Fridge and freezer issues

[Fridge Defend]

Originally Posted by Shurik

I'm not sure if it was rebuild... This is 2017 Prowler TT, the sticker on the fridge is saying 2016. We bought this trailer two years ago.
It always took a few days to cool it down (after it was powered off), but it was working fine so far. Is it a normal behavior?

This is not "normal behavior".

From your photo, the fridge cooling unit leaked from either the filler valve or a weld on the filler valve.

There is not stress in this aria, so the issue is very unusual.

Now if the yellow powder was found on the boiler, this is the primary root cause of failure for these refrigerators. This is what our product fixes

[Sweetbriar]

Originally Posted by Old-Biscuit

Appears I am not alone...........

No you are not. It's not often I read thru all the postings of a long thread but this one is getting to be a very interesting and an educational read particularly with one of the participants on my ignore list. I might even mark this one for notifications when an update is posted just to stay informed.

[n2zon]

Indulging my curiosity, I went back to post #33 and grabbed some points from the FD marketing video:

- The quoted text from Good Sam Insurance is a bit selective. Omitted was their list of recommended risk mitigation actions, *none* of which include operation outside the manufacturer's specified static operating angles whether stationary or on the road. Here's their complete list:

"Also be sure to follow these basic guidelines:

" - Do not drive with your refrigerator running on the propane setting
" - Make sure your engine and any propane appliances are turned off before refueling
" - Be sure your oven or stove burners are completely off when not in use
" - Be certain that older propane tanks have an overfill protection device
" - Install a propane gas detector
" - Check exhaust and intake vents for any blockages"

Except the third, which has nothing to do with refrigerators, and the last, which is actually related to overheating fridge boilers, the remaining list items are focused entirely on propane safety.

The first item is sort of interesting. Usually, we run the fridge on the inverter when underway, as the alternator's big enough to keep the house batteries up, but I'll bet most here have broken that recommendation regularly for years without incident. We certainly did in the Southwind and the Winnie, neither of which had inverters.

I personally find none of this information pertinent when it comes to operating an RV in motion on a grade.

Then, there's the grade over Mountain Springs Pass.

The Mountain Directory West (2015, R&R Publishing) says, on p. 33, that the grade over Mountain Springs Pass is 6%. I won't dispute that Paul might have found a short stretch of road somewhere on I-8 that happens to exceed a 6% grade, but from the data in that book it was certainly not the prevailing slope in 2015. I'm no geologist, but I somehow doubt it's moved much since then. At 3.43 degrees, a 6% grade is above the static maximum operating angle specified by Norcold...but again, this is not a static environment unless you park on the grade.

The measurements are interesting. However, I didn't see the location of the measurement (perhaps I missed it?), and I suspect it varies quite a bit top to bottom. Notably absent is any before-and-after performance evaluation of the fridge or a teardown that might have revealed damage from the measured temperatures had the test been conducted with a new refrigerator after transiting I-8 one or more times. Even that Consumer Reports style of testing would represent a single data point, from which I, at least, would not generalize into a marketing claim saying that driving up slopes can cause fridge fires.

Were I to write marketing claims about Fridge Defend, I might say something like:

1. FD can help prevent absorption refrigerator cooling failures that result from cumulative overheating damage that can occur over time.
2. FD can help prevent fires caused by the failure of repeatedly overheated boilers in absorption refrigerators, particularly older ones that may have retrofitted high temperature limit switches which might not stop cooling unit damage from occurring.
3. FD will automatically restart the fridge when the boiler temperature drops after being turned off when FD shuts it down with the intent of mitigating or preventing boiler damage.

I suspect I'd stop there, but maybe that's the result of being, figuratively speaking, hit in the head repeatedly with 2x4's by corporate attorneys. I still think these value propositions are worthwhile selling points for some and that they still form the basis for a useful product.

My own interest in purchasing has waned, though, since I find in the service manual that our Norcold Model 1210's high temperature monitoring system (HTMS) cuts off cooling when it detects 378 degrees F measured at the lower part of the boiler next to the burner vs. FD's 165F at the (likely cooler, I suspect) upper part of the boiler. I'm sure both measurement points are probably fine. Norcold says the purpose of that HTMS is to "prevent damage to the cooling unit due to an overheating condition in the boiler." Our limit switch is manually resettable, which is less convenient than FD's automatic restart, but since it's never happened I'm not in a rush to buy something that will make life more convenient before it does happen.

[Fridge Defend]

Originally Posted by n2zon

Well, that's 5 minutes I'll never get back. There are at least two holes in that explanation.

First, what makes you think NH3 acts anything like an ideal gas? It does not. Not even close! The ideal gas law you are so fond of quoting is not particularly applicable to Ammonia vapor other than as a reference for describing what NH3 *does* do relative to the equation that describes how an ideal gas reacts to changes in pressure, volume, quantity, and temperature (PV=nRT). (For the curious, no, I didn't "leave out" "R." It's a constant.) See https://www.quora.com/Why-does-ammon...from-ideal-gas

The same goes for steam; it doesn't act like an ideal gas either. Measured pressure and temperature data is great, but you can't explain that data with the ideal gas law for either NH3 or H2O vapor alone, and certainly not for both together. Hydrogen, at least, is pretty close to an ideal gas.

Second is the real issue. I think everyone with any sense agrees that operating an absorption fridge at static angles beyond those specified by the manufacturer can (not "will") damage the fridge, depending on the controls installed by that manufacturer.

What you fail to address directly (sorry, the infomercials don't cut it) is the question of whether the dynamic competing accelerations that occur while underway can result in damage to a fridge that is installed in a vehicle that's in motion climbing a grade that exceeds the one or both of the maximum static operation angles specified by the manufacturer for some period of time. There are bumps in the road, the grades are not constant, the crosswind components of ambient winds move the RV around, and the camber of the road is not constant either. I'm sure you could find a less static operating environment if you really tried, but it's pretty dynamic as-is. None of these variables are accounted for in the video you point it. It's just more marketing.

Norcold's user manual for our fridge (a 1210) is specific about this, and says that while you must level the RV before using the fridge (so you are operating it within the specified static angles), its performance is not generally affected when traveling and the fridge happens not to be level for some period of time *while in motion*.

