# Soaking firewood in old used motor oil?



## anymanusa (Dec 12, 2010)

Anyone ever do this?

-flamesuit on.


----------



## sunfish (Dec 12, 2010)

Go for it, big boy :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## blackdogon57 (Dec 12, 2010)

Yes, I often soak my wood in toxic waste. My neighbors really enjoy the thick black smoke that billows from my chimney. Nothing quite compares the sweet aroma of burning oil. The cancer that is likely to follow is just an added bonus.


----------



## John R (Dec 12, 2010)

blackdogon57 said:


> Yes, I often soak my wood in toxic waste. My neighbors really enjoy the thick black smoke that billows from my chimney. Nothing quite compares the sweet aroma of burning oil. The cancer that is likely to follow is just an added bonus.




I'm sure the smoke would be no different than from a waste oil stove.


----------



## teatersroad (Dec 12, 2010)

why? Is there something inefficient about just burning decent firewood in a decent stove? 

A waste oil burner is designed to burn waste oil, cleanly and efficiently (it has to be) - A wood stove is not.


----------



## D.Marsh (Dec 12, 2010)

I can only imagine the smell, let alone the amount of crap that you'll get in your flue by doing it. I've never come across any firewood that needed it. If it didn't burn, it needed to season longer. If it burned too fast, close the dampers down, too slow, open the dampers up. I've never found the need to use any additives with my firewood (Save for MAYBE a firestarter stick from time to time back before I got good at lighting them) and it seems to me that it would make more of a mess than its worth. Plus I'd hate to soak all that beautiful split ash in coal black oil...


----------



## komatsuvarna (Dec 12, 2010)

blackdogon57 said:


> Yes, I often soak my wood in toxic waste. My neighbors really enjoy the thick black smoke that billows from my chimney. Nothing quite compares the sweet aroma of burning oil. The cancer that is likely to follow is just an added bonus.



lol. I like taking a demo saw and cutting old tires up in pieces. Really helps to get that wet green wood started.:monkey: :monkey:


----------



## Greenthorn (Dec 12, 2010)

I'm sure as long as you dry it in the clothes dryer afterwards it would be fine.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 12, 2010)

I prefer soaking mine in moose piss.


----------



## John R (Dec 12, 2010)

Greenthorn said:


> I'm sure as long as you dry it in the clothes dryer afterwards it would be fine.



You ain't right!! :hmm3grin2orange::hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## anymanusa (Dec 12, 2010)

I may do it in my fire pit outside and see what it's like. I was just looking at disposing of it that way rather than taking it to the recycler.


----------



## anymanusa (Dec 12, 2010)

Art Vandelay said:


> I prefer soaking mine in moose piss.



no excess supply around here.


----------



## Greenthorn (Dec 12, 2010)

anymanusa said:


> no excess supply around here.



Depends on what type of beer yo'd be drinking....


----------



## sjp (Dec 12, 2010)

John R said:


> I'm sure the smoke would be no different than from a waste oil stove.



when you burn waste oil your useing atomatiztion and presure to mix air and oil to burn it cleaner


----------



## stint (Dec 12, 2010)

*Hate to be the exception*

But I have been doing just that for over 2 decades in the barrel stoves I use in Farm shop

Just throw one soaked log in with usual reload of 4-5 non soakers

No complains from neighbors, wifeeee, no chimney/stove problems, and no cancer...just more cheap BTUs

Anyone want to quess what the BTU output of *soaked* shag bark hickory really is ??

Maybe not for housing development enviornments, or tree hugger personalities, , but no problems here on the Farm

Actually progress

Old timer neighbors tell about just pouring waste oil down nearest ground hog holes

We have come a good way, now, have we not ??


----------



## biggenius29 (Dec 12, 2010)

anymanusa said:


> I may do it in my fire pit outside and see what it's like. I was just looking at disposing of it that way rather than taking it to the recycler.



Dump it on the driveway for dust control, we used to do that on the farm. But now we keep it and when the tank gets full someone comes for it and actually pays us for it.

At home here all my used motor oil gets poured over stumps anad let the stumps soak it up, then after they are good and saturated the get a good dousing of diesel, then a few cups of gas and a match.


----------



## barnumb (Dec 12, 2010)

We use the old motor oil to control weeds in the garden. I have been low on wood but our neighbor has a big pile of tires behind his trailer (He is a scraper). I have been cutting those and mixing them with the osb we have been burning in our camper. I am just glad we got the roof tared before the snow hit. Now I just need to do something about the hole our septic drains in to, it keeps freezing. I wonder if I put diesel fuel in it if it would stay unthawed? What do yuo guys think?


----------



## Blazin (Dec 12, 2010)

Soorrrry...I gotta throw the WTF flag on diss one


----------



## lfnh (Dec 12, 2010)

Greenthorn said:


> I'm sure as long as you dry it in the clothes dryer afterwards it would be fine.



 Somethin just wrong with that image


----------



## banshee67 (Dec 12, 2010)

stint said:


> But I have been doing just that for over 2 decades in the barrel stoves I use in Farm shop
> 
> Just throw one soaked log in with usual reload of 4-5 non soakers
> 
> ...



youre ruining our state and adding to its already horrible reputation of a polluted #### hole...
i hope you are joking


----------



## volks-man (Dec 12, 2010)

local guy with a small mechanic shop out back burns his waste oil.
he burns a wood fire and uses a copper tube inserted through the side of his stove to DRIP waste oil on the fire as the wood burns.
if you let it pour in you'd have a toxic, smelly, oil cloud.

waste oil burns clean if atomized, or just in small amounts relative to the heat present.

matter of fact, i burn my oiliest shop rags in my shop stove when they are used up. tossed on top of a hot fire they burn nicely with little to no smell outside.


----------



## SkyP (Dec 12, 2010)

barnumb said:


> We use the old motor oil to control weeds in the garden. I have been low on wood but our neighbor has a big pile of tires behind his trailer (He is a scraper). I have been cutting those and mixing them with the osb we have been burning in our camper. I am just glad we got the roof tared before the snow hit. Now I just need to do something about the hole our septic drains in to, it keeps freezing. I wonder if I put diesel fuel in it if it would stay unthawed? What do yuo guys think?



One question- do you find synthetic used oil grows better 'maters?


----------



## Cedarkerf (Dec 12, 2010)

Theres a reason for the "Darwin awards"


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 12, 2010)

I use it to get brush burning along with a few tires


----------



## anymanusa (Dec 12, 2010)

banshee67 said:


> youre ruining our state and adding to its already horrible reputation of a polluted #### hole...
> i hope you are joking





Cedarkerf said:


> Theres a reason for the "Darwin awards"



Dumb posts are dumb.
E- how.com says 75% of used oil gets burned to fuel industry. Who's worried about the environment now?

So burning oil = darwin awards now does it?


----------



## Cedarkerf (Dec 12, 2010)

anymanusa said:


> Dumb posts are dumb.
> E- how.com says 75% of used oil gets burned to fuel industry. Who's worried about the environment now?
> 
> So burning oil = darwin awards now does it?


I would bet that its burned in high effeciency burner system not soaked in wood.


----------



## anymanusa (Dec 12, 2010)

Cedarkerf said:


> I would bet that its burned in high effeciency burner system not soaked in wood.



Yeah, 'cause highly efficient is the cheapest/easiest way to do things, right?


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2010)

*Seems to be a ton of misconception and misinformation about burning used oil.*


blackdogon57 said:


> Yes, I often soak my wood in toxic waste. My neighbors really enjoy the thick black smoke that billows from my chimney...


I've burned used oil in the barrel stove out in the garage (by drip method and oil soaked wood) and I've never witnessed thick black smoke... ever.


teatersroad said:


> A waste oil burner is designed to burn waste oil, cleanly and efficiently (it has to be) - A wood stove is not.


That's BS, all that is required for clean burning is enough heat. If your stove is hot enough to ignite the smoke and gasses used oil will burn just as clean as wood.


D.Marsh said:


> I can only imagine the smell, let alone the amount of crap that you'll get in your flue...and it seems to me that it would make more of a mess than its worth.


There ain't no smell, and the flue stays clean... used oil won't smolder like wood, it burns hot is near totally consumed as long as there's a flue damper or some sort of gas ignition chamber.


sjp said:


> when you burn waste oil your useing atomatiztion and presure to mix air and oil to burn it cleaner


Say what? I know of, and have witnessed the use of at least a dozen waste-oil stoves and I've never seen any "atomization" or "pressure", they simply drip oil into the fire. There's only two types I've seen, and all but one were home-made.

One type drips the oil onto a burner plate affair that uses an internal exhaust hood like thing with a chamber where the smoke and gasses ignite. A friend of mine has one he built sitting in his auto repair shop, in town right across from the Court House... it runs all winter long and there ain't ever been "thick black smoke", a "smell" or a chimney fire.

The other type is simply a modified wood stove, a copper tube drips the waste oil onto the burning wood. Back before the new high-efficiency stoves the guys would weld baffles inside the stove to help keep the smoke and gasses ignited, all have a flue damper. The neat thing about these is they still work just fine with only wood. I had one built from a barrel stove, but rather than baffles it had a 55-gallon barrel for the fire box and a 30-gallon barrel on top of that used as the smoke and gas ignition chamber.


teatersroad said:


> why? Is there something inefficient about just burning decent firewood in a decent stove?


Why? Because waste-oil has like a zillion more BTUs per pound.

I don't have a drip burner anymore... but if I want a lot of heat real fast out in the shop I just toss a couple of those waste oil soaked splits of wood in the fire box. Don't stand to close to the stove cause you're likely to melt your cloths and it'll peel the paint from your tool box.


----------



## BarkBuster20 (Dec 12, 2010)

I think its a bad idea...probably just as bad as running it in your saws. Dont really see the point either...since when was wood alone not enough?


----------



## teatersroad (Dec 12, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> Say what? I know of, and have witnessed the use of at least a dozen waste-oil stoves and I've never seen any "atomization" or "pressure", they simply drip oil into the fire. There's only two types I've seen, and all but one were home-made.



It can be low tech like you mention, or a bit higher.

I'm very familiar with this set-up - Garages, Nurseries, or other operations use 'em seriously

http://www.agsolutionsllc.com/waste-oil-burners/waste-oil-burners-heaters-b300.htm

If you are looking to get rid of waste oil, you're likely to find a user in town that would take it off your hands, or even give you maybe 50 cents a gallon.


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Dec 12, 2010)

> Why? Because waste-oil has like a zillion more BTUs per pound.



Diesel, which I presume is close to motor oil in energy density, is 19,000 BTUs/pound.

Wood is about 9,000 BTUs, but will also normally include some extra weight from water and takes up a larger volume per pound.


----------



## barnumb (Dec 12, 2010)

SkyP said:


> One question- do you find synthetic used oil grows better 'maters?



Nobody in our trailer park can afford the synthetic stuff. We been gettin our oil for our 76 Chrysler Imperial from a guy down the road who changes it every 3000 miles.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> The days of the old drip type burners are numbered and well they should be.


Yes they are... but not because they pollute the air... if they did pollute the EPA would have banned them years ago...
*Your lawn mower probably puts more crap in the air than a waste oil drip furnace.*
Get off the *GREEN IS BETTER* wagon and use your head.
Keep reading, I'll explain why the days are numbered... and it ain't about pollution it's all about the *MONEY!*

I got to thinkin'... I left my post about waste oil burners a bit incomplete.

Those burners used to be real popular... but not so much any more because it's difficult to get enough waste oil to keep it going. My family owned and ran a New Car Dealership for 25-years, I ran the service department. The guys would come in a haul away our waste oil for their burners, we were happy to get rid of it. But then the EPA got involved (because people were using it for dust control on their driveways and dumping it in ground hog holes), we had to start paying a "licensed" waste oil guy to haul it away and keep records of every drop. There ain't anything illegal about burning the stuff, but a business that generates waste oil (like an auto repair shop) could no longer give it away or sell it to just anybody, only the "licensed" waste oil guy.

Really, the new EPA regs just put a value on waste oil (so Uncle Sam could tax it) and introduced a new expense to the auto repair shops, which just passed the cost onto y'all. The only guys with enough waste oil to use as heating fuel are the "licensed" waste oil guy and the guy who owns an auto repair shop. The "licensed " guy ain't gonn'a sell it to somebody claiming to use it in a burner because once he has possession of it he's liable for it until the final disposition. The "licensed" guy can't take the chance that some yahoo will use it for dust control on his driveway.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 12, 2010)

Dalmatian90 said:


> Diesel, which I presume is close to motor oil in energy density, is 19,000 BTUs/pound.
> 
> Wood is about 9,000 BTUs, but will also normally include some extra weight from water and takes up a larger volume per pound.



Not quite. _Used_ oil has a much, much higher BTU content than clean oil. _Used_ oil is highly enriched with carbon (and some oxygenates) from the blow-by past the rings in an internal combustion engine. It's the high carbon content, not the oil, _per se_, that makes it good as a heating fuel - same thing that makes wood a good heating fuel... wood comes from *carbon* based living things called trees!


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Dec 12, 2010)

> . Used oil has a much, much higher BTU content than clean oil. Used oil is highly enriched with carbon (and some oxygenates) from the blow-by past the rings in an internal combustion engine. It's the high carbon content, not the oil,



I simply don't believe that.

Remember I put the energy content in terms of BTUs/pound...not gallons. 

Unless you've magically suspended the laws of physics and re-written the modern understanding of chemistry, those carbon atoms weigh just as much as any other carbon atom.

Which is the same reason denser woods have higher BTUs/cord. All wood, at the same moisture levels, have the same BTUs when measured by pound.


----------



## ray benson (Dec 13, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> Not quite. _Used_ oil has a much, much higher BTU content than clean oil. _Used_ oil is highly enriched with carbon (and some oxygenates) from the blow-by past the rings in an internal combustion engine. It's the high carbon content, not the oil, _per se_, that makes it good as a heating fuel - same thing that makes wood a good heating fuel... wood comes from *carbon* based living things called trees!



18,466 btu - slightly less than a zillion.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Utili...sed+motor+oil+as+an+alternative...-a084644463


----------



## 7sleeper (Dec 13, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> Gee wonder why furnaces that burn no.2 heating oil have been the atomizing type for three decades or longer. It's about the money alright....and efficiency.



+1

And we all wonder why cars nowadays have fuel injection if the old methode was so much better?! It is the same principle. 

It is simple physics. If you boost the surface area for reaction (by making a myst of oil through a nozel on a modern oil burner) you will have a more complete and efficient burn.


7


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2010)

Dalmatian90 said:


> Remember I put the energy content in terms of BTUs/pound...not gallons.


You're right, my error.
I was using the term "pound(s)" while thinking in gallons... mine was an _apples-to-oranges_ comparison.




TreeCo said:


> Gee wonder why furnaces that burn no.2 heating oil have been the atomizing type for three decades or longer. It's about the money alright....and efficiency.


Now don't start twistin' my words... When I said _*MONEY!*_ I was talking about the regulations that govern what a waste oil generating business can do with the used oil and the resulting decline of drip burners, not furnace design. Don't forget, regulations are a way for the government to "regulate" without passing any law... it's simple circumvention of the constitution, usually designed to increase government revenue. *AND* my comments were never about the *most* efficient way to burn waste oil, it was about whether or not drip burners polluted, had thick black smoke belching from their stacks or stunk to high-heaven. Drip burners use secondary burn (just like modern wood stoves) to complete the combustion... it may not be the most _*efficient*_ way (in terms of size and design) but it gets the job done. It's the secondary burn that produces the majority of the heat, the drip burner would be all but worthless without it.




7sleeper said:


> And we all wonder why cars nowadays have fuel injection if the old methode was so much better?! It is the same principle. ...more complete and efficient burn.


Really... So you're into the "_much better_" and more "_efficient_" way of doing things. So you haul all your wood in and have it processed into pellets... and you have one of those new high-efficiency pellet stoves. What? You don't? Please don't tell me you have one of those wood gobbling OWB's... It's all relative, ain't it?


_Apples-to-oranges_ again... I thought we were talking about _thick black smoke, stink, toxic pollution and plugged up flue pipes_.


----------



## anymanusa (Dec 13, 2010)

Whitespider in here burning up all the fools. Good posts.

This thread isn't about wether or not I can take my oil to a recycler, its about wether or not I can put the GREEN back into MY pocket by burning it.


----------



## anymanusa (Dec 13, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> You ought to install one of those waste oil drip systems on that Rube Goldberg wood stove set up you've got going.
> 
> 
> I still say your waste oil would be better served on your pancakes.



I guess u haven't had a chance to say 'Rube Goldberg' this week yet. : confused:

[email protected] u.


----------



## pook (Dec 13, 2010)

waste oil burns black & nasty mostly but does have detergent in ti which may clean the chimni & probly will clean the chimli........Maybe! hd= HIGH DETERGENT,EH?


----------



## jags (Dec 13, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> I was talking about the regulations that govern what a waste oil generating business can do with the used oil



I think the many places that were dumping the oil down a floor drain may have had something to do with the regulation.

And for the record: burning an oil soaked log in a barrel stove WILL result in particulate emissions (pollution) that is dangerous to humans.

I ain't a "greeny", but this thread is full of misgivings, misinformation and down right silly assumptions that waste oil can be safely burned in a barrel stove without a negative impact. Hell - if the EPA says you can't do it with WOOD (hence the EPA wood stove regulations) - you ain't gonna do it with a wood/waste oil combo.


----------



## pook (Dec 13, 2010)

jags said:


> I think the many places that were dumping the oil down a floor drain may have had something to do with the regulation.
> 
> And for the record: burning an oil soaked log in a barrel stove WILL result in particulate emissions (pollution) that is dangerous to humans.
> 
> I ain't a "greeny", but this thread is full of misgivings, misinformation and down right silly assumptions that waste oil can be safely burned in a barrel stove without a negative impact. Hell - if the EPA says you can't do it with WOOD (hence the EPA wood stove regulations) - you ain't gonna do it with a wood/waste oil combo.


reread ur statement & evaluate= ure not saying ???????/ time to induct some defference!:newbie::newbie:


----------



## AIM (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm gonna keep my opinions silent for NOW. But I will jump in and say that I can think of no less than a half a dozen farmers, heavy machinery shops, and homeowners work shops that are heated with the oil drip method in a barrel stove.
All of the ones I know of are made from 275 gallon fuel oil tanks and CRANK out the heat! 

Only problem I see with them is the mess. (sooner or later you end up spilling oil no matter how hard you try not to.)

Nobody in my area of the world has a single issue with it. If they do they stay quiet about it.


----------



## jags (Dec 13, 2010)

pook said:


> reread ur statement & evaluate= ure not saying ???????/ time to induct some defference!:newbie::newbie:




If I had any friggen idea of what you were trying to say, I may try...never mind.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2010)

jags said:


> I think the many places that were dumping the oil down a floor drain may have had something to do with the regulation.


*Wrong!* It was breaking the _law_ to dump waste oil down a floor drain for many, many years before the EPA waste oil _regulations_. A _law_ and a _regulation_ are two separate things.

A _law_ is made by lawmakers, according to constitutional guidelines, and is susceptible to review by the Supreme Court. If you are arrested for breaking a _law_ you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and afforded your day in court. If you’re found guilty, you’re a punished according to the criminal code.

A _regulation_ is just that... a _regulation_. It isn’t made by lawmakers and it isn’t susceptible to review by the Supreme Court. It is simply a way to circumvent the constitution... most _regulations_ would have no chance passing constitutional scrutiny. Regulations are drawn up by a regulatory commission, which usually appointed and have unchecked power. If you are suspected of breaking a _regulation_ you are not given your day in court, you are presumed guilty and fined willy-nilly by a regulatory commission (such as the EPA)... as I said, most are designed to increase government revenue. Rarely will you see a company shut down by a regulatory commission because... well... their purpose is to collect revenue, and shutting something down means no more revenue.



jags said:


> ...burning an oil soaked log in a barrel stove WILL result in particulate emissions (pollution) that is dangerous to humans. ...down right silly assumptions that waste oil can be safely burned in a barrel stove without a negative impact. Hell - if the EPA says you can't do it with WOOD (hence the EPA wood stove regulations) - you ain't gonna do it with a wood/waste oil combo.


Show me where the EPA says you *CAN’T* do it. You can still by the kits to make your own barrel stove for as little as $30.oo. How can that be? There isn’t any regulation that prevents me from building a barrel stove, or a waste oil burner, or whatever. Even the EPA is smart enough to know they wouldn’t get away with that unless they can prove there is a danger that exceeds what they allow your local power company to get away with.

Guess what, a barrel stove will run just as clean as a modern EPA stove if you know what you’re doing (even with used oil soaked logs). The EPA stoves just makes it less likely the stove will burn crappy if an idiot is running it... But they can’t completely eliminate the idiot; an EPA stove can still be improperly run. The key to secondary burn (that’s what the EPA regs are supposed to be accomplishing) is enough heat... and oil will not smolder, it just burns hot... plenty hot enough to start the secondary burn.

The EPA regs are nothing more than Big Brother trying to protect us from ourselves...
ONE HUGE LINE OF BS SWALLOWED BY THOSE WHO REFUSE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!
So... what about man made Global Warming... are you buying into that one also?


----------



## jags (Dec 13, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> *Wrong!* It was breaking the _law_ to dump waste oil down a floor drain for many, many years before the EPA waste oil _regulations_.



And the regulation was created because there were no RULES on the proper handling.



Whitespider said:


> Show me where the EPA says you *CAN’T* do it.



The EPA says you can't burn as clean without the technology that the new stoves provide. Hence the EPA certification. I said nothing of building a barrel stove.



Whitespider said:


> Guess what, a barrel stove will run just as clean as a modern EPA stove if you know what you’re doing (even with used oil soaked logs).



I believe that this statement will stand as ludicrous even without a debate. A standard old barrel stove does NOT have the design or ability to burn the gaseous volatiles produces by wood, let alone the ability to cook off the nasty crap in used motor oil, unless you were maintaining thousands of degrees (like an incinerator). It just doesn't. But you are also correct in your statement that an EPA stove can be operated improperly.



Whitespider said:


> The EPA regs are nothing more than Big Brother trying to protect us from ourselves...



No - EPA regs are trying to protect others from people that would pollute our water supply or smog the very air we are trying to breath.

(I honestly can't believe that I am defending the EPA here)

You may wish to stop and think about the many lives the EPA has saved by the regulation of what is acceptable in our water supply. Or what is allowable for a factory to pump into the air (acid rain anybody?). How about acceptable air environments in the local steel factory or coal plant. How did that DDT work out for ya? The rivers and eagles thought it was great stuff.

You do what you wish - it is your right until you infringe upon someone else. But don't be disillusioned that burning waste oil in your barrel stove is somehow non-polluting. Even the best run EPA stove has SOME particulates. An incinerator has an ACCEPTABLE stack emission.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2010)

jags said:


> The EPA says you can't burn as clean without the technology that the new stoves provide. Hence the EPA certification. I said nothing of building a barrel stove.



*SHOW ME WHERE THE EPA SAYS YOU CAN'T!
Show me the study that backs up the statement that you can't burn as clean! 
The EPA certified stoves only make it less likely that you won't burn as clean!*

Until you can show me... everything else in your post means nothing! Everything else is based on the premise that you *CAN'T*!
I have never, ever seen anything to support the statement that you *CAN'T*!

Are you trying to tell me it's impossible to burn clean in a stove unless it comes with a paper tag from the EPA? That unless it has that paper tag attached it is somehow unable to obtain the temperature and air flow required to achieve secondary burn? Are you drinking Kool-Aid?
Give me a break!


----------



## jags (Dec 13, 2010)

Oh boy-

1970's:A typical airtight woodstove of this vintage emits 40-60 grams of particulates into the airshed every hour, and airborne wood smoke particulates become a problem in rural areas where woodburning is prevalent. 

July 1, 1990: Phase II regulations go into effect. All woodstoves manufactured after this date must comply with Phase II limits of 7.5 grams/hr (4.1 grams/hr if catalytic equipped).

In all fairness - they didn't say that whitespiders barrel stove CAN'T. So I guess you got me there.

Boy - all those people that bought gassifiers must be really ticked off now. Knowing that could be just as energy efficient with an old barrel stove.


----------



## pook (Dec 13, 2010)

If a stove could be made so that the primary air cant be closed & pass EPA testing, it would exist & be a cheaper stove to buy. It seems, though, that to pass the EPA, the stoves require the secondary burntube configuration which provide constant air & also STRATIFY & PREHEAT that air for efficient combustion


----------



## Blazin (Dec 13, 2010)

Jezuz...just soak the floors in the stinkin house with used motor oil and light it....talk bout BTU's, nice and warm and the used #### got used.

EPA won't give a hoot either, all the plastic furniture in the joint that gets expended will throw em off track.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 13, 2010)

This is getting almost funny.

Back some 35+ years ago I built my first wood stove from a heavy steel oil drum. Being the country boy I was I didn't buy a kit, I just used the welder and torch to fashion my own parts. My grandfather happened to stop by as I was building and suggested I weld some baffles (he didn't call them baffles, don't remember exactly what he called them) in the top and down at the draft vent. He told me my stove would make more heat and the chimney would stay clean if I did. That steel oil drum was the type that you removed the band and the whole end lifted off so it was fairly easy to weld a series of baffles along the top. He also suggested I install two smaller draft vents instead of a single larger one and baffle the air flow back on itself (sort of a swirl) and that would heat the air a bit and force some of it up the sides and over the top of the fire. Because the end of that barrel lifted of it was fairly easy to install a grate for the fire to sit above the draft vents, and remove ashes when needed. I used that stove for 5-years and never needed to clean the chimney, it never had more than a thin coating of soot in it that would wipe right off with your finger.

Heck, Granddad was building clean burning wood stoves long before the EPA even thought of "regulating" them. It was the cheap, mass-produced stoves that were crap... just like most of the cheap mass-produced stuff during the 70's and early 80's.


----------



## AIM (Dec 13, 2010)

Just give it up whitespider. Ya just can't beat newfound knowledge with good ol country folk common sense.
Yes I know I'll hear about how this good ol common sense is the damnation of the earth, but I'm a believer that a few guys burnin oil isn't a pimple on the ass of this worlds problems.


----------



## chowdozer (Dec 13, 2010)

Fabulous idea.

Be right back... I am going to go cram as many splits into my truck crankcase as I can. I see a gas mileage improvement on the horizon.


----------



## barnumb (Dec 13, 2010)

This thread is FUNNY!!!!!!!


----------



## drobs (Dec 14, 2010)

1st post but I have to chime in on this insanity. 



jags said:


> Oh boy-
> 
> 1970's:A typical airtight woodstove of this vintage emits 40-60 grams of particulates into the airshed every hour, and airborne wood smoke particulates become a problem in rural areas where woodburning is prevalent.
> 
> ...



_Boy - just think of the millions of old and new fireplaces out there pumping out pre 1970's particulates..._

Your EPA arguements are flawed when you move outside the "box" of wood burning stoves. 

It would be interesting to compare particulate estimates of burning: wood in a fireplace vs wood stoves (pick your epa year) vs Waste Oil vs the monkey in the room COAL vs LP vs Kerosene vs Natural Gas. (I'm these tables exist somewhere)

Keep on the EPA track and you will see all fireplaces and wood stoves regulated out of existence - California, Washington, and Oregon come to mind. 

To ramble a little more... that big monkey in the room is COAL fired electrical plants - if I had to guess they put out way more polutants than Joe using waste oil treated logs in his wood burning stove. 

What's the particulate estimate on a 4th of July for millions of Webber charcoal grills used in America? 

See where I'm going with this EPA love insanity?


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2010)

AIM said:


> Just give it up whitespider. Ya just can't beat newfound knowledge with good ol country folk common sense.


Ain't that the truth.
I'll stick with country folk common sense...
I've never seen anyone from the EPA (or any other government agency for that matter) out here on the Great Plains during a three day blizzard helpin' us country folk out. I sure would like to see one of those idiots out trying to take care of livestock when it's -20, wind blowin' 50 MPH, wind chill off the charts and visibility down to less than a foot. Instead they issue us a warning that we shouldn't go outside because exposed skin will freeze in seconds... what a line of crap.

The ####-heads will show up in June though... and fine us because someone left the lid off a bucket of mineral spirits... and tell us how much better things would be if "we did things their way". Makes me wann'a spit on their clean white shirts!

I guess I'm done with this thread. Y'all wann'a believe that my wood stove, or waste oil burner is destroying the planet... fine with me. Y'all wann'a believe that an EPA certified stove is built with some newly discovered technology (good lord, it's a wood burning stove)... fine, go ahead and believe what ya' want. Sure is a wonder how the planet survives all those forest fires and volcano eruptions though ain't it? I mean, think of the pollution and particulate emissions, holy crap!

Excuse me, but right now I need to go wash the greazy soot of my windshield so I can drive into town... cause the oxygen tanks that keep us alive are about empty. Well, unless the roads are still plugged with 6-foot snow drifts... then I guess will just haft'a hope some government agency will show up to save us.


----------



## pook (Dec 14, 2010)

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00203.htm


----------



## chowdozer (Dec 14, 2010)

drobs said:


> To ramble a little more... that big monkey in the room is COAL fired electrical plants - if I had to guess they put out way more polutants than Joe using waste oil treated logs in his wood burning stove.



Way more as a whole or per capita?

Or should some people be allowed to pollute more than others? What I call the 'Al Gore' effect.


----------



## Alan Smith (Dec 14, 2010)

it is not the EPA job to help but to de·stroy in the name of doing good


----------



## jags (Dec 14, 2010)

barnumb said:


> This thread is FUNNY!!!!!!!



I agree-

For the record - I am an old farm boy that still lives in the family homestead. I live in the country with virtually no neighbors in eye or ear shot. I don't make a habit of defending the gubment. And I love burning and processing wood responsibly and sustainably.

Now excuse me, I have to reload my stove. I just got a new truckload of shredded tires to try out.


----------



## ckliff (Dec 14, 2010)

pook said:


> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00203.htm



Congratulations on letting FACTS get in the way of an entertaining thread!


----------



## jags (Dec 14, 2010)

ckliff said:


> Congratulations on letting FACTS get in the way of an entertaining thread!



Ha! That is pretty funny.

Thanks, Pook for posting that link. (I wondered if you were gonna chime in)

Ahhh...but alas - it wasn't written by a country boy, so it must be jaded. There aren't any pictures in the report so I did a copy paste of the important part:

"In general, burning used motor oils creates toxic metal
aerosols that are very serious air pollutants. Used oil should be taken to a
recycle center."


----------



## drobs (Dec 14, 2010)

chowdozer said:


> Way more as a whole or per capita?
> 
> Or should some people be allowed to pollute more than others? What I call the 'Al Gore' effect.



Meh... I'm more interested in Webber charcoal grill particulate output on the 4th of July. 

Or better yet what were the estimates on that Volcano that just went off earlier this year? Gawd mother nature is destructive. 

