Polarized Refrigerant Oil Additives 6

[rhpe]

I have ran across replacement refrig oil lubricants called Polarized Refrigerant Oil Additives (PROA). From the Federal Technology bulletins, the field data seems impressive, i.e., 10% savings or more and longer life of the compressor. It works by removing the sticking oil out of the loop and therby increasing heat transfer capabilities and reducing friction in the moveing parts of the compressor. In my research I have yet to run across anyone actually using the product, which is stange, given that the ROI should be very good.

Does anyone else have any experience here?

Thanks

 

[tomh747]

In the fall of 1998, we ran a test to evaluate a PROA named Frigaid at our hospital.
We chose two identical, 5 year old, 3/4 hp, walk-in cooler refrigeration units and installed two new kw meters on the condensing units. We then monitored both for 20 days, installed Frigaid in one, waited a week for it to completely circulate throughout the system, and then monitored both for another 20 days.
During the pre-test, the performance of both systems was very similar, with the Frigaid compressor being the more efficient of the two. As cooler fall weather arrived near the start of the post-test, both units ran more efficiently due to lower head pressures producing better compression ratios.
Following the introduction of Frigaid into the system, performance of the refrigeration system degraded significantly (a 34.45% efficiency drop) when compared with that of the other unit.
Then, six weeks after Frigaid was introduced into the system, a compressor rod bearing failed due to what appeared to be a lubrication problem.
Upon compressor inspection, the crankcase was found to contain a thick layer of sludge and blackened refrigeration oil. Additionally, the valve plate and reeds showed no evidence of copper-plating, liquid slugging or acid attack, suggesting that the failure was not due to chronic, long-term system problems.
Analysis of the oil and sludge samples showed abnormally high levels of metals as well as silicon, molybdenum, phosphorus, and zinc. I can only surmise that these must be derivatives of Frigaid or Frigaid’s reaction with oil, refrigerant, gasket, and/or other materials present within the system.
One of the basic principles taught at AC&R schools is that it is ill-advised to introduce any substance into a refrigeration system that the equipment manufacturer does not specifically provide or recommend for that system. Our “Frigaid test” has once more demonstrated the wisdom of that principle.
…And of course, upon receipt of the test results, the Frigaid salesman predictably stated that because certain variables were not taken in consideration, our test was flawed.

 

[rbfort]

This product is no longer manufactured. The company that made it was put out of business by the Enron collapse. Prior to that time, it was nearly impossible to sell in large quantity due the the "too good to be true" syndrome. Even though there was a very large amount of independent documentation, most engineers were unable to believe the claims. After Enron began to promote it to their customers. it had finally begun to have an impact in the marketplace.

As far as the comment that if it really worked why wouldn't the manufacturers already be using it in their new equipment goes, here is the answer. This product will not significantly reduce energy consumption in new equipment because its efficiency has not yet been degraded by any oil migration to the refrigerant side. In an older unit the major gain in reduced energy consumption was due to the removal of this old film. The dirtier the system, the larger the energy savings. Of course, if it was added to new equipment, this would prevent the slow, but certain degradation in efficiency due to oil migration that occurs in all equipment.

PROA would also significantly extend equipment life and reduce maintenance costs due to reduced heat and friction wear. This is one reason manufacturers would never be happy about including it in their new equipment. Anyone who doubts that this could be true is naive indeed!

Another reason for it not being included in OEM packages is that the federal energy efficiency regulations prohibit the use of any chemical additives. The bureaucrats, in their infinite wisdom, decided this would not be a desirable thing to do!

Since these chlorinated molecules are highly polarized, one end is embeded in the matrice between the metal molecules. This does two things. First the rate of heat transfer is greatly increased. Secondly, tramp oil can not adhere to any surface due to the polarity of the PROA molecules.

This technology was originally developed for HVAC equipment, and was later modified to be able to be used in internal combustion engines. It has NO resemblance to Slick50! Slick50 was a Teflon based product. The one aftermarket engine oil additive product that I am familiar with which uses the chlorinated process, and does work as advertised, is Prolong.

Unfortunately, when this technology first became available, a significant number of "snake oil" promoters jumped on the bandwagon. They did not understand how to properly manufacture the product and the results were to be expected. Some products actually caused equipment damage due to the creation of hydrochloric acid. The false promises and actual equipment damages by those trying to knock off the patented PROA made sales veru difficult indeed until Enron became involved.

