Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 66

Thread: R22 Conversion

  1. #53
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    16,751
    Post Likes
    This is a wolverine:


    Name:  wolverine-crouching.jpg
Views: 182
Size:  84.3 KB


    Quote Originally Posted by Red Man View Post
    I have no idea what you're talking about. Sporlan uses wolverine gaskets on their solenoid valves now. It's a metal gasket, at least it feels like metal, so it doesn't leak. I think Alco still uses O rings, I can't remember.

  2. Likes Red Man liked this post
  3. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,276
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BBeerme View Post
    This is a wolverine:


    Name:  wolverine-crouching.jpg
Views: 182
Size:  84.3 KB
    Looks like you can get a lot of gaskets out of one wolverine... if you can catch it.

  4. Likes BBeerme liked this post
  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9
    Post Likes
    I'm not a big fan of MO99. For AC's, 407C seems to get the job done just file. For medium and low temp where 404a or 507 used to be the go-to refrigerants before the EPA said "no more", I am liking 407F. Discharge temps are higher than 404 or 507 (or 407A for that matter), but still lower than R-22. Capacity, efficiency, and mass flow are pretty good. I'd suggest retrofitting a system with 407F and evaluate it before making your final judgment. The only downside to 407F, which is shared by 407A, is that the oil has to be (mostly) replaced with POE.

  6. Likes Galt liked this post
  7. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wi
    Posts
    455
    Post Likes
    I would like more discussion on what you are replacing these leaking gaskets with .

  8. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,276
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Galt View Post
    I would like more discussion on what you are replacing these leaking gaskets with .
    Whatever the manufacturer sends. Why?

    You should replace them before they leak. It's not the new refrigerant or oil that makes them leak, it's the fact that they absorbed R22. When that R22 is removed, it causes them to leak.

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    10
    Post Likes
    I recently put nu22 in an old York RTU that lost its charge.Now the low pressure switch send a signal to the board to turn unit off.The system works fine if I jump out the low pressure switch.The problem also is the first 90 seconds after start up the pressures take a while to reach the 50 psi required for NU22 suction

  10. #59
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    849
    Post Likes
    First, sorry about the long post. Too much time on my hands, while listening the Giants lose a game (which they should have won) to the Diamondbacks.

    There is definitely a lot of misinformation regarding R-22 replacements.

    First, it should be noted that most of the R-22 replacements are NOT being used by OEMs for new equipment. This should be an indicator of what the industry thinks about which refrigerants are considered to be long term viable options. R-407A, R-407C, R-448A/R-449A, and to a lesser degree R-407F are the only R-22 replacements you'll see OEMs using.

    The first chart below shows the chemical composition of the various replacements that are available.

    Name:  Refrigerant Composition.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  93.5 KB

    They can be broken down into 3 groups:

    (1) HFC blends with a hydrocarbon component. HFCs are not miscible with mineral oil. While it's true that in some systems, with very simple piping arrangements (typically self contained package units), HFC systems will operate OK with mineral oil. But this goes against all compressor manufacturer's recommendations. There will likely be major oil return problems when the system has a receiver, and/or the piping is complex. The hydrocarbon component assists in the mineral oil returning to the compressor when used with an HFC.

    It is of interest to note that Copeland recommends POE to be used in refrigeration applications with HFC_Hydrocarbon blends when using their compressors. I personally worked with Wal*Mart when they were using R-422D (with mineral oil) as an R-22 replacement, and experienced oil logging in the glass door freezers. Copeland's recommendation was to add 5% to 10% POE to the mineral. It serves the same function as the hydrocarbon component, and alleviated the oil logging issues.

    Name:  Copeland Mineral Oil_POE.jpg
Views: 75
Size:  113.9 KB

    Many of the HFC blends with HC component have a capacity loss compared to R-22....some, a very significant capacity loss.

    (2) HFC blends without the hydrocarbon component. While some refrigerant manufacturers will advertise that their HFC (without HC component) can be used with mineral oil, there is really no scientific basis to substantiate this claim, as again...the HFCs are not miscible with mineral oil. But, in simple piping arrangements (self contained package units), you might be lucky enough to cheat the science and get away with it. I know several contractors who will add 5% to 10% POE to the mineral oil when doing an HFC (without HC component) retrofit, and this seems to alleviate the oil return issues (per Copelands suggestion above).

    (3) HFC-HFO blends. The main benefit here is that some portion of the R-134A (1300 GWP) component of the blend has been replaced with either Y-1234YF (4 GWP) and/or Y-1234ZF (6 GWP). There's no performance benefit from this component change...only a reduction in GWP. So, if you or your customer has GWP as their main driver in determining the R-22 replacement, then this might be your choice. All of these HFC-HFO blends are under patent, which means their distribution is more limited. Only Honeywell distributors will have R-448A, and only Chemours (DuPont) distributors will have R-449A. Also, being under patent, they will be more expensive.

    There is so much information available online about R-22 replacements, one should always do the research to verify if your supplier/salesman/manufacturer's rep is telling the truth, or bending the truth to get "the sale".

    Some of the important things to look into, when considering which replacement you should use, are:

    (1) Capacity vs R-22. Especially, if the system is barely holding temperature when using R-22, you don't want to choose a replacement that is going to result in a serious capacity loss.

    The charts below show some of the common R-22 replacements, and their capacity (vs R-22), mass flow (vs R-22) and efficiency (vs R-22).

    Name:  R-22 Replacements_MT.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  127.8 KB

    Name:  R-22 Replacements_LT.jpg
Views: 75
Size:  136.6 KB


    R-404A has great capacity compared to R-22 (in a MT application). But the 43% increase in mass flow guarantees a TEV replacement, and possibly a distributor nozzle replacement.

    R-407F has good capacity vs R-22. It is marketed as the R-22 replacement that most closely resembles R-22....for good and for bad. It has the highest discharge temperature of all of the R-22 replacements on the chart (including R-407A and R-407C). There will be times during the summer months when the demand cooling will be in use, which will require compressor capacity to operate. This is a negative hit on the overall capacity vs R-22 during that time of the year when you need all available capacity.

    The lower the SST, the greater the difference in capacity between a given blend and R-22 becomes. For example, R-417A has a 19% capacity loss vs R-22 in a MT application. That becomes a 28% capacity loss in a LT application. Really, neither of these applications are suitable for R-417A because of the great capacity loss.

    Some have reported satisfaction with R-438A as a replacement. However; in MT/LT applications, it will have a respective 10%/19% capacity loss. Again, if there's extra compressor capacity, maybe this isn't an issue. But one should know the facts before diving in.

    (2) Mass flow vs R-22. As the mass flow increases (vs R-22), eventually you reach a point where the R-22 TEV is no longer capable of providing the necessary capacity to meet the load demand. At this point, a TEV replacement is required. In some cases, a distributor nozzle replacement is required too. Not only does this make the conversion more complicated and more time consuming, it is more expensive for your customer.

    And, there's no rule of thumb as to what percentage increase in mass flow requirement of the replacement will require a TEV replacement. Why....cause it all depends on what TEV the original application engineer selected to be used with R-22. For example, in some Wal*Mart conversions I assisted with, there were some stores that had 2 ton valves in a particular model of dairy case, and others that had 3 ton valves in the same model of dairy case. And this is only one example. If the mass flow is of any significant increase compared to R-22, you really need to verify the capacity of the existing TEV with the new refrigerant....assuming can be a potential problem here. In addition, some of these R-22 replacement will require an R-404A TEV element...another thing to consider.

    Below is a chart that assumes the 10 ton R-22 AC application is undergoing a refrigerant conversion. There are several R-22 replacements listed, and each shows the capacity of the original 10 ton R-22 TEV with the potential R-22 replacement. R-407A and R-407C have similar mass flow requirements to R-22, and both utilize the R-22 element...so, the TEV will perform fine with both. All of the other refrigerants have a greater mass flow requirement than R-22, and will require a TEV replacement.

    R-434A utilizes an R-404A element. So, in addition to the existing R-22 TEV being seriously undersized, requiring replacement, the replacement TEV will need to be selected with the correct element.

    R-438A is an interesting situation. It's mass flow requirement is greater than R-22, but less than the other refrigerants listed. This is where it becomes important to not assume, and actually check the existing TEV, and see how the capacity changes with the new refrigerant. If the original application engineer had selected a 12 ton R-22 valve, it would have been slightly oversized, but still would have been able to accurately control superheat. But the 12 ton valve would have sufficient capacity to allow its use with R-438A.

    Name:  R-22 Replacements_TEV Capacity.jpg
Views: 75
Size:  66.1 KB

    (3) Efficiency. This may not be a really big deal in a smaller package unit, or smaller split system. In a multi-compressor supermarket application, this could amount to a significant increase in power consumption if a refrigerant with substantial efficiency loss is chosen.

    (4) Price and availability. Some of these blends have been out of patent for years (Such as R-407A and R-407C, which were introduced when R-502 was phased out). They are widely distributed, and very economically priced. Others blends which are still under patent (such as R-438A, or R0407F) are still under patent. They will not be as widely available, and will be more expensive.

    (5) It's always a good indicator to see what the industry is doing. The majority of supermarkets are using R-407A for conversions, and for new installations. There is some activity with R-448A, and a lesser amount of activity with R-449A. These are primarily GWP driven choices. There are only a handful of markets using R-407F. I know of no major supermarket chains that are using any of the other refrigerants listed on the chart above for conversions, or new stores. As such, Copeland and Carlyle have approved the use of their compressors for this small handful of refrigerants. Not to say that their compressors wouldn't work with the other refrigerants on the chart....but there's been no testing done by either compressor manufacturer, so you have no idea what the actual compressor capacity will be with the other replacement refrigerants.

    Regarding comfort cooling applications, R-407C seems to be the predominant choice. All of the major AC manufacturers (perhaps more so for the oversees market) are manufacturing R-407C equipment. Liebert has been using R-407C for years. There is certainly a smattering of other choices being used for comfort cooling conversions, but R-407C seems to be the majority choice.

    (6) Seals: The photo below is from a video that DuPont released several years ago. The elastomer seal on the right is brand new. The seal on the left is identical to the seal on the right, except it's been soaked in R-22 for 24 hours. As many have posted, R-22 causes elastomer seals to swell. Elastomer seals swell in the presence of other refrigerants too, but not as much as in chlorinated refrigerants such as R-22. So, when you remove the R-22, and replace it with a non-chlorinated refrigerant, essentially the elastomer seal will shrink.

    Name:  DuPont ElastomerTest_R-22.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  40.5 KB

    The swell issue is only part of the problem. The photo below compares a new O-Ring with an older O-Ring, which has been compressed, hardened from heat, and taken a set between the two mating seal surfaces, for in some cases years. Add the fact that the seal will "shrink" with the replacement refrigerant, and you have a good potential for a leak. There were several occasions when WM techs would come in the day after a conversion and find liquid dripping out of valves, due to this elastomer issue.

    Name:  Old_New O-Ring.jpg
Views: 78
Size:  32.2 KB

    There were some that had questions about the Sporlan solenoids with Wolverine gaskets (PS....loved the wolverine photos!).

    The older solenoid valves used a tetra-seal, which could be best described as an elastomer O-Ring with square sides. It fit into a groove in the brass bottom surface of the enclosing tube assembly that mates to the solenoid valve body. Between 1998 and 2001, all of their solenoid valves were upgraded to the Wolverine gasket...a rubberize metal gasket. Since they're not made of an elastomer, they will not suffer the same swell_shrink issue that elastomers will. Checking the valve's date code will verify whether the seal needs replacement or not.

    If it's an older version with the tetraseal, these seals are no longer available. But you can upgrade the valve to the Name:  Wolverine.jpg
Views: 72
Size:  11.8 KB style seal by replacing the existing enclosing tube assembly with a new enclosing tube assembly.


    Name:  TetraSeal_Wolverine.jpg
Views: 77
Size:  91.4 KB


    Finally, here's a current bulletin from Sporlan that shows the parts kits and gasket kits for various valves that should be reworked during a refrigerant conversion.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Southold, NY
    Posts
    14,551
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by bunny View Post
    First, sorry about the long post. Too much time on my hands, while listening the Giants lose a game (which they should have won) to the Diamondbacks.

    There is definitely a lot of misinformation regarding R-22 replacements.

    First, it should be noted that most of the R-22 replacements are NOT being used by OEMs for new equipment. This should be an indicator of what the industry thinks about which refrigerants are considered to be long term viable options. R-407A, R-407C, R-448A/R-449A, and to a lesser degree R-407F are the only R-22 replacements you'll see OEMs using.

    The first chart below shows the chemical composition of the various replacements that are available.

    Name:  Refrigerant Composition.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  93.5 KB

    They can be broken down into 3 groups:

    (1) HFC blends with a hydrocarbon component. HFCs are not miscible with mineral oil. While it's true that in some systems, with very simple piping arrangements (typically self contained package units), HFC systems will operate OK with mineral oil. But this goes against all compressor manufacturer's recommendations. There will likely be major oil return problems when the system has a receiver, and/or the piping is complex. The hydrocarbon component assists in the mineral oil returning to the compressor when used with an HFC.

    It is of interest to note that Copeland recommends POE to be used in refrigeration applications with HFC_Hydrocarbon blends when using their compressors. I personally worked with Wal*Mart when they were using R-422D (with mineral oil) as an R-22 replacement, and experienced oil logging in the glass door freezers. Copeland's recommendation was to add 5% to 10% POE to the mineral. It serves the same function as the hydrocarbon component, and alleviated the oil logging issues.

    Name:  Copeland Mineral Oil_POE.jpg
Views: 75
Size:  113.9 KB

    Many of the HFC blends with HC component have a capacity loss compared to R-22....some, a very significant capacity loss.

    (2) HFC blends without the hydrocarbon component. While some refrigerant manufacturers will advertise that their HFC (without HC component) can be used with mineral oil, there is really no scientific basis to substantiate this claim, as again...the HFCs are not miscible with mineral oil. But, in simple piping arrangements (self contained package units), you might be lucky enough to cheat the science and get away with it. I know several contractors who will add 5% to 10% POE to the mineral oil when doing an HFC (without HC component) retrofit, and this seems to alleviate the oil return issues (per Copelands suggestion above).

    (3) HFC-HFO blends. The main benefit here is that some portion of the R-134A (1300 GWP) component of the blend has been replaced with either Y-1234YF (4 GWP) and/or Y-1234ZF (6 GWP). There's no performance benefit from this component change...only a reduction in GWP. So, if you or your customer has GWP as their main driver in determining the R-22 replacement, then this might be your choice. All of these HFC-HFO blends are under patent, which means their distribution is more limited. Only Honeywell distributors will have R-448A, and only Chemours (DuPont) distributors will have R-449A. Also, being under patent, they will be more expensive.

    There is so much information available online about R-22 replacements, one should always do the research to verify if your supplier/salesman/manufacturer's rep is telling the truth, or bending the truth to get "the sale".

    Some of the important things to look into, when considering which replacement you should use, are:

    (1) Capacity vs R-22. Especially, if the system is barely holding temperature when using R-22, you don't want to choose a replacement that is going to result in a serious capacity loss.

    The charts below show some of the common R-22 replacements, and their capacity (vs R-22), mass flow (vs R-22) and efficiency (vs R-22).

    Name:  R-22 Replacements_MT.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  127.8 KB

    Name:  R-22 Replacements_LT.jpg
Views: 75
Size:  136.6 KB


    R-404A has great capacity compared to R-22 (in a MT application). But the 43% increase in mass flow guarantees a TEV replacement, and possibly a distributor nozzle replacement.

    R-407F has good capacity vs R-22. It is marketed as the R-22 replacement that most closely resembles R-22....for good and for bad. It has the highest discharge temperature of all of the R-22 replacements on the chart (including R-407A and R-407C). There will be times during the summer months when the demand cooling will be in use, which will require compressor capacity to operate. This is a negative hit on the overall capacity vs R-22 during that time of the year when you need all available capacity.

    The lower the SST, the greater the difference in capacity between a given blend and R-22 becomes. For example, R-417A has a 19% capacity loss vs R-22 in a MT application. That becomes a 28% capacity loss in a LT application. Really, neither of these applications are suitable for R-417A because of the great capacity loss.

    Some have reported satisfaction with R-438A as a replacement. However; in MT/LT applications, it will have a respective 10%/19% capacity loss. Again, if there's extra compressor capacity, maybe this isn't an issue. But one should know the facts before diving in.

    (2) Mass flow vs R-22. As the mass flow increases (vs R-22), eventually you reach a point where the R-22 TEV is no longer capable of providing the necessary capacity to meet the load demand. At this point, a TEV replacement is required. In some cases, a distributor nozzle replacement is required too. Not only does this make the conversion more complicated and more time consuming, it is more expensive for your customer.

    And, there's no rule of thumb as to what percentage increase in mass flow requirement of the replacement will require a TEV replacement. Why....cause it all depends on what TEV the original application engineer selected to be used with R-22. For example, in some Wal*Mart conversions I assisted with, there were some stores that had 2 ton valves in a particular model of dairy case, and others that had 3 ton valves in the same model of dairy case. And this is only one example. If the mass flow is of any significant increase compared to R-22, you really need to verify the capacity of the existing TEV with the new refrigerant....assuming can be a potential problem here. In addition, some of these R-22 replacement will require an R-404A TEV element...another thing to consider.

    Below is a chart that assumes the 10 ton R-22 AC application is undergoing a refrigerant conversion. There are several R-22 replacements listed, and each shows the capacity of the original 10 ton R-22 TEV with the potential R-22 replacement. R-407A and R-407C have similar mass flow requirements to R-22, and both utilize the R-22 element...so, the TEV will perform fine with both. All of the other refrigerants have a greater mass flow requirement than R-22, and will require a TEV replacement.

    R-434A utilizes an R-404A element. So, in addition to the existing R-22 TEV being seriously undersized, requiring replacement, the replacement TEV will need to be selected with the correct element.

    R-438A is an interesting situation. It's mass flow requirement is greater than R-22, but less than the other refrigerants listed. This is where it becomes important to not assume, and actually check the existing TEV, and see how the capacity changes with the new refrigerant. If the original application engineer had selected a 12 ton R-22 valve, it would have been slightly oversized, but still would have been able to accurately control superheat. But the 12 ton valve would have sufficient capacity to allow its use with R-438A.

    Name:  R-22 Replacements_TEV Capacity.jpg
Views: 75
Size:  66.1 KB

    (3) Efficiency. This may not be a really big deal in a smaller package unit, or smaller split system. In a multi-compressor supermarket application, this could amount to a significant increase in power consumption if a refrigerant with substantial efficiency loss is chosen.

    (4) Price and availability. Some of these blends have been out of patent for years (Such as R-407A and R-407C, which were introduced when R-502 was phased out). They are widely distributed, and very economically priced. Others blends which are still under patent (such as R-438A, or R0407F) are still under patent. They will not be as widely available, and will be more expensive.

    (5) It's always a good indicator to see what the industry is doing. The majority of supermarkets are using R-407A for conversions, and for new installations. There is some activity with R-448A, and a lesser amount of activity with R-449A. These are primarily GWP driven choices. There are only a handful of markets using R-407F. I know of no major supermarket chains that are using any of the other refrigerants listed on the chart above for conversions, or new stores. As such, Copeland and Carlyle have approved the use of their compressors for this small handful of refrigerants. Not to say that their compressors wouldn't work with the other refrigerants on the chart....but there's been no testing done by either compressor manufacturer, so you have no idea what the actual compressor capacity will be with the other replacement refrigerants.

    Regarding comfort cooling applications, R-407C seems to be the predominant choice. All of the major AC manufacturers (perhaps more so for the oversees market) are manufacturing R-407C equipment. Liebert has been using R-407C for years. There is certainly a smattering of other choices being used for comfort cooling conversions, but R-407C seems to be the majority choice.

    (6) Seals: The photo below is from a video that DuPont released several years ago. The elastomer seal on the right is brand new. The seal on the left is identical to the seal on the right, except it's been soaked in R-22 for 24 hours. As many have posted, R-22 causes elastomer seals to swell. Elastomer seals swell in the presence of other refrigerants too, but not as much as in chlorinated refrigerants such as R-22. So, when you remove the R-22, and replace it with a non-chlorinated refrigerant, essentially the elastomer seal will shrink.

    Name:  DuPont ElastomerTest_R-22.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  40.5 KB

    The swell issue is only part of the problem. The photo below compares a new O-Ring with an older O-Ring, which has been compressed, hardened from heat, and taken a set between the two mating seal surfaces, for in some cases years. Add the fact that the seal will "shrink" with the replacement refrigerant, and you have a good potential for a leak. There were several occasions when WM techs would come in the day after a conversion and find liquid dripping out of valves, due to this elastomer issue.

    Name:  Old_New O-Ring.jpg
Views: 78
Size:  32.2 KB

    There were some that had questions about the Sporlan solenoids with Wolverine gaskets (PS....loved the wolverine photos!).

    The older solenoid valves used a tetra-seal, which could be best described as an elastomer O-Ring with square sides. It fit into a groove in the brass bottom surface of the enclosing tube assembly that mates to the solenoid valve body. Between 1998 and 2001, all of their solenoid valves were upgraded to the Wolverine gasket...a rubberize metal gasket. Since they're not made of an elastomer, they will not suffer the same swell_shrink issue that elastomers will. Checking the valve's date code will verify whether the seal needs replacement or not.

    If it's an older version with the tetraseal, these seals are no longer available. But you can upgrade the valve to the Name:  Wolverine.jpg
Views: 72
Size:  11.8 KB style seal by replacing the existing enclosing tube assembly with a new enclosing tube assembly.


    Name:  TetraSeal_Wolverine.jpg
Views: 77
Size:  91.4 KB


    Finally, here's a current bulletin from Sporlan that shows the parts kits and gasket kits for various valves that should be reworked during a refrigerant conversion.
    That is one hell of a post.

  12. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Guayaquil, EC
    Posts
    13,165
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by bunny View Post
    First, sorry about the long post. Too much time on my hands, while listening the Giants lose a game (which they should have won) to the Diamondbacks...
    Thanks for an excellent post. Extremely valuable and informative. You certainly make good use of your spare time, bunny.
    If you haven't sold this to some trade publication yet, you should.

  13. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dearborn MI
    Posts
    337
    Post Likes
    Bunny,
    That was the most clear, concise, and written with COMMON SENSE answer to the R22 conversion problem that I have ever seen, and I thank you for it. As you probably know by now, my company remanufactures commercial A/C and refrigeration compressors and we field calls EVERY DAY from contractors wanting to know what we recommend as a replacement gas FOR OUR COMPRESSORS. The problem is that they aren't "our compressors", they are Carlyle's, Copeland's, etc. I am going to print out your very detailed tutorial (with your permission) and hand it out to every tech that comes in with changeout questions. From a practical side the only thing that I can ad is that POE is a great detergent and will clean out the system. Older systems that may have had a burned out compressor in the past are especially bad. We have gotten core returns back that have had the oil pick up screens clogged and collapsed because they were coated with contaminants that were dormant in the system until a refrigerant change with POE was done. In a case like that I think that a replaceable core suction filter is A MUST to keep the contaminants from ruining the compressor. Thanks again.

  14. #63
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    849
    Post Likes
    Reman....

    Feel free to share this with your customers. If our collective knowledge here can benefit those in the trade...that's great.

    Great point about the POE bringing all the contaminants back into circulation. Low Temp R-22 systems will have that potential issue too. It's definitely recommended to replace all of the filter-driers (liquid and suction), and the oil filter, and then return the next day to see if that perfectly clear oil has turned brown/black....and then continue to replace filter-driers and/or oil as needed, until the system is clean.

  15. #64
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    849
    Post Likes
    PS:

    Thanks for the kind words, guys. I've had a lot of great teachers over the course of years. The credit goes to them.

  16. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    The triangle in the Keystone
    Posts
    808
    Post Likes
    bunny,

    Amazing. Fantastic. Magnificent. I could give you ten more adjectives to describe your post and still they wouldn’t do it justice. Thank sir, as that may have been the best post I’ve ever read. I will also be printing that out and putting it up in the shop. And maybe hanging a copy on my bedroom wall like the sports car posters I used to have when I was a kid. I doubt the wife will share my sentiment hahaha.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor MagazineThe place where Electrical professionals meet.