Remember me
▼ Content

Septic tanks and water pollution



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
12-08-2020 11:08
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
It works pretty good. This is just course sand that is used to make concrete. People used to put it in sandboxes for their kids.


They just use common sand. I am going to use a sand that is specially sieved for concrete.

Don't use geotextile in drains. That stuff is for roadbeds. Gravel by itself is also another good backfill.


As much as I have read from eng-tips forum, the drainage pipe and gravel surrounding it needs to be completely wrapped into the geotextile. Otherwise the system gets clogged very quickly. The beauty of the concrete sand is that it does not even need the geotextile and that is why I will use it around the drainage pipe.
12-08-2020 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
A lot of lakes get drained, and muck scraped up, and hauled off. Usually a long project too. Lot of land developments have decorative water features. In Florida, those were often the source of a lot of fill dirt, to raise the homes and streets above the flood plane. They could care less how long that 'lake' looks pretty, or much of anything else, once they sell all the lots. Likely none of the property owners care enough to foot the bill, or willing to have the lake drain for a year or two.


Yup. This is common practice. Such a practice can threaten well water in many places too, since that well water is fed by nearby drainage. Digging out these lakes can affect drainage patterns.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-08-2020 21:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
A lot of lakes get drained, and muck scraped up, and hauled off. Usually a long project too. Lot of land developments have decorative water features. In Florida, those were often the source of a lot of fill dirt, to raise the homes and streets above the flood plane. They could care less how long that 'lake' looks pretty, or much of anything else, once they sell all the lots. Likely none of the property owners care enough to foot the bill, or willing to have the lake drain for a year or two.


It is possible to train an artificial lake that has a dam.

Lakes aren't trained. They are not animals.
Xadoman wrote:
Natural lakes can not be drained.
All natural lakes have a source and drain.
Xadoman wrote:
The only solution to save the natural lake from turning to swamp and losing its open water surface are is to pump mud out of it.

Nope. Most lakes don't need pumping out at all. They don't gather mud.
Xadoman wrote:
It is expensive as hell but occasionally they have done it because they want to preserve some beautiful lakes where people can go swimming or fishing.

Water flow does that. If you try to turn a swamp into an open lake, like what happened to your lake, nature will simply return to swamp over time.
Xadoman wrote:
Nature always wants to take over lakes and turn them into swamp.
WRONG. Compositional error fallacy. Careful with this one, it is the same fallacy behind bigotry and racism.
Xadoman wrote:
Here is for example a project I found from web to save a lake from turning to swamp:
...deleted Holy Link...

One instance is not every instance. Extending one instance across all instances is a compositional error fallacy. When you do that with people as the class (instead of lakes), the fallacy is called 'bigotry'. When the property being extended is a genetic trait, that is called 'racism'.

You are doing it with lakes as the class and algae and sediment as the properties.

* Not all lakes have sediment build up.
* Lakes are part of a river or creek flow. They all have sources and drains.
* Lakes have no age. They either exist because of a place where water is flowing is crossing a basin, or not.
* Just because you have never seen a swamp dredged into open water doesn't mean it has never happened.
* Standing water less than 30 ft deep is generally a swamp. It still has a source and a drain, like any lake. It may be seasonal, but they are there.

I have no idea why you brought up septic systems at all. You condemn them in favor of your fancy outhouse pit. It is still an outhouse pit, even you line it with concrete.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-08-2020 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
No. Someone must've dredged it at some point.


It is a natural lake.

Most swamps are also natural lakes.
Xadoman wrote:
God nows how old it is.

Lakes have no age.
Xadoman wrote:
People had no technology to dredge a lake back in a day.

Yes they did. Dredging is as old as ancient Egypt. Steam shovels have been around since before the War of Secession (what most people call the Civil War).
Xadoman wrote:
Pretty easy to do, actually, especially if it was done a long time ago before they required permits for that stuff.

What kind of technology are you talking about?

Heavy equipment on a barge, drag chains, etc.
Xadoman wrote:
I am not sure about dredging a lake with a shovel.

Why would anyone do that?
Xadoman wrote:
For example trees on the shore of the lake are aproximately 200-300 years old.

So? What has that got to do with anything?
Xadoman wrote:
I bet it was!


Compared to a septic system installation it was not so bad.

So you've said. A properly installed septic system does not put runoff into the lake. An improperly installed septic system stinks and backs up.
Xadoman wrote:
I would say it turns out cheaper in the long run.

Think so? You've sure put a lot of money into the thing.
Xadoman wrote:
Leach fields get clogged as years go by and they need to renew them.

Nope. They don't clog unless they are improperly installed or damaged in some way.
Xadoman wrote:
They also need to empty the septic approximately once in a year and it also costs some money.

The tank does not need to be emptied annually. For a single person on a 1000 gal tank, once every 10 years is quite sufficient. The cost is around $200.
Xadoman wrote:
Over the years it adds up.

$200 in ten years is CHEAP.
Xadoman wrote:
My solution has no such expenses other than my own time to empty a pit full of composted manure once in a decade.

So you want to shovel your own shit, and put it on your yard, where it can wash into the lake you are trying to protect.
Xadoman wrote:
Wasn't expensive enough for ya, huh?


I went for the longevity for the structure.

Whatever. I consider it a monument to backward thinking.
Xadoman wrote:
I read from eng-tips forum that common iron will rust pretty quickly in concrete.

Not really, unless it's improperly installed. Most reinforced concrete uses rebar of common iron. It's not been a problem, unless it was improperly installed.
Xadoman wrote:
If it rusts then it expands 4 times in volume and works as a hydralic jack and causes the concrete to spall from the structure.

Then the mix was wrong, laid wrong, or the rebar was improperly installed.
Xadoman wrote:
It all depends on conditions but it could happen as fast as 30 years from construction.

Improperly installing rebar and concrete shows damage in as little as a few months, or it can take a couple of decades to form. Houses built 100 years ago with common iron rebar are still standing today on those footings and walls.
Xadoman wrote:
Typically 50 years is considered useful life for concrete structures with common iron.

Nope. Over 100 years. Literally, the building itself will fall down from lack of maintenance and weathering before the concrete fails.
Xadoman wrote:
Feces and urine in the pit will cause much quicker corrosion of the iron

Nope. Neither should be touching rebar unless it is properly installed.
Xadoman wrote:
and that is why I went for fiberglass and stainless steel rebar.

It's your wallet.
Xadoman wrote:
Considering all of this the cost of stainless steel rebar aint nuthing but a peanut in the long run.

It's an expensive peanut!
Xadoman wrote:
Subsidizing is irrelevant. The money they get is irrelevant to your topic.


Just wanted to point out that they will plow anything they can nowadays because of the free money they get for the hectar.

You can't plow a lake. You can't plow a swamp. It's still a swamp.
Xadoman wrote:
They would plow the swamp if they could.

You can't plow a swamp. Plowing water doesn't work.
Xadoman wrote:
Fields beside lakes are plowed and those are getting 3-4 times fertilized during the growing season. No wonder some of the fertilizers reach to the lake.

Careless farmers are the problem, not the fertilizer. They are allowing their soil to erode. Their crop yield is also suffering as a result. These days, they can also be held financially for damage to neighbor's lake.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-08-2020 22:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
It works pretty good. This is just course sand that is used to make concrete. People used to put it in sandboxes for their kids.


They just use common sand. I am going to use a sand that is specially sieved for concrete.

WRONG! Many people preferred to use course sand, otherwise known as concrete sand. Common sand has too much silt in it, making for a dirty sandbox (and kids!).
Xadoman wrote:
Don't use geotextile in drains. That stuff is for roadbeds. Gravel by itself is also another good backfill.


As much as I have read from eng-tips forum,

I would go so far as to suggest that this forum is full of misinformation.
Xadoman wrote:
the drainage pipe and gravel surrounding it needs to be completely wrapped into the geotextile.

NO! Do not use Geotex on drains! EVER!
Xadoman wrote:
Otherwise the system gets clogged very quickly.

Geotex will clog drains! It is not used for drains. It is used for roadbeds. That is its only use!
Xadoman wrote:
The beauty of the concrete sand is that it does not even need the geotextile and that is why I will use it around the drainage pipe.

Either course sand (concrete sand) or gravel will work. Pea gravel is often used here, but larger stones are better (use round stone...it won't compact). Round stone is the best stuff for building a French drain. Yes...something as large as an inch or two. Aggregate suppliers sometimes call this 'cobble'.

If you use Geotex, do not wrap the pipe with it! That's a BAD idea. Use it instead to keep the stones from migrating into the surrounding soil, if you use it at all. Just put it into the trench, put the pipe in the trench, then cover it with round stone, then top soil. Otherwise, put some stone in the trench, lay the pipe, and backfill with stone.

Make sure you get your slope right when laying drains.

What you want is voids around the pipe. Course sand (washed sand to remove the silt), or concrete sand, does create voids, but it also migrates away into the surrounding soil a lot easier.

And, of course, you need somewhere to drain it to.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-08-2020 00:10
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
So you've said. A properly installed septic system does not put runoff into the lake. An improperly installed septic system stinks and backs up.


I was talking about the cost of building. It was not so bad compared to septic system installation cost.

Think so? You've sure put a lot of money into the thing.


Compared to properly installed septic system it is still cheap.


Nope. They don't clog unless they are improperly installed or damaged in some way.


Not sure about that one. Most septic producers mention that the leach field needs renewing after 10-15 years. The limestone gravel literally simply melts away during those years. People are not willing to use granite gravel because it is much much more expensive.


So you want to shovel your own shit, and put it on your yard, where it can wash into the lake you are trying to protect.


After 10 years of composting the feces will turn into soil like manure. It does not smell or stink. It can be spread with bare hands without any discomfort.

Not really, unless it's improperly installed. Most reinforced concrete uses rebar of common iron. It's not been a problem, unless it was improperly installed.


Rust is basically the biggest problem with reinforced concrete. It costs billions for taxpayers in a year to repair bridges, roads etc. Without rebar a concrete building could last even thousands of years( in good climate). With rebar the useful life is considered 50-100 years. Stainless steel could extend it to 300 or even 1000 years but even stainless steel rusts eventually in the concrete.

Then the mix was wrong, laid wrong, or the rebar was improperly installed.


Iron rebar starts to rust in the moment it is produced. It is inevitable. They have tried to protect iron rebar with epoxy coating but in practice those bars did not perform much better than common iron. The problem with epoxy coating is installation - if you cut or nick it you have to coat it over with epoxy again but in practice it is very hard to spot every single little nick.

Houses built 100 years ago with common iron rebar are still standing today on those footings and walls.


Famous last words - it has stood like this for 100 years and it will ...oops.

Nope. Neither should be touching rebar unless it is properly installed.


Salt water corrodes iron in the concrete very quickly. Good example is Progreso pier that was built in 1940 and they used aisi 304 stainless steel rebar. It still stands today. The other pier from carbon steel was built in 1969 and it melt away in 10 years.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progreso-Pier-Mexico-the-pier-in-the-background-was-constructed-in-1940-and-used_fig1_301279143

I would go so far as to suggest that this forum is full of misinformation.


Those guys build bridges and skyscrapers.

NO! Do not use Geotex on drains! EVER!


I will not because I will use concrete sand.

Geotex will clog drains! It is not used for drains. It is used for roadbeds. That is its only use!


Most people use it . They use gravel though. I myself am not a fan of some kind of textile in the ground so that is why I look for solutions that work without it. Concrete sand has been used without geotextile and supposedly it works good.
13-08-2020 00:48
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
I have no idea why you brought up septic systems at all. You condemn them in favor of your fancy outhouse pit. It is still an outhouse pit, even you line it with concrete.


I was a little bit concerned about their safety. I have a simple dug well that is only 8-10 meters deep. I am concerned about the water quality. All the other guys with septics have really deep borewells. It seems they instinctively dismiss the idea of a simple dug well near a septic system.
I do not have anything against septic systems if they are properly installed. If I were to live all year round in my summer house then I would install a septic system( I would design it to be fool proof).But for now I only use it for summer time. I do not even have water in my house because I do not like the trouble of emptying the pipes for winter to not to let them burst due to freezing cold( I do not heat the house during the winter because I do not live there ). I like the idea that I can left the house and do not need to worry about pipes, septics etc etc that need protection from freezing. I can go to travel in the winter and forget about pipes under ground.
My two chamber composting toilet on the other hand should be completely fool and bulletproof. I can not think a way how it could fail miserably. Bottom slab and walls( 30 cm or about 1 foot thick) are monolithically poured concrete with stainless steel and glass fiber rebar. It should last at least 100 years without much trouble. I will be long gone before it fails.
13-08-2020 02:47
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
Xadoman wrote:
I have no idea why you brought up septic systems at all. You condemn them in favor of your fancy outhouse pit. It is still an outhouse pit, even you line it with concrete.


I was a little bit concerned about their safety. I have a simple dug well that is only 8-10 meters deep. I am concerned about the water quality. All the other guys with septics have really deep borewells. It seems they instinctively dismiss the idea of a simple dug well near a septic system.
I do not have anything against septic systems if they are properly installed. If I were to live all year round in my summer house then I would install a septic system( I would design it to be fool proof).But for now I only use it for summer time. I do not even have water in my house because I do not like the trouble of emptying the pipes for winter to not to let them burst due to freezing cold( I do not heat the house during the winter because I do not live there ). I like the idea that I can left the house and do not need to worry about pipes, septics etc etc that need protection from freezing. I can go to travel in the winter and forget about pipes under ground.
My two chamber composting toilet on the other hand should be completely fool and bulletproof. I can not think a way how it could fail miserably. Bottom slab and walls( 30 cm or about 1 foot thick) are monolithically poured concrete with stainless steel and glass fiber rebar. It should last at least 100 years without much trouble. I will be long gone before it fails.



It seems that if you let it compost for about 6 months, you'll have some really good fertilizer for free.

This is where a greenhouse would work wonders. The odor released is most likely methane. From what I just saw, 60% methane and 40% CO2.
https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/transforming-human-poop-into-eco-friendly-fertilizer

This is so funny because until the 1970's my grandmother in Kentucky had an outhouse. The topsoil was minimal to say the least. And to preserve our farmlands, in the future it could become the norm.
Edited on 13-08-2020 02:50
13-08-2020 11:10
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
It seems that if you let it compost for about 6 months, you'll have some really good fertilizer for free.


I have been doing a lot of research about composting in the web. Turns out that some parasite eggs are really stubborn to die off. It could take even 5 years to completely die. Most agree that 2 years of composting would be optimal. Btw most of us have some internal parasites. It is perfectly natural to have some internal parasites.
Also notice how in the video the manure was spread by hand without any discomfort. And that is only after 6 month of composting. That is the beauty of composting - no more smelly flowing liquidy shit that makes you puke when you have to pump or dispose it to another place from your overflowing pit.

This is so funny because until the 1970's my grandmother in Kentucky had an outhouse. The topsoil was minimal to say the least. And to preserve our farmlands, in the future it could become the norm.


Yes, topsoil is going to be one of the biggest problem in agriculture in coming years. Nutrient cycle is not complete because human feces are mostly dumped to landfills using geotextile as giant diapers to separate them from surrounding soil. Those "diapers" will of course leak and pollute ground water. Those feces should be composted and spread back to fields instead.
Modern farming is very intensive. One day they harvest and second day they already plow the field. The land has no time to breath and relax. There is a constant pressure to get the most out of it. I am not sure about the sustainability of such behaviour. Historically most giant civilizations have collapsed because of the soil degradation.
Nowadays we have the technology to restore soil. I expect that in the future dredging the lakes and harvesting mud from the bottom of the lakes becomes one of the solution to the problem. I live near a lake and I have thought about building a mud pump to harvest mud and pump it to my land to increase soil thickness( I grow strawberries, very low scale, on about 1 hectar overall). The problem is that during the harvesting nutrients from the mud could get into the lake water and cause the blooming of the algae. That is why they separate the place they harvest mud from the lake with a special geotextile that stops nutrient from spreading out of the blocked area.
Edited on 13-08-2020 11:18
13-08-2020 12:26
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Could anyone explain how to insert pictures in this forum. I chose a file and attached it but nothing happens when I hit the "preview reply" button. The image does not appear.
Edited on 13-08-2020 12:28
13-08-2020 19:25
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Xadoman wrote:
Could anyone explain how to insert pictures in this forum. I chose a file and attached it but nothing happens when I hit the "preview reply" button. The image does not appear.


