(Q) Should I ignore the above stated experimental results
and proceed with arrangements to use Methylene Chloride?
(A) As we find, this will prove the more satisfactory
method.
This will necessitate that there be understood that
precautions are to be taken with its use, as to the manner
of exposure, etc., of the bus in operation and closing of
ventilation, etc., as to be in keeping with the outline or
plan as has been indicated, see?
(Q) Is the difference between conditions existing and
methods used during the above mentioned tests AND conditions
under which the gas will actually operate in practice great
enough to justify the use of methylene chloride in spite of
the results reported?
(A) As just indicated, these working under practical
conditions in a moving, operative bus will be different
from a laboratory test; and would be the more satisfactory
method.
(Q) Is sulphur dioxide a practical alternative refrigerant
gas for the proposed system?
(A) As we find, this might be where there might be used a
greater ability for the cooling system to carry off the fumes
or the conditions that would prove UNSATISFACTORY in a use
of this nature. It is a substitute, or something that may
be used under certain conditions. As for buildings and the
like, very satisfactory.
(Q) Will it be more desirable to use sulphur dioxide for
bus use where apparently much higher temperatures are met
with than in smaller vehicles such as taxicabs?
(A) As we find, that as indicated would prove the more
satisfactory.
(Q) Regardless of the advisability of using sulphur dioxide
instead of methylene chloride, and although the use of
sulphur dioxide is not patented and is open to all, the
advice of the Forces is still to tie up with the Carrier
Corporation. Is this correct?
(A) As has been indicated.
(Q) With regard to the answer of the Forces to Questions
8 and 9 [Par. 11-Q and 12-Q] on Feb. 25th [
1497-11] in the
matter of patent claims and interferences, am I to understand
that Carrier owns patents which might interfere with the
patent protection of the new air-conditioner and that this is
one important reason I should tie up with them?
(A) Correct!
(Q) Carrier is opposed to giving White more than one year's
tie up since the White Company would purchase at most 300
equipments per year, whereas almost 3000 a year are needed
by all bus companies.
(A) Then it will be necessary to abide by the Carrier
advice, - though this will, of course, depend upon much of
the operative activities under the tests that will be made
by the first installation. It will be necessary to conform
to their wishes; though there may be the insistence for a
year or year and a half - but there SHOULD be a three year
period - but NOT necessarily - that ONLY White would use
same, see?
(Q) In negotiating with Carrier shall I comply with their
stand in this matter or are there good reasons to insist
on restricting the sale for buses to White only for a longer
period of time?
(A) As has been indicated, well to variate a bit - if it is
practical under the conditions.
(Q) Any further advice?
(A) We are through for the present.
Copy to Self - Special Delivery
Copy to Ass'n file
BACKGROUND
See
1497-11.
REPORTS
3/09/39 He obtained another reading on the static eliminator
- See
1497-14.



Edgar Cayce Readings © 1971, 1993, 1994, 1995 by the Edgar Cayce Foundation