"T L via CarKB.com" <u10197@uwe> wrote in news:5a74fcedb212d@uwe:

> still the question: is Tech 2000 (walmart Brand) recycled?


Wal-Mart does not say on their MSDS's. Safety Kleen does not
list that product under any recognizable name. But here are
their motor oil MSDS's:
<http://www.safety-kleen.com/skcda/views/pages/form/MSDSSearch/MSDSSearchResults.jsp?titleparam=MSDS+Search+Resul ts&searchText=motor+oil&submit=Execute+Search>

However, I did find this URL:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/200...s_ecoholic.php

An excerpt from above:
"However, you can buy re-refined oil, like Tech-2000 ($1.56/litre
at Wal-Mart) or Zellers' Autoprix ($2.27/litre)."



> I don't think Safety Kleen is in the oil refining business.....


Apparently they are!
<http://www.safetykleen.com/skcda/views/pages/channel/home.do?channel=e748b71d>


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
news:97Tyf.244$rH5.29@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net:

>
> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns974D9499EC770tegger@207.14.113.17...
>> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
>> news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net:
>> >
>> > from what i understand of synthetic oil production that would be
>> > probably be a cheap way to get the base oil used to mfg the
>> > synthetic
>>
>> It is extremely expensive to recover post-consumer motor oil, just
>> like it's extremely expensive to recover *anything* post-consumer
>> except aluminum. That would NOT be a "cheap way" to acquire a base
>> stock. Unless you ignore the millions it will/would cost in tax
>> monies that are/would be required to cajole refineries into taking
>> the stuff.
>>
>
> well by cheap i mean a recycler probably does not have to pay for the
> used oil as in buying crude or derivatives at some cost per barrel and
> may even get some incentive or payed for recycling.




The cost is in the recovery itself. The trucks, the personnel, the sorting,
the elimination and disposal of contaminants, etc.

Ever wonder what becomes of the tons of toxins removed every year from used
motor oil? I have, too.




>
> i do not know what if any cleansing would be required before the
> refining process to remove various contaminants ?


Lots and lots. And lots and lots. And lots. Lots more besides. Motor oil
picks up tons of crud, which is one of its jobs. ALL of it has to be
removed before the waste is turned back into motor oil again. Also, polymer
chains tend to get shortened with use, which decreases film strength, so
the oil needs to be "fixed" to make the chains the correct length again.



>
> anyways it sounded like an interesting idea, "synthetic mfg from
> recycling used oil"



Lots of things sound like good ideas until you discover just how expensive
and troublesome it really is to achieve the idea. It's stupid to spend
double for something than you need to. Unless you're trying to make a point
of some kind, like buying a "Smart" car.



>
>>
>> > i presume they send it back through a refinement process to gather
>> > the base oil used for various grades and since it is engineered oil
>> > then the oil produced is probably not suspect ( ? )
>>
>> It's the re-refinement that IS suspect, since some re-refining is
>> done better than others.
>>
> well ok i concur with that point, and i am wondering what is in the
> walmart labeled synthetic ?



Check out the MSDS's. See other post.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"karl" <ottokarl@cognisurf.com> wrote in
news:1137448088.220071.136010@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

>
>
> It surely is most interesting - to make synthetic from
> recycling used oil.
>
>


The fact that no one appears to be doing it should suggest something to
you.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

TeGGeR® wrote:
> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
> news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net:
>
>
>>from what i understand of synthetic oil production that would be
>>probably be a cheap way to get the base oil used to mfg the synthetic,
>
>
>
>
> It is extremely expensive to recover post-consumer motor oil, just like
> it's extremely expensive to recover *anything* post-consumer except
> aluminum.

recovered aluminum, while it avoids the extensive energy expense of
primary extraction, it not necessarily that useful a material. the
recycling of old soda cans into new soda cans is a classic example [or
at least, was when i was at metallurgy school - things may have
changed]. the can comprises two alloys: the ductile portion that is
deep drawn into the body of the can, and the lid which contains the ring
pull. the lid needs to have limited ductility otherwise the material
won't tear and the ring pull won't work. the body on the other hand
requires ductility to be formed. once they're joined, there's no
economic way of separating the two pieces, thus they both get melted
together on recovery. the resulting alloy is now a mix of high & low
ductility materials which is not usable for either part of the can. it
can be refined, but only at high expense, thus recovered soda cans find
their way into cast aluminum cylinder heads and other limited ductility
applications. new cans are made of new material.

last i heard, the most recovered material is steel. recovery from
domestic uses can be only 30%, but recovery from industrial use can be
over 90%.

> That would NOT be a "cheap way" to acquire a base stock. Unless
> you ignore the millions it will/would cost in tax monies that are/would be
> required to cajole refineries into taking the stuff.
>
>
>
>
>>i presume they send it back through a refinement process to gather
>>the base oil used for various grades and since it is engineered oil
>>then the oil produced is probably not suspect ( ? )
>
>
>
>
> It's the re-refinement that IS suspect, since some re-refining is done
> better than others.
>
>

 

jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:CL-dnd2ubp51o1HenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:

> TeGGeR® wrote:
>> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
>> news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net:
>>
>>
>>>from what i understand of synthetic oil production that would be
>>>probably be a cheap way to get the base oil used to mfg the
>>>synthetic,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is extremely expensive to recover post-consumer motor oil, just
>> like it's extremely expensive to recover *anything* post-consumer
>> except aluminum.
>
> recovered aluminum, while it avoids the extensive energy expense of
> primary extraction, it not necessarily that useful a material. the
> recycling of old soda cans into new soda cans is a classic example [or
> at least, was when i was at metallurgy school - things may have
> changed]. the can comprises two alloys: the ductile portion that is
> deep drawn into the body of the can, and the lid which contains the
> ring pull. the lid needs to have limited ductility otherwise the
> material won't tear and the ring pull won't work. the body on the
> other hand requires ductility to be formed. once they're joined,
> there's no economic way of separating the two pieces, thus they both
> get melted together on recovery. the resulting alloy is now a mix of
> high & low ductility materials which is not usable for either part of
> the can. it can be refined, but only at high expense, thus recovered
> soda cans find their way into cast aluminum cylinder heads and other
> limited ductility applications. new cans are made of new material.



Interesting.

The soft drink companies were the #1 proponents of recycling in its early
days. They were originally afraid to be stuck with the recovery costs for
cans the way they'd been for glass bottles. I guess they had no intention
of using the recovered aluminum for themselves.




>
> last i heard, the most recovered material is steel. recovery from
> domestic uses can be only 30%, but recovery from industrial use can be
> over 90%.



That was my point originally. Many industries (including my own) have been
recycling their own waste for a century or more. Industrial waste is as
clean and pure as it's going to get, so it's relatively inexpensive and
easy to reuse.

The major problem with anything post-consumer is contamination. It's
impossible to control at the point of collection, so you have to spend
enormous sums at the sorting depot. And even then you'll get lots of
rejection upon delivery unless you spend millions in taxpayers' money to
bribe companies to take the .

My own industry is corrugated fiberboard. Post-consumer is hell to work
with. It's a non-starter without subsidies. Plus, with all the recycling
mandates, we've spent over a decade building entire new plants and machines
to handle post-consumer, since little of the existing equipment could
handle 99% recycled content. This caused shortages and increased prices for
finished goods, and there were terrible quality problems for a long time.
Also, the "recycled" corrugated contains a large percentage of resins to
compensate for the short wood fibers.

Even now 99% recycled is a poor sister to virgin. For critical applications
like UN-certified containers, virgin is the only way to go.

You can only recycle paper fibers so many times (about 7) before they get
too short to use any more, so you always have to gauge the repulped mix and
add virgin fiber and resins to beef it up again. They actually have giant
blocks of virgin pulp (couple of feet on a side) that get dropped into the
pulp like sugar cubes into coffee.

Did you know that for every 100 tons of recycled paper fibers you get 40
tons of unusable sludge? It gets landfilled or incinerated. No good for
anything else.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns974DC4990D2A7tegger@207.14.113.17...
> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
> news:97Tyf.244$rH5.29@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net:
>
> >
> > "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> > news:Xns974D9499EC770tegger@207.14.113.17...
> >> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
> >> news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net:
> >> >
> >> > from what i understand of synthetic oil production that would be
> >> > probably be a cheap way to get the base oil used to mfg the
> >> > synthetic
> >>
> >> It is extremely expensive to recover post-consumer motor oil, just
> >> like it's extremely expensive to recover *anything* post-consumer
> >> except aluminum. That would NOT be a "cheap way" to acquire a base
> >> stock. Unless you ignore the millions it will/would cost in tax
> >> monies that are/would be required to cajole refineries into taking
> >> the stuff.
> >>
> >
> > well by cheap i mean a recycler probably does not have to pay for the
> > used oil as in buying crude or derivatives at some cost per barrel and
> > may even get some incentive or payed for recycling.
>
> The cost is in the recovery itself. The trucks, the personnel, the
sorting,
> the elimination and disposal of contaminants, etc.
>
> Ever wonder what becomes of the tons of toxins removed every year from
used
> motor oil? I have, too.
>
> >
> > i do not know what if any cleansing would be required before the
> > refining process to remove various contaminants ?
>
> Lots and lots. And lots and lots. And lots. Lots more besides. Motor oil
> picks up tons of crud, which is one of its jobs. ALL of it has to be
> removed before the waste is turned back into motor oil again. Also,
polymer
> chains tend to get shortened with use, which decreases film strength, so
> the oil needs to be "fixed" to make the chains the correct length again.
>
> > anyways it sounded like an interesting idea, "synthetic mfg from
> > recycling used oil"
>
> Lots of things sound like good ideas until you discover just how expensive
> and troublesome it really is to achieve the idea. It's stupid to spend
> double for something than you need to. Unless you're trying to make a
point
> of some kind, like buying a "Smart" car.
>
> >> > i presume they send it back through a refinement process to gather
> >> > the base oil used for various grades and since it is engineered oil
> >> > then the oil produced is probably not suspect ( ? )
> >>
> >> It's the re-refinement that IS suspect, since some re-refining is
> >> done better than others.
> >>
> > well ok i concur with that point, and i am wondering what is in the
> > walmart labeled synthetic ?
>
> Check out the MSDS's. See other post.
>

as with most thread differences i investigated further and found some
interesting info regarding re-refine (as it is called) of used motor oil one
link is as follows
http://pubgis.co.pinellas.fl.us/pcuw..._waste/oil.cfm

the basic points made:
a.. 1 gallon of used oil produces 2˝ quarts of re-refined lubricating oil.
a.. Recycling used oil takes half as much energy as refining crude oil.
a.. Re-refined oil prices are competitive with virgin oil products.
a.. API approved re-refined oils meet warranty requirements for new
automobiles.
a.. The United States Postal Service and National Park Service use
re-refined oil in their vehicles.
a.. All the oil generated by do-it-yourself oil changers in America, if
collected and re-refined, would provide enough motor oil for over 50 million
cars annually.


and some other links
http://www.recycleoil.org/index.html
http://www.earth911.org/master.asp?s=lib&a=oil/uses.asp
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6867789

well you know how to search

 

The reason I assume Safety Kleen is the manufacturer of Tech 2000 is that
their name shows up on the actually shelf price tag in Walmart. I was not
able to find that name anywhere on the bottle.

Very interesting, thanks for the links Tegger.

I as well have been involved in wood recycling at my last employer,
manufacturing particle board. Only within the last few years were we able to
switch away from the old UF resins, to something more environmentally
friendly. Well it didn't stink like UF anyways, still full of VOCs, though
in lower quantities.

When I left, the VOC reduction strategy was in using more friendly finishing
technologies.

But the bottom line is, like you say, virgin fibre is king, as it is much
much more difficult to control the quality of the fibres used from recycled
materials. Although we could boast a 97% yield of the trees we used, either
for solid wood, veneer or particle board applications.

Another question, as its been forever since my last chemistry class. How
would one lengthen the hydrocarbon chain of a shortened oil molecule? add
carbon?

t

TeGGeR® wrote:
>> still the question: is Tech 2000 (walmart Brand) recycled?
>
>Wal-Mart does not say on their MSDS's. Safety Kleen does not
>list that product under any recognizable name. But here are
>their motor oil MSDS's:
><http://www.safety-kleen.com/skcda/views/pages/form/MSDSSearch/MSDSSearchResults.jsp?titleparam=MSDS+Search+Resul ts&searchText=motor+oil&submit=Execute+Search>
>
>However, I did find this URL:
>http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/200...s_ecoholic.php
>
>An excerpt from above:
>"However, you can buy re-refined oil, like Tech-2000 ($1.56/litre
>at Wal-Mart) or Zellers' Autoprix ($2.27/litre)."
>
>> I don't think Safety Kleen is in the oil refining business.....
>
>Apparently they are!
><http://www.safetykleen.com/skcda/views/pages/channel/home.do?channel=e748b71d>
>

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200601/1

 

Rob B wrote:
> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns974DC4990D2A7tegger@207.14.113.17...
>
>>"Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
>>news:97Tyf.244$rH5.29@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net:
>>
>>
>>>"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns974D9499EC770tegger@207.14.113.17...
>>>
>>>>"Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
>>>>news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
>>>>
>>>>>from what i understand of synthetic oil production that would be
>>>>>probably be a cheap way to get the base oil used to mfg the
>>>>>synthetic
>>>>
>>>>It is extremely expensive to recover post-consumer motor oil, just
>>>>like it's extremely expensive to recover *anything* post-consumer
>>>>except aluminum. That would NOT be a "cheap way" to acquire a base
>>>>stock. Unless you ignore the millions it will/would cost in tax
>>>>monies that are/would be required to cajole refineries into taking
>>>>the stuff.
>>>>
>>>
>>>well by cheap i mean a recycler probably does not have to pay for the
>>>used oil as in buying crude or derivatives at some cost per barrel and
>>>may even get some incentive or payed for recycling.
>>
>>The cost is in the recovery itself. The trucks, the personnel, the
>
> sorting,
>
>>the elimination and disposal of contaminants, etc.
>>
>>Ever wonder what becomes of the tons of toxins removed every year from
>
> used
>
>>motor oil? I have, too.
>>
>>
>>>i do not know what if any cleansing would be required before the
>>>refining process to remove various contaminants ?
>>
>>Lots and lots. And lots and lots. And lots. Lots more besides. Motor oil
>>picks up tons of crud, which is one of its jobs. ALL of it has to be
>>removed before the waste is turned back into motor oil again. Also,
>
> polymer
>
>>chains tend to get shortened with use, which decreases film strength, so
>>the oil needs to be "fixed" to make the chains the correct length again.
>>
>>
>>>anyways it sounded like an interesting idea, "synthetic mfg from
>>>recycling used oil"
>>
>>Lots of things sound like good ideas until you discover just how expensive
>>and troublesome it really is to achieve the idea. It's stupid to spend
>>double for something than you need to. Unless you're trying to make a
>
> point
>
>>of some kind, like buying a "Smart" car.
>>
>>
>>>>>i presume they send it back through a refinement process to gather
>>>>>the base oil used for various grades and since it is engineered oil
>>>>>then the oil produced is probably not suspect ( ? )
>>>>
>>>>It's the re-refinement that IS suspect, since some re-refining is
>>>>done better than others.
>>>>
>>>
>>>well ok i concur with that point, and i am wondering what is in the
>>>walmart labeled synthetic ?
>>
>>Check out the MSDS's. See other post.
>>
>
>
> as with most thread differences i investigated further and found some
> interesting info regarding re-refine (as it is called) of used motor oil one
> link is as follows
> http://pubgis.co.pinellas.fl.us/pcuw..._waste/oil.cfm
>
> the basic points made:
> a.. 1 gallon of used oil produces 2˝ quarts of re-refined lubricating oil.
> a.. Recycling used oil takes half as much energy as refining crude oil.
> a.. Re-refined oil prices are competitive with virgin oil products.
> a.. API approved re-refined oils meet warranty requirements for new
> automobiles.
> a.. The United States Postal Service and National Park Service use
> re-refined oil in their vehicles.
> a.. All the oil generated by do-it-yourself oil changers in America, if
> collected and re-refined, would provide enough motor oil for over 50 million
> cars annually.
>
>
> and some other links
> http://www.recycleoil.org/index.html
> http://www.earth911.org/master.asp?s=lib&a=oil/uses.asp
> http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6867789
>
> well you know how to search
>

interesting. almost /all/ special steels are made from scrap. they
require extensive refining anyway, so may as well use [cheaper] scrap as
the start material. most new material gets put into continuous-cast
product that can't tolerate some of the contaminants post-consumer
steels contain.

 

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:CL-dnd2ubp51o1HenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>>"Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
>>>news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>from what i understand of synthetic oil production that would be
>>>
>>>>probably be a cheap way to get the base oil used to mfg the
>>>>synthetic,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It is extremely expensive to recover post-consumer motor oil, just
>>>like it's extremely expensive to recover *anything* post-consumer
>>>except aluminum.
>>
>>recovered aluminum, while it avoids the extensive energy expense of
>>primary extraction, it not necessarily that useful a material. the
>>recycling of old soda cans into new soda cans is a classic example [or
>>at least, was when i was at metallurgy school - things may have
>>changed]. the can comprises two alloys: the ductile portion that is
>>deep drawn into the body of the can, and the lid which contains the
>>ring pull. the lid needs to have limited ductility otherwise the
>>material won't tear and the ring pull won't work. the body on the
>>other hand requires ductility to be formed. once they're joined,
>>there's no economic way of separating the two pieces, thus they both
>>get melted together on recovery. the resulting alloy is now a mix of
>>high & low ductility materials which is not usable for either part of
>>the can. it can be refined, but only at high expense, thus recovered
>>soda cans find their way into cast aluminum cylinder heads and other
>>limited ductility applications. new cans are made of new material.
>
>
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> The soft drink companies were the #1 proponents of recycling in its early
> days. They were originally afraid to be stuck with the recovery costs for
> cans the way they'd been for glass bottles. I guess they had no intention
> of using the recovered aluminum for themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
>>last i heard, the most recovered material is steel. recovery from
>>domestic uses can be only 30%, but recovery from industrial use can be
>>over 90%.
>
>
>
>
> That was my point originally. Many industries (including my own) have been
> recycling their own waste for a century or more. Industrial waste is as
> clean and pure as it's going to get, so it's relatively inexpensive and
> easy to reuse.
>
> The major problem with anything post-consumer is contamination. It's
> impossible to control at the point of collection, so you have to spend
> enormous sums at the sorting depot. And even then you'll get lots of
> rejection upon delivery unless you spend millions in taxpayers' money to
> bribe companies to take the .
>
> My own industry is corrugated fiberboard. Post-consumer is hell to work
> with. It's a non-starter without subsidies. Plus, with all the recycling
> mandates, we've spent over a decade building entire new plants and machines
> to handle post-consumer, since little of the existing equipment could
> handle 99% recycled content. This caused shortages and increased prices for
> finished goods, and there were terrible quality problems for a long time.
> Also, the "recycled" corrugated contains a large percentage of resins to
> compensate for the short wood fibers.
>
> Even now 99% recycled is a poor sister to virgin. For critical applications
> like UN-certified containers, virgin is the only way to go.
>
> You can only recycle paper fibers so many times (about 7) before they get
> too short to use any more, so you always have to gauge the repulped mix and
> add virgin fiber and resins to beef it up again. They actually have giant
> blocks of virgin pulp (couple of feet on a side) that get dropped into the
> pulp like sugar cubes into coffee.
>
> Did you know that for every 100 tons of recycled paper fibers you get 40
> tons of unusable sludge? It gets landfilled or incinerated. No good for
> anything else.
>
>
>
tell my gf that next time she's insisting we sort through the garbage.
i'm all for recycling where possible, and motor oil actually /is/ a
candidate, but domestic stuff like oj containers, bags, cartons, etc???
i say forget it.

 

"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns974DD93C02D97tegger@207.14.113.17...
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:CL-dnd2ubp51o1HenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
> > TeGGeR® wrote:
> >> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
> >> news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net:
<snip>
>
> Did you know that for every 100 tons of recycled paper fibers you get 40
> tons of unusable sludge? It gets landfilled or incinerated. No good for
> anything else.
>

i have a re-useable coffe cup (i.e. hard ceramic like thing) that claims to
be made from recycled paper ?

robb

 

> Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 7:34 pm
> From: "TeGGeR®"
>
> "karl" <ottok...@cognisurf.com> wrote in
> news:1137448088.220071.136010@
> g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > It surely is most interesting - to make synthetic
> > from recycling used oil.
>
> The fact that no one appears to be doing it should
> suggest something to you.



There is a misconception, more clearly expressed in the
message dated Jan 16, 7:18 pm: no matter how much is
spent on cleaning "used" oil it is not possible to make
synthetic out of it. This "interesting idea" is useless
because it doesn't work.



> Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 7:18 pm
> From: "TeGGeR®"
>
> > Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 3:12 pm
> > From: "Rob B"
snip
> > well by cheap i mean a recycler probably does not have
> > to pay for the used oil as in buying crude or
> > derivatives at some cost per barrel and may even get
> > some incentive or payed for recycling.
>
> The cost is in the recovery itself. The trucks, the
> personnel, the sorting, the elimination and disposal
> of contaminants, etc.
>
> Ever wonder what becomes of the tons of toxins
> removed every year from used motor oil? I have, too.
>
> > i do not know what if any cleansing would be required
> > before the refining process to remove various
> > contaminants ?
>
> Lots and lots. And lots and lots. And lots. Lots
> more besides. Motor oil picks up tons of crud, which
> is one of its jobs. ALL of it has to be removed
> before the waste is turned back into motor oil again.
> Also, polymer chains tend to get shortened with use,
> which decreases film strength, so the oil needs to
> be "fixed" to make the chains the correct length
> again.
>
> > anyways it sounded like an interesting idea, "synthetic
> > mfg from recycling used oil"
>
> Lots of things sound like good ideas until you
> discover just how expensive and troublesome it
> really is to achieve the idea. It's stupid to spend
> double for something than you need to. Unless you're
> trying to make a point of some kind, like buying a
> "Smart" car.

 

"T L via CarKB.com" <u10197@uwe> wrote in news:5a78a8d97c785@uwe:

> The reason I assume Safety Kleen is the manufacturer of Tech 2000 is
> that their name shows up on the actually shelf price tag in Walmart.
> I was not able to find that name anywhere on the bottle.


It won't normally say on the bottle, just on the MSDS, which I can't find
for Canada.


>
> Very interesting, thanks for the links Tegger.
>
> I as well have been involved in wood recycling at my last employer,
> manufacturing particle board. Only within the last few years were we
> able to switch away from the old UF resins, to something more
> environmentally friendly. Well it didn't stink like UF anyways, still
> full of VOCs, though in lower quantities.



We used very little resins before recycled hit big-time. Now they're
necessary to tie stuff together without using too much virgin.




>
> When I left, the VOC reduction strategy was in using more friendly
> finishing technologies.
>
> But the bottom line is, like you say, virgin fibre is king, as it is
> much much more difficult to control the quality of the fibres used
> from recycled materials.



They've found a way. Just how I don't know, since I come in contact with
the stuff after the mill.

Ten-fifteen years ago we had awful problems with dust and warpage. Most of
those have been more-or-less fixed (at great expense).



> Although we could boast a 97% yield of the
> trees we used, either for solid wood, veneer or particle board
> applications.



Corrugated also gets nearly 100% usage out of the trees. We pulp them
entirely, so stuff like splits and knots are meaningless.

The stupid thing is that nobody seems to know that just about all the trees
used for paper are FARMED for that purpose. About 85% the last time I
looked, anyway. Recycling paper to "save trees" makes as much sense as
refusing to eat corn in order to "save" corn plants. Paper recycling is
idiotic, but it's been sold to the public so effectively that you can't
counter the nonsense.




>
> Another question, as its been forever since my last chemistry class.
> How would one lengthen the hydrocarbon chain of a shortened oil
> molecule? add carbon?



No idea. I never took chemistry.

This brings up another point though, that being a reason you're supposed to
change your manual tranny oil every so often: It seems gear action actually
chops up long polymer chains, so tranny oil has less and less film strength
the older it gets, and relies more and more on the sulfur and zinc
additives. Read that in some car magazine.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
news:01Zyf.479$rH5.458@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net:

>
> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns974DD93C02D97tegger@207.14.113.17...
>> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>> news:CL-dnd2ubp51o1HenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>> > TeGGeR® wrote:
>> >> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
>> >> news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net:
> <snip>
>>
>> Did you know that for every 100 tons of recycled paper fibers you get
>> 40 tons of unusable sludge? It gets landfilled or incinerated. No
>> good for anything else.
>>
>
> i have a re-useable coffe cup (i.e. hard ceramic like thing) that
> claims to be made from recycled paper ?
>




Got a brand name or any other kind of ID on it?

I'd suspect they're using the paper fiber as a filler and using acrylic
resin as the binder. Much like a "cultured marble" sink.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"karl" <ottokarl@cognisurf.com> wrote in
news:1137466905.980022.223790@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com:

>> Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 7:34 pm
>> From: "TeGGeR®"
>>
>> "karl" <ottok...@cognisurf.com> wrote in
>> news:1137448088.220071.136010@
>> g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > It surely is most interesting - to make synthetic
>> > from recycling used oil.
>>
>> The fact that no one appears to be doing it should
>> suggest something to you.
>
>
>
> There is a misconception, more clearly expressed in the
> message dated Jan 16, 7:18 pm: no matter how much is
> spent on cleaning "used" oil it is not possible to make
> synthetic out of it. This "interesting idea" is useless
> because it doesn't work.




Guess it would if you took each molecule apart into its constituent atoms,
and then reassembled them into the molecules you wanted, no?

But even if you could, what would be the point?


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"T L via CarKB.com" <u10197@uwe> wrote in message news:5a78a8d97c785@uwe...
> Another question, as its been forever since my last chemistry class. How
> would one lengthen the hydrocarbon chain of a shortened oil molecule? add
> carbon?
>
Superglue?