During my career I worked with a number of corporate lawyers on advertising claims. They worried a lot about liabilities and regulatory compliance. Most are so risk-averse it's a wonder they get out of bed. (This is not really a complaint or insult. They were doing their jobs, and they were *very* good at them.)

Were there any significant risk to operating outside the static angle limits while driving, you can be pretty darn sure Norcold's attorneys would make darn sure there was a warning in the manual. There is none. Even *hammers* come with warning labels these days...you think they'd leave out a critically important warning for a fridge? I do not.

I refuse to read or watch more advertising with half-baked "science." Pony up data from real-life dynamic testing that can be duplicated. Or, perhaps you should consider withdrawing your marketing claim that driving up a grade will damage a fridge and cause a fire until it can be supported by actual evidence.

1) “half-baked "science.”?

I would like to start by saying that we are here to help RV owners have a safe and enjoyable experience. Thus, I will stick to the science in order to engage like a gentleman that uses the scientific method to conduct empirical tests by which systematic observations lead to results.
You will note that I started at the end of your comments and am working forward as this is the best order of operations to answer your questions.

2) “Were there any significant risk to operating outside the static angle limits while driving”.

Our video found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYZFjqFT6g

This is driving up Mountain Springs Grade on I-8, I do not think, but cannot confirm that this grade is any steeper than 3 degrees.

3) “the question of whether the dynamic competing accelerations that occur while underway can result in damage to a fridge that is installed in a vehicle that's in motion climbing a grade that exceeds the one or both of the maximum static operation angles specified by the manufacturer for some period of time.”

Please see above answer, also, folks that operate their fridge are not getting out of there vehicle and measuring the angel of the grade, they just drive up the grade assuming that their appliances were made for travel.

4) “Second is the real issue. I think everyone with any sense agrees that operating an absorption fridge at static angles beyond those specified by the manufacturer can (not "will") damage the fridge, depending on the controls installed by that manufacturer.”

I am not sure this is the “real issue”, you state “everyone with any sense” and make the assumption that folks know better? Folks buy RVs to drive down the road, there are no “controls installed by that manufacturer” that prevent damage to the fridge, which leads to fires.

5) “it doesn't act like an ideal gas either. Measured pressure and temperature data is great, but you can't explain that data with the ideal gas law for either NH3 or H2O vapor alone, and certainly not for both together.”

I would like to point out that “ideal gas” is called the Ideal Gas Law.
I will use the definition of ‘ideal” that applies:

“one regarded as exemplifying an ideal and often taken as a model for imitation”


Now, the Ideal Gas Law:

“No gas is truly ideal, but the ideal gas law does provide a good approximation of real gas behavior under many conditions.”

Thus, we “Measured pressure and temperature data is great”, thank you – we stated in the video “This is a fact of science is based on the equation of state PV = nRT”. As you may be aware by the definitions above, no gas is truly ideal, but PV = nRT is a basis or good approximation.

I think you may be neglecting the fact that this is empirical real time data.
Restated, the curves you see are real time measurement of the parameters temperature and pressure.

6) “what makes you think NH3 acts anything like an ideal gas? It does not.” Did anyone say that it does? I will repeat: I think you may be neglecting the fact that this is empirical real time data.

As a side note, your analyses of PV = nRT neglects some very important facts.
V and R are considered constant for practical analysis.
The boiler temperature (T) is what varies the pressure (P).
This introduces the number of moles of substance in a gas state ‘n’, which varies depending on the state of the cooling unit.

7) “There are at least two holes in that explanation”, I found no holes. Can you elaborate on why one would want the water in the system to boil? The water boiling destroys the sodium chromate and stops the refrigeration process. Why would one want the heat to continue destroying the fridge?

Hopefully I have clarified things for you, I have no problems with a gentlemanly discussion on science. We are here to help

[Fridge Defend]

Originally Posted by n2zon

1) At 3.43 degrees, a 6% grade is above the static maximum operating angle specified by Norcold...but again, this is not a static environment unless you park on the grade.

2) The measurements are interesting. However, I didn't see the location of the measurement (perhaps I missed it?), and I suspect it varies quite a bit top to bottom.

3) Notably absent is any before-and-after performance evaluation of the fridge or a teardown that might have revealed damage from the measured temperatures had the test been conducted with a new refrigerator after transiting I-8 one or more times. Even that Consumer Reports style of testing would represent a single data point, from which I, at least, would not generalize into a marketing claim saying that driving up slopes can cause fridge fires.

4)

1. FD can help prevent absorption refrigerator cooling failures that result from cumulative overheating damage that can occur over time.
2. FD can help prevent fires caused by the failure of repeatedly overheated boilers in absorption refrigerators, particularly older ones that may have retrofitted high temperature limit switches which might not stop cooling unit damage from occurring.
3. FD will automatically restart the fridge when the boiler temperature drops after being turned off when FD shuts it down with the intent of mitigating or preventing boiler damage.


5) My own interest in purchasing has waned, though, since I find in the service manual that our Norcold Model 1210's high temperature monitoring system (HTMS) cuts off cooling when it detects 378 degrees F measured at the lower part of the boiler next to the burner

6) vs. FD's 165F at the (likely cooler, I suspect) upper part of the boiler.

7) I'm sure both measurement points are probably fine. Norcold says the purpose of that HTMS is to "prevent damage to the cooling unit due to an overheating condition in the boiler." Our limit switch is manually resettable, which is less convenient than FD's automatic restart, but since it's never happened I'm not in a rush to buy something that will make life more convenient before it does happen.

Thanks for your input, I will address what is written above:

1) The video you see is driving up the grade, as many folks do.

2) The location of the measurement is at the patented location of the Fridge Defend sensor. This is on the boiler of the fridge.

3) We have tested both Dometic and Norcold refrigerators on this grade. They all preform similarly, the fridge that this particular data set was collected from is a 22 year old RM3663 that will keep the freezer near zero and the fridge at 38F in 100 degree weather.

4) All true, thanks, but there is more, but this is a good start

5) Can you provide me published proof that "Norcold Model 1210's high temperature monitoring system (HTMS) cuts off cooling when it detects 378 degrees F measured at the lower part of the boiler next to the burner"?

6) This value is incorrect.

7) Please read the following quote from a Norcold letter to us:

"Norcold's Recall Kit 634737 functions only to address extremely limited, catastrophic conditions in which liquid is drained from the system (e.g. as a result of a leak)."

