R12 replacement air con

[69roadster Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close 69roadster]

Re: R12 replacement air con

If your theorizing is accurate, it must be evident by now in actual road statistics.

You are right. That is the question. You posted it but didn't provide any answers.
Please provide study results and the details of those studies. Just because you say there are a lot of cars running around out there with it means nothing.

I see. You work for a company that manufactures this stuff. Of course you will defend it and always make it appear that you have won the debate. But, you haven't posted anything in your posts that's any less than a theory than I have.

It's just common sense. Putting a flammable gas in an automotive a/c system where the condenser of that system is at the very front of an automobile, in a very vulnerable place in an impact, is not a good idea.
You can twist this any way you want (and you have done a good job of that) and it doesn't change that fact (sorry, theory).

[Captain Echidna Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Captain Echidna]

Re: R12 replacement air con

What are the statistics on car fires caused by flamable refrigerants?
If there are statistics, 69 Roadster, you should be able to provide them that demonstrate cars with flamable refrigerants are a higher risk. If you cant because there are no statistics, its because there is no noteworthy risk.
Knowing the dificulty of getting gas to ignite. (having a few LPG powered cars in my life) getting the stuff to ignite on a regular basis can be difficult, even with a spark plug and high voltage coils.
To get the gas to leak (easy), in the right ratio to ignite (it has about a 4% range of air:gas ratio to be flamable, very hard), followed by a spark at the right time.... If you can find ONE instance of a fire starting from refrigerant I would be surprised. I think the only time it would catch fire is if a fire is already established.

[Matt Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Matt]

Re: R12 replacement air con

In terms of flamability R134 burns too just at a higher temp and the byproduct is very nasty, I would prefer propane any day. I fully agree with the issue regarding big business, they have far too much sway and any system will be designed around the one they want, since they have the patent and the science and the money to put into it why shouldn't it? Well R12, R134 are very good reasons, one not as bad as the other to not belive any big company.

Just like biodiesel and the specifications here in Oz, the bar is set higher than that of the mineral fuel. Its all lopsided and truth suffers always.

I have not heard of issues with car fires and statistics lie just as well as any spin doctor makes them.

It is outside the cabin too so risk of frontal accident far outways the risk of 250 grams of gas.

I appreciate your position, I just believe that some big organisations cannot be trusted, sure there is risk, manage it and live with it, you do every day getting out of bed.

You are misguided. If you think the info in your post justifies the use of Propane in an auto A/C system you are mistaken.

H1234yf has not been totally approved yet and there are many hurdles for it go through as far a additional safety measures in the design of the a/c system itself to accommodate the fact that is acknowledged that it is what they call "minimally flammable". I'm talking EPA here. They are the ones ultimately control things. Plus, there are some states in the US that have their own laws that completely prohibit the use of any flammable refrigerant in an automobile. EPA will have to convince those states that H1234yf can be used safely before those states will change their laws.
We'll see.

What is being talked about in this thread is the usage of propane (that is HIGHLY flammable) in an existing a/c system with no additional safety features. This is way, different.

Also, btw, R134 will be manufactured for a long time to come for servicing existing systems as there will be no conversion process from R134 to H1234yf like there is for R12 to R134. There has been no date even talked about from EPA for R134a as far as the cease of production.

Edit:
I didn't mean to come of as an arrogant American by saying that EPA controls things. It's just that we buy so many cars of all makes here. And certainly all manufacturers have to take that into account if they want to ship here. And, I believe most do.

[johnnyhc Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close johnnyhc]

Re: R12 replacement air con

You are right. That is the question. You posted it but didn't provide any answers.
Please provide study results and the details of those studies. Just because you say there are a lot of cars running around out there with it means nothing.
.

Unless I have mistaken your challenge to me, you are asking me to provide studies showing that something (in this case, HC incidents) doesn't exist.

Such a request is a logical nonsense. No one can conclusively prove that something DOESNT exist. Please think your request through and reconsider.

On the contrary, the burden of proof with such questions must always run the other way - those that contend there is a safety defect trend must demonstrate that trend.

By all means have another go at suggesting by what means I should be required to prove the product is safe. I'm all ears.

