Evaluation of RV Refrigerators - Ford`s RV Refrigeration Training
Transcription
Evaluation of RV Refrigerators - Ford`s RV Refrigeration Training
Ford’s RV Training & Service presents Evaluation of RV Refrigerators: A side by side independent evaluation of Atwood and Dometic Refrigerators 1.0 Introduction The marketplace of RV refrigerators over the last 20 years has been dominated by Dometic and Norcold with no other competitors. The introduction of a new competitor, namely Atwood, as well as its use of helium rather than hydrogen, prompted the ownership of Ford’s RV Training & Service to conduct a side by side independent evaluation. Absorption refrigeration has used hydrogen since commercial production of absorption refrigerators began in 1923 so the introduction of a new chemical after all this time is a major change. This evaluation was conducted with the expressed goal of determining for the consumer and RV industry how the new helium technology performed relative to hydrogen based absorption refrigerators by putting like models of refrigerators through a series of tests. Every effort was made to ensure that the test products were treated equally by ensuring that conditions for each product were identical. 2.0 Products Tested The products tested for this evaluation were refrigerators from two different manufacturers. Though there are three manufacturers of RV refrigerators at this time, one of the manufacturers, namely Norcold Inc., chose not to participate in this evaluation. Atwood Mobile Products, LLC (Atwood) and Dometic, LLC (Dometic) donated the required refrigerators (refer to Table 1 below), cooling units, and associated literature to be used in this evaluation. Ford’s RV Training & Service would like to express it’s appreciation to Atwood and Dometic for their willingness to take part in this evaluation showing confidence in their product. Table 1 Products Tested Manufacturer Atwood Dometic Atwood Dometic Model HE-0601 RM2652 HE-0801 RM2852 Height (in.) 52.5 53.4 59.4 59.6 Width (in.) 22.8 23.4 22.8 23.4 Depth (in.) 23.7 24.0 23.7 24.0 Fan* Yes No Yes No © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service *Fan was disconnected for equal comparison purposes 1 2.1 Product Features Though the refrigerators tested all utilize absorption refrigeration and the comparisons were made on models of the same basic size (i.e. 6 cu. ft. and 8 cu. ft.), there are a few differences that should be noted. Below is a table which lists many of the features. The door alarm and tilt sensor features of the Atwood models were tested and found to operate as indicated by the manufacturer. Table 2 Product Feature Comparison Feature Atwood Dometic Comments Absorption Refrigeration Gas (Other than Ammonia) Power Failure Recovery Helium Hydrogen Helium is not flammable therefore reduces the chances of a chemical fire. None Automatic Door Alarm Included None Door Handles Pull Push/Pull Tilt Sensor Included None Warranty 2 years Limited Interior Light LED 2 years Limited Incandescent Refrigerator Storage Integrated Latches If a power failure occurs even momentarily, the Dometic models start operation immediately when power is restored while the Atwood models remain off when power is restored. Door alarms on the Atwood models to indicate that the door was left open Atwood handle is more intuitive as you just pull whereas the Dometic handle must be pushed with thumb while pulling with the other fingers. Atwood's tilt sensor indicates operation at severe angles of inclination Both manufacturers offer a 2 year limited warranty Incandescent bulbs are less energy efficient and have a shorter lifespan. The position cards are separate from the refrigerator. The integrated latch is built into the door handle. Airing Position Cards Dometic Door Handle Atwood Door Handles w/ integrated latches Dometic ”Eye Brow” Controls © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service Atwood Controls 2 Atwood Interior Light Dometic Interior Light 3.0 Test Methods The methods employed in testing are those based upon the standards established at Ford’s RV Training & Service which in many aspects exceeds the testing standards in ANSI Z21.19. The refrigerators were tested under several different running conditions (refer to Table 3 below). Each manufacturer’s unit of similar size was tested under the same conditions at the same time to ensure proper comparison was maintained. In addition, the refrigerators being compared utilized identical testing tools and instruments which were used according to manufacturer’s recommendations unless superseded by Ford’s RV Training & Service standards and procedures. The refrigerators were tested while operating on both LP and 110V electricity. They were tested while running “free-standing” unless noted as being in a test enclosure. Free-standing in this case means that the refrigerator is running outside of an RV enclosure. The refrigerators were tested in a Temperature Controlled Environment (TCE) which was a room where a heat could be regulated and increased in order to subject the refrigerators to very high temperatures. Test enclosure testing refers to an apparatus built to ANSI Z21.19 tolerance standards in which refrigerators were placed for testing. The refrigerators were tested to compare the effectiveness of each refrigerator under as many of the actual operating conditions each would face in the marketplace as possible within the limitations of the testing facilities. In addition to testing under actual operating conditions, the refrigerators were subjected to additional testing in accordance with the procedures developed in the 30 years of Ford’s RV Training & Service. Table 3 Test Methods By Refrigerator Model LP 110V Temp. Controlled Environment (TCE) Test Enclosure Unlevel Conditions © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service HE-0601 DM2652 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ HE-0801 DM2852 √ √ √ √ √ √ 3 3.1 Additional Test Methods In addition to the tests discussed above, other tests were completed on the refrigerators, which although they do not directly relate to the compartment temperatures, they do reflect important information to the manufacturer and consumer as to the reliability and efficiency of the refrigerators. One such test involved taking the temperatures of the cooling unit in several locations while attached to the refrigerator cabinet. Other tests included determining the energy usage of the refrigerators, testing the alarms, and even running the cooling units “in the raw”. 4.0 Test Results The results given are those recorded from the raw data sheets which are archived at the Ford’s RV Training & Service office. During testing, a Type K thermocouple was used in conjunction with Fluke 902 True-rms HVAC clamp meter to measure temperatures inside the refrigerator compartment and the freezer compartment. Temperatures taken outside of the refrigerator were measured with a Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer. The 12 volt control power required was provided by Iota DLS-15 and DLS-30 power converters. A basic premise of the testing was that each refrigerator was capable of producing like results in all situations. The results of the testing do seem to bare that out as will be seen in the details below. Type K Thermocouple Fluke 902 Clamp Meter Iota DLS-30 Power Converter Fluke 62 Mine IR Thermometer © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 4 4.1 Overall Average Temperature Results All test results are given in a manner as to best compare the units in like terms with the exception of the overall temperature results which may include differing number of data points depending on the number of points taken for that refrigerator. The overall average temperatures seen in all refrigerators in all testing conditions were within one degree of each other and well below the maximum refrigerator temperature allowed by Ford’s RV Training & Service which is 41°F. It should be noted that the Dometic DM2852 maintained a lower average temperature than its Atwood counterpart HE-0801. Table 4 given below details the actual results. Table 4 Overall Average Temperatures HE-0601 DM2652 HE-0801 DM2852 Average Refrigerator Compartment Temperature 32°F 32°F 35°F 34°F Average Ambient Temperature 83°F 83°F 86°F 86°F Overall Average Refrigerator Compartment Temperature 36°F 35°F 35°F 34°F 34°F 33°F 32°F 32°F HE-0601 DM2652 32°F 31°F 30°F HE-0801 DM2852 4.2 Free-Standing Results As stated above, free-standing refers to the refrigerator being operated outside of an RV enclosure. The results given in this section are those of the refrigerators while operating them through the controls on 110VAC power and liquid propane (LP) gas. All four refrigerator models were operated in this manner in a wide range of temperatures (as low as 22°F and as high as 113°F). Subjecting the refrigerators to elevated temperatures up to 113°F was accomplished by placing the refrigerators in the TCE. It should be noted that the two 6 cu. ft. models (HE-0601 & DM2652) had fewer data points in this test method. The results show that while all models maintained average temperatures well below the maximum allowed both Dometic models maintained lower average temperatures than the Atwood models. © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 5 Average Free-Standing Refrigerator Temperatures 36°F 35°F 35°F 34°F 34°F 34°F 33°F 32°F 31°F 31°F 30°F 29°F HE-0601 DM2652 HE-0801 DM2852 4.3 Test Enclosure Results The two 6 cu. ft. model refrigerators (HE-0601 & DM2652) were placed in test enclosures which were built to ANSI Z21.19 tolerance standards. The enclosures utilized the side and roof vents supplied and recommended by the manufacturer. While in the test enclosures, the refrigerators were exposed to a wide range of temperatures (as low as 69°F and as high as 117°F). The higher temperatures were achieved by placing the refrigerators in their enclosures in a TCE. Test enclosures were utilized to simulate the environment that the refrigerators would encounter while in an RV. Specifically, the test enclosures restricted the air flow at the cooling unit. The chart below shows the average temperatures seen by both models of refrigerators while in the test enclosure. It should be noted that the HE-0601 model was operated at a thermostat level of four which is one less than its maximum of five and maintained a lower average temperature than the Dometic DM2652. Test Enclosure Average Refrigerator Temperatures 31°F HE-0601 32°F DM2652 29.9°F 30.4°F © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 30.9°F 31.4°F 31.9°F 32.4°F 6 Dometic DM2652 Atwood HE-0601 6 Cu. Ft. Models in Test Enclosures 4.4 Out of Level Operation Results The two 8 cu. ft. model refrigerators (HE-0801 & DM2852) were subjected to out of level conditions while being operated in the free-standing test mode. The conditions were simulated by utilizing a 1x4 board placed under each of the four sides of the refrigerators. The 1x4 has a height of ¾” and the placement of the board under the refrigerators equated to an approximate two degree angle of inclination. Both refrigerators where subjected to this testing for a minimum of 24 hours at each out of level position. The chart below details the results of the testing under these conditions. As can be seen in the chart, both the Dometic and Atwood models average temperatures were well below the maximum allowed by the ANSI Z21.19 standard though the Dometic model DM2852 did maintain lower average temperatures than the Atwood model HE-0801 in all four of the out of level conditions. © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 7 Out of Level Operation Temperatures 44°F 42°F 40°F 38°F 36°F 34°F 32°F 30°F Absorber Vessel (Right Side) Boiler (Left Side) DM2852 Average Cooling Unit (Back) HE-0801 Average Doors (Front) ANSI Z21.19 Max Dometic DM2852 (left) and Atwood HE-0801 (right) operating in “free-standing” out of level test mode with boiler side high © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 8 4.5 Temperature Controlled Environment (TCE) Results The use of a TCE was necessary to bring about high ambient temperatures. Each model was tested in this environment for a minimum of 6 days. The 6 cu. ft. models (HE-0601 & DM2652) were tested in the TCE while in their respective test enclosures. In addition, the refrigerator compartments of the 6 cu. ft. models were filled with approximately 715 fluid oz. of water utilizing six 2-liter bottles, one 1-gallon jug, seven 1-pint bottles and one 64 oz. jug. The 8 cu. ft. models (HE-0801 & DM2852) were tested in the TCE operating in the freestanding mode with empty compartments. For all models, the temperature probes were located in the front-center of the top shelf of the refrigerator compartment. The thermostat control was at set point four on both Atwood models (HE-0601 & HE-0801). The ambient temperatures ranged from 82°F to 117°F with the 6 cu. ft. models having an average ambient temperature of 112°F and the 8 cu. ft. models having an average ambient temperature of 96°F. Average Temperatures in Temperature Controlled Environment 8 Cu. Ft. Ambient DM2852 HE-0801 6 Cu. Ft. Ambient DM2652 HE-0601 0°F 10°F 20°F 30°F 40°F 50°F © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 60°F 70°F 80°F 90°F 100°F 110°F 9 Dometic DM2652 (left) and Atwood HE-0601 (right) operating in their test enclosures in the Temperature Controlled Environment. 4.6 Cooling Unit Test Results The cooling units were tested in two different capacities. They were tested while attached to the refrigerator cabinets and also “in the raw” which means detached from the refrigerator cabinet with the insulation removed. While operating attached to the cabinet, temperatures taken of the cooling unit at the steam line just before it enters the condenser, at the top absorber coil, at the bottom absorber coil, and at the evaporator as it exits the urethane. The temperatures seen at the four areas taken were within the ranges expected. More importantly, the temperatures were consistent over time and between models as can be seen in the charts below. Operating the cooling units “in the raw” allows for a very clear visual test of the effectiveness of the cooling unit and its associated chemical mixture. © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 10 Steam Line just before it enters condenser Evaporator as it exits urethane Bottom Absorber Coil Cooling Unit attached to refrigerator cabinet while operating “free-standing” in the TCE. The above markers show where the temperatures were taken which is typical for all models. © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 11 Attached Cooling Unit Average Temperatures 130°F 120°F 110°F 100°F 90°F 80°F 70°F 60°F Steam Line Temp HE-0601 Top Absorber Coil Temp DM2652 Bottom Absorber Coil Temp HE-0801 Evaporator Exit Temp DM2852 Attached Cooling Unit Maximum Temperatures 160°F 150°F 140°F 130°F 120°F 110°F 100°F 90°F 80°F Steam Line Temp HE-0601 Top Absorber Coil Temp DM2652 © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service Bottom Absorber Coil Evaporator Exit Temp Temp HE-0801 DM2852 12 The cooling units from the 8 cu. ft. models (HE-0801 & DM2852) were operated “in the raw” to compare the ice formations on the evaporator. Measuring the length of evaporator covered by ice revealed that HE-0801 had 34.25” of ice at 79°F while DM2852 had 32.5”. Measurements taken at 103°F ambient temperature showed that HE-0801 had 22.875” of ice and DM2852 had 21.75” of ice. “In the Raw” Ice Formation (32.5”) on Dometic Cooling Unit’s Evaporator © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service Ice Formation (34.25”) on Atwood Cooling Unit’s Evaporator 13 4.7 Energy Usage Test Results In addition to the tests which involved taking temperatures, the two 6 cu. ft. model refrigerators (HE-0601 & DM2652) were monitored using a P3 International P4460 Kill A Watt EZ Electricity Usage Monitor to determine the approximate power usage of each unit. Both units were tested while within the test enclosure. The HE-0601 model had its thermostat control at set point 4 while the DM2652 model was running on its automatic thermostat. The energy usage was monitored for over a week and then the results were extrapolated to determine the average usage in a month’s time. The HE-0601 model used less energy during the test saving over four (4) kilo-watt hours (KWH) in the tested time period which when extrapolated for a month is over fourteen kilo-watt hours (14 KWH). The national average cost per KWH ($0.1196) was used to determine the cost of operating each model over a period of time. Both refrigerators maintained comparable temperatures at these settings. Energy Cost Comparison $25.00 $22.39 $20.67 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $4.82 $5.22 $5.00 $0.00 Cost/Week Cost/Month HE-0601 DM2652 P3 International P4460 Kill A Watt EZ Electricity Usage Monitor © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 14 5.0 Conclusions The performance of the refrigerators was well within the parameters of the standard ANSI Z21.19. Placing both the Atwood and Dometic refrigerators in adverse situations even more severe than those called for in the standard did not greatly affect the refrigerators. Both manufacturers’ models performed better than required. The Atwood and Dometic models performed similarly in almost every phase. There were differences with the Dometic models averaging lower temperatures in most cases and the Atwood averaging lower energy usage and a lower temperature in the test enclosure. But the differences seen should not cause the consumer or the RV industry concern as all models maintained adequate temperatures during the testing. One concern that should be noted is the inability of the Atwood models to restart operation after a power outage. As many consumers know, a loss of power can happen due to a loss of shore power or faulty batteries among other things and this could potentially cause food spoilage. The bottom line is that the helium absorption refrigerator provides adequate refrigeration and performs well relative to the hydrogen absorption refrigerator. About Ford’s RV Training & Service Ford’s RV Training & Service (Ford’s RV) has over 34 years experience in the RV industry. Roger and Onna Lee Ford, who are the owners of Ford’s RV, are pioneers in the RV refrigerator reconditioning industry having designed and still manufacturing the customized tools required to recondition RV refrigerator cooling units. In addition, they founded and oversee the only training center offering certification in the RV refrigerator reconditioning field. Ford’s RV has set the standard in this field for 28 years by providing a 100 percent warranty for reconditioned RV refrigerator cooling units. Ford’s RV is the home office and founder of the RV Referral Network (RVRN). Roger and Onna Lee Ford wrote the first and only manual on reconditioning RV refrigerator cooling units The Ford Procedures as well as the first and only troubleshooting and repair guide devoted strictly to RV refrigerators called Average Joe’s RV Refrigerator Troubleshooting & Repair Guide. As accomplished writers having written and published two publications previously, Roger and Onna Lee’s expertise and ability to convey that expertise make them and Ford’s RV uniquely qualified to complete this evaluation The side by side evaluation of Atwood and Dometic refrigerators will continue for years to come with updated reports created periodically. In addition, Ford’s RV plans to complete evaluations on all the other RV appliances as well. The preceding evaluation is copyrighted material and any disclosure, copying, or distribution without written consent from Ford’s RV Training & Service is strictly prohibited. © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 15 Terms of Usage This document is provided to help you understand whether a given product merits additional investigation for your particular needs. Any decision to purchase a product must be based on your own assessment of suitability based on your needs. This evaluation was focused on illustrating specific features and/or performance of the product(s) and was conducted under controlled, laboratory conditions. Certain tests may have been tailored to reflect performance under various conditions; however, performance may vary under other conditions. Users should run tests based on their own scenarios to validate performance for their uses. Reasonable efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the data contained herein but errors and/or oversights can occur. The tests documented herein may also rely on various test tools the accuracy of which is beyond our control. Furthermore, the document relies on certain representations by the product manufacturer that are beyond our control to verify. Among these is that the product tested is production grade and is available in equivalent or better form to customers. Accordingly, this document is provided “as is”, and Ford’s RV Training & Service (Ford’s RV) gives no warranty, representation or undertaking, whether expressed or implied, and accepts no legal responsibility, whether direct or indirect, for the accuracy, completeness, usefulness or suitability of any information contained herein. By reviewing this document, you agree that your use of any information contained herein is at your own risk, and you accept all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from any information or material available on it. Ford’s RV is not responsible for, and you agree to hold Ford’s RV and its related affiliates harmless from any loss, harm, injury or damage resulting from or arising out of your use of or reliance on any of the information provided herein. Ford’s RV makes no claim as to whether any product or company described herein is suitable for investment. You should obtain your own independent professional advice, whether legal or otherwise, before proceeding with any investment or project related to any information, products or companies described herein. When foreign translations exist, the English document is considered authoritative. No part of any document may be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the specific written permission of Ford’s RV Training & Service. All trademarks used in the document are the property of their respected owners. You agree not to use any trademark in or as the whole or part of your own trademarks in connection with any activities, products or services or in a manner which may be confusing, misleading or deceptive or in a manner that disparages us or our information, projects or developments. © 2012 Ford’s RV Training & Service 16