FYI: It is a leak that results in a fire.

Thanks for your input, we are here to break misconceptions regarding absorption refrigerators by application of the scientific method

[n2zon]

Originally Posted by Fridge Defend

1) “half-baked "science.”?

I would like to start by saying that we are here to help RV owners have a safe and enjoyable experience. Thus, I will stick to the science in order to engage like a gentleman that uses the scientific method to conduct empirical tests by which systematic observations lead to results.
You will note that I started at the end of your comments and am working forward as this is the best order of operations to answer your questions.

2) “Were there any significant risk to operating outside the static angle limits while driving”.

Our video found here:

This is driving up Mountain Springs Grade on I-8, I do not think, but cannot confirm that this grade is any steeper than 3 degrees.

3) “the question of whether the dynamic competing accelerations that occur while underway can result in damage to a fridge that is installed in a vehicle that's in motion climbing a grade that exceeds the one or both of the maximum static operation angles specified by the manufacturer for some period of time.”

Please see above answer, also, folks that operate their fridge are not getting out of there vehicle and measuring the angel of the grade, they just drive up the grade assuming that their appliances were made for travel.

4) “Second is the real issue. I think everyone with any sense agrees that operating an absorption fridge at static angles beyond those specified by the manufacturer can (not "will") damage the fridge, depending on the controls installed by that manufacturer.”

I am not sure this is the “real issue”, you state “everyone with any sense” and make the assumption that folks know better? Folks buy RVs to drive down the road, there are no “controls installed by that manufacturer” that prevent damage to the fridge, which leads to fires.

5) “it doesn't act like an ideal gas either. Measured pressure and temperature data is great, but you can't explain that data with the ideal gas law for either NH3 or H2O vapor alone, and certainly not for both together.”

I would like to point out that “ideal gas” is called the Ideal Gas Law.
I will use the definition of ‘ideal” that applies:

“one regarded as exemplifying an ideal and often taken as a model for imitation”


Now, the Ideal Gas Law:

“No gas is truly ideal, but the ideal gas law does provide a good approximation of real gas behavior under many conditions.”

Thus, we “Measured pressure and temperature data is great”, thank you – we stated in the video “This is a fact of science is based on the equation of state PV = nRT”. As you may be aware by the definitions above, no gas is truly ideal, but PV = nRT is a basis or good approximation.

I think you may be neglecting the fact that this is empirical real time data.
Restated, the curves you see are real time measurement of the parameters temperature and pressure.

6) “what makes you think NH3 acts anything like an ideal gas? It does not.” Did anyone say that it does? I will repeat: I think you may be neglecting the fact that this is empirical real time data.

As a side note, your analyses of PV = nRT neglects some very important facts.
V and R are considered constant for practical analysis.
The boiler temperature (T) is what varies the pressure (P).
This introduces the number of moles of substance in a gas state ‘n’, which varies depending on the state of the cooling unit.

7) “There are at least two holes in that explanation”, I found no holes. Can you elaborate on why one would want the water in the system to boil? The water boiling destroys the sodium chromate and stops the refrigeration process. Why would one want the heat to continue destroying the fridge?

Hopefully I have clarified things for you, I have no problems with a gentlemanly discussion on science. We are here to help

Sigh.

First, you again point back at the very same video I commented about. LOL! No matter how many times you point at it, it's still the same one. I certainly do not need to watch it again to gain a better understanding of the material it contains.

The video names the pass. The pass has a documented 6% grade. That is a grade that is greater than 3 degrees, and the video claims at least part of it is 8%, which is also greater than 3 degrees. There's a published book about western grades, which I cited. You disagreed without a contrary citation. Why?

If you don't have access to that book and don't want to buy it, you might try a Google search, which yields any number of sources that corroborate the 6% grade. Here is one of them: https://www.aaroads.com/california/i-008ed_ca.html So I also don't know why you say you cannot confirm the grade.

If you do not know how to calculate angle from percent grade, perhaps this will help you: https://www.calcunation.com/calculat...conversion.php

Also, watching that video *still* does not address the question about whether fridge damage results from climbing such a grade with an RV that remains in motion. It documents some measurements you took and draws what appear to be unsupported conclusions about them. Where is the evidence of the damage that resulted from that documented trip? Why won't you provide it?

The ideal gas law describes the behavior of a theoretical *gas.* First off, there is no such gas. There are gases that closely approach the behavior of an ideal gas, and gases that diverge substantially from the behavior of an ideal gas under different pressures and temperatures. As it happens, the ideal gas law provides reasonable congruity with the behavior of many real gases, which is handy. I use it often to mix gases for diving.

However, saying that *vapors* (which, as it happens, are not actually gases) with high degrees of divergence from it follow the ideal gas law is just nonsense. The gas law does not well describe the properties of the relevant vapors.

I'd sort of expect an engineer to understand this stuff...steam and ammonia vapors are *not* gases. They do not exist in "gas states." They change phase but not state. It's been a long time since freshman physics and chem, I'll admit, but not that long.

I think sensible people believe manufacturers who warn of damage from operating outside the envelope they specify. What they buy RVs for seems irrelevant to what we're discussing.

If you think no manufacturer currently installs controls designed to provide boiler damage resulting from overtemperature operation, I must conclude that you have not been paying attention to at least Norcold. Or, do you believe Norcold is lying when they say the high temperature monitoring system installed in their Model 1210 has, as its purpose, preventing damage to the cooling system due to an overheating condition in the boiler? Reference: Norcold Service Manual 121X Series Gas/Electric Refrigerators, Publication No. 630613B (08-10-07), p. 64, High Temperature Monitoring System.

This isn't exactly a new development, either. From the date on the manual, they've been doing this for at least 15 years next month.

I neither neglected nor disagreed with your real-time data collection. I merely observed that it can neither be explained using the ideal gas law nor demonstrates the boiler damage you inferred from it.

As I understand the operation of an absorption fridge, if the ammonia/water solution doesn't boil in the boiler it doesn't work.

I think I have sufficient clarity here, thanks.

[n2zon]

Originally Posted by Fridge Defend

Thanks for your input, I will address what is written above:

1) The video you see is driving up the grade, as many folks do.

2) The location of the measurement is at the patented location of the Fridge Defend sensor. This is on the boiler of the fridge.

3) We have tested both Dometic and Norcold refrigerators on this grade. They all preform similarly, the fridge that this particular data set was collected from is a 22 year old RM3663 that will keep the freezer near zero and the fridge at 38F in 100 degree weather.

4) All true, thanks, but there is more, but this is a good start

5) Can you provide me published proof that "Norcold Model 1210's high temperature monitoring system (HTMS) cuts off cooling when it detects 378 degrees F measured at the lower part of the boiler next to the burner"?

6) This value is incorrect.

7) Please read the following quote from a Norcold letter to us:

"Norcold's Recall Kit 634737 functions only to address extremely limited, catastrophic conditions in which liquid is drained from the system (e.g. as a result of a leak)."

FYI: It is a leak that results in a fire.

Thanks for your input, we are here to break misconceptions regarding absorption refrigerators by application of the scientific method

1. Having watched the video, I know what it shows, thanks.

2. You claim your patent protects an arbitrary temperature sensing location on another company's product? Hmmm...that would be an interesting standalone claim. Which claim is that in the text of US 8,056,360 B2? I only see it as an element of claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, not a separate claim. Do you have another patent that covers this separately?

3. The tested fridge was 22 years old. Representative of many still in service, I'm sure, but not necessarily representative of more recent models. Now, given that it was 22 years old, how can we know that age- or usage-related changes had not occurred that could have affected the measurements? How many other models were tested? Were any tested starting with new boilers at the beginning of the test, shut down immediately afterward, then torn down for inspection? If so, did they demonstrate damage from usage while driving up such a grade upon disassembly immediately afterward?

4. Grin. Not much more, IMO. Except I missed helping prevent food spoilage by automatically restarting the boiler.

5. As in a post above. Reference: Norcold Service Manual 121X Series Gas/Electric Refrigerators, Publication No. 630613B (08-10-07), p. 64, High Temperature Monitoring System. It's sort of interesting to see their engineers didn't put the sensor where FD does.

6. So I misremembered it (shrug). 217C/422.6F. I notice now that this value is somewhat *higher* than is used for Norcold's high-temperature limit switch.

7. Perhaps you meant to draw attention to just one particular sentence, but an awful lot of that letter's image is obscured, such as the date, and the recall number isn't visible in the letter either. It appears from NHTSA data that the most recent recalls were done 11 or so years ago for refrigerators that are now at least 12 years old. Here's the relevant text from the recall. It is worth mentioning that the NHSTA does not care about boiler damage, only about vehicle safety, so Norcold's additional design intent of preventing damage is not included in their text:

"The population of refrigerators affected by this recall contains either a sensing algorithm or a thermal switch to interrupt power to the refrigerator when it detects high temperatures that could lead to a fire. The population also includes refrigerators that have been previously recalled to be retrofitted with a thermal switch. The recall remedy is to affix a thermocouple, with a faster response time, to all refrigerators equipped with a sensing algorithm or a thermal switch."

Maybe I missed a more recent recall If so, please provide a link.

Also, the recall is meant to address the creation of conditions that can cause a leak that *might* result in a fire, not a leak that *will* result in a fire. If the leak occurs while the propane is off due to normal unit cycling or while the electric element is being used, a fire seems, um, "rather less likely."

Finally, it took longer than necessary to locate the NHTSA data because the recall number on your website is incorrect here: https://www.arprv.com/products.php

[n2zon]

Oops. I guess it has been "that long" since freshman physics and chem. Water does indeed change state and phase. My remaining comments stand, though.

[Fridge Defend]

Originally Posted by n2zon

1. Having watched the video, I know what it shows, thanks.

2. You claim your patent protects an arbitrary temperature sensing location on another company's product? Hmmm...that would be an interesting standalone claim. Which claim is that in the text of US 8,056,360 B2? I only see it as an element of claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, not a separate claim. Do you have another patent that covers this separately?

3. The tested fridge was 22 years old. Representative of many still in service, I'm sure, but not necessarily representative of more recent models. Now, given that it was 22 years old, how can we know that age- or usage-related changes had not occurred that could have affected the measurements? How many other models were tested? Were any tested starting with new boilers at the beginning of the test, shut down immediately afterward, then torn down for inspection? If so, did they demonstrate damage from usage while driving up such a grade upon disassembly immediately afterward?

4. Grin. Not much more, IMO. Except I missed helping prevent food spoilage by automatically restarting the boiler.

5. As in a post above. Reference: Norcold Service Manual 121X Series Gas/Electric Refrigerators, Publication No. 630613B (08-10-07), p. 64, High Temperature Monitoring System. It's sort of interesting to see their engineers didn't put the sensor where FD does.

6. So I misremembered it (shrug). 217C/422.6F. I notice now that this value is somewhat *higher* than is used for Norcold's high-temperature limit switch.

7. Perhaps you meant to draw attention to just one particular sentence, but an awful lot of that letter's image is obscured, such as the date, and the recall number isn't visible in the letter either. It appears from NHTSA data that the most recent recalls were done 11 or so years ago for refrigerators that are now at least 12 years old. Here's the relevant text from the recall. It is worth mentioning that the NHSTA does not care about boiler damage, only about vehicle safety, so Norcold's additional design intent of preventing damage is not included in their text:

"The population of refrigerators affected by this recall contains either a sensing algorithm or a thermal switch to interrupt power to the refrigerator when it detects high temperatures that could lead to a fire. The population also includes refrigerators that have been previously recalled to be retrofitted with a thermal switch. The recall remedy is to affix a thermocouple, with a faster response time, to all refrigerators equipped with a sensing algorithm or a thermal switch."

Maybe I missed a more recent recall If so, please provide a link.

Also, the recall is meant to address the creation of conditions that can cause a leak that *might* result in a fire, not a leak that *will* result in a fire. If the leak occurs while the propane is off due to normal unit cycling or while the electric element is being used, a fire seems, um, "rather less likely."

Finally, it took longer than necessary to locate the NHTSA data because the recall number on your website is incorrect here: https://www.arprv.com/products.php

Thanks for enumerating your response, so glad to clear things up for you:

"1. Having watched the video, I know what it shows, thanks."

Hum, what you see and what is gleaned from it may be two different things?

"2. You claim your patent protects an arbitrary temperature sensing location on another company's product? Hmmm...that would be an interesting standalone claim. Which claim is that in the text of US 8,056,360 B2? I only see it as an element of claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, not a separate claim. Do you have another patent that covers this separately?"

Can you clarify "stand alone claim" on another "company's product"?

Now you are a patent attorney?

"3. The tested fridge was 22 years old. Representative of many still in service, I'm sure, but not necessarily representative of more recent models. Now, given that it was 22 years old, how can we know that age- or usage-related changes had not occurred that could have affected the measurements? How many other models were tested? Were any tested starting with new boilers at the beginning of the test, shut down immediately afterward, then torn down for inspection? If so, did they demonstrate damage from usage while driving up such a grade upon disassembly immediately afterward?"

It is quite clear that you are trying to challenge me with your expertise.
What expertise other than posting on iRV2 do you have?

You must be aware that refrigerators do not remain new for the entire life of the fridge. One way to test the integrity of a fridge is its ability to cool the contents of the fridge.

"4. Grin. Not much more, IMO. Except I missed helping prevent food spoilage by automatically restarting the boiler."

I do not know what "IMO" is?
I am new to social media.

Gee, I always thought the function of an RV refrigerator was "helping prevent food spoilage", so thanks for the recommendation on the effective monitoring of the boiler temperature.

"5. As in a post above. Reference: Norcold Service Manual 121X Series Gas/Electric Refrigerators, Publication No. 630613B (08-10-07), p. 64, High Temperature Monitoring System. It's sort of interesting to see their engineers didn't put the sensor where FD does."

This did not answer my question, I asked about the temperatures at which you claim that the Norcold recall takes action to control the boiler temperature?

Can you tell me what is interesting about where Norcold put their temperature sensor versus the Fridge Defend temperature sensor?

6. So I misremembered it (shrug). 217C/422.6F. I notice now that this value is somewhat *higher* than is used for Norcold's high-temperature limit switch.

Yes, you may have self admittedly "misremembered it", I will research your claim of "217C/422.6F" for the Norcold control? It is ironic that you are quoting the same temperature that our control will take action depending on its setting.

Can you please clarify, are you saying that the Norcold control turns off the heat at the same temperature as the Fridge Defend?

You need to clearly publish the value that you read from the Norcold documentation, while providing reference to this document, along with the accurate temperature at which the Norcold recall controls the temperature of the boiler. Otherwise this could be considered misinformation, which should be avoided at all cost when it come to safety. I have typos on my website, but when they are brought to my attention, I immediately correct the situation, this is responsible.

"7. Perhaps you meant to draw attention to just one particular sentence, but an awful lot of that letter's image is obscured, such as the date, and the recall number isn't visible in the letter either. It appears from NHTSA data that the most recent recalls were done 11 or so years ago for refrigerators that are now at least 12 years old. Here's the relevant text from the recall. It is worth mentioning that the NHSTA does not care about boiler damage, only about vehicle safety, so Norcold's additional design intent of preventing damage is not included in their text:

"The population of refrigerators affected by this recall contains either a sensing algorithm or a thermal switch to interrupt power to the refrigerator when it detects high temperatures that could lead to a fire. The population also includes refrigerators that have been previously recalled to be retrofitted with a thermal switch. The recall remedy is to affix a thermocouple, with a faster response time, to all refrigerators equipped with a sensing algorithm or a thermal switch.""

Are you "misremembered it", or presenting facts? From what I see, you do not understand the document.

"It is worth mentioning that the NHSTA does not care about boiler damage, only about vehicle safety"

I am glad you made this statement, it provides me the opportunity to to correct you:

Yes the NHTSA is concerned with vehicle safety, and the root cause of failures, and the correction there of. "boiler damage" and resulting failure are the root cause of the NHTSA recall that Norcold reportedly settled a class action law suit for $36 million in the state of California.

"Maybe I missed a more recent recall If so, please provide a link."

I think you are accurate on this, the recall has not changed, even after the class action.

"Also, the recall is meant to address the creation of conditions that can cause a leak that *might* result in a fire, not a leak that *will* result in a fire. If the leak occurs while the propane is off due to normal unit cycling or while the electric element is being used, a fire seems, um, "rather less likely." "

The information you presented as an opinion has a lack of scientific basis.

The majority of Norocld 1200 series fires occur on 120VAC.

This information by my opinion and experience is not responsible at all.
Your are promoting information that leads users of these refrigerators to take undue risk.

Finally, it took longer than necessary to locate the NHTSA data because the recall number on your website is incorrect here: https://www.arprv.com/products.php

Sorry, a typo, all stated previously still holds true.

I am looking forward to a scientific discussion that provides facts
We are gentlemen here, but this seems to be more of the approach a lawyer may take?

This should be a discussion of the Boiler Temperature Pressure curves and Damage to Fridge while climbing hills comments in a scientific manner by which the RVing public is informed. Not the court of social media opinion

I apricate all comments, and am willing to answer them.
If I have missed anything, please let me know

[n2zon]

Originally Posted by Fridge Defend

Thanks for enumerating your response, so glad to clear things up for you:

"1. Having watched the video, I know what it shows, thanks."

Hum, what you see and what is gleaned from it may be two different things?

"2. You claim your patent protects an arbitrary temperature sensing location on another company's product? Hmmm...that would be an interesting standalone claim. Which claim is that in the text of US 8,056,360 B2? I only see it as an element of claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, not a separate claim. Do you have another patent that covers this separately?"

Can you clarify "stand alone claim" on another "company's product"?

Now you are a patent attorney?

"3. The tested fridge was 22 years old. Representative of many still in service, I'm sure, but not necessarily representative of more recent models. Now, given that it was 22 years old, how can we know that age- or usage-related changes had not occurred that could have affected the measurements? How many other models were tested? Were any tested starting with new boilers at the beginning of the test, shut down immediately afterward, then torn down for inspection? If so, did they demonstrate damage from usage while driving up such a grade upon disassembly immediately afterward?"

It is quite clear that you are trying to challenge me with your expertise.
What expertise other than posting on iRV2 do you have?

You must be aware that refrigerators do not remain new for the entire life of the fridge. One way to test the integrity of a fridge is its ability to cool the contents of the fridge.

"4. Grin. Not much more, IMO. Except I missed helping prevent food spoilage by automatically restarting the boiler."

I do not know what "IMO" is?
I am new to social media.

Gee, I always thought the function of an RV refrigerator was "helping prevent food spoilage", so thanks for the recommendation on the effective monitoring of the boiler temperature.

"5. As in a post above. Reference: Norcold Service Manual 121X Series Gas/Electric Refrigerators, Publication No. 630613B (08-10-07), p. 64, High Temperature Monitoring System. It's sort of interesting to see their engineers didn't put the sensor where FD does."

This did not answer my question, I asked about the temperatures at which you claim that the Norcold recall takes action to control the boiler temperature?

Can you tell me what is interesting about where Norcold put their temperature sensor versus the Fridge Defend temperature sensor?

6. So I misremembered it (shrug). 217C/422.6F. I notice now that this value is somewhat *higher* than is used for Norcold's high-temperature limit switch.

Yes, you may have self admittedly "misremembered it", I will research your claim of "217C/422.6F" for the Norcold control? It is ironic that you are quoting the same temperature that our control will take action depending on its setting.

Can you please clarify, are you saying that the Norcold control turns off the heat at the same temperature as the Fridge Defend?

You need to clearly publish the value that you read from the Norcold documentation, while providing reference to this document, along with the accurate temperature at which the Norcold recall controls the temperature of the boiler. Otherwise this could be considered misinformation, which should be avoided at all cost when it come to safety. I have typos on my website, but when they are brought to my attention, I immediately correct the situation, this is responsible.

"7. Perhaps you meant to draw attention to just one particular sentence, but an awful lot of that letter's image is obscured, such as the date, and the recall number isn't visible in the letter either. It appears from NHTSA data that the most recent recalls were done 11 or so years ago for refrigerators that are now at least 12 years old. Here's the relevant text from the recall. It is worth mentioning that the NHSTA does not care about boiler damage, only about vehicle safety, so Norcold's additional design intent of preventing damage is not included in their text:

"The population of refrigerators affected by this recall contains either a sensing algorithm or a thermal switch to interrupt power to the refrigerator when it detects high temperatures that could lead to a fire. The population also includes refrigerators that have been previously recalled to be retrofitted with a thermal switch. The recall remedy is to affix a thermocouple, with a faster response time, to all refrigerators equipped with a sensing algorithm or a thermal switch.""

Are you "misremembered it", or presenting facts? From what I see, you do not understand the document.

"It is worth mentioning that the NHSTA does not care about boiler damage, only about vehicle safety"

I am glad you made this statement, it provides me the opportunity to to correct you:

Yes the NHTSA is concerned with vehicle safety, and the root cause of failures, and the correction there of. "boiler damage" and resulting failure are the root cause of the NHTSA recall that Norcold reportedly settled a class action law suit for $36 million in the state of California.

"Maybe I missed a more recent recall If so, please provide a link."

I think you are accurate on this, the recall has not changed, even after the class action.

"Also, the recall is meant to address the creation of conditions that can cause a leak that *might* result in a fire, not a leak that *will* result in a fire. If the leak occurs while the propane is off due to normal unit cycling or while the electric element is being used, a fire seems, um, "rather less likely." "

The information you presented as an opinion has a lack of scientific basis.

The majority of Norocld 1200 series fires occur on 120VAC.

This information by my opinion and experience is not responsible at all.
Your are promoting information that leads users of these refrigerators to take undue risk.

Finally, it took longer than necessary to locate the NHTSA data because the recall number on your website is incorrect here: https://www.arprv.com/products.php

Sorry, a typo, all stated previously still holds true.

I am looking forward to a scientific discussion that provides facts
We are gentlemen here, but this seems to be more of the approach a lawyer may take?

This should be a discussion of the Boiler Temperature Pressure curves and Damage to Fridge while climbing hills comments in a scientific manner by which the RVing public is informed. Not the court of social media opinion

I apricate all comments, and am willing to answer them.
If I have missed anything, please let me know

Wow, I don't even know where to start. At the top, I guess.

I have yet to see evidentiary support for the marketing claim that going up hills in an RV with an installed fridge will cause damage to its boiler that Fridge Define would prevent. The video does not prove that. Do you have testing that shows a fridge *without* a Fridge Defend installed that exhibits boiler damage after ascending a hill in a moving RV, and how was that damage determined to be caused by that ascent and nothing else?

I'm not a patent attorney, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do have reasonably decent reading comprehension skills. And it's marketing claims for which I have yet to see proof that I challenge. You can use more ad hominem attacks and misdirection, or you can refute the points. A "response" is not the same as an "answer."

You're new to social media? All right. Do you know how to use Google? Let me help: https://www.google.com/search?q=what...client=gws-wiz

OK, I suppose I needed to be clearer. I was not talking about normal operation. Of course refrigeration is meant to preserve food. But feel confident that you knew I knew that. The Norcold HTMS shuts down the fridge after a single event. It will not restart without manual intervention, or, for older sensors, without sensor replacement. Left unnoticed for sufficiently long, this could allow the fridge to warm enough to allow frozen foods to melt and some frozen and fresh foods to spoil. Your product is designed to restart the boiler automatically some number of times. This auto-restart function can save food that might otherwise have been spoiled. Oddly enough, perhaps, this is a marketing claim you seem to have missed. It might be important to some, perhaps enough to persuade them to, I don't know, maybe buy your product? It's an example of a marketing claim that can be *supported*.

I provided a reference with a page number for the Norcold HTMS. I was NOT talking about the recall sensor, which is why I never wrote about it, and if you reread what I wrote you will find that I made no claims about it. I *was* talking about their High Temperature Monitoring System, which is documented starting on that page. Also in the manual are the temperature at which the HTMS will intervene, the indications that will appear on the control panel if it does, and the location of the sensor. I thought you might have some interest in that, as you wrote that high temperature control systems were not installed by the manufacturers. You can choose to read about it, or not, but it's quite clear that Norcold, at least, *does* have a boiler temperature monitoring system in their current line of 121x fridges, and has since at least 2007.

If you can't figure out why I found the relative locations of your sensors and Norcold's interesting, I'm afraid I won't tell you.

Likewise, nowhere did I say that Norcold uses 217C/442.6F for their sensor. According to your website, *you* do. I was responding to your comment that the original value I wrote about your product was incorrect, which was true. I don't find this ironic at all! You can find the (different, lower) value Norcold uses in their service manual.

Other than errors, which I try hard to correct as soon as possible, I do not see where *I* have provided any misinformation.

I stand by my statement about the NHTSA. Whether Norcold settled a lawsuit is not relevant to any of the things I've written about.

If you think the following statement is inaccurate, please provide evidence (not marketing gorp) to the contrary: "Also, the recall is meant to address the creation of conditions that can cause a leak that *might* result in a fire, not a leak that *will* result in a fire. If the leak occurs while the propane is off due to normal unit cycling or while the electric element is being used, a fire seems, um, "rather less likely." There is not a 100% certainty of a fire from a boiler leak. In another thread you've responded to, there is clear evidence of a boiler leak that did not result in a fire.

Also, where did this information come from? "The majority of Norocld 1200 series fires occur on 120VAC." Fascinating. Sources, please!

You think I'm being irresponsible. *I* think you're making some marketing claims for which I have yet to see factual support. Assertions are, I'm afraid, not facts.

Further, a responsible owner would respond to recalls and have had them addressed. Please show us all how those recalls do not address the safety problems they were designed to address, which were approved by the NHTSA.

Your product might well prevent boiler damage that would require boiler or refrigerator replacement for a fridge with no high temperature monitoring system, which includes many of those that are probably now in service. This by itself, while requiring expensive repairs, is not a safety issue. Having the damage cause a fire is clearly a safety issue, and for many fridges currently in service, there might well be a safety benefit to using your product.

But it's not at all clear to me just yet that it prevents fires in a fridge of relatively recent manufacture for which the recalls do not apply or have been completed, or damage to fridges with a high temperature monitoring system, or that driving up a grade will cause boiler damage to a fridge.

I am not anti-safety. Far from it. Much the reverse. But I want my purchase decisions for safety devices from whatever source to be fact-based.

Oh, by the way. I could not find a PE number for Paul Unmack in a search of MT's licensing database. Maybe I was using it wrong, have misidentified you, or you're a PE in a state other than your home state. Can you post it, please?

Finally, might I suggest you go over some of this material, perhaps with your attorney? https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidanc...sing-marketing in general, and more specifically: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidanc...small-business

[Fridge Defend]

Originally Posted by n2zon

Wow, I don't even know where to start. At the top, I guess.

I have yet to see evidentiary support for the marketing claim that going up hills in an RV with an installed fridge will cause damage to its boiler that Fridge Define would prevent. The video does not prove that. Do you have testing that shows a fridge *without* a Fridge Defend installed that exhibits boiler damage after ascending a hill in a moving RV, and how was that damage determined to be caused by that ascent and nothing else?

I'm not a patent attorney, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do have reasonably decent reading comprehension skills. And it's marketing claims for which I have yet to see proof that I challenge. You can use more ad hominem attacks and misdirection, or you can refute the points. A "response" is not the same as an "answer."

You're new to social media? All right. Do you know how to use Google? Let me help: https://www.google.com/search?q=what...client=gws-wiz

OK, I suppose I needed to be clearer. I was not talking about normal operation. Of course refrigeration is meant to preserve food. But feel confident that you knew I knew that. The Norcold HTMS shuts down the fridge after a single event. It will not restart without manual intervention, or, for older sensors, without sensor replacement. Left unnoticed for sufficiently long, this could allow the fridge to warm enough to allow frozen foods to melt and some frozen and fresh foods to spoil. Your product is designed to restart the boiler automatically some number of times. This auto-restart function can save food that might otherwise have been spoiled. Oddly enough, perhaps, this is a marketing claim you seem to have missed. It might be important to some, perhaps enough to persuade them to, I don't know, maybe buy your product? It's an example of a marketing claim that can be *supported*.

I provided a reference with a page number for the Norcold HTMS. I was NOT talking about the recall sensor, which is why I never wrote about it, and if you reread what I wrote you will find that I made no claims about it. I *was* talking about their High Temperature Monitoring System, which is documented starting on that page. Also in the manual are the temperature at which the HTMS will intervene, the indications that will appear on the control panel if it does, and the location of the sensor. I thought you might have some interest in that, as you wrote that high temperature control systems were not installed by the manufacturers. You can choose to read about it, or not, but it's quite clear that Norcold, at least, *does* have a boiler temperature monitoring system in their current line of 121x fridges, and has since at least 2007.

If you can't figure out why I found the relative locations of your sensors and Norcold's interesting, I'm afraid I won't tell you.

Likewise, nowhere did I say that Norcold uses 217C/442.6F for their sensor. According to your website, *you* do. I was responding to your comment that the original value I wrote about your product was incorrect, which was true. I don't find this ironic at all! You can find the (different, lower) value Norcold uses in their service manual.

Other than errors, which I try hard to correct as soon as possible, I do not see where *I* have provided any misinformation.

I stand by my statement about the NHTSA. Whether Norcold settled a lawsuit is not relevant to any of the things I've written about.

If you think the following statement is inaccurate, please provide evidence (not marketing gorp) to the contrary: "Also, the recall is meant to address the creation of conditions that can cause a leak that *might* result in a fire, not a leak that *will* result in a fire. If the leak occurs while the propane is off due to normal unit cycling or while the electric element is being used, a fire seems, um, "rather less likely." There is not a 100% certainty of a fire from a boiler leak. In another thread you've responded to, there is clear evidence of a boiler leak that did not result in a fire.

Also, where did this information come from? "The majority of Norocld 1200 series fires occur on 120VAC." Fascinating. Sources, please!

You think I'm being irresponsible. *I* think you're making some marketing claims for which I have yet to see factual support. Assertions are, I'm afraid, not facts.

Further, a responsible owner would respond to recalls and have had them addressed. Please show us all how those recalls do not address the safety problems they were designed to address, which were approved by the NHTSA.

Your product might well prevent boiler damage that would require boiler or refrigerator replacement for a fridge with no high temperature monitoring system, which includes many of those that are probably now in service. This by itself, while requiring expensive repairs, is not a safety issue. Having the damage cause a fire is clearly a safety issue, and for many fridges currently in service, there might well be a safety benefit to using your product.

