Gogarty wrote:
What's going on here? Why all the vituperation and ad hominem attacks? Is it
not possible to discuss the matter in a civil manner? Did you all get out of
the wrong side of the bed?


"What do you know? See an ordinary person spend his life avoiding
tense situations. Repoman spends his life getting into tense
situations." Harry Dean Stanton, in Repo Man

Jeff writes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

If you look closer at the technology you will find that the working
fluid is helium. In a Stirling machine this is an excellent choice.
The CO2 is only in a secondary circuit to transport heat from the
refrigerated area to the Stirling cooler and is not used in the
stirlig engine itself..

"RJK" == Richard J Kinch writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.

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.

Jeff writes:

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.

No it isn't. Current is measured in amps. Amp-hours are not a measure
of current. Nothing could be simpler, and nothing more can really be
debated about it. This is not an oversight, it shows the author is a
fraud or a fool.

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 are in your typical error about the "simple cartridge" as a
comparative advantage. A cartridge for CO2 at 1000 psi is not "simple"
in comparison to ordinary refrigerants at 100 psi. Whatever
"simplicity" advantage you are imagining, it inheres more in the usual
refrigerants. The fact that it is *harder* to store CO2 in a cartridge,
yet this is claimed as an "advantage", just further shows the stupidity
and/or deceit of the claims.

"Vented freely" is a political, not a technical advantage.

CO2 is lousy refrigerant for all but a few unusual applications, because
of its material properties, such as high saturation pressure, and low
critical temperature. It does not fit ordinary refrigeration
applications, and it cannot be engineered to do so. It only "works" as
a political force-fit, like when Coca-Cola wants PR for the Athens
Olympics.

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.

No, I said that this "tropikool" gadget amounts to perpetual motion
claims, and that CO2 efficiency was a hoax, that efficiency (relative
to, say, R-134a) was impossible. That politicians let you vent CO2 but
not R-134a says nothing about their respective material properties as a
refrigerant. I never said CO2 refrigeration was impossible in
principle, just impossible that it would be practical in ordinary
applications.

You might as well claim that a steam engine is better than gasoline
internal combustion, because we can fuel it with grass clippings instead
of that expensive petroleum. Yes, it is possible to get steam power
from grass clippings, but it is impossible that it could work better
than a gasoline engine.

Now I will admit I was wrong, in that if a politician holds a gun to my
head and insists that CO2 is all you seem to be claiming, then yes, CO2
is just great. Since we still haven't reached quite that point, I
regret I must maintain that the OP points to a product that is a phony
based on either fraud or foolishness.

Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen writes:

If you look closer at the technology you will find that the working
fluid is helium.

That's rather obscurely and incompletely explained on the Web site, being
that purveyors of perpetual motion cannot, of necessity, be too specific
about how it is achieved.

But if you're correct about the helium and Stirling, then so much the more
is this made not credible.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:


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.


No it isn't. Current is measured in amps. Amp-hours are not a measure
of current. Nothing could be simpler, and nothing more can really be
debated about it. This is not an oversight, it shows the author is a
fraud or a fool.

Yes current is measured in amps. But to be useful you need another
measurement, time. That gives amp hours. Battery capacity is rated in
amp hours, usually at a 20 amp rate. If I want to know what size
batteries I need to supply my house load I measure the current used by
each device, i.e. lights, fans, reffer, etc and determine the
approximate time used by each device and compute total amp hours load
over a 12 or 24 hour period. Multiply the amp hour load by two and use
that size battery. So while you are correct that the measurement of
current is amps, if a manufacturer list a spec of 54 amp hours usage in
24 hours it tells me a lot more than just 4 amps compressor draw.
krj


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 are in your typical error about the "simple cartridge" as a
comparative advantage. A cartridge for CO2 at 1000 psi is not "simple"
in comparison to ordinary refrigerants at 100 psi. Whatever
"simplicity" advantage you are imagining, it inheres more in the usual
refrigerants. The fact that it is *harder* to store CO2 in a cartridge,
yet this is claimed as an "advantage", just further shows the stupidity
and/or deceit of the claims.

"Vented freely" is a political, not a technical advantage.

CO2 is lousy refrigerant for all but a few unusual applications, because
of its material properties, such as high saturation pressure, and low
critical temperature. It does not fit ordinary refrigeration
applications, and it cannot be engineered to do so. It only "works" as
a political force-fit, like when Coca-Cola wants PR for the Athens
Olympics.


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.


No, I said that this "tropikool" gadget amounts to perpetual motion
claims, and that CO2 efficiency was a hoax, that efficiency (relative
to, say, R-134a) was impossible. That politicians let you vent CO2 but
not R-134a says nothing about their respective material properties as a
refrigerant. I never said CO2 refrigeration was impossible in
principle, just impossible that it would be practical in ordinary
applications.

