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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

(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?

Steve

Certainly. The only thing is, for some reason, you don't have the
mental capacity to think outside of what you determine is correct.
You'd never make a decent employee in any kind of technical capacity
because of your blinders.
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.

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

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
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

Steve, here is a CLASSIC case of your narrow minded, idiotic diatribe.
After this whole thread, you STILL don't understand. Pathetic. You
just do not get it, and after this much discussion, you never will.