Richard J Kinch wrote:


It looks like you can't read - the spec sheet says "Average current
consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour period"


I explained why the spec you quote is stupid, because current is not
measured in amp-hours. You haven't grasped that.


But the spec sheet says "Average current consumption for 12 VDC
systems over 24-hour period." This is the number of interest to most
boaters, and the proper measure is Amp-Hours. You haven't grasped
that.

Condemning a product because the spec sheet isn't in exactly the terms
you want to see is pretty petty.



Peltier technology certainly works and has it place. Are you claiming
that's a hoax also?


It was touted for many applications that an engineer could easily see
were futile. To the extent it was promoted to the public that couldn't
so easily see the futility, yes, it was a hoax.

Anything you say, Jaxie. Whatever is new and different must be a hoax.


Yes, CO2 is a refrigerant and you can build a refrigerator based on it.
What you can't do is build a CO2 refrigerator that works as well as,
say, an R-134a unit. If you were to genuinely engineer improvements in
CO2 refrigeration that made it less ridiculous, then those same
improvements would make R-134a systems that much better, too. This is
because R-134a is an inherently better phase-change refrigerant in all
its material properties than CO2.

The engineering issues are different - that should be pretty obvious
to you, if you know anything about refrigerants.


It's like the banned R-12 vs R-134a. R-12 is always the better choice,
in terms of engineering. The substitution was made for reasons other
than engineering. To the extent CO2 is used, it is essentially the same
process, substituting an inferior refrigerant for political reasons, not
because it is anywhere as good as what it replaced.

So now we get to your central issue. You're defining the
ozone-depletion and other environmental issues as simply "political"
and somehow not relevant to the discussion.

While R-134a is safer than other refrigerants it is still illegal to
vent and difficult to handle properly. Its toxic and corrosive, and
anyone who has had a larger refrigeration system serviced understands
from the amount of gear the technician hauled down to the boat that
these are not trivial procedures. A CO2 system, on the other hand,
can be vented freely, and recharged with a simple cartridge. No
license or special training is required. If this does not look like a
significant advantage to you, then you should not be posting in a
"cruising" forum.



You can make a phase-change heat pump out of any condensible gas. Few
such materials make a good heat pump.

But you didn't base your argument on weighing pros and cons, you
claimed that CO2 refrigeration was impossible, a hoax, and likened it
to "perpetual motion machines." Thank you for admitting you were
wrong, however obliquely.