Usage of motoroil
 

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:22:14 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up, and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

DimDummy's neighbor has. Obviously they drink from the same well. At
least his 8yo daughter now knows her father is an idiot.

Damn Steve, did your father beat you or call you a moron or what? Do you
have children and understand the weight of this hateful tone of yours?

How someone can be as smart as you and so socially stunted is awesome. Best
of luck with your personal challenge.

As usual, you're jumping into something where you have no idea what
you're talking about. I'm not the one who brought his daughter into the
discussion. DimDummy brought his daughter into the discussion when he
said:

Funny, my 8 year old girl can understand the difference between
burning, and consuming, but you can't. So, I know I'll have to talk
real slow and simple for you, but here goes:

Burn: to consume fuel and give off heat, light and gases.
Consume:to do away with completely. To waste.

What's funny is that he used consume in his definition of burn. Anyway,
I then replied:

Ask your 8 year old girl if she can understand the difference between
"consumed in the combustion process" and "burned". If she can't, then
she's smarter than you are and you can learn something from her.

To which DimDummy replied:

hooohooo!! You are a funny little man!! I love it!! Are you ACTUALLY,
TRULY so thick headed that you can't see a defined difference?? Now
really? Please, if you honestly CAN NOT see a difference between
"burned", and "consumed in the combustion process", say so, and I'll
help you! Just say so!

With that reply, it's obvious he asked his daughter and she replied with
something like "Daddy, they're the same thing." Otherwise, he would
have told us what the difference is, and gloated in it. But instead, he
continued on with one of his usual fits with things like:

Oh, come on, now, you really aren't that stupid are you? You're just
kidding, right? I knew you were wrong, but I didn't realize you were
just dumb.

BUT, he never came back and said that his daughter can understand the
difference between "consumed in the combustion process" and "burned."
That's probably because DimDummy is too ashamed to admit that, unlike
her father, his 8yo daughter is smart enough to realize that there is no
difference between "burned" and "consumed in the combustion process" and
that her father is not very bright.

So if you're going to come down on anyone as being socially stunted, you
should come down on DimDummy for using his own 8 yo daughter for a
personal attack in a newsgroup. And this isn't even the first time he's
done that.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

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

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

On 9 Jul 2003 12:13:48 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
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?

correct, I do NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" mean the same thing. IF it said "consumed VIA
combustion", yes. However, it simply says that oil is consumed
(through many different ways) DURING the combustion PROCESS." The

No no no, wrong. It does NOT say oil is consumed DURING the combustion
process. Are you really that incapable of reading? It says oil is
consumed IN the combustion process.

Now that you know what it says, i.e., that part of the thin film of oil
left in the cylinder is consumed IN the combustion process, please tell
us how that is different than being burned.

process is as follows on a four stroke engine: Intake, Compression,
Power, Exhaust. Only during ONE of these cycles does combustion take
place.

Well, not really. I hate to say you're wrong yet again, but you're
wrong yet again. Combustion starts during the compression stroke,
continues during the power stroke and is sometimes still going on during
the exhaust stroke but not necessarily. A diesel has less chance of
combustion during the exhaust stroke then a gas engine because it can
shut the fuel supply off before that starts. For a gas engine, just
about the only time it's not going on *in a particular cylinder* for any
full stroke is during the intake stroke. If it was, you'd likely have a
backfire up the intake port and a carb fart.

I contend, and always have contended that burned and consumed mean
different things. I stated this, and you stated that I was wrong.

Nope. You don't even know what I stated and are forgetting what you
stated. I stated that all RIC engines burn a small amount of oil in
normal operation. You said I was wrong and said they should burn NO
oil. Do you want me to quote you on that? You then asked for proof
they burn oil and proof was provided in the form of a tech sheet from GM
which says:

"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."

Now you're trying to do everything you can think of to deny that a thin
film of oil on the cylinder wall being consumed in the combustion
process during the power stroke is somehow different than being burned.
Keep trying. You haven't succeeded yet. All you've done is make
yourself look even more inept, as if that was even possible.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Having trouble with lower unit on Mercruiser going up and down in the trim
mode....I suspect the selinoid but not sure how to check that....any help
would be app'd....thanks
Steven Shelikoff wrote in message ...
On 9 Jul 2003 12:13:48 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
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?

correct, I do NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" mean the same thing. IF it said "consumed VIA
combustion", yes. However, it simply says that oil is consumed
(through many different ways) DURING the combustion PROCESS." The

No no no, wrong. It does NOT say oil is consumed DURING the combustion
process. Are you really that incapable of reading? It says oil is
consumed IN the combustion process.

Now that you know what it says, i.e., that part of the thin film of oil
left in the cylinder is consumed IN the combustion process, please tell
us how that is different than being burned.

process is as follows on a four stroke engine: Intake, Compression,
Power, Exhaust. Only during ONE of these cycles does combustion take
place.

Well, not really. I hate to say you're wrong yet again, but you're
wrong yet again. Combustion starts during the compression stroke,
continues during the power stroke and is sometimes still going on during
the exhaust stroke but not necessarily. A diesel has less chance of
combustion during the exhaust stroke then a gas engine because it can
shut the fuel supply off before that starts. For a gas engine, just
about the only time it's not going on *in a particular cylinder* for any
full stroke is during the intake stroke. If it was, you'd likely have a
backfire up the intake port and a carb fart.

I contend, and always have contended that burned and consumed mean
different things. I stated this, and you stated that I was wrong.

Nope. You don't even know what I stated and are forgetting what you
stated. I stated that all RIC engines burn a small amount of oil in
normal operation. You said I was wrong and said they should burn NO
oil. Do you want me to quote you on that? You then asked for proof
they burn oil and proof was provided in the form of a tech sheet from GM
which says:

"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."

Now you're trying to do everything you can think of to deny that a thin
film of oil on the cylinder wall being consumed in the combustion
process during the power stroke is somehow different than being burned.
Keep trying. You haven't succeeded yet. All you've done is make
yourself look even more inept, as if that was even possible.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Basskisser,
I have watched you two argue this one to death, and I still have not figured
out your position. Are you saying that some oil is burned/consumed in the
combustion process and some oil is exhausted without actually being burned?

If that is correct, how is that different than what Steve is saying?


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 10 Jul 2003 04:59:03 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 9 Jul 2003 12:13:48 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
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?

correct, I do NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" mean the same thing. IF it said "consumed VIA
combustion", yes. However, it simply says that oil is consumed
(through many different ways) DURING the combustion PROCESS." The

No no no, wrong. It does NOT say oil is consumed DURING the
combustion
process. Are you really that incapable of reading? It says oil is
consumed IN the combustion process.

You idiot. It says "in the combustion PROCESSS". Get it? NOT
SPECIFICALLY DURING the precise combustion. It is CONSUMED in the
PROCESS of combustion. Man, you are thick.

You're wrong again. You really can't read, can you? It doesn NOT say
consumed in the process of combustion. Although if it did, that would
still be the same thing as burned. Now, let's try this yet one more
time. And I'll put quotes around the things to compare.

Is it your contention that something being "consumed in the combustion
process" is somehow different than something being "burned"?

And if it is somehow different, then when the technical reference says:

"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."

where does the oil that is consumed in the combustion process go if it
isn't burned? Is it your contention that the thin film of oil that is
stuck to the sides of the cylinder can somehow make it's way out of the
engine during the power stroke without being burned?

Remember that the oil has to be consumed "during the power stroke" and
the oil is "on the cyilinder wall" when it is consumed "in the
combustion process." So please tell us all, if the oil is not burned,
what way does an engine lose oil that fits all those criteria, i.e., on
the cylinder wall during the power stroke in the combustion process?

Steve

Oh my God, you ARE the most thick headed person in the world!!! I
can't WAIT to show this to the others in my office!! Laughs over beer
will be on YOU tonight!
Is not "the combustion process" the same as the process of combustion?
I simply paraphrased to simplify to TRY to get you to understand a
VERY basic flaw in your diatribe. But, you are either too stupid to
get it, or just refuse to.
Now, WHY and WHERE did you come up with something as absurd as "the
oil has to be consumed during the power stroke? Also, are you really
so dumb that you think that the ONLY way oil can be consumed is by
being burned?? You see, the intent isn't that the oil is necessarily
consumed in a global, universal, or galactical way, it's consumed only
as far as an ENGINE is concerned. Jeez.

Usage of motoroil
 

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:38:14 GMT, "Put Name Here"
wrote:

Basskisser,
I have watched you two argue this one to death, and I still have not figured
out your position. Are you saying that some oil is burned/consumed in the
combustion process and some oil is exhausted without actually being burned?

He's saying that an engine should burn NO oil and that anyone who says a
normal does engine burns oil is an idiot. He refuses to admit that any
oil at all, even a single molecule is burned during normal engine
operation. He asked for technical references and they were provided.
Yet he refuses to believe them. His loss.

If that is correct, how is that different than what Steve is saying?

I'm saying that oil is being burned by an engine whenever it's running.
That for a normal engine in good shape, it's just about the only way an
engine can lose oil *if* you don't see it dripping out anywhere, either
from the case or the exhaust..

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

On 11 Jul 2003 04:07:47 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message

snip the drivel and name calling

Now, are you going to tell us in what way does an engine lose the oil on
the cylinder wall during the power stroke in the combustion process if
it isn't burned?

Certainly.
snipped more of your drivel and name calling

Now, ever hear of a burned exhaust valve? If the rings are worn enough
to allow oil past them, and the exhaust valve is *slightly burned*,
the oil will push out of the valve on any stroke where there is
compression.

A burned, even slightly burned, exhaust valve is not the normal case on
a new engine. An engine where the exhaust valve makes a good seal when
closed will still burn oil. The rings will allow oil past them even
when brand new. But let's examine your example above.

You're saying that if the rings are worn enough, they will allow oil
past them. Nevermind the fact that this is always the case. So, the
rings are allowing oil past them into the cylinder. The compression
stroke comes along and you're saying that during the compression stroke,
the oil that is in the cylinder is going to be squeezed out past a
slightly leaky exhaust valve and will be "consumed" as far as the engine
is concerned. Right so far? Ok.

You do realize that not all of the "stuff" that's in the cylinder (in
this case, our air-fuel-oil mixture) gets evacuated during the
compression stroke, right? There is still some left in the cylinder at
the end of the compression stroke. So, in your example above, not *all*
of the oil that got past the rings will be forced out of the slightly
burned exhaust valve. Some will remain in the cylinder when that spark
comes and lights the whole mess off. What do you think happens to the
oil that didn't make it out of the slightly burned exhaust valve?

Now that we're done examining your one way of losing oil above, let's go
back to the way the technical reference described. Please answer the
question: In what way does an engine lose oil on the cylinder wall
during the power stroke in the combustion process if it isn't burned?
Your "answer" above doesn't cover that case. It only adds another way
for an engine to burn oil. Notice I said "burn", because oil that is
lost in the way you describe will be burned in the exhaust manifold.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

"Joe" wrote in message . ..
This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up, and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

Funny, but aircraft machinists do!:

Suggestions for Proper Engine Break-In

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever an engine's piston rings are replaced whether in part or in
entirety it is necessary to break in the engine. Piston rings are
replaced at a complete engine overhaul or repair, top overhaul or
single cylinder overhaul or repair.

When we refer to engine or cylinder break in, we are talking about the
physical mating of the engine's piston rings to it's corresponding
cylinder wall. That is, we want to physically wear the new piston
rings into the cylinder wall until a compatible seal between the two
is achieved.

Proper engine break in will produce an engine that achieves maximum
power output with the least amount of oil consumption due to the fact
that the piston rings have seated properly to the cylinder wall. When
the piston rings are broken in or seated, they do not allow combustion
gases to escape the combustion chamber past the piston rings into the
crankcase section of the engine. This lack of "blow-by" keeps your
engine running cleaner and cooler by preventing hot combustion gases
and by-products from entering the crankcase section of the engine.
Excessive "blow-by" will cause the crankcase section of the engine to
become pressurized and contaminated with combustion gases, which in
turn will force normal oil vapors out of the engine's breather,
causing the engine to consume excessive amounts of oil. In addition to
sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston rings must
also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls for
lubrication. If the rings do not seat properly, they cannot perform
this function and will allow excessive amounts of oil to accumulate on
the cylinder wall surfaces. This oil is burned each and every time the
cylinder fires. The burning of this oil, coupled with "blow-by"
induced engine breathing, are reasons that an engine that hasn't been
broken in will consume more than its share of oil.

When a cylinder is overhauled or repaired the surface of it's walls
are honed with abrasive stones to produce a rough surface that will
help wear the piston rings in. This roughing up of the surface is
known as "cross-hatching". A cylinder wall that has been properly
"cross hatched" has a series of minute peaks and valleys cut into its
surface. The face or portion of the piston ring that interfaces with
the cross hatched cylinder wall is tapered to allow only a small
portion of the ring to contact the honed cylinder wall. When the
engine is operated, the tapered portion of the face of the piston ring
rubs against the coarse surface of the cylinder wall causing wear on
both objects. At the point where the top of the peaks produced by the
honing operation become smooth and the tapered portion of the piston
ring wears flat break in has occurred.

When the engine is operating, a force known as Break Mean Effective
Pressure or B.M.E.P is generated within the combustion chamber.
B.M.E.P. is the resultant force produced from the controlled burning
of the fuel air mixture that the engine runs on. The higher the power
setting the engine is running at, the higher the B.M.E.P. is and
conversely as the power setting is lowered the B.M.E.P. becomes less.

B.M.E.P is an important part of the break in process. When the engine
is running, B.M.E.P. is present in the cylinder behind the piston
rings and it's force pushes the piston ring outward against the coarse
honed cylinder wall. The higher the B.M.E.P, the harder the piston
ring is pushed against the wall. The surface temperature at the piston
ring face and cylinder wall interface will be greater with high
B.M.E.P. than with low B.M.E.P. This is because we are pushing the
ring harder against the rough cylinder wall surface causing high
amounts of friction and thus heat. The primary deterrent of break in
is this heat. Allowing to much heat to build up at the ring to
cylinder wall interface will cause the lubricating oil that is present
to break down and glaze the cylinder wall surface. This glaze will
prevent any further seating of the piston rings. If glazing is allowed
to happen break in will never occur. We must achieve a happy medium
where we are pushing on the ring hard enough to wear it in but not
hard enough to generate enough heat to cause glazing. If glazing
should occur, the only remedy is to remove the effected cylinder,
re-hone it and replace the piston rings and start the whole process
over again.

Understanding what happens in the engine during break in allows us to
comprehend the ideas behind how we should operate the engine after
piston rings have been changed. The normal prescribed flight procedure
after ring replacement is to keep ground running to a minimum, take
off at full power and reduce to climb power at the first available
safe altitude, all while keeping the climb angle flat and the climb
airspeed higher to promote the best cooling possible. At cruise
altitude we should use 65% to 75% power and run the engine richer then
normal. At all times we are to remember that heat is the greatest
enemy of engine break in, we should try to maintain all engine
temperatures in the green, well away from the top of the green arc or
red line. This means step climbing the aircraft if necessary,
operating with the cowl flaps open or in trail position during cruise
flight and being generous with the fuel allocation for the engine. We
should not run the engine above 75% power in cruise flight because the
B.M.E.P is too great and the likelihood of glazing increases. As you
can see, keeping the engine as cool as is practical and at a conducive
power setting is the best combination for successful engine break in.

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

"jps" wrote in message ...
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up, and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

DimDummy's neighbor has. Obviously they drink from the same well. At
least his 8yo daughter now knows her father is an idiot.

Steve

Damn Steve, did your father beat you or call you a moron or what? Do you
have children and understand the weight of this hateful tone of yours?

How someone can be as smart as you and so socially stunted is awesome. Best
of luck with your personal challenge.

He's a worthless pig and knows it, hence he resorts to **** like that.

Usage of motoroil
 

On 14 Jul 2003 10:26:56 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up, and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

DimDummy's neighbor has. Obviously they drink from the same well. At
least his 8yo daughter now knows her father is an idiot.

Damn Steve, did your father beat you or call you a moron or what? Do you
have children and understand the weight of this hateful tone of yours?

How someone can be as smart as you and so socially stunted is awesome. Best
of luck with your personal challenge.

He's a worthless pig and knows it, hence he resorts to **** like that.

YOU are the worthless pig who resorted to using your own 8 yo daughter.
Only a desperate unthinking fool would do that.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

On 14 Jul 2003 10:23:33 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message . ..
This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up, and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

Funny, but aircraft machinists do!:

Pleas point out anywhere in your quote below that states an engine
should burn NO oil. You won't be able to, because it doesn't say it.
In fact, the part I snipped below:

In addition to
sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston rings must
also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls for
lubrication. If the rings do not seat properly, they cannot perform
this function and will allow excessive amounts of oil to accumulate on
the cylinder wall surfaces. This oil is burned each and every time the
cylinder fires. The burning of this oil, coupled with "blow-by"
induced engine breathing, are reasons that an engine that hasn't been
broken in will consume more than its share of oil.

Is in total agreement with everything I've said, and disagrees with
everything you've said.

Keep trying. And next time, don't bring your daughter in to help you,
you pathetic loser.

Steve

Suggestions for Proper Engine Break-In

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever an engine's piston rings are replaced whether in part or in
entirety it is necessary to break in the engine. Piston rings are
replaced at a complete engine overhaul or repair, top overhaul or
single cylinder overhaul or repair.

When we refer to engine or cylinder break in, we are talking about the
physical mating of the engine's piston rings to it's corresponding
cylinder wall. That is, we want to physically wear the new piston
rings into the cylinder wall until a compatible seal between the two
is achieved.

Proper engine break in will produce an engine that achieves maximum
power output with the least amount of oil consumption due to the fact
that the piston rings have seated properly to the cylinder wall. When
the piston rings are broken in or seated, they do not allow combustion
gases to escape the combustion chamber past the piston rings into the
crankcase section of the engine. This lack of "blow-by" keeps your
engine running cleaner and cooler by preventing hot combustion gases
and by-products from entering the crankcase section of the engine.
Excessive "blow-by" will cause the crankcase section of the engine to
become pressurized and contaminated with combustion gases, which in
turn will force normal oil vapors out of the engine's breather,
causing the engine to consume excessive amounts of oil. In addition to
sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston rings must
also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls for
lubrication. If the rings do not seat properly, they cannot perform
this function and will allow excessive amounts of oil to accumulate on
the cylinder wall surfaces. This oil is burned each and every time the
cylinder fires. The burning of this oil, coupled with "blow-by"
induced engine breathing, are reasons that an engine that hasn't been
broken in will consume more than its share of oil.

When a cylinder is overhauled or repaired the surface of it's walls
are honed with abrasive stones to produce a rough surface that will
help wear the piston rings in. This roughing up of the surface is
known as "cross-hatching". A cylinder wall that has been properly
"cross hatched" has a series of minute peaks and valleys cut into its
surface. The face or portion of the piston ring that interfaces with
the cross hatched cylinder wall is tapered to allow only a small
portion of the ring to contact the honed cylinder wall. When the
engine is operated, the tapered portion of the face of the piston ring
rubs against the coarse surface of the cylinder wall causing wear on
both objects. At the point where the top of the peaks produced by the
honing operation become smooth and the tapered portion of the piston
ring wears flat break in has occurred.

When the engine is operating, a force known as Break Mean Effective
Pressure or B.M.E.P is generated within the combustion chamber.
B.M.E.P. is the resultant force produced from the controlled burning
of the fuel air mixture that the engine runs on. The higher the power
setting the engine is running at, the higher the B.M.E.P. is and
conversely as the power setting is lowered the B.M.E.P. becomes less.

B.M.E.P is an important part of the break in process. When the engine
is running, B.M.E.P. is present in the cylinder behind the piston
rings and it's force pushes the piston ring outward against the coarse
honed cylinder wall. The higher the B.M.E.P, the harder the piston
ring is pushed against the wall. The surface temperature at the piston
ring face and cylinder wall interface will be greater with high
B.M.E.P. than with low B.M.E.P. This is because we are pushing the
ring harder against the rough cylinder wall surface causing high
amounts of friction and thus heat. The primary deterrent of break in
is this heat. Allowing to much heat to build up at the ring to
cylinder wall interface will cause the lubricating oil that is present
to break down and glaze the cylinder wall surface. This glaze will
prevent any further seating of the piston rings. If glazing is allowed
to happen break in will never occur. We must achieve a happy medium
where we are pushing on the ring hard enough to wear it in but not
hard enough to generate enough heat to cause glazing. If glazing
should occur, the only remedy is to remove the effected cylinder,
re-hone it and replace the piston rings and start the whole process
over again.

Understanding what happens in the engine during break in allows us to
comprehend the ideas behind how we should operate the engine after
piston rings have been changed. The normal prescribed flight procedure
after ring replacement is to keep ground running to a minimum, take
off at full power and reduce to climb power at the first available
safe altitude, all while keeping the climb angle flat and the climb
airspeed higher to promote the best cooling possible. At cruise
altitude we should use 65% to 75% power and run the engine richer then
normal. At all times we are to remember that heat is the greatest
enemy of engine break in, we should try to maintain all engine
temperatures in the green, well away from the top of the green arc or
red line. This means step climbing the aircraft if necessary,
operating with the cowl flaps open or in trail position during cruise
flight and being generous with the fuel allocation for the engine. We
should not run the engine above 75% power in cruise flight because the
B.M.E.P is too great and the likelihood of glazing increases. As you
can see, keeping the engine as cool as is practical and at a conducive
power setting is the best combination for successful engine break in.

Usage of motoroil
 

On 14 Jul 2003 10:29:27 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
I'm saying that oil is being burned by an engine whenever it's running.
That for a normal engine in good shape, it's just about the only way an
engine can lose oil *if* you don't see it dripping out anywhere, either
from the case or the exhaust..

Steve
This is from an aircraft machinist's book:

Suggestions for Proper Engine Break-In

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever an engine's piston rings are replaced whether in part or in
entirety it is necessary to break in the engine. Piston rings are
replaced at a complete engine overhaul or repair, top overhaul or
single cylinder overhaul or repair.

When we refer to engine or cylinder break in, we are talking about the
physical mating of the engine's piston rings to it's corresponding
cylinder wall. That is, we want to physically wear the new piston
rings into the cylinder wall until a compatible seal between the two
is achieved.

Proper engine break in will produce an engine that achieves maximum
power output with the least amount of oil consumption due to the fact

Notice it said LEAST amount, not none.

that the piston rings have seated properly to the cylinder wall. When
the piston rings are broken in or seated, they do not allow combustion
gases to escape the combustion chamber past the piston rings into the
crankcase section of the engine. This lack of "blow-by" keeps your
engine running cleaner and cooler by preventing hot combustion gases
and by-products from entering the crankcase section of the engine.
Excessive "blow-by" will cause the crankcase section of the engine to
become pressurized and contaminated with combustion gases, which in
turn will force normal oil vapors out of the engine's breather,
causing the engine to consume excessive amounts of oil. In addition to
sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston rings must
also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls for
lubrication. If the rings do not seat properly, they cannot perform

Notice it said that the job of the rings is to manage the amount of oil
present on the cylinder walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away
as you have said.

this function and will allow excessive amounts of oil to accumulate on
the cylinder wall surfaces. This oil is burned each and every time the
cylinder fires. The burning of this oil, coupled with "blow-by"
induced engine breathing, are reasons that an engine that hasn't been
broken in will consume more than its share of oil.

Notice that it says if it burns excessive amounts of oil, it's
*consuming* more than it's share of oil, not that consuming no oil is
the normal case. The normal case is consuming it's share of oil, by
burning the non-excessive oil from the cylinder wall surfaces.


When a cylinder is overhauled or repaired the surface of it's walls
are honed with abrasive stones to produce a rough surface that will
help wear the piston rings in. This roughing up of the surface is
known as "cross-hatching". A cylinder wall that has been properly
"cross hatched" has a series of minute peaks and valleys cut into its
surface. The face or portion of the piston ring that interfaces with
the cross hatched cylinder wall is tapered to allow only a small
portion of the ring to contact the honed cylinder wall. When the
engine is operated, the tapered portion of the face of the piston ring
rubs against the coarse surface of the cylinder wall causing wear on
both objects. At the point where the top of the peaks produced by the
honing operation become smooth and the tapered portion of the piston
ring wears flat break in has occurred.

When the engine is operating, a force known as Break Mean Effective
Pressure or B.M.E.P is generated within the combustion chamber.
B.M.E.P. is the resultant force produced from the controlled burning
of the fuel air mixture that the engine runs on. The higher the power
setting the engine is running at, the higher the B.M.E.P. is and
conversely as the power setting is lowered the B.M.E.P. becomes less.

B.M.E.P is an important part of the break in process. When the engine
is running, B.M.E.P. is present in the cylinder behind the piston
rings and it's force pushes the piston ring outward against the coarse
honed cylinder wall. The higher the B.M.E.P, the harder the piston
ring is pushed against the wall. The surface temperature at the piston
ring face and cylinder wall interface will be greater with high
B.M.E.P. than with low B.M.E.P. This is because we are pushing the
ring harder against the rough cylinder wall surface causing high
amounts of friction and thus heat. The primary deterrent of break in
is this heat. Allowing to much heat to build up at the ring to
cylinder wall interface will cause the lubricating oil that is present
to break down and glaze the cylinder wall surface. This glaze will

Apparently there must be oil present on the cylinder wall even on a new
engine being broken in.

[rest of breakin stuff snipped since it's not relavent to oil control]

Next time, if you're going to provide a citation, you should really
think about providing one that supports your case, not one that supports
mine. Of course, you're probably sooooo stupid you didn't even
recognize who's case it supports. You probably just saw buzzwords like
"rings" and "manage the amount of oil" and assumed, like the stupid
idiot you are, that it was something which would prove your point.
Well, it did prove one thing: you don't know how to read.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

On 14 Jul 2003 10:19:26 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 11 Jul 2003 04:07:47 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message

snip the drivel and name calling

Now, are you going to tell us in what way does an engine lose the oil on
the cylinder wall during the power stroke in the combustion process if
it isn't burned?

Certainly.
snipped more of your drivel and name calling

Now, ever hear of a burned exhaust valve? If the rings are worn enough
to allow oil past them, and the exhaust valve is *slightly burned*,
the oil will push out of the valve on any stroke where there is
compression.

A burned, even slightly burned, exhaust valve is not the normal case on
a new engine. An engine where the exhaust valve makes a good seal when
closed will still burn oil. The rings will allow oil past them even
when brand new. But let's examine your example above.

Who, and when was ANY statement made about the engine being "new"?

YOU did, or at least you made statements alluding to an engine being in
good shape not burning ANY oil. An engine with burned exhaust valves is
no longer in good shape. Man, you are stupid.

You're saying that if the rings are worn enough, they will allow oil
past them. Nevermind the fact that this is always the case. So, the
rings are allowing oil past them into the cylinder. The compression
stroke comes along and you're saying that during the compression stroke,
the oil that is in the cylinder is going to be squeezed out past a
slightly leaky exhaust valve and will be "consumed" as far as the engine
is concerned. Right so far? Ok.

Wrong so far, ok? Ever hear of valve stem seals? Ever hear of the
wearing and leaking?

But YOU said the oil was going past a slightly burned exhaust valve.
Keep your story straight. Of course oil can get past valve stem seals.
It's also burned when it does.

You do realize that not all of the "stuff" that's in the cylinder (in
this case, our air-fuel-oil mixture) gets evacuated during the
compression stroke, right? There is still some left in the cylinder at
the end of the compression stroke. So, in your example above, not *all*
of the oil that got past the rings will be forced out of the slightly
burned exhaust valve. Some will remain in the cylinder when that spark
comes and lights the whole mess off. What do you think happens to the
oil that didn't make it out of the slightly burned exhaust valve?

Again, valve stem seals. Easily worn out, very common.

You actually believe that ALL the oil, which YOU say is in the cylinder
during the compression stroke, somehow makes it out before the spark?
Just how does it to that? You're digging yourself in deeper and
deeper, and proving just how stupid you are once again, if you say
"worbn valve stem seals" can somehow get all the oil out of the cylinder
between the compression and power stroke.

Now that we're done examining your one way of losing oil above, let's go
back to the way the technical reference described. Please answer the
question: In what way does an engine lose oil on the cylinder wall
during the power stroke in the combustion process if it isn't burned?

Again, putting words in my mouth. WHERE did I say that the oil came
from the cylinder wall?

YOU didn't say that, you IDIOT. The technical reference from GM said
it. It says that the engine looses oil on the cylinder wall during the
power stroke in the combustion process. Do you care to disagree with
it? If so, just say that you know more about engines than GM and we can
finally show that not only are you a stupid moron, but an arrogant idiot
as well ... and finally put an end to this.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

On 15 Jul 2003 04:23:21 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 14 Jul 2003 10:29:27 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
I'm saying that oil is being burned by an engine whenever it's running.
That for a normal engine in good shape, it's just about the only way an
engine can lose oil *if* you don't see it dripping out anywhere, either
from the case or the exhaust..

Steve
This is from an aircraft machinist's book:

Suggestions for Proper Engine Break-In

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever an engine's piston rings are replaced whether in part or in
entirety it is necessary to break in the engine. Piston rings are
replaced at a complete engine overhaul or repair, top overhaul or
single cylinder overhaul or repair.

When we refer to engine or cylinder break in, we are talking about the
physical mating of the engine's piston rings to it's corresponding
cylinder wall. That is, we want to physically wear the new piston
rings into the cylinder wall until a compatible seal between the two
is achieved.

Proper engine break in will produce an engine that achieves maximum
power output with the least amount of oil consumption due to the fact

Notice it said LEAST amount, not none.

Notice it said consumption. Did you notice?

Of course. Is that why you posted this? Because you saw the word
consumption? What a simple minded fool you are.

that the piston rings have seated properly to the cylinder wall. When
the piston rings are broken in or seated, they do not allow combustion
gases to escape the combustion chamber past the piston rings into the
crankcase section of the engine. This lack of "blow-by" keeps your
engine running cleaner and cooler by preventing hot combustion gases
and by-products from entering the crankcase section of the engine.
Excessive "blow-by" will cause the crankcase section of the engine to
become pressurized and contaminated with combustion gases, which in
turn will force normal oil vapors out of the engine's breather,
causing the engine to consume excessive amounts of oil. In addition to
sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston rings must
also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls for
lubrication. If the rings do not seat properly, they cannot perform

Notice it said that the job of the rings is to manage the amount of oil
present on the cylinder walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away
as you have said.

Where does it say that? I can't find ANYWHERE where it says "the job
of the rings is to manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder
walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away". Now, would you say
that if you had enough of a seal to "seal combustion gases in the
combustion chamber", that oil would get past that seal? Absolutely
NOT.

Your stupidity is now approaching the point of absurdity. You can't
even read what you posted. And now, I quote directly from it only a few
sentences above the quote and you say you can't find it? Here is the
direct quote from YOUR cite:

"In addition to sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber,
piston rings must also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder
walls for lubrication"

If you can't find that sentence in what YOU posted, then we know you
don't know how to read or to search for text.

this function and will allow excessive amounts of oil to accumulate on
the cylinder wall surfaces. This oil is burned each and every time the
cylinder fires. The burning of this oil, coupled with "blow-by"
induced engine breathing, are reasons that an engine that hasn't been
broken in will consume more than its share of oil.

Notice that it says if it burns excessive amounts of oil, it's
*consuming* more than it's share of oil, not that consuming no oil is
the normal case. The normal case is consuming it's share of oil, by
burning the non-excessive oil from the cylinder wall surfaces.

Again, consumption. Read it please.

Yes, it says the engine will consume more than it's share of oil by
BURNING it, both from the cylinder walls and from "blow-by" that gets
reintroduced to the combustion chamber through the breather. Do you not
see that? Sheesh.

When a cylinder is overhauled or repaired the surface of it's walls
are honed with abrasive stones to produce a rough surface that will
help wear the piston rings in. This roughing up of the surface is
known as "cross-hatching". A cylinder wall that has been properly
"cross hatched" has a series of minute peaks and valleys cut into its
surface. The face or portion of the piston ring that interfaces with
the cross hatched cylinder wall is tapered to allow only a small
portion of the ring to contact the honed cylinder wall. When the
engine is operated, the tapered portion of the face of the piston ring
rubs against the coarse surface of the cylinder wall causing wear on
both objects. At the point where the top of the peaks produced by the
honing operation become smooth and the tapered portion of the piston
ring wears flat break in has occurred.

When the engine is operating, a force known as Break Mean Effective
Pressure or B.M.E.P is generated within the combustion chamber.
B.M.E.P. is the resultant force produced from the controlled burning
of the fuel air mixture that the engine runs on. The higher the power
setting the engine is running at, the higher the B.M.E.P. is and
conversely as the power setting is lowered the B.M.E.P. becomes less.

B.M.E.P is an important part of the break in process. When the engine
is running, B.M.E.P. is present in the cylinder behind the piston
rings and it's force pushes the piston ring outward against the coarse
honed cylinder wall. The higher the B.M.E.P, the harder the piston
ring is pushed against the wall. The surface temperature at the piston
ring face and cylinder wall interface will be greater with high
B.M.E.P. than with low B.M.E.P. This is because we are pushing the
ring harder against the rough cylinder wall surface causing high
amounts of friction and thus heat. The primary deterrent of break in
is this heat. Allowing to much heat to build up at the ring to
cylinder wall interface will cause the lubricating oil that is present
to break down and glaze the cylinder wall surface. This glaze will

Apparently there must be oil present on the cylinder wall even on a new
engine being broken in.

That's the reason for break in....jeez!

You think oil present on the cylinder wall of a new engine is the reason
for breakin? Wow, are you confused.

[rest of breakin stuff snipped since it's not relavent to oil control]

Next time, if you're going to provide a citation, you should really
think about providing one that supports your case, not one that supports
mine. Of course, you're probably sooooo stupid you didn't even
recognize who's case it supports. You probably just saw buzzwords like
"rings" and "manage the amount of oil" and assumed, like the stupid
idiot you are, that it was something which would prove your point.
Well, it did prove one thing: you don't know how to read.

Haahaa!! What a dolt. Now, how about YOU read. You are so wrapped up
in trying to be correct, that you see things that simply aren't there.

All I can say is WOW. You must not have even read your own cite if you
can't even find the parts I quoted from it.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

On 16 Jul 2003 11:21:50 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever an engine's piston rings are replaced whether in part or in
entirety it is necessary to break in the engine. Piston rings are
replaced at a complete engine overhaul or repair, top overhaul or
single cylinder overhaul or repair.

When we refer to engine or cylinder break in, we are talking about the
physical mating of the engine's piston rings to it's corresponding
cylinder wall. That is, we want to physically wear the new piston
rings into the cylinder wall until a compatible seal between the two
is achieved.

Proper engine break in will produce an engine that achieves maximum
power output with the least amount of oil consumption due to the fact

Notice it said LEAST amount, not none.

Notice it said consumption. Did you notice?

Of course. Is that why you posted this? Because you saw the word
consumption? What a simple minded fool you are.

Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere. Please try to follow. DO you still
contend that consumption and burned mean the same thing? Yes or no.

I contend that for the purposes of this discussion, burned is a subset
of consumption. I further contend that when the GM reference says that
the oil on the cylinder wall is consumed in the combustion process
during the power stroke, that IS the exact same thing as saying it is
burned. I further contend that when YOUR reference says "This oil is
burned each and every time the cylinder fires" when it's talking about
oil that gets past the rings, that oil is also burned.

So now we're getting somewhere. Please try to follow. DO you still
contend that NONE of the thin film of oil that's on the cylinder wall
and consumed in the combustion process during the power stroke is
burned? Yes or no.

that the piston rings have seated properly to the cylinder wall. When
the piston rings are broken in or seated, they do not allow combustion
gases to escape the combustion chamber past the piston rings into the
crankcase section of the engine. This lack of "blow-by" keeps your
engine running cleaner and cooler by preventing hot combustion gases
and by-products from entering the crankcase section of the engine.
Excessive "blow-by" will cause the crankcase section of the engine to
become pressurized and contaminated with combustion gases, which in
turn will force normal oil vapors out of the engine's breather,
causing the engine to consume excessive amounts of oil. In addition to
sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston rings must
also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls for
lubrication. If the rings do not seat properly, they cannot perform

Notice it said that the job of the rings is to manage the amount of oil
present on the cylinder walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away
as you have said.

Where does it say that? I can't find ANYWHERE where it says "the job
of the rings is to manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder
walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away". Now, would you say
that if you had enough of a seal to "seal combustion gases in the
combustion chamber", that oil would get past that seal? Absolutely
NOT.

Your stupidity is now approaching the point of absurdity. You can't
even read what you posted. And now, I quote directly from it only a few
sentences above the quote and you say you can't find it? Here is the
direct quote from YOUR cite:

"In addition to sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber,
piston rings must also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder
walls for lubrication"

HOW IN THE HELL can you read that, and then conclude, that the rings
leave oil to be burned? It says......M A N A G E, get it? That means
in a sense to keep it at a minimum, or not at all. NOW, you stated

Yes, it says manage it. Which means to keep it at a minimum. It
further says that the oil must be there for lubrication. So "manage"
cannot mean "not at all" or there would be no required oil for
lubrication.

above that the post said "the job of the rings is to manage the amount
of oil present on the cylinder
walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away". It does not, in
fact say that. You've added the "not wipe all the oil away". YOU said
that. The cite did not.

You're such a stupid moron that you don't even know when I'm quoting
your reference and when I'm not. I'll give you a hint: If I say I'm
quoting it or if I put quotes around it, then I'm quoting it.
Otherwise, I'm not. You'll find neither is the case when I said "not
wipe all the oil away." That is what YOU say the rings do, i.e.., they
wipe ALL the oil away so none is left on the cylinder walls. Am I
stating your position correctly, that you believe ALL of the oil is
wiped away from the cylinder by the rings on their way down? If that is
your position, it disagrees with your cite which says AND I QUOTE: "In
addition to sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston
rings must also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls
for lubrication". I.e., the cite is saying there must be some oil
present on the cylinder walls for lubrication and one of the jobs of the
rings is to manage that amount and prevent excessive oil on the cylinder
walls.

this function and will allow excessive amounts of oil to accumulate on
the cylinder wall surfaces. This oil is burned each and every time the
cylinder fires. The burning of this oil, coupled with "blow-by"
induced engine breathing, are reasons that an engine that hasn't been
broken in will consume more than its share of oil.

Notice that it says if it burns excessive amounts of oil, it's
*consuming* more than it's share of oil, not that consuming no oil is
the normal case. The normal case is consuming it's share of oil, by
burning the non-excessive oil from the cylinder wall surfaces.

Again, consumption. Read it please.

Yes, it says the engine will consume more than it's share of oil by
BURNING it, both from the cylinder walls and from "blow-by" that gets
reintroduced to the combustion chamber through the breather. Do you not
see that? Sheesh.

When a cylinder is overhauled or repaired the surface of it's walls
are honed with abrasive stones to produce a rough surface that will
help wear the piston rings in. This roughing up of the surface is
known as "cross-hatching". A cylinder wall that has been properly
"cross hatched" has a series of minute peaks and valleys cut into its
surface. The face or portion of the piston ring that interfaces with
the cross hatched cylinder wall is tapered to allow only a small
portion of the ring to contact the honed cylinder wall. When the
engine is operated, the tapered portion of the face of the piston ring
rubs against the coarse surface of the cylinder wall causing wear on
both objects. At the point where the top of the peaks produced by the
honing operation become smooth and the tapered portion of the piston
ring wears flat break in has occurred.

When the engine is operating, a force known as Break Mean Effective
Pressure or B.M.E.P is generated within the combustion chamber.
B.M.E.P. is the resultant force produced from the controlled burning
of the fuel air mixture that the engine runs on. The higher the power
setting the engine is running at, the higher the B.M.E.P. is and
conversely as the power setting is lowered the B.M.E.P. becomes less.

B.M.E.P is an important part of the break in process. When the engine
is running, B.M.E.P. is present in the cylinder behind the piston
rings and it's force pushes the piston ring outward against the coarse
honed cylinder wall. The higher the B.M.E.P, the harder the piston
ring is pushed against the wall. The surface temperature at the piston
ring face and cylinder wall interface will be greater with high
B.M.E.P. than with low B.M.E.P. This is because we are pushing the
ring harder against the rough cylinder wall surface causing high
amounts of friction and thus heat. The primary deterrent of break in
is this heat. Allowing to much heat to build up at the ring to
cylinder wall interface will cause the lubricating oil that is present
to break down and glaze the cylinder wall surface. This glaze will

Apparently there must be oil present on the cylinder wall even on a new
engine being broken in.

That's the reason for break in....jeez!

You think oil present on the cylinder wall of a new engine is the reason
for breakin? Wow, are you confused.

Oh, my god, you are WAY beyond stupid!!!! What an ignorant statement.
You have JUST shown in one statement how much you DON'T know about
engines. The reason for break in, which is clearly stated in the post,
is to make an adequate seal betweeen the rings and cylinder wall. Did
the B.M.E.P. even hit that pea brain of yours? Apparently not. Again,
please tell me, if the rings can seal well enough to keep gases out of
the crankcase, which are sometimes in the area of 100 p.s.i., and
molecularly much smaller than oil, how can the oil, with larger
molecules, and under less pressure, make there way INTO the chamber?
Let's see, gases, mostly air, can't get past the rings under 100
p.s.i. but oil, at about 35 p.s.i. can....interesting.

Is THAT the problem you're having? Visualizing how oil can get past the
rings during the power stroke as the piston is going down? I'll give
you a hint: the pressure of the oil against the rings as they are moving
down the cylinder at a high rate of speed during the power stroke is
MUCH greater than 35 psi. I'll give you another hint: the pressure
inside the cylinder is not constant everywhere. Just where do you think
some of the low spots in the pressure is? Hint: it's near the upper
side of the rings. I'll give you another hint: because oil is a viscous
fluid and also because it is designed to create a thin film that on a
molecular level resists being broken, there is more at work here than
just the simple pressure difference between the oil below the ring and
the gases above the ring.

I'll leave it to you to figure out how much higher than 35 psi the oil
pressure on the bottom side of the rings is. Knowing the viscosity of
the oil, the speed of the piston and the pressure of the ring against
the cylinder wall, you should be able to figure it out for yourself.
You should also be able to figure out for yourself how much lower the
pressure at the upper side of the top ring is than say, at the top
surface of the piston by using some typical values for the clearance
between the piston and the cylinder and typical values for how much
below the top of the piston the upper ring is. Let's see just how good
at math you really are. You claim to be an engineering math whiz.
Prove it.

All I can say is WOW. You must not have even read your own cite if you
can't even find the parts I quoted from it.

Again, show me where it says that the job of the rings is "not to wipe
all the oil away". Where IS that? Your getting so good a spinning, you
should go help your president.

Where it says, and I quote, "In addition to sealing combustion gases in
the combustion chamber, piston rings must also manage the amount of oil
present on the cylinder walls for lubrication"

If the rings wiped *all* of the oil away as you assert, there would be
*none* on the cylinder walls for lubrication. That goes against what
your cite says the job of the rings is.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Come on DimDummy, what's so hard with answering a few simple yes or no
questions?



Yes or no:

In a normal engine the oil ring on a piston is not 100% effective in
removing all of the oil from the cylinder wall.

In a normal engine a thin film of oil is left on the cylinder walls on the
downward stroke.

In a normal engine some oil is burned in the combustion chamber.

In a normal engine some oil is consumed in the combustion chamber.

Usage of motoroil
 

I said:

Again, you call me stupid, but you can't read. I've NEVER said
anything about the engine being new. You did. Dolt.

You replied:

Bzzzt. Wrong. I said ALL engines burn oil, whether new, old, or
anywhere in between. YOU are the one who brought up a burned exhaust
valve, which means the engine probably isn't new. I'm the one who said
it doesn't matter how old the engine is. Now we're even more sure you
can't read for content.

Hoohoo!! You are LOOSING it, man. Please read what I said, then read
your comment. You just may want to seek professional help. Seriously.

You're saying that if the rings are worn enough, they will allow oil
past them. Nevermind the fact that this is always the case. So, the
rings are allowing oil past them into the cylinder. The compression
stroke comes along and you're saying that during the compression stroke,
the oil that is in the cylinder is going to be squeezed out past a
slightly leaky exhaust valve and will be "consumed" as far as the engine
is concerned. Right so far? Ok.

Wrong so far, ok? Ever hear of valve stem seals? Ever hear of the
wearing and leaking?

But YOU said the oil was going past a slightly burned exhaust valve.
Keep your story straight. Of course oil can get past valve stem seals.
It's also burned when it does.

Bull****. Intake yes, exhaust no.

Holy cow! We now have an admission that oil can be burned if it gets
past the intake valve stem seal. You know that it does, right? Never
mind the fact that you're mistaken about oil getting past the exhaust
valve stem seals not being burned. It is burned. Just how cold do you
think it is in the exhaust port and manifold?

Get on your meds, quick. You effing idiot, this WHOLE thread has been
about oil being burned in THE CYLINDER. Now you are saying that, if
some leaks into a hot exhaust chamber, your case is made because the
oil hit something hot!!! TOO FUNNY! I suppose that you also meant,
when you said that any engine BURNS oil, that you meant that if it
leaked out of the crankcase, then dripped on the exhaust pipe, that
that was your point?? PLEASE, see a doctor.

Again, valve stem seals. Easily worn out, very common.

You actually believe that ALL the oil, which YOU say is in the cylinder
during the compression stroke, somehow makes it out before the spark?
Just how does it to that? You're digging yourself in deeper and
deeper, and proving just how stupid you are once again, if you say
"worbn valve stem seals" can somehow get all the oil out of the cylinder
between the compression and power stroke.

Again, I've NEVER made such a claim. You are putting words in my mouth
to try and make yourself sound correct. Your grasping straws, man.

Oh, good. So let's see what you did claim: You did claim that oil does
get into the cylinder but that it gets forced out of a slightly burned
exhaust valve during compression.

Wrong, read again, stupid.

So do you now claim that ALL of the
oil makes it out of the cylinder through the slightly burned exhaust
valve, or do you admit that some of the oil which makes it into the
cylinder stays in there after compression and does not make it out of
the slightly burned exhaust valve? It's a simple question with a simple
answer. Here, I'll phrase it as a yes or no to make it even simpler
since we know you can't read:

Hey, idiot, I never made such a claim.

You've claimed that oil gets into the cylinder and gets forced out
during compression through a slightly burned exhaust valve. Yes or No,
does ALL of the oil that made it into the cylinder also make it out of
the cylinder through the slightly burned exhaust valve during
compression?

Now that we're done examining your one way of losing oil above, let's go
back to the way the technical reference described. Please answer the
question: In what way does an engine lose oil on the cylinder wall
during the power stroke in the combustion process if it isn't burned?

Uh, the OIL ring wipes it? Ya think? Naw, that CAN'T be what the oil
ring is for. Can it?

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. If it's in the cylinder (i.e., above the rings
and piston) as the technical reference says, and it's during the power
stroke (i.e., the rings and piston are moving down) as the technical
reference says, then how is the oil ring going to wipe it away? Sheesh,
you REALLY can't comprehend simple engine mechanics.

Oh, no,buddy. YOU said that the oil gets past the RINGS. I didn't.
Funny little man....

Again, putting words in my mouth. WHERE did I say that the oil came
from the cylinder wall?

YOU didn't say that, you IDIOT. The technical reference from GM said
it. It says that the engine looses oil on the cylinder wall during the
power stroke in the combustion process.

Not sure what that technical reference means. It actually says "the
engine looses oil on the cylinder wall"? Where?

