Advice for stripped threads upstream oxygen sensor exhaust manifold

On 08/05/2018 11:30 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> The only mod I make is the trivial one that makes the cap child proof.
> I just cut off the tap or remove the clip.

But, but, but.... It's for the children...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr814

Fortunately I don't have to deal with CARB, just stupid California ideas
that escape from the state.

On 5 Aug 2018 20:51:15 GMT, Clare Snyder wrote:

> If it glows it can warp. I;ve seen a lot of rotors glowing red - and
> a few almost orange hot - - you could see the glow in daylight.

I don't take anything at face value - I look things up.

However, I am not a metallurgist, so I first admit I didn't know if a rotor
"can" or "cannot" truly warp (as in potato chip) at street speeds - so I
looked up a few things about the temperature needed to cause true warpage
of a cast-iron rotor...

Raybestos says:
"Brake rotors do not warp from heat..."
<http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=1787>

This says:
"Rotors are cast in extreme heat ¡X three to five times greater than
the most aggressive braking situation. Physically ¡§warping¡¨ a rotor
would require a similar application of extreme heat, which is
impossible."
<http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/warped-rotors-myth/>

This says:
"...the temperature required to make metal that resilient soft enough to
simply bend would be tremendous."
<https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/why-do-brake-rotors-warp>

This says that there are adverse effects starting at 1200dF:
"When this local temperature reaches around 1200 or 1300 degrees F.
the cast iron under the deposit begins to transform into cementite
(an iron carbide in which three atoms of iron combine with one atom
of carbon). Cementite is very hard, very abrasive and is a poor heat
sink. If severe use continues the system will enter a self-defeating
spiral - the amount and depth of the cementite increases with
increasing temperature and so does the brake roughness."
<https://alconkits.com/technical-info/brake-tech/56-the-myth-of-warped-brake-discs>

This says:
"in more than 40 years of professional racing, including the Shelby/Ford
GT 40s ¡V one of the most intense brake development program in history
- I have never seen a warped brake disc."
<http://www.stoptech.com/technical-support/technical-white-papers/-warped-brake-disc-and-other-myths>

These say the myth of warped rotors started in the 1970's:
<http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/brake-tech-feature-8-myths-that-could-be-holding-you-back-from-performing-the-best-brake-job/>
<https://www.onallcylinders.com/2017/05/19/6-biggest-brake-rotor-myths-debunked/>

This non-scientific thread, which we can quickly assume isn't scientific so
let's just take it as a reasonable point of view only, says that the
surface may get to 600dF but the rest of the rotor is at a lower
temperature than the surface.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/3dxoli/the_myth_of_brake_rotor_warping/>

I know you guys hate me for "book knowledge", but the answer on temperature
seems pretty clear so I will argue no further unless actual references are
supplied, as I already know tons of people *think* rotors warp, but it
seems that anyone who has actually measured it, apparently thinks not
(where true warpage would be easy to measure if you have the equipment to
measure head warp).

On 6 Aug 2018 07:16:52 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> But, but, but.... It's for the children...
>
> https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr814
>
> Fortunately I don't have to deal with CARB, just stupid California ideas
> that escape from the state.

I do think about things, before, during, and after I do them.
Life isn't without risks (e.g., nobody would own a chainsaw, if it was).

Whenever CARB tells me I shouldn't "modify" the can, I remind them over the
phone that they shouldn't have modified the gas can, which was working just
fine.

All we're doing is making it work for the job its intended to do.

I don't mind the gas staying inside the can.
It's the fact the gas doesn't come out that I mind.

To that end, I never use the spout (it's just a cap) for filling vehicles.

Besides, hefting five or six gallons and pouring for a few minutes into a
modern day vehicle isn't as easy as one might think. The funnel has to be
deep enough to flip the spring-operated lid and you have to hold the can
well above that so that it won't drip.

What I do is a simple two-step process.
a. Using a hose, I siphon almost all the gas into the vehicle, and, then,
b. Using a modified funnel, I pour the remaining dribble into the tank.

The reason for the second step isn't so much to get the gas, as it's only a
dribble since the pipe keeps the hose in the bottom corner where the wood
ramp keeps the gas just slightly elevated to put all the liquid into that
corner.

The reason for the second step is simply emissions. All that dribble will
vaporize, at about 22 psi (depending on temperature) vapor pressure. If I
lock the cap tightly, that vapor will NOT get into the atmosphere UNTIL I
open the cap, and then virtually all of that gas WILL go into the
atmosphere.

There's no way around that, other than to pour all that dribble into the
gas tank of the car while it's still liquid.

Plus, the vapor pressure of even 22 psi will bulge out the gas can (which
they can handle with aplomb, but why bother - I just spend an extra 30
seconds per gas can shaking out the liquid droplets - as an emissions
amelioration only).

That's the only reason the wide-mouthed funnel is needed. It's modified to
be longer than most funnels are simply by the addition of a flexible hose
on the end so that it stays inside the vehicle's gas opening so that one
person can easily use it on the dribble.

It's insanely easy to refuel a vehicle at home (if you have the space).

My approach is so simple it's easier than filling at a gas station.
1. I park next to a tall retaining wall that meets with the garage.
2. A stepladder allows me to put the gas jugs in the flat spot at top.
3. An optional wood ramp slightly elevates the front of the gas jug.
4. A rigid sleeve keeps the hose at the back lowest corner of the jug.
5. By mouth, I siphon the liquid, always having plenty of safety time.
6. Generally I go about my business to come back about 5 minutes later.
7. About 4-1/2 minutes later, the siphoning has stopped, gas in the bend.
8. Lifting only the hose from the top, I drain the remaining liquid.
9. Using the modified funnel, I shake out the dribble from the gas can.
10. I loosely recap the can (allowing fumes to evaporate) for storage.

If you can think of any step to *improve* this insanely easy process, let
me know. The only improvement step that I can come up with is "delivery"
and "storage" of a few hundred gallons using an electric pump from Granger
(yes, I know gas has an oxidation lifetime which is longer than just a
month or two).

55-gallon steel drums epoxy lined:
<https://www.grainger.com/category/barrels-and-drums/barrels-drums-and-covers/drums-and-drum-handling-equipment/material-handling/ecatalog/N-1574Z1yzaej6>

Electric pump for the barrels:
<https://www.grainger.com/category/fuel-transfer-pumps/fuel-and-oil-transfer-pumps/pumps/ecatalog/N-11t0>

Safety storage for the 5-gallon jugs:
<http://www.safety1industries.com/product-reviews-blog/what-to-look-for-in-a-gas-storage-cabinet>
<https://www.uline.com/Grp_451/Safety-Storage>
<http://www.usasafety.com/gas-cylinder-cabinet-c-54.html>

Even though it's far more convenient to refuel at home than at a gas
station, I'm always looking for ways to improve the process.

BTW, I used to put a rag around the top of the can, but I doubt that much
gas is escaping in the 5 minutes it takes to fuel from a jug, and, even
with the rag, I doubt it prevents much, if any - since - in the end - ALL
the "wetness" of the inside of the gas jug will go into the atmosphere no
matter what you do.

On 7 Aug 2018 01:33:18 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> I'll read the rest, but the abstract talks about "runout" which is a
> completely different thing than warp

Hi Clare,

You should be warned that I'm intelligent so I can *read* a peer-reviewed
scientific paper, unlike, it seems, most people, who can't comprehend what
a paper says. I've read a billion of them, so, bear in mind that I can
understand what the authors are trying to say, even as they use words
differently than we do.

Reading onward, I think the authors make a critical mistake in not defining
their terms, particularly when they use the word "warp" in this sentence,
which is the first time it appears in the paper...
"It is known that disk warping or uneven disk thicknesses
induce pulsation during brake applications."

Clearly it is well known that "warp" (as in potato) and "uneven thickness"
are two completely different things - which means that this particular set
of Asian authors (M. W. ShinG. H. JangJ. K. KimH. Y. KimHo Jang) are likely
ignorant of what "warp" means - or - they simply assume that it means
something that it doesn't mean (i.e., warp and thickness variation are
completely different things - they just are).

They then compound their errors in a sentence not far from that last horrid
sentence, saying "When the disk temperature is increased by friction heat
during braking, the heat often causes dimensional instability of the disk,
permanently modifying the runout or disk thickness variation (DTV) of a
disk and producing brake judder."

WTF?

These Asian guys don't seem to comprehend the English language. It's well
known that DTV and runout are two completely different things. They just
are. Everyone knows that (except them).

I think the reason they didn't care to use correct words is that they
didn't really care about any of those things - what they cared about, it
seems, was the effect of heat treating on residual stress which resulted in
a less pronounced runout measurement.

The end of the introduction concludes with the idiotically worded sentence:
"While the disk warping during heat treatment was measured using
a static DTV measurement unit..."
Which clearly shows they're using the word "warp" differently than we are
(simply because it's a fact that warp and DTV are two different things).

It appears that Ripley and Kirstein (Ref 12) paper might be more
appropriate since they showed that the relaxation of the residual stress in
the disk could lead to disk distortion. (We have to look at that paper to
find out how they defined "disk distortion" though.)

On 7 Aug 2018 01:50:38 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> You should be warned that I'm intelligent so I can *read* a peer-reviewed
> scientific paper, unlike, it seems, most people, who can't comprehend what
> a paper says.

I just posted a query to alt.usage.english as to why these particular Asian
authors can't seem to comprehend the difference between "warp" and "runout"
and "dtv", all of which they clearly equate in their paper - where all of
them are different things.
Why can't people figure out warp versus runout versus disc thickness variation
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.usage.english/Gqh_4X_FSw8>

Unfortunately, since the Asian authors don't even comprehend what "warp"
actually means, that paper is useless for our purposes, IMHO, simply
because they never once measured warpage. Not once.

I completely understand how they *used* the term "warp"; but it's not the
same thing that I'm talking about.

What they measured was DTV and runout, and what they were caring about was
how heat treating affected those due to the interaction of residual stress
after subsequent heating.

This article, by apparently American authors, uses the terms the way I do:
http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/warped-rotors-myth/
Stop the Warped Rotors Myth and Service Brakes the Right Way

They advise:
"Starting today, remove ´warped rotor¡ from your vocabulary."

Where they discuss "lateral runout" and "disc thickness variation", which
are NOT the same thing as warp (as in potato).

They're just not.

On 7/8/18 12:18 pm, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2018 01:50:38 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> You should be warned that I'm intelligent so I can *read* a peer-reviewed
>> scientific paper, unlike, it seems, most people, who can't comprehend what
>> a paper says.
>
> I just posted a query to alt.usage.english as to why these particular Asian
> authors can't seem to comprehend the difference between "warp" and "runout"
> and "dtv", all of which they clearly equate in their paper - where all of
> them are different things.
> Why can't people figure out warp versus runout versus disc thickness variation
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.usage.english/Gqh_4X_FSw8>
>
> Unfortunately, since the Asian authors don't even comprehend what "warp"
> actually means, that paper is useless for our purposes, IMHO, simply
> because they never once measured warpage. Not once.
>
> I completely understand how they *used* the term "warp"; but it's not the
> same thing that I'm talking about.
>
> What they measured was DTV and runout, and what they were caring about was
> how heat treating affected those due to the interaction of residual stress
> after subsequent heating.
>
> This article, by apparently American authors, uses the terms the way I do:
> http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/warped-rotors-myth/
> Stop the Warped Rotors Myth and Service Brakes the Right Way
>
> They advise:
> "Starting today, remove ´warped rotor¡ from your vocabulary."
>
> Where they discuss "lateral runout" and "disc thickness variation", which
> are NOT the same thing as warp (as in potato).
>
> They're just not.
>
>
For christ's sake, WGAF?

--

Xeno

"The best way to make a fire with two sticks is to make sure one of them
is a match."
-- Will Rogers

On 08/06/2018 09:29 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> It's insanely easy to refuel a vehicle at home (if you have the space).

I've been known to refuel the bikes but since I pass three gas stations
on the way to work I'm not about to start my own.

On 6 Aug 2018 20:23:09 GMT, Clare Snyder wrote:

> Like I said - THERMAL DISTORTION - AKA warpage.
> You have a different definition?
>
> Rotors are GENERALLY made of grey iron - so it IS applicable.
> Anything that causes movement in metal constitutes WARPAGE

Hi Clare,
Let's stop this nonsense.

That paper clearly and obviously measured two things:
a. Lateral runout
b. Disc thickness variation

Never once did that paper mention measurement of warp (as in potato chip).

I'm OK if people suggest a paper because I love to learn, but you have to
assume I'm intelligent enough to know that just googling for the word warp
connected with temperature doesn't mean the paper shows *anything* about
warp happening with temperature.

Maybe most people here deal with people who can't comprehend what a paper
says, but I can read almost any paper (I read Physics papers all the time)
and if I want to, I can comprehend what they say.

That paper said absolutely nothing about warp (as in potato chip).

I'm not chastising you. I *appreciate* that you tried to show that the disc
can get to a temperature that is hot enough to cause warp, as I had already
provided multiple references which said that such temperatures are
impossible in street use.

It's a valid question.

If someone can provide a paper that proves that such temperatures actually
commonly happen, I'll *read* (and comprehend) that paper.

But don't throw a paper at me that says absolutely zero about warp.
(Please assume I'm intelligent enough to read & comprehend the paper.)


I am NOT chastising you.
I'm just telling the truth - which is that paper had nothing to do with
warp even though the Korean authors used the word in the paper.

They were talking about:
a. Lateral runout, and,
b. Disc thickness variation
(among other things, like heat treating effects.)

On 6 Aug 2018 20:16:21 GMT, Xeno wrote:

> For christ's sake, WGAF?

WGAF?

Why Give a ****?

There are good reasons to give a ****, since,
a) Clare suggested the paper, so I read it.
b) Are you chastising me for reading Clare's reference?
c) Or are you chastising me for *understanding* what it said?

Similarly, I don't know how many dollars are wasted every year on people
*thinking* their rotors warped, when they can't possibly warp (according to
the references I provided) simply because the temperatures needed are
impossible to attain for the entire rotor thickness.

Let's just assume that a billion dollars a year are *wasted* by morons who
can't comprehend the difference between disc thickness variation, lateral
runout, and true warp.

Worse - if I ever have a judder (and, at times, I do), then it matters a
lot that I *know* that warp can't possibly occur - so I know that the
long-term solution is not to buy "Tundra upgrades", which people spend
hundreds of dollars on that common but worthless imaginary panacea all the
freaking time!
<http://www.toyota-4runner.org/3rd-gen-t4rs/84240-tundra-brake-upgrade.html>

This is a group that is supposed to *understand* that which we fix, right?

If this group is supposed to *understand* a problem well enough to fix it,
then it matters that brake rotors just don't warp (they can't get hot
enough, based on the references I already quoted).

If someone can show a reference that shows that brake rotos can get hot
enough in street use to actually warp (as in potato chip), then I'll *read*
that reference.

You guys love to hate me for having "book knowledge", but having book
knowledge is better than having the wrong solution isn't it?

The reason it matters is that people implement the wrong solution because
they can't comprehend that rotors can't get hot enough to warp in street
use (according to multiple references - which hasn't been refuted by anyone
here).

Note, that Korean reference that Clare provided may have been translated
from Korean (we don't know yet), where this seems to be a portion of the
funding (apparently):
1.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringKorea University Seoul Republic of Korea
2.R&D Division Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Motors Corporation Hwaseong-si Republic of
Korea

On 7/8/18 2:08 pm, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2018 20:16:21 GMT, Xeno wrote:
>
>> For christ's sake, WGAF?
>
> WGAF?
>
> Why Give a ****?

FFSGOY

<waffle snipped>

--

Xeno

"The best way to make a fire with two sticks is to make sure one of them
is a match."
-- Will Rogers