Under the blue box, that you type your message in, or some tabs you can click to add stuff, or change how your text looks, quotes... You want to click on the 'img' tab (image). The image, has to be web based, where you have an address to link to. It has to end in '.jpg', or some other image format. I don't know if there are limits or restrictions. When you click the 'img' tab, it just inserts tag brackets, you have to put the address in the middle.
13-08-2020 22:30
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Got it working now. Just wanted to show some flashback pictures of the construction that I started last summer. Maybe that could help some guys who are interested in "going green "and building a composting toilet
Here is the bottom slab before the concrete pour - double layer fiberglass reinforcement( fiberglass is made in Russia):

13-08-2020 22:34
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Here is the slab after the concrete pour:


13-08-2020 23:19
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Flashbacks from this year. Building formworks , placing reinforcement and preparations for the pour:






And this is how it looks like today, after the concrete pour:






All I need now is to pour the top slab and after that to install the drainage around the footing. Then comes the backfill and after that I am finally ready to build the wooden superstructure.
Edited on 13-08-2020 23:20
14-08-2020 00:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
So you've said. A properly installed septic system does not put runoff into the lake. An improperly installed septic system stinks and backs up.


I was talking about the cost of building. It was not so bad compared to septic system installation cost.

Installing a septic system is not that expensive. All you really need in most cases is a backhoe. The a 1000 gal tank from Norwesco is about $1000. Any modest sized truck or trailer can hall the thing and you just roll it nto the pit so it falls in with the manhole covers facing up. The rest is simple trenching. Get it inspected, backfill the thing and you're in business. It'll last for a good 10 years before pumping at least.
Xadoman wrote:
Think so? You've sure put a lot of money into the thing.


Compared to properly installed septic system it is still cheap.

I doubt that.
Xadoman wrote:

Nope. They don't clog unless they are improperly installed or damaged in some way.


Not sure about that one. Most septic producers mention that the leach field needs renewing after 10-15 years.

Lie. Houses in my area area are all on septic tanks. They are older houses. Their leach fields have functioned for 45 years with no problems. There are even older examples where their leach fields are doing just fine. You do not need to 'renew' a leach field.
Xadoman wrote:
The limestone gravel

Gravel is rock, not limestone. Maybe you are referring to recycled concrete, the closest thing to 'limestone gravel'.
Xadoman wrote:
literally simply melts away during those years.

Nope. Not used, except as recycled concrete.
Xadoman wrote:
People are not willing to use granite gravel because it is much much more expensive.

Not true. See your local aggregate supplier or quarry.
Xadoman wrote:

So you want to shovel your own shit, and put it on your yard, where it can wash into the lake you are trying to protect.


After 10 years of composting the feces will turn into soil like manure. It does not smell or stink. It can be spread with bare hands without any discomfort.

Which then washes into the lake. No matter how you try to justify your fancy pit toilet, it's still fertilizer washing into the lake.
Xadoman wrote:
Not really, unless it's improperly installed. Most reinforced concrete uses rebar of common iron. It's not been a problem, unless it was improperly installed.


Rust is basically the biggest problem with reinforced concrete.

Nope. Not a problem at all.
Xadoman wrote:
It costs billions for taxpayers in a year to repair bridges, roads etc.

That is due to wear and tear from vehicles, not rust.
Xadoman wrote:
Without rebar a concrete building could last even thousands of years( in good climate).

It won't last at all. Concrete has horrible tensile strength.
Xadoman wrote:
With rebar the useful life is considered 50-100 years.

There are older buildings than that with rebar. Iron rebar.
Xadoman wrote:
Stainless steel could extend it to 300 or even 1000 years but even stainless steel rusts eventually in the concrete.

You won't be alive that long. What do you care?
Xadoman wrote:
Then the mix was wrong, laid wrong, or the rebar was improperly installed.


Iron rebar starts to rust in the moment it is produced. It is inevitable.

True. Not a problem. Once sealed in concrete, air can't get to it anymore. Builders don't even bother removing the surface rust that's on them.
Xadoman wrote:
They have tried to protect iron rebar with epoxy coating but in practice those bars did not perform much better than common iron.

Nope. Epoxy does nothing for the rebar. You can epoxy them to keep your hands clean when handling them, tho. I do this when making certain kinds of temporary stakes and anchors, where I'm handling the rebar repeatedly.
Xadoman wrote:
The problem with epoxy coating is installation - if you cut or nick it you have to coat it over with epoxy again but in practice it is very hard to spot every single little nick.

Nah. Epoxy is just a waste of money in protecting rebar.

Xadoman wrote:
Houses built 100 years ago with common iron rebar are still standing today on those footings and walls.


Famous last words - it has stood like this for 100 years and it will ...oops.

Nope. Still standing.
Xadoman wrote:
Nope. Neither should be touching rebar unless it is properly installed.


Salt water corrodes iron in the concrete very quickly.

Nope. I know houses built on lots next to salt water. They are often slab or crawlspace foundations and use iron rebar. Some of those have been there since the 60's with no damage to the rebar.
Xadoman wrote:
Good example is Progreso pier that was built in 1940 and they used aisi 304 stainless steel rebar. It still stands today. The other pier from carbon steel was built in 1969 and it melt away in 10 years.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progreso-Pier-Mexico-the-pier-in-the-background-was-constructed-in-1940-and-used_fig1_301279143

Special pleading fallacy. A single example is not proof the rebar was the cause.
Xadoman wrote:

I would go so far as to suggest that this forum is full of misinformation.

Those guys build bridges and skyscrapers.

I don't believe that for a second.
Xadoman wrote:
NO! Do not use Geotex on drains! EVER!

I will not because I will use concrete sand.

Well, enjoy the silt you will inevitably get into your drains.
Xadoman wrote:
Geotex will clog drains! It is not used for drains. It is used for roadbeds. That is its only use!


Most people use it.

You don't to speak for most people. You only get to speak for you.

Wrapping a pipe with Geotex is a common practice among amateurs, and they get clogged drains too.
Xadoman wrote:
They use gravel though.

They should. It should be round stones about 1 to 2 inches in size. Some aggregate dealers call this 'cobble'.
Xadoman wrote:
I myself am not a fan of some kind of textile in the ground so that is why I look for solutions that work without it.

Geotex is not required with cobble.
Xadoman wrote:
Concrete sand has been used without geotextile and supposedly it works good.

I have my doubts. I think you are going to get a lot of sand in your pipe and it will clog, especially if you use the slitted pipe.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-08-2020 00:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
I have no idea why you brought up septic systems at all. You condemn them in favor of your fancy outhouse pit. It is still an outhouse pit, even you line it with concrete.


I was a little bit concerned about their safety. I have a simple dug well that is only 8-10 meters deep.

Most people like to go deeper to get better and more reliable water supply.
Xadoman wrote:
I am concerned about the water quality.

You should be. Get the water tested.
Xadoman wrote:
All the other guys with septics have really deep borewells.

For the reasons I just described.
Xadoman wrote:
It seems they instinctively dismiss the idea of a simple dug well near a septic system.

You are not allowed to dig or bore a well near a septic system. There must be 100 ft clearance between the well and any point on the septic system. That's code. It doesn't matter if the well is dug or bored.
Xadoman wrote:
I do not have anything against septic systems if they are properly installed.

Yes you do. You've been arguing against them this whole time.
Xadoman wrote:
If I were to live all year round in my summer house then I would install a septic system( I would design it to be fool proof).

Most places do not allow you to design your own septic system. You have to hire an engineer to come out, test and analyze the soil, and design the system for you. You still get to install it in most places, but you MUST conform to the engineer's design.
Xadoman wrote:
But for now I only use it for summer time.

Makes no difference.
Xadoman wrote:
I do not even have water in my house because I do not like the trouble of emptying the pipes for winter to not to let them burst due to freezing cold( I do not heat the house during the winter because I do not live there ).

Septic systems don't require protection from freezing. If you do not heat your house in the winter, you should drain your pipes. That can sometimes be done at one of the main valves particularly on new installations. These ports are required in the code now. The way they work is you shut the valve, open the port, and run the water out of the taps, particularly the lowest tap. Be sure your water heater is shut off before you do this! You should also drain your water heater. That'll help clean the sediment out of the tank anyway. Just attach a hose leading to a convenient drain point and open the valve on the tank (after shutting it off first!).

To restart your plumbing when you use it for the summer, just close the port, turn on the main, and let both hot and cold water flow until all air burping is done, then light or start your hot water heater.
Xadoman wrote:
I like the idea that I can left the house and do not need to worry about pipes, septics etc etc that need protection from freezing. I can go to travel in the winter and forget about pipes under ground.

Septic systems do not need protection from freezing.
Xadoman wrote:
My two chamber composting toilet on the other hand should be completely fool and bulletproof.

Maybe, maybe not.
Xadoman wrote:
I can not think a way how it could fail miserably.

Easy. A cracked concrete wall or floor.
Xadoman wrote:
Bottom slab and walls( 30 cm or about 1 foot thick) are monolithically poured concrete with stainless steel and glass fiber rebar.

It can still crack, even with rebar in it.
Xadoman wrote:
It should last at least 100 years without much trouble.

Maybe, maybe not. The future hard to read, it is. Always moving is the future.
Xadoman wrote:
I will be long gone before it fails.

Maybe, maybe not.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-08-2020 00:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
It seems that if you let it compost for about 6 months, you'll have some really good fertilizer for free.


I have been doing a lot of research about composting in the web. Turns out that some parasite eggs are really stubborn to die off. It could take even 5 years to completely die. Most agree that 2 years of composting would be optimal. Btw most of us have some internal parasites. It is perfectly natural to have some internal parasites.
Also notice how in the video the manure was spread by hand without any discomfort. And that is only after 6 month of composting. That is the beauty of composting - no more smelly flowing liquidy shit that makes you puke when you have to pump or dispose it to another place from your overflowing pit.

This is so funny because until the 1970's my grandmother in Kentucky had an outhouse. The topsoil was minimal to say the least. And to preserve our farmlands, in the future it could become the norm.


Yes, topsoil is going to be one of the biggest problem in agriculture in coming years. Nutrient cycle is not complete because human feces are mostly dumped to landfills using geotextile as giant diapers to separate them from surrounding soil. Those "diapers" will of course leak and pollute ground water. Those feces should be composted and spread back to fields instead.
Modern farming is very intensive. One day they harvest and second day they already plow the field. The land has no time to breath and relax. There is a constant pressure to get the most out of it. I am not sure about the sustainability of such behaviour. Historically most giant civilizations have collapsed because of the soil degradation.
Nowadays we have the technology to restore soil. I expect that in the future dredging the lakes and harvesting mud from the bottom of the lakes becomes one of the solution to the problem. I live near a lake and I have thought about building a mud pump to harvest mud and pump it to my land to increase soil thickness( I grow strawberries, very low scale, on about 1 hectar overall). The problem is that during the harvesting nutrients from the mud could get into the lake water and cause the blooming of the algae. That is why they separate the place they harvest mud from the lake with a special geotextile that stops nutrient from spreading out of the blocked area.

Landfills do not accept human feces.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-08-2020 05:44
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Isn't the leach field there to handle the water that overflows from the septic tank? For a home, it really shouldn't be a huge volume, daily. Consider that it's not just toilet water, but water from every drain in the house. The septic tank is there to breakdown the solids, for which only a small portion eventually settles to the bottom, as sludge. Solid waste, is only a small portion of what goes into the septic system, it's mostly water going in, and coming out. It's not concentrated raw sewage or anything else. It all gets highly diluted, before it even hits the drain field. Like a lot of things, some people only focus on the worst possible element, and ignore the obvious, that mitigates much of their perceived crisis.
14-08-2020 11:02
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Gravel is rock, not limestone. Maybe you are referring to recycled concrete, the closest thing to 'limestone gravel'.


Gravel is crushed rock. If you cruch limestone then you get limestone gravel. If you crush granite then you get granite gravel.
This is how a limestone gravel looks like:

This is how a granit gravel looks like:


99% of people here use limestone gravel because of the price. We have a lot of limestone here that is near the surface of the land and not much granite other than fieldstones. The granite is too deep inside the earth- shortest way to granite is about 130-150 meters deep in the ground. Most of it is 600-800 meters deep in the ground. That is the reason we do not produce our own granite gravel. We have to import it from other countries or crush fieldstones. Limestone is obviously not as strong as granite.

That is due to wear and tear from vehicles, not rust.


Biggest influence is caused by the salt that is used to melt ice. The corrosion of common iron comes very quickly( everything is relative but to me 30 years seems to short) because of the salt. That is why many parking houses have collapsed- there is not much wear and tear from vehicles due to low speed but they bring the salt from the roads and it causes accelerated corrosion of the rebar in the concrete.

It won't last at all. Concrete has horrible tensile strength.


Not a problem if you make the structure to be in compression. Colosseum and Pantheon are still standing. Those are nearly 2000 years old.

There are older buildings than that with rebar. Iron rebar.


It largely depends on conditions . Reinforced concrete in the salt water could melt away in a decade. A block of reinforced concrete in a heated room with low humidity could lasts hundreds of years. The corrosion of the rebar in the concrete however is inevitable. Initially the high alkanity of concrete protects the rebar from rusting but the carbonation process of the concrete brings down the alkanity of the concrete and eventually it reaches to a treshold at which the rebars starts to corrode quickly. So those 100+ years structures might be ticking time bombs.
This is why they are looking for other solutions. Epoxy, galvanizing, fiberglass, stainless steel, sacrifical anode etc etc. They are using more and more stainless steel in critical areas( for example bridge or road deck) than before because of it. Renovating a bridge deck regularly is expensive as hell and stainless steel in critical areas is cost effective in the long run.

You won't be alive that long. What do you care?


I have seen concrete fence posts , stairways and other structures failed in relatively short time - 20-30 years from construction. The iron in those structures has expanded and spalled the concrete. I myself would not want to deal with this kind of failure so I simply used materials that would not corrode as quickly (or not at all ) as common carbon iron. There are also other positive sides - with stainless steel the concrete cover does not have to be as thick as with carbon iron and compacting the concrete and the overall quality of placing the concrete is not as critical as with carbon iron. Also the quality of the concrete could be not as good as with common iron. As you can see the using of stainless steel allows much much more sloppy workmanship but still the structure will outlast the carbon iron reinforced structure many times. It is more forgiving for guys like me who are not professional builders.

I have my doubts. I think you are going to get a lot of sand in your pipe and it will clog, especially if you use the slitted pipe.


And how come your solution with cobble does not allow clogging of the pipe? Water will carry particles from the soil and it will eventually clog the pipe and the voids between the cobble.
Concrete sand on the other hand works as a natural filter. It will not migrate into the pipe because ( if the slits in the pipe are right size) bigger grains will eventually bridge the holes in the pipe allowing some water through but not more sand anymore. With cobble or gravel they wrap the whole thing( a piple and gravel around it ) into a geotextile to stop clogging the system.
Edited on 14-08-2020 11:16
15-08-2020 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Isn't the leach field there to handle the water that overflows from the septic tank? For a home, it really shouldn't be a huge volume, daily. Consider that it's not just toilet water, but water from every drain in the house. The septic tank is there to breakdown the solids, for which only a small portion eventually settles to the bottom, as sludge. Solid waste, is only a small portion of what goes into the septic system, it's mostly water going in, and coming out. It's not concentrated raw sewage or anything else. It all gets highly diluted, before it even hits the drain field. Like a lot of things, some people only focus on the worst possible element, and ignore the obvious, that mitigates much of their perceived crisis.


Yes, the tank does most of the breakdown of waste. The leach field is more than just a drain though. The bacteria naturally found in soil also breakdown waste. They work best as the water drains through the soil in the leach field.

After 20 inches or so, in a normally functioning system installed according to the engineer's design, the water beyond that point is essentially potable. Wells must be dug at least 100 ft from a leach field, however. Anything like a lake or river must also be at least 100 ft away. Sometimes that is expanded to 200 ft, depending on the State, county, and property.

The well is always 100 ft minimum distance.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-08-2020 22:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
Gravel is rock, not limestone. Maybe you are referring to recycled concrete, the closest thing to 'limestone gravel'.


Gravel is crushed rock. If you cruch limestone then you get limestone gravel. If you crush granite then you get granite gravel.
This is how a limestone gravel looks like:

This is how a granit gravel looks like:


99% of people here use limestone gravel because of the price. We have a lot of limestone here that is near the surface of the land and not much granite other than fieldstones. The granite is too deep inside the earth- shortest way to granite is about 130-150 meters deep in the ground. Most of it is 600-800 meters deep in the ground. That is the reason we do not produce our own granite gravel. We have to import it from other countries or crush fieldstones. Limestone is obviously not as strong as granite.

It's not about strength. It's about the shape of the gravel and its size, whether it has been washed, and whether it contains fines.
Xadoman wrote:
That is due to wear and tear from vehicles, not rust.


Biggest influence is caused by the salt that is used to melt ice.

Nope. Rebar is inside the concrete. It isn't exposed to salt used to melt ice.
Xadoman wrote:
The corrosion of common iron comes very quickly( everything is relative but to me 30 years seems to short) because of the salt.

