Talk:Chlorodifluoromethane

Chemicals: Core Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.

Occupational Safety and Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Does anybody know what this stuff should cost? Could be good information to add. I just paid about $240 US for 2 pounds of this stuff for my home AC unit. Seemed like a rip off. 75.75.98.217 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common practice for repair people to artificially inflate the cost of provided goods in order to cover the cost of the service call..

Cans of HFC 22 for use in air guns are NOT Chlorodifluoromethane!

Every single place I've seen selling it, the shipping weight is nowhere near what it ought to be if it were actually CClFCH, the shipping weight, that is, the product and the can its sealed in combined, is always between 1/3 and 2/3rds of what the weight of the CClF2H alone ought to weigh! Chances are whatever is in those cans is actually propane.

I am deeply disappointed to make this disclosure. I was really hoping that, perhaps, the 2nd amendment had provided some sort of loophole to bypass the draconian restrictions put in place by the EPA as a result of the Ozone Hoax. Not so. Instead, what we have here is a company called "Ho Feng Corp" portraying their product in an extremely dishonest manner in order to confuse those who might use canisters of propane that cost over ten times less than their branded "HFC 22"... Zaphraud 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does airsoft have to do with Chlorodifluoromethane? LethalReflex (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was thinking airguns used canisters of compressed CO2, nitrogen or just plain, well... air. But conspiracy wonks gonna wonk, I guess. 146.199.0.169 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R-502/R-409A?

According to List of refrigerants, R-502 and R-409A are mixtures which both contain Chlorodifluoromethane, one of them containing 60% of it. Wouldn't that make them also illegal under the Montreal Protocol, and therefore NOT a good substitute?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.96.159 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HCFC-22 corrosion potential with aluminum

Has anybody ever heard of experimentation/testing being run regarding the corrosive properties of HCFC-22 to aluminum (primarily 6061-T6). It looks like there is some sort of reactin to "Group 2 - Alkaline Earth metals but nothing specific to aluminum (understood that aluminum is composed of many of the alkaline earth metals). It would be nice to see a report done on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandcreature (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why R 22

why we call chlorodifluromethane as R 22. Please explain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pram3012 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already have data for 2014?

In the 'Price History and Availability' section, there's data for 2014. But it's 2013 now. How do we have next year's information?152.51.56.1 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this article named R-22?

The first sentence of the article states that the most common name is R-22 - which is true. Why are we using a less common name for the article title? This is a widely used refrigerant with a well known common name - the article name should probably be R-22. 72.88.81.122 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual to give chemicals their IUPAC name, that is the name that chemists call them. Note for example aluminium which has confused many people. Besides, R-22 isn't all that common, and less as it is phased out, so it won't be so commonly discussed. Gah4 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chlorodifluoromethane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Wow.... Usually these 30 pound cylinders cost about $90-120.00 Sounds like You just bought that guy 2 new 30 pound cylinders of r-22 :(

Last edited at 18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chlorodifluoromethane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for "MT"?

It seems a bit strange seeing the stockpile figure listed as "MT (metric tons)". There are a few things wrong with this and I hope it's just because the EPA chose to write it like that for a nonscientific US audience, rather than it being an invention of the article author.

For a start, if your units are clear and conventional, they shouldn't need subtitling - you don't see lbs or kg being subtitled (pounds) or (kilogrammes), and indeed I saw "Gg" (a rather odd, but valid SI combination, although you'd normally expect to see it written in terms of kg, maybe in standard form) either further up the article or the one I directly linked through to it from (R410a) without it needing a note of "(gigagrammes)". That it needs explaining suggests you know it's nonstandard to start with.

Secondly, the M could be easily mistaken as the "mega-" prefix, IE multiplying the given figure by 1 million; though "MT" would be a somewhat worrying "megatesla", thus a measure of a truly epic magnetic field, it could also be misread as "megatons" ... especially as that abbreviation, with various capitalisation, is routinely used for measuring the power of nuclear bomb blasts.

Thirdly, there's already a perfectly good symbol - "t", and name - "tonnes", for "metric ton". The latter term is a rather unscientific American colloquialism. At the very least you could write "metric tonnes", y'know? But all that's actually needed is replacing the MT and its subtitle with a simple lowercase t.

I'm going to change that now anyway, but I felt it bore some explanation in case someone thought it simple vandalism and blindly reverted it. We're covering a scientific subject, the units and symbols should be standard SI, which means g, kg, and t for measures of mass or weight. If you want to vary from that, go the whole hog and use pure "standard" units instead... thus, lbs, and short or long tons. If that means converting the units, it's not exactly a difficult thing to do - there's even the facility built into Windows Calculator nowadays. 146.199.0.169 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about kt in place of Gg, but all these units are funny. If kg is the base unit, the multiple should be Mkg. Gah4 (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

propane?

The article has a whole paragraph on propane as a refrigerant. It seems that this should actually go to the propane article, maybe with a mention or see also here. Gah4 (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]