new Honda CR-V break in

bullshit. bullshit. bullshit. gas viscosity at high temperature is
not unlike treacle. if you think you're going to "leak" all your
viscous burning fuel/air mix out of a tiny hole instantly, your
delusional thinking is getting /way/ out of hand.

for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in
learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation
point. it typically takes several thousand miles. [engines run for
lower mileage in this condition have smaller valve holes. those run for
longer periods have larger holes. go figure.]

typical causes are incorrect clearance and to a lesser extent, valve
defects. jre's post alludes to this because with lean mixtures or
unleaded gas, combustion temperatures are higher. so, leaded valves
burn if exposed to unleaded temperatures and unleaded valves can burn if
mixtures run too lean. of course, you can argue this is not a "valve
defect" per se, but the valve metallurgy is insufficient for operating
conditions, so it amounts to the same thing.

valves can also start to burn if under-worked engines accumulate excess
carbon deposits preventing full closure, but that's essentially the same
as a clearance issue.

"never get traced"??? that speaks volumes about your knowledge level.
or the lack of it.

this is why you're still on the shop floor - you have no desire to
learn, are too fucking stoooopid to learn even if you did, and are
/certainly/ not capable of employing any form of logical thought.

 

bullshit. bullshit. bullshit. gas viscosity at high temperature is
not unlike treacle. if you think you're going to "leak" all your
viscous burning fuel/air mix out of a tiny hole instantly, your
delusional thinking is getting /way/ out of hand.

for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in
learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation
point. it typically takes several thousand miles. [engines run for
lower mileage in this condition have smaller valve holes. those run for
longer periods have larger holes. go figure.]

typical causes are incorrect clearance and to a lesser extent, valve
defects. jre's post alludes to this because with lean mixtures or
unleaded gas, combustion temperatures are higher. so, leaded valves
burn if exposed to unleaded temperatures and unleaded valves can burn if
mixtures run too lean. of course, you can argue this is not a "valve
defect" per se, but the valve metallurgy is insufficient for operating
conditions, so it amounts to the same thing.

valves can also start to burn if under-worked engines accumulate excess
carbon deposits preventing full closure, but that's essentially the same
as a clearance issue.

"never get traced"??? that speaks volumes about your knowledge level.
or the lack of it.

this is why you're still on the shop floor - you have no desire to
learn, are too fucking stoooopid to learn even if you did, and are
/certainly/ not capable of employing any form of logical thought.

 

It does no good to give you something to read. What good does it do to
provide you with a source for a technical bulletin from Cummins?
Literature such as that is completely wasted on someone like you.

 

It does no good to give you something to read. What good does it do to
provide you with a source for a technical bulletin from Cummins?
Literature such as that is completely wasted on someone like you.

 

because i can point out that you don't understand what you're looking at
and quoting out of context? [rhetorical] or do you have some kind of
authoritarian "do as i say, don't ask questions" problem common among
people with small organs?

 

because i can point out that you don't understand what you're looking at
and quoting out of context? [rhetorical] or do you have some kind of
authoritarian "do as i say, don't ask questions" problem common among
people with small organs?

 

No you can't or at least you never have. You have yet to point anything
at all. You claim what i say is wrong but you have yet to explain the
basis for saying that.

Who said "you can't determine the composition"? Where did that come
from?

You could explain what statement that I made is incorrect? And (more
important) why is it incorrect? Try that for once in your life.

But of course like always you can't explain a single thing. Cummins
used the word "saturation" to mean the point at which oil will start to
lose some of the suspended wear particles. They were making the point
that if the wear metal ends up somewhere else then it does not get
accounted for in oil analysis. So what is your point about the word
saturation?

You have never said anything. You have nothing but miles and miles of
empty rhetoric. All you can say is "Bullshit" and "see above". You have
never said one thing that has any substance. And now your whining that
some of your empty blathering got snipped?

I didn't say the oil was starting to fail. I said It was evidence that
the oil could no longer hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension at
20 hours (I think I must have said that about 20 times now). That leads
to the obvious conclusions that if the oil is not holding all the
particles in suspension then A) they must be ending up somewhere else
and B) measuring the wear particles in the oil will not detect those
missing particles.

What is it that you are saying is normal? Try for once to say a single
statement clearly. Can you?


The drop out of wear particles from the oil after 20 hours occurs even
when the engine is running. The evidence that wear particles end up in
the filter means the particles are starting to stick to things. The
purpose of the additives are to keep the very small wear particle (and
other types of particles, too) in the oil from sticking to things. When
you start to see evidence that particles are becoming sticky that means
the additives that are supposed to prevent that from happening are
becoming less effective.

