jim

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2010 07:34 PM, jim > wrote:
> > JRE wrote:
> >> jim wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> I read recently in this newsgroup about some guy who had a large hole
> >>> burned in an exhaust valve. 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. 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.
> >>> -jim
> >>
> >> Too-lean mixtures combined with unleaded gasoline and valves and seats
> >> made from materials designed to work with leaded gas caused this often
> >> during the transition from leaded to unleaded gas, with no chunks of
> >> carbon involved.
> >
> > I did not say all burnt valves were caused by carbon and I agree most
> > are not. The ones that have large holes that look like they were cut
> > with a cutting torch are the ones that indicate that the valve burn
> > happened all at once. the valve goes from being whole to having a big
> > hole in just a few milliseconds. How do I know this? because all burnt
> > exhaust valves are self-limiting. They burn so far and then the cylinder
> > can't fire and the valve will not burn any more after that. The only way
> > a hole can get that big is for it to happen all at once. It can't happen
> > gradually because the hole would stop getting bigger long before it got
> > to that size.
>
> bullshit. bullshit. bullshit. gas viscosity at high temperature is
> not unlike treacle. if you think you're going to "leak" all your
> viscous burning fuel/air mix out of a tiny hole instantly, your
> delusional thinking is getting /way/ out of hand.

Well that's a interesting straw man you created. But sorry i don't have
any idea how you got there or what viscosity has to do with anything i
said.



>
> for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in
> learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation
> point.

Sometimes that is what happens. And sometimes a valve will just crack
and a chunk of the valve breaks off. But that isn't what happened in the
valve we are discussing.




> it typically takes several thousand miles. [engines run for
> lower mileage in this condition have smaller valve holes. those run for
> longer periods have larger holes. go figure.]

No that is incorrect. Ultimately it reaches a point where the Air/fuel
mixture gets diluted by exhaust gasses to the point where combustion
can't occur. After combustion stops stops the valve will stabilize and
the hole can't get any bigger after that.


>
> typical causes are incorrect clearance and to a lesser extent, valve
> defects.

Most burnt valves present a completely different look.


> jre's post alludes to this because with lean mixtures or
> unleaded gas, combustion temperatures are higher. so, leaded valves
> burn if exposed to unleaded temperatures and unleaded valves can burn if
> mixtures run too lean.

And all of that is irrelevant to the particular valve in question. That
valve you posted a picture of burned in one up-stroke of the piston
with a spectacular shower of sparks into the exhaust. It would have been
a great pyrotechnic display if it had been on an engine with short
exhaust pipes.


>of course, you can argue this is not a "valve
> defect" per se, but the valve metallurgy is insufficient for operating
> conditions, so it amounts to the same thing.

More blah blah blah which has nothing to do with the one particular
valve under discussion. There are lots of different ways (with different
causes) valves can burn, but we weren't talking about all valve or some
valves - the discussion was about one particular valve.


>
> valves can also start to burn if under-worked engines accumulate excess
> carbon deposits preventing full closure, but that's essentially the same
> as a clearance issue.
>
> > Anyway the point I was making is not how the valve burned but that what
> > you do can have consequences under rare circumstances that never get
> > traced back to root causes.
>
> "never get traced"??? that speaks volumes about your knowledge level.
> or the lack of it.

here we go again. Why is it you are totally incapable of doing anything
but name calling when your ideas are challenged and found to be wrong?
You clearly have not traced the cause of this one valve and how it
burned. All you have done is made up a story. Physical reality
contradicts your story.


-jim

>
> > You can never really no for sure what you
> > might have done differently that could have produced a different
> > outcome. The best you can do is play the odds.
>
> this is why you're still on the shop floor - you have no desire to
> learn, are too ing stoooopid to learn even if you did, and are
> /certainly/ not capable of employing any form of logical thought.

Tegger

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
news:7v-dnUM2k7SZ9c3WnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@bright.net:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>>
>>
>> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been
>> over a week.
>>
>> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil
>> too often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI
>> appears to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant
>> statement in their publication.
>>
>
> I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified,


http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm

This statement:
"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."



> but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used
> oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does.



I'd love to know your sources for that.

To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
so I am suspicious of my own intuition.




>
> The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two
> identical engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and
> put oil that has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is
> fresh in the other after six hours of test running, there will be less
> evidence of the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the
> new oil.




The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
radio-tracer parts:
"...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
oil-conditioning run."

The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
than the text of the article appears to say.

I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
seems intuitive to me.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim

Tegger wrote:
>
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
> news:7v-dnUM2k7SZ9c3WnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@bright.net:
>
> >
> >
> > Tegger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been
> >> over a week.
> >>
> >> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil
> >> too often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI
> >> appears to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant
> >> statement in their publication.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified,
>
> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>
> This statement:
> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
> produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
> unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
> result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
> temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."

I love the euphemisms in this statement.

A more even handed version of this statement might have read like this:

"Testing with dirty oil, produced less wear metal
found in the oil than testing with clean oil."




The point is that they don't know there was less actual wear in the
engine. All they know for sure is is the oil itself contained less of
the tracer wear material. You need to remember they are measuring very
very tiny amounts of material. The test regime for the clean and dirty
oil lasted only about 1/1000 of the total engine life and the
difference in wear they were seeing between clean oil and dirty oil was
some small fraction of that. So the material difference was very small.

If you read carefully you will notice it said:

"the oil is drained and the engine flushed following each test."


So ask yourself what was flushed from the engine after each test? Well
when they did the clean oil test probably not much of anything was
flushed out. But when the pre-stressed oil test was concluded what was
flushed from the engine was the missing wear particles. The clean oil
was able to keep 100% of the wear particles in suspension. The dirty oil
was not.



>
> > but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used
> > oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does.
>
> I'd love to know your sources for that.


I had discussion about this study maybe 10 years ago. At that time I
heard that subsequent studies had revealed the flaws in this Study. But
i have never seen any of those studies. The bottom line is that the
facts they present are probably quite accurate . It is the conclusions
they drew from those facts that are suspect. You are free to draw your
own conclusions.

Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive engineers,
you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.


>
> To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
> intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
> so I am suspicious of my own intuition.
>
>
> >
> > The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two
> > identical engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and
> > put oil that has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is
> > fresh in the other after six hours of test running, there will be less
> > evidence of the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the
> > new oil.
>
> The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
> radio-tracer parts:
> "...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
> source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
> oil-conditioning run."
>

I believe "72-hour oil-conditioning run" was a separate procedure to
create and evaluate the "pre-stressed" oil. There are actually 4
procedures described in the article. The 72 hour procedure was done to
create the "pre-stressed" oil. That procedure involved using a filter.
When that test was concluded the "pre-stressed" oil it produced had a
known amount of radioactive wear material in the oil.

The other 3 test procedures lasted only 6 hours and those tests did not
use an oil filter. The first test was done on clean oil. The second test
used the "pre-stressed" oil. and then the third test was the same as the
first. Presumably the third test was done just to confirm that nothing
had changed in the engine from the first test.

> The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
> clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
> a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
> biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
> than the text of the article appears to say.
>
> I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
> shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
> the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
> seems intuitive to me.
>

I seriously doubt that you are shortening the life of your engine by
changing the oil too often. i also doubt that you would shorten the life
of your engine if you extended your oil changes to be a little longer.

-jim




> --
> Tegger
>
> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim beam

On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
> news:7v-dnUM2k7SZ9c3WnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@bright.net:
>
>>
>>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been
>>> over a week.
>>>
>>> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil
>>> too often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI
>>> appears to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant
>>> statement in their publication.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified,
>
>
> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>
> This statement:
> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
> produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
> unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
> result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
> temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."
>
>
>
>> but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used
>> oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does.
>
>
>
> I'd love to know your sources for that.
>
> To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
> intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
> so I am suspicious of my own intuition.

which of course, is the right approach to have. we are all limited by
our knowledge and experience. it's impossible to know what you don't
know! but we can outline pieces of what we don't know, then try to
learn so we can fill the gaps.


>
>
>
>
>>
>> The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two
>> identical engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and
>> put oil that has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is
>> fresh in the other after six hours of test running, there will be less
>> evidence of the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the
>> new oil.
>
>
>
>
> The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
> radio-tracer parts:
> "...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
> source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
> oil-conditioning run."
>
> The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
> clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
> a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
> biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
> than the text of the article appears to say.

i suspect the real reason is because they got snowed by idiots like our
friend swamping them with their own crackpot theories.
science/engineering people don't usually have much time for the
ignorant. your emails probably [unfortunately] went down with that ship.


>
> I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
> shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
> the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
> seems intuitive to me.

or you can rely on other information. something like mobil 1 extended
performance works exactly as advertised - it has a 15k mile warranty.

Tegger

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
news:S7udndm97riGuc7WnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net:


>
> Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
> industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
> were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive engineers,
> you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
> pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.


That last sentence says it all for me.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim beam

On 01/16/2010 10:54 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/16/2010 07:41 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What good is a source that you can verify?
>>>>
>>>> wow, what a classic! hey, books are no good if you can actually read them!!
>>>
>>> It does no good to give you something to read. What good does it do to
>>> provide you with a source for a technical bulletin from Cummins?
>>> Literature such as that is completely wasted on someone like you.
>>
>> because i can point out that you don't understand what you're looking at
>> and quoting out of context?
>
> No you can't or at least you never have. You have yet to point anything
> at all. You claim what i say is wrong but you have yet to explain the
> basis for saying that.

false statement. i have done so repeatedly. and at this point, you
continuing to say that is just pure dishonesty.


>
>
>>
>> clearly you've never done analysis or been in a chemistry lab. to say
>> you can't determine the composition is ridiculous.
>
> Who said "you can't determine the composition"? Where did that come
> from?

er, from the cite you've apparently not bothered to read properly?


>
>> to say you can't
>> measure organics with metal spectroscopy would be true, but they're not
>> saying that, they're making a ridiculous blanket statement that is
>> incorrect. and you wouldn't be straw clutching if you had a clue.
>
> You could explain what statement that I made is incorrect? And (more
> important) why is it incorrect? Try that for once in your life.

rtfc, then read my post one more time, dipshit. your reading
comprehension is failing badly.


