Dear Dean and everyone else,

Thank you Dean for confirming and documenting the value of the combination of the urine and feces together.

If whoever is just trying to dry the feces, I would agree that you do not need composting. But why would anyone want to just dry it when aerobically and with the addition of the carbon and potentially vermiculture, the process can produce soil instead of a stack of dried dung?

Anyway, collectively I do believe that we can make progress in expanding the capabilities of the existing Ecosan toilet philosophy if only carbon is added to remove the odors. After that we can discuss the incorporation of an air circulation system to expand the capabilities and use of the existing two vault idea.

Capping off the first used vault I believe only inhibits its potential as it again restricts the availability of oxygen to get to the mass. As I reviewed the drawings the air only has the potential of going down the open toilet seat and up the vent while in use. Capping it off may reduce the potential for odors, but if the carbon was added correctly and an air circulation system was designed and incorporated in the first place the first vault would compost/dry much faster.

Clint

Clint is quite correct in stating that nutrients from urine are not enough for plants. There are good levels of nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) in fresh urine, but no phosphorous (P). Humus is built up in soil from organic matter and feces provide an organic carbon source for building humus. The carbon and nitrogen cycle are entwined and organic matter is essential for sustainable production of crops from soil. Shit is good shit.

However, I don't agree with Clint on the need for aeration in the ecosan process - as pointed out aeration is only necessary for composting, not drying of solids. Drying feces does not require an aerobic environment and porosity in the solids. Removal of moisture relates to humidity and temperature of the environment, surface area and ventilation to remove moisture. It seems to me (without having any experience with ecosan toilets) that the more water going in, the more important it is to increase the rate of drying. Sooner you dry it the better. I ask if passive drying methods are always enough... perhaps active drying would be necessary in some circumstances, for example pv solar assisted fan or even heating, taking into account seasonal issues.

The two processes are worlds apart. Clint offers aerobic decomposition of solids but has to deal with liquid effluent using a secondary process. I'd politely suggest that vermicomposting digesters have been simplified since Clint patented his invention 20 years ago. Keeping things simple, it is now recognised that rotating equipment (agitator, auger) is not necessary and that a pile is okay, provided it has room to spread outwards. Worms do the work of aerating the solids from the outside in.

cheers
Dean

Dear HA and Torre and all of the Forum Members,

First, my picture on the Forum is from my high school graduation class of 1965! Just kidding, but it was 19 years ago!

I am 68 years young and I purchased my first Clivus Multrum composting tank in 1973 and installed it in a new 26' diameter geodesic dome home I built and lived in, in Winter Park, CO.

Since that time I have worked every day in the composting business, selling, installing, developing, inventing, manufacturing and making a living in the composting and grey water treatment business. Needless to say, I still would challenge anyone anywhere to contest the fact that I have literally more hands-on experience in human feces and urine in-vessel composting treatment.

Both of your statements that the Ecosan and urine diversion works sometime and is simple, is acknowledged. But without proper and adequate aeration, you are not 'composting' when adding lime, ashes or sawdust. None of those additives can possibly introduce enough oxygen into the mix for it to become totally aerobic.

In my experience, HA's statement that additional water is the main reason why there is odor, is not accurate. The reason for the production of odors is that it is not aerobic in the first place and will only get more anaerobic when more water is added. My systems utilize water flushing toilets and I still do not have ANY odors because my tanks have been designed with baffles and an air circulation system. They utilize a carbon source, which not only chemically and biologically balances the feces and urine ingredients, but provides the necessary porosity for it to become a true composting environment.

I know you all are hung up on diverting the urine, but Mother Nature and the Creator did not design humanity and animals to urinate in one place and then move somewhere else to defecate. This new thinking that urine contains ALL of the beneficial nutrients makes no sense, and even if it did, the earth still needs the fecal hydrocarbons to combine with the urine to rebuild the soil from which our food emerges in the first place.

With that said, I still contend that properly designing vaults to have an aeration system and the addition of the proper bulking agent (carbon) is critical for complete and proper aeration and the production of an aerobic and composting environment.

Clint

I would agree with Tore - these toilets usually work well if constructed and used properly.

The reason I have started to get interested in more wet forms of sanitation is that many people use water to clean themselves (rather than using toilet paper), and because in completely dry sanitation, low income people don't have the money to buy toilet paper.

There are UDDT toilets which offer basins for cleaning with water, but I have found that these are often misused, and water at the wrong place is a major course of odor and unhygienic conditions.

You need to remember that a UDDT does not depend on the feces being decomposed. Heat and time will eliminate the pathogens and that is the main concern. The storage time is to allow the pathogens to die and eliminate the moisture. After 6 months it has become a vital ingredient to nurture the soil. The urine is sterile and can be used as a fertilizer within a week. It has the majority of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium required to grow crops. Instead of having dead, depleted soil you will have vibrant, nutritious soil with vital micro nutrients.

The UDDT is a simple devise that can be manufactured from local material in any part of the world and will continue to function indefinitely with only minor repair. Every 6 months the human fertilizer will be removed to help nourish the soil. The urine will be continuously used.
No plastics are required that have to be imported and have the potential of deteriorating and becoming an environmental hazard. The system is SIMPLE with no moving parts. That is so important when working in the developing countries.

As for age many of the people on this forum are your age or older. I was working in sanitation in the early 1970's.

Dear Forum Members,

Hopefully, many of you have had a chance to view the drawings of, specifically, my composter, which details the agitators on the top of the composting mass and the augers on the bottom. The old design had air channels within the composting mass and now, in order to eliminate the compost hanging up on the air channels, I have incorporated the false suspended perforated floor.

I have now been able to view various YouTube videos of the Ecosan toilet building and the urine diversion and toilet squatting apparatus.

To begin with, I have a hard time understanding how flushing with ashes, lime or sawdust or whatever, can control the odor. In my experience, those additives thwart the original purpose of oxygenating the compost; which should be eliminating any methane/hydrogen sulfide production. Those additives only negate the ability of the aerobic organisms to breathe.

Also,in my experience, to even be able to contribute to composting of fecal mater and URINE you have to add a carbon source that is relatively larger in size than sawdust such as pine bedding to provide porosity. The material a hamster lives in. Ground up leaves, anything that is not a hardwood, cedar, redwood or something that is designed by Mother Nature to last longer under decomposition aerobically.

If I were asked to redesign the existing Ecosan toilets, I would provide an air circulation system instead of just building a vault, which is no more effective than the present outhouse design.

The idea of utilizing one chamber until it fills up and then switching to a second chamber tells me that the design and the addition of the suggested flushing ingredients are not providing an aerobic environment and that is why it does not decompose quickly leaving resulting odor. Capping off the used chamber and then going to the next chamber even reduces the capability of the oxygen to even get to the first used chamber.

I can appreciate the fact that the existing projects are attempting to advance local employment with the concrete toilet unit, utilizing the flushing plastic flapper. It makes more sense to promote permanent employment by engaging them in production of recycled polyethylene plastic tanks and ultra-ultra low flushing, low tech toilets, which can be duplicated and utilized in other villages instead of just another research project. At the same time, plastics, presently being discarded, could be reused.

Also, the idea that the homeowner is responsible for maintenance, which never works in advanced cultures as well as developing countries and then someone else has to remove, transport and then try to compost the feces again without designed, non-mechanical aeration, without urine only complicates the situation and adds additional requirements upon a society that is already burdened with trying to get water to just drink.

On the other end of the spectrum is the toilet design utilizing nanofiltration. I find it difficult to understand first that someone could dream up such a complex ineffectual solution and second, that someone else would finance it. The subject is far too vital to waste those funds on the academic who dreamed it up just to insure tenure.

A lot of you are probably going to be upset with my comments, but since I'm older, I've had the opportunity to learn from far more actual trial-and-error experiences over a lifetime.

Clint

Dear Dean,

I again want to thank you for finding information that I did not even know where it was.

I also submitted additional information, which I hope will answer your question about flow.

The answer is that in Minnesota the average normal usage is 75 gallons of water per person per day. With my system, because I utilize Sealand toilets and separate the toilet flow from the grey water the flow would be 40% less.

The testing location was the caretaker of the Chester Woods Park's home with just he and his wife with occasional visitors but they did not monitor the flow.

The testing was done in 1998 and I have dramatically improved my grey water system since then. The incoming water quality was also full of iron bacteria so seating it only decreased the potential improvement of the treated grey water so that is probably why the body and toss were as high as tested.

As you can understand, since then I have been able to further treated grey water to drinking water qualities utilizing a great deal of ozone and reverse osmosis. Because I am recycling treated reverse osmosis grey water I have been able to document a 95% recovery of the grey water because all of the minerals are taken out in the first pass.

They did install a 40% less in size drainfield and only 10% of it ever saw any effluent because of the extreme high quality of the effluent, so no biomat ever built up, meaning that the leachfield would have lasted forever.

If I can answer and/or clarify any questions you may have just ask.

Thank you again,

Clint

Dear Dean and other interested parties,

I am trying to answer Dean's question about flow and I do not see that the flow was ever monitored in this project.

I will say this that the residence tested had two occupants, which would equate to approximately between 40% less than 75 - 100 gallons of effluent per day because of the ultra-ultra low flushing Zealand toilets being separated to the composting tank.

Inserted is another combination of information I put together, which may help.

Clint

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&...V4mJPq0RfO4ZLZbjYaaA

Dear Dean,

I cannot thank you enough for digging up this information and sending it.

I do have a total report done by Olmsted County, MN, ChesterWoods Park, which I have with me in paper copy and I will review it and send you your requested information tomorrow.

Again, thank you so much!

Clint

Clint's patent is here .

There are a few pictures available of the system:











And a bit of information here .

Clint, the information provided on this website described a reduction in suspended solids of 50 - 80% and a reduction in biological oxygen demand of 78 - 93%. Could you provide absolute quantities per litre of effluent output?

cheers
Dean

Dear H-A,

I am on the road in Costa Rica so I do not have a drawing on my computer to send you at the moment.

If possible you might be able to check the US Patent office and search Apparatus for composting, but because that patent is over 20 years old it may have been removed.

Also google Clint Elston, AlasCan, Inc. and Equaris Corporation and there may be some drawings somewhere.

To explain simply:
A horizontal double-walled box split in half for ease in transportation, two baffles at each end to provide for air circulation via the raised false floor made out of perforated plastic sheet to support the composting mass and to allow the VALUABLE compost tea, to include URINE, TO BE PUMPED INTO A RESERVIOR FOR REMOVAL AS LIQUID FERTILIZER.

There are two motor driven gear motors to drive 2 rpm plastic agitators to spread the fresh fecal and URINE resources and three plastic augers on the bottom, above the perforated sheet to remove the finished vermiculture/compost. A spa fan draws air in and out of the air channeled box and vents 95% of the solids and liquid URINE into the atmosphere as ODORLESS carbon dioxide and water vapor.

This automated system can be totally passive because of the air channeled design and can easily operate for much less than $.05 per day.

Clint

Hi Clint,

sounds interesting! Is there a picture that you could attach, so that I can more easily visualize what you are writing?

Greetings,

H-A