# CO2 is better and less expenssive for brazing than nitrogen.



## hvaclover

Now ask me why


----------



## nicktech

why?


----------



## beenthere

I'll bite.

Why?


----------



## RoBoTeq

Ohhhh ok, I'm curious too:yawn:

I've only used CO2 in a mix for welding, but I'm willing to learn something new:whistling2::sleep1:


----------



## hvaclover

I tell 'ya some time in the am or pm.


----------



## hvactech

I'll be waiting for the answer to that one! It seems to me that CO is a bit more expensive than nitrogen. So whats the benefit?


----------



## hvaclover

How do you keep a hack in suspense?


----------



## RoBoTeq

hvaclover said:


> How do you keep a hack in suspense?


By not telling him how silly it is to think that using CO2 rather then nitrogen as a braze purge is?:laughing:


----------



## hvaclover

RoBoTeq said:


> By not telling him how silly it is to think that using CO2 rather then nitrogen as a braze purge is?:laughing:


Hah ahaahahahah.:001_tongue:

Bone dry CO2 is more costly if you just consider price. 

The same size tank will give you much more CO2 than nitro. You buy nitro in cubic feet and CO2 by pounds. 

Now we ain't talking your soda fountain CO2 here, we are talking pure and dry CO2 as is used in welding as a shielding gas.

It's inert. That's the short version



Here's a link that proves me right

Read the left side of the second page


http://img170.imageshack.us/i/medicalgases.pdf/


----------



## hvactech

Thats good I just never heard of using co2 instead of nitrogen. and I aint no hack !


----------



## hvaclover

hvactech said:


> Thats good I just never heard of using co2 instead of nitrogen. and I aint no hack !



Not just any CO2 it's gotta bone dry pure.

Were you kept in suspense:blink:


----------



## RoBoTeq

hvaclover said:


> Hah ahaahahahah.:001_tongue:
> 
> Bone dry CO2 is more costly if you just consider price.
> 
> The same size tank will give you much more CO2 than nitro. You buy nitro in cubic feet and CO2 by pounds.
> 
> Now we ain't talking your soda fountain CO2 here, we are talking pure and dry CO2 as is used in welding as a shielding gas.
> 
> It's inert. That's the short version
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a link that proves me right
> 
> Read the left side of the second page
> 
> 
> http://img170.imageshack.us/i/medicalgases.pdf/


What a pain in the butt. I have to join imageshack to see what you are talking about:furious:


----------



## RoBoTeq

hvaclover said:


> Not just any CO2 it's gotta bone dry pure.
> 
> Were you kept in suspense:blink:


I can't figure out how to get your dumba$$ link to work. Does it have to do with the cost differences between medical grade nitrogen and CO2?


----------



## hvaclover

RoBoTeq said:


> I can't figure out how to get your dumba$$ link to work. Does it have to do with the cost differences between medical grade nitrogen and CO2?


Naw. Back before me and you were born contractors were using Dry CO2 instead of nitrogen to braze.

It some how fell out of favor (probably because of votech teachers who didn't know better). So everybody thought nitro was the holy grail and CO2 was for hacks.

I use the Dry CO2. I pay more but I get a lot more product so I can clean condensers and blow out drains and such and still have a ot left over as compared to the same size nitro tank..


----------



## RoBoTeq

hvaclover said:


> Naw. Back before me and you were born contractors were using Dry CO2 instead of nitrogen to braze.
> 
> It some how fell out of favor (probably because of votech teachers who didn't know better). So everybody thought nitro was the holy grail and CO2 was for hacks.
> 
> I use the Dry CO2. I pay more but I get a lot more product so I can clean condensers and blow out drains and such and still have a ot left over as compared to the same size nitro tank..


This is a good to know alternative. Are CO2 tanks, valves and gauges compatible with nitrogen tanks, valves and gauges?


----------



## hvaclover

RoBoTeq said:


> This is a good to know alternative. Are CO2 tanks, valves and gauges compatible with nitrogen tanks, valves and gauges?



Tanks have different threads so the answer is no. The CO2 pressure regulator 
accommodates a standard 1/4 " gauge hose to any manifold set. 

I always back flush the lines just to make sure there is no foreign matter in them.


----------



## hvactech

thats cool i used to use co2 to blow out coils and drains but it was supplied by my employer at the time now my current employer like you said, believes that dry nitro is the "holy grail" thanks for the insight :thumbsup:
now all I have to do is convince the boss and get him to outfit our trucks with the co2 tanks and regulators!


----------



## hvaclover

LOL...good luck. No owner is gonna be sold that easy.

But just FYI you can order bone dry co2 thru Air Gas. Make sure you ask for bone dry co2 or they won't know what you are talking about.


----------



## hvactech

hvaclover said:


> LOL...good luck. No owner is gonna be sold that easy.
> 
> But just FYI you can order bone dry co2 thru Air Gas. Make sure you ask for bone dry co2 or they won't know what you are talking about.


 
okay thats good info, thanks the boss is a pretty reasonable guy and i know he hates having to refill the nitro cylinders constantly and I agree with you that a tank of co2 can go much farther than same sized tank of nitro.:thumbsup:


----------



## hvaclover

hvactech said:


> okay thats good info, thanks the boss is a pretty reasonable guy and i know he hates having to refill the nitro cylinders constantly and I agree with you that a tank of co2 can go much farther than same sized tank of nitro.:thumbsup:


Well hell, if somebody is gonna try to resurrect a much maligned but beneficial service practice it might as well be one here in MI.


----------



## hvactech

hvaclover said:


> Well hell, if somebody is gonna try to resurrect a much maligned but beneficial service practice it might as well be one here in MI.


Why not? You started it! now you have me wondering why did such a good practice from the past get overlooked all these years?:001_unsure:


----------



## hvaclover

hvactech said:


> Why not? You started it! now you have me wondering why did such a good practice from the past get overlooked all these years?:001_unsure:


Professional ignorance. Over 30 years ago there was a big boom in the hvac industry as the demand for new tech exceeded supply. Guys were coming back from a war and didn't want the drudgery of a factory job (me included).
I enrolled at Detroit Engineering Inst. 

We were taught any inert gas was good for brazing as long as it was dry. 

Some how instructors at lesser training programs got the idea that since oxygen was definitely a danger for leak checking a system the O2 in Co2 must be bad.

it snow balled from there.

I taught a class where the instructors were failed service techs and business owners.

The old adage "Them that can't do teach".

They were perpetuating the myth of CO2 being bad.

The place was a pit and the curriculum sucked sewer water.

Multiply that scenario across the country and you got the uneducated bias against CO you have now.

But if you talk to guys at Harris brazing materials they will give you the straight dope.


----------



## DuMass

I’ve seen C02 used on new systems for pressure testing quite a bit, but I always thought it was frowned upon for pressure and leak testing in existing systems.
I can remember reading something years ago, I believe it may have been in the RSES SAM manual or maybe an article their magazine, that C02 is okay for new, clean relatively dry systems, but Nitro was preferred for previously operating systems because CO2 had tendency to condense and/or freeze water droplets in a system, etc… making it harder to evacuate, requiring longer evac times.

Considering that if you were hold your hand in front of a C02 tank valve and open it slightly, you will soon have frost on it, but with Nitro you could do this all day long at any flow rate, with no effect, so this theory may possibly have merit.

BTW: I use C02 as a shielding for MIG welding of mild steel, but with a rate of flow only around 25 CFM. It is often mixed as a component of C25 welding gas and also TriMix for use with stainless steel. Straight Argon is what I would normally used for MIG welding aluminum.


----------



## mechanicalDvr

RoBoTeq said:


> This is a good to know alternative. Are CO2 tanks, valves and gauges compatible with nitrogen tanks, valves and gauges?


 
No the gauge connections are completely different. The CO2 that is available where I get my nitro isn't dried and is sold by the cubic foot and not by the pound. I use CO2 for coil cleaning and blowing out drains because I have a 20cu ft tank that is much easier to carry and get in small places. The CO2 is also at a lower tank pressure @2250psig compared to nitro @4000psig.


