|
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/16/2010 05:14 AM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >>> >>> It is pretty plain English, but who knows how it might translate into >>> your fantasy. >> >> thing is, what you understand comes out of your mouth. but reality and >> your mouth don't seem to be connected. but the fault is mine for daring >> to say so, right? > > The fault is yours Yes. When confronted with a simple question or a > statement of fact you tuck your tail between your legs and run run run. > > > >> >> well dude, i'm many things - insufferably pedantic, potty mouthed, a >> royal prick, etc. but i also say it just how it is. > > You forgot "clue less" in your list of attributes. > > >>>> >>>>> This study >>>>> demonstrates exactly why oil analysis can be misleading >>>> >>>> eh??? no it doesn't! >>> >>> And of course as usual you can't say why. >> >> i can't say why you can read one thing and then misconstrue it to mean >> something else!!! well, i can, but then i'd be calling you "stupid" and >> "bullshitter" again, right? and apparently you don't like that. > > I wouldn't care what you said if it were said with any honesty. If fools > like you honestly believed that dirty oil protects an engine from wear > better than clean oil then all the people who change their oil at 3000 > miles would be selling their used oil to fools like you at a profit. I > just checked on Ebay - there is not one person selling used oil on Ebay. > Why is that? Oh I'm sorry I asked another question now you have to go > run and hide again. > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> and why Cummins >>>>> engines advises against using oil analysis for determining oil change >>>>> intervals. >>>> >>>> no they don't. read the cites. >>> >>> Geez did your feeble mind forget the quote from Cummins already? >>> >>> "Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil >>> analysis be used to determine >>> maintenance intervals." >> >> those are your words. you have not cited a source that i can verify. >> otoh, /i/ cited cummins saying the opposite with things like "an oil >> analysis program is strongly recommended" and advertising their change >> interval extension options. > > What good is a source that you can verify? wow, what a classic! hey, books are no good if you can actually read them!! > You are a fool. Your > verification is completely worthless. If you weren't such a lazy whiner > you would have cut and past that quote from Cummins into Google and it > would take you right to the document from Cummins: > > http://www.cummins.dk/fileadmin/doku...3810340-04.htm > > Here is another quote from Cummins that bears directly on the question > of wear particles found in used oil analysis: > > [QUOTE] > > Commercially available oil testing techniques do not measure depletion > of all the chemical additives in the oil, or determine when these > additives stop protecting engine parts from wear and deposits. that's patent garbage. either cummins don't have a proper lab or they haven't bothered to employ anyone capable of figuring that stuff out. > 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. > > >> >> apparently that doesn't bother you, but you've not evidenced any ability >> to read or understand, so why change now? >> > >> >> er, let me reinsert my words that you so carefully snipped: > > You are hallucinating again. I didn't snip that I responded to it > directly. Meaningful responses apparently completely confound you. > >> >> '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." ' >> >> that's pretty straight language to most folks. apparently not >> comprehensible to you though. > > The statement is perfectly comprehensible. And it is also wrong. > > Running the test engine with dirty oil did not produce less wear. It > produced less evidence of wear. This is because the dirty oil is not > capable of retaining all the wear particles that were produced. As I > said this study is 10 years old and the conclusion they reached 10 years > ago has long since been discredited. > > To quote Cummins again: > > "Engine oil operated beyond this saturation point "beyond this saturation point". the whole purpose of analysis it to determine what that saturation point is! if it's 250 hours, change the oil. if it's 1000 hours, change the oil. it's real ing simple dude. and in fact cummins say that. having read your [finally] quoted /online/ cite, you're quoting out of context. not that i'm surprised. > 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." > > > 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/. > 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! > > 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. > 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"! |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation point. 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.] typical causes are incorrect clearance and to a lesser extent, valve defects. 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. 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. 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. > 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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. > > > You are a fool. Your > > verification is completely worthless. If you weren't such a lazy whiner > > you would have cut and past that quote from Cummins into Google and it > > would take you right to the document from Cummins: > > > > http://www.cummins.dk/fileadmin/doku...3810340-04.htm > > > > Here is another quote from Cummins that bears directly on the question > > of wear particles found in used oil analysis: > > > > [QUOTE] > > > > Commercially available oil testing techniques do not measure depletion > > of all the chemical additives in the oil, or determine when these > > additives stop protecting engine parts from wear and deposits. > > that's patent garbage. either cummins don't have a proper lab or they > haven't bothered to employ anyone capable of figuring that stuff out. HA HA HA HA man you are such a comedian. You whine and cry and beg for a source to Cummins service bulletin. And then when given the source all you an say is Cummins doesn't know what they are doing. HA HA HA that was certainly good for a laugh. > > > 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? > > > > > > 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > 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? 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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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? [rhetorical] or do you have some kind of authoritarian "do as i say, don't ask questions" problem common among people with small organs? > > >> >>> You are a fool. Your >>> verification is completely worthless. If you weren't such a lazy whiner >>> you would have cut and past that quote from Cummins into Google and it >>> would take you right to the document from Cummins: >>> >>> http://www.cummins.dk/fileadmin/doku...3810340-04.htm >>> >>> Here is another quote from Cummins that bears directly on the question >>> of wear particles found in used oil analysis: >>> >>> [QUOTE] >>> >>> Commercially available oil testing techniques do not measure depletion >>> of all the chemical additives in the oil, or determine when these >>> additives stop protecting engine parts from wear and deposits. >> >> that's patent garbage. either cummins don't have a proper lab or they >> haven't bothered to employ anyone capable of figuring that stuff out. > > HA HA HA HA man you are such a comedian. You whine and cry and beg for a > source to Cummins service bulletin. And then when given the source all > you an say is Cummins doesn't know what they are doing. HA HA HA that > was certainly good for a laugh. clearly you've never done analysis or been in a chemistry lab. to say you can't determine the composition is ridiculous. 