Talk:1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane

message: This stub says automotive applications began in 1995, however, my vehicle is a MY 1994, and uses R-134a. I'm pretty sure all American manufacturers started using it then.
:It was actually used as early as 1993 in some vehicles. It was not EPA required until 1995 model year. So, switching before 1995, they didn't have to rush it. :) I will fix it. --Phroziac (talk) 15:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
::This page needs to be expanded. So far, however, it is a decent article. --The1exile 21:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the page more and more.Stone 09:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Do we really need two, for smaller screens it would really crush the top layout. Advice anyone? --Ryan Jones 20:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that myself, but there isn't really any other way at the moment, other than removing one. I already removed the dupont can picture for this reason. When the article is longer, one picture could be moved down.--Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 images in table... 

message: It may be of interest to note that this is an example of a compound for which the non-systematic name:  tetrafluoroethane (without the numbers) is sufficient (but not an acceptable IUPAC name) to designate the structure, since there are no isomers (neither positional, nor stereoscopic).
:Wrong! 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane are isomers and different and have both the name tetrafluoroethane!--Stone 06:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it especially interesting that the compound has no entry at all in the 1989 Merck Index. Just goes to show ya what a huge market for something with so many potential unknown side effects can be created overnight by chicken little tactics! Zaphraud (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nomenclature|stereochemistry|3D image, etc. 

message: The article states "Contact of tetrafluoroethane with open flames or hot surfaces (in excess of around 120°F or 50°C) may cause vapor decomposition and the emission of toxic gases".  Is there a reference to support the 120°F hot surface claim?  It doesn't seem right to me since R134a refrigeration cycles routinely run at temperatures well in excess of 200°F without any refrigerant degradation.  As a point of reference, the DuPont MSDS, 
     http://msds.dupont.com/msds/pdfs/EN/PEN_09004a2f8000721c.pdf 
only says that decomposition will happen through "high temperatures (open flames or glowing metal)" and the Honeywell MSDS for Genetron 134aUV,
     http://www.honeywell.com/sites/sm/chemicals/genetron/
says it can happen at 250°C.  I'll revise the article to say 250°C unless someone can find a reference for a lower temperature.
Zugmeister 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decomposition at elevated temperatures? 

message: The GWP rating listed in the history subsection does not have a time associated with it. The link to GWP specifically states  that a GWP number is meaningless without a time frame. Any chance of correcting this?
The GWP rating in this article is also slightly different to the rating in the data page. The one on the data page does have a time associated with it though, so I would assume it is the more accurate value but this will have to be verified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.101.68 (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GWP Rating 

message: However, its gaseous form is denser than air, and will displace air in the lungs. This can result in asphyxiation if excessively inhaled.
I've seen this a few times before. It doesn't seem right that a gas could "settle" in the lungs in the manner proposed, not in a breathing subject anyway. I'd assume it was simply from displacement of oxygen, or perhaps breathing a settled escaped gas (for example in a basement). I don't have access to the references, so can anyone verify this? --Adx (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that it "settles" so much as it just takes up space that would otherwise be used for air. Even holding your breath or breathing the same bag over and over will have enough Oxygen and Co2 in it to keep your brain and your breathing reflex going but when you completely displace breathable air, co2 included, with another gas you wind up not triggering your breathing reflex. -Superslash  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.204.167 (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The same happens with bromine gas, when inhaled for humorous purposes (makes your voice lower), you literally must hang upside down for about 30 seconds to let the gas flow out of your lungs, even after a few seconds of screwing around with its voice effects you will feel light-headed and such (I have experienced it). 24.177.96.161 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bromine gas is extremely irritating, and you could DIE from doing what this moron claims to have done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

text: the denser than air stuff is crap. We'd all suffocate from excess CO2 if that played any role. Also the claim that asphyxiation causes most deaths is bullocks, it's sudden sniffing death, probably due to heart arrhythmias, more than 50% of cases involve propane. 84.197.184.6 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of asphyxiation? 

