410A coils

Mitch_4

rating plate on the coil.

I use Aspen coils. The units with flo rater pistons are certified for 22 or 410a on the plate.

If the coil is rated, then only the flow control device needs be changed ( I have to chg the piston for 410a)

JBW_2

410A Coils

Hello,

If I change-out an existing condensing unit for a unit with 410A, do I always have to change out the evaporator, or just the TXV?

Please advise.

Regards,

Josh W

allan_7

Yes..

If want a properly matched system and one that is warranted by the OEM, you will need to replace the condensing unit along and together with the evaporator coil, the interconnecting refrigerant piping, and a refrigerant filter-drier as recommended by the OEM.

A properly completed evacuation of the evaporator and lines set is also needed.

The right way is the only way.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

allan_7

Get real..

Oh I guess this "kit" has new copper tubing for the different operating pressures of R410 and a new rifled tubing for better heat transfer properties...and makes sure that the coil is clean and is designed to operate with R410A.....

You get with the times.

You choose this trade.

You are out in the field representing this industry.

It is up to you to do the job correctly.

New R410 system gets a new coil, period.

Along with the condensing unit, lineset and a filter-drier, period.

Stop this madness right here.

If you are a professional, then do it professionally.

Your conversion kit is a new coil and all the appropriate components listed in the product data sheet of the
manufacturer.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

YOU get with the times.........

Unknown

This content has been removed.

allan_7

And your

point is?????????

Sorry I have been a professional since 1988 so it doesn't matter to me who or what you are or think you are.

In my opinion what you said or implied is wrong and until I see a PDS with a "converted" evaporator showing the manufacturer's superheat and subcool and enthalpy ratings I will not believe your malarkey........

and you should refrain from passing off your info as approved by all manufacturer's in a blanket statement that is incorrect.

I got plaques too and a slew of NATE certs but it not about accolades. So what????????? BFD.

So exactly what is your point?????

A new R410A system is just that, a new system with a new evaporator coil, period.

Not throwing stones, Mr. Broome, just keeping it real.

It is about time that YOU did the same.

Best regards.

don_185

Hmmm

Hmmmm,a heated debate.

jim s_2

alan

What broome says is true,most newer coils are rated for 410a as well as 22.

Are you saying the wall thickness of acr copper has changed as well?

Have gotten plenty of coils where the only difference is the txv.

Would i do it on a 10 year old system?,no.

The coils themselves don`t give a damn about the refrigerant, they`re all brazed the same as they used to be the difference is the surface area of a 10 seer vs a 16 seer or higher.

You start mismatching equipment you don`t get the efficiency you paid for.

As far as nate testing it just means you test well,i`m sure there are guys with the practical know how who could run circles around a tech with a wallfull, of certificates.

allan_7

Well,,

it looks like the drive-by media has checked in.

In the first place I did not mention credentials of any sort and made light of my own in my post.

Mr. Bromme brought up the subject in a thinly veiled attempt to validate his incorrect assumption that you could convert any evaporator coil to work with R410.

Take a moment, please, to reread how we started this free and open exchange of ideas on this forum referred to as The Wall....before you post you post your opinion because you conveniently omitted a few key observations.

You cannot convert just any coil to work with and be a part of a OEM properly matched and ARI-rated central air conditioning system.

Suppose the coil Mr. Bromme wanted to convert was a capilliary tube coil, then what??

I have stated facts and if you have trouble in comprehending them I suggest you check the PDS or manufacturer's specifications.

The ARI listed evaporator coil match is the only approved combination for a properly designed and installed system.

Mr. Bromme told me to get with the times, I did, a long time ago. I follow the specifications to the letter and have gone back on way too many jobs where another technician has thought he could re-engineer what the manufacturer has designed.

People designing this equipment have forgotten more than I know and I respect them and that fact.

By the way, it would not suprise me one iota, if, in fact..
that ACR copper has changed in the last ten years.

probably a thinner wall thickness....

Look before you leap still waters run deep...........

Brad White_185

Not that I need to

defend Mr. Broome (largely because he is correct), but most manufacturers re-tooled as a result of the Montreal Protocols to build evaporators which would handle multiple refrigerants.

They saw the coming of new refrigerants and decided not to have two parallel coil manufacturing lines going especially during this transition time. They are already tooled up for 2010 so no down-time. They got the differences down to the TX valve, not bad. I say good for them.

Naturally there would be some compromise when serving two or more different fluids but the performance differences are held to reasonable levels within the characteristics of each refrigerant. ARI certification completes the documentation so one knows what you are getting.

Nothing I saw in what Mr. Broome said was absolute, that "all" coils could be interchanged, just that many if not most had already achieved interchangability. Naturally, any thoughtful technician would know what they are working on before cracking the valves. Mr. Broome did not have to say that any more than he had to give a run-down on charging procedure.

As far as ACR tube wall thicknesses, ASTM B-280 does not show a reduction that I can find.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Tony_23

Alan

Reread the posts by Mr. Broome. He NEVER said all coils or implied all coils. He DID say most coils in the last 5 years. He made no "assumptions" as you state, he was stating facts from experience.

Wall thickness is the same as it was, and rifling isn't a necessity on ALL coils.

Seems maybe you're the one who jumped into still waters

allan_7

Circle the wagons....

a "rookie" per Mr. Broome has expressed an opinion that is contrary to a shared belief.

An opinion and apparently a belief, which by the way, is still incorrect.

Since you chose to parse this thread so you can attempt validate your misconception. Let us review what Mr. Broome stated, please refer to his post:

"Get with the times.
True (p) one time you did need to change the indoor coil. Most major mafg (sp) have now a kit to convert existing coils to handler(sp) 410A."

Bottom line, you cannot "convert" just any existing evaporator coil to operate with R410A.

The statement is incorrect and I expressed an opinion to that extent. Mr. Broome chose to respond as noted in his posts and mention his credentials and senority and belittle my questioning of his "authority".

Sugarcoat this any way you want..........

but you cannot convert just any existing evaporator coil to work with R410A.

If he felt that their were certain evaporator coils that could be "converted" and that was his point, then he should have qualified his statement to reflect that caveat before escalating his "verbal" communications via the Wall.

Tony, I do look before I leap.
Be careful of what horse you hitch your wagon to..

Now I remember why I usually choose to watch rather than participate. Oh well, too late to turn back..

Thanks for your input.

Tony_23

You're cherry picking

You're choosing which posts to quote and which not to. Read them all. He never said "all" or implied it either. You're reading what you want, how you want, to make your inaccurate point about what David typed. It's right there for all to read, why don't you read it again in its entirety ? W/O the defensive glasses ?

If you pay attention, you may just find that others know something they can teach you, even if it's not in a book you own

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Eugene Silberstein 3

Passionate, not heated, debate

Not to get philosophical, but this thread ilustrates one very impportant thing .... we are all passionate about our industry.


When asked, I always recommend replacing both the indoor and outdoor sections of a split system. As Alan mentioned in his orginal post,it seems to be the right thing to do. Since this is not always in the customer's best interest, at least financially, it is great to know that there are now alternatives, where a few years ago it seemed there were none.

It's also nice to know that the manufacturer's have stepped up to the plate to make it somewhat easier for the service tech to navigate the situation.

Here are a couple of things to keep in mind:

If you are planning to reuse an existing evaporator coil, be sure to check the factory test presure to make certain that it is at least 235 psig.

If the existing coil is to be reused with the existing (fixed bore) metering device, expect higher superheat and a starved evaporator coil.

The resulting efficiency with a mis-matched system will be lower than that of a properly (manufacturer recommended match) matched system.

Here is ARI's (AHRI) take on the situation:

http://www.ari.org/Pages/ShowMeMore.aspx?src=single&lpk=324

If you use the directory from AHRI, you can determine what efficiency you can expect to get with various combinations of indoor and outdoor units.

Guys, as we all know, THE WALL is a great place as it gives industry people the opportunity to share information and learn from each other. It's threads like this one that speak volumes about how much we all care about this industry and truly want to do what's best for our customers.

Just THE PROFESSOR chiming in!

allan_7

Thank you....

very much for your time to review and respond.

I completely agree with your assessment and I will let it go at that for the obvious reasons.

I will mirror your kindness and express my gratitude for your take on this issue and for your passion for this profession.

Wishing you nothing but the best.

Best regards, WAS

allan_7

I am not

sure what you are referring to, since it appears it is YOU who cannot read and comprehend that which you are reading.

Why don't you re-read the original posts and reconsider, because I think you missed something or have some another agenda in mind......

Tony_23

I comprehend fine

Read Mr. Broome's 2nd post. Read it well and make sure you understand what he said. Remember, this is all in "print", not a spoken word to mis-remember.

Do you ever admit being wrong ? You're wrong about your representation of David's posts.

I read well, and comprehend fine. Don't start trying to insinuate I have a hidden agenda, it's not hidden at all.

You may be NATE certified, and been in the trade since 1988, but you don't seem professional in your attitude. It must be an awful burden to be right all the time and know more than anyone else. Be sure to let us know when you find out from a factory engineer or in an ARI book that David was/is right. I suggest Dan's article titled "The dopey kid who used to wear your clothes". You could learn from it. Maybe not.

allan_7

You know....

this is really getting to be fun or rather boring.

I responded to the original question by Josh as an advocate of doing a job in a professional matter.

I was taken to task by Mr. Bromme and have been ridiculed by most of the other posts, except for the ONE that really means anything and has credibility.

I have only responded in fashion that mirrored the attitude of those who treated me a negative way.

Call me any name or insinuate anything, the bottom line is and has been: the original posting by Mr. Bromme is incorrect.

Check with the ARI.
Assuming, that is, you know what the ARI is.

No, I am not always right, wish I was (no, not really).

But on this one and this ONE alone; Yes, I am right.

The next time you want to debate this issue, gave me a heads-up.
I will tie one-half of my brain behind my back, just to make it fair.

Good night and good riddance.

Tony_23

Yeah

You keep making my point rather well.

You can't make your argument complete w/o omitting the obvious and hurling insults, along with touting your credentials. Notice you're the only one employing those tactics ? Grow up, get over yourself, learn how to discuss and debate w/o the grade school comments. You'll be better received. You may not care about that, but that's your perogative.

As far as the "heads up", not needed. I don't discuss technical matters with people who are closed-minded and have to resort to personal insults and childish metaphors to make themselves seem and feel superior.

Have a nice life in your little kingdom.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Jeff Lawrence_25

As a matter of fact

I was at a supply house last week. They had an uncased coil on display. As I looked at it, I thought of this thread.

Looking closer at the coil, I saw it was rated at a max pressure of about 350 psi (could have been 450). Even though it was a flow rater coil as opposed to a TXV, it was approved as either a 410 coil or a 22 coil.

This tells me that at least this coil was approved for either and that a TXV could be installed for the 410.

Coils are not rated per se, but they match with a condensing unit for a rated efficiency. This particular coil could no have been rated with anything out now, as it was too small to give the matching 13 SEER requirements. Down here, there are still quite a lot of 10 and 12 SEER systems that the coils start leaking on long before the system goes bad. Not may supply houses stock 10-12 SEER coils, but a few do. Most of these are 'after market' coils like ADP and AllStyle. They work but probably don't actually match the efficiency of the original system.

It's my opinion that the line set as well as the coil and condenser be replaced when going with a R410 system when the original system was a R22. I say this because of the incompatibility of the oils (POE vs mineral oil). I have lost work because of this stand, I'll admit.