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. > > > >> >>> 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. > > >>> >>> >>> 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. 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.] > 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. > 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! 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. > 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! > 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. > 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!!! > > >> >>> 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. > > >>> >>> 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! > > >> >>> 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! > 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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. > > 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? > 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. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> 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? > > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> 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. 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? > > 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). That leads to the obvious conclusions that if the oil is not holding all the particles in suspension then A) they must be ending up somewhere else and B) measuring the wear particles in the oil will not detect those missing particles. > > > 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? The drop out of wear particles from the oil after 20 hours occurs even when the engine is running. The evidence that wear particles end up in the filter means the particles are starting to stick to things. 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. 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. > > > 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. The experiment demonstrated that wear particles start to become sticky 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. That means that some of the particles stick to each other in clumps and start to show up in the oil filter. But there is no accounting for particles that end up elsewhere. As the Cummins bulletin also stated one place the wear particles can disappear to is inside the combustion chamber. 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. > > > > > > >> > >>> 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. 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. > > > > > >>> > >>> 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? 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. > > > > > > >> > >>> 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? > > > 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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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/ |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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/ |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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/ |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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/ |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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". |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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/ |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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.] |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
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) |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/20/2010 04:17 AM, Observer wrote:
> 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? safe to use - mine is 20 years old, original seals. only leakage i've had recently is about the distributor, but that's a common honda problem and not specific to the oil. > b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)? safe to use - original factory fill on several cars. > > 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? i use an ordinary filter. hondas burn clean [when properly maintained anyway] so they don't produce excessive combustion product to clog the filter. i did change this car's filter at about 12k miles though - more for curiosity than anything else. > > 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors? > (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1) no idea - i've been happy with these results so haven't experimented further. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote:
> 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??? Same as what happens to the freedom fry oil at Mickey D's? |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > you're making two false statements. > > 1. that valves go from zero to burned in "milliseconds". that's bullshit. Well it happens. And people who know why it happens say that lubricating oil is the root cause. Strange as that may seem. Most of the research in this area has been done on engines that run on natural gas. This fuel produces virtually no soot so soot deposits in the combustion chamber and in the crankcase are not an issue. But there is an issue related to burning exhaust valves in these engines. They are much more likely to have an exhaust valve burn because of the higher temperature exhaust gasses. These engines exhaust valves are very sensitive to the amount of ash content in the lubricating oil. If the lubricating oil has too little ash content then the valve seat recession becomes a problem. Too much ash in the oil is associated with holes blown in the exhaust valve that look just like yours. Basically the problem is that if the valves seats are too clean then they wear away very rapidly. This was the mechanism behind why lead in gasoline was said to protect valves from valve seat recession. Lead caused engines to burn very dirty (created lots of cylinder deposits) and that protected the valves seats from wear. However nowadays with all the additives in motor oil designed for gasoline engines the oil and fuel that burns in the combustion chamber generally produces enough residue that valve recession is not a problem with gasoline engines (particularly old engines that consume more oil). But industrial natural gas engines burn extremely clean and despite extremely hard valve seats in these engines the seats can wear away rapidly in the absence of any combustion chamber