Please try to stay on topic. We are not talking about whether the oil
loses effectiveness. We are examining your claim that dirty oil protects
an engine from wear better than clean oil does.

Your claim is false. The only reason anyone thinks it is true is
because they have relied on inaccurate methods for measuring actual
engine wear. This is simply a case of bad accounting. the reason you
think there is less wear with dirty oil is because there are less wear
particles present in the oil. But that is only because you have failed
to account for the wear particles that dropped out of the oil.
Cummins explanation of the pitfalls of oil analysis is much better than
mine:

"declining wear metal levels.....
does not mean that wear rates are
decreasing and oil condition is
improving."


They are directly addressing the falacy of your position. Your position
is not something new. You are not alone in your mistaken opinion.
Automotive engineers are quite aware that some people believe that lower
rates of wear metals in dirty oil leads some people to the erroneous
conclusion that dirty oil causes less wear than clean oil.

Neither I nor Cummins ever said oil analysis has no use. If you read
that entire service bulletin Cummins gives a long list of scenarios
where oil analysis is useful and helpful.

All I have said is your claim that old dirty oil causes less wear than
fresh oil is absolutely false. Your reliance the SWRI study to bolster
your claim fails to do that.

All anyone needs to do is wipe a finger on the inside of a valve cover
to make a determination of whether dirt particles are dropping out of
the oil and sticking to things inside the engine. The simple fact is
that most engines do have some dirt deposited on the inside of the
engine and therefore you will end up with some dirt on your finger. This
is generally regarded as normal and there is no good evidence that it
will shorten the life of an engine.

Oh we're back to "see above". And once again there is nothing at all
above to see.

No body said that it was. The experiment demonstrated that wear
particles start to become sticky and start to stick to things after 20
hours of operation. The article said:

"radiotracer wear data showed that filtration
had no noticeable affect on wear particle removal
until approximately 20 hours into the
oil-conditioning test run"

What that means is that before 20 hours the additives were 100%
effective at keeping wear particles in suspension in the oil. After 20
hours the additive package was no longer 100% effective at keeping the
particles from sticking to things. That means that some of the particles
stick to each other in clumps and start to show up in the oil filter.
But there is no accounting for particles that end up elsewhere. As the
Cummins bulletin also stated one place the wear particles can disappear
to is inside the combustion chamber. And The SWRI report never stated
how much less wear particles they found in the old dirty oil so we can
only guess what that number might be.

What is this sudden infatuation with the word "saturation". Cummins
used that word in there service bulletin and now you are spinning in
circles around this word.

The SWRI study never used this word saturation, but they did give an
adequate description so that the reader can tell at what point the oil
was no longer able to hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension.

What if I do look it up? I ask for an explanation of what you think is
the flaw in my logic and you respond with ""saturation"! look it up!".
I didn't even use that word neither did SWRI.

HA HA HA You have offered no explanation. You think ""saturation"! look
it up!" is an explanation? What is that explaining?

OK here's another whole long dreary post from you where can't state a
single thing that is substantive or meaningful.

 

No you can't or at least you never have. You have yet to point anything
at all. You claim what i say is wrong but you have yet to explain the
basis for saying that.

Who said "you can't determine the composition"? Where did that come
from?

You could explain what statement that I made is incorrect? And (more
important) why is it incorrect? Try that for once in your life.

But of course like always you can't explain a single thing. Cummins
used the word "saturation" to mean the point at which oil will start to
lose some of the suspended wear particles. They were making the point
that if the wear metal ends up somewhere else then it does not get
accounted for in oil analysis. So what is your point about the word
saturation?

You have never said anything. You have nothing but miles and miles of
empty rhetoric. All you can say is "Bullshit" and "see above". You have
never said one thing that has any substance. And now your whining that
some of your empty blathering got snipped?

I didn't say the oil was starting to fail. I said It was evidence that
the oil could no longer hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension at
20 hours (I think I must have said that about 20 times now). That leads
to the obvious conclusions that if the oil is not holding all the
particles in suspension then A) they must be ending up somewhere else
and B) measuring the wear particles in the oil will not detect those
missing particles.

What is it that you are saying is normal? Try for once to say a single
statement clearly. Can you?


The drop out of wear particles from the oil after 20 hours occurs even
when the engine is running. The evidence that wear particles end up in
the filter means the particles are starting to stick to things. The
purpose of the additives are to keep the very small wear particle (and
other types of particles, too) in the oil from sticking to things. When
you start to see evidence that particles are becoming sticky that means
the additives that are supposed to prevent that from happening are
becoming less effective.

Please try to stay on topic. We are not talking about whether the oil
loses effectiveness. We are examining your claim that dirty oil protects
an engine from wear better than clean oil does.

Your claim is false. The only reason anyone thinks it is true is
because they have relied on inaccurate methods for measuring actual
engine wear. This is simply a case of bad accounting. the reason you
think there is less wear with dirty oil is because there are less wear
particles present in the oil. But that is only because you have failed
to account for the wear particles that dropped out of the oil.
Cummins explanation of the pitfalls of oil analysis is much better than
mine:

"declining wear metal levels.....
does not mean that wear rates are
decreasing and oil condition is
improving."


They are directly addressing the falacy of your position. Your position
is not something new. You are not alone in your mistaken opinion.
Automotive engineers are quite aware that some people believe that lower
rates of wear metals in dirty oil leads some people to the erroneous
conclusion that dirty oil causes less wear than clean oil.

Neither I nor Cummins ever said oil analysis has no use. If you read
that entire service bulletin Cummins gives a long list of scenarios
where oil analysis is useful and helpful.

All I have said is your claim that old dirty oil causes less wear than
fresh oil is absolutely false. Your reliance the SWRI study to bolster
your claim fails to do that.

All anyone needs to do is wipe a finger on the inside of a valve cover
to make a determination of whether dirt particles are dropping out of
the oil and sticking to things inside the engine. The simple fact is
that most engines do have some dirt deposited on the inside of the
engine and therefore you will end up with some dirt on your finger. This
is generally regarded as normal and there is no good evidence that it
will shorten the life of an engine.

Oh we're back to "see above". And once again there is nothing at all
above to see.

No body said that it was. The experiment demonstrated that wear
particles start to become sticky and start to stick to things after 20
hours of operation. The article said:

"radiotracer wear data showed that filtration
had no noticeable affect on wear particle removal
until approximately 20 hours into the
oil-conditioning test run"

What that means is that before 20 hours the additives were 100%
effective at keeping wear particles in suspension in the oil. After 20
hours the additive package was no longer 100% effective at keeping the
particles from sticking to things. That means that some of the particles
stick to each other in clumps and start to show up in the oil filter.
But there is no accounting for particles that end up elsewhere. As the
Cummins bulletin also stated one place the wear particles can disappear
to is inside the combustion chamber. And The SWRI report never stated
how much less wear particles they found in the old dirty oil so we can
only guess what that number might be.

What is this sudden infatuation with the word "saturation". Cummins
used that word in there service bulletin and now you are spinning in
circles around this word.

The SWRI study never used this word saturation, but they did give an
adequate description so that the reader can tell at what point the oil
was no longer able to hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension.

What if I do look it up? I ask for an explanation of what you think is
the flaw in my logic and you respond with ""saturation"! look it up!".
I didn't even use that word neither did SWRI.

HA HA HA You have offered no explanation. You think ""saturation"! look
it up!" is an explanation? What is that explaining?

OK here's another whole long dreary post from you where can't state a
single thing that is substantive or meaningful.

 

Well that's a interesting straw man you created. But sorry i don't have
any idea how you got there or what viscosity has to do with anything i
said.

Sometimes that is what happens. And sometimes a valve will just crack
and a chunk of the valve breaks off. But that isn't what happened in the
valve we are discussing.

No that is incorrect. Ultimately it reaches a point where the Air/fuel
mixture gets diluted by exhaust gasses to the point where combustion
can't occur. After combustion stops stops the valve will stabilize and
the hole can't get any bigger after that.

Most burnt valves present a completely different look.

And all of that is irrelevant to the particular valve in question. That
valve you posted a picture of burned in one up-stroke of the piston
with a spectacular shower of sparks into the exhaust. It would have been
a great pyrotechnic display if it had been on an engine with short
exhaust pipes.

More blah blah blah which has nothing to do with the one particular
valve under discussion. There are lots of different ways (with different
causes) valves can burn, but we weren't talking about all valve or some
valves - the discussion was about one particular valve.

here we go again. Why is it you are totally incapable of doing anything
but name calling when your ideas are challenged and found to be wrong?
You clearly have not traced the cause of this one valve and how it
burned. All you have done is made up a story. Physical reality
contradicts your story.


-jim

 

Well that's a interesting straw man you created. But sorry i don't have
any idea how you got there or what viscosity has to do with anything i
said.