Reference NEVER says that an engine LOOSES oil on the cylinder wall.
Strictly YOUR words.

This has been going on for a month now and it's really rediculous how
stupid you are. I don't believe anyone can actually be as dumb as you,
so you must be just acting stupid for our benefit. You must have
realized you're wrong by now and just can't admit it, so you're acting
stupid to cover for your ineptness. That's the only reasonable answer
for you apparent inability to read and understand plain simple english.

Steve

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase, at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?

Usage of motoroil
 

snip

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase,

They don't "seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting into the crankcase" . Where do you think crankcase pressure comes
from?

From GM:
"If we could perfectly seal the combustion
chamber between piston and cylinder
wall, there would not be any appreciable
cylinder block pressure. But, in fact, while
piston rings attempt to do the job for us, in
the best applications they can seal only
about 95% or less of the pressure developed
in the combustion chamber. This
"blow-by", comprised mostly of unburned
mixture of air and fuel, needs to be managed
back into the intake stream for emissions
purposes."

http://service.gm.com/techlink/html_.../200103-en.pdf

at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?


Very simple Asslicker, a piston goes down on the intake stroke, the
combustion chamber is now under a vacuum. At this time the crankcase is
ALWAYS under pressure. Couple this with oil rings that do not remove *all*
of the oil from the cylinder wall, nor provide a 100% effective seal, and
you get oil in the combustion chamber that will be burned/consumed once the
power stroke comes along.

Note that this isn't the *only* reason that oil gets past the rings but
since you are stuck (once again) on pressure differential as your reasoning
I thought I would post this (again).

Usage of motoroil
 

On 17 Jul 2003 04:40:10 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


I said:

Again, you call me stupid, but you can't read. I've NEVER said
anything about the engine being new. You did. Dolt.

You replied:

Bzzzt. Wrong. I said ALL engines burn oil, whether new, old, or
anywhere in between. YOU are the one who brought up a burned exhaust
valve, which means the engine probably isn't new. I'm the one who said
it doesn't matter how old the engine is. Now we're even more sure you
can't read for content.

Hoohoo!! You are LOOSING it, man. Please read what I said, then read
your comment. You just may want to seek professional help. Seriously.

I'm certainly not going to use your guy. He's not helped you one bit.

You're saying that if the rings are worn enough, they will allow oil
past them. Nevermind the fact that this is always the case. So, the
rings are allowing oil past them into the cylinder. The compression
stroke comes along and you're saying that during the compression stroke,
the oil that is in the cylinder is going to be squeezed out past a
slightly leaky exhaust valve and will be "consumed" as far as the engine
is concerned. Right so far? Ok.

Wrong so far, ok? Ever hear of valve stem seals? Ever hear of the
wearing and leaking?

But YOU said the oil was going past a slightly burned exhaust valve.
Keep your story straight. Of course oil can get past valve stem seals.
It's also burned when it does.

Bull****. Intake yes, exhaust no.

Holy cow! We now have an admission that oil can be burned if it gets
past the intake valve stem seal. You know that it does, right? Never
mind the fact that you're mistaken about oil getting past the exhaust
valve stem seals not being burned. It is burned. Just how cold do you
think it is in the exhaust port and manifold?

Get on your meds, quick. You effing idiot, this WHOLE thread has been
about oil being burned in THE CYLINDER. Now you are saying that, if

WRONG WRONG WRONG. This whole thread has been about me saying that all
engines burn oil. YOU said an engine should burn NO oil. I never said
where the engine has to burn the oil, only that it does. The fact that
it burns oil left in the cylinder that got past the rings is only one
way. It also burns oil that gets past the PCV valve or breather, which
happes to burn in the cylinder, but that's besides the point. It also
can burn oil by your method, which would then burn in the exhaust port
or manifold.

You have still yet to give a single shred of evidence to support your
assertion that an engine should burn NO oil. You've been provided with
a lot of evidence, including one you provided yourself, that says
burning some oil is normal for an engine.

So now I'm finally going to ask you to put up or shut up. Just like you
have asked so many times and have been provided with the requested
reference, would you please provide a technical reference that
specifically says an engine normally burns NO oil, not even a single
molecule, under normal operation.

If you can't do that, it's time for you to finally skulk away.

some leaks into a hot exhaust chamber, your case is made because the
oil hit something hot!!! TOO FUNNY! I suppose that you also meant,
when you said that any engine BURNS oil, that you meant that if it
leaked out of the crankcase, then dripped on the exhaust pipe, that
that was your point?? PLEASE, see a doctor.

No, that's just another of your strawmen for a loosing argument.

Again, valve stem seals. Easily worn out, very common.

You actually believe that ALL the oil, which YOU say is in the cylinder
during the compression stroke, somehow makes it out before the spark?
Just how does it to that? You're digging yourself in deeper and
deeper, and proving just how stupid you are once again, if you say
"worbn valve stem seals" can somehow get all the oil out of the cylinder
between the compression and power stroke.

Again, I've NEVER made such a claim. You are putting words in my mouth
to try and make yourself sound correct. Your grasping straws, man.

Oh, good. So let's see what you did claim: You did claim that oil does
get into the cylinder but that it gets forced out of a slightly burned
exhaust valve during compression.

Wrong, read again, stupid.

Instead of reading again, how about I quote you directly:

"Now, ever hear of a burned exhaust valve? If the rings are worn enough
to allow oil past them, and the exhaust valve is *slightly burned*,
the oil will push out of the valve on any stroke where there is
compression."

So do you now claim that ALL of the
oil makes it out of the cylinder through the slightly burned exhaust
valve, or do you admit that some of the oil which makes it into the
cylinder stays in there after compression and does not make it out of
the slightly burned exhaust valve? It's a simple question with a simple
answer. Here, I'll phrase it as a yes or no to make it even simpler
since we know you can't read:

Hey, idiot, I never made such a claim.

Now that you've been shown you did make such a claim, answer the
question. If the oil gets into the cylinder past the rings, does ALL of
it make it out of the slightly burned exhaust valve? Yes or no?

You've claimed that oil gets into the cylinder and gets forced out
during compression through a slightly burned exhaust valve. Yes or No,
does ALL of the oil that made it into the cylinder also make it out of
the cylinder through the slightly burned exhaust valve during
compression?

Now that we're done examining your one way of losing oil above, let's go
back to the way the technical reference described. Please answer the
question: In what way does an engine lose oil on the cylinder wall
during the power stroke in the combustion process if it isn't burned?

Uh, the OIL ring wipes it? Ya think? Naw, that CAN'T be what the oil
ring is for. Can it?

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. If it's in the cylinder (i.e., above the rings
and piston) as the technical reference says, and it's during the power
stroke (i.e., the rings and piston are moving down) as the technical
reference says, then how is the oil ring going to wipe it away? Sheesh,
you REALLY can't comprehend simple engine mechanics.

Oh, no,buddy. YOU said that the oil gets past the RINGS. I didn't.
Funny little man....

Of course you didn't. Because you don't know sqaut. As the GM
technical reference says, oil DOES get past the rings, it IS in the
cylinder ABOVE the rings as the rings are moving down. So the oil ring
cannot then wipe it away. So again, my question to you is, now that you
know the oil is already above the oil ring and that it cannot wipe it
away because it's moving in the wrong direction, in what way does an
engine lose oil on the cylinder wall during the power stroke in the
combustion process if it isn't burned?

Again, putting words in my mouth. WHERE did I say that the oil came
from the cylinder wall?

YOU didn't say that, you IDIOT. The technical reference from GM said
it. It says that the engine looses oil on the cylinder wall during the
power stroke in the combustion process.

Not sure what that technical reference means. It actually says "the
engine looses oil on the cylinder wall"? Where?

Reference NEVER says that an engine LOOSES oil on the cylinder wall.
Strictly YOUR words.

Wrong again. Wow, how can you be soooo stupid and soooo wrong every
time you say something. My words are the exact words of the reference,
which proves my point. Specifically, that the oil on the cylinder wall
is consumed in the combustion process. Does the problem you're having
with the word LOOSES mean that you don't think oil consumed in the
combustion process is lost? Just what do you think happens to it, it
miraculously reforms into a liquid and makes it's way back into the
crankcase? You really are stupid.

But moving on your reference says, and I quote "This oil is burned each
and every time the cylinder fires." when it's talking about the oil that
gets past the rings and is on the cylinder wall. Notice it says
specifically BURNED.

This has been going on for a month now and it's really rediculous how
stupid you are. I don't believe anyone can actually be as dumb as you,
so you must be just acting stupid for our benefit. You must have
realized you're wrong by now and just can't admit it, so you're acting
stupid to cover for your ineptness. That's the only reasonable answer
for you apparent inability to read and understand plain simple english.

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase, at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?

Because the pressure of the oil against the rings as they are moving
down the cylinder wall is many times greater than 100 psi. And because
oil molecules tend to stick together in a thin film. That's one of the
properties that makes oil a good lubricant. What will really blow your
mind when you think of it is that oil can get past the rings on the
power stroke, where the pressure in the cylinder is much greater than
100 psi. However, the pressure against the rings from the top is
nowhere near as high as the pressure in the cylinder due to the tight
clearance between the piston and the cylinder. If the rings had to face
the full pressure of the combustion gasses in the cylinder (as the would
if there was a lot of space between the piston and cylinder) they could
never do their job of keeping combustion gasses out of the crankcase.
As it is, they only have to seal against the small amount of gasses that
make it between the piston and the cylinder.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:35:15 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

snip

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase,

They don't "seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting into the crankcase" . Where do you think crankcase pressure comes
from?

From GM:
"If we could perfectly seal the combustion
chamber between piston and cylinder
wall, there would not be any appreciable
cylinder block pressure. But, in fact, while
piston rings attempt to do the job for us, in
the best applications they can seal only
about 95% or less of the pressure developed
in the combustion chamber. This
"blow-by", comprised mostly of unburned
mixture of air and fuel, needs to be managed
back into the intake stream for emissions
purposes."

http://service.gm.com/techlink/html_.../200103-en.pdf

at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?


Very simple Asslicker, a piston goes down on the intake stroke, the
combustion chamber is now under a vacuum. At this time the crankcase is
ALWAYS under pressure. Couple this with oil rings that do not remove *all*
of the oil from the cylinder wall, nor provide a 100% effective seal, and
you get oil in the combustion chamber that will be burned/consumed once the
power stroke comes along.

Note that this isn't the *only* reason that oil gets past the rings but
since you are stuck (once again) on pressure differential as your reasoning
I thought I would post this (again).

What's really going to blow his mind is the fact that oil is getting
past the rings in one direction at the same time as combustion gas is
getting past the rings in the other direction. Of course, the oil is
burned shortly after it makes it's way past the upper ring, past the top
of the piston and is exposed to the full heat of combustion in the
cylinder.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

"Joe" wrote in message .. .
snip

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase,

They don't "seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting into the crankcase" . Where do you think crankcase pressure comes
from?

From GM:
"If we could perfectly seal the combustion
chamber between piston and cylinder
wall, there would not be any appreciable
cylinder block pressure. But, in fact, while
piston rings attempt to do the job for us, in
the best applications they can seal only
about 95% or less of the pressure developed
in the combustion chamber. This
"blow-by", comprised mostly of unburned
mixture of air and fuel, needs to be managed
back into the intake stream for emissions
purposes."

http://service.gm.com/techlink/html_.../200103-en.pdf

at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?


Very simple Asslicker, a piston goes down on the intake stroke, the
combustion chamber is now under a vacuum. At this time the crankcase is
ALWAYS under pressure. Couple this with oil rings that do not remove *all*
of the oil from the cylinder wall, nor provide a 100% effective seal, and
you get oil in the combustion chamber that will be burned/consumed once the
power stroke comes along.

Note that this isn't the *only* reason that oil gets past the rings but
since you are stuck (once again) on pressure differential as your reasoning
I thought I would post this (again).

Speaking of asslickers, did you call the engineering company that I
contract for yet? What did they say? Also, did you research the size
of California lakes yet? Can you prove me wrong?

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
.. .
snip

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase,

They don't "seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases
from
getting into the crankcase" . Where do you think crankcase pressure
comes
from?

From GM:
"If we could perfectly seal the combustion
chamber between piston and cylinder
wall, there would not be any appreciable
cylinder block pressure. But, in fact, while
piston rings attempt to do the job for us, in
the best applications they can seal only
about 95% or less of the pressure developed
in the combustion chamber. This
"blow-by", comprised mostly of unburned
mixture of air and fuel, needs to be managed
back into the intake stream for emissions
purposes."

http://service.gm.com/techlink/html_.../200103-en.pdf

at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?


Very simple Asslicker,

Hey, look here. I'm about sick of your petty, little boy name calling
crap. Why don't you just come to the atlanta, ga area and I'll show
you around.

Being wrong all the time getting under your skin?
Do you dispute the above tech reference?
Why don't you answer the simple yes or no questions put to you?

Perhaps we could take a tour of the dojo where I train?

Ya ever see the Seinfeld where Kramer was taking karate?

Usage of motoroil
 

Speaking of asslickers, did you call the engineering company that I
contract for yet? What did they say?

I could care less where you work, and would never call if I did. I (unlike
you) am mentally stable

Also, did you research the size of California lakes yet? Can you prove me
wrong?

I only sided with Bill due to your track record, never actually checked, nor
cared.

Now back to you flogging. Do you dispute the GM tech reference?

Yes or no:

In a normal engine the oil ring on a piston is not 100% effective in
removing all of the oil from the cylinder wall.

In a normal engine a thin film of oil is left on the cylinder walls on the
downward stroke.

In a normal engine some oil is burned in the combustion chamber.

In a normal engine some oil is consumed in the combustion chamber.

Usage of motoroil
 

Let me tell you something Steve, you keep up that crap about my
daughter, and I'll hunt you down like the worthless ****ing dog you
are. Do you understand me? Now, do what you want, call the
authorities, etc. You are a good for nothing piece of ****. Are you
married? If so, I'll bet your wife is just miserable living around an
anal dick sucker such as yourself. If not, now you know why. I've had
it with you. Keep it up, ****head.

Wow Asslicker!

You really are at the edge with one foot on a banana peel aren't you?

Usage of motoroil
 

On 17 Jul 2003 11:15:16 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 14 Jul 2003 10:26:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up, and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

DimDummy's neighbor has. Obviously they drink from the same well. At
least his 8yo daughter now knows her father is an idiot.

You have no shame. Because you're wrong, and know it, you'll stop at
nothing to try to make yourself look like a man. You're not. You
wouldn't be worth getting my shoes messy to stop on your idiot little
pencil neck. **** you.

And because you're wrong, and you know it, you have to use your own 8 yo
daughter since you can't stand up for yourself. What a pig you are.

Let me tell you something Steve, you keep up that crap about my
daughter, and I'll hunt you down like the worthless ****ing dog you
are. Do you understand me? Now, do what you want, call the
authorities, etc. You are a good for nothing piece of ****. Are you
married? If so, I'll bet your wife is just miserable living around an
anal dick sucker such as yourself. If not, now you know why. I've had
it with you. Keep it up, ****head.

Now you're threatning ME because you used your own daughter? What an
idiot. I'm not the one saying any crap about your daughter, you are.
In fact, I pity her for having a worthless piece of crap father like
you. Just look at you ... you lose a stupid argument on the internet
and blow your temper to the point of threatening to "hunt me down" and
ask me to call the aurhorities on you. I certainly hope you don't act
this way in front of your daughter.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:26:57 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


Let me tell you something Steve, you keep up that crap about my
daughter, and I'll hunt you down like the worthless ****ing dog you
are. Do you understand me? Now, do what you want, call the
authorities, etc. You are a good for nothing piece of ****. Are you
married? If so, I'll bet your wife is just miserable living around an
anal dick sucker such as yourself. If not, now you know why. I've had
it with you. Keep it up, ****head.

Wow Asslicker!

You really are at the edge with one foot on a banana peel aren't you?

He's flipped his lid. It's hard to tell whether he's so stupid that he
doesn't realize he's wrong or whether he's so stupid that he can't admit
to being wrong when he knows he is. But in either case, he's turned
into a raving lunatic. He's probably the type who would shoot someone
for accidentally cutting them off in traffic, or turn his car into a
lethal weapon and attack them with it. He really seems pretty high
strung. I hope he is getting therapy.

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

On 17 Jul 2003 11:06:03 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase, at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?

Because the pressure of the oil against the rings as they are moving
down the cylinder wall is many times greater than 100 psi. And because
oil molecules tend to stick together in a thin film. That's one of the
properties that makes oil a good lubricant. What will really blow your
mind when you think of it is that oil can get past the rings on the
power stroke, where the pressure in the cylinder is much greater than
100 psi. However, the pressure against the rings from the top is
nowhere near as high as the pressure in the cylinder due to the tight
clearance between the piston and the cylinder. If the rings had to face
the full pressure of the combustion gasses in the cylinder (as the would
if there was a lot of space between the piston and cylinder) they could
never do their job of keeping combustion gasses out of the crankcase.
As it is, they only have to seal against the small amount of gasses that
make it between the piston and the cylinder.

Steve

Okay, here we go. You are now claiming that the pressure in the
crankcase, at the time that a piston is moving down the cylinder, is
"many times greater than 100 p.s.i.????? Are you just plain flipping
NUTS? Let's say it's an eight cylinder motor, okay? Using YOUR
analogy, then, with eight cylinders, there is almost always a cylinder
moving "down". SO, just how many times 100 psi should my oil pressure
gauge show? Should it be 500 psi? 600psi? Now, because it is
essentially ONE vessel ie: the crankcase, there can not be a
differential in pressure, so don't even try it. That would be akin to
saying that the pressure is different in one side of an air compressor
tank than it is in the other side. NOT.

Somehow, I knew you wouldn't get it. Well, I know I shouldn't do this
because proving you wrong has just gotten to be a dangerous exercise.
But I'll leave you with a few thoughts:

First, do you think your oil pressure gauge is reading the pressure of
the oil against the rings as they are moving rapidly down the cylinder
wall? or do you think it is reading the pressure at the oil pressure
gauge sensor? Do you think the pressure the oil is under is constant
everywhere in the engine? i.e., do you think it's under the same
pressure when it's between the crankshaft and the rod with the rod
pushing down on the crankshaft as it is dripping down from head back
into the crankcase?

And second, we'll take your hypothetical air compressor tank and attach
a hose to the tank that's only, say, 0.05 inches ID and 100 feet long
with the far end about 5% open to simulate the efficiency of a set of
rings. Say there is 100 psi against the walls of the tank feeding the
hose. How much pressure do you think there will be against the
restrictor at the far end of that long, tiny hose? Remember, the tank
and all the hose really is one big continuous vessel. Do you really
think the pressure is constant against the walls everywhere in that
vessel? Do you really think the 95% restrictor is seeing the same 100
psi against it at the end of 100 feet of 0.05" hose as it would be
seeing if it were right at the outlet of the tank? I HOPE you say no.

Hell, an even simpler case: You have 2 garden hoses, both 100 feet long
and both with the same type of sprinkler head on each. One hose is 1"
think and the other is 0.001" think. Turn on the valve and let the same
water pressure into the hoses. Which one do you think will have more
pressure at the sprinkler when you open the sprinkler? Or do you think
both sprinklers will have the same pressure behind them?

