Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.

R-410a

My entire Co. has taken the Exam and we are already well into offering and installing the 410A Equipment. We were ready when it was first introduced into the market place and at the time, TXV's did not come in the Evaps. You had to order the 410A valve and install it. Now, thank God it comes with the TXV ready to go. We do also advise customers as to the eventual phaze-out of 22. We usually give at least 3 Seer choices. If they lean towards the hi end, we will offer the highest availiable. Carrier equipment is our dealer of choice and being a Carreir dealer we get great support. I was actually supprise when I first heard how quiet the new 410a systems were, but I am still not a big fan of the Much higher pressures though.

Comments

  • Eugene Silberstein
    Eugene Silberstein Member Posts: 1,380
    R-410a Certification

    As you are aware, the phase-out of R-22 and other HCFC refrigerants began in January, 2004. As of January 1, 2010, the use of R-22 in newly manufactured equipment will no longer be permitted.

    It seems that R-410a is leading the pack as far as replacements go and I am curious as to how many of you are taking steps to prepare for the change. Manufacturers are already producing R-410a equipment and there are many of them in service out in the field.

    Just curious... How many of you guys have taken an R-410a certifiaction exam, own a set of R-410a gauges, have installed or worked on R-410a systems. Also, for you company owners... When it is time to replace a customer's system, do you provide them with information about the phaseout, the higher EER requirements and/or the new R-410a systems as part of the replacement decision-making process?
  • Eugene Silberstein
    Eugene Silberstein Member Posts: 1,380
    Thanks

    Thanks, Mike.

    How about the rest of you guys?
  • John Mills_5
    John Mills_5 Member Posts: 935
    We're all certified

    but in our area, high SEER has virtually no economic payback so most sales are 10 SEER. We've done a few R410a at customers request. Personally I'd like to see what else could be done besides R410a but chances are Honeywell, Carrier, etc. have pretty much been successful at keeping others out. I'd rather have something more like R22 with lower pressures and mineral oil instead of POE. With all the lousy installs being done, I think there are going to be lots of problems in the future. It will be a headache for homeowners and honest contractors trying to clean up after the hacks.
  • TGO_54
    TGO_54 Member Posts: 327
    We are

    certified for 410A, and have the gauges. We have installed and serviced 410A systems, and present information about them when customers are looking for new installations or complete replacemants.

    With Honeywell, Carrier, Trane pushing it and most other MFGs offering it I believe it will be the #1 system after 2010.

    I also think someone will develop a drop in replacement for R-22 long before the production stops completely.


    To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"
  • Eugene Silberstein
    Eugene Silberstein Member Posts: 1,380
    Not the Only Game in Town

    R-410a is not the only player in the game. R-407c is another viable alternative to R-22. R-407c is a ternary blend of R-32, R-134a and R-125.

    R-407c operates with similar temperatures and pressures as R-22, but experiences a temperature glide, as it is a refrigerant blend.

    R-407c is a good choice for use on existing R-22 systems, although some system alterations need to be made.
  • TGO_54
    TGO_54 Member Posts: 327
    R-407c

    > R-410a is not the only player in the game. R-407c

    > is another viable alternative to R-22. R-407c is

    > a ternary blend of R-32, R-134a and R-125.

    > R-407c operates with similar temperatures and

    > pressures as R-22, but experiences a temperature

    > glide, as it is a refrigerant blend.

    >

    > R-407c

    > is a good choice for use on existing R-22

    > systems, although some system alterations need to

    > be made.





    To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"
  • TGO_54
    TGO_54 Member Posts: 327
    R-407c

    Hi Professor,
    Are any MFGs currently using R407c in new equiptment? I have only seen R-22 and R410 being offered, but I haven't checked every product line.

    BTW-
    What part of "vacations over - now back to work" didn't you understand? ;-)


    To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"
  • Eugene Silberstein
    Eugene Silberstein Member Posts: 1,380
    R-22 Replacement

    To the best of my knowledge, R-407c is intended for use as an R-22 replacement and not being used in newly manufactured equipment (I could be wrong though).

    Remember, though, that R-407c is not a drop in replacement as the oils are not compatible with the mineral oils found in R-22 systems.

    Just for the record, Tom, when I returned home from Mexico I was still in vacation mode, and decided to hit the road again, this time for Puerto Rico. Funny thing though, the storms were following me, but I was running faster. Luckily, I didn't get hit with any of the weather, although I would hate to see what Cozumel looks like now.

  • Bob Eh?_2
    Bob Eh?_2 Member Posts: 42
    407C

    Seems to be gaining ground outside North America... They have found something besides "not invented here" , the "Global Warming Potentials (100 year ITH), Relative to Carbon Dioxide" as the factor they most often quoted fot 407C support followed by lower pressure and (except for oil) seems to work with R22 components.

    OTOH 410A can apparently develop higher COP/EER .....

    From what I can see R410A is way ahead here, 407C leads the EU, and the rest of the world has no clear direction

    Bob



  • Joe Grosso
    Joe Grosso Member Posts: 307
    Also...

    ... whatever standards are adopted around the globe, the bottom line is that there are large markets for each dominant refrigerant in each market. Perhaps this will reduce the opportunity for some outsiders to export specific refrigerants to certain markets at below-oligopolistic market prices, though I doubt it as most of the refrigerant/OE/etc. manufacturers are MNCs.

    I chose 410A chiefly because of it's efficiency and the assured supply. Furthermore, I believe that if the bodies that control the gas regulations had allowed a less stringent treatment for gases with a ultra-low ozone/greenhouse-gas damage potential, that the adoption of R410A would have sped up quite a bit.
  • Eugene Silberstein
    Eugene Silberstein Member Posts: 1,380
    New Equipment vs. Retrofit

    There are two separate, very different situations regarding R-22 replacement refrigerants, namely R-410a and R-407c.

    Since the operating pressures of R-410a are typically 70% higher than those of R-22, using R-410a in a system that was originally designed for R-22 use is not possible. The reasons for this include:

    The evaporator test pressure is typically in the range of 150 psig and the design low side pressure for R-410a is about 118 psig.

    Compressors designed for R-22 use are not compatible with R-410a. R-410 compressors are manufactured with thicker shells than those intended for R-22 use.

    If the condensing unit on an R-22 system needs to be replaced, the sytem can be converted to R-410a, but a number of factors must be addressed. They include:

    Changing the metering device to a TXV designed for use with R-410a.

    Reusing the existing evaporator coil PROVIDED THAT THE EXISTING EVAPORATOR COIL HAS BEEN PRESSURE TESTED FOR HEAT PUMP APPLICATIONS (235 psig)

    If the existing evaporator coil has not been pressure tested (factory), using R-407c is a very good alternative.

    So, although R-410a is definitely winning the race as far as new installations go, R-407c is neck and neck for retrofit use.
  • Wethead7
    Wethead7 Member Posts: 170
    410A

    The most part our staff is trained. All our service
    Trucks have 410a guages and recovery equipment. We plan on dropping any R-22 equipment from proposals in 7-06. We provide
    aleast three product levels on all current proposals. The current 10 seer equipment is pretty much phased out.(less than 15% of our sales) We currently are roughly 50% 410a now.

    Mike
  • Tony_8
    Tony_8 Member Posts: 608
    Mostly 410A

    For about 4 years.

    I push it, so it sells.

    Carrier/Bryant does an excellent job of producing and stocking product.
  • Eugene Silberstein
    Eugene Silberstein Member Posts: 1,380
    Anyone Else?

    Anyone else care to chime in?
  • Mitch_4
    Mitch_4 Member Posts: 955
    question

    you say "...gases with a ultra-low ozone/greenhouse-gas damage potential, that the adoption of R410A would have sped up quite a bit..."

    there is no evidence that 410a is safe for the ozone..only speculation...remember that they felt 12 and 22 and all the others were safe too ( not to mention asbestos).

    Only time will tell. That being said. I hope 410 is safe it looks good


    Mitch
  • Constantin
    Constantin Member Posts: 3,782
    You're absolutely right...

    I'm assuming that the scientists that have developed and tested the reactivity of 410A with respect to ozone, living organisms, etc. did their jobs properly. However, the big difference between Freon 11, 12, etc. and 410A is that 410A received a lot more testing and scrutiny before it was introduced - and not after a big hole started to appear in the ozone layer.

    As best as I know, most CFCs are quite safe in most respects and were heavily used in many industries from cooling equipment to making throwaway styrofoam containers, water heater insulation, fire supression systems, etc. As "benign" as the CFCs were, they also loved to destroy thousands of ozone molecules with their chlorine atom, IIRC, before decomposing in the upper atmosphere.

    So, I share your hope that 410A will remain a safe and worthy successor to R12, R-22, etc. in the home heating and cooling market. It will also be interesting to see what will replace R134a, which is also a HCFC, right?
  • Mitch_4
    Mitch_4 Member Posts: 955
    Truly

    But I wonder about the research, as in who sponsored it. Was enough independant research done, or did they trust DOW / Dupont / whoever and just check the data.

    That being said....I will use and promote the newer refrigerants to (hopefully) protect our world.

    Love this site.

    Mitch
  • clammy
    clammy Member Posts: 2,637
    byrant 410 a

    I installed a byrany 410 a system i would guess at least 8 to 12years ago for a place i had work i don,t know if it was the first but it was years before i had heard about it again .I do know at the time the amp draw and sound level of the out door unit where very quite. This was not a replacement job it was a retro fit and i pass this home once in a while and always look over to see if she,s still there and she is .I recently install a 410a system on a furnace replacement i used a byrant condenser with a carrier coil and byrant furnace besides the normal higher pressure of 410a the outdoor unit was nice the the HO was very happy .The one thing that pissed me off was niether the condenser or coil where equipted the necessary stuff like time delay or hard start cap on the condenser or a txv on the coil which where all opitions,why can,t these manafactors justy give you all you need up front instead of nickel and diming you to death .Carrier guys at the dist.seemed not to know what,s what and tech service kinda of left us hanging on a answer .But besides all that and the phase out of r 22 what i want to know is why is only residental stuff 410 a i haven't heard nor seen anything about the commerical roof tops and the likes i feel as usually the small guys are the one who will pay for ALL the ironing out issues and why hasn't the commerical and industral end of the bussiness done any thing to lessen the use of r 22 there are many large r22 system which has more potental for venting or lose then in a small cities residental systems all leaking at once from my view it's the small guy footing the bill and most likely the one who will get screwed while the manufactors with there potical friend s help them press on and pass the buck and cost to us .Sorry for the rant but you know there better techology out there but there feeding it to us like babies waiting for the cho cho train peace clammy
    R.A. Calmbacher L.L.C. HVAC
    NJ Master HVAC Lic.
    Mahwah, NJ
    Specializing in steam and hydronic heating
  • Eugene Silberstein
    Eugene Silberstein Member Posts: 1,380
    Feast or Famine

    Funny you mentioned the fact hat you ended up without the TXV you needed.

    I have spoken with a number of people who have received too many TXVs with their equipment purchases.

    The reason for this is simple. When an R-410a condensing unit is purchased, it quite often comes mwith a new R-410a TXV which is to (obviously) be installed in the system. The air handler also came with a TXV. This was beneficial for me as an educator, since I had my forends give me all ofir "extra" TXVs for use in my classes.

    You may be asking yourself, "Why do they supply a TXV with the condensing unit AND the air handler?" Here's the deal. If the condensing unit is being used as part on a retrofit from R-22 to R-410a (assuming that the evaporator coil has a heat pump test pressure rating of 235 psig), the existing evaporator coil can be used and the TXV must be replaced. When part of a new installation, the new air handler comes equipped with.

    Although it seems wastful, it results in one less part or component that must be supplied and one less part number that must be monitored. For example, one part number for condensing unit packages that come with the TXV for retrofits and anther model/part number for condensing unit packages that are not supplied with the TXV for new installations. Since the number of retrofits if small compared to the number of new installations, it is actually more economical for manufaturers to do it this way.
This discussion has been closed.

Welcome

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!