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: