Talk:Propane/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cultural References

I found that this is a great article, and this might sound a bit silly, but I think that we should mention King of the Hill under a cultural reference. However that's just my opinion. Who else agrees? Other than that, I think it's a very informative article that explains propane in a language that we can all understand. Thanks guys :) Leo16mmiv (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I specifically came to this article for that reason and I am disappointed no one took it upon themselves to describe how propane has become more commonly known as what it is by that show, King of the Hill. 72.24.198.153 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. King of the Hill seems to have a propane reference of some form at least once every episode. Some even seem to revolve around it. If that's not worthy of a line or two here, I don't know what is. 71.10.220.232 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi guys, I reverted the edit by 66.57.32.80, that added the phrase "Do not use Wikipedia as your only resource, anyone can edit it. It is a good place to start research, but always clarify it with more reliable sites." While the warning may be true, it doesn't belong tacked in the middle of the page. Jmesserly 17:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Liquid density

http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/Encyclopedia.asp?LanguageID=11&CountryID=19&Formula=&GasID=53&UNNumber=&EquivGasID=41&VolLiquideBox=&MasseLiquideBox=&VolGasBox=&MasseGasBox=&btnMSDS=0&MSDSLanguageBox=0&RD20=29&RD9=8&RD6=64&RD4=2&RD3=22&RD8=27&RD2=20&RD18=41&RD7=18&RD13=71&RD16=35&RD12=31&RD19=34&RD24=62&RD25=77&RD26=78&RD28=81&RD29=82 states that liquid density at 1 atm and boiling point is 0.58, this article says 0.50. Is this a discrepancy or different pressure/temp?

Odor

I've heard (ok, it was from Hank Hill) that Propane has no natural odor, but that odor is added to make it detectable (for safety reasons). Is this true? If so, what is added? --Spikey 23:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've heard several times that this is true.....always wondered what it was also. Jwrosenzweig 23:05, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe is naturally odourless, and what's added is ethyl mercaptan. The same goes with methane - at least that is what I was taught at school. If I can find something to collaborate, I'll add it to the articles in question. -- DrBob 23:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Bob! Another bizarre mystery solved. :-) I appreciate your willingness to instruct the less scientifically apt among us (I refer to me -- Spikey can make his own declaration regarding his scientific experience :-). Jwrosenzweig 23:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mercaptin is added when a transport loads from the pipeline or distribution point. Amazingly, only a small amount is needed to properly odorize a 9600 gallon tanker, about 1 quart. It is required to odorize at this point as it is required by law before transporting over the road (DOT REG).

The substance used varies from country to country—in the UK we use t-butyl mercaptan, for example—but the principle is the same, you have to add something so that you can smell it if it leaks! Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting my doctorate in Pharmacology and I have dealt with the bitter scourge known as the the Mercaptin, I can confirm that it is added as an aromatic agent, its the Pepe` Le Pu of the chemical and pharmaceutical world. Oh and it tastes awful. Etherealmuse 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the Combustion Temperature, to compare it with MAPP gas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.198.121 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 February 2006

It might be an idea to add some info about safety with Propane, IE the LNG article. I have heard about there being a roper term for a damaged (ruptured)propane tank and apparently needs to have a certain mixture of air and propane and that it is difficult to ignite, however, I'm not sure that is true.. Anyone have any info about this? Magu 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on "Fuels". Where did the last sentence come from? Quote" Additionally, most of the entire North American chemical industry uses propane to power their huge facilities that crack or distill industrial chemical products. 'unquote. I have spent over 30 years in the USA chemical industry. Rarely, if ever, have I seen Propane used as fuel for such. Maybe for small, remote locations, but not along the Gulf Coast nor NorthEast, where most chemicals are produced. So let's think about that sentence and see if it should be deleted.--Chris 10:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that King of the Hill seems real educational I tell you what. Elcaballooscuro (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Refrigerant

i cant see how the LPG can take as a refrigerant and what is the procedure for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.140.107 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 February 2007

