A/C replacement orifice/filter
#1
07-28-2023, 04:32 PM
#2
07-28-2023, 06:17 PM
Veteran Member
Good question!
I either did not know about the existence of inline orifice/filters or forgot about them.
I changed the receiver/dryer and all accessible seals before having the A/C of my Ford Fairlane refilled with R134a, but not the inline orifice/filter - I guess I should have.
I am currently in the process of re-assembling the A/C system of my van (new compressor, new receiver dryer). After coming across your question, I will also swap the inline orifice/filter.
That filter does not cost much, and seems to be fairly accessible.
The receiver/drier in itself is also a filter, hence I was not looking for another one... - so I overlooked the inline orifice/filter.
After changing the compressor (as you did) you should definitely also change everything which counts as filter, as the reason as to why your compressor failed in the first place may have been particles in the system or mayor particles may now have come from the broken compressor.
So the answer to your question in my book is: Yes.
Here are 2 videos I found - the first where someone explains the system nicely on a Ford, and then second where to find the inline orifice/filter in an X-Type:
PS: I guess it goes without saying that you also have to replace all accessible seals of the A/C system with new seals, which are suitable for use with R134a. Those are normally green. Best you get a whole box with all sizes, so that you aren't getting caught short, when you are doing the job.
PS2: I am currently replacing one of my A/C gaskets, and I had therefore the box with gaskets in my hand: NBR is the material of the gaskets.
PS3: Finding the A/C inline orifice/filter on my van is tricky - it is an aftermarket system. But I am sure, I did unscrew the pipe, where such a filter would be - but there was none. Hence, I have none. But I would never have checked out that connection (and the connection next to it), if it would not have been for your question - and the 2 gaskets there (which I just swapped) looked pretty poorly -and I still had to find a leak in my system - this might have been it - thus: Thank you for the question...
I either did not know about the existence of inline orifice/filters or forgot about them.
I changed the receiver/dryer and all accessible seals before having the A/C of my Ford Fairlane refilled with R134a, but not the inline orifice/filter - I guess I should have.
I am currently in the process of re-assembling the A/C system of my van (new compressor, new receiver dryer). After coming across your question, I will also swap the inline orifice/filter.
That filter does not cost much, and seems to be fairly accessible.
The receiver/drier in itself is also a filter, hence I was not looking for another one... - so I overlooked the inline orifice/filter.
After changing the compressor (as you did) you should definitely also change everything which counts as filter, as the reason as to why your compressor failed in the first place may have been particles in the system or mayor particles may now have come from the broken compressor.
So the answer to your question in my book is: Yes.
Here are 2 videos I found - the first where someone explains the system nicely on a Ford, and then second where to find the inline orifice/filter in an X-Type:
PS: I guess it goes without saying that you also have to replace all accessible seals of the A/C system with new seals, which are suitable for use with R134a. Those are normally green. Best you get a whole box with all sizes, so that you aren't getting caught short, when you are doing the job.
PS2: I am currently replacing one of my A/C gaskets, and I had therefore the box with gaskets in my hand: NBR is the material of the gaskets.
PS3: Finding the A/C inline orifice/filter on my van is tricky - it is an aftermarket system. But I am sure, I did unscrew the pipe, where such a filter would be - but there was none. Hence, I have none. But I would never have checked out that connection (and the connection next to it), if it would not have been for your question - and the 2 gaskets there (which I just swapped) looked pretty poorly -and I still had to find a leak in my system - this might have been it - thus: Thank you for the question...
Last edited by Peter_of_Australia; 07-29-2023 at 12:46 AM.
The following users liked this post:
extheaterkid (03-04-2024)
#3
07-29-2023, 02:06 AM
#4
07-29-2023, 03:41 AM
Veteran Member
Well, if it gets cold - just not cold enough - my bet would not have been on the compressor, but on old seals, which failed over time and low refrigerant level.
But a new compressor does not harm.
I assume you are going to an A/C shop to have - when you have finished your A/C repairs - R134a refilled, AFTER they checked for leaks with Nitrogen and confirmed that there are no leaks...
But a new compressor does not harm.
I assume you are going to an A/C shop to have - when you have finished your A/C repairs - R134a refilled, AFTER they checked for leaks with Nitrogen and confirmed that there are no leaks...
