GTcarz - Automotive forums for cars & trucks.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:21:49 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>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.

test