The fluorocarbon industry keeps an eagle eye out for each and every hydrocarbon related incident. Every single incident even remotely related to hydrocarbons have been printed up in fluorocarbon industry propaganda outlets, without exception, across the entire history of debate. They even went nuts about one incident in New Zealand until the authorities announced it was an R134a fire.

For what it's worth, please consider this advice: Most assertions made by everyone carry some degree of vested interest or inherent bias. The way you carry on about my (clearly declared) vested interest and your implication that everything I say should be discounted would require that you must discount basically everything that is said and discussed on a daily basis (if you're going to be consistent). On the contrary, one of the best ways to separate truth from error is to seek information from both sides of the fence and identify what statements are commonly agreed upon, either implicitly or explicitly. That common ground has a much higher likelihood of being accurate. In this particular case you will find that both sides agree (my side explicitly, their side implicitly) that there are only a handful of HC-related incidents over 20 years, and the incident reports for those incidents make it quite clear that gross negligence is to blame rather than the product being unfit for purpose. This is a reasonably reliable process for truth discovery and the conclusions should be obvious.

I don't have any problem at all listing here on this forum every single HC-related incident that we are aware of. It is a very short list. Just say the word and I'll do it.

But I suspect that won't be enough for you because you will naturally reject my list out-of-hand because I have a vested interest. If that's the case, just say the word and I'll send you the contact details of any of a number of fluorocarbon propaganda organisations and you can ask them. Be my guest. They'll give you the same list complete with a whole lot of spin to misdirect that facts of each case. But most of the spin is pretty easy to see through. But wait a minute - you'll have to reject everything they say too, otherwise you'll be guilty of inconsistency, won't you?

Your final comment amounts to a suggestion that the 'precautionary principal' should be applied in this case. That line may have worked back in the early days before use was widespread and there was no real-world safety history to refer to. But those days are long gone. Any reasonable person should be willing to accept that 20 years of usage is a long enough period to reveal trends.

At root, your conclusion (in my analysis) is based upon on an incomplete and inexperienced understanding of the product compounded by an insufficiently detailed analysis of risks. You fail to even recognise that there are considerably more hazardous fluids located in prominent locations in the front half of the engine bay, instead you talk like having a flammable substance in the engine bay like it is something new to motor cars. That's all OK though. You're entitled to your opinion. It's your jumping on this forum and throwing around black-and-white simplistic analysis that I take issue with.

Of course I have a vested interest in the argument. However, the record shows I've fully identified myself and thereby declared my interest from the beginning. By the substance of your posts it seems plausible that you have more than just a passing awareness of AC systems and the AC industry, and yet you haven't even provided one jot of identifying information. Some readers of this thread might legitimately wonder what your connections to this subject are.

With respect, produce the evidence supporting your theories. If you still insist there is some way (other than proving the non-existence of something) that I can assist with demonstrating this then spell it out to me.

John Clark
Technical Advisor
HyChill

[smithw Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close smithw]

Re: R12 replacement air con

I have worked at a number of repair shops, and car fires are very rare, But I would say the number one non dileabrate cause would be parking in dry grass, the catalytic converter is very hot and can set stuff on fire very quickly, wiring faults and lose battery would be next, kids sticking coins or foil in the cigarette lighter, Plastic air filter also go up in older cars it they not fitted correctly or the car backfires, which can happen on lpg cars. I have also seen fuel lines drop off or leak, and a bic lighter which found its way into the heater core. the owner said it was like a shot gun going off but it didn't ignite. It maybe possible for the air con pump to run out of oil and get very hot and leak (which Ive seen) and maybe ignite the lpg, but its pretty unlikely and it such small amount of gas anyway. I would be more worried about the misses pulling of to the side of the road and parking in the grass to answer her phone, or the can of lawn mower petrol in the boot.

[69roadster Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close 69roadster]

Re: R12 replacement air con

Unless I have mistaken your challenge to me, you are asking me to provide studies showing that something (in this case, HC incidents) doesn't exist.

Well, that was pretty much the response from you I was expecting. Twisting and more twisting. Of course they don't exist, that was my point. Without statistics, you pretty much have to rely on common sense which you are not doing.