#5
07-29-2023, 04:12 PM
I just replaced my compressor and dryer as the comp was leaking oil from the shaft. If you haven’t already done it then you will need the special tool to split the coupling where the hose from the dryer goes up through the inner wing, also you don’t need to remove the washerfluid tank, you can replace the dryer with it in place but you will need an 8mm ratchet spanner for the mounting screw on bracket on top of the dryer and some patience as you can only swing the spanner a small amount but it can be done. You have to remove the wheel arch plastic liner and the inner liner covering the crank pulley as I found its easier to release the belt tensioner and route the new belt on from underneath inside the wheel arch.
The following users liked this post:
Mr rx-7 tt (08-02-2023)
#6
08-02-2023, 12:36 AM
Well, if it gets cold - just not cold enough - my bet would not have been on the compressor, but on old seals, which failed over time and low refrigerant level.
But a new compressor does not harm.
I assume you are going to an A/C shop to have - when you have finished your A/C repairs - R134a refilled, AFTER they checked for leaks with Nitrogen and confirmed that there are no leaks...
But a new compressor does not harm.
I assume you are going to an A/C shop to have - when you have finished your A/C repairs - R134a refilled, AFTER they checked for leaks with Nitrogen and confirmed that there are no leaks...
#7
08-02-2023, 12:39 AM
I just replaced my compressor and dryer as the comp was leaking oil from the shaft. If you haven’t already done it then you will need the special tool to split the coupling where the hose from the dryer goes up through the inner wing, also you don’t need to remove the washerfluid tank, you can replace the dryer with it in place but you will need an 8mm ratchet spanner for the mounting screw on bracket on top of the dryer and some patience as you can only swing the spanner a small amount but it can be done. You have to remove the wheel arch plastic liner and the inner liner covering the crank pulley as I found its easier to release the belt tensioner and route the new belt on from underneath inside the wheel arch.
Last edited by Mr rx-7 tt; 08-02-2023 at 12:53 AM.
Trending Topics
#8
08-02-2023, 05:46 AM
Veteran Member
I think I should just write the obvious here:
In Australia it does not matter, which tools you have: You can't just "swap" the refrigerant. Reason: You can't buy the refrigerant as a DIYer.
And there is a very good reason for that: R134a released into the atmosphere and not professionally captured and recycled, kills our planet even more.
I know, that it is no problem at all to buy R134a at every corner in the US, and cheap, too, BUT IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Removing and filling refrigerant should only be done in a professional shop, where they have the very expensive equipment to recycle the old R134a into new R134a.
Doing anything else is simply a crime against this planet.
In Australia it does not matter, which tools you have: You can't just "swap" the refrigerant. Reason: You can't buy the refrigerant as a DIYer.
And there is a very good reason for that: R134a released into the atmosphere and not professionally captured and recycled, kills our planet even more.
I know, that it is no problem at all to buy R134a at every corner in the US, and cheap, too, BUT IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Removing and filling refrigerant should only be done in a professional shop, where they have the very expensive equipment to recycle the old R134a into new R134a.
Doing anything else is simply a crime against this planet.
#9
08-02-2023, 08:42 AM
I think I should just write the obvious here:
In Australia it does not matter, which tools you have: You can't just "swap" the refrigerant. Reason: You can't buy the refrigerant as a DIYer.
And there is a very good reason for that: R134a released into the atmosphere and not professionally captured and recycled, kills our planet even more.
I know, that it is no problem at all to buy R134a at every corner in the US, and cheap, too, BUT IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Removing and filling refrigerant should only be done in a professional shop, where they have the very expensive equipment to recycle the old R134a into new R134a.
Doing anything else is simply a crime against this planet.
In Australia it does not matter, which tools you have: You can't just "swap" the refrigerant. Reason: You can't buy the refrigerant as a DIYer.
And there is a very good reason for that: R134a released into the atmosphere and not professionally captured and recycled, kills our planet even more.
I know, that it is no problem at all to buy R134a at every corner in the US, and cheap, too, BUT IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Removing and filling refrigerant should only be done in a professional shop, where they have the very expensive equipment to recycle the old R134a into new R134a.
Doing anything else is simply a crime against this planet.
Because HFC-134a has no chlorine in its molecule, it has a zero ozone-depletion potential (ODP) and doesn't deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. R-134a is not a refrigerant blend. It is considered a pure compound and has only one molecule.”
#10
08-02-2023, 03:35 PM
Veteran Member
Until the mid-1990s, automotive air conditioners used the refrigerant R-12 (CFC), which exhibited high ozone depleting potential due to the chlorine it contained. The ozone layer is a region of the stratosphere which contains a high concentration of ozone. This layer absorbs most of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Ozone depletion is the thinning of this layer through chemical reactions. Therefore, to protect the earth from the harmful UV radiation which would pass through a depleted ozone layer, in 1996 R-12 was completely banned under the Montreal Protocol. In its place, R-134a became the refrigerant of choice.
