the product:

Enviro-safe Inc. home page: <A HREF="http://www.es-refrigerants.com">http://www.es-refrigerants.com</A>

and some dealers:

Autocool Refrigerants http://www.autocool-refrigerants.com/en ... e_tech.htm
CJ Distributing LLC http://rshill7.users.50megs.com/co00019.htm
Better Technology Trust http://www.btt.org/ES.html
Be Free Technologies http://www.befreetech.com/envirosafe.htm
Muscle Products http://autorefrigerants.com


WalterLeeJackson@compuserve.com

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Not *again*.

Guys, this stuff is a blend of isobutane and isopropane. It is HIGHLY flammable, is NOT legal for use in R12 systems, is NOT tested or approved by any of the relevant bodies (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Airconditioning Engineers, Society of Automotive Engineers, etc.), and is in general a VERY poor idea to mess with. The makers of this junk have been dodging the EPA by renaming their product (HC-12a, OZ-12a, BP-12a, ES-12a) every time the legal hammer drops on them.

Sure, your car carries 20 gallons of gasoline, but the fuel system is *DESIGNED* to handle a highly flammable material. The air conditioning system is NOT. It is worth saving $150 (the cost of charging the system correctly with R12) at the risk of going up in a giant fireball? There are lots of areas where you can find neat, inexpensive workarounds to save money and effort. The air conditioning system is NOT one of them.

There is *PLENTY* of R12 left, it is NOT dwindling. It is expensive, yes, but compared to the real costs (either in additional parts *required* to do a proper R134a conversion that will provide good cooling and not break down in short order, or in fire danger with these nonapproved and illegal hydrocarbon "substitutes") it's dead cheap.

The "license" you object to (the one that lets you handle R12) costs all of fifteen dollars and twenty minutes, go to <A HREF="http://www.imaca.com">www.imaca.com</A> to take the open-book test right on the web.

There are alternatives to R12 and R134a that work better than those two refrigerants, are tested and proven safe, and are legal. I will go into a detailed discussion if anybody wants. But it is dangerous, illegal, irresponsible and just plain BAD to use a flamable substatute.

For those who need more convincing, this is from the ES-12 homepage: "Enviro-Safe does not guarantee the accuracy of this document and this
information is offered without warranty, guarantee or liability on the part
of the preparation analyst in good faith."

DO NOT USE THIS STUFF!!!!!!!!

DS
Licensed auto A/C tech (nonpracticing)

I totally agree with Dan, on this.

Charlie
ASE Certified Master auto tech. (practicing)

flturbo6@aol.com

Wow Dan, I did not know this stuff was "non-approved" and dangerious to use,I see this stuff advertised in major magazines, no mention of any risk (of course). Is the major problem / risk of fire related to a front-end collision or is there also underhood "spontainious combustion" risk?

Isn't the manufacturer required to label the product as "flammable"? Walt, is you 12a labeled in any way to indicate the fire risk??
Information is power, it is good to know what is available and the risk(s) / issues(s) in using anything. Thanks guys, keep the info. flowing.
DD

That's why they put that disclaimer at the bottom of their website, essentially "We don't guarantee that we're not lying; believe us if you want, but this disclaimer is here so that you'll have a hard time coming back to sue us if you survive the explosion". The language in the ads is very carefully crafted to "dodge and weave" through the language of the laws.
:
: Is the major problem / risk of fire
: related to a front-end collision or is there
: also underhood "spontainious
: combustion" risk?

Actually, collision is only one risk. The pressures and temperatures in an auto A/C system can get EXTREMELY high. In addition to accidental venting (as from a ruptured hose or leak in an air conditioning component...maybe under the hood near the hot, sparking engine...maybe in the car near under-dash electrical wiring...maybe blowing towards the face of the driver who just lit a cigarette) there are overpressure-relief valves or melt-out plugs in the system. These are designed to blow off the refrigerant if the system pressure/temperature goes dangerously high. They're meant to work with the pressure/temperature characteristics of *refrigerant*, not camp stove fuel. The isobutane/isopropane mix *WILL* cool as effectively as R12. And it *WILL* carry oil back to the compressor. Those are only two of the required "jobs" of the refrigerant. One of the most important ones is that the refrigerant must work safely in whatever application it's put in. It's one of those "Do you feel lucky?" kinds of things. Results are pretty much unpredictable when a system is filled with a substance radically different from what it was designed for, *because* it was never designed with that substance in mind.

One of the arguments proponents of flammable refrigerant substitutes make is that there's a risk of fire with all refrigerants in a leak situation, because of the mist of refrigerant oil that will spray out of a violent/large leak. The thing is, proper refrigerants are nonflammable, and their presence tends to reliably quench any flame that *might* start from such a leak. Refrigerant oil that has refrigerant mixed in it is also rather hard to catch on fire (though it will smoke like a sumbitch when it hits the exhaust!) Bottom line, this argument is not factual.
:
: Isn't the manufacturer required to label the
: product as "flammable"? Walt, is
: you 12a labeled in any way to indicate the
: fire risk??

I'd be interested to see what "weasel words" they're using this time around. (weasel words "may" "might" "can" "could" "potential" "as with any", etc.)

It really is still best to bite the $ bullet and use R12. It's just the least problematic and most reliable in an R12 system.

>Walt, is your 12a labeled in any way to indicate the fire risk??<

I'll check the label when I get home.

As I said, I am not a techie, just a user. I do wonder, though, how R-12 and R-134a can be safer if they have a much lower combustion point?

I'm just looking for answers, not a contest of faith.

--Walt Jackson

WalterLeeJackson@compuserve.com

What do you *think* those who have a financial stake in selling this stuff are going to say? Here's a more credible source:

<A HREF="http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/choice.html">http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/choice.html</A>

Scroll down to the "flammable" section.

DS

Neither R12 nor R134a is flammable at any temperature.
:
: Used by Coca-Cola

Not in automotive A/C systems, if at all. Junk like ES-12 is technically legal, in some states, to install *in an R134a system*. It is Federally illegal to install in an R12 system. There's no Federal regulation on what you can put into an R134a system, which means it's equally legal to charge an R134a system with R134a, with Isopropane/Isobutane, with cotton candy or with olive oil. The fact there's no Federal law against it doesn't make it a good idea, and besides, this is moot, since all Slant-6 cars have R12 systems. Bottom line, if you're going to be dumb enough to put this stuff in your A/C, install a BIG warning decal under the hood so that others can know what you've done and can refuse to go near your car (or, more importantly, to service it).

It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to delude themselves into believing that something deadly dangerous and illegal is in fact a good idea. Especially if it saves them a few bucks. I'm not trying to save the world here or anything -- the last guy who tried that wound up in the shape of a "T" -- but use your brains!

DS

DS

Okay...I just re-read my original post with the intent of viewing it from a different perspective. I can see how someone, (especially one from an A/C background), can see my post as irresponsible, even ignorant. I agree to that.

My intention wasn't to persuade anyone with misinformation or to throw out this info without regard for public safety. I was just throwing my observation out as I might while sitting around a coffee table with a bunch of guys, awaiting their input. Generally that’s how these lists work. And if the idea is stupid, then those who know will set the matter straight, and if it has some merit, then those experts will address the merits and counter them with the associated dangers. That’s what I anticipated, a intelligent exchange, not and an attack on my character..

Frankly, I have limited knowledge of A/C systems, never implied anything different. I do know quite a bit about propane fueled systems. And from that experience I concluded, "If you are familiar with how those systems (fuel systems) work, I am, then you'll know the risk isn't much different when propane is used in an A/C system". Based on what I knew prior to this entertaining exchange, that seemed like a reasonable statement. Now you've rather forcefully pointed out the error in my conclusion. Fair enough.

I did say "...it works really well." And it does, in the sense that it cools damn well, from what I've seen (in an early Bronco that I came across on a trip across the desert, long story), and if that implies I used it and I'm indorsing it, well, sorry. But I feel that conclusion is a stretch.

Anyway, I do appreciate your input, You've brought up some important stuff. But I do wish you would handle it with a little more respect. Something like, "hey buddy, that’s a really bad idea, because....." and, ".. you would know that if you took a couple more minutes to read my other posts.." something like that, maybe even tell me to watch what I post because someone may blindly follow and blow up innocent people..
Man, that would do the trick, and with out being so rude.

Anyway, sorry to ruffle your feathers...Have a nice evening.

matt-


jimyrigg@hotmail.com

[Neither R12 nor R134a is flammable at any temperature.]

According to <A HREF="http://www.btt.org/FAQ.html">http://www ... AQ.html</A> R-12 is non-flammable, but the auto ignition temperature of R-134a is 1411 degrees at 0 psi and 368 degrees at 5 psi. ES-12 is 1585 at both 0 psi and 5 psi per <A HREF="http://www.btt.org/ESMSDS.html">http:// ... DS.html</A>.

Is ES-12 thus safer than R-134a? What temperature does the exahust manifold or catalytic converter reach?

[Junk like ES-12 is ...Federally illegal to install in an R12 system.]

According to the EPA site you referred me to in an earlier post, it is illegal only if you fail to first convert to R-134 fittings and attach a label. Also, don't mix R-12 and non-R-12 refrigerants, and get a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) to permit product shipping.

[The fact there's no Federal law against it doesn't make it a good idea, and besides, this is moot, since all Slant-6 cars have R12 systems.]

If we followed your logic this board would shut down since we should never modify a vehicle beyond oem. Innovation should stand or fall on its merits.

[...something deadly dangerous and illegal...]

Where is your authority for the propsition that ES-12 is deadly dangerous or illegal if the simple EPA requirements are met?

Not in the mere fact that the manufacturer has "a financial stake in selling this stuff" as you argued in a prior post. In a market economy profit does not necessarily impact the credibility of the manufacturer on safety.

[...the last guy who tried that wound up in the shape of a "T"...]

Details and source, please.

--Walt Jackson

WalterLeeJackson@compuserve.com

It's a deal.

DS
:
: Anyway, sorry to ruffle your feathers...Have a
: nice evening..
:
: matt-

"Autoignition temperature" is not the same as flammability, and it is being used by the ES-12 people in an attempt to mislead. FACT: ES-12 is flammable. FACT: R134a is not.
:
: [Junk like ES-12 is ...Federally illegal to
: install in an R12 system.]
:
: According to the EPA site you referred me to in
: an earlier post, it is illegal only if you
: fail to first convert to R-134 fittings and
: attach a label.

Which is getting around the prohibition on installing this in a system by first "converting" the system to a refrigerant that has no legal restrictions on what you can replace it with. Even that's not legal. Read deeper into the EPA site, and you'll find that it's also Federally illegal to convert a system to R134a for the express purpose of installing a refrigerant not approved for R12 systems.
:
: [The fact there's no Federal law against it
: doesn't make it a good idea, and besides,
: this is moot, since all Slant-6 cars have
: R12 systems.]
:
: If we followed your logic this board would shut
: down since we should never modify a vehicle
: beyond oem.

I never said that, and I don't believe it. Do not place words in my mouth.
:
: Innovation should stand or fall
: on its merits.

This isn't an "innovation" we're discussing. It's a scam. There's a difference. Every scam has its true believers. The ones who pay $40 for a bottle of Slick-50 swear up and down that their engine runs "better" and that they get nonexistent mileage improvements.
:
: [...something deadly dangerous and illegal...]
: Where is your authority for the propsition that
: ES-12 is deadly dangerous or illegal if the
: simple EPA requirements are met?

It is a hydrocarbon blend. Hydrocarbon blends are illegal to install in R12 auto air conditioners, and only "not illegal" in R134a systems (at the Federal level) because there are NO Federal regulations on what can go in an R134a system. Hydrocarbon blends are illegal in car air conditioners explicitly because they are *DANGEROUS*, because it is *STUPID* to put a flammable substance into a system that generates high pressures and temperatures and is *not designed* for a flammable fill. If you don't understand that, it's on you.
:
: [...the last guy who tried to save the world
: wound up in the shape of a "T"...]
:
: Details and source, please.

Oh, c'mon. I know you're not stupid, so don't pretend. Spread your arms out sideways so that you're in the shape of a "T" and tell me who died that way trying to save the world.

DS
: --Walt Jackson

[Walt, is 12a labeled in any way to indicate the fire risk??]

Doug,

This is what's on the can of Enviro-Safe refrigerant:

FOR USE BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL ONLY

DANGER: Contents under pressure, flammable gas. Can form explosive mixtures with air. Contact with liquid may cause frostbite.

PRECAUTIONS: Keep away from heat, sparks and flames. Container temperature should not exceed 120 degrees F. Do not drop. Store and use in well-ventilated areas. Wear protective clothing and equipment during use. Avoid skin or eye contact.

FIRST AID: if inhaled, remove victim to fresh air. Administer artificial respiration if breathing has stopped. For eye contact with liquid, flush with lukewarm water for at least 15 minutes. For skin contact with liquid, flush with water while removing contaminated clothing; wash the exposed area with soap and water. if frostbitten, warm the affected area using lukewarm water until circulation returns. In all cases, obtain immediate medical care.

ALL LABELED HAZARD PRECAUTIONS MUST BE OBSERVED. SEE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET FOR THIS PRODUCT.

petroleum gases, liquefied, 2.1 UN1075 D.O.T.
DOT-E 12038 Sexton 2Q

NOTE: IF AN AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM CHARGED WITH Enviro-Safe (TM) DEVELOPS A LEAK, WE RECOMMEND EVACUATING REMAINING Enviro-Safe (TM) Refrigerant BEFORE RECHARGING.

WARNING: CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE

On the front on the can it says:

Replaces HFC-134a & other CFC-12 Substitutes

Equivalent to 16 oz. HFC-134a
Equivalent to 18 oz. CFC-R12
Net Weight 6 oz. (168 grams)

–Walt Jackson

WalterLeeJackson@compuserve.com

Spend the money upfront and get the system converted to 134a. After that its cheap, cans are like $5 and anyone can buy them at places like PepBoys/autozone/etc if you ever have a leak.

I converted my old 84 Mercury to 134a. Worked fine right to the day I sold it.

On my Scamp im gona use all off the shelf GM parts to make it a day-one 134a system. Its cheaper in the long run and wont go BOOM if i happen to hit ANYTHING.

Heh, june 27th the price of a 30LB R12 (I think thats the size, the biger one) was $1007.32 at my work. The price seems to change week to week



cralt@hackme.dhs.org

I am using the 134a now in my /6 truck, r12 system and I am very happy with it. You have to use the ester oil not the pag oil. I have the sanden rotary compressor that came off a 86 dodge /6 pickup truck. I thought I read that the old V type compressor had to have new seals put in it to make it 134a compatible? Anybody else here that too?


roxnjer@aol.com