>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Low wear
>>>>> metal levels in used oil samples can reflect high oil consumption rates
>>>>> and dilution with new oil added to replace that consumed. Low wear metal
>>>>> levels in used oil samples can also reflect additional contamination and
>>>>> wear debris. Engine oil operated beyond this saturation point often
>>>>> drops contamination and wear debris out as sludge. This results in
>>>>> declining wear metal levels at increasing kilometers [miles] or hours on
>>>>> the oil. This does not mean that wear rates are decreasing and oil
>>>>> condition is improving. It means that oil analysis becomes meaningless
>>>>> after the engine oil is excessively contaminated.
>>>>>
>>>>> [END QUOTE]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice the last sentence in that quote.
>>>>
>>>> er, you're failing to comprehend basic context.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What's the problem? Is "meaningless" too big a word for you?
>>
>> i know what "saturation" means. you clearly don't.
>
>
> But of course like always you can't explain a single thing. Cummins
> used the word "saturation" to mean the point at which oil will start to
> lose some of the suspended wear particles. They were making the point
> that if the wear metal ends up somewhere else then it does not get
> accounted for in oil analysis. So what is your point about the word
> saturation?

you are dishonestly and wrongly saying that oil loses its ability to
maintain suspension before saturation. that's completely incorrect. and
you're dishonestly fudging about where saturation point is.



>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The study from SWRI indicates that oil starts to become saturated with
>>>>> contaminants at 20 hours of operation.
>>>>
>>>> wow dude, you truly have a serious reading comprehension problem.
>>>> "saturation" does not come anywhere /near/ 20 hours - that's when it
>>>> /starts/ to become /measurable/.
>>>
>>> Yes at 20 hours of use is when SWRI said their experiment showed
>>> evidence that clean new oil starts to no longer hold 100% of the wear
>>> particles in suspension.
>>
>> ok, two things:
>>
>> 1. don't snip the stuff that's inconvenient. you've consistently cut
>> context throughout this thread. that means you're either too dim to
>> follow the argument or you're not honest enough to argue the facts.
>
> You have never said anything.

false statement.


> You have nothing but miles and miles of
> empty rhetoric. All you can say is "Bullshit" and "see above". You have
> never said one thing that has any substance. And now your whining that
> some of your empty blathering got snipped?

you're dishonestly snipping the cites that contradict you. that makes
you a bullshitter - you can't man up and face the facts.


>
>
>>
>> 2. the exact quote is:
>> "radiotracer wear data showed that filtration had no noticeable affect
>> on wear particle removal until approximately 20 hours into the
>> oil-conditioning test run". that does /not/ mean the oil is starting to
>> fail after 20 hours. it means there is insufficient contamination onto
>> which radiotracer can adsorb. [a-D-s-o-r-b - look it up.]
>
> I didn't say the oil was starting to fail. I said It was evidence that
> the oil could no longer hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension at
> 20 hours (I think I must have said that about 20 times now).

and you're still 20x wrong!


> That leads
> to the obvious conclusions that if the oil is not holding all the
> particles in suspension

it's not an "obvious conclusion" because you're wrong! and you can't
read. and you're too ing stoooopid to learn.


> then A) they must be ending up somewhere else
> and B) measuring the wear particles in the oil will not detect those
> missing particles.

a. wrong.

b. right, but a false conclusion because a. is wrong.


>
>
>>
>>> And yes that does not mean the oil is fully
>>> saturated with dirt. The oil at that point is capable of gaining new
>>> particles, but the oil is also capable of losing some particles.
>>
>> but that is normal each time you turn an engine off dipshit! jeepers.
>
> What is it that you are saying is normal? Try for once to say a single
> statement clearly. Can you?

how about this for a clear single statement: "you are an ignorant
bullshitter."


>
>
> The drop out of wear particles from the oil after 20 hours occurs even
> when the engine is running.

wrong.


> The evidence that wear particles end up in
> the filter means the particles are starting to stick to things.

wow, amazingly wrong! filtration works by adhesion??? that's a classic!


> The
> purpose of the additives are to keep the very small wear particle (and
> other types of particles, too) in the oil from sticking to things.

/which/ additives, dipshit? the seal conditioners? they're not in to
prevent "sticking". the anti-foaming agents? they're not there to
prevent "sticking". the anti-oxidants? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". the acidity controllers? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". the e.p. additives? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". what about the detergents? they're there to keep wear and
combustion product in suspension so the filter can do its job. but
that's not anything to do with "sticking" either.

> When
> you start to see evidence that particles are becoming sticky that means
> the additives that are supposed to prevent that from happening are
> becoming less effective.

you can see "sticky" particles <10 microns??? wow dude, you should work
for nasa!


>
>
>>
>>> This is
>>> because the wear particles that are held in the oil start to get sticky
>>> because the additives that are designed to keep the small particles from
>>> being sticky are starting to lose their effectiveness.
>>
>> no! the oil loses effectiveness once it is saturated, it's base breaks
>> down, or it loses basicity. this is why you do analysis - to determine
>> the point at which those things occur in your application!
>>
> Please try to stay on topic. We are not talking about whether the oil
> loses effectiveness. We are examining your claim that dirty oil protects
> an engine from wear better than clean oil does.

wow dude, effectiveness is unimportant??? that's a classic! any more
of my words you want to mis-state???.


>
> Your claim is false. The only reason anyone thinks it is true is
> because they have relied on inaccurate methods for measuring actual
> engine wear.

nope, wrong. you can't read.


> This is simply a case of bad accounting. the reason you
> think there is less wear with dirty oil is because there are less wear
> particles present in the oil. But that is only because you have failed
> to account for the wear particles that dropped out of the oil.

because the oil has "failed" after only 20 hours???!!! utter bullshit.