Nope. It's not exposed to the salt.
Xadoman wrote:
That is why many parking houses have collapsed- there is not much wear and tear from vehicles due to low speed but they bring the salt from the roads and it causes accelerated corrosion of the rebar in the concrete.

Nope. Parking houses haven't collapsed (unless it was due to bad construction in the first place!).
Xadoman wrote:
It won't last at all. Concrete has horrible tensile strength.


Not a problem if you make the structure to be in compression. Colosseum and Pantheon are still standing. Those are nearly 2000 years old.

The Romans actually used a kind of rebar in that concrete. It was a special mineral they added to the mix. It acts like filaments, giving the concrete greater tensile strength...enough to build the Pantheon and the Colosseum, as well as an extensive aquaduct system, much of which is still standing as well. Brick did the rest.
Xadoman wrote:

There are older buildings than that with rebar. Iron rebar.


It largely depends on conditions . Reinforced concrete in the salt water could melt away in a decade.

Nope. Salt water does not affect concrete. It'll even cure immersed in salt water. Erosion from wave action will work on concrete though.
Xadoman wrote:
A block of reinforced concrete in a heated room with low humidity could lasts hundreds of years.

Nope. Humidity does not matter. Neither does the temperature, so long as the temperature does not exceed the rating of the concrete.
Xadoman wrote:
The corrosion of the rebar in the concrete however is inevitable.

No, it isn't. Surface corrosion isn't a problem. If rebar is corroding, the concrete mix was bad to begin with.
Xadoman wrote:
Initially the high alkanity of concrete protects the rebar from rusting but the carbonation process of the concrete brings down the alkanity of the concrete and eventually it reaches to a treshold at which the rebars starts to corrode quickly.

Nope. There is no sequence or such a threshold.
Xadoman wrote:
So those 100+ years structures might be ticking time bombs.

They're still standing. You cannot predict the future, dude.
Xadoman wrote:
This is why they are looking for other solutions.

They aren't. Rebar works.
Xadoman wrote:
Epoxy, galvanizing, fiberglass, stainless steel, sacrifical anode etc etc.

Epoxy does nothing. It's expensive and can actually make a worse installation.
Galvanizing is used where rebar is exposed to the weather for a long time. Rebar is not exposed to the weather when it's embedded inside concrete.
Stainless steel has limited uses, mostly around nuclear power plants and such. It's expensive as well.
There is no 'sacrificial anode' in concrete.
Xadoman wrote:
They are using more and more stainless steel in critical areas( for example bridge or road deck) than before because of it.

Nope. Just the same old rebar. It works.
Xadoman wrote:
Renovating a bridge deck regularly is expensive as hell and stainless steel in critical areas is cost effective in the long run.

Nope. Just the same old rebar. It works.
Xadoman wrote:
You won't be alive that long. What do you care?


I have seen concrete fence posts , stairways and other structures failed in relatively short time - 20-30 years from construction.

Sure, if they are improperly installed.
Xadoman wrote:
The iron in those structures has expanded and spalled the concrete.

Nope. That was a bad mix or a bad pour.
Xadoman wrote:
I myself would not want to deal with this kind of failure so I simply used materials that would not corrode as quickly (or not at all ) as common carbon iron.

It's your wallet. You are spending a lot of money that doesn't do much for you.
Xadoman wrote:
There are also other positive sides - with stainless steel the concrete cover does not have to be as thick as with carbon iron

Yes it does.
Xadoman wrote:
and compacting the concrete and the overall quality of placing the concrete is not as critical as with carbon iron.

Yes it does.
Xadoman wrote:
Also the quality of the concrete could be not as good as with common iron.

Concrete quality nor the mix type is dependent on what type of rebar is used, dumbass.
Xadoman wrote:
As you can see the using of stainless steel allows much much more sloppy workmanship but still the structure will outlast the carbon iron reinforced structure many times.

Nope. You must still follow the proper thickness, quality, and mix of concrete for the application. You don't get to cheap out because you used a different type of rebar.
Xadoman wrote:
It is more forgiving for guys like me who are not professional builders.

Concrete is not rocket science. Once you learn the techniques for laying it, all you really need is a size 44 shirt and a size 4 hat.
Xadoman wrote:
I have my doubts. I think you are going to get a lot of sand in your pipe and it will clog, especially if you use the slitted pipe.


And how come your solution with cobble does not allow clogging of the pipe?

It blocks silt from getting into the pipe.
Xadoman wrote:
Water will carry particles from the soil and it will eventually clog the pipe and the voids between the cobble.

Not really. If you're worried about stone migration, put Geotex in the trench UNDER the pipe, and along the trench walls. DO NOT WRAP THE PIPE. The purpose of the Geotex is to keep stone and soil separated.
Xadoman wrote:
Concrete sand on the other hand works as a natural filter.

Nope. Gets into the pipe and clogs it.
Xadoman wrote:
It will not migrate into the pipe because ( if the slits in the pipe are right size) bigger grains will eventually bridge the holes in the pipe allowing some water through but not more sand anymore.

That's clogging, and the bridges still let silt in.
Xadoman wrote:
With cobble or gravel they wrap the whole thing( a piple and gravel around it ) into a geotextile to stop clogging the system.

DO NOT WRAP THE PIPE. Never wrap a drain pipe with Geotex! That is a guaranteed clog waiting to happen.

The countless times I've seen people have to get some guy who knows what he is doing come out and completely dig up the drains and install them correctly...It's an expensive mistake, dude. DON'T DO IT!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2020 01:16
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
It's not about strength. It's about the shape of the gravel and its size, whether it has been washed, and whether it contains fines.


Limestone gravel melts away and clogs the leach fields eventually. Granite is much more durable.

Nope. Rebar is inside the concrete. It isn't exposed to salt used to melt ice.


Concrete is not waterproof. Concrete also cracks. Chlorides will go through the concrete and cause rusting of the rebar. It is inevitable.

Nope. Salt water does not affect concrete. It'll even cure immersed in salt water. Erosion from wave action will work on concrete though.


It affects rebar which will rust in turbo mode.

The Romans actually used a kind of rebar in that concrete. It was a special mineral they added to the mix. It acts like filaments, giving the concrete greater tensile strength...enough to build the Pantheon and the Colosseum, as well as an extensive aquaduct system, much of which is still standing as well. Brick did the rest.


Their structures are in compression, no great tensile strength needed.
Also, did you know that Hoover dam has no rebar in it?

Nope. Just the same old rebar. It works.


They do. It is cost effective. Prices have gone down lately. Stainless for example was only 3 times more expensive that carbon iron when I bought it. In the long run it is a peanut. Fiberglass was even a little bit cheaper than carbon iron!

It's your wallet. You are spending a lot of money that doesn't do much for you.

Concrete quality nor the mix type is dependent on what type of rebar is used, dumbass.

Nope. You must still follow the proper thickness, quality, and mix of concrete for the application. You don't get to cheap out because you used a different type of rebar.


Progreso pier. Sloppy workmanship( rebar is in some parts exposed to sea water), shitty concrete compared to today s standards etc. Still stands while the other pier that was built adjacent to it with carbon iron melt away in ten years.
Also, I just pointed out that the concrete could be not as good as with carbon iron. I did not mix the concrete on site, I simply called, named the desired psi and ordered it from the concrete factory. They delivered it with a special car that had a pump.

Once you learn the techniques ...


Simply pointed out that it is more forgiving. I like the idea that I can not mess up so easy.

It blocks silt from getting into the pipe.


When it is wrapped into geotextile( the whole system- pipe with cobble around the pipe) , then yes. Otherwise silt just flows into the voids between the rubble and blocks the drainage.
Concrete sand on the other hand is natural filter. I have clay soil and it is said that it filters also clay. Rubble without geotextile is not a filter. It clogs very quickly.
Edited on 16-08-2020 01:43
16-08-2020 03:14
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
So, basically, this whole thing, might get used a few months out of the year. Then basically sit around unused, most of the time. How much lake polluting could you possibly do, in a few months? Even if you went with the classic, traditional hole dug outhouse, you'd still have virtually no impact on the environment. You just aren't going to generate the volume. The environment is very forgiving, the ecosystem adapts.

Limestone takes a long time to erode, if there are no chemical agents involve. Rain water takes centuries to make much of an impact.

Over-engineering stuff, is often worse, than the simple solution...
16-08-2020 08:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
It's not about strength. It's about the shape of the gravel and its size, whether it has been washed, and whether it contains fines.


Limestone gravel melts away and clogs the leach fields eventually. Granite is much more durable.

Nope. Rebar is inside the concrete. It isn't exposed to salt used to melt ice.


Concrete is not waterproof.

Yes it is. You can even pour it and have it cure underwater.
Xadoman wrote:
Concrete also cracks.

Only if it's badly poured or maintained.
Xadoman wrote:
Chlorides will go through the concrete and cause rusting of the rebar. It is inevitable.

Nope. The rebar is not exposed to water or air.
Xadoman wrote:

Nope. Salt water does not affect concrete. It'll even cure immersed in salt water. Erosion from wave action will work on concrete though.


It affects rebar which will rust in turbo mode.

Nope. Not exposed to the salt.
Xadoman wrote:
The Romans actually used a kind of rebar in that concrete. It was a special mineral they added to the mix. It acts like filaments, giving the concrete greater tensile strength...enough to build the Pantheon and the Colosseum, as well as an extensive aquaduct system, much of which is still standing as well. Brick did the rest.


Their structures are in compression, no great tensile strength needed.

WRONG. Both buildings have tensile and sheer loads.
Xadoman wrote:
Also, did you know that Hoover dam has no rebar in it?

Yes it does.
Xadoman wrote:
Nope. Just the same old rebar. It works.


They do. It is cost effective. Prices have gone down lately. Stainless for example was only 3 times more expensive that carbon iron when I bought it. In the long run it is a peanut. Fiberglass was even a little bit cheaper than carbon iron!

It's also weaker than common rebar. It's advantage is that it's light.
Xadoman wrote:
It's your wallet. You are spending a lot of money that doesn't do much for you.

Concrete quality nor the mix type is dependent on what type of rebar is used, dumbass.

Nope. You must still follow the proper thickness, quality, and mix of concrete for the application. You don't get to cheap out because you used a different type of rebar.


Progreso pier.

Nope. No difference. The requirements are still the same.
Xadoman wrote:
Sloppy workmanship( rebar is in some parts exposed to sea water)

Done expose rebar to seawater. Make sure it's properly embedded in the concrete.
Xadoman wrote:
shitty concrete compared to today s standards etc.

Nope. Just a shitty pour.
Xadoman wrote:
Still stands while the other pier that was built adjacent to it with carbon iron melt away in ten years.

Rebar is not exposed to salt water.
Xadoman wrote:
Also, I just pointed out that the concrete could be not as good as with carbon iron.

The type of rebar does not determine the concrete.
Xadoman wrote:
I did not mix the concrete on site, I simply called, named the desired psi and ordered it from the concrete factory. They delivered it with a special car that had a pump.

Usually the easiest way for a pour that large, if you can get everything screed, floated, and troweled in time. Premix starts curing pretty fast, since it's been sitting in the truck on the way to your site.
Xadoman wrote:
Once you learn the techniques ...


Simply pointed out that it is more forgiving. I like the idea that I can not mess up so easy.

Nope. Same stuff. Same requirements.
Xadoman wrote:
It blocks silt from getting into the pipe.


When it is wrapped into geotextile( the whole system- pipe with cobble around the pipe) , then yes.

NO. YOU DO NOT WRAP PIPE IN Geotex! Ever!
Xadoman wrote:
Otherwise silt just flows into the voids between the rubble and blocks the drainage.
Concrete sand on the other hand is natural filter.

Nope. It will go into the pipe, clogging it.
Xadoman wrote:
I have clay soil and it is said that it filters also clay

Nope. Clay is silt.
Xadoman wrote:
Rubble without geotextile is not a filter.

I'm not talking about rubble. Do not use anything with fines in it.
Xadoman wrote:
It clogs very quickly.

That's right. Use round gravel, 1 to 2 inch in size.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2020 08:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, basically, this whole thing, might get used a few months out of the year. Then basically sit around unused, most of the time. How much lake polluting could you possibly do, in a few months? Even if you went with the classic, traditional hole dug outhouse, you'd still have virtually no impact on the environment. You just aren't going to generate the volume. The environment is very forgiving, the ecosystem adapts.

Limestone takes a long time to erode, if there are no chemical agents involve. Rain water takes centuries to make much of an impact.

Over-engineering stuff, is often worse, than the simple solution...


Very true! Over engineering often causes expensive failures. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).

French drains using round gravel 1 to 2 inch in size can be used with either slit or bottom hole drainpipe. The Geotex is optional, but if it IS used, you put it between the gravel and the sides and bottom of the trench.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2020 11:59
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Yes it is. You can even pour it and have it cure underwater.


The point was that concrete lets water through it.

Only if it's badly poured or maintained.


All concrete cracks. It is inevitable.

It's also weaker than common rebar. It's advantage is that it's light.


It is quite a bit stronger in tension than iron. 8 mm diameter fiberglass is approximately the same in tension as 12 mm iron.

Nope. The rebar is not exposed to water or air.


Deny as much as you want but the reality is that 1 out of 3 bridges in US is structurally deficient mostly because of rust.

Nope. Just a shitty pour.

Rebar is not exposed to salt water.

The type of rebar does not determine the concrete.


With Progreso pier the workmanship was quite sloppy and at some places the rebar is even exposed to the sea water. It is still in bussiness unlike the other parallel pier that melt away in a decade and was made with carbon iron.
The one on the backround was made 1940 and they used stainless steel aisi 304. The ruins on the front are from the pier that was built in 1969 with common steel rebar and it simply melt away in a decade.



Premix starts curing pretty fast, since it's been sitting in the truck on the way to your site.


Yes, I was in trouble with smoothing the top at the end because it cured so fast.

WRONG. Both buildings have tensile and sheer loads.


And use no iron reinforcement . We have many barns here constructed of splitted fieldstone( granite) and those are over 100 years old and stay strong. They have no rebar inside their walls. Those buildings 100+ years old you talk about probably also have no iron in their footings and walls. You can build foundation wall out of concrete and use no iron in at all. It is allowed by the code. The walls simply needs to be thick enough to counteract the lateral pressure of the soil if you want a basement.

Yes it does.


No it does not. The dam itself has no iron rebar in it. It is an arc that is in copression. The adjacent towers have iron reinforcement but the dam that holds the water does not.

NO. YOU DO NOT WRAP PIPE IN Geotex! Ever!


I am talking about the whose system - pipe with cobble should be wrapped into the geotextile. The geotextile should be around the cobble and sealed in every direction( wrapped around the cobble). The pipe is inside the coble and should not be wrapped because the cobble is already wrapped with geotextile.

That's right. Use round gravel, 1 to 2 inch in size.


This will not stop silt( clay fines) from migrating to the voids of the gravel and clog it. Or do you want to say that the silt flows away with the water?

Very true! Over engineering often causes expensive failures. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).


I did not overengineer anything with my composting toilet. Dimensions of the slab and walls are bare minimum.
Edited on 16-08-2020 12:02
16-08-2020 12:33
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, basically, this whole thing, might get used a few months out of the year. Then basically sit around unused, most of the time. How much lake polluting could you possibly do, in a few months? Even if you went with the classic, traditional hole dug outhouse, you'd still have virtually no impact on the environment. You just aren't going to generate the volume. The environment is very forgiving, the ecosystem adapts.

Limestone takes a long time to erode, if there are no chemical agents involve. Rain water takes centuries to make much of an impact.

Over-engineering stuff, is often worse, than the simple solution...


I got tired of dragging the wooden superstructure to new places. Without the foundation the wood also rots quite quickly and the whole thing starts to sag. Then you need to rise it , put some stones under the corner etc etc.
I needed a solution that would fix all of those problem. Are those simple digged holes even allowed by the code nowadays?


I was worried about the lake because the blooming of the algae. There are some whose leach field pipes are very close to the lake. The water has bloomed 2 times in this year. Last time it took 3 weeks for a water to clear up. I suspect most of the problem is caused by the fertilizers that farmers put on their fields and rainwater washes some of it into the lake.

Modern chemicals that are drained into the sewage could cause accelerated erosion of the limestone. Some people have reported problems with their septic systems because of the clogging of the leach field.
16-08-2020 15:43
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
Buddy,You wish to make a flash outhouse you go do it.In Britain and Australia the out door dunny is the source of much humour
16-08-2020 18:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
Yes it is. You can even pour it and have it cure underwater.


The point was that concrete lets water through it.

Nope. It doesn't.
Xadoman wrote:
Only if it's badly poured or maintained.


All concrete cracks. It is inevitable.

Nope. It doesn't.
Xadoman wrote:
It's also weaker than common rebar. It's advantage is that it's light.


It is quite a bit stronger in tension than iron. 8 mm diameter fiberglass is approximately the same in tension as 12 mm iron.

Nope. It's weaker in tension. See the specifications sheets.
Xadoman wrote:
Nope. The rebar is not exposed to water or air.


Deny as much as you want but the reality is that 1 out of 3 bridges in US is structurally deficient mostly because of rust.

Lie. They are deficient because of lack of maintenance and due to wear by traffic.
Xadoman wrote:
Nope. Just a shitty pour.

Rebar is not exposed to salt water.

The type of rebar does not determine the concrete.


With Progreso pier the workmanship was quite sloppy and at some places the rebar is even exposed to the sea water. It is still in bussiness unlike the other parallel pier that melt away in a decade and was made with carbon iron.
The one on the backround was made 1940 and they used stainless steel aisi 304. The ruins on the front are from the pier that was built in 1969 with common steel rebar and it simply melt away in a decade.


Redirection (pivot) fallacy. Spam.
Xadoman wrote:
Premix starts curing pretty fast, since it's been sitting in the truck on the way to your site.


Yes, I was in trouble with smoothing the top at the end because it cured so fast.

WRONG. Both buildings have tensile and sheer loads.


And use no iron reinforcement.

They didn't need to. They use a fiber like mineral in the mix. You seem to keep ignoring this.
Xadoman wrote:
We have many barns here constructed of splitted fieldstone( granite) and those are over 100 years old and stay strong.
They are composite structures. They are not just made of stone.
Xadoman wrote:
They have no rebar inside their walls. Those buildings 100+ years old you talk about probably also have no iron in their footings and walls. You can build foundation wall out of concrete and use no iron in at all. It is allowed by the code.

WRONG. The code requires some kind of reinforcement of the concrete, such as rebar, or it's equivalent. If you use an equivalent, you must demonstrate to the inspector the strength of the material.
Xadoman wrote:
The walls simply needs to be thick enough to counteract the lateral pressure of the soil if you want a basement.
Nope Rebar required here, according to the code.
Xadoman wrote:
Yes it does.


No it does not. The dam itself has no iron rebar in it.
Yes it does.
Xadoman wrote:
It is an arc that is in copression. The adjacent towers have iron reinforcement but the dam that holds the water does not.
Yes it does.
Xadoman wrote:
NO. YOU DO NOT WRAP PIPE IN Geotex! Ever!


I am talking about the whose system - pipe with cobble should be wrapped into the geotextile.
Never wrap a pipe in Geotex!
Xadoman wrote:
the geotextile should be around the cobble and sealed in every direction( wrapped around the cobble).
Optional.
Xadoman wrote:
The pipe is inside the coble and should not be wrapped because the cobble is already wrapped with geotextile.

You just said this. Optional.
Xadoman wrote:
That's right. Use round gravel, 1 to 2 inch in size.


This will not stop silt( clay fines) from migrating to the voids of the gravel and clog it.
Yes it will.
Xadoman wrote:
Or do you want to say that the silt flows away with the water?
No. Why would I say something like that??
Xadoman wrote:
Very true! Over engineering often causes expensive failures. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).


I did not overengineer anything with my composting toilet.
Yes you did.
Xadoman wrote:
Dimensions of the slab and walls are bare minimum.

I am not talking about the thickness. Special pleading fallacy.

You are obviously going to bullhead your way through this project of yours and damn the code, the lake, the cost, or anything else.

And you will have only yourself to blame when it doesn't work.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2020 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, basically, this whole thing, might get used a few months out of the year. Then basically sit around unused, most of the time. How much lake polluting could you possibly do, in a few months? Even if you went with the classic, traditional hole dug outhouse, you'd still have virtually no impact on the environment. You just aren't going to generate the volume. The environment is very forgiving, the ecosystem adapts.

Limestone takes a long time to erode, if there are no chemical agents involve. Rain water takes centuries to make much of an impact.

Over-engineering stuff, is often worse, than the simple solution...


I got tired of dragging the wooden superstructure to new places. Without the foundation the wood also rots quite quickly and the whole thing starts to sag. Then you need to rise it , put some stones under the corner etc etc.
I needed a solution that would fix all of those problem. Are those simple digged holes even allowed by the code nowadays?

No.
Xadoman wrote:
I was worried about the lake because the blooming of the algae.

The lake is a swamp, returning to being a swamp.
Xadoman wrote:
There are some whose leach field pipes are very close to the lake.

That is not code.
Xadoman wrote:
The water has bloomed 2 times in this year.
Water doesn't bloom. Plants do.
Xadoman wrote:
Last time it took 3 weeks for a water to clear up.
Meh.
Xadoman wrote:
I suspect most of the problem is caused by the fertilizers that farmers put on their fields and rainwater washes some of it into the lake.
I can be the case, but in this case, what you have there is a swamp.
Xadoman wrote:
Modern chemicals that are drained into the sewage could cause accelerated erosion of the limestone.
You don't put chemicals in the sewage. The only thing you put in there is human waste, toilet paper, water, and at most, bits of food.
Xadoman wrote:
Some people have reported problems with their septic systems because of the clogging of the leach field.

Then their leach field is built improperly. There is no other reason for it to clog. It will have to dug up and properly constructed.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-08-2020 00:26
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
ITN, no rebar in ancient ctructures. No rebar also in the Hoover dam. There are metal pipes from cooling of the blocks but those are not acting as rebar. Every concrete cracks. Without special additives concrete does not stop water. No rebar needed if building a foundation( allowed by code). Concrete has tensile strength. Rubble does not stop fines from migrating into the voids. Sand is better filter than rubble. Dry composting closet is allowed by the code almost everywhere, also in places where septics are not allowed. Dry closet is the "greenest". The cost of the dry closet is peanut compared to properly installed septic system.

BTW, I just read that the embedded cooling pipes in the dam got grouted somehow after. I think it was a bad idea. If those pipes are eventually going to rust and expand then they will crack the concrete. If they had let them ungrouted then expanding iron would have a room to expand. So those embedded pipes are going to be the achilleus heal of the Hoover dam.
Edited on 17-08-2020 00:40
17-08-2020 00:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
ITN, no rebar in ancient ctructures.
Already discussed. Argument by repetition fallacy.
Xadoman wrote:
No rebar also in the Hoover dam.
Yes there is. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
There are metal pipes from cooling of the blocks but those are not acting as rebar.
The also act as rebar.
Xadoman wrote:
Every concrete cracks.
Nope. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
Without special additives concrete does not stop water.
Yes it does. Already discussed. Argument by repetitition.
Xadoman wrote:
No rebar needed if building a foundation( allowed by code).
Yes it is. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
Concrete has tensile strength.
Very little. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
Rubble does not stop fines from migrating into the voids.
Not talking about rubble. Pivot fallacy.
Xadoman wrote:
Sand is better filter than rubble.
Nope. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
Dry composting closet is allowed by the code almost everywhere,
Nope. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
also in places where septics are not allowed.
Alrready discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
Dry closet is the "greenest".
Nope. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
The cost of the dry closet is peanut compared to properly installed septic system.
Nope. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.
Xadoman wrote:
BTW, I just read that the embedded cooling pipes in the dam got grouted somehow after. I think it was a bad idea. If those pipes are eventually going to rust and expand then they will crack the concrete. If they had let them ungrouted then expanding iron would have a room to expand. So those embedded pipes are going to be the achilleus heal of the Hoover dam.

Nope. Already discussed. Argument by repetition.

No arguments presented. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacies. Fundamentalism.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-08-2020 09:11
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
The Progreso Pier is also the first concrete structure in the world built with nickel-containing stainless steel reinforcement. Despite the relatively poor grade of concrete used, the pier has withstood the harsh marine environment and has been in continuous service for over 70 years without any major repair or routine maintenance activities. On the contrary, a with neighboring pier located just 200 meters to the west of the Progreso Pier is heavily deteriorated with columns and the superstructure almost entirely gone, despite being twenty years younger. The newer pier was built with carbon steel rebar.


One of the reasons why this design was selected was to eliminate conventional carbon steel rein-orcing bars (rebar) by using massiveconcrete in the substructure. TheMexican authorities wanted to build this pier having low or no corrosion risk, thus avoiding the severe corrosion problems that had developed inseveral other marine structures in Mexico. This innovative project utilized type 304 stainless steel (SS) (UNSS30400) for girder reinforcement and,in the long term, for corrosion protection. To do so, 220 tons (199,584 kg)of 30-mm-diameter SS, nondeformedbars were used.


The pier shows no visible sign of deterioration after 60 years of service even though the structure has received no maintenance during this period of time, according to port authorities.


Of the 146 arches, ~100 were visually inspected and few cracks were observed. Only six arches presented 3-mm-wide cracks. A total of 15 arches presented narrow cracks, with crackwidths in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 mm. As the arches were made of massive,nonreinforced concrete, there is norisk of metal corrosion. A detailed inspection of the damage in the near fu-ure was recommended, however. No corrosion stains or corrosion-induced cracks were observed in theentire pier and wharf substructure.Only a few damaged girders at the wharf showed exposed SS bars—probably caused by ship impact—besides the exposed steel observed in girder #9.


Low quality porous concrete, nonreinforced arches and harsh environment. But still in business without major overhauls. Pretty good I must say. Makes me feel comfortable with my own little project.
Edited on 17-08-2020 09:12
17-08-2020 17:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
...deleted spam...
Low quality porous concrete, nonreinforced arches and harsh environment. But still in business without major overhauls. Pretty good I must say. Makes me feel comfortable with my own little project.


Already addressed. Argument by repetition. Special pleading fallacy. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 17-08-2020 17:09
17-08-2020 23:35
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
No argument presented.


Argument is presented. Major success using first time in history stainless steel rebar!. No major overhauls or even small overhauls needed in 80 years. Still standing despite low quality porous concrete, harsh marine environment , exposed rebar to seawater because of ship impacts etc etc. 20 years younger parallel pier made with carbon steel rebar melt away many decades ago.
Considering all this the price of stainless steel is a peanut. Overhauls that are needed with carbon steel on the other hand are very costly.
I myself am not going to use carbon steel rebar anymore. Things have changed. Prices have gone down. In Finland( closest I could get it) there are many stainless steel rebar producers, I am going to contact them when I need to pour another project.
The main point in conclusion is - carbon steel will not forgive if you make some mistakes during the construction. You need expensive repairs in your life time. Stainless steel however will forgive a lot and most probably you do not have to touch the structure again in your lifetime.
Edited on 17-08-2020 23:55
18-08-2020 03:45
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Xadoman wrote:
No argument presented.


Argument is presented. Major success using first time in history stainless steel rebar!. No major overhauls or even small overhauls needed in 80 years. Still standing despite low quality porous concrete, harsh marine environment , exposed rebar to seawater because of ship impacts etc etc. 20 years younger parallel pier made with carbon steel rebar melt away many decades ago.
Considering all this the price of stainless steel is a peanut. Overhauls that are needed with carbon steel on the other hand are very costly.
I myself am not going to use carbon steel rebar anymore. Things have changed. Prices have gone down. In Finland( closest I could get it) there are many stainless steel rebar producers, I am going to contact them when I need to pour another project.
The main point in conclusion is - carbon steel will not forgive if you make some mistakes during the construction. You need expensive repairs in your life time. Stainless steel however will forgive a lot and most probably you do not have to touch the structure again in your lifetime.


Why do you compare you freshwater toilet, to a saltwater bridge? Rust, is oxidation. Iron needs to be exposed to open air (oxygen), or an oxidation agent. The rust forms a protective layer, and needs to be removed, to expose fresh iron, to be oxidized. I remember a few neighborhood driveway pours, where the rebar was rusty, sometimes kind of nasty looking. Sometimes the weather doesn't cooperate around here, takes weeks occasionally, to complete an outdoor project. 20 or more years later, those driveways still appear to be in great shape. We get a whole lot of rain at times, here in Florida.
18-08-2020 08:58
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Harvey, urine consist salt. Every time you pee you throw away approximately a teaspoon of salt. It causes accelerated aging of rebar in concrete. That is why by the code there are higher requirements for the concrete in sewage pits etc.
Also, you can look up for the carbonation process and how chlorides from deicing salts or from sea water ( or from urine) will attack rebar in the concrete. Google "concrete cancer" and you see many pictures of spalled concrete and rusted rebar.
I have seen many prematurely failed projects here. Spalling concrete from fence postes, outdoor door steps, foundations , walls, suspended slabs etc etc. If I build something then I do not want to deal with it in my lifetime again. This is why I tend to use foolproof materials although those are a little bit costier than common materials. In the big picture the cost of those materials is a peanut.
Just imagine a case you need to pour a slab or suspended slab. You need some "chairs" made of plastic or smth to rise the rebar from the ground or from the formworks. This place becomes an achilleus heal for the slab because the bond between the chair and concrete will never be the same as with pure concrete. The concrete cover in this spot is compromised and the rust nest will form which eventually causes spalling of the concrete. Stainless will probably forgive you that for at least a 100 years or more. I will be gone if such failure in the future will emerge.
Fiberglass does not rust but it has its own problems. I could not get angles for the corners from the dealer. They only sell straight rebar. It is not possible to bend fiberglass on your own. The producer of the fiberglass has those anges in stock but our dealer here does not want to stockpile those even though I called them and asked about it many times. Although fiberglass is significantly stronger in tension than iron, it is not ductile and has low shear strength. That is why they do not use it in suspended slabs. Also fiberglass will loose its strength quickly in the case of fire.
Edited on 18-08-2020 09:26
18-08-2020 19:40
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
We don't 'pee' table salt (Sodium Chloride). A 'salt' is simply a molecule consisting a metal atom + gas atom. Rust, Iron Oxide is a salt, lot of variations too, 17 oxides of iron, if I remember correctly. Still think you are over doing this. It's a summer home, which you might use a few months out of the year. You never mention how many hundreds of other people would be using it as well. Mostly, I just see this for you, and maybe a couple other adults. I just don't see a significant volume of waste, that would leach in to the lake, generate by a single family dwelling. If it's a rental, 'party house', where there are dozens of people using the facilities, often... It's a big lake, what little contribute, is basically nothing, compared with the fish, and other wildlife. That RV park on the other side of the lake, probably has more people purging their sewage tank, directly in the lake in a day, than you would contribute in 5 years...
18-08-2020 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Xadoman wrote:
No argument presented.


Argument is presented.

None.
Xadoman wrote:
Major success using first time in history stainless steel rebar!.
No major overhauls or even small overhauls needed in 80 years. Still standing despite low quality porous concrete, harsh marine environment , exposed rebar to seawater because of ship impacts etc etc. 20 years younger parallel pier made with carbon steel rebar melt away many decades ago.
Considering all this the price of stainless steel is a peanut. Overhauls that are needed with carbon steel on the other hand are very costly.
I myself am not going to use carbon steel rebar anymore. Things have changed. Prices have gone down. In Finland( closest I could get it) there are many stainless steel rebar producers, I am going to contact them when I need to pour another project.
The main point in conclusion is - carbon steel will not forgive if you make some mistakes during the construction. You need expensive repairs in your life time. Stainless steel however will forgive a lot and most probably you do not have to touch the structure again in your lifetime.

Argument by repetition fallacy. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-08-2020 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
No argument presented.


Argument is presented. Major success using first time in history stainless steel rebar!. No major overhauls or even small overhauls needed in 80 years. Still standing despite low quality porous concrete, harsh marine environment , exposed rebar to seawater because of ship impacts etc etc. 20 years younger parallel pier made with carbon steel rebar melt away many decades ago.
Considering all this the price of stainless steel is a peanut. Overhauls that are needed with carbon steel on the other hand are very costly.
I myself am not going to use carbon steel rebar anymore. Things have changed. Prices have gone down. In Finland( closest I could get it) there are many stainless steel rebar producers, I am going to contact them when I need to pour another project.
The main point in conclusion is - carbon steel will not forgive if you make some mistakes during the construction. You need expensive repairs in your life time. Stainless steel however will forgive a lot and most probably you do not have to touch the structure again in your lifetime.


Why do you compare you freshwater toilet, to a saltwater bridge? Rust, is oxidation. Iron needs to be exposed to open air (oxygen), or an oxidation agent. The rust forms a protective layer, and needs to be removed, to expose fresh iron, to be oxidized. I remember a few neighborhood driveway pours, where the rebar was rusty, sometimes kind of nasty looking. Sometimes the weather doesn't cooperate around here, takes weeks occasionally, to complete an outdoor project. 20 or more years later, those driveways still appear to be in great shape. We get a whole lot of rain at times, here in Florida.


He likes a lot of false equivalencies, apparently.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate Septic tanks and water pollution:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
water water water1231-01-2020 22:44
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Flooding, climate change force Quebecers to rethink relationship with water Social Sharing019-04-2019 18:53
EPA chief says water issues a bigger crisis than climate change621-03-2019 21:01
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact