Yes, instead of mechanically compressing a refrigerant for cooling lets use a chemical refrigerator, they'll need recharging .You know DuPont created Freon because ammonia was unsafe as a refrigerant. Both Freon and R-134a are not toxic to humans but ammonia is. Butane is a carcinogen and just as bad.Judging from the schematics, it looks gravity head controls the pressure (since no energy input, has to come from somewhere), so car usage looks very impractical.
I think the idea is that the chemicals needed will be less harmful than freon, and since the design is mechanically simpler, it has less points of failure, ergo, less maintenance costs, less chance of gasses escaping, less parts to initially manufacture. Additionally, different chemicals might be more efficient than modern freon/compressor systems which would in fact be "greener".Either way, this is still just in the research phase and is all conjecture at this point.
Freon is not a greenhouse gas. Freon damages the ozone layer. Carbon dioxide doesn't harm the ozone layer any more than a hockey puck does. Totally different atmospheric problems.Buried.
actually, Freon is a brand name, like Band aid and Kleenex. What they should have been saying is Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and there are many variations depending on the which chlorine compound is used on number of Chlorine-Fluorine-Carbon atoms.
If there are still some people, who actually care about the Earth, then you should be producing your own renewable energy. It saves you money, and it saves our planet as well. Learn more about how to build a windmill here > <a class="user" href="http://makeyourownwindmill.net/">http://makeyourownwindmill.net/</a>
Closed AccountSep 21, 2008
Yes, instead of mechanically compressing a refrigerant for cooling lets use a chemical refrigerator, they'll need recharging .You know DuPont created Freon because ammonia was unsafe as a refrigerant. Both Freon and R-134a are not toxic to humans but ammonia is. Butane is a carcinogen and just as bad.Judging from the schematics, it looks gravity head controls the pressure (since no energy input, has to come from somewhere), so car usage looks very impractical.
burrgrinderSep 21, 2008
I think the idea is that the chemicals needed will be less harmful than freon, and since the design is mechanically simpler, it has less points of failure, ergo, less maintenance costs, less chance of gasses escaping, less parts to initially manufacture. Additionally, different chemicals might be more efficient than modern freon/compressor systems which would in fact be "greener".Either way, this is still just in the research phase and is all conjecture at this point.
adamk0310Sep 21, 2008
Freon is not a greenhouse gas. Freon damages the ozone layer. Carbon dioxide doesn't harm the ozone layer any more than a hockey puck does. Totally different atmospheric problems.Buried.
geologist62Sep 22, 2008
actually, Freon is a brand name, like Band aid and Kleenex. What they should have been saying is Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and there are many variations depending on the which chlorine compound is used on number of Chlorine-Fluorine-Carbon atoms.
jmiller29Sep 25, 2008
What happened to the sound wave fridge invented decades ago?<a class="user" href="http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2004/14171.html">http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2004/14171.html</a>
bl4ckmanJan 25, 2009
If there are still some people, who actually care about the Earth, then you should be producing your own renewable energy. It saves you money, and it saves our planet as well. Learn more about how to build a windmill here > <a class="user" href="http://makeyourownwindmill.net/">http://makeyourownwindmill.net/</a>