> Cummins explanation of the pitfalls of oil analysis is much better than
> mine:
>
> "declining wear metal levels.....
> does not mean that wear rates are
> decreasing and oil condition is
> improving."

you're deliberately quoting out of context - you dishonestly snipped the
part about "beyond saturation".


>
>
> They are directly addressing the falacy of your position. Your position
> is not something new. You are not alone in your mistaken opinion.
> Automotive engineers are quite aware that some people believe that lower
> rates of wear metals in dirty oil leads some people to the erroneous
> conclusion that dirty oil causes less wear than clean oil.

false statement, see above.


>
>
>> and this is why it's used on countless billions of dollars of machinery,
>> globally, from industry to military to aerospace. but not one
>> closed-minded wrench stuck working night shift. duh.
>
> Neither I nor Cummins ever said oil analysis has no use. If you read
> that entire service bulletin Cummins gives a long list of scenarios
> where oil analysis is useful and helpful.
>
> All I have said is your claim that old dirty oil causes less wear than
> fresh oil is absolutely false. Your reliance the SWRI study to bolster
> your claim fails to do that.

deliberately false statement - you keep trying to use "beyond
saturation" statements as if they apply to "pre saturation". they
don't. and to say they do is either retarded or dishonest.


>
>
>
>>
>>> And those
>>> particles that drop out of the oil either end up in the oil filter or in
>>> other places like sticking to the walls of the crankcase.
>>
>> except that they don't! the wrench that doesn't bother to look at his
>> own engines!
>
>
> All anyone needs to do is wipe a finger on the inside of a valve cover
> to make a determination of whether dirt particles are dropping out of
> the oil and sticking to things inside the engine. The simple fact is
> that most engines do have some dirt deposited on the inside of the
> engine and therefore you will end up with some dirt on your finger. This
> is generally regarded as normal and there is no good evidence that it
> will shorten the life of an engine.

relentless with the bullshit, aren't you.

no, "dirt" on your finger comes from either the combustion/wear product
properly held in suspension by the oil, which properly coats the
surfaces. or it comes from deposition. but deposition ONLY occurs
after the oil has started to fail. if you use analysis correctly, you
determine what that failure point is, and thus avoid deposition! duh.


>
>
>>
>>> The experiment showed that at 20 hours is the point where you can
>>> expect some of the wear particles to start to disappear from the oil.
>>
>> no. see above. you can't read.
>
> Oh we're back to "see above". And once again there is nothing at all
> above to see.

you missed a bit - let me correct it for you:

"And once again there is nothing at all above to see after i've snipped
what i don't like and can't man up to addressing".

there you go.


>
>
>>
>>> And as the quote from Cummins says "declining wear metal levels.....
>>> does not mean that wear rates are decreasing and oil condition is
>>> improving." As you can see Cummins is precisely addressing the fallacy
>>> in SWRI's reasoning.
>>
>> quoted out of context. that is true beyond saturation, not before, and
>> that's not what cummins are saying. and oil is not saturated at 20 hours!!!
>
> No body said that it was.

er, when you say that oil starts to deposit wear/combustion product
after only 20 hours, that's exactly what you /are/ saying.


> The experiment demonstrated that wear
> particles start to become sticky

no it doesn't!


> and start to stick to things after 20
> hours of operation. The article said:
>
> "radiotracer wear data showed that filtration
> had no noticeable affect on wear particle removal
> until approximately 20 hours into the
> oil-conditioning test run"
>
> What that means is that before 20 hours the additives were 100%
> effective at keeping wear particles in suspension in the oil. After 20
> hours the additive package was no longer 100% effective at keeping the
> particles from sticking to things.

wow dude. how do you do it? i mean, draw utterly nonsense unrelated
conclusions from such a simple statement of fact?


> That means that some of the particles
> stick to each other in clumps and start to show up in the oil filter.

no, it means that only 20 hours in - that's approximately 600 miles in,
there is no noticeable wear product created to measure!


> But there is no accounting for particles that end up elsewhere.

because they only exist in your fantasy!


> As the
> Cummins bulletin also stated one place the wear particles can disappear
> to is inside the combustion chamber.

of course, the black hole!


> And The SWRI report never stated
> how much less wear particles they found in the old dirty oil so we can
> only guess what that number might be.

but you can guess all kinds of wrong conclusions!


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is the point where they
>>>>> found evidence that the wear particles started to clump together and the
>>>>> oil was no longer capable of holding all the radioactive wear particles
>>>>> in suspension.
>>>>
>>>> beyond saturation! jeepers - the simple obvious stuff /really/ has you
>>>> in knots!
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is apparently not so simple and obvious for you.
>>
>> don't put false words in my mouth bullshitter. you don't know what
>> saturation is - it's real simple and obvious.
>>
>
> What is this sudden infatuation with the word "saturation". Cummins
> used that word in there service bulletin and now you are spinning in
> circles around this word.

i need to keep repeating it because you don't acknowledge or understand it!


>
> The SWRI study never used this word saturation, but they did give an
> adequate description so that the reader can tell at what point the oil
> was no longer able to hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension.

to anyone interested in this topic, "saturation" is an obvious concept
and taken for granted. just like they don't bother to define "engine"
or "filter" or "oil" either.

did you ever do high school chemistry? [rhetorical]


>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The factual evidence this study presents appear to be genuine. The
>>>>> conclusion they reached from those facts is what is flawed.
>>>>
>>>> er, actually, it's your, ahem, "understanding" that is flawed.
>>>
>>> But of course once again you are completely incapable of expressing what
>>> the flaw is. If the reasoning is flawed then explain why it is flawed.
>>
>> "saturation"! look it up!
>
> What if I do look it up?

you look up something that you conveniently don't want to acknowledge
because it contradicts your fantasies and bullshit!