Now, there is the EXACT same amount of pressure of the gasses on the
rings, in pounds per square inch, as there is on the top of the
piston. VERY simple physics.

Maybe TOO simple physics. Yes, definitely TOO simple physics. You're
thinking in the static case when the situation we're talking about is
dynamic. I realize that's probably too much of a stretch for you.

Now that I've proven you wrong yet again, are you gonna come after me
and hunt me down?

Steve

Usage of motoroil
 

Grasshopper, breath deeply my little asskisser, and you will feel better.


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2003 10:26:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume
and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a
good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified
mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up,
and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

DimDummy's neighbor has. Obviously they drink from the same well.
At
least his 8yo daughter now knows her father is an idiot.

You have no shame. Because you're wrong, and know it, you'll stop at
nothing to try to make yourself look like a man. You're not. You
wouldn't be worth getting my shoes messy to stop on your idiot little
pencil neck. **** you.

And because you're wrong, and you know it, you have to use your own 8 yo
daughter since you can't stand up for yourself. What a pig you are.

Steve

Let me tell you something Steve, you keep up that crap about my
daughter, and I'll hunt you down like the worthless ****ing dog you
are. Do you understand me? Now, do what you want, call the
authorities, etc. You are a good for nothing piece of ****. Are you
married? If so, I'll bet your wife is just miserable living around an
anal dick sucker such as yourself. If not, now you know why. I've had
it with you. Keep it up, ****head.

Usage of motoroil
 

Asskisser do you kiss your daughter with that trash mouth?


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2003 10:26:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume
and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a
good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified
mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up,
and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

DimDummy's neighbor has. Obviously they drink from the same well.
At
least his 8yo daughter now knows her father is an idiot.

You have no shame. Because you're wrong, and know it, you'll stop at
nothing to try to make yourself look like a man. You're not. You
wouldn't be worth getting my shoes messy to stop on your idiot little
pencil neck. **** you.

And because you're wrong, and you know it, you have to use your own 8 yo
daughter since you can't stand up for yourself. What a pig you are.

Steve

Let me tell you something Steve, you keep up that crap about my
daughter, and I'll hunt you down like the worthless ****ing dog you
are. Do you understand me? Now, do what you want, call the
authorities, etc. You are a good for nothing piece of ****. Are you
married? If so, I'll bet your wife is just miserable living around an
anal dick sucker such as yourself. If not, now you know why. I've had
it with you. Keep it up, ****head.

Usage of motoroil
 

Usage of motoroil
 

On 21 Jul 2003 08:03:06 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Jul 2003 04:15:08 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 17 Jul 2003 11:06:03 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase, at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?

Because the pressure of the oil against the rings as they are moving
down the cylinder wall is many times greater than 100 psi. And because
oil molecules tend to stick together in a thin film. That's one of the
properties that makes oil a good lubricant. What will really blow your
mind when you think of it is that oil can get past the rings on the
power stroke, where the pressure in the cylinder is much greater than
100 psi. However, the pressure against the rings from the top is
nowhere near as high as the pressure in the cylinder due to the tight
clearance between the piston and the cylinder. If the rings had to face
the full pressure of the combustion gasses in the cylinder (as the would
if there was a lot of space between the piston and cylinder) they could
never do their job of keeping combustion gasses out of the crankcase.
As it is, they only have to seal against the small amount of gasses that
make it between the piston and the cylinder.

Steve

Okay, here we go. You are now claiming that the pressure in the
crankcase, at the time that a piston is moving down the cylinder, is
"many times greater than 100 p.s.i.????? Are you just plain flipping
NUTS? Let's say it's an eight cylinder motor, okay? Using YOUR
analogy, then, with eight cylinders, there is almost always a cylinder
moving "down". SO, just how many times 100 psi should my oil pressure
gauge show? Should it be 500 psi? 600psi? Now, because it is
essentially ONE vessel ie: the crankcase, there can not be a
differential in pressure, so don't even try it. That would be akin to
saying that the pressure is different in one side of an air compressor
tank than it is in the other side. NOT.

Somehow, I knew you wouldn't get it. Well, I know I shouldn't do this
because proving you wrong has just gotten to be a dangerous exercise.
But I'll leave you with a few thoughts:

First, do you think your oil pressure gauge is reading the pressure of
the oil against the rings as they are moving rapidly down the cylinder
wall? or do you think it is reading the pressure at the oil pressure
gauge sensor? Do you think the pressure the oil is under is constant
everywhere in the engine? i.e., do you think it's under the same
pressure when it's between the crankshaft and the rod with the rod
pushing down on the crankshaft as it is dripping down from head back
into the crankcase?

And second, we'll take your hypothetical air compressor tank and attach
a hose to the tank that's only, say, 0.05 inches ID and 100 feet long
with the far end about 5% open to simulate the efficiency of a set of
rings. Say there is 100 psi against the walls of the tank feeding the
hose. How much pressure do you think there will be against the
restrictor at the far end of that long, tiny hose? Remember, the tank
and all the hose really is one big continuous vessel. Do you really
think the pressure is constant against the walls everywhere in that
vessel? Do you really think the 95% restrictor is seeing the same 100
psi against it at the end of 100 feet of 0.05" hose as it would be
seeing if it were right at the outlet of the tank? I HOPE you say no.

Hell, an even simpler case: You have 2 garden hoses, both 100 feet long
and both with the same type of sprinkler head on each. One hose is 1"
think and the other is 0.001" think. Turn on the valve and let the same
water pressure into the hoses. Which one do you think will have more
pressure at the sprinkler when you open the sprinkler? Or do you think
both sprinklers will have the same pressure behind them?

Now, there is the EXACT same amount of pressure of the gasses on the
rings, in pounds per square inch, as there is on the top of the
piston. VERY simple physics.

Maybe TOO simple physics. Yes, definitely TOO simple physics. You're
thinking in the static case when the situation we're talking about is
dynamic. I realize that's probably too much of a stretch for you.

Now that I've proven you wrong yet again, are you gonna come after me
and hunt me down?

Steve

I said I would hunt you like the cur dog that you are, if you make
statements about my daughter, understand? I said nothing about it
being dangerous! ;)
Now, yes, simple physics. Pressure is pressure. You are getting
pressure confused with volume. Think of what you are implying here. It
is the same as saying that the PISTONS are responsible for making
crankcase pressure. Now, again, I'll use a very simple analogy. Let's

Not at all. I don't care where the pressure came from. It could be
pressure during the compression stroke. It could be pressure from the
expanding gasses of combustion. And I'm not getting pressure confused
with volume at all.

take an air compressor, with tank. Let's say it's capable of 200psi.
With me so far? Doubtful, but we'll continue. Now, does this mean that
every time the piston pushes air INTO the tank that the air is @
200psi? NO, the air is the same pressure as the tank pressure. Now, I

Well, typically, no it's not at the same pressure. It would be if the
piston was directly attached to the tank. But usually, the compressor
and the tank are two separate "things" connected with a pipe or hose.
The pressure inside the compressor during it's compression stroke is
typically higher than the pressure in the tank. If not, then the air
wouldn't flow from the compressor cylinder to the tank.

know that your sitting there saying that's impossible. Here is where
the volumetric change comes in. The pressure changes with the VOLUME
of air being pushed in. That compresses it. Period. Same with a water

Which is completely different than an engine during a power stroke. In
that case, the pressure changes without the volume changing. The
pressure change then causes the volume to change as it pushes the piston
down the cylinder. You're simplemindedness is showing again.

pipe. Pressure starts out at 60 psi, and if the pipe is level, comes
out very close to starting pressure. The only reason that the pressure
drops a tad is because of friction from the inside of the pipe, as
well as, with the pipe not being completely smooth, laminer flow isn't
possible, it becomes turbulent. Point is, again, in a vessel (this

Ah! You're finally starting to understand why the pressure at the rings
is less than the pressure in the cylinder. Friction, turbulent flow,
etc. So you actually believe that there is smooth turbulent flow with
no friction from the main part of the cylinder to the top of the rings
when the rings are "protected" from the cylinder by the tiny gap between
the piston and cylinder? Dream on.

case, a crankcase) pressure is equal on all sides.

Never mind the fact that the pressure on the sides of the crankcase is
not equal everywhere due to turbulence and vortexes inside the
crankcase. In this case, we're not talking about crankcase pressure at
all. We're talking about the pressure of the oil against the underside
of the rings as the rings are moving down the cylinder. Pressure on the
walls of the crankcase has little to do with it because it's a tiny
fraction of the total pressure the oil exerts against the rings.

For instance, say there was no crankcase and that all you had was a
cylinder open at both ends with a piston with rings in it. Now say also
that the cylinder was coated with oil. If you pull the piston down the
cylinder, the rings are going to try and push away that oil. The oil,
being a viscous fluid that doesn't like being pushed away, is going to
exert force, i.e., pressure against the moving rings without there being
*any* crankcase pressure at all, since there is no crankcase to build
pressure in.

A force that is "many times" more than the 100 psi or so from the
combustion chamber? Haahaaahaah!!!!!

That's all you had to say? Your silence speaks volumes.

BTW, which force are you laughing at? The pressure in the cylinder
during combustion or the pressure of the oil against the underside of
the rings as they are moving down the cylinder? They're both many times
greater than 100 psi.

Are you now saying that the pressure is GREATER because of Turbulence?
Hmm, aviation engineers should try that. The work very hard to make
the air flow over wings in a laminer flow to produce greater pressure.

You should probably learn to read a little better. I said that the
pressure against the top of the rings is less than the pressure in the
cylinder. You've already stated that's impossible. But you were wrong
yet again. Now you're finally starting to understand why you were wrong
.... maybe. We'll see.

Steve