# Uses for old engine or cooking oil

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### large_ghostman

##### Well-Known Member
Sorry i forgot to mention the gas stove thing, we also have electric in the house, but from Bombay-Brighton-Brisbane everyone kind of understand 4 stove gas burners, so its often used as a kind of 'leveler' so everyone is able to gauge the amount of gas. No good telling a Indian xm3 of gas day, they want to know how much cooking.

Plus you cant really say will run gas heating for X amount of time, heating systems are so different with number of radiators etc. 4-5 IBC's using our MKAD5 system (the current model we are replacing) with microbe cell to keep the sludge down, can take 6 acres of grass a week, all the waste from 12 sheep 3 people 2 dogs, and everything organic i can throw at it. It will easily run a 3 bedroom house around the clock heating wise if set up correctly.

Its easy to tune yourself into the system, but i will warn you against some the more recent patents, some are bogus for a reason. But once your logged in you will understand whats going on in the industry at the moment.

#### Western

##### Member
Think of it like Kilowatts and kilowatt hours. If you know what your heating system uses in a hour and how many hours it runs a day, week, month or season you can figure out how many BTU hours per time frame you need. The rest is just a matter of learning the conversion factors between the different units of measure.
Ok, makes sense. Kilowatts and Kilowatt Hours I can relate to. I can double check the specs on our aircon ... and on our wood heater, which come to think of it, may well have used BTU in its specifications.

Where I live it's not uncommon to hit -30F with wind chills to -50+F on a bad day or night which can push my peak BTU usage way past 1 million BTU hours a day then have a +30 F sunny calm day shortly after
Phew ... that's why I was suggesting our requirements should be a little/lot lower. +32F is about as low as it ever gets overnight here ... on a handful of nights per year ... and a cold day would be max of 50F. Of course we have the other extremes in summer when we need the aircon.

I had to use a calculator to convert from our Centigrade to Farenheit ... just to keep it apples with apples.

That wide range of heat usage was one of my peeves with burning wood. On a bad day (when I really didn't want to be outside) I was loading the old wood burning boiler every 3 - 5 hours and on good ones twice just to keep the fire burning and the water up to temperature.
That would get old real quick. We do have it pretty good here. I better stop complaining.

That's where determining the realistic value of having the system comes into play. How much will it cost you in time, labor and money to build and fine tune and use to where it's reliable and how much normal heating costs does that equate to. For me, where this sort of endeavor is worth $2000+ a year in offset costs, there's a lot of financial motivations to pursue it even if it takes a 200+ hours of learning and building plus a$2000+ to just get it all to a bare minimal working level the first year.

However at 1/10 that annual cost avoidance numbers it may not be worth it unless its more of a academic/hobby type knowledge and skill building experience. It may not pay for itself in cost avoidance in any short time frame but when you have a new set of knowledge and skills, that few others have, that can save you time and money elsewhere then it's well worth it!
Good explanation. I rarely think about those sort of things so thoroughly ... or honestly perhaps. Now that you've pointed it out ... for me it's as much about the academic/hobby type knowledge and skill building ... and you're right ... it may not avoid a huge amount in cost ... but the knowledge and skills I pick up can be invaluable.

It's a bit like my work. Even though I did an apprenticeship as a radio tradesman and then plenty of post trade study ... when I went from fixing tvs and videos to this dairy equipment ... it was like doing a complete new apprenticeship. There's a lot of satisfaction in picking up new skills and doing stuff that other people can't do ... and even more in doing the stuff they say can't be done. As much an ego thing by the sounds of it.

#### Western

##### Member
Sorry i forgot to mention the gas stove thing, we also have electric in the house, but from Bombay-Brighton-Brisbane everyone kind of understand 4 stove gas burners, so its often used as a kind of 'leveler' so everyone is able to gauge the amount of gas. No good telling a Indian xm3 of gas day, they want to know how much cooking.
Ahh ... of course. That makes sense.

Plus you cant really say will run gas heating for X amount of time, heating systems are so different with number of radiators etc. 4-5 IBC's using our MKAD5 system (the current model we are replacing) with microbe cell to keep the sludge down, can take 6 acres of grass a week, all the waste from 12 sheep 3 people 2 dogs, and everything organic i can throw at it. It will easily run a 3 bedroom house around the clock heating wise if set up correctly.
Yes, I don't know what your weather is like ... but always assumed Scotland got a lot colder that Australia too. Maybe if I go too big with a system ... I'll be embarrassed at the amount we produce and not have a use for it all. Certainly over winter for heating seems the most beneficial ... but I imagine over summer if I could run a generator to cover the power hungry devices like pool pump, dish washer etc ... though ultimately it would be nice to charge a backup battery bank and run that stuff on an inverter ... to even out our useage.

Its easy to tune yourself into the system, but i will warn you against some the more recent patents, some are bogus for a reason.
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm sure I'm going to have a lot more questions yet.

But once your logged in you will understand whats going on in the industry at the moment.
Sounds awesome, thank you. I need all the help I can get.

#### tcmtech

##### Banned
That would get old real quick. We do have it pretty good here. I better stop complaining.
Did it for ~ 12 years at an average of ~1200 - 1500 wooden shipping pallets a year once my easier to get to and work with local wood supplies started to wind down. Great winter time exercise even with proper tools and whatnot. A 12' electric chop saw with a demolition blade makes fast work of slicing up wood pallets but it still gets old after a while. (Oddly enough I kind of miss it now a bit now that I have more local wood to clean up and use again.)

Good explanation. I rarely think about those sort of things so thoroughly ... or honestly perhaps. Now that you've pointed it out ... for me it's as much about the academic/hobby type knowledge and skill building ... and you're right ... it may not avoid a huge amount in cost ... but the knowledge and skills I pick up can be invaluable.
Most people don't and it leads to much disappointment and too often hate when dealing with AE/RE type stuff. Unless you know what you are in for and what is actually needed to do something properly and efficiently the shiney 'save myself and the world cause I'm green!' concepts of AE/RE can wear off pretty damn fast.

If that don't add up then its just an exercise in learning, which is still good, but just not as big of feel good as giving the conventional world the finger over some process or action most pay good money to have.

It's a bit like my work. Even though I did an apprenticeship as a radio tradesman and then plenty of post trade study ... when I went from fixing tvs and videos to this dairy equipment ... it was like doing a complete new apprenticeship. There's a lot of satisfaction in picking up new skills and doing stuff that other people can't do ... and even more in doing the stuff they say can't be done. As much an ego thing by the sounds of it.
That's pretty much been the story of my life. I have had a number of widely diversified jobs I picked up a uncommon number of skills and experiences with which at this point in my life makes me one of those guys that doesn't really have a limit to what he can do if so chosen to do it. Almost all of my work I do now is literally those 'impossible' jobs nobody else in their right mind will touch.

Because of that I will never discourage anyone from learning new things no matter how mundane or dd they may be. The only thing I will push them for is to be realistic about what it is they are after.

I've met too many good people who wasted fortunes and years of their lives chasing concepts that any basic semi indepth research and math would have proven they couldn't get anywhere with, let alone ahead on life over simply because the cold hard numbers said the scale of either the set up and operating costs, workloads, or other key things were way past the point of being remotely competitive with any existing tech that did the same things but 10x faster, cheaper and easier than their idea could ever do it for even under ideal conditions let alone realistic ones the target market could handle and work with.

#### Western

##### Member
Did it for ~ 12 years at an average of ~1200 - 1500 wooden shipping pallets a year once my easier to get to and work with local wood supplies started to wind down. Great winter time exercise even with proper tools and whatnot. A 12' electric chop saw with a demolition blade makes fast work of slicing up wood pallets but it still gets old after a while. (Oddly enough I kind of miss it now a bit now that I have more local wood to clean up and use again.)
That's a lot of wood ... and a lot of work.

Most people don't and it leads to much disappointment and too often hate when dealing with AE/RE type stuff. Unless you know what you are in for and what is actually needed to do something properly and efficiently the shiney 'save myself and the world cause I'm green!' concepts of AE/RE can wear off pretty damn fast.
Yeah ... I'm getting that.

That's pretty much been the story of my life. I have had a number of widely diversified jobs I picked up a uncommon number of skills and experiences with which at this point in my life makes me one of those guys that doesn't really have a limit to what he can do if so chosen to do it. Almost all of my work I do now is literally those 'impossible' jobs nobody else in their right mind will touch.
I used to think there were a lot of people around like that ... but I can't think of too many that I know of anymore. The old guys that used to amaze me are long gone ... and now that I think of it ... I can't think of any that would match them. You're a dying breed.

One old guy my dad used to take me to see occasionally lived in a broken down old shanty ... literally ... one wall had collapsed ... and he worked in a tiny little shed alongside.

He used to make working model engines of all types. The ones that fascinated me the most were multicylinder radial aircraft type ones. What was really amazing was that he had no electricity at all and used a pedal lathe for all his machining. Unbelievable.

I still remember him showing me an article in an electronics magazine all about the latest technology ... of transistors! I must have been all of 6 or 7. Maybe that's where my interest in electronics started ... who knows.

Fortunately all his models were put in a local museum, so I must go and have a look again one day. Maybe I should take my grandkids and my youngest son ... they might get some inspiration as well.

#### Western

##### Member
I've gone over the info on your oil burner system again ... and looked up what is available here in Australia. There are very few players in the game over here ... but what I have seen is very expensive.

Sounds like a waste oil burner system might set you back $10,000 or$12,000 just for the boiler. They look pretty sophisticated and have a lot of features.

Their 'burner' is particularly impressive ... makes me wonder what they have in them that they seem to think is necessary ... over and above what you have.

They do mention various ones with 350 or 500 watt pre-heaters ... https://kroll-heaters.com.au/waste-oil-burners/waste-oil-burners/

I assume your boiler is open to atmosphere ... and not sealed.

#### large_ghostman

##### Well-Known Member
I've gone over the info on your oil burner system again ... and looked up what is available here in Australia. There are very few players in the game over here ... but what I have seen is very expensive.

Sounds like a waste oil burner system might set you back $10,000 or$12,000 just for the boiler. They look pretty sophisticated and have a lot of features.

Their 'burner' is particularly impressive ... makes me wonder what they have in them that they seem to think is necessary ... over and above what you have.

They do mention various ones with 350 or 500 watt pre-heaters ... https://kroll-heaters.com.au/waste-oil-burners/waste-oil-burners/

I assume your boiler is open to atmosphere ... and not sealed.
We made ours from a normal oil boiler and a tractor high pressure fuel pump with a pre warmer. Cost us maybe £600 all in, and that was including getting some mods done to the pump. Compare an American furnace to what is used in the UK, often a very different beast.

#### tcmtech

##### Banned
I've gone over the info on your oil burner system again ... and looked up what is available here in Australia. There are very few players in the game over here ... but what I have seen is very expensive.

Sounds like a waste oil burner system might set you back $10,000 or$12,000 just for the boiler. They look pretty sophisticated and have a lot of features.

Their 'burner' is particularly impressive ... makes me wonder what they have in them that they seem to think is necessary ... over and above what you have.

They do mention various ones with 350 or 500 watt pre-heaters ... https://kroll-heaters.com.au/waste-oil-burners/waste-oil-burners/

I assume your boiler is open to atmosphere ... and not sealed.
They over complicate the process to make it expensive. (why make it simple cheap and reliable when you can make it complicated and expensive and break down easy) The reality is burning used oil/heavy thick fuels has been around for as long as the concept of burning them has existed and the process and parts are well known and easy to come by.

For example.

http://www.delavaninc.com/pdf/siphon_catalog_New.pdf

~$17 Us currency. https://www.amazon.com/XCSOURCE-Die...662337&sr=8-1&keywords=used+oil+burner+nozzle How different types of nozzles work. http://www.delavaninc.com/pdf/total_look.pdf http://www.delavaninc.com/pdf/catalog.pdf These are all you need, and they are everywhere and cheap too. They work on a simple venturi suction and atomization principle (same process common high output diesel/fuel oil burning 'torpedo / jet' heaters use) all you need is a low pressure air source and your oil above a certain temperature to get it viscosity below a certain level make a oil burner work. The rest is just simple valves, pumps and regulators which can be controlled with simple electronics. In fact the most complicated thing you may need is a common PID temperature controller to keep the oil preheat temperatures optimized. I like these. They are cheap and reliable plus have impressive range of programing and input options for the price. https://www.amazon.com/Temperature-...ords=mypin+ta4-ssr+pid+temperature+controller The manual. http://blog.uvm.edu/cwcallah/files/2016/04/AGPTek-PID-Controller-PC17-user-manual.pdf They are very common in the hobby/light commercial microbrewery field so finding more detailed setup info is easy. Beyond that, for more compex DIY digital control you can either step up to using one of the many micro controllers systems like Arduinos or whatever or do as I did and go to light commercial PLR control, like with the Teco PLR units which are basically lowish end PLC units. These guys carry a load of neat control stuff plus much of their products have free software you can download and play with to no end well before you buy a single item to use it with. http://www.factorymation.com Eventually I will get my DIY Alternative Fuels boiler thread updated to include that part of the system designs too but as you can see as to why I push very hard on the doing in depth research into what you think you want and to what limits/options you have on resources, skills and money to throw at it. If you have a basic guide to point out the critical areas, and how to get around them legally and safely (Technical/bureaucratic red tape deep diving sucks at first buts it worth it), most stuff is not terribly complicated or difficult, let alone actually illegal, to do. #### large_ghostman ##### Well-Known Member Most Helpful Member is not terribly complicated or difficult, let alone actually illegal, to do. Which is alittle different from morally acceptable, but sticking to legal limits is a good start point. You said you had a lab centrifuge, can you take some pics? one of my bigger lab ones is now out of balance, there is no practical way to re balance these type, so if your thinking of turning one into a oil spinner, mine might be close enough for me to give you some ideas. The main bowl and motor is what you want, but there is some serious points to consider with larger lab centrifuges. Look online at the pics of devastation these things cause if they come apart at high speed. have several types of centrifuge from very small desktop mini things at 12,000rpm max, upto floor standing cryo ones designed to stop ribosomes and other cell organelles from heating up due to the forces applied to them. The big floor standing ones have an incredible amount of power, if they get the smallest bit out of balance it can be catastrophic. Thats why your likely going to have to modify the motor mounts a good bit, but with decent speed limiting etc it should work great. #### tcmtech ##### Banned Most Helpful Member Which is alittle different from morally acceptable, but sticking to legal limits is a good start point. Okay, Whos more morally superior? Belief systems A or B? Skin color M or V? Gender Q or Z? Smart or dumb people? Vegans or meat eaters? Left handed or right handed people? Totalitarian rule or Free market? Liars with a good intentions or honest people who don't believe something matters? See the moral problem of defining who is what and why? Its personal choice, biases and views based and nothing else. #### large_ghostman ##### Well-Known Member Most Helpful Member Okay, Whos more morally superior? Belief systems A or B? Skin color M or V? Gender Q or Z? Smart or dumb people? Vegans or meat eaters? Left handed or right handed people? Totalitarian rule or Free market? Liars with a good intentions or honest people who don't believe something matters? See the moral problem of defining who is what and why? Its personal choice, biases and views based and nothing else. Interesting choice, morally exceptable is causing no harm when possible. It takes a certain mind set to connect the concept of morality with a gender, race, creed or any other definition that pertains to a human being. In this instance morally acceptable is acting in the best interest of everyone you share the planet with. Who they are or what they are has no bearing as long as they are a resident of planet earth. I would be interested to hear how you would apply the concept of moral responsibility to any or all the groups you mention, enlighten me as to how being morally responsible to the planet connects to say being a different colour? or education level? Your compass should except you have a responsibility to everyone if any of your actions affect one group then it equally affects any other. There are some types of people who do not take a world view, but most dont tend to waste much time on these people, they are unlikely to ever take responsibility past what they perceive to be in there own interest, as generally their views are shaped around the concept they are the universal center. I take it after some thought you would agree that being responsible in ones actions does not depend on the group that the actions affect? #### large_ghostman ##### Well-Known Member Most Helpful Member Western which part roughly of oz you in? I have a couple of good contacts in OZ with very good home systems. #### tcmtech ##### Banned Most Helpful Member Interesting choice, morally exceptable is causing no harm when possible. Yes, And who is the authority on what is considered harmful to what and when by what standards? Nobody, because it's subjective and personal, not objective and impartial. That's why you yourself can not define any of my examples as to which is morally superior and have no choice but to deflect the topic into something you can claim your own subjective moral superiority on. They are subjectively ambiguous and undefinable from an impartial perspective. Just as your attempt to claim high ground ona barely relatable tangent rather than answer my questions. Just because you personally feel strongly about something does not in fact always give you moral superiority on the subject. Especially when those claiming to have moral superiority have loads of examples showing anything but moral and ethical superiority in how they handle certain subjects (like deflecting the topic on any subjects they cannot factual answer without self incrimination. ) Hence my example of which is morally superior, "Liars with a good intentions or honest people who don't believe something matters" I knew full well where this was going to go. Now you throw this back at me and claim the same, but from your perspective that it was you who knew where this was going. That or double down on the defection again rather than stick with the theme and direct topics of the thread. (Also make sure shortbus gives me more dislikes and you more likes so that he can show his superior morals, or whatever the childish heck he thinks he has going against me now, with this new passive aggressive butthurt game of his.) #### large_ghostman ##### Well-Known Member Most Helpful Member Yes, And who is the authority on what is considered harmful to what and when by what standards? Nobody, because it's subjective and personal, not objective and impartial. That's why you yourself can not define any of my examples as to which is morally superior and have no choice but to deflect the topic into something you can claim your own subjective moral superiority on. They are subjectively ambiguous and undefinable from an impartial perspective. Just as your attempt to claim high ground ona barely relatable tangent rather than answer my questions. Just because you personally feel strongly about something does not in fact always give you moral superiority on the subject. Especially when those claiming to have moral superiority have loads of examples showing anything but moral and ethical superiority in how they handle certain subjects (like deflecting the topic on any subjects they cannot factual answer without self incrimination. ) Hence my example of which is morally superior, "Liars with a good intentions or honest people who don't believe something matters" I knew full well where this was going to go. Now you throw this back at me and claim the same, but from your perspective that it was you who knew where this was going. That or double down on the defection again rather than stick with the theme and direct topics of the thread. (Also make sure shortbus gives me more dislikes and you more likes so that he can show his superior morals, or whatever the childish heck he thinks he has going against me now, with this new passive aggressive butthurt game of his.) The above makes no sense as a response to my inquiry made in good faith, i simply wanted to know how Okay, Whos more morally superior? Belief systems A or B? Skin color M or V? Gender Q or Z? Smart or dumb people? Vegans or meat eaters? Left handed or right handed people? Totalitarian rule or Free market? Liars with a good intentions or honest people who don't believe something matters? See the moral problem of defining who is what and why? Its personal choice, biases and views based and nothing else. Was connected to So i then post what i believed explained the point i was making, just incase you had misunderstood the context of my use of the word morally. In order to explain my meaning i post the following. Which i think/hope made it clear that i didnt understand your answer. So i asked if you understood what i had been saying and agreed to it. I am still none the wiser, i am still some what baffled how trying to use environmental best practice, has anything at all to do with race or colour etc? Actually should it need spelling out to anyone, the point i had hoped i was making was, sometimes the law falls short of what is best practice or morally right (an example being the use of copper sulfate to control algae in water systems, this is legal. However morally wrong due to the toxicity of copper in an open environmental water system). So yes staying within the law is a good thing to be encouraged, however there are times where we can do what is technically legal or what is morally right, these are not always the same. SO as i say at the end, my assumption was you had misunderstood my meaning and would therefore agree race etc had nothing to do with morality in this context. What totally threw me was your reply Yes, And who is the authority on what is considered harmful to what and when by what standards? Nobody, because it's subjective and personal, not objective and impartial. Well like the example with copper sulphate, this is so well understood and excepted to be toxic environmentally, it often states so on the packet itself. As to who decides, i dont think it is an actual decision, i think its just excepted from data gathered. Otherwise why would it be on the label? Also it is heavily in the scientific literature. Again i muust stress copper sulphate in this instance is just an example of the conflict between legal and morally correct. The decision as to how to use it rests with the user, his/her own moral compass would decide. That's why you yourself can not define any of my examples as to which is morally superior and have no choice but to deflect the topic into something you can claim your own subjective moral superiority on. I just gave an example that i believe explains the original point perfectly. As you can see there is no relationship to race or education level; Just because you personally feel strongly about something does not in fact always give you moral superiority on the subject. That is correct, which is why i stated staying legal was a good start. I didnt try and force my opinion on anything. Hence my example of which is morally superior, "Liars with a good intentions or honest people who don't believe something matters" You will have to explain this, i honestly cannot see how it fits any of the context of my original question. Now you throw this back at me and claim the same, but from your perspective that it was you who knew where this was going. That or double down on the defection again rather than stick with the theme and direct topics of the thread. No sorry i dont understand where any of this fits, i am not sure your even replying to me. The rest of it is just your normal smiley ocd thing and nothing that answers my two original questions. Can you explain where or how race or education etc etc etc, was relevant to what i said? If you actually understand my point now i have given an example of legal and moral conflict, do you agree or not? One word answers to each question would be suffice and save much confusion, i find many of your longer posts irrelevant to what i have asked and some what of a personal complex ramble, which makes it difficult to understand your answer. #### Mickster ##### Well-Known Member Yes, And who is the authority on what is considered harmful to what and when by what standards? That, Sir, should be your own conscious mind! Uneducated people can be forgiven for their unconscious ignorance, since they know no better, but persons such as yourself, who constantly remind us of how intelligent they are, are in a position to better evaluate the environmental impact of actions they choose to take. We are informed, by yourself, that you are highly, even 'extremely' intelligent, probably more so than 99.999% of the rest of the forum membership. In comparison to yourself, I'm as thick as pig-sh!t, but even a feeble-minded idiot troll such as myself knows that burning tyres in a home-made furnace is going to produce a crap-ton of polluting emissions, which would drift across neighboring properties and settle on their land. If I were as wealthy as you claim to be, there would be no need for me to do this, since I could easily afford to utilize much cleaner/greener energy sources, unless I was such a cheapskate b*stard that I had absolutely no regard for my neighbors or the environment as a whole. #### large_ghostman ##### Well-Known Member Most Helpful Member Western can you pm me your town? Two reasons, one i got a strong feeling you live not far from someone who does bio diesel and heating oil. Hooking you both up would save you money. There used to be a bio diesel forum, it was really good. He was a mod on there and has alot of experience especially with some your laws regarding getting hold used oil. I think i am right in saying some places you have to be registered in order to take waste oil? Anyway he knows his way around the tech side and more importantly the legal side, i am aware in Oz things like home chemistry etc have some tough rules. The other thing he is good for is getting those ultra fine filters you use after the spinning. The forum has gone now, the main people who ran it, slowly got pushed out the market for bio diesel and gave up, but i think its swinging back the other way again!! Also bryan1 from this site might be worth a pm. Not seen him in a long while, but he did loads on enviro stuff and alternative energy.He was a mod here at one point, and as far as i know has more experience with all kinds alternative energy than any other member. When i first joined he was doing way before then!! #### tcmtech ##### Banned Most Helpful Member What totally threw me was your reply Well like the example with copper sulphate, this is so well understood and excepted to be toxic environmentally, Without exceeding the legally determined levels it is not considered toxic (Threshold limits) thusly making the claim that it is a moral superiority thing moot. My moral superiority says that if it meets legal requirements its good and decent and that anyone pushing for unrealistically higher or whatever standards is after a likely morally questionable agenda that falls outside of defined law and good and reasonable public best interests. IE, which goes along with all of my examples. Its undefinable as to which side is morally better (likely neither since we have laws to mitigate such nonsensical pseudo hierarchical definitions of others actions and rights) since both sides standards of moral superiority claim higher ground based entirely on subjective reasoning and views. You think yours is more moral, due to subjective personal values the legal system does not recognize which by many peoples like myselfs moral views makes you an extremist of one of more questionable agendas and ties to factual reality. A moral stalemate and only one of us gets and accepts it as a fact of life and thusly does not push the issue as if there is something to win for it. My moral actions and justifications are grounded in the laws as they stand based on scientific determinations. Yours are based on idealisms and nothing else and I would like to think that you know what history shows about the reality of idealists and their agendas. Can you explain where or how race or education etc etc etc, was relevant to what i said? If you actually understand my point now i have given an example of legal and moral conflict, do you agree or not? One word answers to each question would be suffice and save much confusion, i find many of your longer posts irrelevant to what i have asked and some what of a personal complex ramble, which makes it difficult to understand your answer. They are arbitrary and ambiguous moral comparatives meant to parible our ongoing disagreements about who morals are higher. You claim you are on moral high ground, due to your own indoctrinated personal views of reality, and I claim your not based on my equally arbitrary personal views of reality. Neither side of any of those subjects carries any more or less moral substance, beyond what their imaginary binary opposition thought locked participants place on them, and to any independent objective third party they are all rather pointless, just as you see them and rightly should not see the point of when looking at any of them objectively. Last edited: #### tcmtech ##### Banned Most Helpful Member That, Sir, should be your own conscious mind! Uneducated people can be forgiven for their unconscious ignorance, since they know no better, but persons such as yourself, who constantly remind us of how intelligent they are, are in a position to better evaluate the environmental impact of actions they choose to take. When have I ever actually claimed I am smarter than everyone else? I don't think I am so, Proof please. As for environmental impact, that's what the laws define and if something meets the legal requirements that has zero to do with people's personal beliefs regardless of what you or I may think the standards should be. We are informed, by yourself, that you are highly, even 'extremely' intelligent, probably more so than 99.999% of the rest of the forum membership. Your imaginations of my superiority are getting the better of you. Statically I am at best in the top 5% IQ wise. Same with life experiences regarding technical subjects in certain applied fields. I may play to the above average levels in some areas but I am not the top in all. Just well experienced and willing to put an effort into not looking dumb. Something I feel everyone should strive for. In comparison to yourself, I'm as thick as pig-sh!t, but even a feeble-minded idiot troll such as myself knows that burning tyres in a home-made furnace is going to produce a crap-ton of polluting emissions, which would drift across neighboring properties and settle on their land. Regarding your intelligence. You underestimating yourself doesn't make me look bad for it. Also, burning tires for fuel is legal and done a far larger scale than you may realize in most areas so it's a moot claim. Just one of many examples of it. http://www.scraptirenews.com/tdf.php Plus, as i stated some time ago in another thread that your topic came from, my process burns them cleanly to the point of little to no soot (no greater than common wood or coal) which with heavy fuels (solids and or thick liquid hydrocarbons) if little to no soot is being produced more than likely it meets base level soot and general emissions standards under most jurisdictions, or at least in my area where nobody cares as long s they can't see it or smell it at a distance. Moral objections to my life based on your - what if's -, denied. If I were as wealthy as you claim to be, there would be no need for me to do this, since I could easily afford to utilize much cleaner/greener energy sources, unless I was such a cheapskate b*stard that I had absolutely no regard for my neighbors or the environment as a whole. What does my assumed by you financial and or other statuses have to do with anything, beyond perceivable jealousy/envy maybe? Also, being cheap and resourceful is how people get to be wealthy to begin with. There's a lot more well off people living unassuming below average looking lives than not. Especially in my region where a farmer may own$10 million in land, $3 million in equipment and live in a$75K house while driving a 20 year old vehicle that's worthless and dress like a bum most days.

Personally for me it's just a fun personal engineering type challenge since I have the time and the natural desire to do it rather than chase after rich idiots social status achievement games. Especially if it rubs certain types of people the wrong way over really petty ignorant and judgemental nonsense that comes entirely from inside their own heads!

The reality is, you do not know me personally, my real work and operations here where I live, how I live, my environment or its allowances or my neighbors or my interactions with them so it's all just empty straw man attack false accusations and speculations used to boot your self perceived views of having greater moral whatever than me to which in contrast the fact you openly choose to judge me on your less than realistic imaginations of me, my life, and my community does not sit to highly in my moral standards. (moral stalemate since I don't care how you live while you do care about what you imagine of me anyway, even if it's not remotely real.)

#### large_ghostman

##### Well-Known Member
Without exceeding the legally determined levels it is not considered toxic (Threshold limits) thusly making the claim that it is a moral superiority thing moot.
No copper sulphate is extremely toxic to aquatic life.
I know you think scientists over react with al1 that measuring they do, i suspect your unit of tolerance is the meter, personally i start at the mm. Anyway copper sulphate and its toxicity
http://www.ojafr.ir/main/attachments/article/73/OJAFR, A,19.pdf
Now my statement was copper is highly toxic in aquatic systems but not illegal. This is taken directly from that paper, incidentally i just grabbed the first open access paper, there are literally thousands of them. Your the first person i have ever met who does not consider copper salts deadly in the aquatic environment, maybe you should right a paper on it as i could find none to back you up.

I took the liberty of highlighting the bits of relevance for you, i understand you dont like wading through text. So you mentioned within limits etc, now thats a reasonable statement so lets look at its toxicity and see if its just a little toxic like say paracetamol overdose levels, or highly toxic like say the amounts of arsenic needed to kill.

Tilapia are fish and known as a biological model fish, they are very robust, so i found the levels of 58mg-70mg per ltr, or we could express this as (0.058-0.070 per Kg) somewhat shocking, seeing as molluscs etc are roughly 3,000 times more sensitive to copper than fish are.
So turns out in terms of toxicity that copper is far more toxic to aquatic life than arsenic is to us. By how much?

Well that is indeed many times more toxic! Approx 85 times more toxic to robust aquatic life forms than arsenic is to us. Now i can explain the maths if you like, but this makes it extremely dangerous to more susceptible life forms such as shrimps and molluscs.

I think when stating something is moot, one really should look into the facts first, after all even the very uneducated (i am not suggesting for a second you are uneducated) would struggle to defend

Without exceeding the legally determined levels it is not considered toxic (Threshold limits) thusly making the claim that it is a moral superiority thing moot.
In any way shape or form, although i suspect you will try and obfuscate the point rather than concede you were in fact way off with your statement.

My moral superiority says that if it meets legal requirements its good and decent and that anyone pushing for unrealistically higher or whatever standards is after a likely morally questionable agenda that falls outside of defined law and good and reasonable public best interests.
Superiority, no one mentioned anyone being superior, i think it is clear from my race comments that moral responsibility lays with us all equally. It does disturb me somewhat when you use word like superior etc, it comes across as if you think some are less equal or responsible than others? My initial point was exactly the opposite, if you share the planet you have a equal responsibility, that is why i asked for clarification on why you mentioned race and education. I asked for 2 simple one word answers.

Maybe the question posed was not understood? if so i am happy to clarify.

IE, which goes along with all of my examples. Its undefinable as to which side is morally better (likely neither since we have laws to mitigate such nonsensical pseudo hierarchical definitions of others actions and rights) since both sides standards of moral superiority claim higher ground based entirely on subjective reasoning and views.

You think yours is more moral, due to subjective personal values the legal system does not recognize which by many peoples like myselfs moral views makes you an extremist of one of more questionable agendas and ties to factual reality. A moral stalemate and only one of us gets and accepts it as a fact of life and thusly does not push the issue as if there is something to win for it.

My moral actions and justifications are grounded in the laws as they stand based on scientific determinations. Yours are based on idealisms and nothing else and I would like to think that you know what history shows about the reality of idealists and their agendas.
No i cant see and reasonable answer to my question there, normal semi ranting but nothing of substance in support of your case. I think the most telling part is this bit.

My moral actions and justifications are grounded in the laws as they stand based on scientific determinations. Yours are based on idealisms and nothing else
Your statement is very clear, so i will pose this question for you to ponder.

You state your actions and views are
My moral actions and justifications are grounded in the laws as they stand based on scientific determinations
And yet you provide no supporting evidence of any kind scientific or otherwise. I think that is known as a self retracted statement. especially when the next bit states.

Yours are based on idealisms and nothing else
Again even the lower spectrum of educated should be able to see that you have the entire statement back to front, I have included the full scientific paper (one of many i can cite if you wish) to back my position, so i feel your somewhat unfair to accuse me of idealism, especially after claiming you base your morals on scientific fact yet provide nothing to back your position.

Others can weigh the evidence from both sides, i feel it is unlikely i can be accused by rational intelligent people of being purely a idealist, i would like to think most having the evidence would see my views as balanced and supported by science.

I do not wish to make a comment on your position, the evidence provided is conclusively clear, i do suspect however we will be subjected to low grade obfuscation semi literate ramblings with no supporting evidence, but i am open minded enough to wait and see.

#### large_ghostman

##### Well-Known Member
You think yours is more moral, due to subjective personal values the legal system does not recognize which by many peoples like myselfs moral views makes you an extremist of one of more questionable agendas and ties to factual reality.
Sorry i missed that bit,

I think this
Completely disproves your somewhat worrying statement. With the greatest respect the following is based on concern and on advice i have received. I have shown some of your posts to someone highly qualified to make informed judgments, indeed they are paid a great deal to advise the court system and within the scientific community are of the highest regard.

Mod Edit!!! Pleas keep it civil... There really is no need for mud slinging!!!

P.S
Would you mind actually answering my original 2 questions with a simple yes/no type format? a single word answer on each question will more than suffice.

many thanks

Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.