----------



## mechanicalDvr

DuMass said:


> I’ve seen C02 used on new systems for pressure testing quite a bit, but I always thought it was frowned upon for pressure and leak testing in existing systems.
> I can remember reading something years ago, I believe it may have been in the RSES SAM manual or maybe an article their magazine, that C02 is okay for new, clean relatively dry systems, but Nitro was preferred for previously operating systems because CO2 had tendency to condense and/or freeze water droplets in a system, etc… making it harder to evacuate, requiring longer evac times.
> 
> Considering that if you were hold your hand in front of a C02 tank valve and open it slightly, you will soon have frost on it, but with Nitro you could do this all day long at any flow rate, with no effect, so this theory may possibly have merit.
> 
> BTW: I use C02 as a shielding for MIG welding of mild steel, but with a rate of flow only around 25 CFM. It is often mixed as a component of C25 welding gas and also TriMix for use with stainless steel. Straight Argon is what I would normally used for MIG welding aluminum.


 
I thought also that nitrogen is much more stable over the ambient temperature range of a system that wouldbe under test than CO2 would be. I have also heard of the CO2 freezing moisture in a system.


----------



## hvaclover

mechanicalDvr said:


> I thought also that nitrogen is much more stable over the ambient temperature range of a system that wouldbe under test than CO2 would be. I have also heard of the CO2 freezing moisture in a system.


Wrong. once it hits atmospheric it gains super heat just like any refer.


----------



## nicktech

co2 for pressure testing and co2 for brazing purge are 2 different animals. co2 used for system pressure testing tend to give false reading when the ambient temp changes. filling a system w/ co2 will initially give a different reading compared to when after the gas stabilizes. being that there is a p/t relation to this condensing gas a leak could be masked. as for brazing purge, whose purpose is to remove oxygen laden air to prevent carbon build up internally (as like what happens on the outside) and to remove residual refrigerant to prevent phosgene gas. Oxygen is frowned upon simply because its a component for a potential explosion when mixed with refrigerant or refrig. oils. i am not sure how co2 would play out for that. but if one is using it without any problems than its good to go. hey a buck is a buck. i use co2 for small condensers and drain lines. i've actually employed my old 20oz paintball cylinders for this. i fill em from my larger 15lb'r


----------



## nicktech

i like nitrogen because it of course has a higher pressure than co2 for pressure testing. nitrgen has a stabler pressure thoughout different temp ranges as compared to co2. the co2 cylinder pressure drops dramatically when the volume in the cylinder goes up and the bottle starts to freeze. it's a hastle to have to warm it up under water, bad enough i gotta do it with refrig on occasion. but to each there own! as long as it works and works right!!:thumbsup:


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> co2 for pressure testing and co2 for brazing purge are 2 different animals. co2 used for system pressure testing tend to give false reading when the ambient temp changes. filling a system w/ co2 will initially give a different reading compared to when after the gas stabilizes. being that there is a p/t relation to this condensing gas a leak could be masked. as for brazing purge, whose purpose is to remove oxygen laden air to prevent carbon build up internally (as like what happens on the outside) and to remove residual refrigerant to prevent phosgene gas. Oxygen is frowned upon simply because its a component for a potential explosion when mixed with refrigerant or refrig. oils. i am not sure how co2 would play out for that. but if one is using it without any problems than its good to go. hey a buck is a buck. i use co2 for small condensers and drain lines. i've actually employed my old 20oz paintball cylinders for this. i fill em from my larger 15lb'r


Lemme dispel that nasty misconception about oxygen and co2

It is a refrigerant and like all refers it is listed. CO2 is listed as inert, non flamable. In all the Fuel codes, NFPA it is listed as non flamable.

It would not be used in fire extinguishers if it was the list bit combustible.


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> i like nitrogen because it of course has a higher pressure than co2 for pressure testing. nitrgen has a stabler pressure thoughout different temp ranges as compared to co2. the co2 cylinder pressure drops dramatically when the volume in the cylinder goes up and the bottle starts to freeze. it's a hastle to have to warm it up under water, bad enough i gotta do it with refrig on occasion. but to each there own! as long as it works and works right!!:thumbsup:


Higher pressure is irrelevant.

If you are pressurizing above data plate pressure you are endangering life and limb.


----------



## nicktech

as per your p/t chart for co2, if the ambient temp was 70deg at the time of the initial pressurisation then the temp fell to 60 deg, the difference is almost 100 psi. at that rate 1 deg would be about 10 psi. i would think there would be a leak when there is not. and the opposite would be true if the temp when up. a genuine leak would be masked as the pressure rose. this has nothing to do with the test pressure on the plate.


----------



## nicktech

there is no mention or co2 being flammable, hell we expell it when we breath. if it was, there'd be a bunch of pissed off smokers. the oxygen is an oxidizer which excellerates certain chemicals to an explosion.


----------



## hvactech

hvaclover said:


> Lemme dispel that nasty misconception about oxygen and co2
> 
> It is a refrigerant and like all refers it is listed. CO2 is listed as inert, non flamable. In all the Fuel codes, NFPA it is listed as non flamable.
> 
> It would not be used in fire extinguishers if it was the list bit combustible.


 
Since CO2 is a refrigerant, can you show me the scientific proof that it would be compatible with all the different types of oils (is it hygroscopic, can it be absorbed by the oil and cause premature bearing failure)? Or can it break down in the sytem and leave behind carbon?


----------



## hvactech

I also agree with Nicktech about the pressure swing when using CO2 as a leak detector, and by the way you(Hvaclover) said CO2 gives you more volume in the same size tank? That seems to me to be physically impossible. Volume is volume and I belive Nitrogen is bottled at a much higher pressure than CO2 so, now how does it benefit?


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> there is no mention or co2 being flammable, hell we expell it when we breath. if it was, there'd be a bunch of pissed off smokers. the oxygen is an oxidizer which excellerates certain chemicals to an explosion.


Accelerates are flammable.
Check the NATIONAL FUEL CODE.and NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC.

What combination of chemicals can you quote that explode with CO2?


----------



## hvaclover

hvactech said:


> Since CO2 is a refrigerant, can you show me the scientific proof that it would be compatible with all the different types of oils (is it hygroscopic, can it be absorbed by the oil and cause premature bearing failure)? Or can it break down in the sytem and leave behind carbon?


Dude you do know there are CO2 refrigeration systems don't you?

And compatible how? It's an inert test gas that does not stay in the system.
So how can it be a hazard to systems using diff oils.

Now you are just being silly when you ask if it can break down and cause carbon to be left behind. 

Here's a quote from a reference book I taught from: Question : How to separate CO2 into C and O2, how can this be done? Will this require, much energy?

Answer: Heat it, it takes 393.5 kJ/mol.

If you get a sealed system that hot then You can break the molecules apart.
Lemme know when you get a system that hot.

The CO2 would have to be wet to be absorbed by a polyolester oil.

We ain't talkin' soda fountain CO2, we're talkin' bone dry CO2.

So no, there would be no bearing failure. If you did get wet CO2 in a 410A system your pressure would sky rocket.


----------



## hvaclover

hvactech said:


> I also agree with Nicktech about the pressure swing when using CO2 as a leak detector, and by the way you(Hvaclover) said CO2 gives you more volume in the same size tank? _*That seems to me to be physically impossible. Volume is volume and I belive*_ Nitrogen is bottled at a much higher pressure than CO2 so, now how does it benefit?


One of the gas laws states as the pressure decreases to does the pressure and as the temp increases so does the pressure. So unless you are refrigerating Your CO2 test charge your press should stabilize at either tank pressure or if left in the system for a length of time, the ambient which still gives you a pressure in the hundreds of psig.
Nitrogen can only be bottled as a gas because of it's pressure. It has no liquid phase like CO2. Nitrogen sublimes directly into a gas from a solid.

