• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Uses for old engine or cooking oil

Status
Not open for further replies.

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Western

Thank you for the location information etc. I did wonder on location as you have said a couple of things that made me wonder. I know that area is somewhat large, however it is the same area as the person i had in mind. Come Monday i will email them for you, they are not members here and i only seem to have a working business email address for them. I am sure they will gladly off you help and advice.

You didnt get this from me but.....I happen to know his brother in law is a heating engineer ;), that might come in handy if you see what i mean :D.

Regarding the info on the centrifuge, its the motor that matters, either way those motors are highly prized and cost a fortune!!

Tomorrow if i get time i might run some old mixed agricultural oil through a couple fo different laboratory centrifuges and take some pics for you.

It will give you an indication of what kind of G force is required.
 

rjenkinsgb

Well-Known Member
On a slight tangent - if you don't want to bother purifying oil and the space you are heating is large enough, you could get an original type Salamander; they will run on pretty much anything ...
Just let it run dry and chuck out the residue occasionally.

If you have not seen one, they are something approximating a pulse-jet style pipe set in a big oil bucket.

My father and older brother had these in their respective factory & workshops, a long time ago.

>found a photo of some<
http://spenceideas.com/wp-content/uploads/salamander-heater-salamander-heaters.jpg
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
Your the first person i have ever met who does not consider copper salts deadly in the aquatic environment,
I never said they were not deadly.

I stated that all things have an exposure limit threshold before they become a problem which is what the laws relating to their allowable limits are about. Even your references you give address that threshold level concept many times over. :facepalm:

That is and has been my whole argument on pollution from the beginning and it will never change. Every single toxic substance has a lower limit of impact/influence and when their values are below that limit they effectively do not matter even if they are still measurable.

You seem hell bent on ignoring that cold hard fact of reality and environmental protection law. WHY? :confused:
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
On a slight tangent - if you don't want to bother purifying oil and the space you are heating is large enough, you could get an original type Salamander; they will run on pretty much anything ...
Just let it run dry and chuck out the residue occasionally.

If you have not seen one, they are something approximating a pulse-jet style pipe set in a big oil bucket.

My father and older brother had these in their respective factory & workshops, a long time ago.

>found a photo of some<
http://spenceideas.com/wp-content/uploads/salamander-heater-salamander-heaters.jpg
Around here the main waste motor oil is from agricultural mechanics, so we tend to get a mix of engine oil,hydraulic fluid, break fluid and kind of stuff thrown in. Personally i wouldnt want to breathe in the fume from it.

I havt seen them so much for a while, but over here they have something similar but with a big electric fan to force air in. You tend to get a big blue flame shoot out the back, the idea is a much higher temperature but even then it just isnt something i would want to breathe. Easier if you got car places, the oil tends to be better quality but again i just dont fancy breathing in all that monoxide etc.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
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. They have advised me to try and not engage to much with you, there is more than a little evidence to suggest you suffer from a delusional psychological condition.

This is not a smear by any means, but from all of the above, i think most rational people would feel uncomfortable reading your unsupported statements, although i should make it clear from a human perspective i do have considerable concern for your psychological welfare. It is somewhat unfortunate in conditions such as this, the sufferer is rarely aware apparently.
I am pretty sure you are grossly under qualified to diagnose, let alone seek or give professional advice for or on my or anyones mental conditions, imagined by you or otherwise, based solely on internet forum interactions we have had. :rolleyes:

If you are that concerned about my mental state (based solidly on your child level misunderstandings and imaginations of reality no less) feel free to pay for any possible counseling you think I need to have and I will happily go and do them without question and post the results here for everyone to see. ;)

Now you on the other hand. Don't you legitimately have a bit of an aspergers and or ADHD/OCD issue? Which if so by default can make your perception/fixations on and of reality naturally less than fact and logic based on certain things at certain times?

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/asperger.html

https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-symptoms-checklist

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/obsessive-compulsive-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20354432
 

cowboybob

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Any chance y'all can tone down the hyperbole a tad?

Really deflects the reader from the thread title ("uses-for-old-engine-or-cooking-oil").

And frankly, in MHO, unbecoming of the decorum normally maintained on this site...
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
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.
Oh dear.

I never said they were not deadly.

I stated that all things have an exposure limit threshold before they become a problem which is what the laws relating to their allowable limits are about.
What you actually said, rather than your squirming way out version was.


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. :rolleyes:
Now i am not sure how you can stridently claim the following

My moral actions and justifications are grounded in the laws as they stand based on scientific determinations
When I actually linked to the scientific evidence for fish, let alone other more sensitive aquatic lifeforms.
toxic 2.png


So when i read

Without exceeding the legally determined levels it is not considered toxic (Threshold limits)
And yet know the legal limit is
copper legal.png

I ask myself this....
Can
My moral actions and justifications are grounded in the laws as they stand based on scientific determinations
Be true when the toxic level to robust fish is an order of magnitude lower than the legal limit??

Just so there is no confusion. it is deadly at 0.05mg/ltr but legally your allowed 0.5mg/ltr.