The point you have failed to acknowledge is the proximity of the flammable gas in an automotive A/C system. Of course there are other flammable gases and liquids in the engine compartment. However, they are near the middle of the engine. This is way different that putting it up front in the vulnerable area where the condenser is.

[Qwarla Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Qwarla]

Re: R12 replacement air con

Roadster it amazes me the way you are intent on flogging a dead horse.

You need to go find some facts first and stop basing your argument on hysteria.

On an episode of Myth Busters they explored the scene from a James Bond movie where he shoots a gas cylinder, which explodes and takes out the bad guys and he escapes.

Well the fact is LPG/propane is not like that and no matter what weapon the used to shoot the cylinder all that happened was the cylinder was punctured and the gas escaped.


NO FIRE!!!!!, NO EXPLOSION!!!!!!!

And exactly the same thing will happen to my condensor if I had a head on.

[69roadster Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close 69roadster]

Re: R12 replacement air con

Directly from EPA:

"It is illegal to use hydrocarbon refrigerants like HC-12a® and DURACOOL 12a® as substitutes for CFC-12 in automobile or truck air conditioning under any circumstances.How did EPA make this determination? The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to establish a program to review substitutes for ozone-depleting substances, including refrigerants. EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program carries out this mandate. Manufacturers of substitutes must submit information to EPA about the products, including ozone depletion potential, global warming potential, and toxicity and flammability data. EPA then compares these characteristics to both the refrigerant being replaced and the other available substitutes. Flammable refrigerants pose a special challenge, because air conditioning and refrigeration systems in the US have been designed to use nonflammable refrigerants. They are not designed to protect users, service technicians, and disposal personnel from the possibility of fire. Therefore, the use of flammable refrigerants in existing systems may pose a risk not found with nonflammable fluids. Although new systems may be designed to provide that protection, they are not specifically designed so today. Demonstrating that a flammable refrigerant can be used safely in current systems, whether existing or new, requires a comprehensive, detailed, scientifically valid risk assessment. EPA has required a risk assessment for flammable refrigerants since the inception of the SNAP program in 1994. An assessment must address potential leak scenarios such as collisions, servicing errors, and disposal procedures. In addition, it must consider ignition sources ranging from cigarette lighters or matches to sparks caused during a collision.
OZ Technology has submitted reports that it states demonstrate the safety of using OZ-12® and HC-12a® in systems not designed to use such flammable refrigerants. However, after careful review of each document, EPA determined that none of the reports represented valid a risk assessment. Until such assessments are performed, EPA believes that flammable refrigerants like HC-12a®, OZ-12® and DURACOOL 12a® may pose potential risks not present when using nonflammable refrigerants. For these reasons, EPA does not allow the use of HC-12a®, OZ-12® or DURACOOL 12a® as substitutes for CFC-12 outside of industrial process refrigeration."

Oh, you better see this too:
YouTube - ‪A video of a hydrocarbon refrigerant demonstration which wen‬‎

[Tony From West Oz Vice Chairperson of WARFA Find all posts View Profile Close Tony From West Oz]

Re: R12 replacement air con

I disagree that mixing propane and air inside a confined space, and when it is greater concentration than the LEL and less than the UEL, igniting it is a valid test to simulate a leak from an air conditioning evaporator.

Even more stupid to ignite it with a match while in that gas combination. What would have happened if he was inhaling at the moment of ignition - yup, burned lungs. This is not good science and could have caused the death of the "Volunteer"

To my knowledge, the only propane explosions in vehicles that have occurred in Australia in the last 20 years were due to propane cylinders being transported in the vehicle where they had faulty valves, leaking gas into the cabin. These explosions occurred when the drivers door was opened.

All vehicles which are manufactured or imported into Australia must have "flow through ventilation" which, if the vehicle was moving, would dilute any leaking refrigerant gas with excess air, preventing the concentration reaching the LEL. If the air conditioner was running, the evaporator is under little or no pressure, which would limit gas leakage under those circumstances.
I believe that if the leak occurred while the vehicle was not running and unattended, the only time that an explosion might occur would be when the door was opened, and the switch was exposed to an explosive gas mixture. The person opening the door may have limited flash burns, but would be more likely to injure themselves in recoiling from the explosion.

