steve writes:

what'a ya say?

Idiotic nonsense.

A spec sheet giving "current" in "amp-hours"?

A spec sheet for a heat pump ... that doesn't give the heat pumped?

CO2 as a phase-change refrigerant? Critical point, 88 deg F, 31 deg C.
Could a boat cabin get that hot?

A Web site with no contact names, and an anonymous whois?

This is either a fraud, or a nutcase.

(Are you spamming?)

Richard J Kinch wrote:
steve writes:


what'a ya say?


Idiotic nonsense.

Thank you for putting a title on your response.

A spec sheet giving "current" in "amp-hours"?

You mean the one that footnotes as "Average current consumption for 12
VDC systems over 24-hour period"? So you think it would be more
useful to say "sometimes 4 Amps, sometimes less"?

A spec sheet for a heat pump ... that doesn't give the heat pumped?

Yes, BTU/hour would have been handy. For all of the info, I don't
know if it would replace my system.


CO2 as a phase-change refrigerant? Critical point, 88 deg F, 31 deg C.
Could a boat cabin get that hot?

What's the problem? CO2 was used in early systems, and is gaining
acceptance now. For example:
http://www.tuhh.de/fst/research/crp_...ibung_eng.html


A Web site with no contact names, and an anonymous whois?

This must be the stupidest statement I've seen in this forum in a long
time. Lots of corporate web sites don't list personal names, and
there is absolutely nothing wrong with hiding the domain info.

There's is plenty on contact info on the site, including a corporate
address. In fact the CEO's name (Tom Henderson) and phone number is
given.


I'm either a fraud, or a nutcase.


beats me, seems like a tossup.

Jeff writes:

A spec sheet giving "current" in "amp-hours"?

You mean the one that footnotes as "Average current consumption for 12
VDC systems over 24-hour period"? So you think it would be more
useful to say "sometimes 4 Amps, sometimes less"?

Describing current in amp-hours is stupid. Defending it doesn't look so
good either.

A spec sheet for a heat pump ... that doesn't give the heat pumped?

Yes, BTU/hour would have been handy.

Handy? How about less than utterly ridiculous.

CO2 as a phase-change refrigerant? Critical point, 88 deg F, 31 deg
C. Could a boat cabin get that hot?

What's the problem?

Physics, thermodynamics, that sort of thing. Supercritical fluids do
not change phase. CO2 is supercritical above 88 deg F. The author of
this gibberish is either a fraud or a fool.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:

A spec sheet giving "current" in "amp-hours"?

You mean the one that footnotes as "Average current consumption for 12
VDC systems over 24-hour period"? So you think it would be more
useful to say "sometimes 4 Amps, sometimes less"?

Describing current in amp-hours is stupid. Defending it doesn't look so
good either.
No one really cares about the Amps in a system where the load varies.
What is important is the total load over time. Attacking something not
labeled to your standards, especially when the footnote properly
describes the spec, make you look like an ignorant jackass.



A spec sheet for a heat pump ... that doesn't give the heat pumped?

Yes, BTU/hour would have been handy.


Handy? How about less than utterly ridiculous.

yada yada yada - if this is the only real problem you can find what's
the big deal? Frankly, there's a few other details I like to see
explained, but this doesn't mean the entire system is fraudulent.



CO2 as a phase-change refrigerant? Critical point, 88 deg F, 31 deg
C. Could a boat cabin get that hot?

What's the problem?


Physics, thermodynamics, that sort of thing.

Then perhaps you should learn some of that stuff. I posted one link to
CO2 systems (out of thousands I found in a few minutes), here's another:

http://www.appliancemagazine.com/ama...ne=214&first=1


Supercritical fluids do
not change phase. CO2 is supercritical above 88 deg F. The author of
this gibberish is either a fraud or a fool.

Or perhaps you're just ignorant. Try Googling "transcritical co2
cycle". I don't know if this product is as efficient as they would have
us believe, or reliable, but claiming its impossible seems rather stupid.

Jeff writes:

No one really cares about the Amps in a system where the load varies.

So what. My point is, the spec sheet uses gibberish. "Amp-hours" are
not a measure of "current". The author couldn't pass a freshman
engineering class. If they can't even get that right, then the actual
product must be a joke.

A spec sheet for a heat pump ... that doesn't give the heat pumped?

Yes, BTU/hour would have been handy.

Handy? How about less than utterly ridiculous.

yada yada yada - if this is the only real problem you can find what's
the big deal?

Phoney-baloney pseudo-technology marketing doesn't pass the crank test.
It is a mad inventor's perpetual motion machine.

Then perhaps you should learn some of that stuff. I posted one link
to CO2 systems (out of thousands I found in a few minutes), here's
another:

http://www.appliancemagazine.com/ama...hp?article=567

Despite the cheerleading, the guy admits there are no commercial
products based on CO2, and if there were, they would be less efficient
and cost more.

"... introducing new refrigerants is never easy." Right, because the old
ones are far better.

"... expect to see systems ...in the years ahead." Right. Just
believe, even though no one has any idea how to build one.

Reminds me of the zombies who preach Peltier devices.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:
No one really cares about the Amps in a system where the load varies.

So what. My point is, the spec sheet uses gibberish. "Amp-hours" are
not a measure of "current". The author couldn't pass a freshman
engineering class. If they can't even get that right, then the actual
product must be a joke.

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

I think we've found our new Jaxashby!



A spec sheet for a heat pump ... that doesn't give the heat pumped?

Yes, BTU/hour would have been handy.

Handy? How about less than utterly ridiculous.

yada yada yada - if this is the only real problem you can find what's
the big deal?

Phoney-baloney pseudo-technology marketing doesn't pass the crank test.
It is a mad inventor's perpetual motion machine.

Yes, I suppose you would be the "crank test." Frankly, the fact that
you think its a hoax makes it look like its probably breakthrough
technology and worth considering. I wonder if I can buy stock in the
company!


Then perhaps you should learn some of that stuff. I posted one link
to CO2 systems (out of thousands I found in a few minutes), here's
another:
http://www.appliancemagazine.com/ama...hp?article=567

Despite the cheerleading, the guy admits there are no commercial
products based on CO2, and if there were, they would be less efficient
and cost more.

No, he says that new technology will be required to make it as
efficient - in fact he states that its possible to improve efficiency
"to parity with fluorocarbon-based equipment while achieving the
aforementioned environmental benefits described."

And while there are no home air conditioners with CO2 yet, Coca-Cola
deployed 1000 CO2 based vending machines at the last Olympics, CO2
Heat & A/C units are shipping in fleet vehicles, and the military uses
it.

Its a major advantage to have a system that can be opened, repaired or
reconfigured, and recharged without expensive equipment or a license.
And having only a few moving parts is also an advantage. This
particular device might no be suitable for all, but its not
inconceivable that this type of system will be the standard in a few
years.


"... introducing new refrigerants is never easy." Right, because the old
ones are far better.

Holy Back Pedal Batman! First you claim they're impossible, now
you're claiming they're just not quite as good! Which is it?

And you must realize that CO2 was one of the "old refrigerants" that
got replaced by fluorocarbons that were perceived as better.


"... expect to see systems ...in the years ahead." Right. Just
believe, even though no one has any idea how to build one.

Right, that's why there are thousands in use now.

Reminds me of the zombies who preach Peltier devices.

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

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.