new Honda CR-V break in

On 01/15/2010 06:03 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> 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 conclusion has long ago been shown to be not correct. Using dirty
> oil did not produce less wear. It produced less evidence of wear.

wow, the mental gymnastics continue! would this translate into
witchdoctorese as "dead chickens don't heal broken legs, they simply
hide evidence of breakage"?


>
>
>>
>> if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished
>> effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address.
>
> Diminished effectiveness of the detergents and dispersants in the oil is
> the cause of less evidence of wear particles in the oil.

where did you get this little nugget from cowboy? it's not from
anything presented here!


> This study
> demonstrates exactly why oil analysis can be misleading

eh??? no it doesn't!


> and why Cummins
> engines advises against using oil analysis for determining oil change
> intervals.

no they don't. read the cites.


> When oil gets old and dirty it no longer has the same
> capacity to hold wear particles in suspension that clean oil does.

at end of life. analysis determines that end of life. like a fuel
gauge determines when your tank is empty! sorry if that's a hard
concept to grasp.


> That
> doesn't mean there was less wear in the study it only means there were
> fewer wear particles found in the oil.

wow! have you ever heard of "logic"? 'cos you're not using any.


>
> You seem to think that you are the first person in the entire world to
> stumble upon this study that has been kicking around for 10 years. Let
> me clue you in. You are not some messenger from heaven spreading the
> gospel of truth and enlightenment to the masses. For one thing the
> masses are already pretty convinced you don't have a clue. For another
> what you consider information is a crock of ****. If dirty oil was more
> valuable than clean oil I would be able to drain the oil out of my
> engine at 3000 miles and sell it as "partially stressed conditioned" oil
> for more than I paid for it new.

whatever you say dude. you just keep on denying what you don't want to
know and you'll go to your grave just as ignorant as you are today.
just try not to **** in the knowledge pool too much for other people
while you're on your way.

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2010 06:03 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >> 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 conclusion has long ago been shown to be not correct. Using dirty
> > oil did not produce less wear. It produced less evidence of wear.
>
> wow, the mental gymnastics continue! would this translate into
> witchdoctorese as "dead chickens don't heal broken legs, they simply
> hide evidence of breakage"?

It is pretty plain English, but who knows how it might translate into
your fantasy.


>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished
> >> effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address.
> >
> > Diminished effectiveness of the detergents and dispersants in the oil is
> > the cause of less evidence of wear particles in the oil.
>
> where did you get this little nugget from cowboy? it's not from
> anything presented here!

Well it was, but you were pretty busy madly typing "Bull****" and "see
above"



>
> > 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.


>
> > 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."

>
> > When oil gets old and dirty it no longer has the same
> > capacity to hold wear particles in suspension that clean oil does.
>
> at end of life. analysis determines that end of life. like a fuel
> gauge determines when your tank is empty! sorry if that's a hard
> concept to grasp.

The question is/was what does the study you presented as evidence show?
It does not show that oil gets better as it gets dirty - only a fool
would believe that.


>
> > That
> > doesn't mean there was less wear in the study it only means there were
> > fewer wear particles found in the oil.
>
> wow! have you ever heard of "logic"? 'cos you're not using any.

And once again you show how baffled you are. If you see a flaw in logic
why don't you explain what it is instead of jumping up and down and
chattering like a monkey.


>
> >
> > You seem to think that you are the first person in the entire world to
> > stumble upon this study that has been kicking around for 10 years. Let
> > me clue you in. You are not some messenger from heaven spreading the
> > gospel of truth and enlightenment to the masses. For one thing the
> > masses are already pretty convinced you don't have a clue. For another
> > what you consider information is a crock of ****. If dirty oil was more
> > valuable than clean oil I would be able to drain the oil out of my
> > engine at 3000 miles and sell it as "partially stressed conditioned" oil
> > for more than I paid for it new.
>
> whatever you say dude. you just keep on denying what you don't want to
> know and you'll go to your grave just as ignorant as you are today.
> just try not to **** in the knowledge pool too much for other people
> while you're on your way.

Well i must say you are consistent. You continue to be in anguish that
someone might be polluting your fantasy.

But hey maybe I've got you all wrong. Would you like to buy some used
oil?

