Results 1 to 50 of 50
Thread: R507 instead R404a?
-
29-11-2004, 06:42 PM #1
R507 instead R404a?
Hi,
I´ve heard that R507 is a better refrigerant than R404a, and it is going to substitute R404a because R507 was patented some years ago?
Some comments...?
-
29-11-2004, 06:47 PM #2
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Just between the two of us, when ever any unit works on 507 brakes, I change it back to 22.
From that moment it works better.
No, I didnt hear such a thing.
Chemi
-
30-11-2004, 01:31 PM #3
Re: R507 instead R404a?
The two refrigerants are almost identical. Essentially, if you take R507 and add a small amount of R134a, it becomes R404A.
-
30-11-2004, 06:28 PM #4
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Hi Gary,
True but 507 has a slight higher pressure on condensing,
still they are not as good as 22.
Chemi
-
30-11-2004, 06:54 PM #5
Re: R507 instead R404a?
I agree with gary they are all most identical even the price is almost the same. I disagree with R22 being better. There also about the only refrigerants that are ok to mix in a system. I have always disliked R22 especially in low temp applications.Having to run head cooling fans and on s'market rack systems desuperheating TX valves on the suction header. On medium temp care must be taken to ensure low superheat or discharge temps go off thier face. I still think R22 is still for air conditioning. R404a and R507 are long term replacements for good old R502 with the use of POE oil. Regards Kev
-
30-11-2004, 07:21 PM #6
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Hi Kev,
I use 22 for years for AC and low temp down to -18 freezers.
No problems at all, no head cooling fans (its hot over here)
In new freezers, I have sterted to use R404.
Chemi
-
01-12-2004, 01:47 PM #7
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Hmmmmm...
R134a is not a blend, and therefore cannot separate.
IIRC, R507 is a near azeotrope. Adding a little R134a to it, making it R404A makes it a zeoptropic blend, thus the R134a can separate where there is a saturated mixture, but will blend back together everywhere else in the system. Fractionation inside the system is not a problem.
As I understand it, the biggest problem with the new refrigerants is POE oil. It is not only hydroscopic, but highly detergent as well.
I don't know anything about the world bank, nor do I care, but the ozone depletion farce was pure BS, and I will never forgive the EnviroNazis for screwing up my industry. They took the joy out of my job. The only group that makes me more angry is the TobaccoNazis.
-
01-12-2004, 03:05 PM #8
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Funny Gary but I know exactly how do you feel
Chemi
-
01-12-2004, 08:55 PM #9
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Gary i agree the ozone buisness is a crook off s h i t . Didnt it come at the same time as duponts patents on ***** run out? And as i understand it dupont was the main company backing the ozone theory or am i just suspicious?
-
02-12-2004, 12:07 AM #10
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Has anyone used Icors NU-22
NU-22 is the most practical and natural choice for the replacement of HCFC-22. It is the only HFC based R-22 replacement that is compatible with synthetic and mineral oils (MO,AB,POE). NU-22 has also proven to be compatible with all standard equipment components and materials used in R-22 manufactured systems. After conducting over one thousand hours of compressor wear testing, NU-22 has proven to be fully suitable for use in scroll, screw, rotary and reciprocating compressors.
-
02-12-2004, 02:13 PM #11
Re: R507 instead R404a?
R507 is a near azeotrope
All R500 numbers are azeotropes.Tony
-
02-12-2004, 09:24 PM #12
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Has anyone used Icors NU-22
Is it available in the UK or just Stateside?
-
03-12-2004, 02:59 AM #13
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by frank
http://www.tropicsupply.com/RefrigerantsicorNU22.htm
-
06-12-2004, 07:51 PM #14
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Frank
Its available from klea as AZ50.
-
07-12-2004, 07:37 AM #15
Re: R507 instead R404a?
I don't know anything about the world bank, nor do I care, but the ozone depletion farce was pure BS, and I will never forgive the EnviroNazis for screwing up my industry. Gary
I said this many times before.............Next time some bald headed, bearded, , white coated , university lab closetted scientest, comes up eith a theory and blurts out,
" the temp of the world is rising.................The ice caps are melting........... We BLAME CHLORINE..................Lets go look for chlorine........."
.
They found it, it was a constituent of refrigerants...........or solvents as they were fond of calling it.
Who was blasting tonnes of the stuff every day..............Yes , mainly R11 as a cleaner.
The Tobacco companies used it to " fluff" up the tobacco, blasted hundreds of tonnes into atmosphere every day
The Pcb , chip electronic manufacturing companies. To clean electronic components. ( Silicon Valley)
Aerosal companies who filled cannistors with it.
Like with all other issues, they could have stopped these industries using refrigerants............
No , they developed a whole new host of refrigerants
We , refrigerant people had no voice...........we sat back glumly and took it on the chin...................
It says a lot about us.............
Look at the hunting ban here..............Do the Country Alliance sit back ??? No they dont..............They fight back for what they see as their right to kill poor little fox.
I by the way do not agree with killing animals for sport, wether it is a fox in an english meadow, or a Rich Yank paying his green dollar to down a magnificent lion..............or giraffe..
They is always a solution to things..............Solutions are destroyed when money aspects override the issues.
The chemical companies saw an opportunity to make big money.........
Who said it was Dupont ?? who supported the idea..........If is is true we can start by stop buying dupont refrigerants.......Last edited by Abe; 07-12-2004 at 07:42 AM.
Any opinions, statements and facts expressed in this message do not constitute legal advice in any shape or form and is given for a general outlook in nature. You are advised to seek appropriate and specific professional assistance from a regulated and authorised advisor for definitive advice.
-
08-12-2004, 05:56 PM #16
Re: R507 instead R404a?
I did try and found out R507 works better then R404a
Last edited by jay; 08-12-2004 at 05:59 PM.
-
08-12-2004, 06:34 PM #17
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Hi Jay,
Good to see you here.
Better in what? AC or refrigeration med, or low temp?
Chemi
-
09-12-2004, 06:58 AM #18
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by Aiyub
Perhaps the hole is a naturally occurring phenomenon, but the truth is we were pumping billions of tons of crap into our atmosphere. I was skeptical of the science until I read a pretty understandable paper which convinced me it was too probable to ignore.
Pollution is one of the things we humans do best. Denying that we are poisoning ourselves is probably the second. Look at all the epidemics in all the cities of the world before sanitation. We used to dump our sewage in the streets, let it run into the rivers. Downstream cities drank it.
Originally Posted by Aiyub
Originally Posted by Aiyub
Originally Posted by Aiyub
Hmmm. I either need more details of this amazing conspiracy or send me some of that stuff you're smoking, Dude!
Relax. Life is short and most of it can be pretty good if you can get your attention off whatever it is you love to bitch about!
Rog
-
09-12-2004, 08:30 AM #19
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by RogGoetsch
Dont be so daft and condesending Rog..............use your bottle
You dont need to " muster" opr mobilise a coalition or alliance in order to "conspire"
You need an army of sheep..........
Youre a typical American.........Any opinions, statements and facts expressed in this message do not constitute legal advice in any shape or form and is given for a general outlook in nature. You are advised to seek appropriate and specific professional assistance from a regulated and authorised advisor for definitive advice.
-
09-12-2004, 04:02 PM #20
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by Aiyub
I think the industry might have done more to oppose the change except that everyone above the tech level saw the profit potential in the change, and only the techs feel the pain.
Rog
-
09-12-2004, 04:23 PM #21
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Hi Rog,
Its not only the techs pain, its the simple problem that no one was able to bring any proof so far!
Al we've heard in the past ten years was, bla, bla, bla.
But try to to find the bank balance of Dupont for example,
I'm sure you will see a sharp curve upwards of the income, baseb on what we call over here, Got the customers by the balls.
Can any one afford not to pay the price?
I'm only making money out of it but I feel i'm cheating on my clients
Chemi
-
09-12-2004, 06:46 PM #22
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by RogGoetsch
I blurted out my response this am...........but glad to receive a response from you.........Now lets get this straight.........
Who said anything about a conspiracy ????? Did I say it ????
Or did you make it up..........or go on the defensive.........as you guys are prone to do.........
What Im referring to is the way Big Business operates...............anywhere in the world.
Businesses need to launch new products , new models, new technologies............new software..........incorporate a few changes, jazz things up, in most cases we do benefit from better more efficient products..........
So , tis no conspiracy...........tis business. Thats the way of the world.
I did slip up on the global warming ...............it was that darn hole in the sky and people fearing about getting more skin cancers.......... Thanks for pointing it out.
But you ignore my argument about Industry who vented hundreds of thousands of cfc's into atmosphere............Not fridge techs.......
A better solution would have been to analyse usage..........bring in controls, licensing and methods..........yes, recycling and all that crap..........
Not wholesale elimination............
Hence, my prognosis that it was engineered by big business for monetary gain................and that is my view...........everybody can make their own minds up.......and I will encompass all views or opinions............
And I promise..............I wont accuse you of being high on dope if your opinion differs from me..........
Since you guys are so concerned about environments.............how about your lobbying your legislator to sign up to Kyoto!!!
Adieu Bud...........Have a great day...............
AbeAny opinions, statements and facts expressed in this message do not constitute legal advice in any shape or form and is given for a general outlook in nature. You are advised to seek appropriate and specific professional assistance from a regulated and authorised advisor for definitive advice.
-
09-12-2004, 07:46 PM #23
Re: R507 instead R404a?
HY.
I Prefer R 507 because, I ask you what hapen*t when you lose 20% of a charge R 404 a . Is the same when you lose 20%
of R 507.what* s your opinion.
-
09-12-2004, 09:39 PM #24
Occams Razor
Occams Razor
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony.
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
I picked up the definition from link above.
Marc, are there no limits to your knowledge and brilliance ????Any opinions, statements and facts expressed in this message do not constitute legal advice in any shape or form and is given for a general outlook in nature. You are advised to seek appropriate and specific professional assistance from a regulated and authorised advisor for definitive advice.
-
10-12-2004, 01:12 AM #25
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by Marc O'Brien
Rog
-
10-12-2004, 06:16 AM #26
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by Aiyub
Originally Posted by Aiyub
Your solution makes too much sense to actually be agreed to by any governing body I’ve ever heard of. I think it was only fear that motivated the world community to come together on this, and fear, while an effective motivator, does not care for fine distinctions.
Perhaps we could have made an exception for refrigeration use, but in one discussion I read in the early days of the debate, it was generally accepted that most refrigerant would eventually leak out, no matter how good the regulations and practices, since that’s what old systems do.
Besides, everyone thinks his use is critical and should be the exception. Emotionally we’re still children. “If I can’t have it then neither can you.”
Originally Posted by Aiyub
Originally Posted by Aiyub
RogLast edited by RogGoetsch; 10-12-2004 at 03:58 PM.
-
10-12-2004, 06:39 AM #27
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by chemi-cool
(Ozone depletion by chlorine is a theory, hence not provable, but possibly disprovable. Theories explain observable phenomena and allow us to make predictions. If a prediction fails, then the theory needs to be revised or discarded.)
Originally Posted by chemi-cool
RogLast edited by RogGoetsch; 10-12-2004 at 06:50 AM.
-
10-12-2004, 09:54 AM #28
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Rog
So at the end of it.............You back track and end up agreeing to everything I said...............So your argument was a total waste of
Y(our) time............
Sheesssh............whats the point ?????
In future Ill try avoiding talking to brick walls........Any opinions, statements and facts expressed in this message do not constitute legal advice in any shape or form and is given for a general outlook in nature. You are advised to seek appropriate and specific professional assistance from a regulated and authorised advisor for definitive advice.
-
10-12-2004, 10:32 AM #29
Re: R507 instead R404a?
[QUOTE=RogGoetsch]Chemi:
(Ozone depletion by chlorine is a theory, hence not provable, but possibly disprovable. Theories explain observable phenomena and allow us to make predictions. If a prediction fails, then the theory needs to be revised or discarded.)
Theory? more like fact mate. you never study chemisty? when you mix CFC's with O3, the chlorine in them strips away O1 molecules from the O3 one atom at a time. hence ozone depletion. unless you can prove me wrong?
-
10-12-2004, 01:15 PM #30
Re: R507 instead R404a?
So guys, it looks we will argue about the demage of refrigerants for many years to come or to be more presice, untill a new generation of techs, born after 1993 ( they are 11 now) wiil take the lead and r-12,22,502 will only be part of our history.
Theory? more like fact mate
But this is not the issue, it is the global worming.
And there, the only factor is MONEY!
I’ve heard you guys have WMD’s,
Chemi
-
10-12-2004, 01:16 PM #31
Re: R507 instead R404a?
So guys, it looks we will argue about the damage of refrigerants for many years to come or to be more precise, until a new generation of techs, born after 1993 ( they are 11 now) Will take the lead and r-12,22,502 will only be part of our history.
Theory? more like fact mate
But this is not the issue, it is the global worming.
And there, the only factor is MONEY!
I’ve heard you guys have WMD’s,
Chemi
-
10-12-2004, 02:15 PM #32
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Thanks Marc.
Chemi
-
10-12-2004, 03:55 PM #33
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by Aiyub
I also think it is a colossal waste of time and energy to bitch about it.
RogLast edited by RogGoetsch; 10-12-2004 at 04:41 PM.
-
10-12-2004, 04:05 PM #34
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by Thom101
Rog
-
10-12-2004, 04:40 PM #35
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Originally Posted by chemi-cool
After this election, WMD has become a mantra over here. “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” also known as “Weapons of Mass Distraction” to those of us who think our leadership may be not wanting us to look at their whole record.
Originally Posted by Marc O'Brien
Rog
-
04-01-2010, 01:07 AM #36
-
04-01-2010, 01:32 AM #37
Re: R507 instead R404a?
-
04-01-2010, 01:54 AM #38
Re: R507 instead R404a?
fair enough, just the "nazis" part of your phrases prompted me to ask even if in jest...anyway I'll leave the politics for another time, that problem I had with the phase change unit in another thread, I do have a relevant bit to ask in this thread, I was considering getting a danfoss compressor to replace it on ebay, especially if it goes for as little as it is currently going for...it's a SC12CL R404A/R507 whereas the one I have in the unit is the stock nf9fx danfoss that is in it that I suspect has issues...I may have it fixed anyway, but the sc12cl uses better coolant either 404 or 507 depending on if this person refilled it vs the 134a in my current unit, as well as a slightly bigger motor so I should get better temps overall...just wondering what your opinion is on this.
-
04-01-2010, 01:56 AM #39
Re: R507 instead R404a?
so in this case, it's not 507 vs 404, it's 134a vs 507/404 lol
-
03-03-2010, 02:41 PM #40
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Hi
I was searching for anything to re-charge my R-123a So I found Something Maybe It Will Be More Useful For Your Issue And
otherwise it helps me too
rizkbrothers.com/Arabic/products.php?tn=cHJvX3Byb2R1Y3Rz&for=Mzk%3D&main=0&sub=0&pro=39&lan=Ar
-
14-06-2010, 08:25 PM #41
-
20-07-2010, 04:56 AM #42
Re: R507 instead R404a?
please correct me if i'm wrong,
r507 and r404 is better for low temp applications than r22, my experience with r22 especially in our hot tropical climates is that the compressors bruns out faster than r404a/507 compressors,
but 1 thing why i like r507 more than r404a is when you have a leak, r507, you can just refill the syatem after fixing the leak while r404a, you will have to drain all refrigerants and refill it because if youjust add it, the blend will not be perfect anymore for r404a....
-
20-07-2010, 07:04 AM #43
-
21-07-2010, 05:20 AM #44
Re: R507 instead R404a?
On low temp R507 is better than R404a. It is considered azeotropic because it has a temperature glide less than one degree. Tests done on partially replacing the R404a system charge at various percentages with R507 show little or no decrease in efficiency and in some cases an increase. R507 can be vapour charged which can be an added advantage.R22 is not as good at low temp especially on systems with higher than normal return suction temps due too high discharge temperatures. R134a is the best option for medium temp refrigeration and R22 will soon be phased out in many countries that havent done so already. I agree with you on R507 Gary but strongly disagree on Tobacco. As an asthma sufferer whos Asthma is triggered by cigarette smoke, I dont believe that smokers have a right to give me an asthma attack.
-
21-07-2010, 08:58 AM #45
Re: R507 instead R404a?
It might interest you to know that I was an early advocate of non-smoker's rights. But somewhere along the way I realized that there was no quid pro quo, that non-smokers didn't give a damn about smoker's rights.
If non-smokers don't care about my rights, then why should I care about theirs? If they think it's okay to rob me, then why shouldn't I blow smoke in their faces and watch them choke? Seems fair to me. I'm choking on their taxes.Last edited by Gary; 21-07-2010 at 09:53 AM.
-
22-07-2010, 12:29 AM #46
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Interesting comparisions link below.
www.solvay-fluor.com/.../r507_in_comparison_to_r404a_and_practical_experiences.pdf -
-
22-07-2010, 02:40 AM #47
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Gary whilst I greatly respect your refrigeration opinion, I disagree with you on tobacco. In saying that I do agree that you have a right to commit suicide as quickly or as slowly as you wish,as long as you dont kill or injure others on your quest.but this is a refrigeration site so I will not continue a fruitless and pointless argument.
-
22-07-2010, 09:36 AM #48
Re: R507 instead R404a?
^ you just did
-
19-01-2011, 04:51 AM #49
Re: R507 instead R404a?
Have you tried R407A?
It's a proven replacement in exsiting R22 low and med temp refrigeration equipment. No equipment changes or mods. Does require at least 50% POE.
Copeland, Carlyle and Bitzer approved.
Walmart, Food Lion, Costco, and many others are using it in new equipment since it has a low GWP compared to R507 and R404a.
-
09-04-2011, 12:42 AM #50
R507 instead R404a
I would like to know if i can use the Microchip 25lc320 instead of the Atmel AT25320the datasheet looks like similary.Or maybe is there a equivalent by Microchipthank you
Similar Threads
-
R507 in an R134a compressor: any danger?
By DaBit in forum Technical SpeculationsReplies: 30Last Post: 21-12-2009, 12:44 AM -
capillary sizing for R404a
By ding in forum Technical SpeculationsReplies: 8Last Post: 19-03-2008, 07:27 PM -
piping selection for R404A
By drk_in in forum Tools and CalculatorsReplies: 5Last Post: 14-11-2005, 06:33 AM -
R507 in an R134a compressor: system design
By DaBit in forum Technical SpeculationsReplies: 17Last Post: 01-05-2003, 09:25 AM -
Effect on design evaporator by using R507 instead of R22
By lappee in forum RefrigerantsReplies: 2Last Post: 18-09-2001, 05:15 PM