"Bubba " wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:49:55 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

"Bubba " wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:12:02 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

"Bubba " wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:30:37 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:26:53 GMT, Bubba wrote:


On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:21:35 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On 24 Mar 2006 05:22:35 -0800, Daisymoonz wrote:


My husband and I just bought an older home that we are fixing up. We
have been in the home less than a month and have already ran into a
problem with a strange smell coming from the ducts in the house. The
smell seems to be very strong when the heat first kicks on and smells
like fingernail polish remover to me.
...

The furnace (we believe) is the original from when the house was built
(1979). We know we are going to need to replace it. Is it just at the
end of its life? Also, this is the first we have had oil heat, so we
aren't really sure what an oily smell would be. It has an underground
tank, could something be wrong there?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. We are new to all of this and
have no idea how to fix this.

Ignore it. If anybody drops dead of CO poisoning, then check the furnace.

Or perhaps you should bring in a professional now? Isn't the wellbeing of
your family worth $60?

$60 !!?? To do a professional cleaning/tune-up of an oil fired
$60 is just to have it checked.


furnace? Think again, Einstein.
Try thinking even once, idiot.

I wont clean an already clean furnace for $60.
Bubba

And I guess you won't even bother bringing somebody in just to check it.
No problem. Go with my first suggestion. You're too ****ing cheap to
do anything else.

You need a ****ing brain, Nimrod. Im not the customer. Im the heating
company. And once again, just because you are too stupid to
understand..............Most companies wont even drive up to your door
for $60. You are living in the past. Remember too, Im not talking
about your drunken trailer buddy with a screwdriver and a 69 Chevy
pickemup truck. Im talking about a professional HVAC company with
digital combustion efficiency test instruments and a technician that
can read, interpret and repair what he finds.
Now can you wade your sorry ass through that simple explaination and
figure it out this time?
Nahhhhhh, I didnt think you could.
Bubba

Hmm, the last oil furnace checkup I had done, in ('03 when I had an oil
furnace) was I think $110 with tax. More than $60, but not by much.

Pete C.

Ummm, in case you missed math class, that is a little more that "not
much". That is almost double in cost and you are talking 3 yrs ago.
.......and again............an oil filter change and a nozzle is NOT a
proper tune up. Find a reputable company that knows how to properly
tune an oil furnace with digital combustion efficiency equipment.
You may save several hundred gallons of oil in a season. You should
have just thrown your $110 in your oil tank.
Bubba

Perhaps you need to get a clue.

First off the checkup was not just a filter and nozzle, it also included
a full cleaning and combustion check.

Bull****. NO Company does a COMPLETE cleaning, COMPLETE combustion
efficiency testing, filter and nozzle change for $110. If they do they
are losing money.

Yes, they probably are. Since they also sell oil I would assume they
price the service low as a loss leader of sorts. At any rate that's what
it cost and they did indeed do all the tasks listed as I was about 20'
away doing some plumbing work at the time so I know exactly what they
did.


Second off, with the exception of NOx emissions measurement (which won't
save you any oil), digital combustion measurement equipment does not do
anything that the older mechanical / chemical measurement equipment
doesn't do. Digital just adds convenience and makes it easier for a
barely competent service tech (you perhaps) to properly use the
equipment.

Bull**** again, Darwin. If you think the old chemical analyzers with
the CO2 and O2 readings fluids with their archaich slide scales are as
accurate as a digital meter your are a god damn total retard.

I never said they were as accurate, however they are more than accurate
enough in relation to home furnace combustion adjustments. In a burner
in a chemical plant more accuracy would be relevant, not in a home
furnace.

The
digital will also do continuous readings where the chemical is a "one
at a time" reading.

Right and this if anything cuts the length of the service call, reducing
the cost.

It was great "in its time". Its old outdated ****
now.

It is indeed outdated now, but from a convenience perspective and
because the digital meter costs the same as the old chem kit.

Cmon, tell the truth. You still eyball a damn oil burner and wait
for the yellow tips to "dance", dont you?

Nope.

You are a sorry tech (if thats even what you are) and a total bafoon.
You shouldnt be allowed anywhere near oil equipment.
My guess is you are too damn stuipid to know how to use one and too
damn cheap to buy one.

Yea, that's why I scored higher than anyone else in the class. I also
never claimed to be a service tech, I make far more money at a different
job. I also have no need to spend $500 on test equipment I'd use once a
year.


Last time I checked, the digital meter hadn't replaced the
old pump smoke spot tester either.

Gee, you're a genius!

Must be. I'm certainly smart enough to know that "digital" does not
automatically equate to better. Of course the general population and
apparently you as well have been brainwashed to believe that. I bet you
love watching you digital TV that looks like crap from compression
artifacts too.


Just for reference, I have a clue. I've had oil burner service training
(and passed with the only 100% score in the class). What I didn't have
at the time was the test equipment, a soot vac or the time to actually
do the job myself.

Pete C.

What you didnt have was a clue how to test, interpret and repair oil
equipment.
Gee, an open book test, with the instructor out of the room and a test
designed for a 3rd grader to pass. Wow, you are one smart cookie.
Bubba

Ah, so that's how you passed your test eh? No open book tests in the
class I was in.

Pete C.