deposits. But if the oil is formulated so there are too much deposits from burning oil then they find the incidence of catastrophic failure (like your valve) increase greatly. > > 2. you "self limiting" theory is bullshit too. You say that because you fail to understand how a 4 cycle spark ignition engine works. When a exhaust valve leaks it will let exhaust gas into the cylinder during the intake stroke. That dilutes the air/fuel charge. It takes very little dilution before the charge will no longer ignite when the the spark plug fires. That means a slowly developing leak in a valve will only get so big. After it gets to the point where the cylinder no longer fires then the valve and cylinder go cold and the valve leak no longer gets any bigger. > > 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. > I'd love to hear your theory on how viscosity plays role in the explanation of why your valve burned. You seem to think that making a statement like "you don't understand flow dynamics" explains something. It doesn't explain anything. It simply illustrates your ignorance. > > > > > > > >> > >> for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in > >> learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation > >> point. Some valve leaks develop slowly and others don't. But if they burn slowly then the size of the leak is limited. The size can't increase past the point where the cylinder goes cold. > > > > 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. You don't need to examine it closely. You should be able to recognize that type of burn from a distance. >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! You didn't see the valve burning either. If you had any comprehension of the meaning of your own words you would realize that you are calling yourself a "ing moron". > > er, my physical reality is that i own the valve, dipshit. and i've done > metallurgy on valves like this, dipshit. And what metallurgy have you done on valves like this? This is obviously once again a meaningless statement that you will later claim is an thorough explanation. If you want to do an experiment on the metal try this: Try cutting the head of your valve with a cutting torch. If you attempt that you will find that it doesn't cut like steel does. But then try again and this time introduce some flux into the cutting stream and it will blow a hole in the valve that looks just like your valve does. If you are looking for some flux - try using some combustion chamber deposits. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
"Observer" <none@none.com> wrote in
news:5esdl5t9783e9hr72lkafhcg0a0lsh12r0@4ax.com: > 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. I'm one of those. That thing about the leaks might have been true decades ago, but it's most certainly not true now. Switched both cars to Mobil 1 a few years ago. No new leaks at all. Not even any new seepage. Old seepage (my oil pan gasket) has not gotten worse. Frankly, the stuff's amazing. Perhaps a tenth the varnish, and none of the actual buildup, that happened with dino oil. I have no idea what the lubrication properties of synthetic are like versus dino, but by gosh Mobil 1 keeps your motor clean. > > > 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)? Use it without concern. > > 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? I change my filter with each oil change. With my annual mileage of over 20,000, I change oil and filter eight times a year (yeah, I'm a dummy and a dupe, I know). > > 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors? > (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1) Plenty of competitors. Are they as (apparently) good? Don't know. And don't care. I like ExxonMobil for their politics and for what I see of their commitment to doing good work. So I give them my money. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/20/2010 05:22 PM, Tegger wrote:
> "Observer"<none@none.com> wrote in > news:5esdl5t9783e9hr72lkafhcg0a0lsh12r0@4ax.com: > >> 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. > > > I'm one of those. > > That thing about the leaks might have been true decades ago, but it's most > certainly not true now. > > Switched both cars to Mobil 1 a few years ago. No new leaks at all. Not > even any new seepage. Old seepage (my oil pan gasket) has not gotten worse. > > Frankly, the stuff's amazing. Perhaps a tenth the varnish, and none of the > actual buildup, that happened with dino oil. > > I have no idea what the lubrication properties of synthetic are like versus > dino, but by gosh Mobil 1 keeps your motor clean. > > >> >> >> 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)? > > > > Use it without concern. > > >> >> 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? > > > I change my filter with each oil change. With my annual mileage of over > 20,000, I change oil and filter eight times a year (yeah, I'm a dummy and a > dupe, I know). maybe there's something i can tell you to put your fears to rest... if you examine this pic, http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/4291579733/ at high res and look closely at the cam lobe at 1o/c, you'll see scoring. when i changed the head gasket on this engine about 42k miles ago, it was a friday afternoon, and i had a hot weekend date in los angeles 400 miles away and was in a hurry. needless to say, i rushed the job, didn't strip and clean like i should have, and cleaning the head after scraping the gasket off comprised putting the head on the driveway, and hosing it off. needless to say, the splashing washed grit /on/ to the head, as well as gasket flakes off it. but i didn't care - i was thinking of upgrading the motor anyway, i had to get going, and to heck with the consequences. i didn't even change the oil. i noticed that it scored right away and was expecting it because of the grit. i drove to l.a., back, and was busy for the next couple of months, so when i eventually got around to changing the oil, i was expecting to have nuts and bolts fall out of the drain hole. nothing. looking inside the filler hole and at the cam, i expected to see either greater trauma, or that the scoring had worn off - scoring is ridges and valleys - all the high spots should get rubbed away. instead, what i saw was exactly as it had been about ten minutes after start-up from the gasket change gritting. and what you see there today, is the same, 42k miles later. now that sir, is a truly remarkable feat. those are not the marks of a distressed cam where the nitriding has worn through to the soft substrate beneath. this is where the oil has maintained a robust hydrodynamic separation between the running surfaces, in spite of a dramatically roughened surface, essentially not allowing any wear in what is for many engines, a considerable fraction of their total lifetime. i was ambivalent about synthetics before - i mean, i supposed them to be good for chemical stability, friction reduction, etc. but i did not expect them to be /this/ good for wear resistance. absolutely amazing. and this last batch of oil has been in there for 20k miles. the corollary: 2.5k mile change intervals on synthetic are completely unnecessary. and i'm still running that engine at nearly 200k miles. and it's not burning