• Propane, butane and other similar hydrocarbons have similar characteristics to R12, in that they will condense and evaporate under similar pressure and temperature conditions and absorb and emit heat in similar quantities in the process. Hence, nominally pure propane will operate at a higher head pressure (compressor output pressure) than R12 and get colder evaporator temperatures, while a 60/40 propane/butane blend will behave virtually identically to R12. --Athol Mullen 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

6.5 BILLION?

Might want to check the number of households - didn't planet Earth just recently go over 6 billion people? I don't think there's 6.5 billion households in USA and Mexico. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.208.189.150 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Dodgy Numbers

The statement under Uses that "6.5 billion American and mexican (sic) households use propane as their primary heating fuel" cannot possibly be right, can it? Unless someone has a sensible number available, I suggest this should be completely removed. CarbonUnit2 08:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Name Derivation?

Its name was derived from propionic acid.

I think that name is from normal naming convention. Prop means three carbons and -ane means only single bonds. 195.163.176.146 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of this the statement does not belong in the properties and reactions section; I've moved it to the history section, with the addition of the word originally. Even here I'm not sure if it is a bit misleading, so would welcome another opinion.PiFanatic (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Phase diagram?

It would be nice to have a phase diagram, since propane is so often stored pressurized as a liquid. —Ben FrantzDale 19:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Use in explosive devices?

Following the recent attempted bombings in the UK, where Propane tanks appear to have been a key ingredient; I was wondering if this article should discuss the (mis)use of propane as an explosive agent, as opposed to a fuel.

It certainly has been used in attacks, and some accounts exist of it being successfully used to create deadly explosions (http://www.emergency.com/frncboms.htm). But I have witnessed a propane tank rupturing when a catering van caught fire at an event. There was a fireball and the burning tank broke free of the area with considerable force and injured people in the crowd. But as I would expect there was no explosion, due to a lack of internal oxidiser..

Would a terrorist (or other criminal) use propane tanks for secondary effects (incendiary effect and sensation), rather than as a primary explosive. Or is it practical that it could make an effective thermobaric (fuel-air) device, this has been hinted at by media 'experts' discussing the London attacks. -- EasyTarget 15:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The amount of required heat and direct flame impingement sustained over a long enough period of time would allow a propane tank to become an explosive device. In short, propane tanks are poor tools for even a secondary explosive device. Propane tanks will rupture (or create an explosion if ignition is present) following either 1) internal pressure exceeds that of the discharge rate of the safety relief valve or 2) structural integrity of the vessel is compromised (usually by flame) to such an extent the welds give way. I'm of the opinion that propane tank explosions are far too uncommon to warrant recognition in this article. Propane tanks do not explode or rupture as easily as the public believes. Perhaps this explosive topic would be better suited for the BLEVE article. Mtt124 03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bottle size

The article text refers to "ubiquitous 5-gallon bottles" but I think this may be Euro-centric. In the US and Canada, 20 pound bottles (which may net to near 5 gallons - but they're never referred to as that here) are universal for use in/on recreational vehicles, barbeques, and large campstoves. Smaller (1-pound?) cylinders are typically sold in grocery and sporting goods stores for $3-5 and are the universal standard for small (tabletop) barbeques, camp lanterns, and hand-held welding/soldering torches.

Someone with experience on both sides of the Atlantic (or Pacific) would be ideal to sort this out.

BTW, in 2007, 20# cylinders are running about $USD 20, +/- $5, to refill - might be nice to add this information to the article.

Finally, I've removed the reference to the term "tarnatches" as a name for propane bottles. I think this is a joke, or at the very least an extremely local naming reference. A Google search for the term turns up *no* other references to that word, other than this Wikipedia article and its clones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.63.111.55 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 July 2007

External Links

I have created a website that is currently being used by several companies (for safety training) and state associations that explains propane in non-technical, simple to understand terms. It is safety centered with a focus on explaining somewhat technical subjects in easy to understand language. I believe it would be an excellent resource for visitors that are searching for propane information and aren't familiar with it. The site is Propane 101. I thought it would be a good external link for the Propane page. Thoughts? Mtt124 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, would be better if you use your site as citation. See WP:FN, to learn how to use references. Carlosguitar 02:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to help Carlos, but what do you suggest that I cite? I'd like to talk about useful propane information.Mtt124 01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a link that points to descriptive propane properties data. The page is a breakdown of individual properties with a description of how each characteristic affects the use and understanding of propane. Mtt124 15:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Potato Guns

