| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
tropikool refridgerator
anyone out there using the tropikool refridgeration system. stirling
style compressor, co2 refrigerant. i'm interested in the concept but would like to hear from someone that is using it. what'a ya say? steve scheiding |
tropikool refridgerator
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?) |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
whoa!,
geez, i only posted this last night, and have now arrived to find a tense situation. mr kinch, i have seen this system operating at "strictly sail". no i'm not a spamer, or a nut. i was hoping to hear from someone that is using this system. perhaps a little less caffine? the wording is a little incorrect but they are saying that once the system reaches equilibrium, it will use 18 amp hours over a 24 hour period. could have been said a little better. the system basically doesn't turn off. it just varies the power to the motor as the need to cool or coast changes. system is very quiet. i had asked regarding the co2 phase change. at atmospheric pressure the phase change is only a degree or two between gas and solid (dry ice)(in fact sublimination usually occurs). but at pressure (not sure how much) this transition occurs over a more manageable span. i have a question in to them regarding helium and my understanding that it is relatively hard to contain. what is the recharge period and is it user servicable or does it need to be returned to the factory? what i'm looking for is someone with a track record with this system. it's design intriges me. i'm not completely sold on hfc systems in tropical climates and this system seems simple to maintain, requires a reasonable amount of ventilation to maintain efficiency and is relatively quiet and seemingly very economical. anyone using this system? steve scheiding |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
steve writes:
i have seen this system operating at "strictly sail". no i'm not a spamer, or a nut. i was hoping to hear from someone that is using this system. OK, you're innocent, if that's the case. Let me save you some trouble. Every boat show has a few 10 x 10 booths with nutty people who promote their quirky stuff. You know, those miracle repair adhesives, or the stuff you wipe on and it makes your 20-year-old boat look new for all eternity. When it rises to the level of a guy selling quack machines for $1000s, then it is not just nutty, it is a concerted effort at deception. You don't want testimonials, anyway. They are insufficient support for claims that lack basic physical credibility. What you want is performance curves from an independent lab. BTUs/hour pumped versus ambient temp and watt-hours consumed. But don't expect to get that. This guy can't even compose a consistent specification himself. |
tropikool refridgerator
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? |
tropikool refridgerator
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? |
tropikool refridgerator
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 |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. |
tropikool refridgerator
Jeff writes:
No, you're simply showing that you actually have no real training or experience in engineering. Let's leave it at that, as evidence of your perspicacity. |
tropikool refridgerator
actually, if anyone is interested, i did get replies from not only tom henderson @ the company but also a guy named alex with an installed tropikool system currently in panama. he is actually heading around the world and has a web site and some sort of arrangement with pbs. rather personable and the web site is worth a look-see. i've posted the email posts and replies on the following link. http://www.shyding.blogspot.com steve scheiding |
tropikool refridgerator
steve writes:
http://www.shyding.blogspot.com Interesting. Nice quacky responses, all the way from vague to incredible. Read that "25 year" claim carefully, and see if you can spot the backhandedness that makes it meaningless, the antithesis of a direct, engineering type of answer. You should ask Henderson how many BTUs (or the metric equivalent) you get pumped for your amp-hours of "current". |
tropikool refridgerator
steve writes:
http://www.shyding.blogspot.com And you ask him for a testimonial, and he brags about having tons of customers, but then he can only point you to someone incommunicado on a boat out at sea. |
tropikool refridgerator
Richard J Kinch wrote: engineering type of answer. well, you know, kinch, he isn't actually talking to an engineer. what say you email him and politely ask him, one engineer to another, what the btu per amp ratio is? let us know what the response is. steve |
tropikool refridgerator
Richard J Kinch wrote: steve writes: http://www.shyding.blogspot.com And you ask him for a testimonial, and he brags about having tons of customers, but then he can only point you to someone incommunicado on a boat out at sea. Geez, you're a real peach! alex isn't exactly incommunicado. he has a constantly updated web page with photo documentation of his actual progress plus his endeavor is linked to the public broadcasting service (probably some sort of support in return for some amount of journalism). email's were returned promptly with the information requested (in laymans terms. i can see where this would bother you). i guess what it boils down to is that i am just exploring an interesting system that i have come across unlike you who seems to be on some sort of crusade. best of luck to ya steve |
