#>In article <1993Apr15.222600.11690@research.nj.nec.com>  
#>>  ...
#>> 	Several chemists already have come up with several substitutes for
#>> R12.  You don't hear about them because the Mobile Air Conditioning  
#>Society
#>> (MACS), that is, the people who stand to rake in that $300 to $1000 per
#>> retrofit per automobile, have mounted an organized campaign to squash  
#>those
#>> R12 substitutes out of existence if not ban them altogether (on very  
#>shaky
#>> technical grounds, at best, on outright lies at worst).
#>>  ...
#>
#>Now, I'm not saying you're wrong because I know that the R-12 substitutes  
#>exist, but this sounds a lot like the 200mpg carbs that the oil companies  
#>keep us all from getting.
# 
#	It sounds crazy, but it's true.  One of the best R-12 subsitutes,
#GHG-12, is currently a commercial product.  Unfortunately, the SAE committee
#on mobile air conditioning is comprised almost exclusively of MACS members.
#Such being the case, no papers about any alternative refrigerant other than
#R-134a have been accepted for review/publication.
# 
#	Yo, John?  You want to provide some more details?  Or should I just
#repost your voluminous repost?
# 
#Later,
#-- 
#Chris BeHanna	DoD# 114          1983 H-D FXWG Wide Glide - Jubilee's Red Lady
#behanna@syl.nj.nec.com	          1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
#Disclaimer:  Now why would NEC	  1991 ZX-11 - needs a name
#agree with any of this anyway?    I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.


    We here are *VERY* interested in info on R12 substitutes (in fact I
 think we really need all the info on this we can get).

    I would really appreciate technical, supply, and hardware-upgrade
 details.  

   Also, R12 is a useful solvent/reagent in the extraction/production of
 certain pharmaceuticals.  Any info on the substitutes' corresponding
 usefullness?

    I am currently working with the local engineers who are making sure
 we are compliant with the regulations.  The trouble with regulations is
 that they only tell you what you are no longer permitted to do, not what
 you should do instead.

     I think the cause of the new regulations is the Montreal Protocol
 which has a definite CFC-phase-out schedule.  (Of course the cause of
 the Montreal Protocol was all the research done on the causes of the
 Ozone Depletion Problem.)

     Someone asked earlier about why the governments were working so fast
 to ban the ozone-depleting (CFC) chemicals and not gasolines and other
 greenhouse-gas-producing compounds.  The greenhouse effect (produced by
 infrared-trapping gasses like CO2 and methane) and the ozone-hole problem
 (produced by long-lived, chlorine-containing molecules) are not the same
 thing.  It is a lot easier to do something about not using the CFC's
 (chloro-fluorocarbons) than it is to stop producing CO2 and methane which
 are natural byproducts of combustion and of living (animal) organisms.
 Planting more trees and not destroying so many existing trees would help
 the greenhouse-gas problem, but would do nothing for the ozone problem.

 Fred W. Bach ,    Operations Group        |  Internet: music@erich.triumf.ca
 TRIUMF (TRI-University Meson Facility)    |  Voice:  604-222-1047 loc 327/278
 4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS            |  FAX:    604-222-1074
 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA   V6T 2A3