Here's a liberal invention idea for someone. Design and sell a muffler that can be attached to any chimney in the world. Find some moron like Gore to market it for you. Then pay off some politician to write a law mandating it be placed on every home that burns wood or just have the EPA mandate it. 

Own the copywrite for it and profit.


----------



## pook (Dec 14, 2010)

http://burningissues.org/bi/table2.htm this is analysis of woodsmoke

prior link states oil has to be burnt @ high temp but not @ what temp so it seems that a hot burn is desirable to burn the chemicals
question is= will oil soaked wood burn hotter & if provided adequate combustion air, will it result in an overall cleaner burn?............except for metals in the used oil which might be a very small amount


----------



## chowdozer (Dec 14, 2010)

drobs said:


> Meh... I'm more interested in Webber charcoal grill particulate output on the 4th of July.
> 
> Or better yet what were the estimates on that Volcano that just went off earlier this year? Gawd mother nature is destructive.
> 
> ...



Fireworks on the 4th of July will be outlawed too. Just look the direction things are headed.

People trying to burn oil in their woodstoves only accelerates the laws and regulations we get.

Act stupid, expect to be legislated.

Copyright.


----------



## Ambull (Dec 14, 2010)

barnumb said:


> Nobody in our trailer park can afford the synthetic stuff. We been gettin our oil for our 76 Chrysler Imperial from a guy down the road who changes it every 3000 miles.



That makes me laugh.... I used to have a Taurus that burned oil so bad, that I would dump waste oil in it because it was all I could afford at the time.


----------



## Ambull (Dec 14, 2010)

chowdozer said:


> Fireworks on the 4th of July will be outlawed too. Just look the direction things are headed.




How about making NASCAR use catalytic converters..... The rednecks will all have a cow...


----------



## Ambull (Dec 14, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> .......and no doubt you helped to bring about emissions testing. As was just said: Act stupid, expect to be regulated. Taking pride in acting stupid........this thread seems a mecca for that behavior.



No emissions testing had long been in place before that stupid Taurus. Sometimes you do whatever it takes to get to work.


----------



## treemandan (Dec 14, 2010)

John R said:


> I'm sure the smoke would be no different than from a waste oil stove.



I doubt that. Those oil burners run very clean.
I would think the only thing you would really need to do is spray some kindling down with some lamp oil ( something scented would be nice for romance) and there ya go. I recomend the spray, which you could put the oil in an old cleaner bottle, because it would dampen it enough to burn for awhile but not drip or soak into something else. I would take that to the bank before one of you other idiots does something, yet again, completly boneheaded. Not you in particular, good sir, but I dunno.


----------



## jags (Dec 14, 2010)

Ambull said:


> No emissions testing had long been in place before that stupid Taurus. Sometimes you do whatever it takes to get to work.



No doubt that a man has to do, what a man has to do.

Soaking logs in used motor oil is a choice, with a very negative impact on the surroundings. Used motor oil will contain some very bad stuff that simply doesn't just "burn" up, even with what would be considered VERY high stove temps:

This is based off of arsenic treated lumber, but used motor oil will also contain arsenic:
Burning:Incineration of CCA wood does not destroy arsenic.

Point - even at the temps that an incinerator runs at - it does not destroy arsenic. There are many other compounds in used motor oil that yield the same results. And we haven't even considered the dioxins found in it.

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: Done and out.


----------



## Ambull (Dec 14, 2010)

jags said:


> No doubt that a man has to do, what a man has to do.
> 
> Soaking logs in used motor oil is a choice, with a very negative impact on the surroundings. Used motor oil will contain some very bad stuff that simply doesn't just "burn" up, even with what would be considered VERY high stove temps:
> 
> ...



Never tried to burn oil in my stove. Ocean water contains arsenic too.:hmm3grin2orange:

I would never even have thought to soak logs in oil. Sounds pretty messy to me. And that oil stains everything it touches. How would you get it in the stove without it dripping all over the floor. At least that slow drip thing makes a little more sense. Can't imagine having a waste oil reservoir in my living room though, lol.


----------



## olyman (Dec 14, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> .......and no doubt you helped to bring about emissions testing. As was just said: Act stupid, expect to be regulated. Taking pride in acting stupid........this thread seems a mecca for that behavior.



you aint the brightest--


----------



## olyman (Dec 14, 2010)

Ambull said:


> No emissions testing had long been in place before that stupid Taurus. Sometimes you do whatever it takes to get to work.



not treeco--he had things handed to him--so he can afford the latest--and condemn anyone else for not having it!! typical of greeneys out there


----------



## pook (Dec 14, 2010)

chowdozer said:


> Fireworks on the 4th of July will be outlawed too. Just look the direction things are headed.
> 
> People trying to burn oil in their woodstoves only accelerates the laws and regulations we get.
> 
> ...


yes, outlaw fireworx!


----------



## jamesjweg (Dec 14, 2010)

On the farm we used to make "starter logs" by taking a cardboard box, filling it with saw dust, and saturating it with used motor oil. Worked great, then we figured out how to filter/clean it ourselves and now mix it with the fuel going into the tractors. Much more valuable as a motor fuel. I am sure Al Gore would have a stroke over that too.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 14, 2010)

Ambull said:


> I would never even have thought to soak logs in oil. Sounds pretty messy to me. And that oil stains everything it touches. How would you get it in the stove without it dripping all over the floor.



No, no, no...
You don't soak the wood in a bucket of oil... too messy. I have a rack out behind the garage under the eve that holds about half a cord. I stack well seasoned wood on it split-side-up and every time I change oil in something I slowly poor the oil along the top. The oil runs down between the splits but never makes it to the bottom row. Over time, as the upper pieces become more saturated they shed more and more oil to the lower pieces; dry wood will suck engine warm waste oil right in. Within a couple hours you can handle the wood without even getting your fingers dirty. And the really cool part is that wood sheds water like a ducks feather, never need to cover it. By the time winter gets cold enough you want a fire goin' in the shop it's ready... it don't take much, just toss 2 or 3 pieces in after ya' get the other wood burning good... lots 'a heat. Of course a fella' changes oil in the winter also, but just keep pouring the oil on the stack as you're using it. By spring it's time to fill the rack again,

Yeah, I know I said I was done with this thread... but I didn't want you thinkin' I was soaking individual pieces of wood in a bucket... and then walking around the house with used oil drippin' all over the carpet.


----------



## grandnational (Dec 14, 2010)

alright this has me curious...

how do you drip oil into a stove?


----------



## clinchscavalry (Dec 14, 2010)

I always have a good bit of used motor oil, hydraulic oil sometimes, and even occasional transmission fluid. It's very difficult to find places to recycle it in these parts, but I have two ways to get rid of it that I think are reasonable and not too environmentally damaging, IMHO. I do a good bit of prescribed burning, for hardwood control in the understory of pine stands, hazard reduction in cleaner pine plantations and also site preparation burning where large piles of tops and logging debris around decks must be disposed of before planting. I mix about one half used oil with gas for drip torch fuel instead of having to buy diesel to mix with the gas. This only works well with the Panama brand torches since the Sure Seal or Seat Tite brands don't seem to stay lit with the motor oil. I also pour some on the top of brush piles, letting in soak in for a few minutes to help in igniting the brush and to get rid of the oil. I don't pour enough out for it to run off onto the ground. I can easily get rid of twenty or thirty gallons in a day by doing this. I believe that the brush piles generate enough heat to pretty well incinerate any oil and whatever it contains. YMMV.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Dec 14, 2010)

So, what this forum is telling me is that I should advise one of my best customers who is also is running a trucking and logging business to do the following:

(1) set aside a 200 gallon tank where he can drop off all the waste oil from his grandson's and son-in-law's 18 wheelers and heavy logging equipment.

(2) when the tank reaches about 40 gallons, start soaking as much of the firewood that I deliver to him in that tank as it can hold.

(3) remove firewood about every three or four days after the oil is thoroughly soaked in using some sort of retrieving equipment.

(4) transport oil-soaked firewood to barrel stove as normal. Forget all complaints or odor from anyone nearby.

(5) burn firewood in barrel stove and enjoy the extra heat supplied by the waste oil.

When should I advise him to proceed, and how far should I duck when he throws a beer stein at me?


----------



## grandnational (Dec 14, 2010)

the tags in this thread are LOL


----------



## chowdozer (Dec 15, 2010)

Ambull said:


> How about making NASCAR use catalytic converters..... The rednecks will all have a cow...



Consider:

4 stroke string trimmers
4 stroke MX bikes
catalytic converters on street bikes
prototype 4 stroke chainsaw
chainsaws with catalytic converters
string trimmers with catalytic converters

I think you're smart enough to see the trend. Probably smart enough to see the trend is not reversing too.


----------



## newmexico (Dec 15, 2010)

I ain't the smartest, but I don't think it's not gonna hurt my kids who live downwind of me....

Just saying I think it's a bad idea... let em take it off your hands.. get a small return on your investment of your used oil by (if you live in an area that pays you for waste oil).. and if they don't pay you for it. well I'm not exactly sure how it works, but that crude that comes out of the ground isn't pretty.

(just thinking if they can make good oil out of crude, they probably also refine the waste oil to get some decent oil out of it saving at least a little of the crude.)


bottom line.. It may look clean coming out of the pipe (the waste oil soaked split smoke) but I'd rather stand in a plume of _green pine burning slow_ smoke than the "clean" hot air coming out of the waste oil soaked wood...

GRRR


----------



## newmexico (Dec 15, 2010)

and I really, really, *really*, do like the smell of two stroke exhaust in the morning--I just gotta draw the line somewhere :chainsawguy:


----------



## AIM (Dec 15, 2010)

Wood Doctor said:


> So, what this forum is telling me is that I should advise one of my best customers who is also is running a trucking and logging business to do the following:
> 
> etc, etc, etc



I haven't seen anywhere in this thread where anyone was telling YOU to do ANYTHING.


----------



## AIM (Dec 15, 2010)

Ambull said:


> Never tried to burn oil in my stove. Ocean water contains arsenic too.:hmm3grin2orange:
> 
> I would never even have thought to soak logs in oil. Sounds pretty messy to me. And that oil stains everything it touches. How would you get it in the stove without it dripping all over the floor. At least that slow drip thing makes a little more sense. Can't imagine having a waste oil reservoir in my living room though, lol.



The oil drip stoves are definitaly not for inside your house. Or even a really clean shop for that matter. Seems no matter how hard you try you end up with oil stains on your concrete and just a general mess surrounding the stove. At least the ones I know about are this way. 
Not like there are puddles of oil or nothin it's just through the occasional drip, small splash, etc from messing with the barrels that over the years will accumulate into stains that just don't go away. Most farmers and such though don't care about this and just toss some kitty litter on it and go on happily getting rid of their oil and heating their shops.


----------



## stint (Dec 15, 2010)

AIM said:


> The oil drip stoves are definitaly not for inside your house. Most farmers and such though don't care about this and just toss some kitty litter on it and go on happily getting rid of their oil and heating their shops.



Exactly

Works great and Costs nothing

Some frugal old farmers do not even 'waste' kitty litter
Sawdust or last sweep job of cement floor dust, or handful of sandy soil works OK too 

Only them 'city folk' would even think we are talking about using soaked logs or drip systems for.... in the house.....

JEEEEZ


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2010)

Yep, no doubt about it, this thread is funny...

It's funny that those who have never built, owned, used or even so much as seen a waste oil burner know so much about them...
It's funny that some of those same people have Google'd it and presented the resulting opinions and generalizations as credible fact; even the "Ask A (so-called) Scientist" could only muster a "high temperature" opinion but was unable to tell us what that was...
It's funny that some of those same people claim the only responsible way to dispose waste oil is to take it to a recycler; yet none of them can tell us positively what happens to it after that (but again, they have a "I think", or "I'm pretty sure" opinion)...
It's funny that some of those same people have modified the EPA mufflers on their chainsaw (which can be in direct violation of regulations) and then prop-up the EPA banner and call someone who burns waste oil (which does *not* violate any regulation) a polluter and environment destroyer...
It's funny that some of those same people can tell me about all the smell and smoke associated with burning waste oil; yet it seems they've never been within 500-miles of someone who burns it (or maybe the guy living next door does, and the idiot doesn't even know it... _now I'm laughing out loud!_)...
It's funny that some of those same people actually believe that the new EPA certified wood stoves are built with some newly discovered technology. Do they realize man has been burning wood for heat and cooking long before the simple match-stick was invented? Have they bothered to look at a high quality wood stove made 150 or even 100-years ago? I wonder...
It's funny that most of those same people live west of the Divide, east of Detroit or south of the Mason-Dixon (northern Missouri excluded)...

It's so funny I'm LMAO!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2010)

AIM said:


> ...Not like there are puddles of oil or nothin it's just through the occasional drip, small splash, etc from messing with the barrels that over the years will accumulate into stains that just don't go away...



And it's no different than the stains that accumulate on the floor in the stall where you change oil on your all your equipment...


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2010)

I'm gonn'a quote myself...


> It's funny that most of those same people live west of the Divide, east of Detroit or south of the Mason-Dixon (northern Missouri excluded)...


Please don't ask me what I'm inferring with that... 'cause it can't be explained.
But just about anyone living in a rural area between Denver and Detroit, north of St. Louis is gonn'a catch-on real quick.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2010)

Hey, guess what guys?
*TreeCo* rep'd me on this thread.
Thanks TreeCo :yourock:
But I'm a bit confused... You left the comment, "*Idiot!*"...
I'm havin' a bit of trouble figurin' out which one of the guys you were thinkin' of...


----------



## jags (Dec 15, 2010)

Its funny that I can show you the welded holes in my shop stove from when my uncle decided an oil drip system was a good idea.

Its funny that I welded them up because I got tired of STINKING my home up with said oil drip.

Its funny that I live in the midwest - out in the country - just like you.

Its funny that there is PROOF that oil contains plenty of crap in it that you are not going to just "burn away"

Its funny that somebody that claims to be so smart is defending (even promoting) the idea that oil soaked logs, don't have a negative impact.

Its funny that somebody can IGNORE all the FACTs and still claim that everybody else is just stupid.

Its funny that you require all the proof in the world of the facts that are pretty well known, but have NO PROOF that your claim is even remotely legit.

Its even funnier that I am still in this thread trying to talk logic into somebody that has no interest in it.

I have had all the laughing that I can handle.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2010)

Whoa there Jags, I never claimed anybody was stupid, never even used the words _everybody_ or _stupid_.
Don't let your emotions get in the way of intellectual thought and discussion... 'cause it will ruin a good adult back-and-forth every time.


----------



## Ambull (Dec 15, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> Yep, no doubt about it, this thread is funny...
> 
> It's funny that those who have never built, owned, used or even so much as seen a waste oil burner know so much about them...
> It's funny that some of those same people have Google'd it and presented the resulting opinions and generalizations as credible fact; even the "Ask A (so-called) Scientist" could only muster a "high temperature" opinion but was unable to tell us what that was...
> ...



Some good points. There are very different views on the environment and recycling depending on where you live. A lot of it has to do with where there are problems, but some has to do with the local political atmosphere. Not everywhere east of Detroit is tree hugger land. Around here people still burn their trash (and waste oil) in burn barrels. Most houses have one in the back yard. There is a whole science to drilling holes in it for the best burn, but not putting them too low so the oil drips out, lol. I don't have a burn barrel, and I throw all my trash in the dumpster, and a local guy comes and takes all my waste oil for free. I am sure he is using it to heat something.

Peace.....


----------



## Ambull (Dec 15, 2010)

stint said:


> Only them 'city folk' would even think we are talking about using soaked logs or drip systems for.... in the house.....
> 
> JEEEEZ



It doesn't make people "city folk" just because they don't know the proper way to burn waste oil. Around these RURAL parts, most oil was either burned in trash burn barrels or used to keep the dust down on dirt roads. But anyway, sorry to disappoint you.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2010)

jags said:


> Its funny that there is PROOF that oil contains plenty of crap in it that you are not going to just "burn away"
> Its funny that somebody that claims to be so smart is defending (even promoting) the idea that oil soaked logs, don't have a negative impact.
> Its funny that somebody can IGNORE all the FACTs and still claim that everybody else is just stupid.
> Its funny that you require all the proof in the world of the facts that are pretty well known, but have NO PROOF that your claim is even remotely legit.



jags- C’mon... I’m not “ignoring” anything.

At one time it was a _KNOWN FACT_ that the earth was flat; Somebody eventually offered _PROOF_ that that was false.
At one time it was a _KNOWN FACT_ that the earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around it; Somebody eventually offered _PROOF_ that that was false.
At one time it was a _KNOWN FACT_ that aspirin was the best medicine for a baby with a fever; Somebody eventually offered _PROOF_ that that was false.
At one time it was a _KNOWN FACT_ that margarine was better for you than butter; Somebody eventually offered _PROOF_ that that was false.
At one time it was a _KNOWN FACT_ that eating eggs more than once a week would kill you; Somebody eventually offered _PROOF_ that that was false.

It is a _proven fact_ that waste oil contains some things that will kill you if you drink enough of it, and continued exposure to the skin has been _linked_ to certain cancers (but as of yet, not _proven_ to be a stand-alone cause). BUT, I have not found anywhere the _PROOF_ to back-up most of the environmental hazard, or non-hazard claims in this thread about burning waste oil (including my claims). Or at least I find no _PROOF_ that it’s any worse (or any better) than burning garbage in a burn barrel, or wood in a wood stove, or a pile of leaves. Until _PROOF_ is presented it doesn’t matter what you, or I believe... neither of us is right or wrong, yet.

Just believing something doesn’t make it so... It’s simply something you believe. And history has shown time, and time again, that when the masses believe something, or government tells the masses what they should believe, it’s usually, eventually _proven_ to be false.


----------



## olyman (Dec 15, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> jags- C’mon... I’m not “ignoring” anything.
> 
> At one time it was a _KNOWN FACT_ that the earth was flat; Somebody eventually offered _PROOF_ that that was false.
> At one time it was a _KNOWN FACT_ that the earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around it; Somebody eventually offered _PROOF_ that that was false.
> ...



and thats why certain people,,love peta,,fund for animals,,alf.etc----


----------



## ks_osage_orange (Dec 15, 2010)

I like how you think Whitespider...for yourself. While intuition tells me that burning waste oil is a worse polluter than burning wood, I honestly don't know what evidence there is out there supporting it. especially on a small scale. I see oil-gas refineries will fires burning 24-7. I see cars burning oil based products 24-7. The list could go on and on. I'm just not sure that the few waste oil burners out there (there can't be that many compared to wood burners) have much of an overall impact. 

I agree that complete vrs. incomplete combustion of those fuels can make a difference in the products, but that can be true even with wood. Trees take in nutrients form the soil, is it that much of a stretch to assume that some of those trees have heavy metals, toxins, polluting compounds, etc. in them at least at the molecular level. Where do they go when you burn the wood?


----------



## LEES WOODC (Dec 15, 2010)

Tried posting a link to EPA article but didn't work.
It states that it is OK to burn used oil in burners up to 500,000 BTU and mixed with diesel in engines as long as the oil was self generated with no adverse environmental effects. As for wood stoves , who knows.
Wish I could copy/paste the link.
PD-eFu file!


----------



## AIM (Dec 15, 2010)

ks_osage_orange said:


> i'm just not sure that the few waste oil burners out there have much of an overall impact.



bingo!!!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2010)

Here is a quote from Roger Sanders, the designer of a homemade (drip style) waste oil heater he calls the “Mother Earth News Waste Oil Heater”. His design is probably the most copied... He sells the book of plans to build it for $22.50. The heater can be built for as little as $50.oo if you scrounge some of your parts. Roger states that it doesn’t have to be built exactly as his, he uses old water heaters but any suitable combustion chamber will work. I’m not saying this is substantiated proof; I’m only quoting the designer...



> "Commercial waste oil heaters use large amounts of electricity, which is expensive and defeats the idea of using 'free' fuel and being environmentally responsible. They atomize the oil through a nozzle. The contaminants in the oil are atomized as well, and a blower is used, causing the contaminants to be blown out the flue into the atmosphere. The contaminants include toxic substances such as heavy metals (lead, zinc, cadmium. chromium) that are better left behind in a burner rather than being discharged into the atmosphere where we can breathe them.
> So vaporization heaters like the Mother Earth News heater are more 'green' than an atomization heater. My heater distills the oil, automatically removing heavy metals from the oil before burning it. This heater effectively eliminates airborne, heavy metal pollution. I consider my heater to be environmentally friendly and essentially pollution-free."


----------



## pook (Dec 15, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> Here is a quote from Roger Sanders, the designer of a homemade (drip style) waste oil heater he calls the “Mother Earth News Waste Oil Heater”. His design is probably the most copied... He sells the book of plans to build it for $22.50. The heater can be built for as little as $50.oo if you scrounge some of your parts. Roger states that it doesn’t have to be built exactly as his, he uses old water heaters but any suitable combustion chamber will work. I’m not saying this is substantiated proof; I’m only quoting the designer...


If his design was patenetd? he wouldnt need sell it for $22.50. Why are EPA approved waste oil burners based on atomization gun?


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 15, 2010)

Here we have virgin (or virginal) green, sustainable, renewable, oh so lovely trees that give us our manhood to harvest them to keep our a$$es warm.
AND YOU WANT TO SOAK THEM IN OIL !!!!!! 

 WHY ????

It's messy; wood is clean, virginal.
It makes logs slimy.
It makes snorting firewood splits obsolete.
It f's up your wood burner.
etc...etc...etc....

And for you calling us "city folk", we haven't poured waste oil down any holes for years here in the real rural.


----------



## ks_osage_orange (Dec 15, 2010)

You guys in the North East are going to think I'm dumb here, and maybe I am. But, what about the heating oil used in your region for heat. We don't use it here in the central plains so I'm unsure of what heating oil consist of. Do you have units that burn it for your heat? I realized its not used motor oil being burned in a homemade stove, but isn't it still a petroleum product being burned? BTW I haven't ever used oil soaked wood nor would I, but I'm curious as to why this thread is being argued with so much passion over burning OIL?


----------



## clinchscavalry (Dec 15, 2010)

ks_osage_orange said:


> You guys in the North East are going to think I'm dumb here, and maybe I am. But, what about the heating oil used in your region for heat. We don't use it here in the central plains so I'm unsure of what heating oil consist of. Do you have units that burn it for your heat? I realized its not used motor oil being burned in a homemade stove, but isn't it still a petroleum product being burned? BTW I haven't ever used oil soaked wood nor would I, but I'm curious as to why this thread is being argued with so much passion over burning OIL?




Good point !!!!!


----------



## Ambull (Dec 15, 2010)

ks_osage_orange said:


> You guys in the North East are going to think I'm dumb here, and maybe I am. But, what about the heating oil used in your region for heat. We don't use it here in the central plains so I'm unsure of what heating oil consist of. Do you have units that burn it for your heat? I realized its not used motor oil being burned in a homemade stove, but isn't it still a petroleum product being burned? BTW I haven't ever used oil soaked wood nor would I, but I'm curious as to why this thread is being argued with so much passion over burning OIL?



Heating oil is low grade diesel fuel.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 15, 2010)

pook-
*Show me where the EPA has standards or approval ratings for waste oil burners. Show me where the EPA says the burner has to be the atomization type.*

Here's a news flash for ya'. The EPA only has standards for the waste oil itself, it's either classified as on-specification or off-specification. On-spec oil has been processed by a recycler, and is the only waste oil that can be bought, sold and used on the industrial market.
On-spec waste oil has limits as to the maximum individual contaminates it may contain. If (for example) the recycler gets a batch with too much lead in it he'll just blend it with a batch that has low lead levels so the final blend is on-spec. The reasoning for this isn't emissions from burning but rather the dangers associated with human contact in case of a spill.
Off-spec waste oil is just that, oil that hasn't been tested and spec'd, but is legal to burn by generator or anyone that the generator gives it (free of charge) to. That pretty much limits the generator of usable off-spec waste oil to a homeowner or private citizen because generator businesses are required to use it on-site or dispose of it through a licensed recycler... as I said in a previous post, it's designed to increase government revenue.

Here's another news flash for ya'. NEARLY ALL WASTE OIL IS BURNED! It is considered a cleaner alternative to Heating Fuel Oil. When all the factors are figured in (such as emissions generated during refinement of heating grade fuel oil) waste oil is considered cleaner and more environmentally friendly than Fuel Oil. The cleanest way to burn waste oil is in a vaporization (drip style) burner because particulate and heavy metal emission is greatly reduced (it remains in the burner as ash and such). Of course, this means the burner must be cleaned so most industry(s) use the atomization type to reduce maintenance at the cost of higher polluting emissions (but still within EPA standards).

When you drip waste oil into your wood stove, or burn oil soaked wood, you are using the vaporization method of burning... the heavy metals and a large percentage of particulates remain in the stove as ash...
And one more news flash...
Wood ash and waste oil ash are not much different from each other. Remember your Natural History class? Oil is nothing more than really, really old trees and vegetation. And most of the things that contaminate waste oil (such as gasoline, diesel fuel, etc.) are made from... well, oil. Just as *ks_osage_orange* suspected, trees take in heavy metals from the soil and when the wood is burned those metals remain as ash.

The secondary burn that happens in a wood stove is nothing more than the further chemical breakdown of compound gasses such as CO, CO2, NO, NOx, Ch4, etc. The gasses and smoke (mostly carbon particulate) are the same (just different percentages) when anything is burned, and will ignite in secondary burn, at the same temperature, whether they come from wood, waste oil or dog doo-doo.

This is all basic chemistry... no magic... and most of it can be found on the EPA website if you're willing to search the thousands of document pages.

I've been holding out on you guys, hoping someone else would chime in with some actual facts, but alas no one has. As a Waste Oil Generator, our family owned Auto Dealership had to send someone to EPA training on the handling, disposal and recycling of waste oil in order to meet the new EPA regulations. I spent three days sitting in that training... Burning waste oil for heat or energy creation is the preferred (EPA) method of disposal... What did you think they did with it?


----------



## Wood Doctor (Dec 15, 2010)

Ambull said:


> Heating oil is low grade diesel fuel.


+1. Some old diesel engines will still run on heating oil and issue rather few complaints.


----------



## TumblebugTaylor (Dec 15, 2010)

Ive used a hot plate type oil heater where a good wood fire is maintained that heats a plate and the oil drips onto the pan and spashes and evaporate. A good draft is needed. One time I was an operator on a job and on wet days I worked on equipment. My shop was a slab poured between 2 tool trailers with a span roof over them. I had a helper that was older and stayed cold during the day. I took a large pipe and made a heater out of it. 

I also needed to get rid of aton of waste oil. I had one of those metal cup sand blasters that looks like a paint gun. I took and welded the nozzle into the heater in a hole I bored into the side. I made and adapter to put the spayer tank onto a larger tank. Add a small fire then turn on the air compressor. It would make the whole heater cherry red. The smoke was clear.


We have a Clean Burn waste oil heater in the shop at work. It does a great job but has trouble running over night. It loses it prime some times. We burn a gallon an hour and can keep the 40 by 40 building at work about 85. 

The main reason we have this is to rid ourselves of waste oil, Its not super cheap as it take and air compressor to atomize the fuel and electricity the run the pumps. The only reason we use this is when DEQ checks in and sees this they dont ask to see our waste oil disposal sheets.


----------



## pook (Dec 16, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> pook-
> *Show me where the EPA has standards or approval ratings for waste oil burners. Show me where the EPA says the burner has to be the atomization type.*
> 
> Here's a news flash for ya'. The EPA only has standards for the waste oil itself, it's either classified as on-specification or off-specification. On-spec oil has been processed by a recycler, and is the only waste oil that can be bought, sold and used on the industrial market.
> ...


http://www.cleanburn.com/advantage/environment.html
once i tried dripping used oil into a steady flame from a sawdust burner & got nasty smoke. asked prof who said detergent in oil wasnt burning. Aprior link said oil had to burn super hot but not how hot so to burn all the nasties. A flame in a woodstove is ~ 1200*f whereas a gassifier claims the flame can reach 2000*f. I've tried to burn K2 intead of kerosene in old oil burner & the smoke was nasty also. An atomizer can burn k2 cleanly , not the old oil stove.
I assume if a simpler,clean, oil burner could be had, the EPA would love it & the inventor would be rich.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2010)

pook, you're starting to make me wonder if you're... Never mind.

A sawdust burner, a professor and detergent?
Really? That's what you're basing your beliefs on?
A professor of what? Antamology?

That prior link did not say oil has to burn "_super hot_" and it came from a web site called "_Ask A Scientist_ (give me a break) and was a statement from yet another professor (who stated he wasn't an expert in the field, go figure)... C'mon, you're jokin', right? In any event, here's the actual quote;


> ...unless the oil is combusted at a very high temperature and with sufficient oxygen, a host of nasty organic reaction products will occur.


So tell me, what exactly is "_very high temperature_"? Zinc melts at 787-degrees, Lead melts at 621-degrees, Cadmium at 610, , Tin at 450, Potassium at just 146-degrees... are any of those "_very high temperature_"? That statement is so generalized that it means nothing and can be applied to any burning substance, i.e. if you oxygen starve a wood fire the temperature lowers and it produces massive amounts of carbon monoxide. Well jee-wiz professor, thank you for that enlightenment.

Oh... and just so you know pook... a typical industrial furnace runs at about 1700/1800-degrees... Does that qualify as "_super hot_" enough for ya'?


pook said:


> I assume if a simpler,clean, oil burner could be had, the EPA would love it & the inventor would be rich.


C'mon pook, use your head. Who said that a vaporization (drip style) burner is simpler? At least at the industrial level? The nozzle feed atomizing furnace can be electronically ignited, easily connected to a simple thermostat and run with minimal maintenance. The nozzle feed atomizing furnace is the simpler of the two, but not the environmentally cleanest (air quality) of the two. The nozzle feed atomizing furnace is smaller (per BTU output) but also requires electricity to run pumps, blowers and whatnot. The typical vaporization (drip style) burner requires attention similar to a wood stove, it isn't a practical alternative for industry... *But it does run with cleaner emissions from the stack, as clean or cleaner than most wood stoves because of the (higher than a wood stove) average temperatures.* It's simple, basic chemistry, nothing more.

It has become quite obvious some of you hold the social belief that _*oil is bad*_ and _*anything else is good*_. I entertain no notion that I can change your minds, but I can't sit idle and let misinformation based on emotion instead of fact go unchallenged. If y'all wann'a keep drinking that kool-aid handed to you by the environmentalists, global warming (so-called) experts and Al Gore types, that's your choice... but at least take the time to research the facts, and their credibility, before you make an argument. Even the EPA is on board with the burning of waste oil, even in homemade drip style burners, you should be able to take a clue from that at least.


----------



## Jredsjeep (Dec 16, 2010)

pook said:


> http://www.cleanburn.com/advantage/environment.html
> once i tried dripping used oil into a steady flame from a sawdust burner & got nasty smoke. asked prof who said detergent in oil wasnt burning. Aprior link said oil had to burn super hot but not how hot so to burn all the nasties. A flame in a woodstove is ~ 1200*f whereas a gassifier claims the flame can reach 2000*f. I've tried to burn K2 intead of kerosene in old oil burner & the smoke was nasty also. An atomizer can burn k2 cleanly , not the old oil stove.
> I assume if a simpler,clean, oil burner could be had, the EPA would love it & the inventor would be rich.



interesting pook, you are linking to the place i used to work for. i cant tell all the details but the oil is preheated and injected with compressed air for airation and combustion.

i have been reading this with interest, last i checked burning used motor oil was an acceptable form of recycling. past that i am not sure on the legality of a home made oil burner. i will have to give a call to my buddy there and see if i can get some better facts.


----------



## pook (Dec 16, 2010)

http://www.woodheat.org/woodpile/in...atid=6:health-impacts-of-wood-smoke&Itemid=10 link addresses burning of dioxins from wood & similar to oil dioxins. 1/2 way down the page is a comparison of EPA & conventional woodstoves pertaining to burn rates.


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 16, 2010)

De-brief and sum up:

Used motor oil IS legal in the North East, here in Maine it IS recycled as heating fuel for Recycling Burners. Recycle centers, landfills, a.k.a. "dumps", all take used oil for burning. Many small to large commercial shops such as vehicle mechanics' garages use used oil for heating here.

Bunker oil is the low low grade of petroleum that comes out of refineries. It is nasty stuff, so heavy that it has to be warmed before using in northern regions' ships. Bunker or #2 oil is used universally on ships (except nukes). For those who know, most of the CO2 in the globe/earth is from bunker run shipping.

End. You need to know no more.:notrolls2:

JMNSHFO


----------



## pook (Dec 16, 2010)

Modern municipal incinerator designs include a high temperature zone, where the flue gas is ensured to sustain a temperature above 850 °C (1,560 °F) for at least 2 seconds before it is cooled down. They are equipped with auxiliary heaters to ensure this at all times. These are often fueled by oil, and normally only active for a very small fraction of the time.'= wikipedia sez about european dioxin incineration


----------



## Ambull (Dec 16, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> For those who know, most of the CO2 in the globe/earth is from bunker run shipping.
> JMNSHFO



?
CO2 is the desired by product of burning any form of carbon energy. The statement suggests that bunker oil is the number one form of energy in the world. Not only that for it to be "most," it would be bigger than all other forms combined. You may want to check your source on that one.


----------



## pook (Dec 16, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> De-brief and sum up:
> 
> Used motor oil IS legal in the North East, here in Maine it IS recycled as heating fuel for Recycling Burners. Recycle centers, landfills, a.k.a. "dumps", all take used oil for burning. Many small to large commercial shops such as vehicle mechanics' garages use used oil for heating here.
> 
> ...


LOLO!~ 5% CO2 is manmade 95% is from rotting vegetation
:deadhorse:


----------



## Ambull (Dec 16, 2010)

pook said:


> LOLO!~ 5% CO2 is manmade 95% is from rotting vegetation
> :deadhorse:



I thought it was something like that......

Number one CO2 producer is bacteria......


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2010)

OK pook,
I checked out your link and read it. Did you read all of it?
Who's argument were you trying to support, yours or mine?


----------



## pook (Dec 16, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> OK pook,
> I checked out your link and read it. Did you read all of it?
> Who's argument were you trying to support, yours or mine?


I have no dog in this race but thanx for commenting.
I conclude= 1560*f for 2sec. + adequate air will burn the dioxins from wood or oil. Seems a hard firing EPA stove is most effective. Soakig the wood & burning it in non-EPA stove dont look good.


----------



## stihl sawing (Dec 16, 2010)

Don't have a clue how effecient oil burning stoves are, But no i would not soak my wood in oil. My stove is inside and talk about a mess. 

Don't see a need to to it anyway as the dry wood does fine. I would think the oil would stink up the house and mess up my stove. Dunno, Not gonna try it anyway, With that being said i do use it to start brush fires. 

I know a mechanic up the road burns all he has in a barrel stove in his shop. You can tell when it's going to. A plume of solid black smoke from the pipe. I guess it's cheap for him as he gets a lot of oil from changing it in cars.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2010)

Well I don't read it that way pook.
But regardless, dioxins are only one component of the emissions, and pretty insignificant at that... your link even says that.


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 16, 2010)

Ambull said:


> ?
> CO2 is the desired by product of burning any form of carbon energy. The statement suggests that bunker oil is the number one form of energy in the world. Not only that for it to be "most," it would be bigger than all other forms combined. You may want to check your source on that one.



It is, and has been checked. Stands.


----------



## alleyyooper (Dec 16, 2010)

OH BOY SOME ONE MENTIONED THE WORDS USED MOTOR OIL AGAIN!!!!

To many educated city folks here to be useing them there words thinking you will get some type of yes or no answer.

I worked for a freight line in the UPPER and all they heated the grage with is used motor oil since a 350 cummins had 22 quarts in it. the owner even heated his house with it. Beat the 22 cents a gallon the recycler would give him and then charge him 97 cents a gallon per 55 gallon drum for the renewed stuff.


 Al


----------



## LEES WOODC (Dec 16, 2010)

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s11.pdf

Another EPA file I found that I couldn't copy/paste determined it's A-OK to burn in diesel engines.
If the EPA approves of it I say do it.


----------



## Jredsjeep (Dec 16, 2010)

LEES WOODC said:


> http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s11.pdf
> 
> Another EPA file I found that I couldn't copy/paste determined it's A-OK to burn in diesel engines.
> If the EPA approves of it I say do it.



that document says its ok to burn in furnaces or boilers, i didnt see anything about diesel engines. i would love to see that data!


----------



## LEES WOODC (Dec 16, 2010)

Get on EPA site and search , "mixing used oil with diesel ". 
The EPA actually recommends it especially when other disposal options are unavailable.
For some reason it wont let me copy/paste the article.

More info.
http://www.ehow.com/how_7609493_dispose-waste-oil-blending

Google "Waste Oil Reduction for Diesel Engines EPA" .


----------



## Hawk Pilot (Dec 16, 2010)

*It Work's for Me (waste oil mix)*

I have bought the fire starter bricks and ran out the other day. I made a fire starter mix and measured's the amount's with a plastic (clear) jug. 

I mixed 4/6's (2/3) gal of used motor oil, 1/6 gal. of gas, this old gas was drained from a truck gas tank and was over 2 years old (bad gas for use) and 1/6 gal. of kerosene. I poured the content's into chain saw gas can and shook it up.

I tried it on the lighting of my fire place and pleased with the result's. I had a small pan that I slid under the fire place wood holder. I poured in about 1 cup of mix and slowly poured about a 1/2 cup over the stacked fire wood. I used my fire starter lighter and it lit off OK. The fire mix burned for about 5 minutes and got a good fire going. Yes, some light smoke with the waste oil but not excessive (my opinion). I have plan's to buy a waste oil heater in the future and have over 500 gal.s of waste oil and needed to try it (mix) in the fire place.


----------



## LEES WOODC (Dec 16, 2010)

I'm no master mechanic but I'll throw some food for thought out there and a little common sense.

My big diesel engines run at 190 -200F in the summer and 100-140F winter. I'm guessing internal combustion temps are quite a bit higher. How much I don't know but surely not that of an EPA cat stove running 400-600F.
Woodn't a stove burn the volatiles from the oil better/hotter than than a diesel engine due to higher temps?
I run a 2-3% mix (twice settled and triple filtered) in my diesel with no visible emissions. 
The heavy metals and volatiles in used oil are also in the air from exhaust. Cylinder and valve wear (which supposedly creates the nasties) above the low point of the cylinder/ring stroke are exhausted out and into the air we breathe.


----------



## John R (Dec 16, 2010)

WOW, This thread is still going. :biggrinbounce2:


----------



## lfnh (Dec 16, 2010)

John R said:


> WOW, This thread is still going. :biggrinbounce2:



Yup, ya aina kiddn. This started off couple days back, then it moseyed over to the clothes dryer for a run at _Klim_ dried firewood, and finally just resorted to burning old tires tonite....

Busy week inventin stuff, i'd say.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 16, 2010)

Hey *LEES WOODC*, that first link you posted is a good one. I'd seen those numbers before, and had recently tried to find them so I could post them with my defense of the Drip Style waste oil burner (Vaporizing Burner) vs. the Nozzle Feed Atomizing waste oil burner. I decided to run those *EPA provided numbers* to get some totals and compare the two styles of burner.

Particulate Matter Totals per 1000 gallons burned;
Vaporizing Burner - 3.21 lbs
Atomizing Burner - 173 lbs

Oxides NOx, SOx & CO Totals per 1000 gallons burned;
Vaporizing Burner - 112.7 lbs
Atomizing Burner - 125.1 lbs

Metals Totals per 1000 gallons burned;
Vaporizing Burner - 25.8 lbs
Atomizing Burner - 27.1 lbs

Speciated Organic Compounds Totals per 1000 gallons burned;
Vaporizing Burner - 35.2 lbs
Atomizing Burner - 24.7 lbs

*And The Total Pollutants per 1000 gallons burned are;*
Vaporizing Burner - 176.91 lbs
Atomizing Burner - *475.0 lbs*
*Holy crap !!!
According to the EPA the Atomizing Burner dumps over 2 1/2 times more pollutants ito the air !!!*
Oh... wait... Why I'm I so surprised? That's exactly what I've been saying all along.
Now if someone would just search the EPA web site long enough to find the same detailed numbers for typical wood stove emissions...
Well, we could make another comparison, couldn't we?


----------



## chowdozer (Dec 17, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> Hey *LEES WOODC*, that first link you posted is a good one. I'd seen those numbers before, and had recently tried to find them so I could post them with my defense of the Drip Style waste oil burner (Vaporizing Burner) vs. the Nozzle Feed Atomizing waste oil burner. I decided to run those *EPA provided numbers* to get some totals and compare the two styles of burner.
> 
> Particulate Matter Totals per 1000 gallons burned;
> Vaporizing Burner - 3.21 lbs
> ...



Sure, compare the commercially available and approved vaporizing burner and commercially available and approved atomizing burner to your homemade and unapproved method of burning used motor oil in your woodstove. If you got no numbers for your woodstove, then you're just blowing pollutants up everybody's azz.


----------



## pook (Dec 17, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> Hey *LEES WOODC*, that first link you posted is a good one. I'd seen those numbers before, and had recently tried to find them so I could post them with my defense of the Drip Style waste oil burner (Vaporizing Burner) vs. the Nozzle Feed Atomizing waste oil burner. I decided to run those *EPA provided numbers* to get some totals and compare the two styles of burner.
> 
> Particulate Matter Totals per 1000 gallons burned;
> Vaporizing Burner - 3.21 lbs
> ...


 Particulate matter shows a big difference but could it be mostly dirt? Speciated organic compounds shows a 50% increase of pollutants when vaporizing & this where the dioxins are.

http://www.woodheat.org/woodpile/in...atid=6:health-impacts-of-wood-smoke&Itemid=10 1/3 of the page down theres a comparative graph of woodstoves burning wood & releasing dioxins which shows that EPA stove @ high burn rate will burn the dioxins where a non-EPA wont. Seems hi temp + extra air is required to burn dioxins. Simply higher temp wont do? Adding more dioxins with oil MAY overwhelm the combustion air of the EPA stove but WILL make the non-EPA stove worse.
European incineration of dioxins require 1560*f burn for 2seconds & adequate air.

had to quote to remember the terms.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 17, 2010)

I said it once and I'll say it again,"*...at least take the time to research the facts, and their credibility, before you make an argument.*"


chowdozer said:


> Sure, compare the commercially available and approved vaporizing burner and commercially available and approved atomizing burner to your homemade and unapproved method of burning used motor oil in your woodstove...


SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS BURNING WASTE OIL IN MY WOOD STOVE IS AN *UNAPPROVED METHOD*!
Oil, just like gasoline, will not burn as a liquid, it must be first vaporized or atomized (sprayed into a fine mist). When it's atomized every thing in it (all the crap) is also sprayed into that mist and ignited. Pressurized air is also forced into the combustion chamber to make this work, causing a lot more crap to be forced out the stack. Oil is vaporized by heating, and only the vapor burns... *and anything that doesn't vaporize* remains as ash or some sort of deposit. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE HEAT SOURCE FOR VAPORIZATION COMES FROM! IT'S SIMPLE, BASIC CHEMISTRY! Once the vapor ignites, it burns the same no matter what it's burning in... VAPORIZATION BURNING IS VAPORIZATION BURNING! It-is-what-it-is!



pook said:


> Speciated organic compounds shows a 50% increase of pollutants when vaporizing & this where the dioxins are.


Give it up pook. The percentage of dioxin emissions are insignificant with either method of burning waste oil.
Even the link you posted alludes to the fact that dioxin emissions are insignificant from a wood stove, _*any wood stove*_!
And I quote from it;

"_Based on all the data now available, dioxin exposure in humans is not a growing threat. Dioxin exposure fell dramatically over the past forty years, even while the amount of wood burned for heating has increased. It is therefore not reasonable to suggest that residential wood heating is causing high concentrations of dioxin in the environment.
A fair evaluation of the available scientific literature reveals some uncertainty about whether advanced technology wood stoves produce higher or lower dioxin emissions than conventional stoves. But only a selective or biased reading of the literature could conclude that EPA certified stoves produce higher dioxin emissions.
The dioxin story is a good illustration of how selective reference and interpretation of scientific data can distort messages received by the public._"


----------



## pook (Dec 17, 2010)

Whitespider said:


> I said it once and I'll say it again,"*...at least take the time to research the facts, and their credibility, before you make an argument.*"
> 
> SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS BURNING WASTE OIL IN MY WOOD STOVE IS AN *UNAPPROVED METHOD*!
> Oil, just like gasoline, will not burn as a liquid, it must be first vaporized or atomized (sprayed into a fine mist). When it's atomized every thing in it (all the crap) is also sprayed into that mist and ignited. Pressurized air is also forced into the combustion chamber to make this work, causing a lot more crap to be forced out the stack. Oil is vaporized by heating, and only the vapor burns... *and anything that doesn't vaporize* remains as ash or some sort of deposit. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE HEAT SOURCE FOR VAPORIZATION COMES FROM! IT'S SIMPLE, BASIC CHEMISTRY! Once the vapor ignites, it burns the same no matter what it's burning in... VAPORIZATION BURNING IS VAPORIZATION BURNING! It-is-what-it-is!
> ...


 The Woodheat.org link has the graph comparing dioxin exhausts. San Francisco as a concentrated area for woodburnning resulted in a dioxin concern {google it]. Dioxins seem to be the worst of the speciated hydrocarbon pollutants so effective incineration is of concern
Vaporization burn resulted in 50% more speciated hydrocarbon pollution than atomization--from your posted EPA figures.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 17, 2010)

So home wood burners (and/or home oil burners for that matter) are the cause of high(er) dioxin levels in the _San Francisco_ area? Really? In _San Francisco_? Who'd a thunk it?
Still drinkin' that government made kool-aid ain't ya' pook?


----------



## barnumb (Dec 17, 2010)

pook said:


> The Woodheat.org link has the graph comparing dioxin exhausts. San Francisco as a concentrated area for woodburnning resulted in a dioxin concern {google it]. Dioxins seem to be the worst of the speciated hydrocarbon pollutants so effective incineration is of concern
> Vaporization burn resulted in 50% more speciated hydrocarbon pollution than atomization--from your posted EPA figures.



Woodheat.org= a bunch of Eco Nazi loosers. 75% of them probably voted for Nobama are members of PETA and members of the communist party.


----------



## ray benson (Dec 17, 2010)

Or pressure treated wood, railroad ties, plywood, OSB or green wood.


----------



## Jredsjeep (Dec 17, 2010)

LEES WOODC said:


> I'm no master mechanic but I'll throw some food for thought out there and a little common sense.
> 
> My big diesel engines run at 190 -200F in the summer and 100-140F winter. I'm guessing internal combustion temps are quite a bit higher. How much I don't know but surely not that of an EPA cat stove running 400-600F.
> Woodn't a stove burn the volatiles from the oil better/hotter than than a diesel engine due to higher temps?
> ...



interesting i have been running waste oil in my truck for years now in mixes from 50% up to 100% in the summer. i have an older non computerized diesel and it seems to like it. i know allot of people freak out and start spouting about wear but i have saved enough to pay for new fuel system components many times over and i havent needed to yet. i am not going to derail with explanations on everything but it is nice to officially see i am a green vehicle user with my old diesel F350 

edit on a side note i have a pyrometer in my truck and i can watch the exhaust temperature average after it exits the combustion chamber and i regularly run in the 600-1000 deg range. more or less depending on load of the engine, now that is after the gasses have been burned and exit the engine.


----------



## barnumb (Dec 17, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> LOL!
> 
> ........No doubt they would make better neighbors than idiots who burn tires!



I just bought the place upwind from you.


----------



## LEES WOODC (Dec 17, 2010)

Jredsjeep said:


> interesting i have been running waste oil in my truck for years now in mixes from 50% up to 100% in the summer. i have an older non computerized diesel and it seems to like it. i know allot of people freak out and start spouting about wear but i have saved enough to pay for new fuel system components many times over and i havent needed to yet. i am not going to derail with explanations on everything but it is nice to officially see i am a green vehicle user with my old diesel F350
> 
> edit on a side note i have a pyrometer in my truck and i can watch the exhaust temperature average after it exits the combustion chamber and i regularly run in the 600-1000 deg range. more or less depending on load of the engine, now that is after the gasses have been burned and exit the engine.



I have been running the mix in all of my diesel equipment for about 5 years with absolutely NO problems.I instantly gained 20% better fuel mileage in a Cat 3406E along with improved power and performance.I researched the hell out of this before I went ahead with it as a Cat 3406E cost about $20,000 to rebuild. I have noticed poor performance at mixing levels greater than 5% so I try to stay around 3% and even less in colder months.I too have saved a ton of money. I estimate $15,000+ in the last 5 years.

There seams to be a misconception that motor oil is a "nasty magnet" in an engine.It simply is not true.Far more gets blown out the exhaust than ever is contained in oil.Is there not "nasties" already in diesel , gasoline and motor oil right from the refinery. If the wear metals from an engine are so bad then why is my neighbor who has been a mechanic his whole life still alive and wrenching at 72.

As far as mixing used oil and wood goes the smaller amounts the better and the hotter the fire the better. Visible emissions says alot.
If the EPA approves so do I.


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Dec 17, 2010)

> Or pressure treated wood, railroad ties, plywood, OSB or green wood.



The "old family farm" back before my time was located between two railroad branches. The section foreman would drop off the old railroad ties. Grandpa would cut them for fence posts, which produced an extra hunk from each thrown on the Sauna fire pile. 

According to my uncles, when they'd be using up those creosote-soaked ends, they're be about six feet of flames rolling out of the sauna chimney and the blackest smoke you can imagine. They said it heated it up really fast 

I wonder if imparted a special flavor to the vegetables they grew for market?


----------



## pook (Dec 17, 2010)

Dalmatian90 said:


> The "old family farm" back before my time was located between two railroad branches. The section foreman would drop off the old railroad ties. Grandpa would cut them for fence posts, which produced an extra hunk from each thrown on the Sauna fire pile.
> 
> According to my uncles, when they'd be using up those creosote-soaked ends, they're be about six feet of flames rolling out of the sauna chimney and the blackest smoke you can imagine. They said it heated it up really fast
> 
> I wonder if imparted a special flavor to the vegetables they grew for market?


what goes up must come down, ithinx


----------



## beavis331 (Dec 17, 2010)

Question?
My Uncle built a drip type oil burner onto his shop wood stove. He would get the whole stove glowing red. He had trouble with the end of the drip tube cloging up with charred oil. What is the reason for this? Was it the design or was he doing something wrong? He just had a piece of quarter inch pipe welded into the stove as a drip tube.


----------



## John R (Dec 17, 2010)

anymanusa said:


> Soaking firewood in old used motor oil?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Just soak it in gas, and it'll all be over in a flash.


----------



## pook (Dec 17, 2010)

beavis331 said:


> Question?
> My Uncle built a drip type oil burner onto his shop wood stove. He would get the whole stove glowing red. He had trouble with the end of the drip tube cloging up with charred oil. What is the reason for this? Was it the design or was he doing something wrong? He just had a piece of quarter inch pipe welded into the stove as a drip tube.


oil is hot enough to vaporize in the hot pipe & leave the solids behind


----------



## lfnh (Feb 4, 2012)

another Tales from the Great AS


----------