tropikool refridgerator
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 Ya know, this thread keeps gettin sillier and sillier. Amp-hours, if anyone cares to look it up instead of just flappin, is a measurement of current. And I defy anyone, including Mr. Kinch, to find a way for current to flow without time. If current was without time, it could not possibly *be* current. It would then be reduced to "...potential for current to flow, which when flowing would be measured in amp-hours..." Current is a verb, it defines an action. Without the action, there's no flow. Without the flow there's no "amps", which is always measured against a unit of time - the convention being hours (notice I said 'convention'- you could use any time measurement, days, U-seconds, etc.). It cannot be measured without time - ever. Therefore, "amps" by itself, does not describe anything. You could say there is a measurement of an *instantaneous current* but that would still be just a snapshot of the presently measured current-against-time. Amp-hours is and has been the correct term because a "1 amp" device is defined by convention as a device that passes a current of 1 amp during the course of an hour. The term "1 amp" is simply a contraction for "device that passes 1 amp of current during the period of one hour" Now, isn't that a mouthful? Jeesh! The engineers and tech's of old used to actually *say* "amp-hours" when describing current, and all my old electronics textbooks use that term exclusively. So if Mr. Kinch wants to call all my electronics professors frauds or fools, so be it. But then I'll challenge him to come over and put his instruments where his mouth is and show us all how he manages to measure "amps" without time for the electrons to flow. Or was that holes flowing... hmmm... :) |
tropikool refridgerator
Sailaway wrote:
.... Ya know, this thread keeps gettin sillier and sillier. Amp-hours, if anyone cares to look it up instead of just flappin, is a measurement of current. And I defy anyone, including Mr. Kinch, to find a way for current to flow without time. If current was without time, it could not possibly *be* current. It would then be reduced to "...potential for current to flow, which when flowing would be measured in amp-hours..." Current is a verb, it defines an action. Without the action, there's no flow. Without the flow there's no "amps", which is always measured against a unit of time - the convention being hours (notice I said 'convention'- you could use any time measurement, days, U-seconds, etc.). It cannot be measured without time - ever. Therefore, "amps" by itself, does not describe anything. You could say there is a measurement of an *instantaneous current* but that would still be just a snapshot of the presently measured current-against-time. Amp-hours is and has been the correct term because a "1 amp" device is defined by convention as a device that passes a current of 1 amp during the course of an hour. The term "1 amp" is simply a contraction for "device that passes 1 amp of current during the period of one hour" Now, isn't that a mouthful? Jeesh! The engineers and tech's of old used to actually *say* "amp-hours" when describing current, and all my old electronics textbooks use that term exclusively. Sorry, I don'[t think you have it quite right. "Current" is an instantaneous rate of charge flow. Although formally defined in terms of forces in wires, it is better understood as a change in charge, as in coulombs/second. Since Coulombs can be thought of as a number of electrons (6.24E+18), Amps are "electrons per second" ignoring the constant factor. Amps-hours thus represent a number of electrons. However, the spec sheet said "Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour period" which is "Amp-hours/day" - for some reason Kinch keeps ignoring this even though is is clearly stated. This is measure of charge flow, simply scaled up by 24 from amperes. So if Mr. Kinch wants to call all my electronics professors frauds or fools, so be it. But then I'll challenge him to come over and put his instruments where his mouth is and show us all how he manages to measure "amps" without time for the electrons to flow. Measuring something is different from stating its instantaneous property. Velocity is stated for a moment in time, but is real hard to measure without considering a change in position over time, or by using some other technique that considers time. Or was that holes flowing... hmmm... :) |
tropikool refridgerator
Hmmm. I actually find the following explanation a pretty good
description of the principle, if we assume the reader knows the Stirling cycle. I cannot comment on the suitability of CO2 in the secondary circuit, but it seems clear that the primary circuit is a Sirling engine with helium as a working medium, and that the CO2 is used to transport heat from the refigerated area to the Stirling engine. http://www.avxcel.com/free_piston_stirling_cooler.html http://www.avxcel.com/heat_rejection.html http://www.avxcel.com/marine_refrigeration.html "RJK" == Richard J Kinch writes: RJK Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen writes: If you look closer at the technology you will find that the working fluid is helium. RJK That's rather obscurely and incompletely explained on the Web site, being RJK that purveyors of perpetual motion cannot, of necessity, be too specific RJK about how it is achieved. RJK But if you're correct about the helium and Stirling, then so much the more RJK is this made not credible. RJK -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. |
tropikool refridgerator
Jeff said:
Sorry, I don'[t think you have it quite right. "Current" is an instantaneous rate of charge flow. Although formally defined in terms of forces in wires, it is better understood as a change in charge, as in coulombs/second. Since Coulombs can be thought of as a number of electrons (6.24E+18), Amps are "electrons per second" ignoring the constant factor. Amps-hours thus represent a number of electrons. However, the spec sheet said "Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour period" which is "Amp-hours/day" - for some reason Kinch keeps ignoring this even though is is clearly stated. This is measure of charge flow, simply scaled up by 24 from amperes. snip Measuring something is different from stating its instantaneous property. Velocity is stated for a moment in time, but is real hard to measure without considering a change in position over time, or by using some other technique that considers time. You've said (pretty obliquely) some of the same thing ("electrons per second"), and I agree with your statement about measurement being different than describing an instantaneous property. Current is flow. Flow is not stagnant. Flow cannot be anything else but flow. For flow to happen in this case, electrons have to move. When they move, it is called "current". Think of a river - can "current" flow without movement? You can describe the amount of electrons existing in a conductor at any one instant in time as a snapshot of an amount of electrons existing in a conductor, but that amount is the result of the electrons having flowed through that part of the conductor during some amount of time however small or large. Just measuring or calculating the number of electrons present in a conductor is not a measure of current in and of itself, because current is a measure or calculation of the number of electrons having flowed through a conductor during a given specific amount of time. What you are describing is the *rate* of flow as a snapshot of some instant in time. But to get that snapshot of the rate of flow, you must first have current, measured in amp-hours. What you alluding to is not a measurement, it is a description of a rate of measurement at one instant. Mr. Kinch talked about a piece of equipment should be rated at (x) amps, but the term *amps* is in this case a *new terminology* contraction for amp-hours, or it wouldn't make any sense. We all assume, consciously or unconsciously, when reading a current rating listed on any equipment when listed as *amps* to actually be amps-per-hour (the *rate*) which is the current standard convention. The time used for your measurement, however, is irrelevant, it is just a way to determine how many electrons have flowed through the conductor during that time. So if you used average current over one hour, or one day, or one year, etc., you still have the same exact same type of measurement; amps-per-whatever. But average measurement does not describe what the flow is at any one instant in time, which is what you were alluding to. Electrical "pressure" is the old terminology for voltage, described as "potential". This is not current, but influences current as described by ohm's law. Charge is a different entity entirely and is not current. Velocity is not current, but can influence current. The term can also seem confusing. If you have a large diameter pipe and have 1 gallon per hour of water flowing through it, and you have a very small diameter pipe and have 1 gallon per hour flowing through it you will have two very different velocities. But if current is the measurement of units-of-something-per-time, then the *current* is the same in both pipes, although the *pressure* will necessarily be different (just like ohm's law). But if the velocity of current, that is, if electrons are limited in the actual speed each can flow through a given conductor regardless of pressure (IE: speed of light in a perfect conductor), then the number of electrons that can flow through a conductor in a given time is limited at least by the size of the conductor, regardless of the pressure (voltage). So *velocity* can be an imprecise term to describe current if you label the amount of current flow as speed of flow (speed of each electron moving), rather than the total number of electrons-per-unit-of-time. Of course, exceeding a conductor's ability to pass a certain number of electrons in a given amount of time will result in excessive heat which may result in damage, hence the need to describe a conductor's ability to handle a specific *rate* of current flow. Most conductors will destruct due to heat before actually exceeding its max rate of flow of electrons. That is why cooling a conductor allows more current to be applied through it before self destructing. When measuring current with a meter, all U.S. meters that I have seen and used measure in amps per hour averaged. Meters cannot take a snapshot in time, because no matter how short the cutoff, it is still time. If you'd like, you are invited over to look at any number of textbooks I have (several lockers full) that will describe it for you more eloquently and completely than I will here. Although my textbooks are written in the "old" language of electronics - you know; amp-hours, cycles per second, etc. |
tropikool refridgerator
Sailaway writes:
Amp-hours, if anyone cares to look it up instead of just flappin, is a measurement of current. No. Amp-hours is a unit of charge. Not current. Your post is a schizoid rant of physical gibberish. So if Mr. Kinch wants to call all my electronics professors frauds or fools, so be it. If you are claiming to be consulting authorities, I suspect the problem is your muddled misunderstanding of them. That's Dr, not Mr, by the way, when it comes to engineering and physics. |
tropikool refridgerator
Mr. Kinch foamed thusly:
Your post is a schizoid rant of physical gibberish. Ya caught me! I've always believed if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bull****. Have a nice day. |
tropikool refridgerator
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. Richard J Kinch wrote: No it isn't. Isn't what? Jeff is right, current consumption from a battery bank is commonly (and correctly) measured in in amp-hours, and this is the important spec to most boaters. .... Current is measured in amps. Correct. .... Amp-hours are not a measure of current. Also correct, but then nobody (except you) is stating such. 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. Really? Ever used a CO2 air gun? "Vented freely" is a political, not a technical advantage. It is a technical advantage if you are currently working on the system. CO2 is lousy refrigerant for all but a few unusual applications That may be true, but the fact is that it works. The technical properties of the refrigerant are not as important as the intellgience of the person designing the system (and the diligence of the person who builds/installs it). 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. Depends very much on the relative mechanicl merits of the two specific engines. I've worked on a lot of steam engines. Some were great machines, others were a nightmare. Equally wide variations in gasoline engines... of course, if you're the type who can reel off encyclopedias of specifications but in real life can't tell the difference between a phillips head screwdriver and an atomizing fuel tip, then you can smugly proclaim that one type of engine *must* always be superior to some other type. The basic answers for cruising refrigeration should be: 1- more insulation is always better 2- a clearly written manual is more desirable than superior specs (true of most boat equipment IMHO) Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
tropikool refridgerator
DSK writes:
Jeff is right, current consumption from a battery bank is commonly (and correctly) measured in in amp-hours, and this is the important spec to most boaters. Amp-hours is a unit of charge, and not a unit of current. Charge is not current. It is nonsensical to specify current in amp-hours. It is like asking what gas mileage a car gets, and responding, "18 gallons". Of course people use the term "current" to mean a vague or naive notion of "electricity", such as "house current". But this doesn't excuse a technical specification giving a bogus value in nonsensical units. .... Amp-hours are not a measure of current. Also correct, but then nobody (except you) is stating such. You just said, "current consumption ... correctly measured in amp- hours". "Vented freely" is a political, not a technical advantage. It is a technical advantage if you are currently working on the system. You confuse "venting" with "freely". This is hopeless. CO2 is lousy refrigerant for all but a few unusual applications That may be true, but the fact is that it works. Puhleeze. Anything compressible material "works". But it doesn't "work" in the sense of being in any way practical. |
tropikool refridgerator
Richard J Kinch wrote:
DSK writes: Jeff is right, current consumption from a battery bank is commonly (and correctly) measured in in amp-hours, and this is the important spec to most boaters. Amp-hours is a unit of charge, and not a unit of current. Of course. Thank you for repeating what I said. Charge is not current. Of course. It is nonsensical to specify current in amp-hours. It is like asking what gas mileage a car gets, and responding, "18 gallons". However, when you specify current as Amp-hours/day, its perfectly valid. In fact, it is the preferred way of stating it in this situation. That is what is stated in the spec sheet. Its like stating the number of gallons of gas used in an average year, assuming a certain number of miles. You inability to grasp this is in direct contradiction to your claim of having a PhD in some field of physics or engineering. Of course people use the term "current" to mean a vague or naive notion of "electricity", such as "house current". But this doesn't excuse a technical specification giving a bogus value in nonsensical units. Perhaps you should look at the spec sheet again: http://www.avxcel.com/docs/TropiKool...5%20r 1.1.pdf Right next to the label "Nominal current" is a little number "(2)" - this is called a "foot note" - and if you look down a few lines you find: "(2) Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour period." In other words, the value listed is Amp-hours per day, a perfectly fine measure of current. It appears that the only bogus aspect to this discussion is your claim of any knowledge in the area. .... Amp-hours are not a measure of current. Also correct, but then nobody (except you) is stating such. You just said, "current consumption ... correctly measured in amp- hours". As noted, its current consumption over a 24 hour period, or Amp-hours per day. |
tropikool refridgerator
Richard J Kinch wrote:
Amp-hours is a unit of charge, and not a unit of current. Charge is not current. I see the problem. You apparently can't read. DSK writes: ... current consumption from a battery bank is commonly (and correctly) measured in in amp-hours Go to the library and ask the nice person at the reference desk to help you look up the definition of the word "consumption." Not the medical definition. DSK |
tropikool refridgerator
Jeff writes:
"(2) Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour period." In other words, the value listed is Amp-hours per day, a perfectly fine measure of current. Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units. They do not equate. Both the amp-hour statement and the footnote are thereby nonsensical. A footnote of nonsense does not redeem the nonsense being footnoted, as if they were some kind of inverse nonsense that cancels out. Your "in other words" is just a blind assumption of what the author meant to say, but didn't. You inability to grasp this is in direct contradiction to your claim of having a PhD in some field of physics or engineering. Scoffing at the wise is the habit of fools. I would gladly settle issues based on my credentials, but this is Usenet, the river of foolishness. Engage at your peril. |
tropikool refridgerator
Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes: "(2) Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour period." In other words, the value listed is Amp-hours per day, a perfectly fine measure of current. Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units. I learned it. Did you? You really like to make yourself seem important by using technical terms that you think others don't know. They do not equate. Both the amp-hour statement and the footnote are thereby nonsensical. This sounds like another huge backpedal. You seem to be implying that the "Amp-hour" spec would make sense, except that they left out the BTU rating, which I admitted up front would be very handy. Of course, it only takes a little digging (very little, since the site only has about 10 pages and its mentioned several times) to find the the specs are based on the setup of the Cruising World tests performed by Joe Minick in 1995. For better or worse, this report is a standard often referenced when comparing units. In that test, a 5 cu. ft. box with 4 inches of foam was used, with some added heat to simulate usage. The daily load was 1850 BTU. At 18 Amp-hours/day, the Tropikool rates substantially better than of of the units tested by CW, except for the Glacier Bay. A footnote of nonsense does not redeem the nonsense being footnoted, as if they were some kind of inverse nonsense that cancels out. Your "in other words" is just a blind assumption of what the author meant to say, but didn't. In other words, you made a huge blunder and now you're trying to find a way to weasel out with a shred of your dignity intact. Sorry, way too late. You inability to grasp this is in direct contradiction to your claim of having a PhD in some field of physics or engineering. Scoffing at the wise is the habit of fools. Yes, that's just what got you into this problem. Based on a quick glance you decided to label this as "either a fraud, or a nutcase." You thought no one would call you on that. Frankly, I don't know if this technology will catch on, but labeling it as a "hoax" because you don't understand it makes you the fool. I would gladly settle issues based on my credentials, but this is Usenet, the river of foolishness. Engage at your peril. So now you're claiming you must be right, because you're a "Dawkter." Maybe that carries some weight down in the boonies, but up here in Cambridge, PhD's from MIT and Harvard are a dime a dozen, and most who brag about their credentials are considered jackasses. What's next? Are you going to claim you're a member of Mensa? |
tropikool refridgerator
Richard J Kinch wrote:
Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units. Jeff wrote: I learned it. Did you? You really like to make yourself seem important by using technical terms that you think others don't know. Hey Jeff, why are you bothering to argue with this guy? At least Jax was kind of funny. DSK |
tropikool refridgerator
DSK wrote:
Richard J Kinch wrote: Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units. Jeff wrote: I learned it. Did you? You really like to make yourself seem important by using technical terms that you think others don't know. Hey Jeff, why are you bothering to argue with this guy? At least Jax was kind of funny. DSK Yeah, its sad, this guy makes Jax look good. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:22 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com