Recycle white spirit by decantation

Environmental impact of end of life products: plastics, chemicals, vehicles, agri-food marketing. direct recycling and recycling (upcycling or upcycling) and reuse of good items for the trash!
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28800
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5584




by Obamot » 23/04/13, 08:47

elephant wrote:In bodywork, they can no longer use only water-based paints. Much more expensive unfortunately.

Arf, yes but the funds are always with solvent, if you want something that holds. Otherwise there is the awesome epoxy primer (but then it releases a max too, and to clean the gun, you need solvents that tear off: since it is GLUE;) And then on it you still have to a surfacer ...

And besides, it also depends on what you had before, chemical compatibility question!
So it’s forbidden, hate the products, they sell them to you anyway : Cheesy: : Mrgreen:

And the problem with water-based paint is that it's almost impossible to apply it if you don't have a cabin (respecting the temperature, ideal, humidity, drying, etc.) and of course, mandatory mask for everything!

As for solvents, truth be told, they are the worst: they are the ones the biggest destroyers immunity of the organism, because - not only - they destroy the impermeability of the cell membrane, but they dissolve the polyunsaturated fatty acids responsible for reconstituting it! (Of course, since these are solvents and that they are made to dissolve fat, whether by inhalation or tactile contact ...). So no, the "water-based" painting is not a step backwards, in fact! We will say that it is the lesser evil. But again, a water-based varnish is not great!

By cons I never understood a thing in bodywork, that's why we use a fatty petroleum ester, to pass on the bottom just before squirting the top coat (and / or included varnish if it's not 2k) - supposedly to remove silicone - while silicone residues mixed with petroleum are perfect repellents for painting !!! (Even in traces). If anyone has an explanation ...? Because chemically speaking, I find at my modest level, that there is no logic! (But necessarily, I must be wrong) : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
elephant
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6646
Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
x 7




by elephant » 24/04/13, 00:14

Thank you for the clarification.

Finally, if it makes solvents less in the lungs of the painter in the cabin, it is always that taken.
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28800
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5584




by Obamot » 24/04/13, 00:58

For air, there's something foolproof! Because I was fed up with tasting masks anyway (it goes through the best, like 3M ... for those who know and have tried) ...

I take a long flexible hose, at least an inch in diameter, which I stick to the outside (with an air intake fitted with a small dust filter). And I bring him into the cabin that I bite with my teeth! The diameter being quite large, I breathe out in the same way. (The accordion pipes for pumping water for inflatable pools are fine, but then you have to put a nozzle, because of large diameter)

And my nose is blocked with pliers (like a clothespin but it hurts less ...) lol

So, I breathe ONLY pure outdoor air (and thanks to the filter, without the risk of swallowing something brought by the wind or an insect) ...

And of course, as everyone should know. We now need gloves, closed glasses and a disposable painter's suit, which also covers the skin of the face! It's imperative Because we know that there are a lot of skin deposits that can be formed and all through your clothes, without you suspecting it. Besides, some have even had "flashes" of too much arrival of "fog of toxic products" at the same time, linked to a bad mask + a feeling of discomfort and claustrophobia and died!

Besides now, I use the tube on every occasion where I would have to breathe unwanted dust and / or fumes! (Various cleanings with all inhalable products, collages of the same type as with epoxy, spraying of polyurethane foam with the bomb because we should all know that it contains gas with cyanide, unblocking of chemical pipes containing soda, hypoclorite of soda, bleach, and even dye or other ammonia products, without forgetting all the solvents, including those for cleaning brushes! etc)
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 24/04/13, 01:39

breathe in and out in the same tube, it doesn't work! as soon as the tube is too long, we breathe in what we just exhaled, so we get intoxicated with our own CO2!

so you need a valve to breathe out of the pipes

the length of the pipes makes a pressure drop which makes the thing painful ... taking a larger pipe makes the thing not practical, too stiff

solution, small 4mm diameter hose supplied by an oil-free compressor, which sends a constant flow rate higher than the breathing rate in a mask
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28800
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5584




by Obamot » 24/04/13, 05:06

Not wrong and it has good reasoning, at the same time, it is not irremediable!

Reason why it is necessary to divert the thing and that makes me remind besides, that I forgot to specify a few points:
- It went without saying, but the entry / exit of the tube must be absolutely below ground level (that's why, it will not work everywhere, since it depends on the configuration of the premises, at I have a low wall and the garden below more than a meter);
- in fact, the density of Co2 being 1,87 kg / m3 and that of oxygen being lighter at 1,429 kg / m3, the Co2 will evacuate itself by its own weight, and will be automatically replaced by fresh air, thanks to the simple atmospheric pressure, which will play the role of "push"!
- moreover, we release approximately 1 / 6th of the oxygen we inhale.
- except when inhaling the surroundings 1/2 liter that we need, the inspired air will be immediately replaced by said pressure;
—So, since the pipe itself must contain approximately 10 liters of air, the exhaled air will mix (relatively) immediately with a much larger volume, ie approximately 1 part for 20 part of air in suspension (thus there will always be 19 / 20th of breathable air in the tube to which will be added + 16% which still remains of oxygen, at each expiration.
- another advantage, the solvents lighter than air, will not be trapped lower than the ground level;
- we must also compare that with what the painter "tastes" with a mask: there is no photo.

That's my calculation. I saw this with our chemist and he found it not bad (but before, had given me the same judicious thought as you ...)

In practice, this is easily verified, because I feel much better after that with all the other systems that I have already tried, and which let in pollutants.

The last point is that it is very easy to implement, so we will tend to easily use it, while a heavy and complicated system like a compressor, I do not know if it is not a little dissuasive to implement?! And then you have to buy it!

Mébon, it's an opinion and I could be wrong.
0 x
User avatar
gegyx
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 7026
Registration: 21/01/05, 11:59
x 2956




by gegyx » 24/04/13, 06:05

Message of Jan 26, 2008, still relevant ... :P

gegyx wrote:Otherwise for dust, if the protective mask is not enough, there is the diving mask, with a total filter on the tip of the tuba (an ordinary mask attached by an elastic) ...

: Arrow: Eye and lung protection, for not a cent more.

As for the difficulty of breathing, with this apparatus, it is only a foretaste of the probable atmosphere to come in 20 years ... : Mrgreen:

You can do healthier by extending the tuba through a pipe that will get fresh air elsewhere (under pressure if the pipe is long).

:| In such companies, we are always in a hurry, and we foolishly expose ourselves, minimizing the potential risks.

Me, it would make me (even more) hurt, to catch a silicosis, with paper fibers, from the Figaro, or from an Austrian populist newspaper ... : Lol:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/post68979.html#68979
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28800
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5584




by Obamot » 24/04/13, 10:49

The initial idea was good! And I answer you because we keep each other away from any overflow, so let's resume as in the good old days, if you don't mind.

There is no doubt that your idea, which joins this one above, was preliminary and excellent.

Solution in some cases. In yours, we will simply make sure to tape (with bodybuilder's tape) a cellophane film on the visor of the mask (I had also thought about it and I use for that the pockets in which we slip the CD / DVD, they are very inexpensive per pack of hundreds!), I prepare several in advance (which can be replaced in a few seconds), because the spray mist settles there, and you hardly see any more after a little. If you don't, this one is good for the trash (because the solvent to remove it will ruin the transparency of the visor). For my part, in bodywork, I had given up on the idea, because I had too many problems with the connection which releases the mask (since by moving in all directions, the connection is severely tested). But it is only in default, since I had not found "solution"(if I had had it ... this solution is better than mine, and besides, the season is coming back when we will find this kind of inexpensive equipment on the shelves of large distributors, even hard- discounters)
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 24/04/13, 15:09

or did you see that the solvent vapors are light? in my house they are heavy and accumulate on the ground

so to have clean air to breathe the only solution is to take the air far enough, therefore compressor mandatory

I have known several body painters who have ruined their health ... it may well use masks with filters that are quite expensive, I doubt the effectiveness: with a small compressor there is no longer any need to change of filter ... the flow sufficient to breathe passes in a light and flexible pipe ... this flow avoids all the leaks of any mask

I find it a little lamentable that this system is not seen in the trade ... as if the material merchant preferred to sell filters to replace
0 x
Other
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 3787
Registration: 17/03/05, 02:35
x 12




by Other » 24/04/13, 17:55

Hello
chatelot16 wrote:water-based paints are a big ecological mistake: solvent-based paints are simple ... solants can be recycled, and even what evaporates is not that bad

water paint is full of even more viscous product ... glycool ether ... phthalate ... nonylphenol ... bisphenol ...

next to everything found in water paints white spirit is really simpler


Me who believed that water-based paint was safe?

Since the removal of glues and coated with stabilizer from planes like nitrate dope biturate dope glues that we had to use outside, ventilated place and despite the masks that ended up intoxicating, making sick, sticking the ribbons with a brush without mask in a closed garage, it doesn't seem.
I found a charm working with water products, the default application with a spray gun requires practice and also a different spray gun, it flows quite quickly and it's a whole other way of doing it than with polyurathane products or epoxy.

Andre
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 24/04/13, 18:47

painting with water avoids the danger of the solvent for the one who does the work ... but does not avoid the chemical danger for the one who lives in a house where everything is painted with water ... there are weird thing in the paint that I mistrust as much as the solvent

another ecological problem of solvent-free paint: the lifespan ... if a material rusts faster because of a solvent-free paint it is a source of serious waste

I note this with a lot of recent material with very solid epoxy paint which remains very shiny for a few years, then let the rust be done by under and everything is ruined ... while old glycero paint with white spirit held tens and ten years, and that we could easily add a layer that adheres well to the old paint ... while with some current paint we do not know how to do it, without sanding everything to the scrap

I am exasperated by the current policy to ban the old product that we knew how to use, without giving the necessary knowledge to use the new product


when you talk about aviation products it's something else! there in general the new product is serious: if a product without solvent has good quality so much the better ... but for the building and the DIY it does not matter what: we are handed off arched bad product under the pretext that l old product is prohibited
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "waste, recycling and reuse of old objects"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 50 guests