Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52

Thread: The Ozone Hole

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    378
    Post Likes
    R-22 is funny stuff, I have seen just sit in a puddle or a pipe when you think it should boiling or at least frosting the outside. You just might be able to fill a glass.
    I also remember asking why the heavy chlorine rises, was told gaseous molecules move at hundreds of meters per second, will go every where eventually. Stopped asking questions because a major part of my income came from supermarket refrigerant change-outs.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Artrose View Post
    I've been in this business a long time, and Ive asked this question repeatedly since the 90's. I thought Id ask it here. This is not a trick question, nor is it politically motivated. I'd simply like to find an honest, and accurate answer. I have opinion, but no real answer.

    Before the Montreal Protocol of 1987, Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), and Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants were widely used with very successful, and safe results, and the cost to produce and operate the equipment used by these inexpensive refrigerants was also very reasonable.

    Those refrigerants, and the equipment that used them, actually opened up areas of the world to habitation where climate was unacceptable for a majority of humans. As a matter of fact, those refrigerants were also so useful that they were often the propellent used in spray can products, used in the foam manufacturering process, and also used in a very wide variety of other applications including meat and produce preservation, on and on.

    Then, some scientists sounded an alarm, and announced to the world that there was this huge hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole in Antarctica. They offered science explaining how the chlorine in our CFC's and HCFC's were destroying the ozone layer. And why this was bad, and the consequences if we didn't immediately launch an effort to eliminate the use of these chemical substances.

    Shortly thereafter, World Representatives held the Montreal Meetings, and the world set out to eliminate those substances which, according to those scientists, were destroying the ozone. I have no argument with the chemical science that explains how ozone can be depleted in the atmosphere. I do question the validity of the argument that the US and other Countries in the Northern Hemisphere are responsible for an ozone hole over the Earth's Southern Pole.

    As we all know, the Earth rotates on it's tilted axis, and it travels around the Sun in a, more or less, circular orbit. Because of this unique rotation, we have unequal heating of the Earth's surface, which generates our seasons, and something we call the Coriolis Force, which affects everything from the water draining from your bath tub, to, most importantly for this discussion, the mixing of the Earth's atmosphere.

    Simply stated, because of the Corrilious Force, there is minimal mixing of the Atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere with the Atmosphere of the Southern Hemisphere.

    Since their invention, the vast majority of those CFC and HCFC refrigerants were produced, utilized, and released into the heavily Industrialized Northern Hemisphere of the Earth ....... Not the Southern Hemisphere.

    How is it possible that the huge ozone hole those scientists discovered over the South Pole was caused by CFC's and HCFC's from the Northern Hemisphere?

    Explain please.......
    Pollution from the northern hemisphere can and does make its way to the southern hemisphere. It is true that most of it won't make its way there but some will and does.

    I am not sure of any credible scientist claiming that the north is the cause or sole cause for the ozone hole in the southern hemisphere. You seem to think that the ozone layer was not thinning in the north also. The reason the southern hemisphere is impacted more is because of weather conditions above the Antarctic.

    As far as your comment here "Before the Montreal Protocol of 1987, Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), and Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants were widely used with very successful, and safe results,..." That is like me saying my uncle smoked cigarettes safely for 40 years before it killed him.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  3. Likes Bombboy90 liked this post.
  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by GenesisRefrig View Post
    Another question... We know that CFCs and HCFCs settle to the floor because they are heavier than air. How, then, do they get up into the ozone? I also remember hearing that 1 volcanic eruption spews more chlorine atoms into the atmosphere than we could produce in refrigerant in 20 years. Why dont they crack down on volcanoes?

    One word... Money
    Science often has very little or nothing to do with common sense.

    "Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it?"

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ocarbons-cfcs/
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    10,661
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    Science often has very little or nothing to do with common sense.

    "Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it?"

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ocarbons-cfcs/

    All the gasses that make up our atmosphere and some we've added have different weights. I haven't read your article yet but will.
    Gasses occupy a space as if they alone exist (Dalton's Law).
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    All the gasses that make up our atmosphere and some we've added have different weights. I haven't read your article yet but will.
    Gasses occupy a space as if they alone exist (Dalton's Law).
    Are you implying that Dalton's Law stops CFC's and other ozone depleting agents from rising in the atmosphere?
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    CHICAGO IL
    Posts
    1,410
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by R600a View Post
    Also there is naturally a "hole" in the ozone over the poles because ozone is produced by UV and the poles don't get as much direct radiation.

    Sent from the Okie state usin Tapatalk
    This would make good sense as the south pole receives the least amount of sunlight on earth. I always thought that due to the weight and properties of ozone that it would stay closer to the equator as the atmosphere rotates around the earth.
    " The more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know"

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    CHICAGO IL
    Posts
    1,410
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by GenesisRefrig View Post
    Another question... We know that CFCs and HCFCs settle to the floor because they are heavier than air. How, then, do they get up into the ozone? I also remember hearing that 1 volcanic eruption spews more chlorine atoms into the atmosphere than we could produce in refrigerant in 20 years. Why dont they crack down on volcanoes?

    One word... Money
    My other question is: why are we putting out warnings to stay inside due to the heave ozone concentration in large cities if we are truly burning up the ozone by releasing "huge" amounts of CFC's??
    " The more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know"

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    CHICAGO IL
    Posts
    1,410
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    Here's how it really went; college students got Federal grant money to study something; wow now they found a hole in the ozone, they have no history of how it got there or how long it has been there, soooo they make up a theory that matches their observation, (or they won't get paid).
    " The more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know"

  10. Likes ga-hvac-tech liked this post.
  11. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpdigger View Post
    Here's how it really went; college students got Federal grant money to study something; wow now they found a hole in the ozone, they have no history of how it got there or how long it has been there, soooo they make up a theory that matches their observation, (or they won't get paid).
    It is almost as though you don't know anybody in academia. That is not how professors get paid or students as you suggest.

    If you read the paper or the summary at least you would know that it was already being monitored.

    The scientists are acting on the data. That is what they do in general.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  12. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpdigger View Post
    This would make good sense as the south pole receives the least amount of sunlight on earth. I always thought that due to the weight and properties of ozone that it would stay closer to the equator as the atmosphere rotates around the earth.
    The ozone layer is typically thicker over the poles than over the equator for three reasons. First, there is a lack of sunlight during an arctic winter to break it down. ... Over the Arctic, at the deepest part of the "pool", the thicker stratosphere can hold more ozone than over the Tropics or middle latitudes.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  13. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpdigger View Post
    My other question is: why are we putting out warnings to stay inside due to the heave ozone concentration in large cities if we are truly burning up the ozone by releasing "huge" amounts of CFC's??
    Basically there is good and bad ozone. It depends on where it is and how it is produced.

    Would you like a more detailed explanation? Good and bad ozone "Googled" would probably give you that.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  14. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Oklahoma home its in the name
    Posts
    9,058
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    The ozone layer is typically thicker over the poles than over the equator for three reasons. First, there is a lack of sunlight during an arctic winter to break it down. ... Over the Arctic, at the deepest part of the "pool", the thicker stratosphere can hold more ozone than over the Tropics or middle latitudes.
    Isn't sunlight what makes it?

    Sent from the Okie state usin Tapatalk

  15. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by R600a View Post
    Isn't sunlight what makes it?

    Sent from the Okie state usin Tapatalk
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csl/assess...estions/Q4.pdf


    There is more to it than that.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  16. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    10,661
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    Are you implying that Dalton's Law stops CFC's and other ozone depleting agents from rising in the atmosphere?
    No, the opposite. Other gasses mix to their proportions even though they weigh different. The atmosphere is fairly stable at ground level but the phenomenon called atmospheric turbulence creates eddies that in a corkscrew motion draw everything upward. Pollutants and particles. Convection also plays a part like in smoke stacks.
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

  17. Likes pageyjim liked this post.
  18. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    14,672
    Post Likes
    Just to add little to the discussion and I asked this to the "experts" at a recovery seminar when this was all going down. It is the chlorine that is the problem so what about pool s and laundry matts as they always reek of chlorine. I was told that chlorine was heavier than air so it would never make it to the ozone. Go figure.

    More importantly to the discussion;

    As I recall when all this went down over half of the refrigerant was used as a blowing agent with NASA being one of the biggest consumers of it. The amount used as "refrigerant" was less than half consumed. When the word came down from on high it was that CFC and HCFCs had to go, yet there was never a requirement that leaks be found and repaired except on system holding over 50 LB and had a leak rate of a certain percent a year on commercial equipment. We had to catch what we could via recovery equipment and tanks but still never had to repair leaks. Even with the new refrigerant that did not change. I personally think it is wasteful to blow off lbs of refrigerant even if it does no harm to the environment however, why get rid of a perfectly good product when all that would have needed to be done was to require all leaks of 1 lb a year or more be repaired along with the recover/reclaim mandates. Had that been done there would be less refrigerant in the air now using the same equipment than all the hoops we have had to jump through for the last 30 years with more changes coming as they are looking to get rid of HFCs now. Don't kid yourself once all the natural refrigerants are in play something will be wrong with them and a new change will come.

  19. Likes R600a, stumpdigger, ga-hvac-tech liked this post.
  20. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    Just to add little to the discussion and I asked this to the "experts" at a recovery seminar when this was all going down. It is the chlorine that is the problem so what about pool s and laundry matts as they always reek of chlorine. I was told that chlorine was heavier than air so it would never make it to the ozone. Go figure.

    More importantly to the discussion;

    As I recall when all this went down over half of the refrigerant was used as a blowing agent with NASA being one of the biggest consumers of it. The amount used as "refrigerant" was less than half consumed. When the word came down from on high it was that CFC and HCFCs had to go, yet there was never a requirement that leaks be found and repaired except on system holding over 50 LB and had a leak rate of a certain percent a year on commercial equipment. We had to catch what we could via recovery equipment and tanks but still never had to repair leaks. Even with the new refrigerant that did not change. I personally think it is wasteful to blow off lbs of refrigerant even if it does no harm to the environment however, why get rid of a perfectly good product when all that would have needed to be done was to require all leaks of 1 lb a year or more be repaired along with the recover/reclaim mandates. Had that been done there would be less refrigerant in the air now using the same equipment than all the hoops we have had to jump through for the last 30 years with more changes coming as they are looking to get rid of HFCs now. Don't kid yourself once all the natural refrigerants are in play something will be wrong with them and a new change will come.

    My understanding from memory was that chlorine from pools was not a real issue not because of its weight but because it does not last long enough to make it up to the stratosphere. Where CFC's etc last long enough to make it up that far before it breaks down.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  21. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    14,672
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    My understanding from memory was that chlorine from pools was not a real issue not because of its weight but because it does not last long enough to make it up to the stratosphere. Where CFC's etc last long enough to make it up that far before it breaks down.
    Now that you say that it seems like it was the tight Hydrogen bond that wouldn't break down easily that made it the problem.

  22. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    6,070
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    Now that you say that it seems like it was the tight Hydrogen bond that wouldn't break down easily that made it the problem.
    I couldn't say with any authority.

    Curious if you could supply any documentation about NASA's use as you stated. I am sure they used it for a blowing agent and applied for waivers but have no idea as to how much was used.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  23. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    10,661
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpdigger View Post
    Here's how it really went; college students got Federal grant money to study something; wow now they found a hole in the ozone, they have no history of how it got there or how long it has been there, soooo they make up a theory that matches their observation, (or they won't get paid).
    There is a great NOVA show on PBS. If you have the app it maybe could be found. No students but some really good science. They had been watching the ozone for a long time.
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

  24. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    CHICAGO IL
    Posts
    1,410
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    Just to add little to the discussion and I asked this to the "experts" at a recovery seminar when this was all going down. It is the chlorine that is the problem so what about pool s and laundry matts as they always reek of chlorine. I was told that chlorine was heavier than air so it would never make it to the ozone. Go figure.

    More importantly to the discussion;

    As I recall when all this went down over half of the refrigerant was used as a blowing agent with NASA being one of the biggest consumers of it. The amount used as "refrigerant" was less than half consumed. When the word came down from on high it was that CFC and HCFCs had to go, yet there was never a requirement that leaks be found and repaired except on system holding over 50 LB and had a leak rate of a certain percent a year on commercial equipment. We had to catch what we could via recovery equipment and tanks but still never had to repair leaks. Even with the new refrigerant that did not change. I personally think it is wasteful to blow off lbs of refrigerant even if it does no harm to the environment however, why get rid of a perfectly good product when all that would have needed to be done was to require all leaks of 1 lb a year or more be repaired along with the recover/reclaim mandates. Had that been done there would be less refrigerant in the air now using the same equipment than all the hoops we have had to jump through for the last 30 years with more changes coming as they are looking to get rid of HFCs now. Don't kid yourself once all the natural refrigerants are in play something will be wrong with them and a new change will come.
    Also back in the day of the protocol the major contributors to CFC were circuit board manufacturers cleaning boards with R-11 and blowing the vapors straight up in the air. Next was the foam industry, either Styrofoam, foam rubber, or both. The HVAC industry has/ was never a great contributor to the problem, I think we got blamed for 3-4%.
    " The more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •