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.