I'm not sure that the propane article is much of a place for references to potato guns. I'd recommend deleting all hyperlinks to the potato gun article. Propane is recognized worldwide as an energy source for homes, industry, and vehicle use. Let's not dilute the focus of this article with the mention of potato guns. Staying focused on primary uses would be much more beneficial to readers. A potato gun editor also has placed an online Potato Gun store at the top of the external links section. Obviously a bit of self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtt124 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all references to potato guns. There is no place for potato guns within this article. I submit this artice maintains its focus on the primary and practical uses of propane as an alternative fuel. Mtt124 16:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with that, this is not the place for a canonical list of all propane uses. It makes me wonder about some of the other uses listed, in particular Paintball guns? Flamethrowers? and Pulse Jets? I'd be inclined to say that we either include all the minor uses we know (including potato guns) or none..

My suspicion is that we should jsut note something like "it is used as a convenient and portable propellant and energy source for many hobby and specialist applications; such as hot air ballooning, potato and paint ball guns and even some jet engines and pulsejets." or similar. EasyTarget 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although balloning may be appropriate for the article, I agree with the other uses you listed as not necessarily the place for these types of propane related applications (paintball, pulsejets, flamethrowers, etc.). If these are to be listed and we attempt to list all minor uses for propane, we might as well include things such as wart removal (I've frozen one off with a truck tank bleeder valve), inflating tires, burning wasp nests with propane weed burners and so on. If the article is to be useful for people that are sincerely looking for good, solid and practical information about propane then it needs to contain the information that will be useful to their purpose. These uses are not practical for this article. I've been in and around the propane industry for over 25 years and I've never had anybody come to my company seeking information about propane for their jetpulse engine, potato shooter or paintball gun. I think on topic and practical is more of the way to go. There is so much useful information that could be presented here about propane without cluttering it up with a bunch of insignificant little uses. Just my two cents. Mtt124 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the nonpractical/uncommon uses for propane. Hopefully, contributors will stay on topic.Mtt124 01:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE are relevant policies as well as WP:RS. Material that you would not expect to find in an encyclopedia, or an undue emphasis of a particular aspect of a topic, must be removed as well as unsourced content. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Engine Fuel

The reference to increased power due to a higher octane rating is inaccurate. Gasoline engine conversions to propane generally result in a loss of power (up to 10%). Mtt124 01:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed a bit about the higher octane rating of propane "result[ing] in more power, though exploiting this extra "octane" requires significant engine modification" as this is clearly untrue. As the Octane rating article correctly states, "It should be noted that octane rating does not relate to the energy content of the fuel (see heating value), nor the speed at which the flame initiated by the spark plug propagates across the cylinder. It is only a measure of the fuel's resistance to autoignition." Propane in fact has a lower BTU content than gasoline, with only ~91,600 Btu's/gal compared to the ~115,000 Btu's/gal of gasoline (actual Btu content of gasoline varies slightly between different blends and refineries)Andrewinalaska (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The octane rating itself doesn't improve the power, it's the extensive mods to the engine that provide the power. Typical engine compression ratios are around 8-9 to 1 and a propane engine has to be upped to closer to 12 to 1 to regain the power lost due to the lower Btu's. All the higher octane rating does is keep the engine from pinging (the fuel in the cylinder ignites in multiple places) and damaging itself.---TheDrew (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following content. It doesn't have a source and it isn't credible, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Propane can also be used as a supplement or "power adder" to diesel fueled engines. A typical diesel engine burns only about 75% of the fuel injected into each cylinder‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Injecting propane at approximately a 1:4 ratio into the diesels intake raises combustion efficiency to over 95%. The higher octane rating of propane slows down the combustion event, allowing more complete burning of the diesel fuel and consumption of propane in the process. The result is more power across the engines RPM range and an increase in fuel economy.

I agree with the removal of that. It's completely and utterly wrong. I also believe that the vehicle fuel section needs to be significantly rewritten and shortened, hopefully removing the USA-centric focus in the process. --Athol Mullen 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I hold that this information is in fact credible. Do a Google search for "propane injection" and you will find many commercial products on the market that do just this, as well as many accounts of DIY attempts. Some manufacturers of diesel propane-injection products that come to mind are Performance Diesel Inc., Advanced Turbo Systems, Bully Dog, and Superchips. Take a look and see what you think. This might deserve adding back into the article at some point with references.Andrewinalaska (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 issues here:

1. This is not where such information belongs. The section on use as an engine fuel is a summary pointing to the main article on that subject, autogas, which is where more detail belongs. There is a section within that article dealing with use in diesel engines.
2. The efficiency claims have never been reliably referenced as far as I can determine. No diesel engine ever achieves 95% efficiency. It may be intended to say that the diesel fuel is more completely burnt but that's not what the above statement says. In addition, there is the issue of valve overlap scavenging of diesels. I am aware of some attempts to put LPG into diesels that saw literally 50% of the LPG go straight out the exhaust due to cylinder scavenging that was intended to use excess intake air to flush the exhaust out of the cylinders. Advertising from companies selling equipment is unlikely to be sufficiently reliable for wikipedia purposes. --Athol Mullen (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Andrewinalaska on this one. I've seen dyno numbers on a regular diesel pickup truck (Ford F-350) before and after a propane injection kit was installed. Certainly some of the number claimed by the marketing droids are excessive but I saw a boost of 100-200hp on the dyno.---TheDrew (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the mention of HD5 grade propane should be mentioned as the primary specification for engine grade propane. Propane labeled as such can be processed to different grades but only the bill of lading specifies what grade is actually loaded at the refinery/gas processor. In my opinion, this is an important point due to the problems some propane fleets and vehicles in California have had...California is the only state to produce HD10 grade product (as approved by the state Govt.) on a statewide scale. Any thoughts? Mtt124 21:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

New image

[Image:Propane tank truck.JPG|thumb|Home-storage propane tanks being transported though Nevada.]] I added a new image. Comments? Feel free to remove it if you don't think it fits in here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It definitely fits here, and is a pretty good picture for getting the scale of the common house size. Plus, it is the only picture of that size tank on the page at the moment. What I think would be better is a selection of the different sizes of propane tanks, from small to that household size. Hustvedt (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

History

I will take on refining the propane history section. The data will be accurate, reliable and interesting. Any input is appreciated...before, during and after. Mtt124 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's important to note that the history of propane originates and stems from the origins of LP Gases. Reference to "LP Gas" and "LP Gases" instead of propane is due to the fact that both butane and propane were widely produced in early years and only in the past 15 or so years has propane been utilized in a much higher capacity than butane. Additionally, the early years of propane production (statistics) were not separated from that of butane. Mtt124 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty to added a few sources and edited this a little. Solidfacts (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Uses are trivia?

I don't really understand the trivia tag, while King of the hill references would clearly be trivia, the uses listed don't seem too out of line to me, the tag seems to be in response to the reference to theme park use, which does seem marginally useful, but at least it is under "Uses" (from; Wikipedia:Trivia_sections"Some facts may belong in existing sections") however I found the tag itself far more distracting, wouldn't just removing the offending content have been easier? from; Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps "If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it." 71.212.6.180 (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (who is not being bold 'cause he's chicken)

I've removed the tag, but I think the article would be improved by keeping only those items that are significant. Those "can be better presented elsewhere in the article, either by merging individual items into the existing article text, or by creating a new section and moving items there." As it stands, it is an inchoate conglomeration of unsourced facts with no coherence or apparent organization and an invitation to add references to King of the Hill, etc. Currently missing from the article is a section on the uses of propane as a chemical feedstock. Three of the list items could be expanded and incorporated into that section. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Boiling point

I can't help but notice that nowhere is the boiling point given. One would think it's a fairly important piece of data for such a common and important chemical compound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.6.243 (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. The supplementary data table does have a table of vapor pressure at various temperatures. The normal boiling point should be the vapor pressure at 760 mmHg, or –42.1 °C. --Itub (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Propane Tank Remainder Measurement

I did not want to just remove this immediately, since Leped did it rather well, but I think this section should be removed per: WP:NOT#HOWTO. Does anyone have any thoughts? should it be moved to wikiHow?

EasyTarget (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a wikiHow page with the same information. I'll leave it in this section as well and let the powers that be decide what should be done with it. Cheers

Leped (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an explanation of why weighing the tank is much more accurate than a pressure gauge instead of a detailed "how-to". A pressure gauge does more to measure the temperature (and therefore vapor pressure) of the propane in the tank. At a constant temperature it won't change until the liquid is gone. The liquid propane will cool durring use, so you may be fooled by a gauge reading. You can get a liquid crystal temperature strip that will show the location of the liquid/gas boundery in the tank due to the temperature difference, but that only works while gas is being drawn from the tank. On humid days condensation on the outside of the tank may show you the liquid level inside the tank. Ferritecore (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The example given involves only a DOT/ICC propane cylinder. An ASME propane tank would not be "weighable". Although the information provided is correct, it is restrictive in that it only pertains to propane bottles. Additionally, a bathroom scale is not certified by any state or Federal weights and measures authority leading some users to believe their tank is under or overfilled. Good information but not necessarily in the right place. My two cents worth. Mtt124 (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate for the article to mention that for small portable tanks changes in gross weight is a convenient and practical way to track content changes.-69.87.204.244 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much of the opinion that this entire section needs to be deleted. First of all, the "magnetic float" is primarily a subject of ASME propane tank face gauges (as an integral part of a float gauge). All other aside, the volume measurement of propane can be derived from the article without a "how-to" that mostly encompasses bbq grill tanks. Although the information is fairly accurate, I wonder as to its validity for this article. We are trying to stick to the topic of propane here, not the measurement of what's left of it in a cylinder. It follows an off topic tangent such as propane flame characteristics or legal propane appliance conversions, regardless of how accurate the information is. I suggest deleting. Mtt124 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cracking methane to propane???

The text says "LPG, when cracked from methane..." I'm no expert, but I thought cracking hydrocarbons only produced smaller molecules. Is "cracked" the wrong verb, or is methane the wrong source? Billgordon1099 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be polymerisation of methane, which is building of longer chains from shorter ones. The cracking comment in the sources section refers to cracking crude oil to make petrol, etc., although it incorrectly uses "petroleum" in reference to crude oil. --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Shock Sensitivity

According to a chemist friend, propane is shock sensitive and will decompose (i.e., explode rather than burn) in response to a hard knock. Should this be a concern for propane users? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)zbvhs

I'd be guessing that they were having a lend of you. If it was true, it wouldn't be used in internal combustion engines as it would pre-ignite badly. Propane is more resistant to pre-ignition than petrol... --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BTU inconsistent with HHV

When properly combusted, propane produces about 2,500 BTU per cubic foot of gas (91,600 BTU per liquid gallon). The gross heat of combustion of one normal cubic meter of propane is around 50 megajoules (≈13.8 kWh) or 50 MJ/m³ in SI units.