Unfortunately, Ernron's collapse has deprived the HVAC world of a product that really did work as advertised! The owner of the patent has told me that the inventor of this technology had completed the major research on a revolutionary new method of preventing lubricated parts from ever coming in contact through the opposition of like magnetic forces. He said he had it secured in a bank vault in Houston, TX. He also claimed that he alone could never bring it to market. He claimed he would need the prestige of a major university or similar institution to successfully introduce it. I have no way to know if this is true or not, but suspect from my other dealings with him that he was telling me the truth. Let's hope it does see the light of day at some point in the near future.

 

[tomh747]

Ever wonder how those Polarized Refrigerant Oil Additive (PROA) (Frigaid, Proactq, etc salesmen “prove” that using their product produces a 20%, 30% or even 40% energy savings? --Let’s look at their math and see how it’s done:
The typical PROA sales approach is to get the potential customer to allow them to test their product on some well-used air conditioning or refrigeration unit. If the customer agrees, the first thing the salesman will do is perform a “pre-test” to establish “baseline” conditions. He will then inject some of the product and give it some time to circulate throughout the system. Then, usually a week or so later, he will return and run a “post-test”.
Now, here’s where they work their magic. Following the post-test, the salesman uses the pre-test and post-test DT’s to calculate a “correction factor”. The “average pre-test kWh” is then compared with the “average CORRECTED post-test kWh” to determine the percent efficiency improvement.
For the tests, the salesman usually takes (1) an indoor (dry bulb) temperature reading or thermostat setting, (2) an outdoor (dry bulb) temperature reading, and (3) compressor volts & amp readings. Then, to provide a “correction factor” for differences between pre-test and post-test conditions, he uses the formula “Q=h·A·DT, where ‘Q’ is total heat, ‘h’ is the heat transfer coefficient, ‘A’ is the surface area of the transfer medium, and ‘DT’ is the temperature difference across the transfer medium.”
As their literature* explains, “In the case of refrigeration, the Q, h, and A are basically constant regardless of the ambient temperatures outside the cooled areas. Therefore, in comparing the relative effect of a change in ambient temperatures, consideration of the temperature differences is essential.”
“As an example, assume the thermostat is set at 72 degrees F in an air-conditioned space and the ambient temperature is 90 degrees F, then the Delta T (DT) is 18 degrees F. Since the heat load (Q), the heat transfer coefficient (h), and the surface area of the walls and roof are basically constant, if the ambient temperature rises to 95 degrees F, the Delta T (DT) goes to 23 degrees F. Therefore, the heat load applied to the system is 28% higher than if the ambient temperature is 90 degrees F.”
“For this example, assume a thermostat setting of 72 degrees F, a pre-test temperature of 90 degrees F, and a post-test temperature of 95 degrees F. The correction factor would be calculated as follows:
| 1 |
|_______________________|
CF = | | (90 – 72) – (95 – 72) | |
| |__________________ |+1|
| | (90 – 72) | |