R-134a was the primary refrigerant used in automotive air conditioning systems until about 2015. At that time it became clear that although this refrigerant did not have a negative effect on the ozone later, it did, in fact, have a high global warming potential, which is also harmful to life here on earth. Global warming is the phenomenon of increasing average air temperature near the earth’s surface. Unfettered global warming would result in increased extinction of plant and animal species, shifts in agriculture patterns, and rising sea levels. In 2015 the Paris Agreement brought most of the world’s developed countries to a legally binding agreement to control the greenhouse effect, a warming of the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere due to heat trapped in the atmosphere. In addition, 2016 saw a legally binding international amendment to the Montreal Protocol—The Kigali Amendment. This accord called for the phase-down of HFCs, like R-134a.
In anticipation of these initiatives the global refrigerant industry was working diligently to develop an environmentally friendly refrigerant—one which did not deplete the ozone layer or contribute to global warming (and which was still safe to use, unlike propane or butane which are highly flammable). R-1234yf was borne from these initiatives.
R-1234yf (HFO) is environmentally friendly: it breaks down into the same byproducts of most other fluorinated compounds—at much lower levels. F atoms degrade into HF which is then rained out and mineralized with no additional affect on ozone or climate. Its atmospheric lifetime is approximately 11 days (vs 13 years for R-134a). In addition to its superior environmental performance, it is safe to use in automotive applications. Its pressure and temperature properties are so similar to that of R-134a, the two systems work nearly identically, however the service ports are different, and its accessories use a reverse thread – both to help avoid accidental contamination of the refrigerant.
During the past six years, R-1234yf has been slowly adopted by automakers in advance of the 2021 MY mandate. As older vehicles have aged, and continue to age off of the road, we have already experienced reversal of some of the damage to our atmosphere caused by previous refrigerants. Over time, these improvements will become even more significant due to R-1234yf.
R-134a was the primary refrigerant used in automotive air conditioning systems until about 2015. At that time it became clear that although this refrigerant did not have a negative effect on the ozone later, it did, in fact, have a high global warming potential, which is also harmful to life here on earth. Global warming is the phenomenon of increasing average air temperature near the earth’s surface. Unfettered global warming would result in increased extinction of plant and animal species, shifts in agriculture patterns, and rising sea levels. In 2015 the Paris Agreement brought most of the world’s developed countries to a legally binding agreement to control the greenhouse effect, a warming of the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere due to heat trapped in the atmosphere. In addition, 2016 saw a legally binding international amendment to the Montreal Protocol—The Kigali Amendment. This accord called for the phase-down of HFCs, like R-134a.
In anticipation of these initiatives the global refrigerant industry was working diligently to develop an environmentally friendly refrigerant—one which did not deplete the ozone layer or contribute to global warming (and which was still safe to use, unlike propane or butane which are highly flammable). R-1234yf was borne from these initiatives.
R-1234yf (HFO) is environmentally friendly: it breaks down into the same byproducts of most other fluorinated compounds—at much lower levels. F atoms degrade into HF which is then rained out and mineralized with no additional affect on ozone or climate. Its atmospheric lifetime is approximately 11 days (vs 13 years for R-134a). In addition to its superior environmental performance, it is safe to use in automotive applications. Its pressure and temperature properties are so similar to that of R-134a, the two systems work nearly identically, however the service ports are different, and its accessories use a reverse thread – both to help avoid accidental contamination of the refrigerant.
During the past six years, R-1234yf has been slowly adopted by automakers in advance of the 2021 MY mandate. As older vehicles have aged, and continue to age off of the road, we have already experienced reversal of some of the damage to our atmosphere caused by previous refrigerants. Over time, these improvements will become even more significant due to R-1234yf.
The following 3 users liked this post by Dell Gailey:
#11
08-02-2023, 06:09 PM
Veteran Member
Thanks Dell. Yes, that is all correct.
I should add that old R-12 systems can't just be filled with R134a - I think that has to do with a different size of molecules of those 2 substances. It requires pretty much a complete change of all components of the A/C system.
And when I tried to find an answer back then, if I could actually fill R-1234yf (which seems to be indeed a non harmful substance) into a R134a system, the answer was also no. Dell pointed out already that the high and low service points are different, but I think that a lot more of the components need to be replaced to be able to use R-1234yf in a system, which used R134a before.
PS:
So to clarify: I am working on / fixing my A/C systems as well, but I do it as follows:
1. Go to a professional garage, which specialized into A/C systems, have the old remaining R134a sucked out into their machine (which, if it is really good can convert this back into new R134a). That machine costs probably more than your Jag.
2. Then I drive home, do whatever repairs are necessary.
3. The I drive back to that garage, where they do a proper leak test: They pump in Nitrogen (I think) and see, if it remains in the system without leaks.
4. And only, if there are no leaks, they pump in new R134a and some kind of refrigerant/A/C oil as required to protect the system (which is probably also something, you would be struggling with at home).
Also: As above is the only way to do it in Australia. They also banned many years ago to do "topping up" refrigerant at the garage. This was made illegal, because if you need a "top up" it is obvious that you have a leak, which needs to be fixed before any new or addition R134a is put into that system.
PS2:
When preparing the A/C system in the car for the leak-test, I'd recommend:
1. Changing all filters: i.e. Receiver/Dryer and orifice-filter
2. Changing all seals (with new seals suitable for A/C systems (NBR))
3. Changing the 2 valve cores: One in the high pressure, one in the low pressure service port - obviously with valve cores suitable for A/C systems.
The mad thing is, even if you pass the leak test, your system could leak from the valves - the leak test cannot find that issue, as the tester is connected to those port during the test...
And when swapping seals and/or valve cores always apply a bit of A/C oil around those new parts (as you would apply engine oil around rubber seals of the engine). I salvaged a bit of A/C-oil from my broken old A/C compressor - just a small amount, but that is all I needed.
I should add that old R-12 systems can't just be filled with R134a - I think that has to do with a different size of molecules of those 2 substances. It requires pretty much a complete change of all components of the A/C system.
And when I tried to find an answer back then, if I could actually fill R-1234yf (which seems to be indeed a non harmful substance) into a R134a system, the answer was also no. Dell pointed out already that the high and low service points are different, but I think that a lot more of the components need to be replaced to be able to use R-1234yf in a system, which used R134a before.
PS:
So to clarify: I am working on / fixing my A/C systems as well, but I do it as follows:
1. Go to a professional garage, which specialized into A/C systems, have the old remaining R134a sucked out into their machine (which, if it is really good can convert this back into new R134a). That machine costs probably more than your Jag.
2. Then I drive home, do whatever repairs are necessary.
3. The I drive back to that garage, where they do a proper leak test: They pump in Nitrogen (I think) and see, if it remains in the system without leaks.
4. And only, if there are no leaks, they pump in new R134a and some kind of refrigerant/A/C oil as required to protect the system (which is probably also something, you would be struggling with at home).
Also: As above is the only way to do it in Australia. They also banned many years ago to do "topping up" refrigerant at the garage. This was made illegal, because if you need a "top up" it is obvious that you have a leak, which needs to be fixed before any new or addition R134a is put into that system.
PS2:
When preparing the A/C system in the car for the leak-test, I'd recommend:
1. Changing all filters: i.e. Receiver/Dryer and orifice-filter
2. Changing all seals (with new seals suitable for A/C systems (NBR))
3. Changing the 2 valve cores: One in the high pressure, one in the low pressure service port - obviously with valve cores suitable for A/C systems.
The mad thing is, even if you pass the leak test, your system could leak from the valves - the leak test cannot find that issue, as the tester is connected to those port during the test...
And when swapping seals and/or valve cores always apply a bit of A/C oil around those new parts (as you would apply engine oil around rubber seals of the engine). I salvaged a bit of A/C-oil from my broken old A/C compressor - just a small amount, but that is all I needed.
Last edited by Peter_of_Australia; 08-03-2023 at 12:28 AM. Reason: added PS notes
#12
08-03-2023, 10:03 PM
Until the mid-1990s, automotive air conditioners used the refrigerant R-12 (CFC), which exhibited high ozone depleting potential due to the chlorine it contained. The ozone layer is a region of the stratosphere which contains a high concentration of ozone. This layer absorbs most of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Ozone depletion is the thinning of this layer through chemical reactions. Therefore, to protect the earth from the harmful UV radiation which would pass through a depleted ozone layer, in 1996 R-12 was completely banned under the Montreal Protocol. In its place, R-134a became the refrigerant of choice.
