new Honda CR-V break in

On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
>>>> the fantasy bull****ter? do you know what "delusional" means?
>>>
>>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
>>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
>>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.
>>>
>>>> From you I have seen no
>>>>> evidence at all.
>>>>
>>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts..
>>
>> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.
>>
>
> Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
> become expert at saying "Bull****" with great authority! Oh my goodness
> i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.


wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful.

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
> >>>> the fantasy bull****ter? do you know what "delusional" means?
> >>>
> >>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
> >>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
> >>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.
> >>>
> >>>> From you I have seen no
> >>>>> evidence at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
> >>>> problem.
> >>>
> >>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts..
> >>
> >> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.
> >>
> >
> > Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
> > become expert at saying "Bull****" with great authority! Oh my goodness
> > i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.
>
> wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful.

No you got that exactly backwards as usual. I'm pretty sure I would be
ashamed of myself if I had read more of your posts.

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2010 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
> >> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing.
> >
> > So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying
> > "bull****" and "see above"?
> >
> > The article states that the wear particles are too small to be
> > filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in
> > the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that?
>
> i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same
> article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the
> pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical]

In other words, you don't have a single clue how to answer the
question.

>
> >
> >
> >
> >> and if detergency
> >> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
> >> product. so you're bull****ting.
> >
> > No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and
> > dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that
> > get turned on and off like a light switch.
>
> don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the
> misunderstanding is you.

False words??? You are precious little toady. If you don't want others
to explain your position why don't you take a stab at explaining it
yourself? I'll tell you why you don't because you can't.


>
> >
> > Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose
> > this sentence was referring to:
> >
> > "The radiotracer data also showed periods
> > of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion,
> > and recollection, following engine restarts
> > and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run."
> >
> > Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in
> > the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used
> > oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a
> > while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles
> > disappeared from the oil.
>
> eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you?
> because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've
> just quoted.

If there is 'no depositing of wear products' as you stated previously
then how can there be "reentrainment" and "recollection" of wear
particles as the article states? Is that another question you can't
answer?

The simple fact is that what was reported in the article demonstrates
that some of the additives in the oil have already started to exhibit
evidence of diminished effectiveness at 20 hours of use.




>
> >> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
> >> paragraphs with tabs, but hey.
> >
> > Talk about delusional fantasies......
>
> no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually
> exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above.

Why is it impossible for you to actually state in coherent words what
exactly is incorrect in what I said? You can't answer that one either?

Going back to my first question - If you can - Please explain why it
was observed that the oil is displaying a difference in the way it holds
wear particles in suspension after only 20 hours of use?

On 01/15/2010 05:05 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
>>>>>> the fantasy bull****ter? do you know what "delusional" means?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
>>>>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
>>>>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>> From you I have seen no
>>>>>>> evidence at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts..
>>>>
>>>> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
>>> become expert at saying "Bull****" with great authority! Oh my goodness
>>> i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.
>>
>> wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful.
>
> No you got that exactly backwards as usual. I'm pretty sure I would be
> ashamed of myself if I had read more of your posts.

dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
know, they also set you straight on some of the **** you have hopelessly
wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.

jim beam wrote:

>
> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
> know, they also set you straight on some of the **** you have hopelessly
> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.

You can't answer one little simple question about your so called
"information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of
substance is to start name calling.

On 01/15/2010 05:11 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/15/2010 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
>>>> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing.
>>>
>>> So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying
>>> "bull****" and "see above"?
>>>
>>> The article states that the wear particles are too small to be
>>> filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in
>>> the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that?
>>
>> i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same
>> article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the
>> pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical]
>
> In other words, you don't have a single clue how to answer the
> question.

er, no, it's a case of how can i argue with someone that can't read,
doesn't evidence basic comprehension and doesn't want to know?


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and if detergency
>>>> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
>>>> product. so you're bull****ting.
>>>
>>> No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and
>>> dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that
>>> get turned on and off like a light switch.
>>
>> don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the
>> misunderstanding is you.
>
> False words??? You are precious little toady. If you don't want others
> to explain your position why don't you take a stab at explaining it
> yourself? I'll tell you why you don't because you can't.

i've explained it, and cited external sources - you're the one that's in
delusional denial.


>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose
>>> this sentence was referring to:
>>>
>>> "The radiotracer data also showed periods
>>> of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion,
>>> and recollection, following engine restarts
>>> and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run."
>>>
>>> Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in
>>> the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used
>>> oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a
>>> while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles
>>> disappeared from the oil.
>>
>> eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you?
>> because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've
>> just quoted.
>
> If there is 'no depositing of wear products' as you stated previously
> then how can there be "reentrainment" and "recollection" of wear
> particles as the article states? Is that another question you can't
> answer?

!!! wow dude, for someone that can't pass a basic logic test, let alone
comprehension, that's unbelievably presumptive and stupid!!!


>
> The simple fact is that what was reported in the article demonstrates
> that some of the additives in the oil have already started to exhibit
> evidence of diminished effectiveness at 20 hours of use.

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."

if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished
effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address.


>
>
>
>
>>
>>>> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
>>>> paragraphs with tabs, but hey.
>>>
>>> Talk about delusional fantasies......
>>
>> no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually
>> exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above.
>
> Why is it impossible for you to actually state in coherent words what
> exactly is incorrect in what I said? You can't answer that one either?
>
> Going back to my first question - If you can - Please explain why it
> was observed that the oil is displaying a difference in the way it holds
> wear particles in suspension after only 20 hours of use?

dude, if you could possibly get the facts straight in the first place,
we could possibly have a discussion. as it stands however, you're
hopelessly mired in confusion and delusion.

On 01/15/2010 05:33 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
>> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
>> know, they also set you straight on some of the **** you have hopelessly
>> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
>> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
>> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.
>
> You can't answer one little simple question about your so called
> "information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of
> substance is to start name calling.

wrong. go back in the tread.

On 01/15/2010 05:36 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 01/15/2010 05:33 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
>>> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
>>> know, they also set you straight on some of the **** you have hopelessly
>>> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
>>> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
>>> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.
>>
>> You can't answer one little simple question about your so called
>> "information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of
>> substance is to start name calling.
>
> wrong. go back in the tread.

"thread"

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2010 05:36 PM, jim beam wrote:
> > On 01/15/2010 05:33 PM, jim wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
> >>> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
> >>> know, they also set you straight on some of the **** you have hopelessly
> >>> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
> >>> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
> >>> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.
> >>
> >> You can't answer one little simple question about your so called
> >> "information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of
> >> substance is to start name calling.
> >
> > wrong. go back in the tread.
>
> "thread"

Made more sense before

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.


>
> 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. This study
demonstrates exactly why oil analysis can be misleading and why Cummins
engines advises against using oil analysis for determining oil change
intervals. When oil gets old and dirty it no longer has the same
capacity to hold wear particles in suspension that clean oil does. That
doesn't mean there was less wear in the study it only means there were
fewer wear particles found in the oil.

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.