Correction Factor = 0.78 (or 0.7826)
This calculates the correction factor needed to bring the post-test to the same reference as the pre-test.” (Incidentally, you can get the same result by simply dividing 23 into 18.)
So, what’s really going on here? -- Why would this not provide an accurate method of adjusting for differences in compressor operating conditions?
First and foremost, remember that these are AIR CONDITIONING and REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS. The total heat formula, “QT = 4.5·cfm·Dh” provides a far more accurate statement of the heat transfer that takes place across an air conditioning or refrigeration system evaporator. Using this formula takes into account ALL the factors that make up the total heat load, because net refrigeration effect calculations must take into account both SENSIBLE and LATENT heat loads. Although the PROA salesman’s formula is useful in sizing heating systems, it simply does not apply here.
Also, note that because temperature differences between indoor and outdoor temperatures are being used in the above calculations, the “transfer medium” in the example is not a condenser or evaporator coil, but rather, the walls, floor, and ceiling of the space that is being cooled.
Now, for arguments sake, let’s say that the formula IS accurate and applicable. But, instead of adding any product or doing anything whatsoever to improve or change the unit, we run a pre-test and come back a week later and run a post-test. Let’s say the compressor pulled what amounts to 10.0 kWh during the pre-test with 72 degrees indoors and 90 degrees outdoors. Then, during the post-test, it was 72 degrees indoors and 95 degrees outdoors. Using their math, if the compressor pulls anything below 12.778 kWh, (12.778 kWh x 0.7826 correction factor = 10.0 kWh) we will have an energy savings… without doing anything to our system!
Thus, using only their math:
12.0 kWh = 6% energy savings
11.0 kWh = 14% energy savings
10.0 kWh = 22% energy savings
9.0 kWh = 30% energy savings
8.0 kWh = 37% energy savings
... and so forth.
To see just what kind of efficiency and improvements were possible using their math, I applied it to some actual test data derived from a walk-in cooler condensing unit test from several years ago. Using the test data, I paired readings from different days that had identical or close to the same run times. The walk-in cooler thermostat was set on 40 degrees F for the entire test, so the only significant variables were the kWh readings that were taken and the local daily mean temperature, which I obtained from the National Weather Service.
Using the difference between the daily mean temperature and the cooler thermostat setting to get the “Mean Temperature Difference”, I calculated a corresponding “Correction Factor” just as they do. A comparison of 14 sets of actual test readings yielded “efficiency improvements” as low as 3.0 % and as high as 129.8 %, with an average “efficiency improvement” of 42.1%. Eight out of the fourteen comparisons produced results in the 20% to 60% range.
Conclusion: whether you’ve modified a system or not, when you apply their math, claims of extraordinary efficiency improvements become possible. Without that advantage, you may see little or no improvement, or even a loss of efficiency. That’s because their calculations are erroneously based on the assumption that compressor energy consumption is linear and based entirely upon the dry-bulb temperature difference between indoor and outdoor temperature conditions… and that, as they say, is nothing more than “smoke and mirrors”.
-------------------------------------------------------
Source: Letter from MOLeTEC Corporation, to Whom It May Concern, dated January, 1995. MOLeTEC produces the PROA “Frigaid”.
Note: A copy of a test conducted on an ice machine at the Von Braun Civic Center in Huntsville, Alabama by PROATEQ revealed the use of the same “correction factor” calculation as MOLeTEC.

 

[Mono1]

One of my associates referred me here so, here is my situation.

We were approached by Compress Shield sales folks back in May and convinced to do a test. (They seem very knowledgeable, much like RBFORT above.)

Before agreeing to a test, I bounced the concept off a couple of engineer types that work in the field of thermal dynamics and another who is director of engineering at a major corporation in the southwest. Long story short, all agree in principal that using the polarized molecules to enlarge the internal surface area for heat transfer does not violate any known principles.
So I did it.

Our systems are older units and are maintained on an as needed basis. We have seen and continue to see a nominal decrease in running amps on the test units, but thats no big deal. What is a BIG DEAL is we believe we have seen a decrease in the run time on the compressors of about 13% and it appears we will see a reduction on KWH on the August bill that correlates nicely to the reduced runtime. All while maintaining a steady 78 F in our facility during July before the install and August after.

Big decision is to install the remaing 460 tons based on the first pair of 20s.

Would appreciate comments.

 

[IRstuff]

And what exactly are you comparing against? Do you have an identical system that simply got a clean oil change?

Months after the initial posting, there is still no true and unbiased testing data of the product. If it was, in fact, that good, it should be trivial to produce the side-by-side comparison against a similar system with a fresh charge of oil and the manufacturer should even offer to supply the oil change for free as part of their demonstration.

What exactly are you asking here? You've presumably read this and the other threads and comments pertaining to the subject. What more do you want? You need to make up your own mind about whether to believe that it's snake oil or not.

TTFN

 

[Mono1]

I don't know what I'm going to do, but I guess I was looking for some support and or encouragement. I think it makes sense that if I can save 10% to 15% on hvac operating cost by adding Compress Shield it doesn't make sense not to do it. Bet it's a whole lot cheaper than having all the oil changes done and waiting another few months to see what if anything happens. ( I'll check it out though thanks.) You know that turtle never would get no where if he didn't stick his neck out once in a while!

True enough our service company ain't to thrilled with the idea, but hell our rep thinks mobile one is snake oil too. Just proves growing up in middleville Lousiana limits some peoples horizons.

Guess we will roll them dice and see what happens. If we are still happy this time next year we'll be about 12 or 14 grand richer. We'll keep ya'll posted. Time to go to the camp!

 

[tomh747]

If you want to cut through the sales hype and get to the truth, then employ a scientific approach and install kWh meters on at least two identical units. That way, you will have something more than a quick amp reading or utility bill for the whole building to compare against.

Running comparison tests seems to be majority opinion stated above, and the last thing you want to base your decision upon is a couple of “snapshot” amp readings taken weeks apart under different conditions.

Adding product to only one unit while comparing weekly kWh readings on both units taken for several weeks both before and after the product is added will give you a true indication of just how effective the product really is.

Data we’ve collected at our site indicates that small changes in outdoor mean temperature can sometime produce very large changes in unit efficiency. This was very apparent in a condensing unit test of a 40 degree walk-in cooler several years ago. Nothing was done to this unit during the test – it was the “control” during the experiment – and the huge improvement in efficiency was due to lower outdoor ambient temperatures producing lower head pressures and compression ratios.

Test Avg. Mean Average Mean % Drop in
Period Temp. Watts/Hr. Temp.Drop Watts/Hour
09/10-09/30 77.5 569.7 0.0 0.0 %
10/01-10/08 71.7 171.2 -5.8 -70.0 %
10/09-10/28 61.3 163.8 -16.2 -71.2 %

As I recall, buying a couple of meters, waterproof enclosures with accessories, and having our electrician set them up cost us around $1500, so our test wasn’t cheap. But that was several years ago... since then, I’ve seen used kWh meters for sale on eBay and elsewhere on the net a lot cheaper.

Also, if the stuff REALLY works like he says, wouldn’t a good salesman be willing to reimburse you for some, if not all, of the costs of purchasing and installing a couple of kWh meters on two of your units?

 

[Mono1]

I appreciate the feed back, but I think our Chief Bean Counter has made our decision final. ( I don't have to roll them dice afterall!)
Just too damn much potential & no to much downside risk.

He made enough of them calls to "Satisfied Cusomers" and found them to be, well, damn satisfied. Bottom line is as he say, the bottom line is what counts.

Testing takes time and to them time is money and unrealized savings that got them delayed by more test.

Catch 22. If our utilities line improves he will be a hero. ( Salesman and beancounter.)

If it doesn't I'll still be here.

Maybe some of those folks I've talked to will offer their thoughts here.

Good Day.

 

[ClydeMule]

I have been following this thread since the beginning, and have some comments/questions:

1. Old Oil- From my experience, on a properly running refrigeration system, oil does not get old. Oil breaks down when discharge temperatures are too high, but this is a system design or maint. problem. If you have an R-22 system with let's say a 5 HP A/C scroll, and you run 0 F suction and 120 F condensing you are out of the compressor's operating envelope and it will die. How does PROA prevent this.

2. Trapped Oil-On a properly designed refrigeration system, that has proper refrigerant velocities to sweep the oil through the system, oil does not build up over time. On the very first time a system is run the oil is swept through the system, and coats the inside of the system heat transfer surfaces. If oil builds up in the evaporator, this is an indication of other problems. Insufficinet velocity from and oversized evap, high viscosity from running at low section temperatures, are not problems that can be solved by a polarized molecule. It may recuce slightly the velocity required to sweep the oil through, but I can't imagine that it would be by much.

I think a good place to test this stuff would be on a system like a market rack system, where the oil is separated and returned to the crankcase before the condenser. Then it's benefit would be limited to the compressor itself.

3. Suction/Condensing Temperatures: Has anybody recorded these values? If it really increases heat transfer, wouldn't suction pressure go up. SCT could go down or up, depending on how much more capacity was gained from the increased heat transfer.

My basic take on the stuff is that if it is a quality product manufactured as it was intended by the inventor, it probably has some benefit. But some hacks have gotten in there and made a cheap knockoff that destroys the name of the original and sound concept. I feel the same thing has happened with those magnetic water cleaner thingies.

Clyde

 

[energyside]

I have known about Frigi-Tech for a long time. I noticed on their website that they have testing done from Johnson Controls and such. I takled to this company and they are different than the others. Plus they have everything documented. We deal with Ammonia and this was presented to us as an alternative to Royal Purple's oil for Frick compressors. The web site is

http://www.frigi-tech.com

 

[lsn1]

This thread appeared very active for a while and then it went dead. Does anyone who was either testing PROA or planning on using it have any more recent information to add regarding its ability to save energy?