While the information you have supplied may be law in Your country, please do not try to impose your laws on the rest of the world. Apart from that, many people in your country are promoting the use of propane based refrigerants in vehicles.

Regards,
Tony

[johnnyhc Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close johnnyhc]

Re: R12 replacement air con

I've been asking nicely, but I think it's time to get more forceful.

It's time to come clean, 69roadster.

I'm asking you to come clean for two reasons now. My original reason was that I was suspicious at the depth and breadth of the typical alarmist straw-man arguments that you were throwing around... they sounded all too familiar to the f-gas lobbyists I've continually butted heads with over this past decade. The more you talk the more likely it seems. Either that or you're just some arm-chair amateur, armed with google and cut-n-paste skills, with too much time on your hands.

Now I have a second reason - your continual avoidance of my request to back up your theories with real-life examples (let alone trends) supporting your claim might reasonably be leading other readers of this thread to suspect that I might have planted YOU here to make an ass out of yourself, thereby creating a positive impression for hydrocarbons.

So fess up, dude. Who are you? Have you ever worked for a fluorocarbon manufacturer or any organisation funded by them? Have you ever worked for any refrigeration or air conditioning industry body?

Put a name to your claims or risk alienating yourself even further from your readers.

As regards this gem from you:

Oh, you better see this too:
YouTube - ‪A video of a hydrocarbon refrigerant demonstration which wen‬‎

69roadster, how about enlightening us with a detailed description of:
(a) The precise circumstances of this experiment
(b) The clearly stated aims of the experiment
(c) The relationship of this experiment to any real-world scenario
(d) The results and conclusions of the experiment.
Go on, enlighten us, and dig yourself in a deeper hole in the process. I'm waiting with baited breath....

For the sake of providing confidence to the readers of this forum, I will try to take time here and there to address the other matters raised by 69roadster in his previous posts, but I have real work to do at my day job and so as much as I'd like to rebut all of 69roadsters nonsense in as complete a manner as possible, my time has to be shared with other tasks.

Regards,

John W Clark
Technical Advisor
HyChill Australia Pty. Ltd.
85a Canterbury Rd, Kilsyth, Victoria, Australia
Freecall (aus): 1300 492 445 Ph: +61 3 97285055 Fax: +61 3 97618799
HyChill Refrigerants - Manufacturers of Hydrocarbon Refrigeration Gases, HC's, HR12, ER12 - CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs, hydroflurocarbons, R12, R22/502, R290, R600a, and R134a Replacements

[johnnyhc Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close johnnyhc]

Re: R12 replacement air con

69roadster, some of the stuff you come out with really makes me wonder... As I've already stated, sometimes some of the stuff you say makes me think your an f-gas industry shill. But other times you say stuff that not even they would. Like these:

Well, that was pretty much the response from you I was expecting. Twisting and more twisting. Of course they don't exist, that was my point. Without statistics, you pretty much have to rely on common sense which you are not doing.

Who's avoiding what? If you insist that I must show you that something doesn't exist, at least have the common courtesy to show me how I might go about proving that (and rewrite the rules of proof logic at the same time).

20 years of widespread HC use as a direct drop-in replacement for R12 and R134a with ZERO cabin fires IS a statistic. Just because the statistic has a value of ZERO doesn't mean it is does not convey statistical information. This is high-school level mathematics.

All you need to do is show me a trend of real-world cabin fires and you have me on a skewer. But you can't even show me one!

Then this one:

The point you have failed to acknowledge is the proximity of the flammable gas in an automotive A/C system. Of course there are other flammable gases and liquids in the engine compartment. However, they are near the middle of the engine. This is way different that putting it up front in the vulnerable area where the condenser is.

Your understanding of how this kind of flammable material burns and it's relationships to other risks in an engine bay is clearly lacking.

There are many ways to approach this matter. All of them will go a long way to exposing the lack of expertise that you clearly possess in assessing such failure modes, thereby reconciling your false assertion with reality. But none of them will convince you, I can be sure of that. Nevertheless, for the sake of the other forum readers, here goes some of the approaches:

1. Once again, look at the historical record. Has any fire authority in any jurisdiction in any country where HC's are used in significant quantities in MACS (that is, USA, Australia, North Africa, Asia) ever published any findings identifying a significant trend of "explosion-like" (as I believe 69roadster put it) incidents and the use of HC's in MACS? Answer: None.

