BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

On 9 Jul 2003 04:29:27 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Are you REALLY that ****ing stupid?? The EXHAUST VALVE was slightly
burned, you idiot.

Like I said, you need to learn to write and think more clearly. The
subject of your sentence was the oil that was being pulled through the
exhaust valve, not the exhaust valve. So the parenthetical could have
just as easily applied to the subject. Brush up on your english skills.

So, "just as easily applied to the subject", huh? So if we were
writing about, say, baking a cake, and I said that I used a pan
(slightly browned with age).... would you, or someone who actually
knows how to read, come to the conclusion that it was the cake that
was "slightly browned with age?" You may, people with average or above
intelligence would NOT.

Well, let's put it into the proper perspective and replace your wording
of the original sentence but change the subject to a cake and a pan.

Here's your original statement:

"Fixed, it didn't burn oil, ran much better. It DID however CONSUME a
little. It would pull a little through an exhaust valve (slightly
burned) through the valve stem seal."

And here is changing the topic from oil and a valve to cake and a pan:

"I fixed my oven so I didn't burn the cake. However, I did consume a
little. I would pull a little from the pan (slightly burned) and chomp
it down."

Someone with even below average intelligence can see that your statement
is poor sentence structure with duplicate meanings if you meant that the
valve, not the oil, was slightly burned and that my mimic of your
statement is poor sentence structure with duplicate meanings if I meant
that the pan, not the cake, was slightly burned. Of course, I woudn't
expect you to see that, since your intelligence is well below average.

Now, back to the issue at hand. IF this layer of oil is burned during
the combustion process, that would mean that after the combustion, the
rings, which you say so desperately NEED this layer of oil, has NONE
on it.
Also, do you or do you NOT contend that burned and consumed do NOT
mean the same?

This is great! You're finally asking questions that can lead back to a
proper technical discussion. Of course, if you bothered to read for
content the provided technical reference in the first place, you would
already know the answer to your question above. But for what seems like
the hundredth time, I'll put it back for you again.

"All engines require oil to lubricate and protect the load bearing and
internal moving parts from wear including cylinder walls, pistons and
piston rings. When a piston moves down its cylinder, a thin film of oil
is left on the cylinder wall. During the power stroke, part of this oil
layer is consumed in the combustion process. As a result, varying rates
of oil consumption are accepted as normal in all engines."

Do you see where it says "During the power stroke, PART of this oil
layer is consumed in the combustion process"? I added the emphases on
PART. Can you understand how this sentence answers your question?

Also, do you or do you NOT contend that burned and consumed do NOT
mean the same?

I'll answer that directly if you answer my followon question directly.
My answer is that I contend that consumed can mean burned. It can also
mean other things. For instance, fusion and fission come to mind.

Now, do you or do you NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" DO mean the same thing?

Steve