R-134a was the primary refrigerant used in automotive air conditioning systems until about 2015. At that time it became clear that although this refrigerant did not have a negative effect on the ozone later, it did, in fact, have a high global warming potential, which is also harmful to life here on earth. Global warming is the phenomenon of increasing average air temperature near the earth’s surface. Unfettered global warming would result in increased extinction of plant and animal species, shifts in agriculture patterns, and rising sea levels. In 2015 the Paris Agreement brought most of the world’s developed countries to a legally binding agreement to control the greenhouse effect, a warming of the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere due to heat trapped in the atmosphere. In addition, 2016 saw a legally binding international amendment to the Montreal Protocol—The Kigali Amendment. This accord called for the phase-down of HFCs, like R-134a.
In anticipation of these initiatives the global refrigerant industry was working diligently to develop an environmentally friendly refrigerant—one which did not deplete the ozone layer or contribute to global warming (and which was still safe to use, unlike propane or butane which are highly flammable). R-1234yf was borne from these initiatives.
R-1234yf (HFO) is environmentally friendly: it breaks down into the same byproducts of most other fluorinated compounds—at much lower levels. F atoms degrade into HF which is then rained out and mineralized with no additional affect on ozone or climate. Its atmospheric lifetime is approximately 11 days (vs 13 years for R-134a). In addition to its superior environmental performance, it is safe to use in automotive applications. Its pressure and temperature properties are so similar to that of R-134a, the two systems work nearly identically, however the service ports are different, and its accessories use a reverse thread – both to help avoid accidental contamination of the refrigerant.
During the past six years, R-1234yf has been slowly adopted by automakers in advance of the 2021 MY mandate. As older vehicles have aged, and continue to age off of the road, we have already experienced reversal of some of the damage to our atmosphere caused by previous refrigerants. Over time, these improvements will become even more significant due to R-1234yf.
R-134a was the primary refrigerant used in automotive air conditioning systems until about 2015. At that time it became clear that although this refrigerant did not have a negative effect on the ozone later, it did, in fact, have a high global warming potential, which is also harmful to life here on earth. Global warming is the phenomenon of increasing average air temperature near the earth’s surface. Unfettered global warming would result in increased extinction of plant and animal species, shifts in agriculture patterns, and rising sea levels. In 2015 the Paris Agreement brought most of the world’s developed countries to a legally binding agreement to control the greenhouse effect, a warming of the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere due to heat trapped in the atmosphere. In addition, 2016 saw a legally binding international amendment to the Montreal Protocol—The Kigali Amendment. This accord called for the phase-down of HFCs, like R-134a.
In anticipation of these initiatives the global refrigerant industry was working diligently to develop an environmentally friendly refrigerant—one which did not deplete the ozone layer or contribute to global warming (and which was still safe to use, unlike propane or butane which are highly flammable). R-1234yf was borne from these initiatives.
R-1234yf (HFO) is environmentally friendly: it breaks down into the same byproducts of most other fluorinated compounds—at much lower levels. F atoms degrade into HF which is then rained out and mineralized with no additional affect on ozone or climate. Its atmospheric lifetime is approximately 11 days (vs 13 years for R-134a). In addition to its superior environmental performance, it is safe to use in automotive applications. Its pressure and temperature properties are so similar to that of R-134a, the two systems work nearly identically, however the service ports are different, and its accessories use a reverse thread – both to help avoid accidental contamination of the refrigerant.
During the past six years, R-1234yf has been slowly adopted by automakers in advance of the 2021 MY mandate. As older vehicles have aged, and continue to age off of the road, we have already experienced reversal of some of the damage to our atmosphere caused by previous refrigerants. Over time, these improvements will become even more significant due to R-1234yf.
It is stunning how uneducated the vast majority of the public is. (Comment aimed at the article)
Last edited by Mr rx-7 tt; 08-03-2023 at 10:42 PM.
#13
08-04-2023, 07:18 AM
Veteran Member
Maybe the term "global warming potential" has been chosen unwisely by "wise scientists", as I can see above that it is not being understood as what it is...
So you found that term "global warming potential" already, as e.g. mentioned in wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
The next step would have been to wise up about that term, and there Wikipedia explains:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
So if you read that - and understand it - it will become clear that things would have been heaps clearer, if "global warming potential" would be called "ability-index quantifying the increase of the global warming effect caused by this substance", as this is what it is. In case of R134a it is 1430 - a GWP of 1430. CO2 has a GWP of 1. A potential is an "ability".
