Brian Smith

On 1/15/2010 11:50 AM, ACAR wrote:
>
> That's exactly right.
>
> I'll bet some psychology student will write a PhD thesis examining how
> ordinarily intelligent people were so easily convinced to ignore their
> accumulated experience when presented with an oil change indicator on
> their dash board that provided a numerical representation (%
> remaining) instead of a typical on/off idiot light. It apparently
> doesn't matter that the formula used to derive this numerical
> representation is unknown. Most manufacturers actually give the game
> away when they say that under "certain" environmental conditions
> owners should change their oil more frequently than indicated by the
> idiot light.
>
> Like fleet owners my knuckle-dragging independent mechanics laugh all
> the way to the bank at owners who religiously follow their owner's
> manual and end up needing engine work due to extended oil drain
> intervals.

That's why I stated what I did, the proof is in the bottom line (which
for the unthinking, is the accumulation of all costs of operating a
fleet or a single vehicle).

jim beam

On 01/15/2010 07:53 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> On 1/15/2010 11:50 AM, ACAR wrote:
>>
>> That's exactly right.
>>
>> I'll bet some psychology student will write a PhD thesis examining how
>> ordinarily intelligent people were so easily convinced to ignore their
>> accumulated experience when presented with an oil change indicator on
>> their dash board that provided a numerical representation (%
>> remaining) instead of a typical on/off idiot light. It apparently
>> doesn't matter that the formula used to derive this numerical
>> representation is unknown. Most manufacturers actually give the game
>> away when they say that under "certain" environmental conditions
>> owners should change their oil more frequently than indicated by the
>> idiot light.
>>
>> Like fleet owners my knuckle-dragging independent mechanics laugh all
>> the way to the bank at owners who religiously follow their owner's
>> manual and end up needing engine work due to extended oil drain
>> intervals.
>
> That's why I stated what I did, the proof is in the bottom line (which
> for the unthinking, is the accumulation of all costs of operating a
> fleet or a single vehicle).

"hey, my rotted chicken healed that dude's leg!"

jim

jim beam wrote:

>
> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means?

Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.

> From you I have seen no
> > evidence at all.
>
> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
> problem.

Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. They seem to
have practically no content worth reading. How many times does one have
to read "bullshit" and "see above" before one becomes bored and starts
to pass over such drivel?


>
> > You seem to think that anything you proclaim will be
> > taken as gospel without any evidence or even any explanation.
>
> see above. you should try reading my cites.

I read the only citation I saw. It only demonstrated your ignorance.


>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion anybody who incessantly worries about other peoples oil
> >>> change habits are just perverted busy bodies.
> >>
> >> by that metric, you're a goddamned hypocrite. you're preaching your
> >> witchcraft about your oil change intervals so you're a perverted
> >> busybody if you dare to contradict anyone else. not least because you
> >> have no data to back up your position.
> >
> > No I'm afraid you are hallucinating. I haven't stated anything of the
> > sort. I was simply commenting on your obsession with other people's oil
> > changing habits. And yes it would be perverted of me to preach to others
> > about changing there oil which is one reason I don't.
>
> see above for "comprehension" and "delusional".

And what is there above to be seen? You really have knack for saying
nothing? And then you keep referring back to the nothings you have said
before?

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> IN regard to my own
> >>>>> personal vehicles, I have no qualms about changing the fluids based on
> >>>>> the mileage and time frame that I have decided gives the best return on
> >>>>> my investment.
> >>>>
> >>>> based on what analysis? unless you have numbers, you're no better than
> >>>> a witch doctor.
> >>>
> >>> That is utter nonsense. Oil analysis is like reading tea leaves in the
> >>> bottom of a cup.
> >>
> >> eh? so when you change your "fleet" brake linings, do you simply do it
> >> every 3000 miles? 10000 miles? or do you bother to observe actual wear
> >> and change when the pad reaches a given limit? because that's what
> >> you're doing with oil analysis - observing condition and replacing once
> >> it's worn to the limit. replacing it out of superstition and fear is
> >> ridiculous.
> >
> >
> > Just like brake pads if you push it to the absolute limit you will be
> > increasing the risk of failure due to incorrect guesses as to the exact
> > point where that limit should be set. Doing a brake job when the pads
> > still have useful life left is not as ridiculous as you make it out to
> > be. At any rate it would seem equally odd to me if someone was obsessed
> > with other people having brake jobs done more often than they need to.
> > If someone chooses to have a brake job done when the pads are only half
> > worn why would you object?
>
> er, because it's unnecessary expense and wasteful?
>
> but of course, that's not the purpose of what you wrote - the purpose
> was to try to side-step the unarguable logic of making a wear-based
> decision vs. a blind and uninformed decision.