> I ask for an explanation of what you think is
> the flaw in my logic and you respond with ""saturation"! look it up!".
> I didn't even use that word neither did SWRI.

that's because it's freakin' obvious, dipshit! do you need to look up
"stoooopid" too?


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Many
>>>>> automotive engineers have over the last 10 years pointed out this flaw
>>>>> in SWRI's reasoning. There is no one with any amount of intelligence
>>>>> that accepts the fact that this study proves that dirty oil causes less
>>>>> wear. The only thing the study proves is that dirty hold can hold less
>>>>> wear particles than clean oil can. That is a simple fact that only fools
>>>>> dispute. And this experiment is very long round about way to figure out
>>>>> a simple fact that had already been known for 60 years.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> awesome pretzel logic dude! our state of engineering knowledge
>>>> regresses over time - the more time passes and more research we do, the
>>>> dumber and more ignorant we get! ing awesome - i'm nominating you
>>>> for the review committee of "Journal of Tribology"!
>>>
>>> But you still can't explain anything Can you?
>>
>> false words bullshitter - i have, repeatedly. you just don't understand
>> plain english!
>
> HA HA HA You have offered no explanation. You think ""saturation"! look
> it up!" is an explanation? What is that explaining?

that you're stoooopid!


>
>
>>
>>> I mean, not one single
>>> little thing. All you can do in response to any statement that refutes
>>> your claims is to make disparaging remarks. You claim to be
>>> knowledgeable but you have demonstrated with every single reply that you
>>> cant answer single question or respond intelligently to a single
>>> statement that runs contrary to your claims. The only strategy you seem
>>> to be able to muster for responding is your feeble and ineffective
>>> attempts to belittle others.
>>
>> "feeble and ineffective"? oooh, did i hit a raw nerve? remedial
>> english classes might help you with that.
>
> OK here's another whole long dreary post from you where can't state a
> single thing that is substantive or meaningful.

here's something substantive and meaningful for you:

1. learn to read.

2. try to learn.

3. try to use logic.

4. don't be dishonest.

then you won't be pissing in the knowledge pool with your fantasy
underinformed ignorant bullshit.

jim beam

On 01/17/2010 06:52 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>>
>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>> news:7v-dnUM2k7SZ9c3WnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@bright.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been
>>>> over a week.
>>>>
>>>> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil
>>>> too often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI
>>>> appears to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant
>>>> statement in their publication.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified,
>>
>> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>>
>> This statement:
>> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
>> produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
>> unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
>> result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
>> temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."
>
> I love the euphemisms in this statement.
>
> A more even handed version of this statement might have read like this:
>
> "Testing with dirty oil, produced less wear metal
> found in the oil than testing with clean oil."
>
>
>
>
> The point is that they don't know there was less actual wear in the
> engine.

yes they do!!! wear product is proportional to wear, prior to
saturation!!! unless of course you believe it all disappears into some
kind of engine black hole and "hides" somewhere.


> All they know for sure is is the oil itself contained less of
> the tracer wear material. You need to remember they are measuring very
> very tiny amounts of material. The test regime for the clean and dirty
> oil lasted only about 1/1000 of the total engine life and the
> difference in wear they were seeing between clean oil and dirty oil was
> some small fraction of that. So the material difference was very small.

straw clutching drivel.


>
> If you read carefully you will notice it said:
>
> "the oil is drained and the engine flushed following each test."
>
>
> So ask yourself what was flushed from the engine after each test? Well
> when they did the clean oil test probably not much of anything was
> flushed out. But when the pre-stressed oil test was concluded what was
> flushed from the engine was the missing wear particles. The clean oil
> was able to keep 100% of the wear particles in suspension. The dirty oil
> was not.

wow retard, you've still got that reading comprehension problem!


>
>
>
>>
>>> but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used
>>> oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does.
>>
>> I'd love to know your sources for that.
>
>
> I had discussion about this study maybe 10 years ago.

was it like your "burnt valve discussion"? you know, where you didn't
listen and jumped to a bunch of erroneous conclusions because you don't
understand what you're talking about??? [rhetorical]


> At that time I
> heard that subsequent studies had revealed the flaws in this Study. But
> i have never seen any of those studies.

how inconvenient - you can't find the stuff that corrects your "mistakes".


> The bottom line is that the
> facts they present are probably quite accurate . It is the conclusions
> they drew from those facts that are suspect. You are free to draw your
> own conclusions.

as you evidently do! the problem being that /your/ "conclusions" are so
"free", they don't bother to take into account the facts!


>
> Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
> industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
> were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive engineers,
> you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
> pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.

like we can read your research contributions to "journal of tribology"?


>
>
>>
>> To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
>> intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
>> so I am suspicious of my own intuition.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two
>>> identical engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and
>>> put oil that has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is
>>> fresh in the other after six hours of test running, there will be less
>>> evidence of the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the
>>> new oil.
>>
>> The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
>> radio-tracer parts:
>> "...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
>> source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
>> oil-conditioning run."
>>
>
> I believe "72-hour oil-conditioning run" was a separate procedure to
> create and evaluate the "pre-stressed" oil.

"i believe" - gotta love this faith-based engineering - solves all
problems of ignorance!



> There are actually 4
> procedures described in the article. The 72 hour procedure was done to
> create the "pre-stressed" oil. That procedure involved using a filter.
> When that test was concluded the "pre-stressed" oil it produced had a
> known amount of radioactive wear material in the oil.
>
> The other 3 test procedures lasted only 6 hours and those tests did not
> use an oil filter. The first test was done on clean oil. The second test
> used the "pre-stressed" oil. and then the third test was the same as the
> first. Presumably the third test was done just to confirm that nothing
> had changed in the engine from the first test.

oh dear - more reading non-comprehension. is your old junior school
teacher is still alive? they really f-ed you over.


>
>> The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
>> clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
>> a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
>> biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
>> than the text of the article appears to say.
>>
>> I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
>> shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
>> the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
>> seems intuitive to me.
>>
>
> I seriously doubt that you are shortening the life of your engine by
> changing the oil too often.

i seriously doubt you have the capacity to learn a single damned thing -
too much bullshit in your head to allow anything new to fit in.


> i also doubt that you would shorten the life
> of your engine if you extended your oil changes to be a little longer.

wow, you mean that the millions of dollars manufacturers spend on
research, and the millions of dollars the industrial, transportation,
military and aerospace users of oil analysis spend could actually have
some purpose??? amazing!!!


>
> -jim
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> Tegger
>>
>> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
>> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim beam

On 01/16/2010 11:07 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/15/2010 07:34 PM, jim> wrote:
>>> JRE wrote:
>>>> jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> I read recently in this newsgroup about some guy who had a large hole
>>>>> burned in an exhaust valve. 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. 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.
>>>>> -jim
>>>>
>>>> Too-lean mixtures combined with unleaded gasoline and valves and seats
>>>> made from materials designed to work with leaded gas caused this often
>>>> during the transition from leaded to unleaded gas, with no chunks of
>>>> carbon involved.
>>>
>>> I did not say all burnt valves were caused by carbon and I agree most
>>> are not. The ones that have large holes that look like they were cut
>>> with a cutting torch are the ones that indicate that the valve burn
>>> happened all at once. the valve goes from being whole to having a big
>>> hole in just a few milliseconds. How do I know this? because all burnt
>>> exhaust valves are self-limiting. They burn so far and then the cylinder
>>> can't fire and the valve will not burn any more after that. The only way
>>> a hole can get that big is for it to happen all at once. It can't happen
>>> gradually because the hole would stop getting bigger long before it got
>>> to that size.
>>
>> bullshit. bullshit. bullshit. gas viscosity at high temperature is
>> not unlike treacle. if you think you're going to "leak" all your
>> viscous burning fuel/air mix out of a tiny hole instantly, your
>> delusional thinking is getting /way/ out of hand.
>
> Well that's a interesting straw man you created. But sorry i don't have
> any idea how you got there or what viscosity has to do with anything i
> said.

you're making two false statements.

1. that valves go from zero to burned in "milliseconds". that's bullshit.

2. you "self limiting" theory is bullshit too.

if you understood viscosity [along with flow dynamics], you'd not be
making these retarded false statements. but if you ever had the desire
to understand, which you obviously don't, you'd be asking questions, not
bullshitting.


>
>
>
>>
>> for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in
>> learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation
>> point.
>
> Sometimes that is what happens. And sometimes a valve will just crack
> and a chunk of the valve breaks off. But that isn't what happened in the
> valve we are discussing.

er, the valve we are discussing is mine. i therefore have had the
opportunity to examine it closely. the burn mechanism is as described.
you otoh are guessing wildly and wrongly, and are a ing moron for
arguing about something you've never seen!


>
>
>
>
>> it typically takes several thousand miles. [engines run for
>> lower mileage in this condition have smaller valve holes. those run for
>> longer periods have larger holes. go figure.]
>
> No that is incorrect. Ultimately it reaches a point where the Air/fuel
> mixture gets diluted by exhaust gasses to the point where combustion
> can't occur. After combustion stops stops the valve will stabilize and
> the hole can't get any bigger after that.

bullshit, moron.

1. it's an exhaust valve, not intake. the exhaust is "being diluted" by
air/fuel, not the other way around.

2. valves burn over time. the more time, the bigger the hole. just
like your brain.


>
>
>>
>> typical causes are incorrect clearance and to a lesser extent, valve
>> defects.
>
> Most burnt valves present a completely different look.

eh?


>
>
>> jre's post alludes to this because with lean mixtures or
>> unleaded gas, combustion temperatures are higher. so, leaded valves
>> burn if exposed to unleaded temperatures and unleaded valves can burn if
>> mixtures run too lean.
>
> And all of that is irrelevant to the particular valve in question. That
> valve you posted a picture of burned in one up-stroke of the piston
> with a spectacular shower of sparks into the exhaust. It would have been
> a great pyrotechnic display if it had been on an engine with short
> exhaust pipes.

freakin' hollywood fantasy moron.


>
>
>> of course, you can argue this is not a "valve
>> defect" per se, but the valve metallurgy is insufficient for operating
>> conditions, so it amounts to the same thing.
>
> More blah blah blah which has nothing to do with the one particular
> valve under discussion. There are lots of different ways (with different
> causes) valves can burn, but we weren't talking about all valve or some
> valves - the discussion was about one particular valve.

oh, sorry, discussion of principle too hard for you? [rhetorical]
because if you don't understand the principles, [sic] you sure aren't
going to understand the practice!


>
>
>>
>> valves can also start to burn if under-worked engines accumulate excess
>> carbon deposits preventing full closure, but that's essentially the same
>> as a clearance issue.
>>
>>> Anyway the point I was making is not how the valve burned but that what
>>> you do can have consequences under rare circumstances that never get
>>> traced back to root causes.
>>
>> "never get traced"??? that speaks volumes about your knowledge level.
>> or the lack of it.
>
> here we go again. Why is it you are totally incapable of doing anything
> but name calling when your ideas are challenged and found to be wrong?
> You clearly have not traced the cause of this one valve and how it
> burned. All you have done is made up a story. Physical reality
> contradicts your story.

er, my physical reality is that i own the valve, dipshit. and i've done
metallurgy on valves like this, dipshit.

of course from the fact that you're a clueless retard that's got not the
slightest understanding of the technology doesn't stop you shooting your
dumb mouth off, but at least /try/ and learn what you clearly don't know.


>
>
> -jim
>
>>
>>> You can never really no for sure what you
>>> might have done differently that could have produced a different
>>> outcome. The best you can do is play the odds.
>>
>> this is why you're still on the shop floor - you have no desire to
>> learn, are too ing stoooopid to learn even if you did, and are
>> /certainly/ not capable of employing any form of logical thought.

Greg

jim beam wrote:

> straw clutching drivel.

> wow retard, you've still got that reading comprehension problem!

> as you evidently do! the problem being that /your/ "conclusions" are so
> "free", they don't bother to take into account the facts!

> like we can read your research contributions to "journal of tribology"?

> oh dear - more reading non-comprehension. is your old junior school
> teacher is still alive? they really f-ed you over.

> i seriously doubt you have the capacity to learn a single damned thing -
> too much bullshit in your head to allow anything new to fit in.

Damn, dude. You took yourself off your meds again, didn't ya?

Seriously Jim, you are a SERIOUS nut. The abuse you spew is
limitless. I'll bet you keep a supply of fresh towels at hand - to
wipe the spittle from your keyboard and monitor.

Observer

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:39 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>> news:7v-dnUM2k7SZ9c3WnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@bright.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been
>>>> over a week.
>>>>
>>>> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil
>>>> too often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI
>>>> appears to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant
>>>> statement in their publication.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified,
>>
>>
>> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>>
>> This statement:
>> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
>> produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
>> unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
>> result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
>> temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."
>>
>>
>>
>>> but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used
>>> oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd love to know your sources for that.
>>
>> To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
>> intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
>> so I am suspicious of my own intuition.
>
>which of course, is the right approach to have. we are all limited by
>our knowledge and experience. it's impossible to know what you don't
>know! but we can outline pieces of what we don't know, then try to
>learn so we can fill the gaps.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two
>>> identical engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and
>>> put oil that has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is
>>> fresh in the other after six hours of test running, there will be less
>>> evidence of the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the
>>> new oil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
>> radio-tracer parts:
>> "...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
>> source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
>> oil-conditioning run."
>>
>> The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
>> clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
>> a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
>> biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
>> than the text of the article appears to say.
>
>i suspect the real reason is because they got snowed by idiots like our
>friend swamping them with their own crackpot theories.
>science/engineering people don't usually have much time for the
>ignorant. your emails probably [unfortunately] went down with that ship.
>
>
>>
>> I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
>> shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
>> the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
>> seems intuitive to me.
>
>or you can rely on other information. something like mobil 1 extended
>performance works exactly as advertised - it has a 15k mile warranty.


I'd love to see what the oil looks like after 15k miles. I realize
the quality of engines and oil is better than 30 years ago so it makes
sense that the oil change interval is greater now (15k ???) but like
Tegger, I prefer more frequent oil changes.

News

Tegger wrote:
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
> news:S7udndm97riGuc7WnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net:
>
>
>> Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
>> industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
>> were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive engineers,
>> you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
>> pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.
>
>
> That last sentence says it all for me.
>
>


And "pre-stressed" would be priced at a premium to "new".

Tegger

News <News@Group.Name> wrote in
news:fNCdneaNJLzkdcjWnZ2dnUVZ_thi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> Tegger wrote:
>> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>> news:S7udndm97riGuc7WnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net:
>>
>>
>>> Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
>>> industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
>>> were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive engineers,
>>> you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
>>> pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.
>>
>>
>> That last sentence says it all for me.
>>
>>
>
>
> And "pre-stressed" would be priced at a premium to "new".



That's /exactly/ what I thought.

If the benefits from "prestressing" were actually real, it would have some
significant marketing advantage. Oil companies could simply heat the oil up
in a tank for X-number of hours to reach peak effectiveness, then sell it
with a big marketing campaign.

Considering the unlikeliness of oil companies missing an opportunity for
more cash by failing to market "prestressed" motor oil, I am now deeply
suspicious of the whole "prestressed" idea.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim beam

On 01/19/2010 07:44 AM, Observer wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:39 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>> news:7v-dnUM2k7SZ9c3WnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@bright.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been
>>>>> over a week.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil
>>>>> too often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI
>>>>> appears to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant
>>>>> statement in their publication.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified,
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>>>
>>> This statement:
>>> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
>>> produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
>>> unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
>>> result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
>>> temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used
>>>> oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd love to know your sources for that.
>>>
>>> To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
>>> intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
>>> so I am suspicious of my own intuition.
>>
>> which of course, is the right approach to have. we are all limited by
>> our knowledge and experience. it's impossible to know what you don't
>> know! but we can outline pieces of what we don't know, then try to
>> learn so we can fill the gaps.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two
>>>> identical engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and
>>>> put oil that has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is
>>>> fresh in the other after six hours of test running, there will be less
>>>> evidence of the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the
>>>> new oil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
>>> radio-tracer parts:
>>> "...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
>>> source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
>>> oil-conditioning run."
>>>
>>> The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
>>> clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
>>> a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
>>> biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
>>> than the text of the article appears to say.
>>
>> i suspect the real reason is because they got snowed by idiots like our
>> friend swamping them with their own crackpot theories.
>> science/engineering people don't usually have much time for the
>> ignorant. your emails probably [unfortunately] went down with that ship.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
>>> shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
>>> the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
>>> seems intuitive to me.
>>
>> or you can rely on other information. something like mobil 1 extended
>> performance works exactly as advertised - it has a 15k mile warranty.
>
>
> I'd love to see what the oil looks like after 15k miles. I realize
> the quality of engines and oil is better than 30 years ago so it makes
> sense that the oil change interval is greater now (15k ???) but like
> Tegger, I prefer more frequent oil changes.

this is 20k mile mobil 1 "extended performance" oil.

http://tinypic.com/r/29c402b/6

[the brown resin you see in a couple of places is from before i had the
car and was substantially worse.]

jim beam

On 01/19/2010 05:28 PM, Tegger wrote:
> News<News@Group.Name> wrote in
> news:fNCdneaNJLzkdcjWnZ2dnUVZ_thi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>> news:S7udndm97riGuc7WnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
>>>> industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
>>>> were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive engineers,
>>>> you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
>>>> pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.
>>>
>>>
>>> That last sentence says it all for me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> And "pre-stressed" would be priced at a premium to "new".
>
>
>
> That's /exactly/ what I thought.
>
> If the benefits from "prestressing" were actually real, it would have some
> significant marketing advantage. Oil companies could simply heat the oil up
> in a tank for X-number of hours to reach peak effectiveness, then sell it
> with a big marketing campaign.
>
> Considering the unlikeliness of oil companies missing an opportunity for
> more cash by failing to market "prestressed" motor oil, I am now deeply
> suspicious of the whole "prestressed" idea.
>
>

like when someone takes their oil to the recycling facility and
generously donates it to the people that "refine" it, then sell it back
as "motor oil"? what do people think happens to that stuff once the
tanker collects it???

besides, it doesn't make much sense to spend the time and money wearing
out machines to produce this stuff when there are apparently limitless
hordes willing to change their oil after only 3k miles, even with
synthetic. more profitable to sell them new oil 5x more often than they
really need.

Observer

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:58:07 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 01/19/2010 07:44 AM, Observer wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:39 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>>> news:7v-dnUM2k7SZ9c3WnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@bright.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been
>>>>>> over a week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil
>>>>>> too often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI
>>>>>> appears to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant
>>>>>> statement in their publication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>>>>
>>>> This statement:
>>>> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
>>>> produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
>>>> unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
>>>> result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
>>>> temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used
>>>>> oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to know your sources for that.
>>>>
>>>> To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
>>>> intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
>>>> so I am suspicious of my own intuition.
>>>
>>> which of course, is the right approach to have. we are all limited by
>>> our knowledge and experience. it's impossible to know what you don't
>>> know! but we can outline pieces of what we don't know, then try to
>>> learn so we can fill the gaps.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two
>>>>> identical engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and
>>>>> put oil that has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is
>>>>> fresh in the other after six hours of test running, there will be less
>>>>> evidence of the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the
>>>>> new oil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
>>>> radio-tracer parts:
>>>> "...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
>>>> source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
>>>> oil-conditioning run."
>>>>
>>>> The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
>>>> clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
>>>> a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
>>>> biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
>>>> than the text of the article appears to say.
>>>
>>> i suspect the real reason is because they got snowed by idiots like our
>>> friend swamping them with their own crackpot theories.
>>> science/engineering people don't usually have much time for the
>>> ignorant. your emails probably [unfortunately] went down with that ship.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
>>>> shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
>>>> the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
>>>> seems intuitive to me.
>>>
>>> or you can rely on other information. something like mobil 1 extended
>>> performance works exactly as advertised - it has a 15k mile warranty.
>>
>>
>> I'd love to see what the oil looks like after 15k miles. I realize
>> the quality of engines and oil is better than 30 years ago so it makes
>> sense that the oil change interval is greater now (15k ???) but like
>> Tegger, I prefer more frequent oil changes.
>
>this is 20k mile mobil 1 "extended performance" oil.
>
>http://tinypic.com/r/29c402b/6
>
>[the brown resin you see in a couple of places is from before i had the
>car and was substantially worse.]


I admit it looks good. I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
several people that do swear by the stuff.


1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in

a) older cars without the seals leaking?
b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?

2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
normally use siince it will stay in place longer?

3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors?
(I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1)