Posted by Brad Herrick on September 27, 2001 at 14:45:43: via: or 64.50.21.211
In Reply to: Re: My take on that article. posted by Peter Coll on September 27, 2001 at 09:12:13:
Peter:
I did not "slam" you about the artice - in fact I gave your company full credit for your claimed detection capabilities. I do take issue with the catchall catagory of "HC's" when describing the contents of a system, since there are many hydrocarbons present. In the following statement however you do give me reason to believe that you want to help MACS gring the same axe...
"I answered the question and I get blasted for it. Neutronics has no position on the use of HC's in MVAC applications. It is a violation of Federal or State law. Get the law changed and then you will not have anything to complain about. People using blends and HC's is great for our business. We would like to see the fitting restrictions revoked if we were only interested in selling more product."
If in fact Neutronics has no position, you should have stopped right there. Instead, you go on to spread MACS position that any use of HC's in a vehicle is against the law, when in fact it is not. The federal law allows for the use of HC's in some situations. Stick to the facts! You say that the use of blends is great for your business - I suggest that you build a detector for the gasses in use today, including a unit that will accurately identify R600, and R290, both of which are legitimate referigerant gasses. Untill you quit lumping everything from coal tar to dimethyl ether into the same catagory I cannot accept your anaylsis as factual.
I bet you would like to see the fitting rules voided, it sure would sell a lot of detectors. I am sure that Neutronics builds a quality product, please stick to the facts when you represent them.