Except that decision only exists in your fantasy world. The guy that is
maintaining a fleet sounds like he has a lot more information than you
now have or ever will have. Its only in your fantasy that you imagine
something different.

>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Major engine manufacturers like Cummins say oil
> >>> analysis is of very little value in determining oil maintenance
> >>> schedules.
> >>
> >> bullshit. cite your source.
> >
> > I did cite my source. Cummins engine is the source.
>
> so show the source online, idiot. or don't you know what "cite" means?

Hey i'm not the one who is making unsubstantiated claims and no I'm not
really interested in providing evidence that your claims are without
merit. I would encourage you to so more research you clearly are in need
of it.

>
> > Do you ever
> > actually say anything meaningful or is proclaiming "bullshit." the total
> > extent of your capabilities?
> >
> > Here is one quote from Cummins:
> >
> > {QUOTE]
> >
> > Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine
> > maintenance intervals. Oil analysis only permits maintenance intervals
> > to be estimated. Engines must be operated at the estimated interval for
> > 800,000 to 1,100,000 km [500,00 to 700,000 mi] or 10,000 to 15,000 hours
> > to determine if the estimated maintenance interval based on oil analysis
> > was correct. If the interval is estimated correctly, the engine will
> > remain in an acceptable condition for its operating environment. If an
> > extended maintenance interval is guessed incorrectly, up to 50 percent
> > of the potential engine life to rebuild can be sacrificed for the longer
> > maintenance interval.
> >
> > [END QUOTE}
>
> "cummins" in the third person? this smells like sales literature, not
> their engineering lit.

The difference between the companies published engineering lit and
advertizing would be whether it pollutes your fantasy or not?

>besides, analysis is not "guessing". analysis
> is proven and successful and used in all major vehicle fleets, shipping,
> aerospace, military, all industries, globally. again, you'd know that
> if you'd bothered to read any cites.

No you are just a wannabee idiot. Analysis is just how people gather
information And the particular analysis you are referring to is a form
of statistical analysis. There is no doubt that statistical analysis is
effective, but the way it works is at some point someone has to decide
what is for them acceptable level of risk. What you are attempting to do
is claim that there is no risk involved in doing extended oil changes.
That risk free absolute certainty is not a charateristic of the real
world. It only exists in your fantasy world.



> >
> >>
> >>> The reasoning is that oil analysis only tells you how much
> >>> dirt is in the oil.
> >>
> >> see, this is the reason you're so dismissive - you clearly don't
> >> understand what it does!
> >
> > I clearly don't understand what you think it does since you never
> > actually say anything meaningful.
>
> see above for comprehension problems.

If i did look again above would I now see something meaningful?


>
> >
> > People who use oil analysis for determining oil change interval think
> > oil analysis will reveal how much engine wear is occurring.
>
> er, that's because it does! just like your fuel gauge tells you how
> much gas is left in the tank!

And of course in your fantasy world no person has ever run out of gas
when they rely on a fuel gauge. So why are you not hopping up and down
and ranting about the many people who don't trust the gas gauge and
never let it fall bellow 1/4 tank for fear of running out? Isn't this
also polluting your fanatasy?
The simple reality is that anyone who expects the fuel gauge to be
completely infallible is living in a fantasy world.


>
> > The problem
> > with that is that when the oil gets older and dirtier it has less
> > capacity for holding wear particles in suspension. As a result the the
> > oil analysis will not give a true picture of actual engine wear.
>
> yeah. a broken fuel gauge doesn't tell you when to fill your tank either!

So how many fuel gauges do you have to put on a motor vehicle car to
make sure that there is no chance if yiou run it down to empty you will
ever run out? Your fantasy is so easy to crumble.

For many people it is just a whole lot easier to change the oil well
before there is any chance of it being worn out simply because the don't
want to become a neurotic obsessive idiot like you.
I have no personal problem with people who never go more than 100
miles without stopping to fill up with gas or with people who change
their oil or brakes twice as often as they might really need to. These
people are sane and normal because its a whole lot saner way to live
your life than to be constantly obsessing about how close to the brink
of disaster you can get with out falling in. The people who are
obsessing about how far they can get on each oil change are the nut
cases.