oil. > > >> >> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors? >> (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1) > > > Plenty of competitors. Are they as (apparently) good? Don't know. And don't > care. I like ExxonMobil for their politics and for what I see of their > commitment to doing good work. So I give them my money. > > > |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/20/2010 07:18 AM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >> >> you're making two false statements. >> >> 1. that valves go from zero to burned in "milliseconds". that's bullshit. > > Well it happens. And people who know why it happens say that > lubricating oil is the root cause. Strange as that may seem. that is an utterly ridiculous and unfounded statement - there is little or no oil in the combustion chamber. > > Most of the research in this area has been done on engines that run on > natural gas. This fuel produces virtually no soot so soot deposits in > the combustion chamber and in the crankcase are not an issue. But there > is an issue related to burning exhaust valves in these engines. They are > much more likely to have an exhaust valve burn because of the higher > temperature exhaust gasses. These engines exhaust valves are very > sensitive to the amount of ash content in the lubricating oil. If the > lubricating oil has too little ash content then the valve seat recession > becomes a problem. Too much ash in the oil is associated with holes > blown in the exhaust valve that look just like yours. ash is silica and/or alumina abrasive. valve wear can cause clearance problems, if there is any, hence it would be poor clearance and maintenance that's the issue, not some magical unexplainable crap about carbon deposits causing burn like you said before. and let's ignore the effect of heat - the /real/ cause of valve pain. bullshitter. > > Basically the problem is that if the valves seats are too clean then > they wear away very rapidly. bullshit - first it's the ash, now it's cleanliness. utter bullshit. > This was the mechanism behind why lead in > gasoline was said to protect valves from valve seat recession. Lead > caused engines to burn very dirty (created lots of cylinder deposits) > and that protected the valves seats from wear. bullshit. it burned cooler and thus wore less. heat softens the metal. it's heat that kills valves. > However nowadays with all > the additives in motor oil designed for gasoline engines the oil and > fuel that burns in the combustion chamber generally produces enough > residue that valve recession is not a problem with gasoline engines > (particularly old engines that consume more oil). But industrial natural > gas engines burn extremely clean and despite extremely hard valve seats > in these engines the seats can wear away rapidly in the absence of any > combustion chamber deposits. But if the oil is formulated so there are > too much deposits from burning oil then they find the incidence of > catastrophic failure (like your valve) increase greatly. bullshit. natural gas engines burn much cleaner, and thus have much extended oil change intervals. it's neglect and lack of servicing that's causing the problem [if any, and given that there's only honda and a few converted frods on the road that run on this stuff, i'm calling BULLSHIT on you having any experience. > > > > > >> >> 2. you "self limiting" theory is bullshit too. > > You say that because you fail to understand how a 4 cycle spark ignition > engine works. When a exhaust valve leaks it will let exhaust gas into > the cylinder during the intake stroke. you forgot two things cowboy: 1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum long before there is any back-pressure. 2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking great big one is also open. oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all while being more viscous due to heat. in other words, you're just making up because you can't think this through and don't have enough information. > That dilutes the air/fuel charge. > It takes very little dilution before the charge will no longer ignite > when the the spark plug fires. That means a slowly developing leak in a > valve will only get so big. but you said the hole was instantaneously big! bullshitter. > After it gets to the point where the > cylinder no longer fires then the valve and cylinder go cold and the > valve leak no longer gets any bigger. indeed. but that is not an instantaneous process. cylinders don't fire at low rpm's but at higher rpm's, because of gas momentum, they still do. > > >> >> 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. >> > > I'd love to hear your theory on how viscosity plays role in the > explanation of why your valve burned. you can't read - i didn't say it has anything to do with burning - i said your back-pressure bullshit was bullshit because of it. > You seem to think that making a > statement like "you don't understand flow dynamics" explains something. > It doesn't explain anything. It simply illustrates your ignorance. er, other way around, idiot. > > >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in >>>> learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation >>>> point. > > Some valve leaks develop slowly and others don't. so, they burn fast when you want to bullshit, but they don't when it's ok to admit otherwise? great stuff there jim. > But if they burn > slowly then the size of the leak is limited. The size can't increase > past the point where the cylinder goes cold. they burn slowly either way, and limitation depends on rpm's. bullshitter. > > >>> >>> 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. > > You don't need to examine it closely. not to up and jump to conclusions you don't no! > You should be able to recognize > that type of burn from a distance. then why did you get it so wrong??? > > >> 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! > > You didn't see the valve burning either. If you had any comprehension > of the meaning of your own words you would realize that you are calling > yourself a "ing moron". wow, the hypocrisy is stunning. > > >> >> er, my physical reality is that i own the valve, dipshit. and i've done >> metallurgy on valves like this, dipshit. > > And what metallurgy have you done on valves like this? This is > obviously once again a meaningless statement that you will later claim > is an thorough explanation. you don't know what you don't know. idiot. > > If you want to do an experiment on the metal try this: Try cutting the > head of your valve with a cutting torch. If you attempt that you will > find that it doesn't cut like steel does. this is the best statement yet - no, it doesn't cut like steel does - valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE OXIDATION MECHANISM as you were bullshitting earlier. > But then try again and this > time introduce some flux into the cutting stream and it will blow a hole > in the valve that looks just like your valve does. If you are looking > for some flux - try using some combustion chamber deposits. what a bullshitting . |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Observer wrote:
> 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)? A) AFAIK, the original M1 apparently did have issues with seal shrinkage. The noodle heads added a more esters and other seal 'moisturizers' to the mix and the problem was cured. B) Of course. Any decent Syn will work just fine. > 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would > normally use since it will stay in place longer? Personally, I'd not use the low end Frams or other cheapo filters under any circumstances. IMO, you should spend a few extra bucks on a Bosch, Wix, Purolator, Mobil, etc. if you want to extend the oil change intervals beyond the traditional 3000~5000 miles. FWLIW, I'm running a 92 Accord at 10K OCI (oil change interval) on Syn oil and Purolator Pure-One or M1 filters. I occasionally cut the filters open at the end of their service life. None of these filters has shown any sign of distress. > 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors? > (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1) There's really little to differentiate most mainstream Syn oils. Penz Plat, M1, Valvoline's SynPower, etc. are all of roughly equal quality. You may well find standout products in each manufacturer's lineup. These are usually Euro-spec oils, or high mileage mixes which usually feature boosted anti-wear additives. Syntec 0W-30 ("German Castrol"), M1's 0W-40 and 10W-30HM, and other oils have attracted cult-like supporters. A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it good! Redline makes possibly the best high performance oil available in the US. Ester base, excellent viscosity characteristics, massive anti-wear additives, made by a straightforward small company, right here in the US. Head over to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ for more oil information (and plenty of unsubstantiated opinion as well!) than you can shake a dipstick at. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/20/2010 10:31 PM, Greg wrote:
> Observer wrote: > >> 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)? > > A) AFAIK, the original M1 apparently did have issues with seal > shrinkage. The noodle heads added a more esters motul and red line are ester based, but the others are based on olefins. > and other seal > 'moisturizers' to the mix and the problem was cured. > > B) Of course. Any decent Syn will work just fine. > >> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would >> normally use since it will stay in place longer? > > Personally, I'd not use the low end Frams or other cheapo filters under > any circumstances. IMO, you should spend a few extra bucks on a Bosch, "bosch" and "mobil 1" are in fact made by champion labs. the mobil filters are slightly different construction, but the bosch style filters are sold under the walmart house brand label for ~$2. i use them and the results you see above. > Wix, Purolator, Mobil, etc. if you want to extend the oil change > intervals beyond the traditional 3000~5000 miles. > FWLIW, I'm running a 92 Accord at 10K OCI (oil change interval) on Syn > oil and Purolator Pure-One or M1 filters. I occasionally cut the filters > open at the end of their service life. None of these filters has shown > any sign of distress. > >> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors? (I ask because I >> never hear of them, just Mobil 1) > > There's really little to differentiate most mainstream Syn oils. Penz > Plat, M1, Valvoline's SynPower, etc. are all of roughly equal quality. > You may well find standout products in each manufacturer's lineup. These > are usually Euro-spec oils, or high mileage mixes which usually feature > boosted anti-wear additives. Syntec 0W-30 ("German Castrol"), "german castrol" is what is supposed to be in bmw's, and i can attest to that stuff being bad for engine deposits. > M1's 0W-40 > and 10W-30HM, and other oils have attracted cult-like supporters. > > A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an > "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it > good! > > Redline makes possibly the best high performance oil available in the > US. Ester base, excellent viscosity characteristics, massive anti-wear > additives, made by a straightforward small company, right here in the US. > > Head over to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ for more oil > information (and plenty of unsubstantiated opinion as well!) than you > can shake a dipstick at. most of that "opinion" is underinformed drivel. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
> > 1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum > long before there is any back-pressure. > > 2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking > great big one is also open. > > oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the > power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on > compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on > exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down > the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all > while being more viscous due to heat. Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke??????? If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think exhaust gas would not flow through it? Do you think momentum and and the fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the exhaust gasses from going through the hole? Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that? >no, it doesn't cut like steel does - > valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT > INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE > OXIDATION MECHANISM Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface layer of chromium oxides. Under the right conditions that protective layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly oxidize just as fast as mild steel. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/21/2010 01:47 PM, jim wrote:
> > > >> >> 1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum >> long before there is any back-pressure. >> >> 2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking >> great big one is also open. >> >> oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the >> power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on >> compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on >> exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down >> the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all >> while being more viscous due to heat. > > Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that > hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke??????? look at the ing valve dipshit - all those marks are for exiting gas, not entering. now, you go ahead and argue what you like to the contrary, but it'll just be ignorant idiotic bullshit. > > > If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think > exhaust gas would not flow through it? does you ass fill with water if it's downstream of a fire hose? how about if it's upstream? cos that burnt valve is upstream, just in case your powers of observation hadn't allowed you to determine the facts. [sic] > Do you think momentum and and the > fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the > exhaust gasses from going through the hole? see above. > > Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming > from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that? of freakin' course!!! but it's low compression causing low power yield, and thus lower exit temps, not "exhaust dilution"!!!! jeepers - for a guy that was bleating about knowledge of the 4-stroke cycle, you sure are amazingly ignorant of it. > > > >> no, it doesn't cut like steel does - >> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT >> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE >> OXIDATION MECHANISM > > Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the > iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface > layer of chromium oxides. absolute bull ing . you clearly know as much about valve metallurgy as you do about flow dynamics. > Under the right conditions that protective > layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly > oxidize just as fast as mild steel. absolutely not. you're just guessing. and guessing wrong. bullshitting idiot. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg"
<nospam@null.net> wrote: > A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an > "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it > good! > A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any oil related engine problems. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. Meyer" <e.p.meyer@verizon.net>
wrote: >On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg" ><nospam@null.net> wrote: > >> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an >> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it >> good! >> > >A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to >find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you >run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any >oil related engine problems. Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different viscosities like 5W20, etc... ? |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/23/2010 06:57 AM, Guy wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. Meyer"<e.p.meyer@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg" >> <nospam@null.net> wrote: >> >>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an >>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it >>> good! >>> >> >> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to >> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you >> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any >> oil related engine problems. > > > Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different > viscosities like 5W20, etc... ? how about this for a dumb: "is your browser broken? can't you get mobil1.com"? ridiculous attention-seeking. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > On 01/21/2010 01:47 PM, jim wrote: > > > > > Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that > > hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke??????? > > look at the ing valve dipshit - all those marks are for exiting gas, > not entering. now, you go ahead and argue what you like to the > contrary, but it'll just be ignorant idiotic bullshit. Yes the damage was done when pressurized air blow torched through the valve. And all of that happened as gas flowed out the cylinder. The rapid oxidation of the iron in the valve produces tremendously high temperature so there is a runaway reaction until the air that is feeding it reverses direction. But after that event was over with, from then on gasses can flow in and out the hole with very little effect to the valve because (after a few seconds of cooling down) the valve is very much colder than normal. > > > > > > > > If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think > > exhaust gas would not flow through it? > > does you ass fill with water if it's downstream of a fire hose? how > about if it's upstream? cos that burnt valve is upstream, just in case > your powers of observation hadn't allowed you to determine the facts. [sic] The normal behavior of exhaust system dynamics becomes kaput when you put a hole that size in the exhaust valve. The hole doesn't need to be that big to disrupt the proper functioning of the cylinder and exhaust. A good bit of the cylinder pressure is going to be lost during compression stroke and by the time it gets around to the exhaust stroke there aint that much left. You are pretending the gasses pushed out during the exhaust stroke would have the same inertia they would have if the cylinder was working properly. The hole in that cylinder exhaust valve is downstream from the other exhaust ports and the flow from that exhaust port is less than the exhaust from the other ports so there is nothing stopping the flow from higher pressure areas to where there is less pressure. > > > > Do you think momentum and and the > > fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the > > exhaust gasses from going through the hole? > > see above. Yeah right I'm supposed to look above at some dimwitted remark about you putting fire hoses up your ass. You seem to be relying on an encyclopedic collection of meaningless metaphors for your attempts to understand how the physical world works. If there is a hole in the exhaust manifold there will be exhaust flowing in and out of the hole due to the pulsating exhaust pressure. But much more gasses will be flowing out than in because of the average internal pressure of the exhaust manifold is higher than outside. That momentary low pressure that draws air into the flow is what is referred to as scavenging . The hole in the valve won't be much different than any other hole in the exhaust manifold. > > > > > > Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming > > from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that? > > of freakin' course!!! but it's low compression causing low power yield, > and thus lower exit temps, not "exhaust dilution"!!!! jeepers - for a > guy that was bleating about knowledge of the 4-stroke cycle, you sure > are amazingly ignorant of it. No that is incorrect. If a hole in the valve is small enough that the cylinder can still support combustion a Exhaust Gas Temperature sensor will show on average higher than normal temp, due flames leaking past the valve. Regardless of whether you hold the opinion that the cylinder is producing power or not, if the sensor shows the exhaust temps are cold the valve is not going to erode or wear any more. At that point the cylinder has stabilized and the valve remains unchanged thereafter. > > > > > > > > > >> no, it doesn't cut like steel does - > >> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT > >> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE > >> OXIDATION MECHANISM > > > > Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the > > iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface > > layer of chromium oxides. > > absolute bull ing . you clearly know as much about valve > metallurgy as you do about flow dynamics. I know that if an exhaust valve does not have sufficient clearance it will get much hotter than normal. And that can mean the valve will crack, fracture, warp or erode away over time. But the end result of any of those scenarios will look much different. And your feeble repetitions of the word "bullshit' doesn't change that reality. > > > > Under the right conditions that protective > > layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly > > oxidize just as fast as mild steel. > > absolutely not. you're just guessing. and guessing wrong. > bullshitting idiot. Nobody saw what happened,. But we can be sure that your guess can not be correct, because valves that burn slowly don't look like that. Valve manufacturers have done extensive failure analysis. Based on that analysis, some folk's guesses are more educated than others. Small engine manufactures are a good source for information on this because when a single cylinder engine is running along fine and abruptly stops running and you open it up and find a valve that looks it has been flame cut with a torch there is much less room for guessing as to what happened. Both Briggs and Kohler blame this type of valve burnout on a chance encounter of combustion chamber carbon deposits and the exhaust valve seat. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/23/2010 08:32 AM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >> On 01/21/2010 01:47 PM, jim wrote: >> >>> >>> Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that >>> hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke??????? >> >> look at the ing valve dipshit - all those marks are for exiting gas, >> not entering. now, you go ahead and argue what you like to the >> contrary, but it'll just be ignorant idiotic bullshit. > > Yes the damage was done when pressurized air blow torched through the valve. And > all of that happened as gas flowed out the cylinder. The rapid oxidation of the > iron in the valve produces tremendously high temperature so there is a runaway > reaction until the air that is feeding it reverses direction. for ordinary iron, oxidation is strongly exothermic, yes. but ordinary iron is no good at corrosion or heat resistance, so what are valves made of, dipshit? clue: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a > > But after that event was over with, from then on gasses can flow in and out > the hole with very little effect to the valve because (after a few seconds of > cooling down) the valve is very much colder than normal. but the freakin' gases aren't dipshit! besides, valves burn slowly - see above. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think >>> exhaust gas would not flow through it? >> >> does you ass fill with water if it's downstream of a fire hose? how >> about if it's upstream? cos that burnt valve is upstream, just in case >> your powers of observation hadn't allowed you to determine the facts. [sic] > > The normal behavior of exhaust system dynamics becomes kaput when you put a hole > that size in the exhaust valve. so exhaust gasses are suddenly going to flood upstream - glad you could re-write the entire book on flow dynamics and clear that up! > The hole doesn't need to be that big to disrupt > the proper functioning of the cylinder and exhaust. really??!!! > A good bit of the cylinder > pressure is going to be lost during compression stroke and by the time it gets > around to the exhaust stroke there aint that much left. bravo. oh, btw, that's not "exhaust gas dilution". > You are pretending the > gasses pushed out during the exhaust stroke would have the same inertia they would > have if the cylinder was working properly. no, you are pretending that exhaust gas flows upstream! > The hole in that cylinder exhaust valve is downstream from the other exhaust > ports eh? have you ever seen a honda manifold? you can't have to make a statement like that. > and the flow from that exhaust port is less than the exhaust from the other > ports so there is nothing stopping the flow from higher pressure areas to where > there is less pressure. straw clutching drivel. what you /can/ get is a pressure wave, but that is not exhaust flow. but you'd know that if you had the slightest clue. > >> >> >>> Do you think momentum and and the >>> fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the >>> exhaust gasses from going through the hole? >> >> see above. > > Yeah right I'm supposed to look above at some dimwitted remark about you putting > fire hoses up your ass. You seem to be relying on an encyclopedic collection of > meaningless metaphors for your attempts to understand how the physical world works. > > If there is a hole in the exhaust manifold there will be exhaust flowing in and > out of the hole due to the pulsating exhaust pressure. no, dipshit. does hydraulic fluid need to flow to transmit pressure??? of course not. neither does your phantom upstream flowing exhaust gas. similarly, with a brake line, once you do get flow [open a bleed valve], what happens to pressure??? [i blame [y]our education [system].] > But much more gasses will be > flowing out than in because of the average internal pressure of the exhaust > manifold is higher than outside. That momentary low pressure that draws air into > the flow is what is referred to as scavenging . The hole in the valve won't be > much different than any other hole in the exhaust manifold. except that a hole in the manifold is downstream, and an exhaust valve is upstream! > >> >> >>> >>> Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming >>> from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that? >> >> of freakin' course!!! but it's low compression causing low power yield, >> and thus lower exit temps, not "exhaust dilution"!!!! jeepers - for a >> guy that was bleating about knowledge of the 4-stroke cycle, you sure >> are amazingly ignorant of it. > > No that is incorrect. If a hole in the valve is small enough that the cylinder can > still support combustion a Exhaust Gas Temperature sensor will show on average > higher than normal temp, due flames leaking past the valve. bullshit. combustion temperature is a function of compression. as compression decreases, so does combustion temp. basic thermodynamics. > > Regardless of whether you hold the opinion that the cylinder is producing > power or not, if the sensor shows the exhaust temps are cold the valve is not > going to erode or wear any more. At that point the cylinder has stabilized and the > valve remains unchanged thereafter. you are slowly getting there, except that it's not anywhere that simple. at low exchange rates, i.e. low rpm, there is more time to establish equilibrium, and thus tend towards zero pressure differential. however, as rpm's increase, there isn't, thus combustion continues to occur, and valves continue to burn for quite some time after symptoms first appear. "stabilization" is long and slow, not "milliseconds" as you were previously guessing. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> no, it doesn't cut like steel does - >>>> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT >>>> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE >>>> OXIDATION MECHANISM >>> >>> Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the >>> iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface >>> layer of chromium oxides. >> >> absolute bull ing . you clearly know as much about valve >> metallurgy as you do about flow dynamics. > > I know that if an exhaust valve does not have sufficient clearance it will get much > hotter than normal. And that can mean the valve will crack, fracture, warp or erode > away over time. cracking is almost unheard of. fracture is what happens after cracking. warping is a function of temperature or loading - and warping is not a factor in valve burn. erosion is caused by gas leakage due to failure to close properly, or by a valve defect. > But the end result of any of those scenarios will look much > different. And your feeble repetitions of the word "bullshit' doesn't change that > reality. the "reality" that you clearly don't understand??? > > > >> >> >>> Under the right conditions that protective >>> layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly >>> oxidize just as fast as mild steel. >> >> absolutely not. you're just guessing. and guessing wrong. >> bullshitting idiot. > > Nobody saw what happened,. hey, you never saw that guy get shot, so that bullet hole didn't kill him! or is the whole point of analysis to examine the physical evidence so you /do/ know what happened??? [rhetorical] > But we can be sure that your guess can not be > correct, because valves that burn slowly don't look like that. bullshit! dude, not only are you hopelessly undereducated on this stuff [which would be curable if you weren't so closed], your problem is that you refuse to learn, analyze, or even begin to seek out what it doesn't know. thus, you're not merely ignorant, you're actually stoooopid. > Valve > manufacturers have done extensive failure analysis. Based on that analysis, some > folk's guesses are more educated than others. and some folk not only fiercely resist learning a damned thing, they actually guess and bullshit, just for the sake of hearing their own voice! > > Small engine manufactures are a good source for information on this because > when a single cylinder engine is running along fine and abruptly stops running and > you open it up and find a valve that looks it has been flame cut with a torch there > is much less room for guessing as to what happened. Both Briggs and Kohler blame > this type of valve burnout on a chance encounter of combustion chamber carbon > deposits and the exhaust valve seat. briggs and kohler both have huge combustion technology and metallurgical r&d facilities and make their own valves don't they. oh, wait, no they don't... you don't work for one of them do you? |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > for ordinary iron, oxidation is strongly exothermic, yes. but ordinary > iron is no good at corrosion or heat resistance, so what are valves made > of, dipshit? The reaction of the iron in exhaust valves with oxygen is every bit as exothermic as the iron in mild steel. The alloys used in valves are designed so that type of reaction normally can't happen, but your valve is evidence that it does happen. Your valve can be easily cut with a torch. Ask a welder to show you how. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/23/10 8:57 AM, in article uh3ml5tl90f3auv2t3nklcjh2pjrvjppov@4ax.com, "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. Meyer" <e.p.meyer@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg" >> <nospam@null.net> wrote: >> >>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an >>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it >>> good! >>> >> >> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to >> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you >> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any >> oil related engine problems. > > > Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different > viscosities like 5W20, etc... ? Mobil 1 does come in 5W20. That's what I run in my CRV. For a long time that was the only choice for that weight. Its starting to appear in other brands now also. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/23/2010 10:35 AM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >> >> for ordinary iron, oxidation is strongly exothermic, yes. but ordinary >> iron is no good at corrosion or heat resistance, so what are valves made >> of, dipshit? > > The reaction of the iron in exhaust valves /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though. > with oxygen is every bit as > exothermic as the iron in mild steel. what is the ignition temperature of Fe vs. Ni, Co, Cr, etc.? how are you going to get your exothermic reaction sustained if you can't actually /start/ it? and what is going to happen if you start this reaction and keep supplying oxygen to it? how much valve do you think you're going to have left at the end? > The alloys used in valves are > designed so that type of reaction normally can't happen, that is indeed true!!! and, of course, it directly contradicts your drivel above. > but your valve > is evidence that it does happen. gas erosion != oxidation! > Your valve can be easily cut with a > torch. Ask a welder to show you how. no, /you/ need to see it. or rather, /not/ see it. you're simply guessing and hoping i don't know any better. you should actually try this stuff yourself if you don't want to get it wrong and make yourself look like such a horse's ass. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 2010-01-23, E. Meyer <e.p.meyer@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg" ><nospam@null.net> wrote: > >> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an >> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it >> good! >> > > A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to > find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you > run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any > oil related engine problems. > The Oil Change specials at every place I have been to cover 5w20. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the > exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though. I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is still iron. > > > with oxygen is every bit as > > exothermic as the iron in mild steel. > > what is the ignition temperature of Fe vs. Ni, Co, Cr, etc.? how are > you going to get your exothermic reaction sustained if you can't > actually /start/ it? > Well you don't need to ignite the protective layer which is mostly composed of Cr. All you need to do is change it so that the air can get to the iron. > and what is going to happen if you start this reaction and keep > supplying oxygen to it? how much valve do you think you're going to > have left at the end? Yes if there is more air it will eat a lot farther. I've seen that. > > > The alloys used in valves are > > designed so that type of reaction normally can't happen, > > that is indeed true!!! and, of course, it directly contradicts your > drivel above. that only means there is evidence that an abnormal condition where it can happen was met. > > > but your valve > > is evidence that it does happen. > > gas erosion != oxidation! The metal was molten and it got quite a bit hotter than any of the gasses present. You may be able to find some slag. A slow erosion of the valve would look different. Another way a valve can lose a lot a metal is if chunk breaks off. But that also is going to look obviously different. > > > Your valve can be easily cut with a > > torch. Ask a welder to show you how. > > no, /you/ need to see it. or rather, /not/ see it. you're simply > guessing and hoping i don't know any better. Guessing? at what? > you should actually try > this stuff yourself if you don't want to get it wrong and make yourself > look like such a horse's ass. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands