research surrounding veggie
I'm very willing to be convinced! Keep talking!
I appreciate your willingness to consider and be open to new possibilities. However, I'm not here to 'convince' anyone. Initially, I was just sharing my personal experience, as I still do, but now it's more a matter of seperating fact from fallacy.
What I mean by this is, we have a growing body of information going on here, whether we realize it or not. Research (in a nutshell) is the gathering of valid data and analyzing it to come up with conclusions. Research is not trying to prove something right, but rather, trying to prove it wrong. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and devises experiments to test the hypothesis.
A hypothesis is an educated guess about something, in our case, the guess that
"Food-grade, non-tackified vegetable oil can be used successfully as a bar and chain lubricant in a chainsaw system." Our 'experiment' is based on personal feedback from those using straight, off-the-shelf, NON-TACKIFIED grocery-grade vegetable oil in their chainsaws. We are all experimental subjects, in effect, Guinea pigs, since this area of research has very little published data. What is currently out there amounts to a small scattering of published articles. Research, good research, will have large numbers of subjects, all doing the same thing within the same experiment, and eventually comparing the data and drawing conclusions from it. The internet has allowed us to assemble in good numbers and for us to all volunteer willingly to be part of this.
A 'blind' study would be me handing you either the experimental compound (veggie oil), or the 'control' (regular bar oil) and I would know which is which, but you would not. A double-blind study would be me handing you random samples of either the test product, or control, and neither I nor you would know which is which. Double blind removes any personal bias on the part of the researcher who might want the results to show one direction or the other.
Our 'experiment' can not be anything like a clinical trial. It can't be blind or double blind but that does not mean we can't compile solid data and eventual results. Our information pool expands into areas like pricing and environmental temperature, different saw manufacturers, different saw sizes, bar lengths, chain types, usage frequency, usage style, different oils in the veggie family (canola, corn, soy, etc), you get what I mean by this. Our data is hardly quantifiable (measurable) which is fundamental to objective research. Our research is more subjective (non-measurable) and our 'data' is purely empirical (gotten based on direct use). If the research is good, the 'experiments' can be replicated and the results will remain consistent, anywhere in the world. The key is for all the subjects to be doing basically the same thing.
This wasn't planned from the beginning, it's sort of fallen into place. As said before, I am not here to 'convince' anyone. I've assumed the role of keeping the information valid.
For instance, Blue Ridge Mark, earlier, contributed that he saw a sticky, gummy ring around the cap area of a veggie oil bottle that had been sitting around since last Fall and made a conclusion that he was not going to risk his saws based on that. That contribution is appreciated and though it may move others in an emotional way, the observation had absolutely nothing to do with a chainsaw, a chain, a bar or lubrication in a chainsaw system whatsoever. This is an observation outside of our 'experiment' and has no place in the data or eventual results. Mange brought in commentary about bio-oil in harvesters and forwarders, as well as chainsaws and how if used improperly could destroy the equipment. There was no confirmation whether this oil was tackified bio oil from the saw shop or grocery veggie. We are working SPECIFICALLY with food-grade vegetable oil in chainsaw systems, so the commentary, although valuable and appreciated does not fit into our data pool.
This is what I mean. Research is designed to produce unbiassed results from legitimate data. This is why we don't put research trials on the health aspects of cigarette smoking in the hands of cigarette companies- the data and results would undoubtedly be biassed and shown to prove what they want the research to show. This is not research. That would be manipulation of information to achieve some sort of advantage.
I hope you all can see that I have no vested interest in this. No one is paying me a single coin to produce data to show something one way or the other. There is no benefit in this for me, nor will there be. True, I care about the environment and your health, but if I thought veggie oil was going to trash your saws, I would not be here volunteering countless hours to guide this along. I consider my place to be unbiassed; I want to know if using veggie is good, but I certainly want to know if it is bad.
The challenge here for all of us is overcoming the emotion surrounding it all. Moving to veggie represents change. Change scares the crap out of many people, even if it is for the better. Sometimes agreeing that the 'new thing' is right means, subconciously, you have to admit that the old thing was wrong, and nobody likes to be wrong. Resistance to change is part of our makeup as humans so embrace it, but at the same time, understand it.
Just consider, this is not about right or wrong, old vs. new, or his way vs. my way. Keep in perspective, this is about can "Food-grade, non-tackified vegetable oil be used successfully as a bar and chain lubricant in a chainsaw system." ? Through the testing of this question we hope to come up with all the peripheral details of what are the nitty gritty details associated with the use, what are the advantages, disadvantages and what can can be done to overcome any disadvantages.
Sorry so long-winded. It's not required that we all agree, but it is important that we are on the same sheet of paper if we're looking to answer the same questions.