message: The boiling point is clearly listed in the infobox as -26.3°C, yet the caption of the photo says it boils at room temperature (68-72°F).  Under normal atmospheric pressure, this is not correct.  If the photo shows 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane under higher pressure than normal atmosphere, the caption should state so. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does boil at room temperature in the same sense that liquid nitrogen boils at room temperature. Perhaps it could be worded more clearly. --Itub (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boiling point 

message: I corrected the instances of the word "Tetrafluoroethane" to the unambiguous "1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane" to disambiguate it from the other isomer, 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane, aka R-134, which has different properties, is not a common refrigerant, and is toxic.
If you were reading an article about the 6th president of the US, it would probably be best to repeatedly refer to him as John Quincy Adams to disambiguate him from the other president named Adams. This is no different.--Bodybagger (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: except in an article about John Quincy Adams where the paragraph is clear about who is mentioned  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.249.142 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are two very different tetrafluoroethanes 

message: I work in air conditioning industry, and when R134a is boiled in -20 in-Hg vacuum the "ice" gets well below -35*F. That is the limit of the probes i have used to check the temp of the canisters before i disconnect them to allow them to warm to recover the rest of R134a.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.51.14 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boiling in a Vacuum 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://project-wp7.web.cern.ch/project-WP7/Documents/Roberto_IEEE2009
** In 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane on 2011-05-20 22:35:24, 404 Not Found
** In 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane on 2011-05-23 01:50:42, 404 Not Found
** In 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane on 2011-05-31 15:24:50, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.symp14.nist.gov/PDF/JOI11UST.PDF
** In 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane on 2011-05-20 22:35:24, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane on 2011-05-23 01:50:42, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane on 2011-05-31 15:25:00, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Please add more content about efforts to phase out R-134a. -96.233.22.219 (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  efforts to phase out R-134a 

message: Right now the article mentions
"The change from inert chlorofluorocarbon / Freon propellant to HFAs occurred in the late 1990s, and coincided with the fact that "Asthmatic athletes have consistently outperformed healthy athletes in every Olympic games since 2000"."
That has got to be bullshit. 96.125.201.255 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic performance ? Bullshit right ? 

message: The change from inert chlorofluorocarbon / Freon propellant to HFAs occurred in the late 1990s, and coincided with the fact that "Asthmatic athletes have consistently outperformed healthy athletes in every Olympic games since 2000".
 
I was unable to verify that the quoted sentence was indeed in the citation provided.  What I was able to read (the abstract) was far more subdued in tone, as one would expect from PMID. Nor was I able to find this sentence on Google, except as echoing from this instance. 
Furthermore, I can't even figure out what the sentence means.  That no non-asthmatic athlete outperformed an asthmatic athlete in any sport, in which both competed head to head?  
And why are non-asthmatic athletes referred to collectively as "healthy athletes"?  
Every Olympic games 'since' 2000 would presumably include 2000 (maybe), 2004, and 2008 for the summer Olympics, a few more for the winter Olympics, and if winter Olympics are included, that would add curlers (are curlers, too, abetted by ventilators?) 
The very language of the claim strikes me as bogus on many levels. If restored, please provide chapter and verse / page number and paragraph, and clarifying context as well, if possible. — MaxEnt 17:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious claim about asthmatic athletes redacted  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323165423/http://highenergy.physics.uiowa.edu/HEP/Files/Talks/RadHardPaper.pdf to http://highenergy.physics.uiowa.edu/HEP/Files/Talks/RadHardPaper.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013103053/http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20080135817/description.html to http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20080135817/description.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227134615/http://refrigerants.dupont.com/Suva/en_US/pdf/DP_HW_2nd_European_Workshop_MAC.pdf to http://refrigerants.dupont.com/Suva/en_US/pdf/DP_HW_2nd_European_Workshop_MAC.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030171837/http://www.r744.com/news/files/NILU-%20exec%20summary%20of%20annual%20report%202004.pdf to http://www.r744.com/news/files/NILU-%20exec%20summary%20of%20annual%20report%202004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This appears to be the same thing I have in "contact cleaner", and I suspect it would also be effective fire-fighting chemical.  139.138.6.121 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire fighting 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article says: gaseous form is denser than air and will displace air in the lungs.  Note that helium is lighter than air, and also displaces air in lungs. Gah4 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  lungs