These figures do not add up for me: 2,500 BTU per cubic foot is (2500 * 35.31) 88,275 BTU per cubic metre. That is (88,275 * 1055) 93,130,125 Joules. HHV is claimed to be 50,000,000 Joules per cubic metre. Higher Heating Value shows HHV for propane is about 7% more than LHV which is 45.8 MJ/kg. Propane is 1.83 kg/m3, so one cubic metre of Propane should produce 1.83 * 45.8 MJ = 83,814,000 Joules (using LHV) or 89,487,000 Joules (using HHV). It looks like the HHV for a kilogram has been quoted and not a cubic metre. But I cannot verify this so I added a Fact tag. And what does properly combusted mean exactly? Is it the same as HHV? -84user (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"When properly combusted, propane produces about 93 kJ/L. The gross heat of combustion of one normal cubic meter of propane is around 50 megajoules (≈13.8 kWh), i.e. 50 kJ/L.[citation needed]" These numbers seem both imprecise and wrong to me. Firstly precision: since propane is bought as a liquid but burnt as a gas any references to a volume of propane (e.g. kJ/L) should state whether this is liquid propane or gaseous propane at a specified temperature and pressure. Secondly accuracy: The HHV quoted for propane on the Wikipedia HHV page is 48.9 MJ/kg (and other websites give similar figures). The density of liquid propane is 0.5kg/L so the energy density of liquid propane is 24.5 MJ/L. The density of gaseous propane is 0.0018kg/L so the energy density of gaseous propane is 0.089MJ/L or 89.5KJ/L —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.183.82 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be some variation in reported HHV, under 5%. Maybe this is explained by adulterants in commercial propane? I've changed the article to claim only two precise digits, and added the citation used in the HHV article (48.9 MJ/kg). Other possible sources include: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gross-net-heating-values-d_420.html#1 (50.4 MJ/kg), http://www.propane101.com/aboutpropane.htm (50.1 MJ/kg), and http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/10cfrAppGB430.htm (50.9 MJ/kg) --bergey 96.233.25.32 (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Propane Tanks

Much more info is needed about Propane Tanks: photos, sizes, typical uses, hazards, commerce, etc. Please add such to this article, or start another article and link from here.-69.87.204.244 (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

POV problem in refrigeration section

I note that user:Scheinwerfermann has recently edited the refrigeration section of the article, placing it squarely at the extreme anti-usage end of the scale, as is desired by some parts of the air conditioning industry who vehemently oppose the use of non-patentable hydrocarbon refrigerants. I don't have time to find suitable references to re-write this right now, but I will make a few notes in case someone else wants to do so.

• Hychill is the main distributor of hydrocarbon refrigerants that I'm aware of. I believe that BOC also distribute them.
• Hydrocarbon refrigerants are legal for use in automotive air conditioning in every state of Australia, although Queensland law requires the person doing the work to be licensed as an autogas installer.
• Extensive testing has been done, and statistics have been collected that show that explosion and fire from hydrocarbon refrigerants are statistically insignificant.

I've probably missed a few of the other points that I'm aware of, but the basic point is that this has been an ongoing argument within the air conditioning industry worldwide, and the current wording of the article represents the POV of one side of the argument. --Athol Mullen (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm...no, I did not introduce POV, I replaced wholly-unsupported POV material with well-supported factual assertions. Diff is here. If you have reliable support for your assertion that hydrocarbon refrigerants are legal in Australia, by all means please add that assertion and support to the article. I'm not sure what purpose you have in mind providing a link here to a vendor of hydrocarbons for automotive applications, but obviously any vendor is likely to have a strong bias in the claims they make, and for that reason it would be exceptionally difficult for such a vendor's literature or website to qualify as a reliable source. If, as you state, extensive testing has shown hydrocarbon refrigerants to be safe, then why do the many highly-reliable citations I provided supporting the opposite position from all over the world — including Australia — exist...? Can you provide reliable support for the assertions you're making here, or is this just your own interpretation of what you've read on the internet? Please let's keep it factual and avoid the baseless conspiracy theories implied by your "non patentable" remark; a quick bit of research — again, sticking to reliable sources — will demonstrate that the widely-circulated stories are quite spurious about refrigeration supercession due to patent expiry rather than environmental concerns. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've expanded the section, and added a great deal of reliable (i.e., non-vendor) support, to give a broader presentation of the issue and separate the motor vehicle and stationary refrigeration discussions from each other. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Propane is not a good, ie drop-in, replacement for either R12 or R22 refrigerants, due to difficulties in maintaining a cold deck temperature above 0°C. Additional equipment is required to prevent ice accumulation on evaporator coils. Such control equipment is available, but propane isn't quite the panacea that its proponents claim. Rejection of conspiricies does not mean that real, factual drawbacks should be ignored. Norm Reitzel (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1