>
> > This is
> > the the stated reason by Cummins when they advise Fleet managers to not
> > use oil analysis for determining OCI. This is not to say that oil
> > analysis can not be useful in finding things like failed air filter,
> > coolant leaks, fuel contamination or even unusual engine wear. Cummins
> > is not against oil analysis they just advise against using it as a basis
> > for establishing oil change intervals.
>
> then "cummins" don't have any scientists writing their sales lit!

I'm sure they would love to have a mad scientist of your caliber on
their staff.


>
> >
> >>
> >>> But if the oil additives are depleted the oil will
> >>> hold less dirt and that is where extended oil changes can get you into
> >>> trouble.
> >>
> >> see above.
> >>
> >>> Oil analysis does not accurately provide the information needed
> >>> to determine engine longevity.
> >>
> >> bullshit. you don't know what you're talking about.
> >
> > I definitely don't know what you are talking about, since you have yet
> > to say anything.
>
> see above.

You keep referring back to where you have previously said nothing .
Wat's up with that?


>
> >
> >>
> >>> According to Cummins the only way you are
> >>> going to know if your lubrication maintenance schedule has been
> >>> aggressive enough (or not aggressive enough) is at the end of the road
> >>> when you tear the engine down for an overhaul.
> >>
> >> bullshit. the whole point of analysis is that it /does/ tell you what's
> >> going on.
> >
> > No it does not. It provides some evidence, but hardly a complete
> > picture.
>
> it tells you a good deal more than witchcraft!
>
> which is why cummins provide it as a service to customers...
> http://www.npower-oilanalysis.com/
>
> and:
> "Beyond the 250-hour/6-month requirement, an oil analysis program is
> strongly recommended."
> from:
> http://www.everytime.cummins.com/sit...qst30_o_g.page
>
> now, where's your cite?

Where's your brain? Cummins stated position is:

"Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil
analysis be used to determine
maintenance intervals"

That does not mean they do not approve of oil analysis. Cummins thinks
oil analysis is a good thing and they have provided lots of good
literature that guides people in how to do effective oil analysis. If
you weren't so retarded you would know that policy statement simply
means they advise people to not use oil analysis to determine oil change
intervals.


>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Fleet mechanics that
> >>> maintain many engines get to see what works and what doesn't.
> >>
> >> yeah. and fleet mechanics that know what they're doing pay attention to
> >> data sources life service manuals. similarly, fleet managers that know
> >> their business get analysis done because it allows them to not only
> >> ensure efficient maintenance, but also minimize expense!
> >
> > The direct expense of changing oil frequently or infrequently is a very
> > small percentage of the total cost of operating. The amount of money to
> > be saved by pushing this to the limit is tiny compared to the amount of
> > money that it can cost if a miscalculation is made. There are a lot
> > more important things that can be done to reduce expenses if that is the
> > only consideration.
>
> what fleet do you work on? 'cos it appears they have a job opening for
> someone that can actually read, do math, and who doesn't start
> paragraphs with tabs.

Holy Cow Batman the terrible TAB man is back. What exactly is the basis
of your TABaphobia. Does it have something to do with your incoherent
mumblings about witches, chicken blood and broken legs???


>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is also wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is your opinion and as such has no basis on how or why I choose to
> >>>>> take care of the regular maintenance of any vehicles in my charge.
> >>>>
> >>>> where are your numbers?
> >>>
> >>> It is easy to determine if an engine has had the oil changed often
> >>> enough. Not so easy to exactly determine at what point it will make a
> >>> difference.
> >>
> >> er, no. you're simply afraid that if you don't sacrifice chickens, your
> >> leg will never heal.
> >
> > I appears that you believe people who tear down engines can't make a
> > determination of how much wear an engine has seen, but instead you
> > believe that some laboratory that has never even been close to the
> > engine can accurately make such a determination. That sounds like a
> > fairy tale.
>
> now you're putting false words in my mouth. stripdown and measurement
> gives you absolute determination of wear. but just like if you have
> water dripping out of a bucket, if you catch the drips and measure them,
> you know how much is left in the bucket - you don't have to empty it to
> find out! logical retard.

Yeah well in your fantasy world you may think it is brilliant strategy
to poke a hole in the bucket and count the drops coming out, but the
average sane human would probably just look in the bucket to see how
full it is.


>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You may choose to do so, and you have the right to
> >>>>>> use your money any way you wish. But there is something wrong. You are
> >>>>>> wasting oil. I'm not saying you should change. I agree with you in that
> >>>>>> respect - do as you wish. But a person changing their oil weekly, or
> >>>>>> even daily, is certainly wasting oil and money. They have a right to do
> >>>>>> so, but don't kid yourself that there is nothing wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not kidding myself in any way.
> >>>>
> >>>> absent facts, you absolutely are.
> >>>
> >>> He has the same facts you do. He may be a lot smarter than you if he
> >>> realizes that no one has all the facts or can get all the facts.
> >>
> >> "no one has all the facts or can get all the facts"??? wow dude, that's
> >> a classic. if everybody thought like you, you'd never be able to say
> >> that because you wouldn't have a computer to say it on. unbelievable
> >> ignorance.
> >
> > OK why don't you tell your fairy tale about how you took a Computer CPU
> > and tore it apart and modified or repaired it. The fact is what you
> > don't know about computers far outweighs what you do know.
>
> eh? maybe i made a mistake in assuming you had any comprehension
> ability. mea culpa.
>
> but i'd better spell it out:
> computers are made of highly advanced materials. there is no room for
> fudging - the math and the execution have to be precise and correct.
> witchcraft and guesswork don't work - the only successful method is
> scientific method. precisely the one you don't seem to be able to grasp.

And of course your grasp of reality does exist because you simply
declare it to be so.



>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> How I manage my fleet and personal
> >>>>> vehicles has proven to be cost effective over the last four decades and
> >>>>> (no offence intended Dave), your opinion does not matter in this regard.
> >>>>
> >>>> a witch doctor can "heal" a broken leg by tying a sacrificed chicken to
> >>>> it and immobilizing the patient. but it's the immobilization that heals
> >>>> the break, not the chicken. absent facts and/or numbers, you're simply
> >>>> living in a cave with a load of dead chicken carcasses.
> >>>
> >>> It would be you that is the ignorant one. Some people just don't
> >>> understand that you can't possibly predict all the consequences of every
> >>> action. The best you can do is play the odds.
> >>
> >> witchcraft works!!!
> >
> > To someone like you that may be how playing the odds appears.
>
> "playing the odds" is just guessing guy. just like driving without a
> fuel gauge. you can do it, but you're being a real chump.

Maybe I'm driving an old VW bug, but the question still remains. Why
would you care if i was driving without a fuel gauge?
I know I know - because it pollutes your fantasy.

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I read recently in this newsgroup about some guy who had a large hole
> >>> burned in an exhaust valve.
> >>
> >> that was me.
> >>
> >>> There is one and only one thing that can
> >>> cause a valve to burn like that and that is a chunk of carbon breaks
> >>> loose from inside the combustion chamber and just happens to be passing
> >>> through as the exhaust valve is closing.
> >>
> >> bullshit. you clearly don't know what you're talking about. quite a
> >> feat given that the thread you read actually explains the mechanisms
> >> that cause this.
> >
> > HA HA HA HA. That's a good one. And I suppose you are going to tell us
> > how an Angel came down from heaven and gave you this precious knowledge
> > and therefore it is absolutely impossible that anyone could possibly
> > question your fairy tale account of what happened.
>
> retard - just freakin' read it.

I did. About the best that can be said of your account is that it was
poorly contrived speculation. But that is a step up from what appears to
be your typical delusional posting.


>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> This is a rare occurrence that
> >>> a chunk of carbon gets trapped in a a exhaust valve but it does happen.
> >>> Is this something that is more likely to happen to someone who changes
> >>> their oil at 6000 miles compared to someone who changes at 3000 miles?
> >>> There is absolutely no doubt that will change the odds.
> >>
> >> oil changes affect valve burn??? dude, you need to either stop smoking
> >> that you're smoking now, or you need to
> >
> > You probably didn't know this but not all valves burn in the same way.
>
> er, i actually /do/ know this. again, if you'd bothered to read, you'd
> know.
>
> > Carbon deposits can be the cause of one particular valve burning
> > scenario.
>
> one???

>
> > The condition of the oil does affect how much oil gets into
> > the combustion chamber via the rings, seals and PCV. Carbon deposits in
> > the combustion chamber are almost exclusively coming from burning oil.
>
> bullshit. ever heard of "combustion product"? otherwise known as
> "soot"? that stuff comes from "fuel". amazing, isn't it?

Nevertheless ultimately oil changes do have an impact on carbon
deposits. That is not something your going to ever find out from
scientific oil analysis.

>
> > So yes how often the oil is changed can have a statistical impact on
> > valve burn.
>
> only if you don't know what you're looking at and can't follow a logical
> argument! see above.

Somebody would actually have to make a logical argument if someone else
is expected to follow it. Or are you saying that your continual
repititions of "bullshit" and "see above" constitute a logical
argument?


>
> > If you want me to quantify that statistical impact I would
> > say it is very very small.
>
> "very very small" is a statistical impact?!!

Yes its small as in not easy to ascertain. But that is a foreign concept
in your fantasy world - isn't it?. In your hallucinations everything can
be ascertained with perfect certainty.


>
> > The point is nobody can say exactly at what
> > point a given maintenance schedule will have a favorably impact on 100%
> > of the engines its applied to.
>
> correction:
> "no witchdoctor can say exactly at what..."

Yeah the statement would hold for witch doctors too.


>
> > A particular maintenance schedule may
> > produce a favorable result 99.999% of the time but that still is not an
> > absolute.
>
> wow dude, you have a significant "knowledge gap"!!! kinda scary actually.


If the TAB key scares you - I suppose just about anything could scare
you.

jim

jim beam wrote:

>
> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing.

So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying
"bullshit" and "see above"?

The article states that the wear particles are too small to be
filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in
the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that?



> and if detergency
> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
> product. so you're bullshitting.

No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and
dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that
get turned on and off like a light switch.

Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose
this sentence was referring to:

"The radiotracer data also showed periods
of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion,
and recollection, following engine restarts
and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run."

Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in
the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used
oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a
while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles
disappeared from the oil.




>
> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
> paragraphs with tabs, but hey.

Talk about delusional fantasies......

jim beam

On 01/15/2010 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
>> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing.
>
> So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying
> "bullshit" and "see above"?
>
> The article states that the wear particles are too small to be
> filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in
> the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that?

i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same
article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the
pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical]


>
>
>
>> and if detergency
>> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
>> product. so you're bullshitting.
>
> No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and
> dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that
> get turned on and off like a light switch.

don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the
misunderstanding is you.


>
> Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose
> this sentence was referring to:
>
> "The radiotracer data also showed periods
> of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion,
> and recollection, following engine restarts
> and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run."
>
> Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in
> the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used
> oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a
> while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles
> disappeared from the oil.

eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you?
because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've
just quoted.



>> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
>> paragraphs with tabs, but hey.
>
> Talk about delusional fantasies......

no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually
exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above.

jim beam

On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
>> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means?
>
> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.
>
>> From you I have seen no
>>> evidence at all.
>>
>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
>> problem.
>
> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts..

then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.

<snip>

jim

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
> >> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means?
> >
> > Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
> > can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
> > quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.
> >
> >> From you I have seen no
> >>> evidence at all.
> >>
> >> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
> >> problem.
> >
> > Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts..
>
> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.
>

Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness
i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.

Brian Smith

On 1/15/2010 8:49 PM, jim wrote:
>
> Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
> become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness
> i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.

After reading the second post of his, you would have had the proper
response down pat.

jim beam

On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
>>>> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means?
>>>
>>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
>>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
>>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.
>>>
>>>> From you I have seen no
>>>>> evidence at all.
>>>>
>>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts..
>>
>> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.
>>
>
> Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
> become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness
> i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.


wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful.

jim

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
> >>>> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means?
> >>>
> >>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
> >>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
> >>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.
> >>>
> >>>> From you I have seen no
> >>>>> evidence at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
> >>>> problem.
> >>>
> >>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts..
> >>
> >> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.
> >>
> >
> > Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
> > become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness
> > i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.
>
> wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful.

No you got that exactly backwards as usual. I'm pretty sure I would be
ashamed of myself if I had read more of your posts.

jim

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2010 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
> >> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing.
> >
> > So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying
> > "bullshit" and "see above"?
> >
> > The article states that the wear particles are too small to be
> > filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in
> > the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that?
>
> i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same
> article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the
> pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical]

In other words, you don't have a single clue how to answer the
question.

>
> >
> >
> >
> >> and if detergency
> >> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
> >> product. so you're bullshitting.
> >
> > No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and
> > dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that
> > get turned on and off like a light switch.
>
> don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the
> misunderstanding is you.

False words??? You are precious little toady. If you don't want others
to explain your position why don't you take a stab at explaining it
yourself? I'll tell you why you don't because you can't.


>
> >
> > Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose
> > this sentence was referring to:
> >
> > "The radiotracer data also showed periods
> > of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion,
> > and recollection, following engine restarts
> > and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run."
> >
> > Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in
> > the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used
> > oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a
> > while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles
> > disappeared from the oil.
>
> eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you?
> because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've
> just quoted.

If there is 'no depositing of wear products' as you stated previously
then how can there be "reentrainment" and "recollection" of wear
particles as the article states? Is that another question you can't
answer?

The simple fact is that what was reported in the article demonstrates
that some of the additives in the oil have already started to exhibit
evidence of diminished effectiveness at 20 hours of use.




>
> >> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
> >> paragraphs with tabs, but hey.
> >
> > Talk about delusional fantasies......
>
> no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually
> exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above.

Why is it impossible for you to actually state in coherent words what
exactly is incorrect in what I said? You can't answer that one either?

Going back to my first question - If you can - Please explain why it
was observed that the oil is displaying a difference in the way it holds
wear particles in suspension after only 20 hours of use?

jim beam

On 01/15/2010 05:05 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
>>>>>> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
>>>>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
>>>>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>> From you I have seen no
>>>>>>> evidence at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts..
>>>>
>>>> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
>>> become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness
>>> i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.
>>
>> wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful.
>
> No you got that exactly backwards as usual. I'm pretty sure I would be
> ashamed of myself if I had read more of your posts.

dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
know, they also set you straight on some of the you have hopelessly
wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.

jim

jim beam wrote:

>
> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
> know, they also set you straight on some of the you have hopelessly
> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.

You can't answer one little simple question about your so called
"information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of
substance is to start name calling.

jim beam

On 01/15/2010 05:11 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/15/2010 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
>>>> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing.
>>>
>>> So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying
>>> "bullshit" and "see above"?
>>>
>>> The article states that the wear particles are too small to be
>>> filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in
>>> the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that?
>>
>> i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same
>> article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the
>> pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical]
>
> In other words, you don't have a single clue how to answer the
> question.

er, no, it's a case of how can i argue with someone that can't read,
doesn't evidence basic comprehension and doesn't want to know?


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and if detergency
>>>> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
>>>> product. so you're bullshitting.
>>>
>>> No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and
>>> dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that
>>> get turned on and off like a light switch.
>>
>> don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the
>> misunderstanding is you.
>
> False words??? You are precious little toady. If you don't want others
> to explain your position why don't you take a stab at explaining it
> yourself? I'll tell you why you don't because you can't.

i've explained it, and cited external sources - you're the one that's in
delusional denial.


>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose
>>> this sentence was referring to:
>>>
>>> "The radiotracer data also showed periods
>>> of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion,
>>> and recollection, following engine restarts
>>> and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run."
>>>
>>> Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in
>>> the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used
>>> oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a
>>> while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles
>>> disappeared from the oil.
>>
>> eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you?
>> because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've
>> just quoted.
>
> If there is 'no depositing of wear products' as you stated previously
> then how can there be "reentrainment" and "recollection" of wear
> particles as the article states? Is that another question you can't
> answer?

!!! wow dude, for someone that can't pass a basic logic test, let alone
comprehension, that's unbelievably presumptive and stupid!!!


>
> The simple fact is that what was reported in the article demonstrates
> that some of the additives in the oil have already started to exhibit
> evidence of diminished effectiveness at 20 hours of use.

eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the
"Accomplishments" section, it states:
"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
produced less wear than testing with clean oil."

if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished
effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address.


>
>
>
>
>>
>>>> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
>>>> paragraphs with tabs, but hey.
>>>
>>> Talk about delusional fantasies......
>>
>> no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually
>> exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above.
>
> Why is it impossible for you to actually state in coherent words what
> exactly is incorrect in what I said? You can't answer that one either?
>
> Going back to my first question - If you can - Please explain why it
> was observed that the oil is displaying a difference in the way it holds
> wear particles in suspension after only 20 hours of use?

dude, if you could possibly get the facts straight in the first place,
we could possibly have a discussion. as it stands however, you're
hopelessly mired in confusion and delusion.

jim beam

On 01/15/2010 05:33 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
>> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
>> know, they also set you straight on some of the you have hopelessly
>> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
>> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
>> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.
>
> You can't answer one little simple question about your so called
> "information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of
> substance is to start name calling.

wrong. go back in the tread.