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 bull**** 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.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:39 -0800, jim beam > wrote:

>On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.

Tegger wrote:
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
> :
>
>
>> 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".

News > wrote in
t:

> Tegger wrote:
>> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> 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/

On 01/19/2010 07:44 AM, Observer wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:39 -0800, jim > wrote:
>
>> On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.]

On 01/19/2010 05:28 PM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in
> t:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:58:07 -0800, jim beam > wrote:

>On 01/19/2010 07:44 AM, Observer wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:39 -0800, jim > wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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)

On 01/20/2010 04:17 AM, Observer wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:58:07 -0800, jim > wrote:
>
>> On 01/19/2010 07:44 AM, Observer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:39 -0800, jim > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

jim beam wrote:
> On 01/19/2010 05:28 PM, Tegger wrote:
>> > wrote in
>> t:
>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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?

jim beam wrote:

>
> you're making two false statements.
>
> 1. that valves go from zero to burned in "milliseconds". that's bull****.

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 bull**** 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
> bull****ting.
>

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, dip****. and i've done
> metallurgy on valves like this, dip****.

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.