Douglas Alpenstock

Interesting! Thanks for posting.

Wonderful replies so far! I knew I could count on you folks for three-dimensional off-grid thinking.

I appreciate Jay's detailed comments -- very much in line with my thinking about how to engineer solutions to the problem. I'm particularly tickled by the notion of attaching a "potty shed" to a potting shed.

Right, so I plan to install an outhouse this year. The purpose is a Plan B in case our creaky old septic acts up, and a handy loo for visitors on bonfire nights. The goal is occasional use, but when needed it will be heavily used.

Requirements:
-- It must not stink. At all. Ever. The most discerning urban nose must be convinced. (Particularly the female half.)
-- It must be available day and night.
-- It must not be outrageously cold to use, even in winter.

Resources:
-- It will be tucked in on a hill, in proximity to living tree roots. There is no risk to groundwater.
-- Grid power is available via extension cord if necessary.
-- There is plenty of room for multiple chambers, and slope for natural drainage.
-- It could be situated where solar daytime heating is available.

The exterior will probably not resemble the Taj Mahal, excepting a plywood facade for laughs. But there must be a loo in the Taj Mahal somewhere -- maybe one of the outbuildings? Will a few coats of whitewash suffice?

I have a few design ideas already, but I thought I would ask the hive mind. How would you do it?

Excellent points, thanks. It's been so long since I used coal that these details have faded from memory.

YIKES, COAL? EXORCISM, QUICKLY!

No, seriously. There's a lot of coal around here, quite shallow, and like it or lump it it's a potential resource. All within an hour's drive.

The big burn of thermal coal for power generation ended years ago. It was also rubbish coal for traditional wood/coal stoves -- didn't burn worth a damn.

Within that hour's drive in the opposite direction there are small coal mines that produce excellent stove coal. I'm not sure they survived the years of carbon tax (of dubious reputation and effectivness, perhaps more posturing than practical policy and that's all I  will say).

If they have survived, I am inclined to get a load of big lump stove coal and store it under cover. Left alone, it does no harm. In crisis times, it provides low, steady, long-lasting heat. Perhaps a useful tool in my toolbox?

Tricky business. While I am inclined to think that much grain used as animal fodder would be passably safe for human consumption in hard times, there are risks.

Feed destined for animal use is not screened or handled with the same rigour as grain destined for human use.

For example, I grew up on a farm and we milled/ground most of the feed we grew, destined for for cattle and chickens. The rolling mill we used had a formidable set of magnets arranged as a deep grill, 1" apart and 4" deep. The amount of steel filings and chunks it caught were impressive. It had to be cleaned off after every job. Some of those sharp chunks, if ingested, were enough to survive the stomach and perforate the intestinal wall.

The other concerns are fungal contaminants and chemical traces/additives. Animals have a higher tolerance than humans, and accepted volumes and labelling requirements are very different for human food.

Personally I wouldn't automatically say no, but I'd be damned picky. My 2c.

AlphaSmart Neo 2? Non-backlit LCD screen, full sized keyboard, holds a novel's worth of text, runs 700 hours on three AA batteries. Originally designed for kids in school, so pretty tough. I still have a couple of them.

Not an internet/wifi machine at all.

There's a long-running forum for Alphies and other simple, portable keyboard-based writing tools. (I was an admin there long long ago. I see that some of the original admins are still actively involved. They also have a "be nice" community vibe.)

https://www.flickr.com/groups/alphasmart/discuss

Levente Andras wrote:

Anne Miller wrote:There is nothing better than learning from someone with dirt under there fingernails.

Real dirt not fake dirt..

I'm not sure I can agree with the first part. There are so many people "with dirt under their fingernails" whose only rationale for doing things in a certain way is "because that's how it's done" or "that's how my granddad taught me". They refuse to learn new ways and methods, and they refuse te see how the world around them has changed, and how those changes have rendered their way of doing things no longer appropriate. I'm not talking about abstract cases, but very concrete and specific ones, that I've had to deal with over the past 15 years or so. Very painful!

In places where tradition rules supreme and rigid, I can see how that would make an innovative person throw up their hands in frustration.

However, when confronted with endless websites that quote each other to sell ads, none of whom could grow a dandelion if their lives depended on it, and AI quoting all of them in the tone of complete authority, I personally think a "dirt check" is a very good idea.

A "dirt check" is important, a foundation -- it builds on the fact that somebody has proved, repeatedly and reliably, that "this can be done with this method!" Obviously none of us here are letting the grass grow under our feet, so we are endlessly innovating and tweaking and improving.

But the "dirt check" is a fine winnowing fork, separating knowledge from slop. My 2c.

I find that big chunks of char do not soak up my crude inoculants even if immersed for quite a long time. That doesn't matter much to me, since my system (mechanical + frost cracking) compensates for that and slowly breaks it up smaller and smaller in situ. Still, what I've observed suggests the principle is sound. The other part of it is that finer char may hold moisture much better.