CO2 is bottled as a liquid. You gonna tell me you don't get more volume with a liquid than you do a gas in a closed vessel?
:laughing:


----------



## nicktech

hvaclover said:


> One of the gas laws states as the pressure decreases to does the pressure and as the temp increases so does the pressure. So unless you are refrigerating Your CO2 test charge your press should stabilize at either tank pressure or if left in the system for a length of time, the ambient which still gives you a pressure in the hundreds of psig.
> Nitrogen can only be bottled as a gas because of it's pressure. It has no liquid phase like CO2. Nitrogen sublimes directly into a gas from a solid.
> 
> CO2 is bottled as a liquid. You gonna tell me you don't get more volume with a liquid than you do a gas in a closed vessel?
> :laughing:


first of all, please check what your writing, it doesnt make sense., 
also, i thought you said this wasnt soda fountain co2, but dry inert. inert means not expanding or condensing into a liquid, so your volume statement is counterdicting. BTW dry ice is solid co2, and it sublimes from a solid to a gas. where the hell are you going to find solid nitrogen on this planet?


----------



## nicktech

hvaclover said:


> Accelerates are flammable.
> Check the NATIONAL FUEL CODE.and NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC.
> 
> What combination of chemicals can you quote that explode with CO2?


AGAIN, no one mentioned co2 being flammable. but in response to your statement i'm sure i can get co2 to explode with about 1lb block of C4.
pay attention, put the drink down and understand the statement for flammability is for o2 aka oxygen.


----------



## nicktech

hvaclover said:


> One of the gas laws states as the pressure decreases to does the pressure and as the temp increases so does the pressure. So unless you are refrigerating Your CO2 test charge your press should stabilize at either tank pressure or if left in the system for a length of time, the ambient which still gives you a pressure in the hundreds of psig.
> Nitrogen can only be bottled as a gas because of it's pressure. It has no liquid phase like CO2. Nitrogen sublimes directly into a gas from a solid.
> 
> CO2 is bottled as a liquid. You gonna tell me you don't get more volume with a liquid than you do a gas in a closed vessel?
> :laughing:


and its charle's law that states when the volume of a container changes the affects on the pressure and temperature are inversely proportionate. one doesnt need to refrigerate the cylinder to know that as co2 is leaving the tank the volume goes up and p/t goes down. the tank will refrigerate itself, as the gas acclimates to the ambient temp, the pressure will go back up and dance an irish jig all over the gauge face.


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> first of all, please check what your writing, it doesnt make sense.,
> also, i thought you said this wasnt soda fountain co2, but dry inert. inert means not expanding or condensing into a liquid, so your volume statement is counterdicting. BTW dry ice is solid co2, and it sublimes from a solid to a gas. where the hell are you going to find solid nitrogen on this planet?


*Inert*


See also: Noble gas
In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe something that is not chemically active. The noble gases were described as being inert because they did not react with the other elements or themselves. It is now understood that the reason that inert gases are completely inert to basic chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example) is that their outer valence shell is completely filled with electrons. With a filled outer valence shell, an inert atom is not easily able to acquire or lose an electron, and is therefore not able to participate in any chemical reactions. For inert substances, a lot of energy is required before they can combine with other elements to form compounds. High temperatures and pressure are usually necessary, sometimes requiring the presence of a catalyst.
For example, elemental nitrogen is inert under standard room conditions and exists as a diatomic molecule, N2. The inertness of nitrogen is due to the presence of the very strong triple covalent bond in the N2 molecule; nitrogen gas can, however, react to form compounds such as lithium nitride (Li3N) under vigorous conditions.
Inert atmospheres of gases such as nitrogen and argon are routinely used in chemical reactions where air sensitive and water sensitive compounds are handled.


----------



## nicktech

hvaclover said:


> *Inert*
> 
> 
> See also: Noble gas
> In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe something that is not chemically active. The noble gases were described as being inert because they did not react with the other elements or themselves. It is now understood that the reason that inert gases are completely inert to basic chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example) is that their outer valence shell is completely filled with electrons. With a filled outer valence shell, an inert atom is not easily able to acquire or lose an electron, and is therefore not able to participate in any chemical reactions. For inert substances, a lot of energy is required before they can combine with other elements to form compounds. High temperatures and pressure are usually necessary, sometimes requiring the presence of a catalyst.
> For example, elemental nitrogen is inert under standard room conditions and exists as a diatomic molecule, N2. The inertness of nitrogen is due to the presence of the very strong triple covalent bond in the N2 molecule; nitrogen gas can, however, react to form compounds such as lithium nitride (Li3N) under vigorous conditions.
> Inert atmospheres of gases such as nitrogen and argon are routinely used in chemical reactions where air sensitive and water sensitive compounds are handled.


 
ok you googled a definition, how does this hold validity to you claim?!


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> first of all, please check what your writing, it doesnt make sense.,
> also, i thought you said this wasnt soda fountain co2, but dry inert. inert means not expanding or condensing into a liquid, so your volume statement is counterdicting. BTW dry ice is solid co2, and it sublimes from a solid to a gas. where the hell are you going to find solid nitrogen on this planet?


What I wrote was clear. 
I screwed up on the CO2 statement. It sublimes not nitro. But you still get more Co2 in a tank than you do nitro.
Better brush up on your physics cause inert is not what you describe it to be.


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> AGAIN, no one mentioned co2 being flammable. but in response to your statement i'm sure i can get co2 to explode with about 1lb block of C4.
> pay attention, put the drink down and understand the statement for flammability is for o2 aka oxygen.


Since we are taking in the context of you saying it would Accelerate an explosion if mixed with other chemicals what does C4 have to do with any thing.

It's inert which means it won't cause the acceleration that you said it would.

So no explosion.


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> ok you googled a definition, how does this hold validity to you claim?!


 It disproves you claim that inert gases don't expand and contract.

Try reading it.

ee also: Noble gas
In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe something that is not chemically active. The noble gases were described as being inert because they did not react with the other elements or themselves. It is now understood that the reason that inert gases are completely inert to basic chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example) 


I'll interpret the big words for you.

it means dry CO2 does not react or change any other chemicals or elements it comes in contact with or cause chemical reaction such as combustion.


----------



## nicktech

ok, ok, i'll check my inert definition, but your conviction on this co2 is a little off. your argument is all over the place and unconvincing. correcting me on a wrong definition wont win your case. is it your co2 liquid in the tank or not, is it dry or is it the soda fountain type, the same size cylinder cannot hold the same amount of vapor under seperate pressures (comparing the N2 w/ CO2). it doesnt add up.


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> and its charle's law that states when the volume of a container changes the affects on the pressure and temperature are inversely proportionate. one doesnt need to refrigerate the cylinder to know that as co2 is leaving the tank the volume goes up and p/t goes down. the tank will refrigerate itself, as the gas acclimates to the ambient temp, the pressure will go back up and dance an irish jig all over the gauge face.


Well that would be worth knowing if we were worried about an empty tank. But we are talking about pressurizing a sealed system to check for leaks.

All I need is 100psig and I can close off my tank and leak check. Co2 in its gas phase takes up a lot more space then nitro so i don't have to worry about what you posted above. The gas will take up enough volume of the system to maintain a usable pressure.

By the way "acclimating" is strictly a medical term used in reference to living beings.

People "acclimate" to hotter climates and higher altitudes. 

Gas heat exchanges it's thermal energy until thermal equilibrium is attained


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> ok, ok, i'll check my inert definition, but your conviction on this co2 is a little off. your argument is all over the place and unconvincing. correcting me on a wrong definition wont win your case. is it your co2 liquid in the tank or not, is it dry or is it the soda fountain type, the same size cylinder cannot hold the same amount of vapor under seperate pressures (comparing the N2 w/ CO2). it doesnt add up.





i have made it abundantly clear that it is dry in the that it has no moisture content. 

. It's liquid.
Turn a CO2 tank upside down and see what comes out. Than try it with a nitro tank.

Nitro and CO2 don't come in the same size tanks. But Co2 has more in it because it's liquid.


----------



## nicktech

yer a very grumpy guy! CO2 hasn't been used in years for brazing and testing because there was a conspiracy in detroit to piss you off, plus they figured nitrogen was better anyway. i am starting a petition to ban the use of CO2 in refrig. systems for leak checking and brazing! who's in?!


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> yer a very grumpy guy! CO2 hasn't been used in years for brazing and testing because there was a conspiracy in detroit to piss you off, plus they figured nitrogen was better anyway. i am starting a petition to ban the use of CO2 in refrig. systems for leak checking and brazing! who's in?!


:001_tongue: You go through as much sh1t as me you'd be grumpy when you got old too.

BTW CO2 and NH3 are making a come back due to the HCFC phase out.

Put my name on the petition too.

I want to go back to venting CFCs .


----------



## nicktech

lol!


----------



## mechanicalDvr

hvaclover said:


> i have made it abundantly clear that it is dry in the that it has no moisture content.
> 
> 
> Nitro and CO2 don't come in the same size tanks. But Co2 has more in it because it's liquid.


 
At the three supply houses and two welding suppliers I deal with CO2 and Nitrogen come in the same size tanks with the exception of an "N" cylinder that CO2 doesn't come in. None say on the phone that they carry "dry CO2" (bone or otherwise).


----------



## mechanicalDvr

hvactech said:


> I also agree with Nicktech about the pressure swing when using CO2 as a leak detector, and by the way you(Hvaclover) said CO2 gives you more volume in the same size tank? That seems to me to be physically impossible. Volume is volume and I belive Nitrogen is bottled at a much higher pressure than CO2 so, now how does it benefit?


 
I second that sentiment.


----------



## hvaclover

mechanicalDvr said:


> At the three supply houses and two welding suppliers I deal with CO2 and Nitrogen come in the same size tanks with the exception of an "N" cylinder that CO2 doesn't come in. None say on the phone that they carry "dry CO2" (bone or otherwise).


Scroll to the bottom when you get to link website.

Then i will accept your apology.

As far as the nitro and CO2 tanks sizes being the same, I should have said I didn't know since I don't use nitro I don't keep track of the sizes.

I posted what I remember a counter guy saying and posted it. 
If I am wrong so be it, but it still does not change the volume issue.


http://www.airgas.com/browse/product.aspx?Msg=RecID&recIds=257679&WT.svl=257679


----------



## hvaclover

Quote:
Originally Posted by *hvactech*  
_I also agree with Nicktech about the pressure swing when using CO2 as a leak detector, and by the way you(Hvaclover) said CO2 gives you more volume in the same size tank? That seems to me to be physically impossible. Volume is volume and I belive Nitrogen is bottled at a much higher pressure than CO2 so, now how does it benefit?_


I second that sentiment.End quote


I wil answer your question by asking another: Why is CO2 a liquid in a tank and nitro is not.

I go you one better: Eight ounces of water in a glass: How much water vapor at 212*f does that glass hold. The same as liquid water?


----------



## nicktech

ok, so this has shifted to a volume and mass debate. of course a liquid is denser than a gas and holds more mass per volume than gas. the facts are co2 is not a ggod gas for pressure testing.


----------



## hvaclover

HA! 

I was waitin' for 'ya youngin'!:laughing:


----------



## hvaclover

mass and volume can not be used inter chagablely


----------



## hvaclover

The *volume* of any solid, liquid, plasma, vacuum or theoretical object is how much three-dimensional space it occupies, often quantified numerically. One-dimensional figures (such as lines) and two-dimensional shapes such as square geometry squares are assigned zero volume in the three-dimensional space. Volume is commonly presented in units such as mililitres or cm3 (milliliters or cubic centimeters).
Volumes of some simple shapes, such as regular, straight-edged and circular shapes can be easily calculated using arithmetic formulas. More complicated shapes can be calculated by integral calculus if a formula exists for its boundary. The volume of any shape can be determined by displacement.
In _differential geometry_, volume is expressed by means of the volume form, and is an important global Riemannian invariant.
_*Volume is a fundamental parameter in thermodynamics and it is conjugate to pressure.
Conjugate variables
of thermodynamics Pressure **Volume (Stress) (Strain) *_ _*Temper*_ature Entropy Chem. potential Particle no. *Contents*

[hide]


----------



## hvaclover

*Mass* (from Greek: Μάζα) is a concept used in the physical sciences to explain a number of observable behaviors, and in everyday usage, it is common to identify mass with those resulting behaviors. In particular, mass is commonly identified with weight. But according to our modern scientific understanding, the weight of an object results from the interaction of its mass with a gravitational field, so while mass is part of the explanation of weight, it is not the complete explanation.
For example, a mail carrier lifting a heavy package on earth may associate the heaviness (weight) of the package with the mass of its contents. This is a reasonable association for objects on earth. However, if the same package were on the moon, it would weigh much less and would be easy to lift. Therefore, the mass of a package is only part of the reason that the package is difficult to lift on earth. The complete reason involves the interaction of the package’s mass with the gravity of the earth.
Also, a groundskeeper encountering two large rocks may associate the size of the rocks with their respective masses. And from this association the groundskeeper may expect the larger rock to be heavier and more difficult to move. However, if the larger rock were composed of pumice and the smaller of granite, then the smaller rock may in fact be much heavier. Mass is part of the explanation of an object’s size but not the complete explanation. The complete explanation involves mass, structure, and composition.
The human body is equipped with physical senses through which one can experience many of the effects associated with mass. One can visually observe an object to determine its size, lift it to feel its weight, and push it to feel the force of its inertial resistance to changing motion. These human experiences are all part of our modern understanding of mass, but none completely epitomizes the abstract concept of mass. The abstract concept did not come from a specific type of human experience. Rather, it came from a synthesis of many different types of human experience.
Humans throughout history have observed the inertial and gravitational effects of mass. They have also observed the planets moving through the night sky under the influence of the sun’s gravity, and they have observed objects falling to the earth under the influence of the earth’s gravity. Since these effects were all part of human existence, humans have always had an intuitive understanding of these physical phenomena. This intuitive understanding, however, only recently evolved into the modern abstract concept of mass.
The modern concept was introduced in, and is central to, Isaac Newton’s explanation of gravitation and inertia. Prior to Newton’s time, the various gravitational and inertial phenomena were viewed as distinct and potentially unrelated. However, Isaac Newton united these phenomena by asserting that they all stemmed from a single underlying property called mass. Since Newton’s time, this abstract concept of mass has grown to include explanations for both quantum and relativistic effects. (See the following section entitled “Summary of concepts of mass” for a brief summery of mass related phenomena)


----------



## nicktech

you get an "A" for cutting and pasting a definition. 
let's get this straight. the debate is co2 for pressure testing. i won't argue using co2 for braze purging because honestly it doesnt sound too bad. 
the argument has shifted from using co2 for pressure testing to definitions. the bottom lne is that as co2 enters a system, it has an unreliable pressure/temperature relationship and because a slight temp variance can influence the pressure to reflect a false leak or mask an existing one.


----------



## nicktech

i guess i should take young'n as a compliment. but i have been around for a while. age is relative, i guess compared to you gramps moses would be a young'n.:001_tongue: and i have been through some sh1t myself. 18yr army veteran with 3 deployments overseas, and one hell of a divorce!:thumbsup:


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> you get an "A" for cutting and pasting a definition.
> let's get this straight. the debate is co2 for pressure testing. i won't argue using co2 for braze purging because honestly it doesnt sound too bad.
> the argument has shifted from using co2 for pressure testing to definitions. the bottom lne is that as co2 enters a system, it has an unreliable pressure/temperature relationship and because a slight temp variance can influence the pressure to reflect a false leak or mask an existing one.



iI have never had a problem pressure testing with CO2.

How's the teaching gig going.

I


----------



## hvaclover

nicktech said:


> i guess i should take young'n as a compliment. but i have been around for a while. age is relative, i guess compared to you gramps moses would be a young'n.:001_tongue: and i have been through some sh1t myself. 18yr army veteran with 3 deployments overseas, and one hell of a divorce!:thumbsup:


My compliments ,

Four year vet and a tour in Nam.

