Freon vs 410A

Wayco Wayne_2

like me in hvac, what are you doing about it? When the new refrigerant 410A equipment came out I was the first one to install it. I've always wanted to save the planet. (Must be all those comic books I read as a kid.) I worried a little about the higher operating pressures, but the salesmen all said "no problem...don't worry...It's fine, here have a sandwich. Well here we are some 6 years or so later and I've been having some problems with leaking evap coils on the 410A systems. I've gone back to freon for now but, am I doing my customers a dis-service or am I protecting them from future problems. Are the manufacturers dealing with design problems. Are these problems as perceived by me real or imagined. What's it look like to the rest of you from where you sit??? WW

<A HREF="http://www.heatinghelp.com/getListed.cfm?id=255&Step=30">To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"</A>

mike faust

Exteneded warranties

Can be a comfortable padding to some of these problems. We've installed very many 410A units. We provide our customers with a ten year parts and labor warrant on every install ( furnace, a/c, or heat pump.) Some points to remember about 410A: Its POE oil soaks up water vapor like a sponge and does not easily release it. Also, charge using liquid only as this refrigerants allows the chemical composition to change when it changes states....

Mitch_4

this is

one of those things that I am onthe fence about. I will install what the customer wants. 22 or 410a.

While 410a is toutes as safe..they said the same about 22, 12, asbestos, smoking for pregnant women, etc ad hoc ad nauseum...

What happens to our atmosphere with a non degenerative gas that stays? is it an insulator? does it trap heat in our atmosphere? is it really "Harmless"?!?!

Inquiring minds want to know, and only time will tell..

Personnaly I am a bit leary about it.

Wayco Wayne_2

The price of freon

just jumped a good bit around here. I just paid 170 for a 30 lb jug. I've read of a drop in replacement for 22 but don't know if it's any good. Back when it was still 35 a drum I bought a shed full. It has been better than the stock market for sure, but I am down to 3 drums. Liquid gold. Texas tea. For now I am still going with the freon. WW

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

heatboy_2

If your system......

.... is tight and doesn't leak, what would the advantage of 410 actually be (not that there is any benefit to begin with)?

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

nugs

410A

So if you guys are all like me you took a class or seminar to get the core certificate and then the endorsments for the rses license. We all learned about the danger of letting refrigerant loose upon the atmosphere. So we all have recovery equipment and we're very carefull to contain any leakage. So if we're all being so carefull to avoid leaks why don't we stick with r22 or for that matter r12? Have you noticed that besides the equipment being more expensive, it's also about 1/3 larger as well. Anyone tried to put a 410 A coil on top of a hi boy furnace lately. You need 10' ceilings. The truth is the new refirgerants are not as efficient as the old ones and require larger evaporative and condensating areas to be effective. I'd really like to know if there are any "real" estimates requarding actual release of refrigerant into the atmosphere. I'll bet you most of this is cost driven by the manufacturers attempting to sell more and more expensive equipment.

Tony_23

Bigger

The equipment is bigger because the minimum SEER rating is 13 instead of 10. R22 coils and R410A use the same coils.

I've had 2 N coils leak. I lay it more on new design and thinner walled, 7mm, rifled tubing than psi.

Kal Row

go back to r410 stat!

the pressure difference is not enough to explain a leak, other than pure failures really that leak at a lower static pressures too albeit a little slower, I don’t say “go” for any system that doesn’t hold 450 psi of nitrogen, and/or 20microns of vacuum for 2hrs period!!! – I have an epa license and I don’t need those creeps on my case (the epa, is government out of control, but that’s a whole nother thread)

also the life-cycle electricity saving of the smaller pressure deferential between high and low with r410 is enormous - do the math for 20years projecting a 2cent kwh increase per year!!! ouch!!!

Mitch_4

smaller pressure differntial for 410a?

R22 has 140-160#, R410a is 200+!!

32° refrigerant temp (min) R22 = 57.5# , R410a = 100.9#
110° refrig temp (arbitrary selection but adequate to dissipate heat) R-22 = 226#, R410a = 364.1#

Difference R-22 168.5#, R410a 263.2#

your math??

Mitch

Tony_23

Ratio

The ratio is smaller. It's not the poundage, it's the ratio. Smaller ratio, same work, less energy.

Mitch_4

very incrementally small

Using the same numbers R-22 3.9:1, R410a 3.64:1, is it really that much savings?

I can acheive the same compression ration by decreasing the the outlet pressure to 210# on R-22, only a 4° temp diff, and still within most super heat ranges.

bye bye difference...

R410a systems use larger coils, using more copper and manufacturing resources, which consume power to produce...And I am not convinced that it is evironmentally friendly (see above post...)

Eugene Silberstein 3

Compression Ratios

The compression ratios for R-22 and R-410A air conditioning systems are both very close to 3:1.

An R-22 system at design conditions will operate with a low side pressure of 68.5 psig and a high side pressure of 278 psig. This will give you a compression ratio of 293/84, which is about 3.5.


An R-410A system at design conditions will operate with a low side pressure of 118 psig and a high side pressure of 440 psig. This will give you a compression ratio of 455/133, which is about 3.4.

The Coefficient of performance (COP) is also about the same for equivalent systems operating with R-22 and R-410A.

One factor that contributes to increased efficiency of R-410A systems is the higher deisgn operating pressure on the low side of the system. Coils typically operate at a temperature slightly higher than the coil temperature of an R-22 evaporator coil. This will increase the Net refrigeration effect of the cooling coil and reduce the amount of refrigerant that the compressor must pump through the system.

By increasing the Net Refrigeration Effect, the mass flow rate of the system is decreased, reducing the load on the system compressor.

Mitch_4

Interesting read

http://hvactechgroup.com/hvacforum/index.php?topic=211.0

Edward A. (Ed) Carey_3

An additional point,

I have my EPA certification, (Universal for all refrigerants). Got it when the regs first came into play.

We were told by the instructor teaching the class that if you released all of the refrigerants produced by mankind, since the beginning of time, that it would not do as much damage to the Ozone layer of the atmosphere, as ONE ERUPTION of a VOLCANO, into the atmosphere.

He said that if you want to save the environment by putting in an environmentally friendly refrigerant, it would be like saving the ocean by removing a bucket full of water from the ocean, and making sure each time that you did it, that the bucket full of water did not get polluted.

He said that he was there to teach the program, and he would tell us what we had to know to pass a test. After that, it was up to us to decide what was best for our customer.

I passed the test.

But are we really saving the world by using alternative refrigerants?

You decide.

Ed Carey

Constantin

I don't know if I buy that...

... don't get me wrong, volcano eruptions are pretty dirty events. Some of them caused widespread crop failures due to particulates in the atmosphere blocking sunlight for a year... but none of them produced CFCs to my knowledge. AFAIK, CFCs are purely man-made materials. Perhaps the instructor of the course woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning or has particularly strong feelings about government regulations?

To claim that the ozone layer is somehow harmed by volcano eruptions is curious science indeed. What was the alleged basis? Chlorine, sulfur, or other elements being spewed high into the atmosphere? How did he explain the emergence of the ozone hole solely as function of CFC usage? At least with CFCs there is a known, demonstrable mechanism by which each CFC that rises through the atmosphere will damage/destroy thousands of ozone molecules.

Anyway, coming back to the topic on hand, I chose a 410a system for my own house. Greater certainty regarding refrigerant availability and a desire for high SEER equipment drove that decision. These days, R22 seems to be reserved for entry-level systems with R410a being the refrigerant of choice for systems whose seer exceeds 16.

Jeff Lawrence_25

Ed

You mean something like this?

There are a couple of discrepancies in what the originators of this chart shows in my opinion, but the most telling thing is when the Mount Pinatubo volcano blew in the Philippines in 1991.

Edward A. (Ed) Carey_3

Interesting posts

Constantin and Jeff,

You both have very interesting posts. Jeff, where did you get that Chart? I saved it but I would like to know the reference point. Thanks.

In my post I am not saying that the instructors’ opinion is definitely my opinion, or not my opinion. I am just repeating what was said in the class. However, it sure does make an interesting topic for debate.

One other thing that he said, is when the regs were passed, the people who were developing those regs did not even realize that MOST of the containers containing propellants (paint cans, hair spray, etc.) were also using refrigerants as the propellants. They passed the regs then realized it later

They had to do a lot of fancy foot work after the regs were passed, to allow all of the existing (gazillions) of spray cans to be sold & used, (essentially in direct violation of the newly formed regs) until alternate methods for propellants could be implemented.

Anything that helps the environment, even a little bit, is OK by me.

However, I still have not been totally convinced that the change of refrigerants will really impact the environment as much as we are led to believe, relative to the profits made by the manufacturers by selling all new equipment, and the hype that they interject into the equation relative to that purpose accordingly.


Ed Carey

Jeff Lawrence_25

The link

was sent to me by a customer. He's a retired mechanical engineer and thinks the global warming issues are a myth. All I can recommend is that you go to the root site and check out the authors. I do remember the summer after Mount Pinatubo blew its top was an unusually cool one. That was the summer I tried to go out on my own the first time (air conditioning is king down here)

When I worked for a contractor in another town, we had a customer that wasn't that big, at least to me. Back in 1988, this small company was buying more refrigerant in 3 months than the firm I worked for bought in 3 years and all of it was for aerosol propellants. In remembering that, I'm sure that there was a lot of fancy footwork and gnashing of teeth when the powers-that-be realized about the propellants.

I really agree with your last paragraph, Ed.