Soaking firewood in old used motor oil?

[stihl sawing]

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]

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]

?
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

WOW, This thread is still going. :biggrinbounce2:

 

[lfnh]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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."

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!

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]

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!


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."

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Jredsjeep]

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.

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.