Now you know my insanity
*Mass* (from Greek: Μάζα) is a concept used in the physical sciences to explain a number of observable behaviors, and in everyday usage, it is common to identify mass with those resulting behaviors. In particular, mass is commonly identified with weight. But according to our modern scientific understanding, the weight of an object results from the interaction of its mass with a gravitational field, so while mass is part of the explanation of weight, it is not the complete explanation.
For example, a mail carrier lifting a heavy package on earth may associate the heaviness (weight) of the package with the mass of its contents. This is a reasonable association for objects on earth. However, if the same package were on the moon, it would weigh much less and would be easy to lift. Therefore, the mass of a package is only part of the reason that the package is difficult to lift on earth. The complete reason involves the interaction of the package’s mass with the gravity of the earth.
Also, a groundskeeper encountering two large rocks may associate the size of the rocks with their respective masses. And from this association the groundskeeper may expect the larger rock to be heavier and more difficult to move. However, if the larger rock were composed of pumice and the smaller of granite, then the smaller rock may in fact be much heavier. Mass is part of the explanation of an object’s size but not the complete explanation. The complete explanation involves mass, structure, and composition.
The human body is equipped with physical senses through which one can experience many of the effects associated with mass. One can visually observe an object to determine its size, lift it to feel its weight, and push it to feel the force of its inertial resistance to changing motion. These human experiences are all part of our modern understanding of mass, but none completely epitomizes the abstract concept of mass. The abstract concept did not come from a specific type of human experience. Rather, it came from a synthesis of many different types of human experience.
Humans throughout history have observed the inertial and gravitational effects of mass. They have also observed the planets moving through the night sky under the influence of the sun’s gravity, and they have observed objects falling to the earth under the influence of the earth’s gravity. Since these effects were all part of human existence, humans have always had an intuitive understanding of these physical phenomena. This intuitive understanding, however, only recently evolved into the modern abstract concept of mass.
The modern concept was introduced in, and is central to, Isaac Newton’s explanation of gravitation and inertia. Prior to Newton’s time, the various gravitational and inertial phenomena were viewed as distinct and potentially unrelated. However, Isaac Newton united these phenomena by asserting that they all stemmed from a single underlying property called mass. Since Newton’s time, this abstract concept of mass has grown to include explanations for both quantum and relativistic effects. (See the following section entitled “Summary of concepts of mass” for a brief summery of mass related phenomena)


----------



## nicktech

going well, busy as hell with the temp rising, gotta lotta calls. how bout you?


----------



## mechanicalDvr

hvaclover said:


> Scroll to the bottom when you get to link website.
> 
> Then i will accept your apology.
> 
> As far as the nitro and CO2 tanks sizes being the same, I should have said I didn't know since I don't use nitro I don't keep track of the sizes.
> 
> I posted what I remember a counter guy saying and posted it.
> If I am wrong so be it, but it still does not change the volume issue.
> 
> 
> http://www.airgas.com/browse/product.aspx?Msg=RecID&recIds=257679&WT.svl=257679


 
What point is this post supposed to make??


----------



## mechanicalDvr

hvaclover said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hvactech*
> _I also agree with Nicktech about the pressure swing when using CO2 as a leak detector, and by the way you(Hvaclover) said CO2 gives you more volume in the same size tank? That seems to me to be physically impossible. Volume is volume and I belive Nitrogen is bottled at a much higher pressure than CO2 so, now how does it benefit?_
> 
> 
> I second that sentiment.End quote
> 
> 
> I wil answer your question by asking another: Why is CO2 a liquid in a tank and nitro is not.
> 
> I go you one better: Eight ounces of water in a glass: How much water vapor at 212*f does that glass hold. The same as liquid water?


 
Because nitrogen is a liquid at a much lower temperature than CO2.


----------



## mechanicalDvr

hvaclover said:


> iI have never had a problem pressure testing with CO2.


 
Are you sure about that? How would you know?


----------



## hvaclover

Quote:
Originally Posted by *mechanicalDvr*  
_At the three supply houses and two welding suppliers I deal with CO2 and Nitrogen come in the same size tanks with the exception of an "N" cylinder that CO2 doesn't come in. *None say on the phone that they carry "dry CO2" (bone or otherwise).*_

Hvaclover response Quote: Scroll to the bottom when you get to link website.

Then i will accept your apology.

As far as the nitro and CO2 tanks sizes being the same, I should have said I didn't know since I don't use nitro I don't keep track of the sizes.

I posted what I remember a counter guy saying and posted it. 
If I am wrong so be it, but it still does not change the volume issue.


http://www.airgas.com/browse/product...&WT.svl=257679 
__________________
Not Stupid, Just slow End quote



Quote:
Originally Posted by *mechanicalDvr*  
_At the three supply houses and two welding suppliers I deal with CO2 and Nitrogen come in the same size tanks with the exception of an "N" cylinder that CO2 doesn't come in. None say on the phone that they carry "dry CO2" (bone or otherwise)._

Scroll to the bottom when you get to link website.

Then i will accept your apology.

As far as the nitro and CO2 tanks sizes being the same, I should have said I didn't know since I don't use nitro I don't keep track of the sizes.

I posted what I remember a counter guy saying and posted it. 
If I am wrong so be it, but it still does not change the volume issue.


http://www.airgas.com/browse/product...&WT.svl=257679 
__________________
Not Stupid, Just slow 




mechanicalDvr said:


> What point is this post supposed to make??



You implied that dry co2 does not exist. That link is to a place that sells it

Du_uh


----------



## hvaclover

mechanicalDvr said:


> Because nitrogen is a liquid at a much lower temperature than CO2.




Not important whether correct or not because we are talking about how the 
the two gas come when we buy them.

Co2 is liquid and therefore has more of it in the same size bottle as nitro.
Nitro is bottled and measured and sold by cubic feet.

Yeah the twogasses have diff press and temp. But the whole point of the thread is about the benefits of using CO2 over nitro.

And that has not changed. A tank of Bone Dry CO2 lasts longer than the same size nitro tank.
And that saves money on the first purchase.


----------



## hvaclover

Quote:
Originally Posted by *hvaclover*  
_I have never had a problem pressure testing with CO2.
_


mechanicalDvr quote Are you sure about that? How would you know?end quote

Now you are just being being insulting. I won't dignify that with an answer.


----------



## DuMass

Well... after reading through the posts, I'm thinking that the P/T relationship at ambient sounds like it may be a good reason for me not to use C02 for overnight pressure testing. Not to mention the fact that right now I couldn't really swing for a new regulator setup and tanks for exchange anyway. :sad:
I suppose you could just use a P/T chart like with any other refrigerant, but is that really exact enough for leak checking a system?

I'm wondering if guys I've seen using it for this purpose were aware of the P/T swing. Maybe they were just using it because they had on hand for their Drain Dawg or some such.


----------



## hvaclover

DuMass said:


> Well... after reading through the posts, I'm thinking that the P/T relationship at ambient sounds like it may be a good reason for me not to use C02 for overnight pressure testing. Not to mention the fact that right now I couldn't really swing for a new regulator setup and tanks for exchange anyway. :sad:
> I suppose you could just use a P/T chart like with any other refrigerant, but is that really exact enough for leak checking a system?
> 
> I'm wondering if guys I've seen using it for this purpose were aware of the P/T swing. Maybe they were just using it because they had on hand for their Drain Dawg or some such.



We don't do overnight press testing. Different school of thought obviously.
Seems to me any gas is subject to ambient pressure/temp changes in the medium it is left over night.

I prefer to use a micron gauge to determine if i have a leak.

Or if I pressurize a system I use an electronic detector.


----------



## Yuri

My Gawd, Clover, never imagined you could be so wordy/facts guy, Yoyizit would be proud of U. LOL:laughing:


----------



## hvaclover

Yuri said:


> My Gawd, Clover, never imagined you could be so wordy/facts guy, Yoyizit would be proud of U. LOL:laughing:



I dumb down for the DIYS


----------



## Yuri

And sum of dem are DUMB, Real Dumb!!:bangin::w00t:


----------



## hvaclover

Yuri said:


> And sum of dem are DUMB, Real Dumb!!:bangin::w00t:


Now you know why I am always screaming "TROLL IN"A HOUSE"!

