Elmo wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
...

Back to the oil--always seems to dissappear within a year or so from my
gravel drive, and I find it hard to believe its all being washed away by the
rain...


The area where we drained oil from tractors and trucks from as far back
as the 20s until toughly the 70s or 80s is now covered in grass and is
indistinguishable from that area surrounding it...when I was a kid it
looked like almost like a paved road. It's broken down pretty well.
Not a smart thing to have done, certainly, and I suspect a soil sample
would show some residual, but certainly doesn't appear permanent....

As I understand it, the problem is not so much what it does to the soil that it
leaches through as what it does to the water table when it gets down there.

Certainly where there is either a pathway or the underground aquifers
are surface-replenished, that's an issue. Here the aquifer is not
surface-renewed at any significant rate at all, and while there are
areas where surface contamination can penetrate (abandoned unplugged
oil/gas wells being the prime culprit), there aren't any of those in
this particular location.

Not justifying what was (although common in the time) a poor choice,
simply noting it does appear that a great deal of recovery has occurred
in a relatively short time since the action ceased....

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....
Then I'm at a total loss to understand where you thought you read that the
sky
is falling.

It's the logical characterization by extension of your absolute position
which is repeated on a myriad of subjects...

I'm not responsible for you reading things I didn't write.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....
Then I'm at a total loss to understand where you thought you read that the
sky
is falling.

It's the logical characterization by extension of your absolute position
which is repeated on a myriad of subjects...

I'm not responsible for you reading things I didn't write.

Nor am for your apparent inability to recognize patterns revealed by
repeated specific actions....

Duane Bozarth wrote:

snip

They flew a 29 out here for display and even a few sightseeing flights
over Memorial Day. snip

Not "a B-29" but the ONLY flying B-29. Also known as "Fifi" operated by
the Commerative Air Force out of Texas. There is one in Witchita at the
Boeing facility being restored to flying status, but it is still a few
years off. http://b-29.boeing.com/ So, out of the 4000 or so made,
only a dozen or so exist on display at museums around the country, one
is being restored to fly, and one flys. The rest were scrapped or used
for target practice by the Navy at China Lake.

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....
Then I'm at a total loss to understand where you thought you read that the
sky
is falling.

It's the logical characterization by extension of your absolute position
which is repeated on a myriad of subjects...

I'm not responsible for you reading things I didn't write.

Nor am for your apparent inability to recognize patterns revealed by
repeated specific actions....

I'm certainly picking up a pattern in *your* posts...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug Miller wrote:

....

I'm certainly picking up a pattern in *your* posts...


To that I certainly plead guilty...

I consistently try to point out the tendency to go to extremes (of which
you're not the only propoent), sadly.

I had hoped you just might see at least a modicum of levity arising in
the continuing descent into absurdium...alas, if not. I tried.

"Elmo" wrote in message
...
Duane Bozarth wrote:
PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
...

Back to the oil--always seems to dissappear within a year or so from my
gravel drive, and I find it hard to believe its all being washed away by
the
rain...


The area where we drained oil from tractors and trucks from as far back
as the 20s until toughly the 70s or 80s is now covered in grass and is
indistinguishable from that area surrounding it...when I was a kid it
looked like almost like a paved road. It's broken down pretty well.
Not a smart thing to have done, certainly, and I suspect a soil sample
would show some residual, but certainly doesn't appear permanent....

As I understand it, the problem is not so much what it does to the soil
that it
leaches through as what it does to the water table when it gets down
there.



The oil itself is not a problem, IMO unless the environment is overwhelmed
with it.

Besides.....because oil floats on water, I think I would be more concerned
with any additives and residual contaminents that may come out of
suspension.......

--

SVL

Elmo wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:

PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
...

Back to the oil--always seems to dissappear within a year or so from my
gravel drive, and I find it hard to believe its all being washed away
by the
rain...


The area where we drained oil from tractors and trucks from as far back
as the 20s until toughly the 70s or 80s is now covered in grass and is
indistinguishable from that area surrounding it...when I was a kid it
looked like almost like a paved road. It's broken down pretty well.
Not a smart thing to have done, certainly, and I suspect a soil sample
would show some residual, but certainly doesn't appear permanent....


As I understand it, the problem is not so much what it does to the soil
that it leaches through as what it does to the water table when it gets
down there.




Its not like the 'water table' is a big glass lined tank (like the
Latrobe brewery - 33) all shiny and clean. And I was thinking, where
does all that nasty oil come from in the first place? Down there in the
ground. I say, set it free, let it return home!!!

AL

Duane Bozarth wrote:
PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
...

Back to the oil--always seems to dissappear within a year or so from my
gravel drive, and I find it hard to believe its all being washed away by the
rain...


The area where we drained oil from tractors and trucks from as far back
as the 20s until toughly the 70s or 80s is now covered in grass and is
indistinguishable from that area surrounding it...when I was a kid it
looked like almost like a paved road. It's broken down pretty well.
Not a smart thing to have done, certainly, and I suspect a soil sample
would show some residual, but certainly doesn't appear permanent....

Actually, the soil compression from logging is
probably overall more harmful than any petroleum
spills, fish excepted.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:30:01 GMT, the opaque "George E. Cawthon"
spake:

Actually, the soil compression from logging is
probably overall more harmful than any petroleum
spills, fish excepted.

Um, if the water table is contaminated by the oil, I'd -much-
rather have soil compression and the resultant fewer trees, TYVM.


-----
= Dain Bramaged...but having lots of fun! =
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

"George E. Cawthon" wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
...

Back to the oil--always seems to dissappear within a year or so from my
gravel drive, and I find it hard to believe its all being washed away by the
rain...


The area where we drained oil from tractors and trucks from as far back
as the 20s until toughly the 70s or 80s is now covered in grass and is
indistinguishable from that area surrounding it...when I was a kid it
looked like almost like a paved road. It's broken down pretty well.
Not a smart thing to have done, certainly, and I suspect a soil sample
would show some residual, but certainly doesn't appear permanent....

Actually, the soil compression from logging is
probably overall more harmful than any petroleum
spills, fish excepted.

No way to test that hypothesis here...

Although minimizing compaction w/ low- and no-till is showing very good
results after a number of years of continuous practice.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:30:01 GMT, the opaque "George E. Cawthon"
spake:


Actually, the soil compression from logging is
probably overall more harmful than any petroleum
spills, fish excepted.


Um, if the water table is contaminated by the oil, I'd -much-
rather have soil compression and the resultant fewer trees, TYVM.


-----
= Dain Bramaged...but having lots of fun! =
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Contrary to the idiocy often evidence by DEQ's, it
takes quite a spill to contaminate groundwater.
BTW, got to start using those terms correctly. You
can't contaminate the water table. That's like
"spilling coffee on the inches." Water table is
just an elevation. What gets contaminated in
ground water or "aquifer" if you prefer. There's
another common mistake "ground water aquifer"
because ground water and aquifer mean the same
thing. Oops, guess the old editor job just
spilled out.

Who the hell let's the bar or chain hit the dirt?
If you are that careless, then you may as well use water
instead of bar oil.

=================


Don Bruder wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
....

The suspended solids in used engine oil are, for the most part, fine

particles

of metal. The junk that collects on the bar during use is wood dust.
Surely
you don't imagine that the two produce the same degree of wear on the
chain
and bar.

A lot of the chips and dust are wood, but a lot isn't--the inevitable
dirt and other grime is at least as abrasive as the much smaller
diameter particles that made it through the engine oil filter...after
all, you wouldn't be particularly concerned to run your auto another 500
or even 1000 miles above the 3000 mi mark if you were on a trip and
needed that to get home for a more convenient oil change, would you?
The lube requirements of any modern engine are far more onerous...


Just the same, it should be obvious that you're not doing your chain saw
any
good by running used motor oil through it.


Doug, it just goes on the bar, it doesn't go
through the motor. One touch into the dirt with
the bar and you are far worse off than anything
dirty motor oil would do to the bar.

Yes, George, I know it just goes on the bar. Are you really having such a
hard
time understanding that used, dirty oil doesn't lubricate as well as new,
clean oil?


I'm wondering which part of "The first time the tip touches dirt even
for an instant, you've just put more crap on the bar than any amount of
used motor oil possibly could" you can't comprehend.

Face it, Doug, waste oil is perfectly fine as bar oil, despite your
bleating to the contrary.

(And the greenies who might want to cry about it are perfectly welcome
to go suck rocks.)

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:06:53 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:30:01 GMT, the opaque "George E. Cawthon"
spake:



Haven't been following this too closely. I thought bar oil was what
you get on your elbows.

Joe

"George E. Cawthon" writes:


[...]

What gets contaminated in ground water or "aquifer" if you prefer.
There's another common mistake "ground water aquifer" because ground
water and aquifer mean the same thing. Oops, guess the old editor job
just spilled out.

mode="nitpick"
Isn't the aquifer rather the structure in the ground that contains the
ground water than the water itself? The word certainly means that (it
would be something like "water carrier").
/mode
;-)
Juergen

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

"George" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

In fact, many municipalitys are now requiring a "grassy swale area" in
order
that any oily runoff from parking lots, subdivisions, and other such
largely
paved-over areas be allowed time in order to bio-process before the
water
leaches back into the soil in recharging the local aquifer.


Well, no. Mostly that's to allow the runoff from storms to get into the
ground rather than the sewers. You get fined for excessive flow of
untreated sewage from your plant, and a storm overloads the system fast.


These all flow into a simple french drain...

If it weren't for the presence of contaminants then what need for the gently
sloped grassy swale???

Might as well just line a trough with concrete....

--

SVL

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...
Duane Bozarth wrote:
PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
...

Back to the oil--always seems to dissappear within a year or so from my
gravel drive, and I find it hard to believe its all being washed away by
the
rain...


The area where we drained oil from tractors and trucks from as far back
as the 20s until toughly the 70s or 80s is now covered in grass and is
indistinguishable from that area surrounding it...when I was a kid it
looked like almost like a paved road. It's broken down pretty well.
Not a smart thing to have done, certainly, and I suspect a soil sample
would show some residual, but certainly doesn't appear permanent....

Actually, the soil compression from logging is
probably overall more harmful than any petroleum
spills, fish excepted.

Around here, ( a mountainous region and fairly near to the pacific ocean )
one of the biggest problems with logging is the soil erosion and subsequent
sedimention occuring in the the rivers and streams...( salmon spawing
habitat--if you bury them eggs then the little fisheys don't got much of a
chance )

--

SVL

wrote in message
oups.com...

Good luck with finding the biolube. None of the local dealers stock it.

Same around thing here.......

....BUT...

The restaurant downtown serves up some mighty fine Spotted Owl Soup !!!

--

SVL

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
"dean" writes:


Because every professional user I have ever seen is using 10W30 engine
oil. Now I'm not about to put that into my Stihls but I was just
wondering if I am wasting money on expensive bar oil?


The oil on the chain will be distributed in you environment it's
totally unacceptable to use a non-biodegradable oil for lubricating
the saw. The pro's you have seen obviously don't care a dam about the
rest of the world and should be [insert punishment of choice]...


Yep, the best is peanut oil, second best is cotton
seed oil, last is corn oil.

Yeah, producing all those crops is definately GOOD for the environment !!!

--

SVL

"Gideon" wrote in message
...
Who the hell let's the bar or chain hit the dirt?
If you are that careless, then you may as well use water
instead of bar oil.

Hoping you are not as obtuse as Doug, the purpose of the oil is _also_ to
help get the dirt which gets on the bar flushed away.

Unless your trees are much different that the rest of the world, the
bark/branch pockets/crotches will collect dirt.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Elmo wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
...


Back to the oil--always seems to dissappear within a year or so from my
gravel drive, and I find it hard to believe its all being washed away by the
rain...


The area where we drained oil from tractors and trucks from as far back
as the 20s until toughly the 70s or 80s is now covered in grass and is
indistinguishable from that area surrounding it...when I was a kid it
looked like almost like a paved road. It's broken down pretty well.
Not a smart thing to have done, certainly, and I suspect a soil sample
would show some residual, but certainly doesn't appear permanent....

As I understand it, the problem is not so much what it does to the soil that it
leaches through as what it does to the water table when it gets down there.


Certainly where there is either a pathway or the underground aquifers
are surface-replenished, that's an issue. Here the aquifer is not
surface-renewed at any significant rate at all, and while there are
areas where surface contamination can penetrate (abandoned unplugged
oil/gas wells being the prime culprit), there aren't any of those in
this particular location.

It may not reach _your_ aquifer but it's gotta go someplace. (Unless you're in
a Death Valley type hole.)


Not justifying what was (although common in the time) a poor choice,
simply noting it does appear that a great deal of recovery has occurred
in a relatively short time since the action ceased....

I know. It's really amazing how quickly biological systems can recover when
they are not overwhelmed by too much for too long.


--
Proud member of the reality-based community.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:38:10 GMT, "Gideon" wrote:

Who the hell let's the bar or chain hit the dirt?
If you are that careless, then you may as well use water
instead of bar oil.



I'm guilty, happens to me about 2 times a year and always makes me
sick because I work hard at keeping my saw in tip top shape.

Elmo wrote:
....

It may not reach _your_ aquifer but it's gotta go someplace. (Unless you're in
a Death Valley type hole.)

Well, of course...simply commenting on local conditions...it's not
quite a desert, but dry in comparison to most. It's a very sandy soil
but there's a caliche layer at about 2-3' under the surface that is
nearly impermeable. I'm sure some detailed soil sampling could find
some remnants near that layer...

Tom Quackenbush wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:
snip
Actually, the soil compression from logging is
probably overall more harmful than any petroleum
spills, fish excepted.

No way to test that hypothesis here...

Although minimizing compaction w/ low- and no-till is showing very good
results after a number of years of continuous practice.

Low- and no-till logging?

....farming...no trees here.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Tom Quackenbush wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:
snip
Actually, the soil compression from logging is
probably overall more harmful than any petroleum
spills, fish excepted.

No way to test that hypothesis here...

Although minimizing compaction w/ low- and no-till is showing very good
results after a number of years of continuous practice.

Low- and no-till logging?

...farming...no trees here.

Works the same in logging. Soft spots logged in the winter when the
ground's frozen, high, sandy stuff with pine in the summer. When the
forest's really dense, an Iron Mule can't find a way to hit the ground for
the roots. The call it "low impact" logging.

In article ,
"Gideon" wrote:

Who the hell let's the bar or chain hit the dirt?
If you are that careless, then you may as well use water
instead of bar oil.


So, besides being a top-posting moron, you're also absolutely perfect,
and have never, under any circumstances, for any reason, *EVER* hit dirt
while cutting, eh?

Damn... You're a GOD!

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details.

In article ,
"Gideon" wrote:
Who the hell let's the bar or chain hit the dirt?

That's "lets"...

I got dirt on my chain several times recently while cutting some trees off
right at the ground. The chain got dull, but I got done what I wanted.

-Mike

Don Bruder wrote:
In article ,
"Gideon" wrote:


Who the hell let's the bar or chain hit the dirt?
If you are that careless, then you may as well use water
instead of bar oil.



So, besides being a top-posting moron, you're also absolutely perfect,
and have never, under any circumstances, for any reason, *EVER* hit dirt
while cutting, eh?

Damn... You're a GOD!


And God don't need no chain saw. A few tsunamis, an earthquake or two,
forest fires, etc, and the planet is 'right' again.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:06:53 GMT, the opaque "George E. Cawthon"
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:30:01 GMT, the opaque "George E. Cawthon"

Um, if the water table is contaminated by the oil, I'd -much-
rather have soil compression and the resultant fewer trees, TYVM.

Contrary to the idiocy often evidence by DEQ's, it
takes quite a spill to contaminate groundwater.
BTW, got to start using those terms correctly. You
can't contaminate the water table. That's like
"spilling coffee on the inches." Water table is
just an elevation. What gets contaminated in
ground water or "aquifer" if you prefer. There's

ACK.

OK, my water table is about 20' and my well is 26' deep.

How much oil it would take to contaminate the aquifer
containing my drinking water? Much less than one at
300' deep, I'm sure.


-----
= Dain Bramaged...but having lots of fun! =
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Juergen Hannappel wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" writes:


[...]


What gets contaminated in ground water or "aquifer" if you prefer.
There's another common mistake "ground water aquifer" because ground
water and aquifer mean the same thing. Oops, guess the old editor job
just spilled out.


mode="nitpick"
Isn't the aquifer rather the structure in the ground that contains the
ground water than the water itself? The word certainly means that (it
would be something like "water carrier").
/mode
;-)
Juergen

Technically, you are correct. But you can't have
groundwater without an aquifer and you can't have
an aquifer without groundwater. So ground water
aquifer is still redundant. In common usage,
aquifer is used interchangeably with ground water.

But stupidities abound as I saw in my dictionary.
They define aquifer spring. It should be quite
obvious that all springs are simply groundwater
coming to the surface. So springs necessarily
require an aquifer.

In article
,
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:

That's what the hospital supervisor said about
putting instruments in hydraulic fluid wasn't it?

Now, now George. The elevator maintenance guys put the used hydraulic
fluid in empty bottles that were thrown out after the docs, nurses,
medical techs or whomever used the original fluid that was intended for
instrument contact. First off, the repair crew erred in not relabeling
the bottles as containing something other than what the labels said.
Secondly, they left them in a location in which someone else would
appropriately and reasonably assume the bottles contained what they said
they did.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:15:31 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message . ..
In article , "Al Reid" wrote:
"dean" wrote in message
oups.com...
Because every professional user I have ever seen is using 10W30 engine
oil. Now I'm not about to put that into my Stihls but I was just
wondering if I am wasting money on expensive bar oil?

Any comments?

I put used motor oil in my saw. Good way to get rig of it.

No, not really.

The suspended solids and other junk (such as combustion byproducts) in used
motor oil don't do either the bar or the chain any good. That gunk is better
off being recycled and disposed of properly.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug,

I have never actually put used motor oil in my saws, although I have been told that it can be done. I was just testing a theory
that if I said I did that Doug Miller would be the first one to tell me that I was wrong to do so.

Theory proven correct ;^)


Actually, that seems like a pretty good use for it. The claim that
'it doesn't do the bar any good" is probably true but OTOH it is very
unlikely to do it any harm either. After all, it was being used up
until it was drained to lubricate a far more complicated and delicate
mechanical system (your car) with no ill effects. To think that it
was good enough for your car up till then, but inadequate for the task
of lubing the chain and bar is silly. And it's an equally silly
suggestion that someone is doing the world a favor to recycle it
instead because that means you will be using BRAND NEW oil instead of
that used oil - clearly a net loss to the world of limited oil.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:15:31 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Al Reid"
wrote:
"dean" wrote in message
oups.com...
Because every professional user I have ever seen is using 10W30
engine
oil. Now I'm not about to put that into my Stihls but I was just
wondering if I am wasting money on expensive bar oil?

Any comments?

I put used motor oil in my saw. Good way to get rig of it.

No, not really.

The suspended solids and other junk (such as combustion byproducts) in
used
motor oil don't do either the bar or the chain any good. That gunk is
better
off being recycled and disposed of properly.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his
butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug,

I have never actually put used motor oil in my saws, although I have been
told that it can be done. I was just testing a theory
that if I said I did that Doug Miller would be the first one to tell me
that I was wrong to do so.

Theory proven correct ;^)


Actually, that seems like a pretty good use for it. The claim that
'it doesn't do the bar any good" is probably true but OTOH it is very
unlikely to do it any harm either. After all, it was being used up
until it was drained to lubricate a far more complicated and delicate
mechanical system (your car) with no ill effects. To think that it
was good enough for your car up till then, but inadequate for the task
of lubing the chain and bar is silly. And it's an equally silly
suggestion that someone is doing the world a favor to recycle it
instead because that means you will be using BRAND NEW oil instead of
that used oil - clearly a net loss to the world of limited oil.


Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion.

Garrett Fulton

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
In article
,
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:


That's what the hospital supervisor said about
putting instruments in hydraulic fluid wasn't it?


Now, now George. The elevator maintenance guys put the used hydraulic
fluid in empty bottles that were thrown out after the docs, nurses,
medical techs or whomever used the original fluid that was intended for
instrument contact. First off, the repair crew erred in not relabeling
the bottles as containing something other than what the labels said.
Secondly, they left them in a location in which someone else would
appropriately and reasonably assume the bottles contained what they said
they did.

Ah, but after the discover of what happened, the
doctors said, "No problem, don't worry" to the
patients that received implants that were
"disinfected" with the hydraulic fluid. That was
my point.

gfulton wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:15:31 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message

. ..

In article , "Al Reid"

wrote:

"dean" wrote in message
glegroups.com...

Because every professional user I have ever seen is using 10W30

engine

oil. Now I'm not about to put that into my Stihls but I was just
wondering if I am wasting money on expensive bar oil?

Any comments?

I put used motor oil in my saw. Good way to get rig of it.


No, not really.

The suspended solids and other junk (such as combustion byproducts) in

used

motor oil don't do either the bar or the chain any good. That gunk is

better

off being recycled and disposed of properly.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his

butt.

And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug,

I have never actually put used motor oil in my saws, although I have been

told that it can be done. I was just testing a theory

that if I said I did that Doug Miller would be the first one to tell me

that I was wrong to do so.

Theory proven correct ;^)


Actually, that seems like a pretty good use for it. The claim that
'it doesn't do the bar any good" is probably true but OTOH it is very
unlikely to do it any harm either. After all, it was being used up
until it was drained to lubricate a far more complicated and delicate
mechanical system (your car) with no ill effects. To think that it
was good enough for your car up till then, but inadequate for the task
of lubing the chain and bar is silly. And it's an equally silly
suggestion that someone is doing the world a favor to recycle it
instead because that means you will be using BRAND NEW oil instead of
that used oil - clearly a net loss to the world of limited oil.



Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion.

Garrett Fulton




I agree, excellent logic. But, remember, no good deed goes unpunished.



AL

Tom Quackenbush wrote:
gfulton wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:
snip
Actually, that seems like a pretty good use for it. The claim that
'it doesn't do the bar any good" is probably true but OTOH it is very
unlikely to do it any harm either. After all, it was being used up
until it was drained to lubricate a far more complicated and delicate
mechanical system (your car) with no ill effects. To think that it
was good enough for your car up till then, but inadequate for the task
of lubing the chain and bar is silly. And it's an equally silly
suggestion that someone is doing the world a favor to recycle it
instead because that means you will be using BRAND NEW oil instead of
that used oil - clearly a net loss to the world of limited oil.


Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion.

Well sure, but "sanity" makes for a pretty short discussion, now,
doesn't it?

I'm also not sure what carcinogenic (sp ?) risk is involved in
handling used motor oil.

Probably no more than just being born. I know a guy who used old motor
oil for a number of things, from (he thought) preserving fence posts to
sun tan oil. He's been doing both for upwards of 40 years with no
apparent ill effects.

My objection to used motor oil on chainsaw bars is simpler. It is too
thin, likely to get flung off, and provide almost no protection. That's
the same objection I'd have to running it on a motorcycle, or bicycle,
chain.

Charlie Self wrote:
Tom Quackenbush wrote:
gfulton wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:
snip
Actually, that seems like a pretty good use for it. The claim that
'it doesn't do the bar any good" is probably true but OTOH it is very
unlikely to do it any harm either. After all, it was being used up
until it was drained to lubricate a far more complicated and delicate
mechanical system (your car) with no ill effects. To think that it
was good enough for your car up till then, but inadequate for the task
of lubing the chain and bar is silly. And it's an equally silly
suggestion that someone is doing the world a favor to recycle it
instead because that means you will be using BRAND NEW oil instead of
that used oil - clearly a net loss to the world of limited oil.


Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion.

Well sure, but "sanity" makes for a pretty short discussion, now,
doesn't it?

I'm also not sure what carcinogenic (sp ?) risk is involved in
handling used motor oil.

Probably no more than just being born. I know a guy who used old motor
oil for a number of things, from (he thought) preserving fence posts to
sun tan oil. He's been doing both for upwards of 40 years with no
apparent ill effects.

My objection to used motor oil on chainsaw bars is simpler. It is too
thin, likely to get flung off, and provide almost no protection. That's
the same objection I'd have to running it on a motorcycle, or bicycle,
chain.

That is it in a nutshell. I figure if the engineers designing them say
to use oil formulated for the use, then use it. I am sure that they
know one hell of lot more about it than I do. I would have to dig out
my manual on my new saw to be sure but I think it specifically says not
to use motor oil.

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote:

-snip-
That is it in a nutshell. I figure if the engineers designing them say
to use oil formulated for the use, then use it. I am sure that they
know one hell of lot more about it than I do. I would have to dig out
my manual on my new saw to be sure but I think it specifically says not
to use motor oil.


Bottom line is to use what the saw manual says. My Remington electric
says "Do not use bar and chain oil" -- They recommend 30weight motor
oil.

Jim

In alt.home.repair Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Harry K" wrote:

-snip-
That is it in a nutshell. I figure if the engineers designing them say
to use oil formulated for the use, then use it. I am sure that they
know one hell of lot more about it than I do. I would have to dig out
my manual on my new saw to be sure but I think it specifically says not
to use motor oil.

Specific warnings are one thing, (and of course, you have no idea if the
eningeers put that in, or if marketing put that in) but I can tell you as
an engineer that I'm most likely to reccomend that you only use a certain
stuff not becuase I know it's the best, or the only thing that's good, but
becuase people will go and pour concentrated sulfuric acid and iron
filings in and then complain about it.

Bottom line is to use what the saw manual says. My Remington electric
says "Do not use bar and chain oil" -- They recommend 30weight motor
oil.

If they don't say why, then you've got to take that with a grain of salt.
Of course, if you have no other opinons, you may as well do that, but I
know from personal experience that manuals are hardly the be all and end
all of the situation. They're only oocasionally even authoratative.



John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Mean People Suck - It takes two deviations to get cool.
Ask me about joining the NRA.

On 27 Jun 2005 07:13:50 -0700, "Harry K"
wrote:



Charlie Self wrote:
Tom Quackenbush wrote:
gfulton wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:
snip
Actually, that seems like a pretty good use for it. The claim that
'it doesn't do the bar any good" is probably true but OTOH it is very
unlikely to do it any harm either. After all, it was being used up
until it was drained to lubricate a far more complicated and delicate
mechanical system (your car) with no ill effects. To think that it
was good enough for your car up till then, but inadequate for the task
of lubing the chain and bar is silly. And it's an equally silly
suggestion that someone is doing the world a favor to recycle it
instead because that means you will be using BRAND NEW oil instead of
that used oil - clearly a net loss to the world of limited oil.


Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion.

Well sure, but "sanity" makes for a pretty short discussion, now,
doesn't it?

I'm also not sure what carcinogenic (sp ?) risk is involved in
handling used motor oil.

Probably no more than just being born. I know a guy who used old motor
oil for a number of things, from (he thought) preserving fence posts to
sun tan oil. He's been doing both for upwards of 40 years with no
apparent ill effects.

My objection to used motor oil on chainsaw bars is simpler. It is too
thin, likely to get flung off, and provide almost no protection. That's
the same objection I'd have to running it on a motorcycle, or bicycle,
chain.

That is it in a nutshell. I figure if the engineers designing them say
to use oil formulated for the use, then use it. I am sure that they
know one hell of lot more about it than I do. I would have to dig out
my manual on my new saw to be sure but I think it specifically says not
to use motor oil.

Harry K


Well, if I was in the business of selling branded "special" bar oil at
twice the price of cheap motor oil I'd put that in my instruction
manual too.