Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Again, that's a relic of the 1950's. Ain't gonna happen!
>>>>
>>>> Even if it did happen, no oil bottler is immune to accidents.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
>>> against such refinery or bottling accidents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years,
>> yes,
>> I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
>> redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to
>> prevent
>> those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe
>> bottlers are
>> just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
>> occurrences.
>
>
> Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
> one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
> products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
> and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
> quality orientation.
>
> Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
> "name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
> manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
> Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
> to do QC! No offense. :-)
>
> It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
> to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
> some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
> mechanism.

This is all true, but what's your point? It says nothing specific about
the companies we're discussing. Unless you know what their QA/QC
procedures are, you have no right to denegrate them based on pure
speculation.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> gerry wrote:
>
>> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> gerry wrote:
>>>
>>>> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned
>>>>>>> here several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement
>>>>>>> to be patently false. There was a wide range of data in
>>>>>>> virtually every parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>> difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full
>>>>>> Synthetic 5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions
>>>>>> therein? Do you have any data showing that any other oil is
>>>>>> demonstrably superior in any way? You can keep making vague
>>>>>> references to an old motorcycle magazine article if you wish, but
>>>>>> that's not good enough. It's time to either put up or shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>> location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't
>>>>> think I have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their
>>>>> last test was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate
>>>>> copyright law by publishing it here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>>
>>>> "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General
>>>> Revision of
>>>> the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>> regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or
>>>> criticism for
>>>> purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>> scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>> author's observations;...."
>>>
>>>
>>> If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial
>>> portion of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute
>>> a "short passage."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>>
>> at the government source
>>
>> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed
>> himself; it
>> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
>> the work."
>>
>> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
>
>
> I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
> some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
> post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
> posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
> copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
> still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
> would cost for a reprint.
>
> I'm done with you.

I emailed you a .jpg file, Matt. You can't do the same for us? Tsk, tsk.
I guess it's just easier to get your panties all in a wad and refuse to
participate.

BTW, I have no ax to grind for Supertech, per se. I just don't like
seeing a good product being lambasted by someone who obviously has no
clue what they're talking about.

As I suggested above, go read the Consumer Reports article, since you're
a fan of their testing. In case you ignored it above, here's the URL again:

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

If you're too lazy to even click on the link and read the article - or
unwilling to do so, since it refutes your claims - I'll summarize their
conclusions for you:

1- There was no measureable difference in wear in the engines tested
between brands of oil, regardless of price or type of oil (natural,
synthetic or synthetic blend).

2- Any API certified oil will protect an engine for typical 7500 mile
change intervals.

That was as of 1996. API standards have been raised 5 times since then,
so current oils are even better than those tested, at least incrementally.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> gerry wrote:
>
>> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> gerry wrote:
>>>
>>>> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned
>>>>>>> here several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement
>>>>>>> to be patently false. There was a wide range of data in
>>>>>>> virtually every parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>> difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full
>>>>>> Synthetic 5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions
>>>>>> therein? Do you have any data showing that any other oil is
>>>>>> demonstrably superior in any way? You can keep making vague
>>>>>> references to an old motorcycle magazine article if you wish, but
>>>>>> that's not good enough. It's time to either put up or shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>> location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't
>>>>> think I have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their
>>>>> last test was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate
>>>>> copyright law by publishing it here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>>
>>>> "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General
>>>> Revision of
>>>> the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>> regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or
>>>> criticism for
>>>> purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>> scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>> author's observations;...."
>>>
>>>
>>> If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial
>>> portion of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute
>>> a "short passage."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>>
>> at the government source
>>
>> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed
>> himself; it
>> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
>> the work."
>>
>> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
>
>
> I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
> some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
> post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
> posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
> copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
> still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
> would cost for a reprint.
>
> I'm done with you.

I emailed you a .jpg file, Matt. You can't do the same for us? Tsk, tsk.
I guess it's just easier to get your panties all in a wad and refuse to
participate.

BTW, I have no ax to grind for Supertech, per se. I just don't like
seeing a good product being lambasted by someone who obviously has no
clue what they're talking about.

As I suggested above, go read the Consumer Reports article, since you're
a fan of their testing. In case you ignored it above, here's the URL again:

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

If you're too lazy to even click on the link and read the article - or
unwilling to do so, since it refutes your claims - I'll summarize their
conclusions for you:

1- There was no measureable difference in wear in the engines tested
between brands of oil, regardless of price or type of oil (natural,
synthetic or synthetic blend).

2- Any API certified oil will protect an engine for typical 7500 mile
change intervals.

That was as of 1996. API standards have been raised 5 times since then,
so current oils are even better than those tested, at least incrementally.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> gerry wrote:
>
>> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> gerry wrote:
>>>
>>>> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned
>>>>>>> here several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement
>>>>>>> to be patently false. There was a wide range of data in
>>>>>>> virtually every parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>> difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full
>>>>>> Synthetic 5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions
>>>>>> therein? Do you have any data showing that any other oil is
>>>>>> demonstrably superior in any way? You can keep making vague
>>>>>> references to an old motorcycle magazine article if you wish, but
>>>>>> that's not good enough. It's time to either put up or shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>> location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't
>>>>> think I have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their
>>>>> last test was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate
>>>>> copyright law by publishing it here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>>
>>>> "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General
>>>> Revision of
>>>> the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>> regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or
>>>> criticism for
>>>> purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>> scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>> author's observations;...."
>>>
>>>
>>> If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial
>>> portion of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute
>>> a "short passage."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>>
>> at the government source
>>
>> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed
>> himself; it
>> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
>> the work."
>>
>> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
>
>
> I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
> some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
> post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
> posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
> copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
> still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
> would cost for a reprint.
>
> I'm done with you.

I emailed you a .jpg file, Matt. You can't do the same for us? Tsk, tsk.
I guess it's just easier to get your panties all in a wad and refuse to
participate.

BTW, I have no ax to grind for Supertech, per se. I just don't like
seeing a good product being lambasted by someone who obviously has no
clue what they're talking about.

As I suggested above, go read the Consumer Reports article, since you're
a fan of their testing. In case you ignored it above, here's the URL again:

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

If you're too lazy to even click on the link and read the article - or
unwilling to do so, since it refutes your claims - I'll summarize their
conclusions for you:

1- There was no measureable difference in wear in the engines tested
between brands of oil, regardless of price or type of oil (natural,
synthetic or synthetic blend).

2- Any API certified oil will protect an engine for typical 7500 mile
change intervals.

That was as of 1996. API standards have been raised 5 times since then,
so current oils are even better than those tested, at least incrementally.

 

Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
news:jN8Xf.3535$7f.3081@trndny05:

> Matt Whiting wrote:

>> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products.
>> Now that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
>> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences
>> that matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest
>> product I can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff.
>> :-)
>
> Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten
> this article that refutes everything you've suggested:
>
> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
>
> Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
> test. Read it and weep, Matt.

Indeed. If anyone expected to find serious differences among oils, believe
me, Consumer Reports would be running these tests every year.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
news:jN8Xf.3535$7f.3081@trndny05:

> Matt Whiting wrote:

>> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products.
>> Now that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
>> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences
>> that matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest
>> product I can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff.
>> :-)
>
> Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten
> this article that refutes everything you've suggested:
>
> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
>
> Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
> test. Read it and weep, Matt.

Indeed. If anyone expected to find serious differences among oils, believe
me, Consumer Reports would be running these tests every year.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
news:jN8Xf.3535$7f.3081@trndny05:

> Matt Whiting wrote:

>> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products.
>> Now that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
>> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences
>> that matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest
>> product I can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff.
>> :-)
>
> Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten
> this article that refutes everything you've suggested:
>
> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
>
> Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
> test. Read it and weep, Matt.

Indeed. If anyone expected to find serious differences among oils, believe
me, Consumer Reports would be running these tests every year.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:18:32 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:


>As a Quality Assurance Engineer

Not surprised at all! Your training shows in your clear logic!

I had a wonderful career in QA, but sometimes it's a lonely job.



--
Bob

 

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:18:32 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:


>As a Quality Assurance Engineer

Not surprised at all! Your training shows in your clear logic!

I had a wonderful career in QA, but sometimes it's a lonely job.



--
Bob

 

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:18:32 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:


>As a Quality Assurance Engineer

Not surprised at all! Your training shows in your clear logic!

I had a wonderful career in QA, but sometimes it's a lonely job.



--
Bob

 

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:50:04 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
>one?

3 different companies. An appliance manufacturer, a pipe fitting company
that made exotic alloy nuclear fittings, and a precision tool company that
manufactured and used many bearings of many types. I was considered their
in-house "expert" on bearings and lubricants. That Consumer Reports article
read like many of my own reports, and brought back memories! We used to do
bearing and lubricant wear tests with gages that had a resolution of
..000002" (2 millionth's of an inch)


>Since adopting TQM and Six Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
>to do QC! No offense. :-)

HA!! That was my philosophy way before it was widely adopted! I was
considered a radical at 1 time. Instead of hiring and maintaining a huge QC
department to weed out defects, I emphasized quality at the point of
manufacture. I wanted every machinist to be a QC technician. I wanted my
inspectors, techs, and engineers to be primarily teachers. And yes, 6 Sigma
was nirvana!

>It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
>to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
>some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
>mechanism.

Exactly!
--
Bob

 

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:50:04 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
>one?

3 different companies. An appliance manufacturer, a pipe fitting company
that made exotic alloy nuclear fittings, and a precision tool company that
manufactured and used many bearings of many types. I was considered their
in-house "expert" on bearings and lubricants. That Consumer Reports article
read like many of my own reports, and brought back memories! We used to do
bearing and lubricant wear tests with gages that had a resolution of
..000002" (2 millionth's of an inch)


>Since adopting TQM and Six Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
>to do QC! No offense. :-)

HA!! That was my philosophy way before it was widely adopted! I was
considered a radical at 1 time. Instead of hiring and maintaining a huge QC
department to weed out defects, I emphasized quality at the point of
manufacture. I wanted every machinist to be a QC technician. I wanted my
inspectors, techs, and engineers to be primarily teachers. And yes, 6 Sigma
was nirvana!

>It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
>to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
>some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
>mechanism.

Exactly!
--
Bob

 

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:50:04 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
>one?

3 different companies. An appliance manufacturer, a pipe fitting company
that made exotic alloy nuclear fittings, and a precision tool company that
manufactured and used many bearings of many types. I was considered their
in-house "expert" on bearings and lubricants. That Consumer Reports article
read like many of my own reports, and brought back memories! We used to do
bearing and lubricant wear tests with gages that had a resolution of
..000002" (2 millionth's of an inch)


>Since adopting TQM and Six Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
>to do QC! No offense. :-)

HA!! That was my philosophy way before it was widely adopted! I was
considered a radical at 1 time. Instead of hiring and maintaining a huge QC
department to weed out defects, I emphasized quality at the point of
manufacture. I wanted every machinist to be a QC technician. I wanted my
inspectors, techs, and engineers to be primarily teachers. And yes, 6 Sigma
was nirvana!

>It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
>to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
>some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
>mechanism.

Exactly!
--
Bob

 

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:29:32 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:


>The article he's referring to is from 2000. It's in a motorcycle
>magazine, which alone is enough to cast doubts about how relevent it is
>to an automobile discussion.

Well, I suppose the processes are so standardized that data from 2000 is
100% relevant. But I agree that MC's and cars are apples and oranges.
--
Bob

 

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:29:32 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:


>The article he's referring to is from 2000. It's in a motorcycle
>magazine, which alone is enough to cast doubts about how relevent it is
>to an automobile discussion.

Well, I suppose the processes are so standardized that data from 2000 is
100% relevant. But I agree that MC's and cars are apples and oranges.
--
Bob