One for A/C guru's...

[kuehl]

Originally Posted by wwest

According to Kuehl instead of the cost and effort of replacing the old "non-barrier" hoses your money and/or time might be better spent

[/url]

Sorry dude. WRONG.
What we say is replace the hoses and add the low high pressure switch.

LOL Wwest, I don't mind your Plagiarism, however at least get it right.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by kuehl

Sorry dude. WRONG.
What we say is replace the hoses and add the low high pressure switch.

LOL Wwest, I don't mind your Plagiarism, however at least get it right.

Ignore the stuff that doesn't fit my conclusion, and make up stuff to support my conclusion.

Yup, the wwest way.

[kuehl]

[wwest]

Originally Posted by kuehl

Sorry dude. WRONG.
What we say is replace the hoses and add the low high pressure switch.

Yes, you did, have, but(***)

LOL Wwest, I don't mind your Plagiarism, however at least get it right.

Sorry, but your record SPEAKS for itself.

***You have also stated, perfectly logically and correctly, that for legacy systems that have a HPRV valve then the use of the binary pressure switch when switching over to R-134a is a requirement.

I have found HPRV valves currently available that have a "BO" setting of 450PSI. That means, obviously that even with R-12 The system components must be protected when or if pressures exceed 450 PSI.

Simply taking your own perfectly logical statement to a further logical conclusion???

R-12 non-barrier hoses were used throughout the industry, but seeming their intergrety against leadage was good all the way to 450PSI, or at worse, 350PSI. Plus the EPA has now gone on record stating that switching to R134 did not require "barrier" hoses after all.

[wwest]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

Ignore the stuff that doesn't fit my conclusion, and make up stuff to support my conclusion.

Yup, the wwest way.

"..make up stuff..."

You might want to check the truth of the statement before accusing me of making up stuff.