You might as well claim that a steam engine is better than gasoline
internal combustion, because we can fuel it with grass clippings instead
of that expensive petroleum. Yes, it is possible to get steam power
from grass clippings, but it is impossible that it could work better
than a gasoline engine.

Now I will admit I was wrong, in that if a politician holds a gun to my
head and insists that CO2 is all you seem to be claiming, then yes, CO2
is just great. Since we still haven't reached quite that point, I
regret I must maintain that the OP points to a product that is a phony
based on either fraud or foolishness.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:

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.

No it isn't. Current is measured in amps. Amp-hours are not a measure
of current. Nothing could be simpler, and nothing more can really be
debated about it. This is not an oversight, it shows the author is a
fraud or a fool.

Time to put you out of your misery, Richard. "Amp-hours per day" is a
measure of current, just the same as Amps. Think about it. Do the
dimensional analysis - hours per day, that's just a conversion factor,
and what's left? Amps!

Anyone who has a fridge on a boat knows that the instantaneous current
in not important, its the average. And the most useful way to state
that is in Amp-hours per day, a perfectly valid way to measure current.

This is not an oversight, it simply means you're the fraud or fool.




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 are in your typical error about the "simple cartridge" as a
comparative advantage. A cartridge for CO2 at 1000 psi is not "simple"
in comparison to ordinary refrigerants at 100 psi. Whatever
"simplicity" advantage you are imagining, it inheres more in the usual
refrigerants. The fact that it is *harder* to store CO2 in a cartridge,
yet this is claimed as an "advantage", just further shows the stupidity
and/or deceit of the claims.

In the manual it says that PFD inflation cartridges between 33 and 37
grams may be used. Don't you feel like a real idiot just now?


"Vented freely" is a political, not a technical advantage.

Its also a legal issue. And some of us don't want to vent a gas that's
1300 times worse than CO2 for global warming.


CO2 is lousy refrigerant for all but a few unusual applications, because
of its material properties, such as high saturation pressure, and low
critical temperature. It does not fit ordinary refrigeration
applications, and it cannot be engineered to do so. It only "works" as
a political force-fit, like when Coca-Cola wants PR for the Athens
Olympics.

Political or not, r-12 was phased out and r-134a will likely be phased
out. In spite of your claims, there seem to be lots of sources that say
the efficiency is not a big problem.



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.


No, I said that this "tropikool" gadget amounts to perpetual motion
claims, and that CO2 efficiency was a hoax, that efficiency (relative
to, say, R-134a) was impossible. That politicians let you vent CO2 but
not R-134a says nothing about their respective material properties as a
refrigerant.

Actually, it has more do do with the environmental issue.

I never said CO2 refrigeration was impossible in
principle, just impossible that it would be practical in ordinary
applications.

Using terms like "hoax" "fraud" and "perpetual motion" is tantamount to
claiming its impossible. And given that there are a number of systems
in use, including refrigeration and automobile A/C, it would appear that
your assertion is incorrect. In fact, in my limited research I found a
number of studies that implied there was no major efficiency issue, that
even in the worst cases co2 was within 10%-20% of r134a, and in some
configurations it was more efficient. Small boat systems aren't really
that efficient, so there's plenty of room for improvement.



You might as well claim that a steam engine is better than gasoline
internal combustion, because we can fuel it with grass clippings instead
of that expensive petroleum. Yes, it is possible to get steam power
from grass clippings, but it is impossible that it could work better
than a gasoline engine.

That's a pretty poor analogy - its more like claiming hybrid cars can
work; they seemed a bit silly when first proposed, now they make a bit
more sense. (I'm sure you'll now claim they're a hoax ...)


Now I will admit I was wrong, in that if a politician holds a gun to my
head and insists that CO2 is all you seem to be claiming, then yes, CO2
is just great.

I have not made any claim. I am curious to see how it works out. I
don't know if it is more efficient than the alternatives, but to claim
its a "hoax" and "fraud" without any evidence seems reprehensible.

Since we still haven't reached quite that point, I
regret I must maintain that the OP points to a product that is a phony
based on either fraud or foolishness.

And I must maintain that your close minded approach marks you as a
foolish fraud.

Jeff writes:

"Amp-hours per day" is a measure of current, just the same as Amps.

Specifying "hours per day" is meaningful? You're just compounding the
absurdity.

PFD inflation cartridges between 33 and 37 grams may be used.

Which as containers are inferior (cost, weight, capacity) to a $7 can of
R-134a, because CO2 is inherently harder to contain.

And some of us don't want to vent a gas ...

You may be of that political view, but it doesn't change the dismal
physics and economics of CO2 as a refrigerant. You may force CO2
refrigeration to replace R-134a, but don't pretend that it works better
or doesn't cost more.

Using terms like "hoax" "fraud" and "perpetual motion" is tantamount
to claiming its impossible.

I said the efficiency claims were not credible and foolishly misstated.
Don't twist that into anything more. Perpetual motion machines are
impossible, not all machines that produce motion.

[hybrid cars] seemed a bit silly when first proposed, now they make
a bit more sense. (I'm sure you'll now claim they're a hoax ...)

They're a hoax in claiming or implying a better lifetime cost per mile.

I am curious to see how it works out.

Sure, I am too. And having experienced the 1970s as an engineer, I am
confident I know how it will work out. About as well as synthetic
fuels.

... your close minded approach ...

Be closed-minded about errors in technology. These are not unscientific
opinions or tastes. Those of us who do genuine engineering research and
devlopment for a living don't call it "closed-minded", we call it "not
beating a dead horse". CO2 is a dead horse, it was killed in the 1930s,
and resurrected and killed all over again in the 1980s with the CFC
mania.

There is no virtue in being open-minded about stuff like CO2
refrigeration that can't possibly work well. Look at it in the lab,
learn what you can about it, but don't pretend that somehow vacuous
optimism will someday yield anything practical, if we just keep
tinkering with it.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:


"Amp-hours per day" is a measure of current, just the same as Amps.


Specifying "hours per day" is meaningful? You're just compounding the
absurdity.

No, you're simply showing that you actually have no real training or
experience in engineering. If you did, you would understand that
"amp-hours per day" is a measure of current.

"Hours per day" is simply a non-dimensional constant, normally given
as 24. Thus, what remains is a measure of current.

Why don't you go down to your community college and enroll in Physics
101, you might learn something.

Anyone curious about "dimensional analysis" could google it or look at:
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/dimanaly/


PFD inflation cartridges between 33 and 37 grams may be used.

Which as containers are inferior (cost, weight, capacity) to a $7 can of
R-134a, because CO2 is inherently harder to contain.


Whatever you say Richard, I'm sure that the difficulty in making CO2
PFD cartridges will be the ultimate downfall of CO2 refrigeration.

And while it might be fairly simple to charge up a leaky auto A/C
circuit with a can of r134a, properly recovering and recharging a
system requires about $500 of gear and a license. Fixing a simple
leak in a marine system costs at least a few hundred dollars, and
can't be done by the average cruiser.

And some of us don't want to vent a gas ...

You may be of that political view,

So are you claiming that global warming and losing the ozone layer are
just a "political view"? Are you claiming that we should feel free to
vent r134a because the restrictions are just "political"? Or are you
confessing that you flaunt the law in spite of the rather stiff fines?

but it doesn't change the dismal
physics and economics of CO2 as a refrigerant. You may force CO2
refrigeration to replace R-134a, but don't pretend that it works better
or doesn't cost more.

On average perhaps it doesn't, although even the pro-R134a association
only claimed CO2 was slightly less efficient. However, small
systems are very inefficient, so there's no reason why this system
might not equal or better the competition. Further, having only 2
moving parts and user serviceability are a major advantage. Being
skeptical about a product doesn't give you the right to label it as a
"hoax" or "fraud."


Using terms like "hoax" "fraud" and "perpetual motion" is tantamount
to claiming its impossible.


I said the efficiency claims were not credible and foolishly misstated.
Don't twist that into anything more.

Your first post included "Idiotic nonsense" and "either a fraud, or a
nutcase"

You said "My point is, the spec sheet uses gibberish" when in fact the
spec sheet uses the proper terminology, properly labeled. You are
simple not sufficiently well-versed in engineering to understand it.

Perpetual motion machines are
impossible, not all machines that produce motion.

You referred to this as "It is a mad inventor's perpetual motion machine"

Why are you trying to deny what you said just yesterday?



[hybrid cars] seemed a bit silly when first proposed, now they make
a bit more sense. (I'm sure you'll now claim they're a hoax ...)


They're a hoax in claiming or implying a better lifetime cost per mile.

These "claims" are only in your imagination. I believe the economy
and cost of the vehicles are public information. As with much new
technology, early adopters pay a premium for the privilege. However,
the price is declining steadily, and the fuel cost is rising, so its
possible that hybrids will actually have a better lifetime cost per
mile in a few years. Actually, just going by the MSRP and EPA mileage
its getting close to break even now.

I am curious to see how it works out.

Sure, I am too. And having experienced the 1970s as an engineer, I am
confident I know how it will work out. About as well as synthetic
fuels.

Syn fuels are predicted to be roughly 10% of domestic oil production
in 25 years; perhaps even double that if the high price stays with us.
In this "high price" model, a quarter of the coal mined would go to
syn fuel. That would fund my retirement.

This is from recent DOE testimony before a Senate committee. I
believe (though I'm not sure) that this assumes there is no subsidy
for syn fuel, because the price of oil is above the cutoff.


... your close minded approach ...

Be closed-minded about errors in technology. These are not unscientific
opinions or tastes. Those of us who do genuine engineering research and
devlopment for a living ...

You really have a problem convincing anyone that you ever did any
engineering, given that you don't know what dimensional analysis is.
If you had, you would understand that "amp-hours per day" is a measure
of current.