Sometimes that is what happens. And sometimes a valve will just crack
and a chunk of the valve breaks off. But that isn't what happened in the
valve we are discussing.

No that is incorrect. Ultimately it reaches a point where the Air/fuel
mixture gets diluted by exhaust gasses to the point where combustion
can't occur. After combustion stops stops the valve will stabilize and
the hole can't get any bigger after that.

Most burnt valves present a completely different look.

And all of that is irrelevant to the particular valve in question. That
valve you posted a picture of burned in one up-stroke of the piston
with a spectacular shower of sparks into the exhaust. It would have been
a great pyrotechnic display if it had been on an engine with short
exhaust pipes.

More blah blah blah which has nothing to do with the one particular
valve under discussion. There are lots of different ways (with different
causes) valves can burn, but we weren't talking about all valve or some
valves - the discussion was about one particular valve.

here we go again. Why is it you are totally incapable of doing anything
but name calling when your ideas are challenged and found to be wrong?
You clearly have not traced the cause of this one valve and how it
burned. All you have done is made up a story. Physical reality
contradicts your story.


-jim

 

http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm

This statement:
"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."

I'd love to know your sources for that.

To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
so I am suspicious of my own intuition.

The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
radio-tracer parts:
"...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
oil-conditioning run."

The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
than the text of the article appears to say.

I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
seems intuitive to me.

 

http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm

This statement:
"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."

I'd love to know your sources for that.

To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
so I am suspicious of my own intuition.

The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
radio-tracer parts:
"...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
oil-conditioning run."

The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
than the text of the article appears to say.

I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
seems intuitive to me.

 

I love the euphemisms in this statement.

A more even handed version of this statement might have read like this:

"Testing with dirty oil, produced less wear metal
found in the oil than testing with clean oil."




The point is that they don't know there was less actual wear in the
engine. All they know for sure is is the oil itself contained less of
the tracer wear material. You need to remember they are measuring very
very tiny amounts of material. The test regime for the clean and dirty
oil lasted only about 1/1000 of the total engine life and the
difference in wear they were seeing between clean oil and dirty oil was
some small fraction of that. So the material difference was very small.

If you read carefully you will notice it said:

"the oil is drained and the engine flushed following each test."


So ask yourself what was flushed from the engine after each test? Well
when they did the clean oil test probably not much of anything was
flushed out. But when the pre-stressed oil test was concluded what was
flushed from the engine was the missing wear particles. The clean oil
was able to keep 100% of the wear particles in suspension. The dirty oil
was not.

I had discussion about this study maybe 10 years ago. At that time I
heard that subsequent studies had revealed the flaws in this Study. But
i have never seen any of those studies. The bottom line is that the
facts they present are probably quite accurate . It is the conclusions
they drew from those facts that are suspect. You are free to draw your
own conclusions.

Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive engineers,
you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.

I believe "72-hour oil-conditioning run" was a separate procedure to
create and evaluate the "pre-stressed" oil. There are actually 4
procedures described in the article. The 72 hour procedure was done to
create the "pre-stressed" oil. That procedure involved using a filter.
When that test was concluded the "pre-stressed" oil it produced had a
known amount of radioactive wear material in the oil.

The other 3 test procedures lasted only 6 hours and those tests did not
use an oil filter. The first test was done on clean oil. The second test
used the "pre-stressed" oil. and then the third test was the same as the
first. Presumably the third test was done just to confirm that nothing
had changed in the engine from the first test.

I seriously doubt that you are shortening the life of your engine by
changing the oil too often. i also doubt that you would shorten the life
of your engine if you extended your oil changes to be a little longer.

-jim

 

I love the euphemisms in this statement.

A more even handed version of this statement might have read like this:

"Testing with dirty oil, produced less wear metal
found in the oil than testing with clean oil."




The point is that they don't know there was less actual wear in the
engine. All they know for sure is is the oil itself contained less of
the tracer wear material. You need to remember they are measuring very
very tiny amounts of material. The test regime for the clean and dirty
oil lasted only about 1/1000 of the total engine life and the
difference in wear they were seeing between clean oil and dirty oil was
some small fraction of that. So the material difference was very small.

If you read carefully you will notice it said:

"the oil is drained and the engine flushed following each test."


So ask yourself what was flushed from the engine after each test? Well
when they did the clean oil test probably not much of anything was
flushed out. But when the pre-stressed oil test was concluded what was
flushed from the engine was the missing wear particles. The clean oil
was able to keep 100% of the wear particles in suspension. The dirty oil
was not.

I had discussion about this study maybe 10 years ago. At that time I
heard that subsequent studies had revealed the flaws in this Study. But
i have never seen any of those studies. The bottom line is that the
facts they present are probably quite accurate . It is the conclusions
they drew from those facts that are suspect. You are free to draw your
own conclusions.

Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive engineers,
you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.

I believe "72-hour oil-conditioning run" was a separate procedure to
create and evaluate the "pre-stressed" oil. There are actually 4
procedures described in the article. The 72 hour procedure was done to
create the "pre-stressed" oil. That procedure involved using a filter.
When that test was concluded the "pre-stressed" oil it produced had a
known amount of radioactive wear material in the oil.

The other 3 test procedures lasted only 6 hours and those tests did not
use an oil filter. The first test was done on clean oil. The second test
used the "pre-stressed" oil. and then the third test was the same as the
first. Presumably the third test was done just to confirm that nothing
had changed in the engine from the first test.

I seriously doubt that you are shortening the life of your engine by
changing the oil too often. i also doubt that you would shorten the life
of your engine if you extended your oil changes to be a little longer.

-jim

 

which of course, is the right approach to have. we are all limited by
our knowledge and experience. it's impossible to know what you don't
know! but we can outline pieces of what we don't know, then try to
learn so we can fill the gaps.

i suspect the real reason is because they got snowed by idiots like our
friend swamping them with their own crackpot theories.
science/engineering people don't usually have much time for the
ignorant. your emails probably [unfortunately] went down with that ship.

or you can rely on other information. something like mobil 1 extended
performance works exactly as advertised - it has a 15k mile warranty.

 

which of course, is the right approach to have. we are all limited by
our knowledge and experience. it's impossible to know what you don't
know! but we can outline pieces of what we don't know, then try to
learn so we can fill the gaps.

i suspect the real reason is because they got snowed by idiots like our
friend swamping them with their own crackpot theories.
science/engineering people don't usually have much time for the
ignorant. your emails probably [unfortunately] went down with that ship.

or you can rely on other information. something like mobil 1 extended
performance works exactly as advertised - it has a 15k mile warranty.

 

That last sentence says it all for me.

 

false statement. i have done so repeatedly. and at this point, you
continuing to say that is just pure dishonesty.

er, from the cite you've apparently not bothered to read properly?

rtfc, then read my post one more time, dipshit. your reading
comprehension is failing badly.

you are dishonestly and wrongly saying that oil loses its ability to
maintain suspension before saturation. that's completely incorrect. and
you're dishonestly fudging about where saturation point is.

false statement.

you're dishonestly snipping the cites that contradict you. that makes
you a bullshitter - you can't man up and face the facts.

and you're still 20x wrong!

it's not an "obvious conclusion" because you're wrong! and you can't
read. and you're too fucking stoooopid to learn.

a. wrong.

b. right, but a false conclusion because a. is wrong.

how about this for a clear single statement: "you are an ignorant
bullshitter."

wow, amazingly wrong! filtration works by adhesion??? that's a classic!

/which/ additives, dipshit? the seal conditioners? they're not in to
prevent "sticking". the anti-foaming agents? they're not there to
prevent "sticking". the anti-oxidants? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". the acidity controllers? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". the e.p. additives? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". what about the detergents? they're there to keep wear and
combustion product in suspension so the filter can do its job. but
that's not anything to do with "sticking" either.

you can see "sticky" particles <10 microns??? wow dude, you should work
for nasa!

wow dude, effectiveness is unimportant??? that's a classic! any more
of my words you want to mis-state???.

nope, wrong. you can't read.

because the oil has "failed" after only 20 hours???!!! utter bullshit.

you're deliberately quoting out of context - you dishonestly snipped the
part about "beyond saturation".

false statement, see above.

deliberately false statement - you keep trying to use "beyond
saturation" statements as if they apply to "pre saturation". they
don't. and to say they do is either retarded or dishonest.

relentless with the bullshit, aren't you.

no, "dirt" on your finger comes from either the combustion/wear product
properly held in suspension by the oil, which properly coats the
surfaces. or it comes from deposition. but deposition ONLY occurs
after the oil has started to fail. if you use analysis correctly, you
determine what that failure point is, and thus avoid deposition! duh.

you missed a bit - let me correct it for you:

"And once again there is nothing at all above to see after i've snipped
what i don't like and can't man up to addressing".

there you go.

er, when you say that oil starts to deposit wear/combustion product
after only 20 hours, that's exactly what you /are/ saying.

no it doesn't!

wow dude. how do you do it? i mean, draw utterly nonsense unrelated
conclusions from such a simple statement of fact?

no, it means that only 20 hours in - that's approximately 600 miles in,
there is no noticeable wear product created to measure!

because they only exist in your fantasy!

of course, the black hole!

but you can guess all kinds of wrong conclusions!

i need to keep repeating it because you don't acknowledge or understand it!

to anyone interested in this topic, "saturation" is an obvious concept
and taken for granted. just like they don't bother to define "engine"
or "filter" or "oil" either.

did you ever do high school chemistry? [rhetorical]

you look up something that you conveniently don't want to acknowledge
because it contradicts your fantasies and bullshit!

that's because it's freakin' obvious, dipshit! do you need to look up
"stoooopid" too?

that you're stoooopid!

here's something substantive and meaningful for you:

1. learn to read.

2. try to learn.

3. try to use logic.

4. don't be dishonest.

then you won't be pissing in the knowledge pool with your fantasy
underinformed ignorant bullshit.

 

That last sentence says it all for me.

 

false statement. i have done so repeatedly. and at this point, you
continuing to say that is just pure dishonesty.

er, from the cite you've apparently not bothered to read properly?

rtfc, then read my post one more time, dipshit. your reading
comprehension is failing badly.

you are dishonestly and wrongly saying that oil loses its ability to
maintain suspension before saturation. that's completely incorrect. and
you're dishonestly fudging about where saturation point is.

false statement.

you're dishonestly snipping the cites that contradict you. that makes
you a bullshitter - you can't man up and face the facts.

and you're still 20x wrong!

it's not an "obvious conclusion" because you're wrong! and you can't
read. and you're too fucking stoooopid to learn.

a. wrong.

b. right, but a false conclusion because a. is wrong.

how about this for a clear single statement: "you are an ignorant
bullshitter."

wow, amazingly wrong! filtration works by adhesion??? that's a classic!

/which/ additives, dipshit? the seal conditioners? they're not in to
prevent "sticking". the anti-foaming agents? they're not there to
prevent "sticking". the anti-oxidants? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". the acidity controllers? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". the e.p. additives? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". what about the detergents? they're there to keep wear and
combustion product in suspension so the filter can do its job. but
that's not anything to do with "sticking" either.

you can see "sticky" particles <10 microns??? wow dude, you should work
for nasa!

wow dude, effectiveness is unimportant??? that's a classic! any more
of my words you want to mis-state???.

nope, wrong. you can't read.

because the oil has "failed" after only 20 hours???!!! utter bullshit.

you're deliberately quoting out of context - you dishonestly snipped the
part about "beyond saturation".

false statement, see above.

deliberately false statement - you keep trying to use "beyond
saturation" statements as if they apply to "pre saturation". they
don't. and to say they do is either retarded or dishonest.

relentless with the bullshit, aren't you.

no, "dirt" on your finger comes from either the combustion/wear product
properly held in suspension by the oil, which properly coats the
surfaces. or it comes from deposition. but deposition ONLY occurs
after the oil has started to fail. if you use analysis correctly, you
determine what that failure point is, and thus avoid deposition! duh.

you missed a bit - let me correct it for you:

"And once again there is nothing at all above to see after i've snipped
what i don't like and can't man up to addressing".

there you go.

er, when you say that oil starts to deposit wear/combustion product
after only 20 hours, that's exactly what you /are/ saying.

no it doesn't!

wow dude. how do you do it? i mean, draw utterly nonsense unrelated
conclusions from such a simple statement of fact?

no, it means that only 20 hours in - that's approximately 600 miles in,
there is no noticeable wear product created to measure!

because they only exist in your fantasy!

of course, the black hole!

but you can guess all kinds of wrong conclusions!

i need to keep repeating it because you don't acknowledge or understand it!

to anyone interested in this topic, "saturation" is an obvious concept
and taken for granted. just like they don't bother to define "engine"
or "filter" or "oil" either.

did you ever do high school chemistry? [rhetorical]

you look up something that you conveniently don't want to acknowledge
because it contradicts your fantasies and bullshit!

that's because it's freakin' obvious, dipshit! do you need to look up
"stoooopid" too?

that you're stoooopid!

here's something substantive and meaningful for you:

1. learn to read.

2. try to learn.

3. try to use logic.

4. don't be dishonest.

then you won't be pissing in the knowledge pool with your fantasy
underinformed ignorant bullshit.