Makes a mockery of stating you base your morals and views on scientific fact. That or you are not aware 0.5 is alot higher than 0.05??

I am pretty sure you are grossly under qualified to diagnose, let alone seek or give professional advice for or on my or anyones mental conditions, imagined by you or otherwise, based solely on internet forum interactions we have had. :rolleyes:
Sometimes you dont have to be a zoologist know what your looking at going quack is a duck.

Now you on the other hand. Don't you legitimately have a bit of an aspergers and or ADHD/OCD issue?
I indeed do which is why i check my facts and like inaccurate information corrected. Unfortunately when people dont fact check, or if there real knowledge on a subject is low. I feel the need to correct rubbish, otherwise someone needing accurate information may end up using your figures rather than the correct information.
 

shortbus=

Well-Known Member
MODS, ALL MODERATORS PLEASE NOT JUST ONE. Since I am no longer allowed to use the report button, or respond to him what do I do when this type of thing happens?

(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
Any chance y'all can tone down the hyperbole a tad?

Really deflects the reader from the thread title ("uses-for-old-engine-or-cooking-oil").
I am indeed trying, i have openly admitted i do not like bogus claims made in the name of science and knowledge to go unchallenged. Especially when simple checks would have given the correct information, to me i see it as a collective duty to try and ensure accurate information is presented, otherwise a site becomes as credible as a mike myers site and gains a reputation for poor knowledge.

I do take your other points on board, which is why i have tried to present the facts and counter argument in a non argumentative way. Hence my effort to actually reference the information i give and clearly display which parts i am referring to when correcting them.

My deepest apologize to you cowboy bob, if this has been a distraction or dampening of your enjoyment of this thread, however i am sure you aware of the effort i put in to make sure what i state is accurate to the best of my ability. Detail and accurate these matters are important to me, it is somewhat difficult however to do this when despite being given quality evidence, the other side simply relies on there unfounded and unreferenced beliefs to support there case.

It becomes a dilemma, as an engineering site i feel it important that information be accurate. I do accept its reasonable to make mistakes, however when those mistakes are not admitted, and the person would rather continue down the wrong informational path, then i feel its done to save face, rather than embrace the fact they have made a mistake and help correct it.

But i do again appologise to you, all i can say is there are not many people on here where it becomes as necessary to hammer home a point, like this particular case. On the whole i feel most here are like myself and prefer to immediately acknowledge a mistake. After al the shame is not in being wrong, but the non acceptance that one is indeed wrong.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Well sorry guys looks like i am out the thread., Western your welcome to continue to contact me for more information by PM. It is just as easy to correct misinformation from a pm as it i within a thread. I am unsure why the threat to lock me out the conversation was done by pm, all other instances of this recently have been done in the threads??
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
Makes a mockery of stating you base your morals and views on scientific fact. That or you are not aware 0.5 is alot higher than 0.05??
Not really. Subjective false equative argumenting your way out of things doesn't make the laws universally bad and wrong.

For example. Peanut allergies can be fatal to some people but those people do not set the morally charged and legally defined standards of all peanuts being fatally toxic to all people and therefore the laws need to be rewritten to ban them from existence. :rolleyes:

Same with herbicides, some are 100% fatally toxic to certain plants in insanely tiny quantities but not to all plants at that level and not to all organisms at similar levels.

Subjectively those two things are very fatal to some lifeforms, but not to all things like or dissimilar, at the same of even vastly higher quantities. :facepalm:

You're subjectively weasel wording to try and make your claims look more valid and justified, and mine less, than what the laws and reality stand for and we both know it.

I know full well how this subjective false equative reasoning game to falsely justify feeling of moral and intellectual superiority works so why continue to play it? You wont change my views and how people see me and I likely won't do the same for you either. However, in how each of us present our side that may very well change how others see the both of us, and not for ways you would like them to be seen and go. :(:facepalm:
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Not really. Subjective false equative argumenting your way out of things doesn't make the laws universally bad and wrong.
What is subjective abut a peer reviewed scientific paper i posted in full? I have yet to see a single piece of evidence to support your claims, in this instance not even a mike myers site. I also posted the legal limits of copper, which are above the toxic levels. Now to take you back to the start, i said Legal and moral was not the same, i gave copper as an example, i posted both a peer reviewed scientific paper to support the toxicity of copper, and also posted the legal maximum discharge amount, which happens to be an order of magnitude above the lethal level for many organisms.

I suspect your struggling to work out how come the legal limit is above the actual toxic limit?

Fairly easy to answer, when the regulations came out few had studied the effects of copper toxicity, only after there had been numerous reports of population crashes in aquatic systems, were studies done to determine the actual toxicity level. They remain at those levels because nothing moves fast in legislation.

I am more than used to you missing vital information, so for your benefit i will post the paper again
http://www.ojafr.ir/main/attachments/article/73/OJAFR, A,19.pdf

If you could kindly point out what you find subjective about the measurements they took, i would be most grateful. As for the legal limit table, you may look that up yourself if you cant find the one i posted.

Magnitude wise you realize we are talking the difference between 1A and 100mA dont you? (example units used to give you a context of difference).

For example. Peanut allergies can be fatal to some people but those people do not set the morally charged and legally defined standards of all peanuts being fatally toxic to all people and therefore the laws need to be rewritten to ban them from existence. :rolleyes:
Very strawman and poor example, there are NO legal limits for peanuts as they are not toxic, they cause harm to a group of people with an allergy to them, this is very different from a substance that is actually Toxic. For example there is a upper exposure limit for cyanide because this is toxic, it dosnt affect just a few people, it is a substance that has toxicity to everyone.

Same with herbicides, some are 100% fatally toxic to certain plants in insanely tiny quantities but not to all plants at that level and not to all organisms at similar levels.
To my knowledge no one mentioned herbicides, however you did directly challenge my example of copper being aquatically toxic. You will find it difficult to find an aquatic organism that isnt sensitive to copper, this is why Tilapia were used, they happen to be one of the less supcetable organisms.

You're subjectively weasel wording to try and make your claims look more valid and justified, and mine less, than what the laws and reality stand for and we both know it.
You are confusing the person providing scientific evidence with the one providing nothing but opinion to back there position.

I know full well how this subjective false equative reasoning game to falsely justify feeling of moral and intellectual superiority works so why continue to play it? You wont change my views
I have admitted several times in different threads, that despite overwhelming evidence being supplied to you, it was highly unlikely you would change your view. Which sadly directly conflicts with and makes somewhat a mockery of this
My moral actions and justifications are grounded in the laws as they stand based on scientific determinations
Clearly if this were indeed true, we would have seen scientific evidence to support your case? Peanuts and herbicides (with no supporting evidence either) are both not relevant to the discussion and without any supporting evidence worthless. In
I know full well how this subjective false equative reasoning game to falsely justify feeling of moral and intellectual superiority works
I completely agree with this, in fact i would go so far as to say IMHO you are somewhat of a gifted expert in it.

However, in how each of us present our side that may very well change how others see the both of us, and not for ways you would like them to be seen and go. :(:facepalm:
Indeed i again agree, which is why i suggest you try and post supporting information, when only one side offers relevant scientific evidence, the reader of the thread is left in no doubt what is subjective, and what is researched fact.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
What is subjective abut a peer reviewed scientific paper i posted in full?
I'm not talking about the paper and never was. I am talking about your false equivalencies you use to justify your weak highly subjective arguments and false reasonings for your belief systems.

Why do you constantly jump to unrelated subjects when I point out something about your own personal beliefs not passing inspection. Just as you do here.

Very strawman and poor example, there are NO legal limits for peanuts as they are not toxic, they cause harm to a group of people with an allergy to them, this is very different from a substance that is actually Toxic. For example there is a upper exposure limit for cyanide because this is toxic, it dosnt affect just a few people, it is a substance that has toxicity to everyone.
Then dismiss the exact same argument later when it disproves your views you argued yourself only to then go on to reargue my own points in a way that agrees with what I was stating against yours at the begining using another near identical example.

Are you aware that an allergy is a type of reaction to a toxin and thusly to specific people they are a toxin but not to others, just as you stated, and just like toxins they have unique threshold triggering points in different organisms (IE people with variable degrees of allergies to them just like copper sulphate is a variable toxin to different organisms as well) ?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2052671

So, Are you for or against yourself or me or don't you know what side you on or what point you are going for to begin with? :confused:

FWIW, I am backing out of this thread given I am rather sure I am arguing against one of your aspergers quirks given how you can't carry a straight non self contradicting debate any longer and apparently don't even realize it. :(
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
I'm not talking about the paper and never was. I am talking about your false equivalencies you use to justify your weak highly subjective arguments and false reasonings for your belief systems.
That is exactly what we were discussing, i wont go through it again for you, it is all clearly and neatly presented above, i took the time and trouble to break down your posts and answered each point you made. It should be very easy for anyone to understand.

Then dismiss the exact same argument later when it disproves your views you argued yourself only to then go on to reargue my own points in a way that agrees with what I was stating against yours at the begining using another near identical example.

Are you aware that an allergy is a type of reaction to a toxin and thusly to specific people they are a toxin but not to others, just as you stated, and just like toxins they have unique threshold triggering points in different organisms (IE people with variable degrees of allergies to them just like copper sulphate is a variable toxin to different organisms as well) ?
The point was about copper sulphate, to my knowledge there is no environmental limit imposed on peanuts.


So, Are you for or against yourself or me or don't you know what side you on or what point you are going for to begin with? :confused:
Get someone to read the thread and explain it to you. My position is clear. On that subject.... did you ever manage to work out the race question?? Actually two questions requiring a simple yes or no.

FWIW, I am backing out of this thread given I am rather sure I am arguing against one of your aspergers quirks
No need to explain, i am sure everyone is aware why you dont wish to continue.

given how you can't carry a straight non self contradicting debate any longer and apparently don't even realize it. :(
:hilarious::hilarious: if nothing else, your always a good for a laugh. And you certainly have the knack of making me laugh, so thank you for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top