You can tell fake dumb from stupid dumb:yes:


----------



## DuMass

hvaclover said:


> Now you know why I am always screaming "TROLL IN"A HOUSE"!
> 
> You can tell fake dumb from stupid dumb:yes:


Hmmm… I will assume that since I’m the new turd on the block, you must be referring to me.
If so, sorry for being so uninformed, but I have only been doing AC/R as a second trade for 12-years, so am not an expert by any means.
While I am aware that C02 has been used for a refrigerant for longer than most of us have been alive, my only contact with it has been as a shielding gas for welding and for blowing out condensate drains. I have never worked on a system that used it as a refrigerant.
In the defense of everyone else posting, how could anyone be expected to be well versed in the applications discussed when as you say, the industry has been kicking it to the curb for 30-years.
I suppose now is the time to confess that I also have no hands-on experience with ammonia systems, so excuse my queries when these systems are discussed in future postings. The closest I have come to ammonia/water systems is cleaning the pilots on a few Dometic RV refrigerators.


----------



## mechanicalDvr

hvaclover said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mechanicalDvr*
> _At the three supply houses and two welding suppliers I deal with CO2 and Nitrogen come in the same size tanks with the exception of an "N" cylinder that CO2 doesn't come in. *None say on the phone that they carry "dry CO2" (bone or otherwise).*_
> 
> Hvaclover response Quote: Scroll to the bottom when you get to link website.
> 
> Then i will accept your apology.
> 
> As far as the nitro and CO2 tanks sizes being the same, I should have said I didn't know since I don't use nitro I don't keep track of the sizes.
> 
> I posted what I remember a counter guy saying and posted it.
> If I am wrong so be it, but it still does not change the volume issue.
> 
> 
> http://www.airgas.com/browse/product...&WT.svl=257679
> __________________
> Not Stupid, Just slow End quote
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mechanicalDvr*
> _At the three supply houses and two welding suppliers I deal with CO2 and Nitrogen come in the same size tanks with the exception of an "N" cylinder that CO2 doesn't come in. None say on the phone that they carry "dry CO2" (bone or otherwise)._
> 
> Scroll to the bottom when you get to link website.
> 
> Then i will accept your apology.
> 
> As far as the nitro and CO2 tanks sizes being the same, I should have said I didn't know since I don't use nitro I don't keep track of the sizes.
> 
> I posted what I remember a counter guy saying and posted it.
> If I am wrong so be it, but it still does not change the volume issue.
> 
> 
> http://www.airgas.com/browse/product...&WT.svl=257679
> __________________
> Not Stupid, Just slow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You implied that dry co2 does not exist. That link is to a place that sells it
> 
> Du_uh


 
No sir, what I said was the places I deal with don't stock it, not that it isn't available. So for me it isn't worth the hassle.


----------



## mechanicalDvr

hvaclover said:


> Not important whether correct or not because we are talking about how the
> the two gas come when we buy them.
> 
> Co2 is liquid and therefore has more of it in the same size bottle as nitro.
> Nitro is bottled and measured and sold by cubic feet.
> 
> Yeah the twogasses have diff press and temp. But the whole point of the thread is about the benefits of using CO2 over nitro.
> 
> And that has not changed. A tank of Bone Dry CO2 lasts longer than the same size nitro tank.
> And that saves money on the first purchase.


 
Well if I would have to go out of my way to get it and waste time where as now I just get tank exchanges when I am at the supply house it really wouldn't save me any money. I am currently paying @$13.00 for a Nitro refill, so it isn't worth the trouble.


----------



## mechanicalDvr

hvaclover said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hvaclover*
> _I have never had a problem pressure testing with CO2._
> 
> 
> 
> mechanicalDvr quote Are you sure about that? How would you know?end quote
> 
> Now you are just being being insulting. I won't dignify that with an answer.


 
Then why respond to it at all.


----------



## RoBoTeq

Wow! I go away for a few hours and you guys go nutso:blink:

Based on fangs posts, I would use CO2 as an inert gas sweep while brazing.

Hey! How bout dem Phillies?


----------



## Yuri

DuMass, DIY is do it yourself, a chatroom Clover and myself try help some people on. Had one "dumbass" get advice on the net and drilled out the pressure ports on his pressure switch because someone told him they were blocked. Broke them off and went looking for more "advice" on how to fix that new problem. Scares the heck out of me what people will do to save a buck on a gas furnace/blow up the neighborhood also.


----------



## DuMass

RoBoTeq said:


> Wow! I go away for a few hours and you guys go nutso:blink:


You have to admit… this is great! It’s just like it used to be on HVAC-talk back before they let every douchbag and his mother join the pro forum.
Whatever happened to the guy that had a young whip toting John Wayne as his avatar? His flames in the residential forum were legendary!! :thumbsup:


----------



## hvaclover

DuMass said:


> Hmmm… I will assume that since I’m the new turd on the block, you must be referring to me.
> If so, sorry for being so uninformed, but I have only been doing AC/R as a second trade for 12-years, so am not an expert by any means.
> While I am aware that C02 has been used for a refrigerant for longer than most of us have been alive, my only contact with it has been as a shielding gas for welding and for blowing out condensate drains. I have never worked on a system that used it as a refrigerant.
> In the defense of everyone else posting, how could anyone be expected to be well versed in the applications discussed when as you say, the industry has been kicking it to the curb for 30-years.
> I suppose now is the time to confess that I also have no hands-on experience with ammonia systems, so excuse my queries when these systems are discussed in future postings. The closest I have come to ammonia/water systems is cleaning the pilots on a few Dometic RV refrigerators.


Jeeze get over your self...I was talking about the DIY sister site to this one.


----------



## gene2

Nitrogen may combine with other elements when subjected to temperature & pressure but cannot breakdown to anything other than being nitrogen thus being truly an inert gas. CO2 is not truly inert in that when subjected to temperature & pressure it will breakdown to the basic elements of carbon & oxygen, thus it is not an inert gas. Then you have the carbon & oxygen reacting with the other elements. In welding applications there is temperature but no pressure so it is useful as a sheilding gas. In a refrigerant system, even with the service valves open, there is potential for pressure to build thus possibly breaking down the CO2 to it's basic elements, Oxygen & oil is extremely explosive and rivaling C-4.

There have been many warnings about explosive situations when operating a defective compressor with the terminal cover off due to terminals blowing out & the inert refrigerant gas reacting with the oxygen in the air. I have experienced this a couple times.

For me & my highly valued techs we will use nitrogen, you do what you want. This is how I learned it in everyday lingo without sophisticated chemical engineering lingo. I do both, welding & HVAC. I like to err on the side of caution, F*** the dollars saved.


----------



## gene2

My interest is that no one be injured or killed by this foolishness. My costs of using nitrogen are built in.


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> Nitrogen may combine with other elements when subjected to temperature & pressure but cannot breakdown to anything other than being nitrogen thus being truly an inert gas. CO2 is not truly inert in that when subjected to temperature & pressure it will breakdown to the basic elements of carbon & oxygen, thus it is not an inert gas. Then you have the carbon & oxygen reacting with the other elements. In welding applications there is temperature but no pressure so it is useful as a sheilding gas. In a refrigerant system, even with the service valves open, there is potential for pressure to build thus possibly breaking down the CO2 to it's basic elements, Oxygen & oil is extremely explosive and rivaling C-4.
> 
> There have been many warnings about explosive situations when operating a defective compressor with the terminal cover off due to terminals blowing out & the inert refrigerant gas reacting with the oxygen in the air. I have experienced this a couple times.
> 
> For me & my highly valued techs we will use nitrogen, you do what you want. This is how I learned it in everyday lingo without sophisticated chemical engineering lingo. I do both, welding & HVAC. I like to err on the side of caution, F*** the dollars saved.



Sure CO2 breaks down under pressure...at 73 atmospheres, which like almost 1000 psi. If you encounter that pressure while you are brazing you must be really pouring on the compression.

Co2 is safe for any brazing application... period.


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> My interest is that no one be injured or killed by this foolishness. My costs of using nitrogen are built in.



This is hardly foolishness and i defy you to produce one piece of documentation where bone dry co2 was used and it caused an explosion.

It's just another urban legend you Newbies swallow up just like burnt CFCs caused Phosgene poisoning.

I can document one. But not for the reasons that you newly extruded techs think.


----------



## gene2

For 50 cents, maybe a dollar saved, your gonna risk your life or serious injury? You're swimming against the stream.

Don't mislead the younger inexperienced for a minimal amount of money to prove your point.


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> For 50 cents, maybe a dollar saved, your gonna risk your life or serious injury? You're swimming against the stream.
> 
> Don't mislead the younger inexperienced for a minimal amount of money to prove your point.


It ain't about money. I have been doing this a long tim and I picked up using dry co2 from guys who had been in the business since the early fifties.

Co2 was the sh1t then. For me it still is.

And i say again show me documentation that proves co2 has caused any injury any where.


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> Nitrogen may combine with other elements when subjected to temperature & pressure but cannot breakdown to anything other than being nitrogen thus being truly an inert gas. CO2 is not truly inert in that when subjected to temperature & pressure it will breakdown to the basic elements of carbon & oxygen, thus it is not an inert gas. Then you have the carbon & oxygen reacting with the other elements. In welding applications there is temperature but no pressure so it is useful as a sheilding gas. In a refrigerant system, even with the service valves open, there is potential for pressure to build thus possibly breaking down the CO2 to it's basic elements, Oxygen & oil is extremely explosive and rivaling C-4.
> 
> There have been many warnings about explosive situations when operating a defective compressor with the terminal cover off due to terminals blowing out & the inert refrigerant gas reacting with the oxygen in the air. I have experienced this a couple times.
> 
> For me & my highly valued techs we will use nitrogen, you do what you want. This is how I learned it in everyday lingo without sophisticated chemical engineering lingo. I do both, welding & HVAC. I like to err on the side of caution, F*** the dollars saved.















*Is co2 combustible?*

*In: * Chemistry [Edit categories] 














[Edit]









Co2 is not combustible - it is the end product of combustion reactions and will not be broken down any further by that mechanism.


----------



## gene2

I am not going into a peeing contest, like I said, you guys do what you want. Why take a chance for such negligible savings. CO2 is fine for a cold purge, but I evacuate to 50 microns before installing a charge anyway. Why would I carry two tanks & potentially have the mistake of the wrong one being used when nitrogen is not that expensive & the minor extra cost should be passed on to the client anyway. I never said there were any injuries to document. The potential is there.

Like I said, I don't want to see anyone hurt or killed for such a small amount of pocket change. Because you haven't had an incidence in your career does not mean it can't happen. Oxygen & oil is explosive. 73 atmospheres is only 73 PSIG.

By the way, do still measure system superheat by feeling the suction line and the charge is correct when its beer can cold? That's what the old school guys were teaching around here also.


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> I am not going into a peeing contest, like I said, you guys do what you want. Why take a chance for such negligible savings. CO2 is fine for a cold purge, but I evacuate to 50 microns before installing a charge anyway. Why would I carry two tanks & potentially have the mistake of the wrong one being used when nitrogen is not that expensive & the minor extra cost should be passed on to the client anyway. I never said there were any injuries to document. The potential is there.
> 
> Like I said, I don't want to see anyone hurt or killed for such a small amount of pocket change. Because you haven't had an incidence in your career does not mean it can't happen. Oxygen & oil is explosive. 73 atmospheres is only 73 PSIG.
> 
> _*By the way, do still measure system superheat by feeling the suction line and the charge is correct when its beer can cold? That's what the old school guys were teaching around here als*_o.


Ok show me the documentation that says it has "POTENTIAL" to hurt. Sure you said somebody got hurt since you posted it has potential to harm someone. Potential indicates there has been a history of harm to somebody otherwise there could be no potential for harm. Which is it Gene2? Can't have it both ways. Either it hurts or it does not. Which is it?

Hell, nitro has potential to kill to if you give some poor guy an enema with it.

And are you hard of seeing too? I have stated it is not a cost savings in dollars.
Dry co2 cost more then nitro. Why do you keep posting it's less money?

And if you're evacuating to fifty microns to an open compressor you GOT BIG PROBLEM!


That super heat statement would earn you a crack if you were here. I use a CPS Temp Seeker 250 Electronic Physcrometer.

And back in the day i had a UEI four station analog temp tester.

_*BEER CAN COLD:laughing: ****** PLEASE!!!!!:tt2::tt2:
*_


----------



## scooter

If I fart in 90 deg weather is there more pressure and mass then if I fart in 50 deg weather?
Things that make you go HHMMM?


----------



## hvaclover

scooter said:


> If I fart in 90 deg weather is there more pressure and mass then if I fart in 50 deg weather?
> Things that make you go HHMMM?


----------



## gene2

I can pee farther than you, so there! It is obvious how you made senior member in being closed minded and quick to jump any jugular that doesn't agree with you. If it isn't about the money, why are pushing this foolishness? Do you have a financial interest in CO2? Anyone would know you can't pull a vacuum on an open compressor, which by the way has a substantial amount of oil to mix with the potential O2. Are you more eminently qualified than the FACTORY engineers involved? If so please present your documents & degrees.

My advise to the less experienced is to follow your training, use nitrogen like the FACTORIES say. Let the old Far*ts do what they want.

This thread should be closed based on this response.


----------



## gene2

By the way, enemas have no connection to this subject. 40+ years experience. Been in this biz 40+ years. The manufacturers know more than us in the field.


----------



## gene2

*No trouble intended*

Nathan, I apologize for participating this long on the CO2 thread. I don't intend to cause trouble but I cannot abide any practice that can endanger someone. There is a reason that all manufacturers say to use nitrogen and it is not about cost.


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> I can pee farther than you, so there! It is obvious how you made senior member in being closed minded and quick to jump any jugular that doesn't agree with you. If it isn't about the money, why are pushing this foolishness? Do you have a financial interest in CO2? Anyone would know you can't pull a vacuum on an open compressor, which by the way has a substantial amount of oil to mix with the potential O2. Are you more eminently qualified than the FACTORY engineers involved? If so please present your documents & degrees.
> 
> My advise to the less experienced is to follow your training, use nitrogen like the FACTORIES say. Let the old Far*ts do what they want.
> 
> This thread should be closed based on this response.


 Idoubt you can piss farther than me. Guys our age have prostate issues.:yes:

Hey don't get all pissy with me. You challenged/attacked my post saying I was gonna hurt people with my service practice of CO2. That's an accusation of causing harm right there. Am I supposed to just say, "Yeppers"? Hell no. I defended my self and it didn't get ugly til you called me old school and that I didn't check SH. And the worst one was the beer can cold remark. You just used Doolins Trouble Shooting Bible to call me a hack! Would you take that from me?


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> Nathan, I apologize for participating this long on the CO2 thread. I don't intend to cause trouble but I cannot abide any practice that can endanger someone. There is a reason that all manufacturers say to use nitrogen and it is not about cost.



Nuh uh. Not all mfg say that. It's all about the bone dry CO not the stuff you get for soda fountains which is what you are referring to.


And instead of appealing to the web master why don't you contribute to this discussion YOU created by backing up what you said with some documented facts..

Even Harris brazing products says CO2 is good for joining copper to copper.


----------



## gene2

I don't have a prostrate issue yet, sorry for those that do.

Manufactureres state to use nitrogen only.

I didn't call you a hack, you referenced yourself to that era. It is only ugly to carry over disproven practices from there.

Am I supposed to allow a practice that can potentially harm someone? Heck no. If you really want to know, do some research. It's the modern practice to use nitrogen. You brought up this subject. The manufacturers & schools say nitrogen for very good reasons I feebly tried to point out.

As to accepting an attack, no I won't but I have learned to choose my battles. Safety is job One. I have made a couple of posts seeking help and have treated as a newby without the responder reading & understanding my post. Felt more abused than you do now. I checked SH, SC, DeltaT before many on here were even born. My posts reflected that without posting, just looking for a direction to further pursue.

I have no agenda to persicute you other than your insistance in using CO2 when no manufacturer reccomends it's use it at all. I will not pursue this subject or provide documentation because it is not going to ever be an industry accepted practice to use CO2. We are going to be very heavily taxed with the global warming agenda involving CO2, which I disagree with anyway.

Don't know Doolin's trouble shooting bible, only try to know King James Bible. Young come in stating beer can cold for SH, WTF?. Not being one to toot my horn but sometimes I need to, the factory often calls on me to solve what they can't. I heavily rely on the experience gained by anyone who can open mindedly participate and do not claim any credit for myself. 

What we deal with here is precision guesswork is the mantra of my departed mentor, we are being whored out by the inexperienced who don't know the dangers & pitfalls of this trade and do not charge appropiately.


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> I don't have a prostrate issue yet, sorry for those that do.
> 
> Manufactureres state to use nitrogen only.
> 
> I didn't call you a hack, you referenced yourself to that era. It is only ugly to carry over disproven practices from there.
> 
> Am I supposed to allow a practice that can potentially harm someone? Heck no. If you really want to know, do some research. It's the modern practice to use nitrogen. You brought up this subject. The manufacturers & schools say nitrogen for very good reasons I feebly tried to point out.
> 
> As to accepting an attack, no I won't but I have learned to choose my battles. Safety is job One. I have made a couple of posts seeking help and have treated as a newby without the responder reading & understanding my post. Felt more abused than you do now. I checked SH, SC, DeltaT before many on here were even born. My posts reflected that without posting, just looking for a direction to further pursue.
> 
> I have no agenda to persicute you other than your insistance in using CO2 when no manufacturer reccomends it's use it at all. I will not pursue this subject or provide documentation because it is not going to ever be an industry accepted practice to use CO2. We are going to be very heavily taxed with the global warming agenda involving CO2, which I disagree with anyway.
> 
> Don't know Doolin's trouble shooting bible, only try to know King James Bible. Young come in stating beer can cold for SH, WTF?. Not being one to toot my horn but sometimes I need to, the factory often calls on me to solve what they can't. I heavily rely on the experience gained by anyone who can open mindedly participate and do not claim any credit for myself.
> 
> What we deal with here is precision guesswork is the mantra of my departed mentor, we are being whored out by the inexperienced who don't know the dangers & pitfalls of this trade and do not charge appropiately.


Ok now you are accusing me of not keeping up with the times. News Flash.
Been doing SH and SC electronically and and using vacuum tube micron gauges before it was ever cool to have them. See, I used to do low temp refer to the SH and SC thing is old hat to me.

And you keep referring to CO2 as dangerous. for the last time PROVE IT!

I don't believe every thing the factory tells me or I'd still use a fixed TXV for line sets in excess of 75feet.


----------



## gene2

Gee whiz, what is your problem?


----------



## RoBoTeq

Why would welding setups recommend a mixture of CO2 if there were safety issues with using it? CO2 is indeed an inert gas and as far as I can determine from everything I've so far read, CO2 is perfectly safe to use as an inert gas sweep during brazing.

Inert gas sweeps during brazing should be no more then 3PSI and never under pressure from a closed system.


----------



## gene2

That is why I earlier stated that CO2 is good for welding, subject to temp but not pressure.


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> That is why I earlier stated that CO2 is good for welding, subject to temp but not pressure.


The heck you did. You dismissed CO2 out of hand as not being safe for brazing because some factory rep told you so.


----------



## gene2

If anyone with any amount of brain could understand any of the hazards of introducing any element, compound, gas, etc. containing oxygen into any environment containing oil, why do it?. The OP stated less cost. If cost not the issue why this battle? Industry practice teaches against introducing an oxygen containing situation. Why not use compressed air?, it's non toxic, I need to breathe it. It's even cheaper. Any one can selectively use documents to support their idea. I don't feel it's necessary to this dispute because of the long time practices of the industry promotes the use of nitrogen. If you want documents, you personally face an oil & oxygen mixture with flame and let us know if you survive to write your cherished documentation. This is common knowledge with firefighters & chemistry students.

All this argument to get nitrogen off my service trucks? And use CO2? Why if there is so neglible a cost to take the chance of introducing oxygen into an oil rich environment? Will you feel vindictated if no one is killed or injured before you die? to what end are you striving to acheive? I want documentation. Oxygen & oil hazards are well documented and easy for you to access on the internet if your not too lazy. You brought the subject up & vigorously defend this absurd idea so the burden of proof is on you. the industry says to use nitrogen & you digress. Prove the industry wrong. Your past postings were obsfucating if you can understand that.

Young & newer techs will use nitrogen if they only have half a brain. Companies will do likewise.

Gee Whiz, again, what's your point in this? You related to Al Gore so you can collect carbon taxes ? Your supposed superior intellect is very obviously seriously lacking. I cannot condone someone getting seriously injured or killed because of a disregard of widely known & practiced industry safety standards.




























idiot


----------



## hvaclover

gene2 said:


> If anyone with any amount of brain could understand any of the hazards of introducing any element, compound, gas, etc. containing oxygen into any environment containing oil, why do it?. The OP stated less cost. If cost not the issue why this battle? Industry practice teaches against introducing an oxygen containing situation. Why not use compressed air?, it's non toxic, I need to breathe it. It's even cheaper. Any one can selectively use documents to support their idea. I don't feel it's necessary to this dispute because of the long time practices of the industry promotes the use of nitrogen. If you want documents, you personally face an oil & oxygen mixture with flame and let us know if you survive to write your cherished documentation. This is common knowledge with firefighters & chemistry students.
> 
> All this argument to get nitrogen off my service trucks? And use CO2? Why if there is so neglible a cost to take the chance of introducing oxygen into an oil rich environment? Will you feel vindictated if no one is killed or injured before you die? to what end are you striving to acheive? I want documentation. Oxygen & oil hazards are well documented and easy for you to access on the internet if your not too lazy. You brought the subject up & vigorously defend this absurd idea so the burden of proof is on you. the industry says to use nitrogen & you digress. Prove the industry wrong. Your past postings were obsfucating if you can understand that.
> 
> Young & newer techs will use nitrogen if they only have half a brain. Companies will do likewise.
> 
> Gee Whiz, again, what's your point in this? You related to Al Gore so you can collect carbon taxes ? Your supposed superior intellect is very obviously seriously lacking. I cannot condone someone getting seriously injured or killed because of a disregard of widely known & practiced industry safety standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idiot


Now you got the idea.

You DON'T have to agree with me. But I know I am right and the documentation I put up is authoritative where as YOU have provided nothing to the contrary.

OXYGEN IN SIDE A UNIT??? Ain't the same. You got co2 as a by product of combustion. It can't be broken down any further thru the combustion process. And CO2
out of the bottle would require over 1000psi to crack the molecules apart. That ain't happenin' inside an open ended tube 
CO cost more than nitro but since CO2 comes in liquid form and nitro in vapor you get much more CO2 for the money. That is the cost savings.


As far as "industry practice" ,those can be just a matter of opinion. Company A says block the condenser to get the head up on a cold day. Company B says no don't do that you will get faulty readings. ect.
You don't have to use CO2 but me and mine swear by it.

So either prove it's dangerous or drop and just know I am right.


----------



## hvaclover

Seems like some guys have an issue with Nitro being wet.
Read it and weep!:sad:
http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread....light=nitrogen


----------



## RoBoTeq

Gene2, why the "idiot" comment in your post? What's your problem?

By the way you are arguing dangers of CO2, anyone else could argue that nitrogen, under certain applications, can be extremely explosive. Ever hear of fixed nitrogen being mixed with kerosene to blow up stuff....say....like the World Trade Center or the Murray Federal Building?

Informed argument is one thing, but you are just behaving like a spoiled brat who is not getting his way. Sorry, but that's just the way I am reading your posts. A few facts would help.


----------



## hvaclover

he needs a Robo TLC dressing down to get it:laughing::thumbsup:


----------



## ABCalculus.com

the conversation got heated in here


----------