The GWP depends on how strongly the gas absorbs infrared thermal radiation and how quickly the gas leaves the atmosphere
Maybe this makes it clearer: The technical term "potential difference" does not mean, that there is possibly of a difference, but it means that there is most definitely a difference in the amount of energy between 2 points, because "potential difference" means nothing else but "voltage". So if you have a car-battery with a potential difference of 12V, is does not mean that maybe or maybe not there is a voltage between the two terminals of your battery. The word "potential" has got nothing to do with the word "possibility"!
And I can see in the news that the US have their fair share of climate/weather disasters, which should make one think that you would appreciate the severity of the danger at hand.
Don't blame me for R134a being harmful for this planet - it just is...
So you found that term "global warming potential" already, as e.g. mentioned in wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
The next step would have been to wise up about that term, and there Wikipedia explains:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
So if you read that - and understand it - it will become clear that things would have been heaps clearer, if "global warming potential" would be called "ability-index quantifying the increase of the global warming effect caused by this substance", as this is what it is. In case of R134a it is 1430 - a GWP of 1430. CO2 has a GWP of 1. A potential is an "ability".
The GWP depends on how strongly the gas absorbs infrared thermal radiation and how quickly the gas leaves the atmosphere
Maybe this makes it clearer: The technical term "potential difference" does not mean, that there is possibly of a difference, but it means that there is most definitely a difference in the amount of energy between 2 points, because "potential difference" means nothing else but "voltage". So if you have a car-battery with a potential difference of 12V, is does not mean that maybe or maybe not there is a voltage between the two terminals of your battery. The word "potential" has got nothing to do with the word "possibility"!
And I can see in the news that the US have their fair share of climate/weather disasters, which should make one think that you would appreciate the severity of the danger at hand.
Don't blame me for R134a being harmful for this planet - it just is...
#14
08-06-2023, 10:28 PM
Maybe the term "global warming potential" has been chosen unwisely by "wise scientists", as I can see above that it is not being understood as what it is...
So you found that term "global warming potential" already, as e.g. mentioned in wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
The next step would have been to wise up about that term, and there Wikipedia explains:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
So if you read that - and understand it - it will become clear that things would have been heaps clearer, if "global warming potential" would be called "ability-index quantifying the increase of the global warming effect caused by this substance", as this is what it is. In case of R134a it is 1430 - a GWP of 1430. CO2 has a GWP of 1. A potential is an "ability".
The GWP depends on how strongly the gas absorbs infrared thermal radiation and how quickly the gas leaves the atmosphere
Maybe this makes it clearer: The technical term "potential difference" does not mean, that there is possibly of a difference, but it means that there is most definitely a difference in the amount of energy between 2 points, because "potential difference" means nothing else but "voltage". So if you have a car-battery with a potential difference of 12V, is does not mean that maybe or maybe not there is a voltage between the two terminals of your battery. The word "potential" has got nothing to do with the word "possibility"!
So you found that term "global warming potential" already, as e.g. mentioned in wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
The next step would have been to wise up about that term, and there Wikipedia explains:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
So if you read that - and understand it - it will become clear that things would have been heaps clearer, if "global warming potential" would be called "ability-index quantifying the increase of the global warming effect caused by this substance", as this is what it is. In case of R134a it is 1430 - a GWP of 1430. CO2 has a GWP of 1. A potential is an "ability".
The GWP depends on how strongly the gas absorbs infrared thermal radiation and how quickly the gas leaves the atmosphere
Maybe this makes it clearer: The technical term "potential difference" does not mean, that there is possibly of a difference, but it means that there is most definitely a difference in the amount of energy between 2 points, because "potential difference" means nothing else but "voltage". So if you have a car-battery with a potential difference of 12V, is does not mean that maybe or maybe not there is a voltage between the two terminals of your battery. The word "potential" has got nothing to do with the word "possibility"!
"Though recent reports reflect more scientific accuracy, countries and companies continue to use SAR and AR4 values for reasons of comparison in their emission reports. AR5 has skipped 500 year values but introduced GWP estimations including the climate-carbon feedback (f) with a large amount of uncertainty."
It's also from the IPCC which has a long list of inaccurate predictions, mistakes and chicanery.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...h=2fac9754428e
https://www.miragenews.com/un-ipcc-s...-climate-lies/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/19...es-are-exposed
Read up on some actual facts by a good friend of mine.
(Check the link on and read some of his research papers).
https://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/rlindzen
Instead of screwing up my thread with non topic nonsense spend the time on the thread topic.
Mods please delete this thread, it's been sidelined and unfortunately isn't helpful to the topic or the forum.
Last edited by Mr rx-7 tt; 08-06-2023 at 10:37 PM.
#15
03-03-2024, 03:53 AM
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)