DIY Earth-Friendlier Stompboxes (the thread)

[JFX09]

I've been thinking about this for a while now and i've come to this conclusion: make sure it will never come to anyone's mind to throw one of your creations in the trash: make them want to repair or have it repaired because it is a beautiful object.

Sometimes It amaze myself for how long I can think of something just to come to the most obvious banality: scary 

edit: and even if it's only for your own usage, afterall you are only the temporary curator of it...

[frank_p]

Since it's the greenest stompbox contest we should give some credit to Alex and put some more ideas here.  This thread is drowning now and it is not normal in the context of the contest. 

[Jered]

 In my limited experience, PC power supplies are extremely noisy, maybe the few that I tried were just at the end of thier life.               
  Something green related that does make me grind my teeth. Is this idea of charging us at the super market if we want plastic bags. Up until I was in my late teens it was all paper bags at the store. Then the far left wingers started crying about all the trees we were killing just to carry our groceries home. So they forced the plastic bags on us. Cool, I've got no problem with that, and everybody's happy.
  Now in 2008 the very same group of people have thier panty's in a twist because of plastic bag pollution everywhere.
  What does the plastic bag have to do with it? Its a BAG!!! It can't DO anything. Its people. People who don't throw them away properly or recycle them. People who just throw them on the ground or more often, just leave them for the wind to take care of. So, because of these people you want to take money out of my pocket? Righhhhhhtt.
  Rant over.
  Jered

[earthtonesaudio]

Thanks for the rant, Jered! 

I've collected about a dozen pc power supplies and someday I'll do a noise test on them all (someday). 

But a plastic bag tax is silly.  First off, they're not "free," or "given away."  You already pay for the bags whether you use them or not (cost is spread out over the cost of the things you buy).  It makes more sense to just charge people for the bags that they use.  If you want to cut down on pollution, stop charging everyone for the bags, and start charging ONLY the people who use them.

[R.G.]

I always get a little depressed when I see threads like this. Economics is called the dismal science, and engineering economics is doubly so. That's not because there's anything wrong with them, they work just fine. But they have the effect of quickly limiting what can possibly be done down to what really can be done.

One of the facets of engineering that is used for quick answers is to look for limiting conditions. In this context, what would the effect on warm, cuddly, earth-saving, green-friendliness be if plastic bags were flatly outlawed? Or for that matter, all stompboxes? Would that save the planet? Chances are, no, it would make such a slight difference that it would just postpone Armageddon by 0.01 second.

Well, OK, that's not really the point is it? The idea is that if every human being conducted every facet of their lives trying to avoid any impact on the planet in every possible way, it would be better, somewhat, somehow. It's that imponderable somewhat, somehow that lets you believe that by not using plastic bags and driving less the world will get better and better and better.

Engineering Econ says "How much better? in numbers, please."

One boundary condition we have to work with is what I call the Primary Limit. How much food, water, air and shelter do humans use? Every bit of food, every drop of water, every breath of air, and every shelter we erect denies the planet of that for other uses. So the bottom line is - how many people are there, and what freedoms will you allow them? Can they, for instance, use more than six quarts of fresh water per person per day? Eat more than 2000 calories? Of rice only? Wheat only? Any animal protein allowed at all? Can they use energy other than their own muscle power, such as electrical or chemical (natural gas, gasoline, diesel, burning wood, etc)? How much? Will you let the people who set the limits use more because they're smarter/better/more valuable?

Every other environmental issue is merely a matter of how severely you will impose limits of whatever it is on the people that do exist so that the people can exist at the same time and how much environmental degradation you will allow. There is no environmental question you can pose that cannot ultimately be traced back to these limiting conditions.

To me, discussions of how many people will refuse plastic bags are superfluous in that context. They may make one feel like gosh-a-rooty, I'm doing something for The Environment (echo, echo, echo), but they don't change the tally much. And yes, making you feel good is OK, but it's not like really saving the planet. There is probably some population of humans on the planet that the biosystem could absorb with negligible degradation. Lots of people feel we're past that number. Probably true.

Then there's the issue of guilt. How guilty should one feel if they use more than the average food/air/water/energy use for all humans, let alone more than the sustainable (if unknown yet) limits for people on the planet?

Human nature is, on average, antithetical to the kinds of limits which must be imposed to get sustainable.

Every time I see an attempt to popularize insignificant environmetal issues, I can't help but leap to the Primary Limit, and the fact that nothing is being done about it. Solve that one, you solve them all. But the solution is going to be ugly, I think.

[frank_p]

The problem is also that there is a difference between environmentalism and ecology.  The first is an ideology and the second is a science.  What we hear a lot in every days life is about environmentalists point of view.  And this speech is borrowing fragments of ecology concepts to attain the ideological goal of a perfect world.  Now everybody is mixing the two words and I don't like it.

Ecology is much more complex and it involves about every aspects of science.  Statistical analysis of the influence of X pollutant (or %^&*tail) on Y aspect of the ecosystem is pretty boring to hear about, is complex and is not what people wants to hear about.  The media don't want to get into that neither because it project an image of endless complicated quests.  Public will react when they see a comparative satellite photography of melting polar ice, a frog with three legs, etc.  But environmentalists are using those chocking images to hit a nail, not to make people understand better.  But at the end, what intelligent thing will be done ?  THIS IS WHY I HATE ENVIRONMNTALISTS.  They just act like preachers in the name of the Environmental-God and most of the time for their own satisfaction of thinking that they save the world.

Reading suggestion:
Environmental Economics, Barry C. Field

It's not true that nothing had been done by manufacturers in America to have a better environment (sorry for using that word), a lot of statistics prove that the air we inhale and water that we drink is better than some years ago...


 

[earthtonesaudio]

Wow, 7000 posts, R.G.  That's a nice round-numbered milestone, and a testament to your strange compulsion to share your knowledge so freely, for which many of us are very grateful.   

R.G. hit the nail on the head by addressing the closed system/exponential growth problem.  Humanity has 2 choices if it wants to continue living on the planet: set a limit on the number of humans, or find other planets to use up.  Well, 3 choices if you count Soylent Green as an option. 

Personally I think the push will be to find other planets.  Sure, we'll be that bad-guy species that sucks the life force out of other planets, but only because we're doing it out of respect for the rights of every human to reproduce as much as they feel like.  We're invading your planet because we're so compassionate.  Look out, Ewoks.  You are made of meat.

Now I'll get really morbid and claim that all these discussions are, at their hearts, moral dilemmas.  It comes down to what you want to do with your time, and what you believe is the RIGHT thing to do.  That's a big burden if you take it seriously, and a good motivator to turn the responsibility over to some "higher power" or other.

But I think the good that comes out of discussions of how to reduce your dependency on grocery bags or automobiles is much more than just "pat yourself on the back, hippie."  When we re-evaluate our consumption, it helps to pull back the veil of assumptions we've made about what we think we need.  Driving a little less can lead to deciding to live closer to town, closer to family, maybe feeling more connected to your community, and caring a little more about the people in it.

I could go on and on, but I have to check for unread posts about little boxes with switches and knobs on them...

-Alex

[bonkdav]

can we recycle vinyl? so that we can release music on recycled material instead of new plastics. so then artists could release digitally and/or on vinyl.

[frank_p]

can we recycle vinyl? so that we can release music on recycled material instead of new plastics. so then artists could release digitally and/or on vinyl.

Yes it can be done but there are some complications:

1- Recycling for records need to be a very "clean" process, otherwise you will have a lot of "blips"
2- The more you re-utilise, the more the mechanical properties goes down, vinyl is very sensible to heat deterioration while melting, you have to use stabilisers that are not very "green" (ex: organotins)
3- Vinyl is a low cost plastic so the recycling process must not cost more than the new plastic

CDs are not very green, the problem is that it is a multilayer disc (mostly polycarbonate, aluminium and some other plastics).  You really have to work hard to separate these materials.

[earthtonesaudio]

Just thought I would "bump" this thread today, as May's FX-X was all about recycled stuff, and Andrew is asking people if they have a submission.  If someone does, he may extend the deadline.  Step up, people!  I know you've got stuff.

If you're in need of ideas, there are some good ones in this thread, I think.

It's hip to recycle!

[earthtonesaudio]

Just found a soy-based clearcoat that adheres to metal: http://www.ecosafetyproducts.com/Poly-Soy-Clear-Gloss-Finish-p/p1-3005s.htm
Who's gonna be the first to order the $3 sample?  Might be me...

If someone uses this, or something like it, please let us know how it works out for you!

[letsgocoyote]

actually that is what Devi Ever USA uses for their pedals!  so it must work great as far as ive seen!


right now I use Minwax Polycrylic.  maybe its not as good as that soy stuff, but at least im not using an aerosol spray anymore





fwiw, i have heard tht lots of soy farming involves clear cutting rain forest.  kinda makes ya wonder

[dschwartz]

thatys right..biodiesel is causing a lot of ecological problems too..is truly the definition of IRONIC..

[R.G.]

(chuckle...) but biodiesel is carbon neutral. So it's universally GOOD, right? Now if only Al Gore's private airplane ran on biodiesel. 

[dschwartz]

i meant problems like deforestation or use of soil previously meant for growing food ..in brazil, rice and other cereals production rates dropped down hard cause everybody planted sugar cane to produce biodiesel...so, what do you prefer..a cleaner air or something to eat?

[earthtonesaudio]

That's cool that Devi Ever is using that stuff... I was searching for a non-toxic clearcoat and just stumbled across it.  When I did the same search a few years ago, there was nowhere near the diversity of non-toxic products that there is now.  It's great.  It's as if people all over actually took the time to read the label on the back and went "Why have I been breathing in this crap? Gross!"

Re: the other stuff...

Sugar cane is used to produce ethanol, the combustion by-products of which are actually worse for you to breathe than gasoline.  The idea that anyone would cut food production to make a quick buck (on a fuel that could only be economical in the short run) is either ignorance in the crop management department or an example of the dark side of capitalism.

Biofuels should only be viewed as an in-between fuel, or a fuel to be used when no other alternative is practical.  While you could produce biodiesel very efficiently (salt water algae farms in the desert come to mind), the big limiting factor is the internal combustion engine.  People should abandon the idea of filling up cars with liquid. 


And in general...
We're in the midst of what the U.S. Dept. of Energy would call a new "energy frontier," and it's a time of change.  There are bound to be growing pains.  It's healthy and productive to take notice of things that can be done better.  What's not healthy is giving up on a solution at the first sign of difficulty.

[dschwartz]

we are getting closer to a point of inflection of modern history, and frankly, that scares me a whole lot. Alternative energy sources exists and can be improved, but the network economics of oil based fuels is simply too strong, like a methastasys cancer..if you want it oput, you have to take part of the liver, the lungs, etc.

changing fuel source will inevitably mean a kind of armaggeddon, just think a moment of what would happen..how many millions of cars to be disposed? where? how?. Oil companies have a LOT of power, wars, probably a big world war is very likely to happen trying to control the lasts drops..

let´s say that an alternative- cheap-efficient  form of energy source is discovered and set as standard..bringing it to the masses would be near impossible on the short term, there will be a period of time where the world is going to stop..and people is going to die..a lot of people..

this issue is bothering me for years, many people say to me "oh it´s gonna be hard to change from oil to something else, but technology is advancing very fast, and i´m sure someone is going to figure it out.." i think "you have no idea, the problem is not the fuel, is the economics"

anyway, i´m pretty sure that the world after this collapse, is going to be much better than this..we will learn the lesson

[R.G.]

i meant problems like deforestation or use of soil previously meant for growing food ..in brazil, rice and other cereals production rates dropped down hard cause everybody planted sugar cane to produce biodiesel...so, what do you prefer..a cleaner air or something to eat?

If we don't quit making more people somehow, you won't have the question. Even at our current population, the competition between food and energy resources is obvious.

Lest everyone forget - fossil fuels made the existing standard of living possible. It is not possible to feed the planet's population **today** without burning oil, natural gas and coal.  You can't do it burning wood, grass and leftover rice straw. What made the industrial revolution possible was the substitution of fossil fuels for human and animal labor on farms. That let farmers feed more people off the farms, and that let the non-farmers concentrate on problems like where does the quark go when it meets an anti-quark.

I don't see anyone thinking about what kind of world we have when we solve the environmental problems to the satisfaction of the environmentalists. I bet it's something like a few tribes living in temporary huts in the forest and subsisting without fire or tools, both of which are environmental degraders, right?

It's that engineering econ thing again. Mother Nature insists that the equations balance.

What happens to the land underneath solar collectors? Not a lot of light in there. Won't grow food plants. A lot of solar collectors is just as big a change to the ecology as is fossil fuel burning. Hmmm, so to keep from destroying ecology/climate with solar collectors, we have to be careful not only where we put them but how many we can use. Then there are the lawsuits over who blocks whose view of the sun. Is it YOUR solar energy from sunup to sundown or only between 10AM and 2PM? Can your neighbor grow a shade tree and block YOUR sunlight for part of the day?

Ultimately all of the considerations like that end up in either limiting the per-capita energy available to humans for things like air, food, clothing, and shelter, or they limit the number of humans, which amounts to the same thing.

No one in the whole debate will say much about the real issue. That's not what they want you worried about.

we are getting closer to a point of inflection of modern history, and frankly, that scares me a whole lot. Alternative energy sources exists and can be improved, but the network economics of oil based fuels is simply too strong, like a methastasys cancer..if you want it oput, you have to take part of the liver, the lungs, etc.
changing fuel source will inevitably mean a kind of armaggeddon, just think a moment of what would happen..how many millions of cars to be disposed? where? how?. Oil companies have a LOT of power, wars, probably a big world war is very likely to happen trying to control the lasts drops..

Don't take it so hard. There's a company in San Jose California that has gene-spliced a variety of bacteria that when fed agricultural wastes like straw, corn stalks, etc., excretes... you guessed! Long chain petroleum. Not much of an armageddon if we start growing our (carbon neutral!) petroleum in vats of rancid weed stalks, is it? You know that will stop that? Yep, the environmentalists will issue lawsuits forever trying to prevent the oil-growing vats from being built.

let´s say that an alternative- cheap-efficient  form of energy source is discovered and set as standard..bringing it to the masses would be near impossible on the short term, there will be a period of time where the world is going to stop..and people is going to die..a lot of people..
this issue is bothering me for years, many people say to me "oh it´s gonna be hard to change from oil to something else, but technology is advancing very fast, and i´m sure someone is going to figure it out.." i think "you have no idea, the problem is not the fuel, is the economics"

True. But, the USA is sitting on huge deposits of oil and coal which we have not dug out yet. The amount of shock is proportional to how fast the switch is made. Fast switch, big trouble. Give it a few decades, no big deal.

l
anyway, i´m pretty sure that the world after this collapse, is going to be much better than this..we will learn the lesson

I hope you're right, if there is a collapse. I think there will not be one if we can get the eco-lunies out of the way. But don't count on any government learning a lesson. That's why the framers of the US constitution tried to keep it turning over. At least if power corrupts, you can keep a fresh supply of non-corrupted people circulating through the government. At least that was the idea.

[frank_p]

Things are going so fast; just a few years ago biodiesel was viewed as a moderately potential solution.  Now we see it has some perverse effects on the food supplies...  : price of fuel, basic food necessities (and etc.) are going up (like Daniel said).  The "inertia (in the slow speeding-up physical sense)" of political decision making and changing in mentality (perhaps even learning time) are leaving everybody perplex.  Really, how could an international and scientific (ecological) council (I don't talk about idealists) could have the ressources to analyse all that stuff and the political power to control the synergy between nations ? It's really making me doubt we are going to have a serious plan and do something logical about it.  That would be a huge task.  Perhaps what will happen is more nuclear power, limitation of natality (as R.G.) said and natural selection (and mutations) if it gets to more radiations on earth by perverse effect...  I really don't know.  I "so" really don't know that I would tend to say like Buddha: "there are allways going to be suffering, we have to accept it, be aware and try to reduce it.  But at the end it will still be there: we have no choice about that.  We just have to face that it's there and engage totally in the way to solve what we see as problematic. It's not pessimism or optimism, it's just what is here" But who could really have the shoulders to take that task (?) In that dead end situation I would also tend to borrow from Epicurus: "Since you are alive, it's that death has not met you (be happy).  And if you were dead you would not be here to say it is sad (so be happy)."

On that positive note DIY in joy.

[earthtonesaudio]

Good points, all around.  Relating back to stompboxes, for me the lesson here is to concentrate on improving quality of life, in the local sense, rather than focusing on quantity/productivity... Meaning, spend the extra physical labor making your own enclosures out of steel studs from the salvage yard, rather than have one shipped from far away.  Spend the extra bucks on a finish that is safe to breathe, that sort of thing. 

Global problems require global effort to solve, that much is clear.  But the air quality in your own home is at least somewhat within our individual control.  Maybe a soy-based finish is not a perfect choice, but if I buy it instead of one that has a lot of VOCs, that is (sort of) sending a message to the industry that the demand for safer chemicals is growing. 

Thanks for the input, everyone!  Lots of food for thought...