I'll give you a super deal only $4/qt of a special blend of
pre-stressed oil. Send me $40 and $10 for shipping and handling and your
mailing address and i will send you 10 quarts of the finest pre-stressed
conditioned oil. But don't dawdle this is a limited once in a life time
offer.

-jim

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.

--
JRE

On 01/15/2010 06:40 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/15/2010 06:03 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 conclusion has long ago been shown to be not correct. Using dirty
>>> oil did not produce less wear. It produced less evidence of wear.
>>
>> wow, the mental gymnastics continue! would this translate into
>> witchdoctorese as "dead chickens don't heal broken legs, they simply
>> hide evidence of breakage"?
>
> 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?


>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished
>>>> effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address.
>>>
>>> Diminished effectiveness of the detergents and dispersants in the oil is
>>> the cause of less evidence of wear particles in the oil.
>>
>> where did you get this little nugget from cowboy? it's not from
>> anything presented here!
>
> Well it was, but you were pretty busy madly typing "Bull****" and "see
> above"

well dude, i'm many things - insufferably pedantic, potty mouthed, a
royal prick, etc. but i also say it just how it is. and when someone
like you starts spewing bull****, i'll say so. if you don't like it,
don't bull****. real simple!


>
>
>
>>
>>> 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
"bull****ter" again, right? and apparently you don't like that.


>
>
>>
>>> 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.

apparently that doesn't bother you, but you've not evidenced any ability
to read or understand, so why change now?


>
>>
>>> When oil gets old and dirty it no longer has the same
>>> capacity to hold wear particles in suspension that clean oil does.
>>
>> at end of life. analysis determines that end of life. like a fuel
>> gauge determines when your tank is empty! sorry if that's a hard
>> concept to grasp.
>
> The question is/was what does the study you presented as evidence show?
> It does not show that oil gets better as it gets dirty - only a fool
> would believe that.

er, let me reinsert my words that you so carefully snipped:

'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.


>
>
>>
>>> That
>>> doesn't mean there was less wear in the study it only means there were
>>> fewer wear particles found in the oil.
>>
>> wow! have you ever heard of "logic"? 'cos you're not using any.
>
> And once again you show how baffled you are. If you see a flaw in logic
> why don't you explain what it is instead of jumping up and down and
> chattering like a monkey.

er, so if you get locked into an airtight chamber, and after an hour or
so, you turn blue and start to hyperventilate, that's not lack of
oxygen, it's merely lack of evidence of oxygen? that sounds like an
experiment you're familiar with!


>
>
>>
>>>
>>> You seem to think that you are the first person in the entire world to
>>> stumble upon this study that has been kicking around for 10 years. Let
>>> me clue you in. You are not some messenger from heaven spreading the
>>> gospel of truth and enlightenment to the masses. For one thing the
>>> masses are already pretty convinced you don't have a clue. For another
>>> what you consider information is a crock of ****. If dirty oil was more
>>> valuable than clean oil I would be able to drain the oil out of my
>>> engine at 3000 miles and sell it as "partially stressed conditioned" oil
>>> for more than I paid for it new.
>>
>> whatever you say dude. you just keep on denying what you don't want to
>> know and you'll go to your grave just as ignorant as you are today.
>> just try not to **** in the knowledge pool too much for other people
>> while you're on your way.
>
> Well i must say you are consistent. You continue to be in anguish that
> someone might be polluting your fantasy.
>
> But hey maybe I've got you all wrong. Would you like to buy some used
> oil?
>
> I'll give you a super deal only $4/qt of a special blend of
> pre-stressed oil. Send me $40 and $10 for shipping and handling and your
> mailing address and i will send you 10 quarts of the finest pre-stressed
> conditioned oil. But don't dawdle this is a limited once in a life time
> offer.

you want fries with that logical thinking diploma you have?

here, try some bedtime reading:
http://www.npower-oilanalysis.com/
http://www.everytime.cummins.com/sit...on=maintenance

On 01/15/2010 06:56 PM, 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.
>

dude, please, don't disturb his fantasy - he's got it all dialed in.

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.
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. 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.

-jim

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
> "bull****ter" 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? 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. 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.


>
> 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 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. 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.

The factual evidence this study presents appear to be genuine. The
conclusion they reached from those facts is what 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.

-jim

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
>> "bull****ter" 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"!

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.

bull****. bull****. bull****. 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.

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.