Most powerful motor

[johnb300m]

Yeah,,,,,, I wonder why that is......that the municipalities spend those millions in research and equipment to remove all that phosphate from the effluent water.

The best thing about science and chemistry and physics is that they are true and do their thing, whether people believe it or not.

Glad to see you not let up on their equipment load in phosphorus removal..... wouldn't want those filter systems sitting around doing nothing......

 

[washman]

I like phosphates.

 

[henene4]

Phosphate removal

http://www.lenntech.com/phosphorous-removal.htm

Yeah, sure, but out of sight isn't out of mind. Phosphate still produces waste that has to be handled.

Once again shows short-sighting:
"It's out of the waste water, so it no longer bothers people!" - "Yeah, but where did it go?"

 

[panthera]

Where did it go?

Phosphorous is just under 1% of the earth's crust. Such discussions are illogical.

 

[henene4]

Phosphorus vs phosphate

Elementary phosphorus is not comparable to phosphate.

As far as I understand the compounds that bind the phosphates do so without changing the main molecule that makes the phosphate dangerous to water organisms. Meaning that the phosphate it self is still there, just bounded.

Thus, it could be released again afterwards.

So, yeah, it does matter.

 

[kb0nes]

I think this thread did take that "left turn at Albuquerque"...

 

[panthera]

So glad you think it matters -

And I'll set aside your snide assumption I don't know the difference between a phosphate and the element P.

Reminds me of the stupid fights my students would get into because the English word for Si is so similar to the synthetic substance silicone.

 

But, heh - since you asked, easily accessible reserves of P are running low. The phosphates recovered by waste water treatment plants are regarded as valuable sources of P by industry and agriculture.

 

Henrik, I spent 30 years teaching arrogant German undergraduate students. It's refreshing to see that the assumption that all 'Americans' are uneducated and Некультурный remains to this day. I'm attaching a link to a simple discussion of the matter, suitable for a 10 year old child. Already, today, the sale of recovered phosphorus compounds pay for the recovery methods in less time than anticipated only three years ago.

 

Perhaps you should refresh your knowledge to reflect technology in 2017, not 1974.

http://https//www.agronomy.org/science-news/model-approach-sustainable-phosphorus-recovery-wastewater

 

[logixx]

Well, Miele's new dishwasher line offers a QuickIntenseWash that cleans "standard dishes soiling that has not dried on" in 58 minutes (provided the fill is 120F). The sequence is: 149F wash, rinse, 140F rinse, dry. Water consumption is 3 gallons. All other wash cycles still take long, though. :-/

 

[mrboilwash]

Keven, wouldn`t it make sense to just use the recovered phosphates from human waste which are still present in waste water for agricultural purposes and simultaneously spare waterways from at least some of the phosphate entry that comes from rural septic tanks and lower grade waste water treatment by a general phosphate ban in detergents ?

 

[panthera]

Stefan,

I remember exactly these discussions back in the 80's in Bayern. When I lived in Icking, yes, no class five water water treatment, so organically available phosphates were a real no-no.
In Munich, we had excellent filtering, but the political discussion was over, so I understand the German perspective.
However, it's 2017, the water treatment sells much needed forms of phosphorus at a profit in our water district, so no, I find I must disagree.

 

[henene4]

While I see your point that the phosphate issue has been tackled and thus has become less of a threat, I don't think that means we can go back to oldschool detergent development again.

While water treatment has been updated in a lot of places, it certanly hasn't been everywhere.
But not even that is the big problem I have with your way of thinking. It's that we made those regulations, and then build water treatment so I could handle THAT amount of phosphate.
Phosphate removal isn't a verry simple process per se, that's why it took us so long to implement it.
Now we implemented it to standards that suit our current phosphate use and some into the future.

Going back to the old amount of phosphates could cause potential risk by oversaturating the treatment facilities.
And changes in fromulation regulations take some time to take effect. Products have to be reformulated, production lines have to be changed.
So, the risk of trying to go back to old standards is just to big in my point of view.

Now, I see that using phosphates if done by a few isn't a problem. But all would be treamendus.
And, given we don't need it (really, laundry detergents have cought up perfectly with enzymes, which work way better in the common cooler wash temps anyway; and DW detergent is catching up well too), I can only declare phosphates in detergents as one of those things that work well, and could be of no harm, but are phased out due to the possibility of harm to a great number of people.

Really, why take a risk if we don't need to.
If you don't see the entire risk, you won't have a problem with it. If you consider that broader range of possible outcomes, I don't see how you could not agree.

 

[Chetlaham]

New design

My mistake on that one- should have worded it better in regards to that.

"Oh, so you'd be happy with anything made to old standards? Buy commercial. Miele offers a great range of homesize DW which will last more then 10 years, are efficent and clean well..."

In truth that isn't always possible for everything in terms of practicality or functionality. I bought a BUNN VP17-1 Coffee maker, and I have to say I love it. Not only is it durable and it will last, but it can be used just like any other residential coffee maker. The same does not hold true for commercial dishwashers. Commercial dishwashers have cycles which are much to short to work correctly with residential detergents requiring special chemical agents and separate cabinets to house them. They are not meant for dried on and baked on soils either- commercial machines are designed around predominantly pre-rinsed dishware with moist soils. Further commercial machines are pseudo automatic, they require human intervention to fill the sump, wait for it to preheat and then turn it off after use. In truth they are automatic sterilizers rather than full blown dishwashers. Now if Hobart took their commercial machines and added a timer or control board that filled and heated automatically, gave pre-washes and had at least a 12 minute main wash- then I would buy one without hesitation. Until then I would literally need to make my dishwasher look like a Science project to get it to work like a residential model.

I know you bring up Miele, but Miele USA is not the same as Miele Europe. I doubt they will last as long as an 80s GE or Hobart.

 

[murando531]

Done! It's late so I won't go into a huge detail, and besides, the pictures can do the talking....

 

I'm honestly, still, surprised by this machine. Even the video test that Whirlpool posted on their Sales Academy site showed the filter mesh full. Granted, they added a frozen pizza, but no one in their right mind is going to put that much yeasty floury dough in a dishwasher. That stuff turns to glue, and they have access to replacing machines as they please. I'd rather not destroy mine. Besides, I've already tested to the conclusion that this machine can clean heavy soil baked onto dishes, but this test was specifically to see if it could handle excessive food soils, while measuring time and water usage.

 

The photos are in sequential order for the most part. Each glass is the first, second, and final rinse water sampled so it can be seen better, and so I didn't have to empty the bucket each time. I did empty it for the last rinse to see if there was a change in water usage, and evidentally there is a smidge more in the final fill. Of course, I in no way expected crystal clear water, so this water is cloudy, but it's a white cloudy, not a brown cloudy, and smells of the Cascade rinse aid. Final water left in the sump of any dishwasher we have in the family has a slight white haze to it because of rinse aid, so I'll call this a bit more than usual because I'm sure there is still residual soil in the water to a point. But, the surfaces of the tank are all squeaky clean and spotless, which demonstrates how rinse aid helps in preventing soils from redepositing and instead draining down to the bottom.

 

I'm particularly shocked that the filter is spotless! Even the husband as a witness couldn't believe it, and he watched me open it right after the green light was extinguished to make sure I didn't try and alter the results (he gets excited when I do these stress-tests too haha). There isn't a speck of cake anywhere to be seen, not even under the bottom of the door.

 

[mrboilwash]

Keven, I totally agree with you a phosphate ban doesn`t make any sense in a densley populated region like Germany where most of the waste water gets class five treatment and next to nothing enters the environment untreated.
Even more so if you consider how toxic some of the new replacement co-builders are.

In Eastern Europe and other regions where there is no such fancy water treatment things are different. Apparently those countries of the EU which needed a phosphate ban the most did not want to have it and now all of us ended up with a stupid ban.

In the US where large areas are only sparsely populated and more citizens still rely on septic tanks or small municipal treatment plants I could imagine a phosphate ban might make more sense than in Germany.

What I totally disagree with is your argument "Phosphorous is just under 1% of the earth's crust".
Just because something has always been part of the earth`s crust doesn`t mean you`d want to have it anywhere else.
Think of mercury. It`s part of the earth`s crust as well and did no harm until we began burning coal and it ended up in the air, the oceans and finally in the food chain.
Phosphates are fine on our farming fields but not in our water ways, at least not in excessive amounts.

 

[henene4]

Replacement Co-builders

Do you know what kind of compounds we talk about? Just a class of compunds, or possibly some concrete exampels.

Would like to do some research on how these are filtered out by water treatment and how they might be broken down.

On that thing about densley populated areas:
Again, if I'm not mistaken, the bans on phosphates in detergent started before adavanced water treatment was widely spread.
Wasn't that kind of the reason we had that time of massive fish death here in Germany?
And big citys often reside near rivers, and treated waste water is dumped into the rivers. Without treatment, these were literal phosphate dumps.
So, by now, you're perfectly correct, but a few decades ago when this was a mayor issue, thing could have been different I guess...

 

[mrboilwash]

Actually there was no phosphate ban in Germany until rather recently, I don`t know the exact date, but there was a voluntary agreement of the detergent industrie to no longer use phosphates in laundry detergents since 1990.

As to some co builders being toxic EDTA comes to my mind. While not that toxic per se it has a tendency to leak out heavy metals from sediments. Luckily it has been largely replaced by Phosphonates which are AFAIK much less of a problem in this perspective.

 

[henene4]

EDTA

Oh, yeah, that stuff can be nasty. Worked in our schools lab during a microbiology project with it. Used during the seperation of DNA from bacteria. If inhaled there is a risk that it will sudds up, blocking air-flow to your lungs, basicly drowning you on land.

 

[foraloysius]

Here's an interesting article about phosphates.

The Story of Phosphorus: 7 reasons why we need to rethink the management of phosphorus resources in the global food system | Phosphorus Futures

 

[panthera]

Thank You, Louis

This is what happens when out-dated concepts remain the basis for highly-charged emotional arguments. What sane firm would want to get involved in 'evil phosphates' when the pitch-fork carrying 'environmentalists' are right at their door.

 

 

[johnb300m]

@panthera

The differences of comprehension in here are fascinating.

I don't think others, as well as myself, disregard the importance of phosphorus in the world in certain aspects and applications.

The real argument here is the fact that far too much [P] when it accumulates in certain areas, can have adverse negative effects, that I would hope many of us could agree on, are indeed negative.

I think it's great that many areas are going through the effort of reclaiming [P]. However, it was stated earlier that the United States is unique in the world. Much like Canada or Russia, we are a vast nation with many urban areas but far more rural areas and natural corridors.

It was seen decades ago that these excessive [P] concentrations were negatively affecting waterways and many animal species. So they did what they could at the time. They instituted quotas and bans, until it caught on nation-wide.
With as much wilderness as we have, that collects drainage, it's impossible to implement treatment at every effluent point in the US, so the next best thing is to restrict it at the [p] source.
That happened to be at the detergent level.
NOW, decades later, we have [P] reclamation, to basically recycle it for other uses. And that's great. But those capacities are not everywhere. In fact, they are not used, moreso than they are used, just by the fact that private septic still far outweighs municipal treatment. And even then, not ever municipal treatment center CAN reclaim [P].

That situation does not discredit other necessities of [P] in the world.
Just that certain areas must be protected from over-concentration of it.

Like almost everything, "it's more complicated than you think."
And I think that gets missed a lot.

I hope that makes more sense.