This is getting silly now...
But I have also clearly stated (twice) that the compressor cannot be damaged by operating at low temperatures because the HPCO would stop it from operating before any damage could be done.
Thats like saying a car, when parked on a hill,
cannot be damaged by rolling off because the handbrake would prevent this from happening. Thats all well and good until the handbrake fails, then what? Oh right, so a car
can be damaged when parked on a hill should a method of preventing it from rolling fails?
So, following the same logic what would happen, in cold weather, if the HPCO failed? Ahh, so there
is the possibility than aircon compressor
can be damaged in the cold after all? Regardless of whether a HPCO protects an aircon compressor in other circumstances too, part of its function
is to protect the compressor in cold weather... otherwise it wouldn't do it. If this was not such an issue then why would Audi, and no doubt other vehicle manufacturers, see fit to add an
additional method of protection to
entirely prevent the aircon system from operating in the cold?
However, all of that is simply confusing the issue. Therefore, and I'm going to say this again, my statement of "A compressor can be damaged when operated in cold temperatures", however
simplified, is entirely valid, stands and remains true... which ever way you want to look at it. The key word in my statement which was carefully chosen is "can" which does not imply a certainty, more a possibility. Futhermore, as I have also previously stated, why and how a compressor would need to protect it itself is
totally irrelevant to the thread and was not being asked about. Once again, a
simple answer was given to a
simple question asked. Von Maximo didn't need (or possibly want) to specifically know why a compressor needs to be protected, so the details were not given. My hypothesis of why his aircon was not working as expected was based upon a system put in place to
specifically protect the aircon/compressor. The
function of this system, albeight in a simplified form, was all that was required to give a clear and concise answer without unnecessary technicalities.
Don't be offended?? You don't even know who the hell I am mate, so do not presume to try and publicly humiliate me. If the British army can trust me to fix electronics and air con systems on fighting vehicles in afganistan then I'm pretty sure I'm capable of dealing with pishy faults on a car's air con or a mains electric trip.
As far as trying to "publically humiliate" you goes... at ease soldier! It was a light hearted wind-up, one which you took hook, line and sinker
even after I told you so by including "I'm just teasing!". I was simply suggesting, in a jovial manner, that based upon your contribution to this thread your unnecessary serving of technicalities
may be (note, not actually is) something that extends to all manner of everyday "in real life" situations. I fail to see how this was an attempt to "publically humiliate" you, I was just pulling your leg. You are correct, I do not know you or pretend to do so, so with this in mind I have not once, in
no way, shape or form, questioned your expertise or knowledge on the subject.
However it does amuse me when people in the armed services trot out the old "If the [insert service] trust me with..." like they're in a scene from Top Gun with Kelly McGillis. Running round with guns aside, for whom you chose and where you have to subsequently apply your knowledge/skills does not instantly make you any more qualified than someone performing the same comparable services on civvy street. My cousin is a Para but it does not necessarily make him any better at jumping out of planes than a civvy... although, as is only to be expected, I'm sure he would beg to differ... or just punch me for suggesting otherwise!
So please stop with the wild claims of public humilation or other such nonsense. There was none made and absolutely none intended.
Respectfully,
Shades