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.