[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Argon?

To: Steven Trovato <>
Subject: Re: Argon?
From: Donald H Locker <>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:23:14 -0500
I would expect CO2 to be a better candidate; the molecular weight and 
size is bigger than either N2 or Ar, so diffusion through the tire 
carcass should be less.  In addition, it has a quite non-ideal gas 
behaviour, so that its pressure changes less with temperature than the 
others.  And it is non-reactive with tire compounds.  Of course, there 
is not much money to be made from it, so the government won't be pushing 
into our faces.


Steven Trovato wrote:
> Any benefit?  I have no idea.  You use straight argon for MIG?  That's 
> for what, Aluminum?  I only do steel and use an argon/co2 mix.  Filling 
> from a MIG bottle would be no problem.  People fill tires from Nitrogen 
> bottles.  You have to have a regulator either way.  I suspect that there 
> are lots of gases that would have the same benefits (if you believe 
> there are benefits) as nitrogen.  I think nitrogen is probably the 
> cheapest and easiest to generate on site.
> At 08:13 AM 2/9/2007, Steven W. Reilly wrote:


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>