2. Alternatively, consider more flammable substances in an engine bay and collisions which result in releases of those substances. Specifically, try regular petrol/gasoline and a side-on collision. Petrol/gasoline is a Class 3 flammable hazard, and hydrocarbon refrigerants are the (lower risk) Class 2. Many kinds of collisions can cause leaks of pressurised fuel lines. Petrol/gasoline being more likely to catch fire and having similar flame characteristics (except Petrol burns for a very long time, whereas HC's flash and extinguish in under approx 1 second, part of the reason why they are a lower hazard class). No doubt some fires do occur here. They are a small percentage of all collisions and not regarded by any road safety authority as an unmanageable issue.

3. Take a look at the situation through the eyes of someone who actually knows what they are talking about when it comes to light hydrocarbon flammability. Consider 69roadsters frontal collision scenario again. If the RAC lines are punctured and HC is inside, you will get a hissing release of gas and lubricant into the open air (and possibly onto hot surfaces). As real scientists (and even mythbusters!) will all agree, the act of puncturing the RAC system does NOT cause ignition (because there is no spark at the right time and not the right fuel/air mixture and not the right gas velocities). OK, so what about the release to open air... Well, lets imagine that some dastardly spark is lurking due to a loosened battery terminal or metal fanblade still spinning. Under that scenario there is some chance of ignition of the HC, but also the petrol (if fuel lines were involved in the accident). But for the HC to ignite, the spark must occur in precisely the right instant, in presence of precisely the right air/HC mixture, with the gas velocities within a specified limited range and with outside air currents quite still (not very likely in a collision scenario) to permit the HC to pool as a cloud and not be disbursed, and not too soon after the collision or gravity will disperse the HC below a flammable mixture. So, what about hot surfaces? Well, actually the lubricant (whether it is R134a or HC in the system) has a lower auto-ignition temperature than the HC refrigerant, so the oil vapour will likely ignite first, if at all. And it is the oil-vapour that will sustain a fire and cause continuing risk to (potentially unconscious) occupants.

So, in short, in the worst case an HC expert could not reasonably conclude anything more than a marginally higher risk of fire in a frontal collision for all the reasons mentioned above. If the fire was to occur, the HC's would be consumed in under 1 second and self extinguish in a NON-explosive "flash fire". If R134a were leaking out in the same scenario and there was a lubricant or fuel fire, then toxicity issues exist which do not when using HC's. The toxicity risk is even greater with HFO1234yf.

4. Don't believe me? Well, try GM. 69roadsters advice about HFO1234yf is old news. GM has already announced it will be using HFO1234yf in vehicles from 2013. See here:

General Motors to use new car refrigerant from 2013 | News | Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

These HFO1234yf cars will have condensers at the front of the engine bay just like any other car. That's right, a flammable (and highly toxic when combusted) refrigerant in the condenser.

So, there you have 4 different ways to look at it, 69roadster. No doubt you'll find all of them utterly flawed and meaningless.

To other forum readers: 69roadster has also mentioned the EPA various US laws etc. I hope to go into more detail later, but here's some thinking points for the readers on that subject:

Firstly, the EPA laws make fitting of HC's to R-12 based systems illegal, but it has no jurisdiction over fitting HC's to R134a systems and the latter is, in fact, legal under the EPA's laws. Why is this the case? Well, the f-gas lobbyists weren't at all happy with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ruling that found there was "no safety defect trend" using HC's in US car AC systems, and so failed to lobby the NHTSA to erect bans on HC's. Fearing that they'd actually have to compete with HC's in an open market, they scurried for other regulatory means to erect trade barriers to competition from HC's. They found they had influence at the US EPA and in some state legislatures. After the usual rounds of lobbying, fear mongering and "exploding car" video stunts, they secured bans against HC's in some US states and they got the EPA to use the regulatory power Congress gave it FOR THE PURPOSE OF MINIMISING RELEASE OF OZONE DEPLETING GASES (such as R-12) as a device to erect a trade barrier to the use of HC's. Because Congress didn't intend for the EPA to be a safety regulator (that was, and still is, the NHTSA's job), it only empowered the EPA to act on matters relating to R-12. So the EPA is powerless against retrofitting HC's to R134a systems (other than to spit fire and venom at anyone trying to do it). So the truth is, for the USA, that:
- Fitting HC's to R134a systems is legal, except for states where the f-gas lobby secured outright bans
- Fitting HC's to R12 systems that have first been legally retrofitted to R134a is also legal, except for states where the f-gas lobby secured outright bans.

Secondly, according to real-world MAC system sampling and analysis by the organisation MACS Worldwide (which, I might add, is staffed by people with ties to the f-gas industry and therefore is officially and strongly opposed to HC's), they found that (as at 2004) approximately 4 million vehicles contained HC's in their MACS and were silly enough to publish that fact. Secondly, again remember that the NHTSA has publicly denied any safety defect trend with HC's in MACS and has never recanted their view, nor issued a recall nor published any evidence suggesting they were wrong in their original view. In all matters of road safety it is the NHTSA which is finally and ultimately responsible. The EPA doesn't even have powers to issue recalls on road transport matters as far as I'm aware. In short, the EPA commandeered the matter of HC's at the f-gas industry's behest, to distort the purpose of the powers given to it by Congress and to act outside it's own mandate (who decided the EPA should now become a safety regulator?).

Lastly, I am advised that (just like here in Australia), the USA has consumer protection laws which, if there really was a safety defect trend with HC's in MACS, could be employed to sue-into-oblivion and shut down HC's suppliers supplying their refrigerants into the MACS market if they actually had a provable case. All they would need would be a trend of cabin fires or an extraordinary trend in engine bay fires. But in 20 years that has never occurred, and so neither have the lawsuits.

OK... that took much longer than I had budgeted for. I'll leave further responses until later.

Regards,

John W Clark
Technical Advisor
HyChill Australia

[PeterAC Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close PeterAC]

Re: R12 replacement air con

Hello,

Sorry I have not replied earlier to the use of HR12 in my merc but there is another problem with the system not related to the gas. Hence, I have not replied as I won't till the system is up and running to properly comment regarding the merc.

I do have a new tech question for John as everything else has been well answered to my satisfaction regarding explosive/fire risk. I was speaking to a auto air compressor repair technician regarding use of HR12/Minus 30. He said the usual scare info but also mentioned that HR12 does not circulate the lubricant well as the pressure in the system is a third of that used with 134a??? I look forward to your reply.

Please not that I do not believe everything that I hear i.e. biodiesel/veg oil and its effects on cars from engine destruction to flat tyres. What this forum does is debate and help others through sharing practical experiences and available knowledge.

Regards

Peter<><

[Qwarla Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Qwarla]

Re: R12 replacement air con

PeterAC, one thing to remember is that the high pressure in the system is only from the compressor to the expansion valve. After that it is low pressure.
In this high pressure section you have, firstly high pressure gas, then it is condensed to a high pressure liquid.

No matter what gas is in the system the compressor will pump the same volume.

When you have a gas at much higher pressure the flow rate of that gas will be slower as the gas is compressed to a much higher density.

Therfore with HC being at a lower pressure in the high pressure side the gas is not compressed to the same degree and will actually be flowing faster.

Also the fact that HC has been used for over 20 years should show that lubrication is not an issue, and remember the compressor is not working as hard as it would with R134A

[PeterAC Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close PeterAC]

Re: R12 replacement air con

Thanks Qwarla.

Can the system be over pressurised with HR12 to where it can be damaged. Or, how easy is it for someone to overpressurise the system with HR12?

Peter<><

[Qwarla Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Qwarla]

Re: R12 replacement air con

Thanks Qwarla.

Can the system be over pressurised with HR12 to where it can be damaged. Or, how easy is it for someone to overpressurise the system with HR12?

Peter<><

I'm wondering if you mean, "over charge the system".

The pressure in the system will only be high enough to make the gas condense to liquid form. The actual pressure is dependent on, the pressure and the temperature of the gas.

Over charging is another matter. That happens when too much gas is put into the system. If you are charging the system and not sure what you are doing you can over charge the system.