But it's not at all clear to me just yet that it prevents fires in a fridge of relatively recent manufacture for which the recalls do not apply or have been completed, or damage to fridges with a high temperature monitoring system, or that driving up a grade will cause boiler damage to a fridge.

I am not anti-safety. Far from it. Much the reverse. But I want my purchase decisions for safety devices from whatever source to be fact-based.

Oh, by the way. I could not find a PE number for Paul Unmack in a search of MT's licensing database. Maybe I was using it wrong, have misidentified you, or you're a PE in a state other than your home state. Can you post it, please?

Finally, might I suggest you go over some of this material, perhaps with your attorney? https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidanc...sing-marketing in general, and more specifically: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidanc...small-business

It is very simple, we apply the scientific method.
I was asked to provide proof, and I did via data collection that you cannot seem to refute via the scientific method.

You choose to use obfuscation and use childish comments to attempt to push buttons, which any gentleman will not respond to, for example:

"You're new to social media? All right. Do you know how to use Google?"

I am more than pleased to respond to your comments that state the following 2 points of view. These two points demonstrate your lack of understanding, and I will correct these points of confusion:

1) "I must conclude that you have not been paying attention to at least Norcold. Or, do you believe Norcold is lying when they say the high temperature monitoring system installed in their Model 1210 has, as its purpose, preventing damage to the cooling system due to an overheating condition in the boiler? Reference: Norcold Service Manual 121X Series Gas/Electric Refrigerators, Publication No. 630613B (08-10-07), p. 64, High Temperature Monitoring System."

2) "As in a post above. Reference: Norcold Service Manual 121X Series Gas/Electric Refrigerators, Publication No. 630613B (08-10-07), p. 64, High Temperature Monitoring System. It's sort of interesting to see their engineers didn't put the sensor where FD does."

The Norcold document you reference "didn't put the sensor where FD does" because Norcold's sensor location does not work and the Fridge Defend does. The proof is the fact that this is a dated document, and Norcold admitted to the NHTSA that this sensor location did not work. This sensor location does not read the actual boiler temperature of the absorption cooling unit, only the fridge defend does. This should clear things up for you.

You are twisting the facts, and you turn around and accuse folks of doing the same when you state "do you believe Norcold is lying". I believe that the truth is within the scientific method, and our patent. Dometic and Norcold tried to duplicate our patent, this speaks for itself. A board of my peers reviewed and determined that our product provides Utility, and the Utility that Dometic and Norcold pursued by writing patent applications was rejected because I had already patented the Utility of controlling the boiler temperature of an absorption refrigerator.

I suggest you start a new thread based on your claims and provide some better facts that truly relate to what is being discussed. I will be glad to respond to any fact that you can provide, given that they are presented in a clear manner that makes a statement of truth. Again, it needs to be fact based on the content of the thread posted:

Absorption Refrigeration Boiler Safety for Dometic and Norcold RV Fridge

Thanks for contributing to iRV2

[n2zon]

Sigh. Back to the scientific method. OK. Here we go...

Claiming that boiler damage will occur from the operation of a moving RV on a grade without having first tested that hypothesis using at least one unmodified fridge that is inspected afterward to show evidence of boiler damage is not using the scientific method. The hypothesis has simply not been tested to support that claim.

More than that, to prove conclusively that it was caused by operating a moving RV on a grade, one would have to construct the experiment to account for or eliminate other variables; for example, one might start the experiement with a new fridge so it was clear that any damage found at the experiment's conclusion had no other cause.

There is nothing scientific about the data you have provided with respect to that specific claim. It's all inference on your part, not provably factual unless you have performed the necessary testing or can point to someone else's results from such testing. So far, it does not appear you have done that.

All your measurements demonstrate is that the FD will intervene to shut down the boiler if the temperature rises above its set point or points, and *nothing else*. (I do believe that much, and that it's a useful function, as I've outlined in previous posts.)

Further, without evidence I've not seen, you contradict at least Norcold's documentation and say their HTMS does not work based on a design flaw that's been corrected by recalls for *years* and which does not apply to at least their current 1210 product. Does their HTMS do all the things FD does? They do not say so, and I'm pretty sure it does not. That does not mean it does not work, does not protect the fridge from damage as they say it does, or that a fridge so equipped is less safe without your device installed.

I think you are missing an essential point. I am not the one making marketing claims here. You are. It's not up to me to prove them false, it's up to you to prove them true. It's not even enough to make advertising and marketing claims that happen to be true (although I still doubt this one in particular very much). You have to be able to *prove* them, starting on or before the day the advertising begins. To quote from one of the FTC's pages I linked to above:

"Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim. The kind of evidence depends on the claim. At a minimum, an advertiser must have the level of evidence that it says it has. For example, the statement "Two out of three doctors recommend ABC Pain Reliever" must be supported by a reliable survey to that effect. If the ad isn't specific, the FTC looks at several factors to determine what level of proof is necessary, including what experts in the field think is needed to support the claim. In most cases, ads that make health or safety claims must be supported by "competent and reliable scientific evidence" - tests, studies, or other scientific evidence that has been evaluated by people qualified to review it. In addition, any tests or studies must be conducted using methods that experts in the field accept as accurate."

Online advertising, such as websites, must follow the same rules and regulations, as is clearly stated here: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidanc...sing-marketing

I'm not sure how to be clearer.

[Fridge Defend]

Originally Posted by Old-Biscuit

Appears I am not alone...........

Well, you may have some company, but one satisfied customer speaks volumes. Click on the post below, this is proof:

"Just so thankful this nightmare is behind me and after researching all that could go wrong with a fridge that isn't operating properly (fire hazard and repair costs) I'm just grateful that my wife and I will now be safe and have the added security and protection so we can travel without any worries about what could go wrong and just enjoy our travels!"

Thanks for the support iRV2

Satisfied customers are what we are about at the end of the day

My wife and I are very fortunate, we are able to help others which gives us meaning in our lives. A customer once said:

"You will never know how many lives you saved because your product is automatic"

[n2zon]

"Statements from satisfied customers usually are not sufficient to support a health or safety claim or any other claim that requires objective evaluation."

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidanc...small-business

So all the testimonial proves is that you have, for whatever reason, a satisfied customer. No more than that.