Tegger's real-world oil consumption

So let's see if i can follow this down the rabbit hole.... that would
make you the one that can't read??? or..... are you the other one who
sure is dumb???

 

wow, you just removed the question as to whether you're illiterate or
deceitful - and you did it on your own!!! i wonder if you're dumb
enough to not learn from that mistake??? [rhetorical]

 

Take a deep breath and exhale slowly before you melt into a blob of
gurgling green goo.

 

You said this:
"The correct method is easy. If you summed how much make up oil you
added in total plus how much less than full it was at the time of oil
change, you would get a number that represents the total consumption
over the entire 42000 miles. You then make the calculation on that total
consumption and total miles."

Firstly, I never said I was doing a test over the whole 42,000 miles. I
said I was doing ~1,000 mile tests twice within every batch of oil, which
was roughly every 3,000 miles.

Secondly, doing it /your/ way results in a number that's about 1/2 of
one-percent different from the number you'd get when doing it /my/ way.

My raw numbers say:
17,892 miles within the test periods.
10.817 quarts consumed (AKA "required to top-up to original level").

So doing it your way (as you describe above):
17892 / 10.817 = 1654 miles.

Doing it my way (averaging the extrapolated mi/qt):
21425 / 17 = 1663 miles.

Comparing the two:
1654 / 1663 = 0.9945, or 0.55% difference.

 

My sources do fractional distillation for a living.

The "boil-off" thing is, flat-out, totally, completely, utterly,
absolutely, wholly wrong in every possible and imaginable way.

"Burn-off" means consumption via worn rings and seals, not evaporation due
to some sort of "boil-off".

I don't know; I never did another analysis.

Considering that there apppears to have been very little change in oil
consumption since 2005, and considering the oil-light still goes off about
as quickly as the one in our 130K mile Toyota Tercel, I think the amount of
fuel in the oil is not creating a panic situation.

 

no it's not - it's the fundamental principle of distillation. motor oil
is a mix. that means means there are different components. different
components have different boiling points. and that's /before/ there's
any breakdown, which by definition means different boiling points all
over again.

either we need to re-write the chemistry books, or you're somehow asking
your sources a question that's got them talking about a different point
than than the one we're discussing.

it doesn't burn until it vaporizes. it doesn't vaporize until it gets
heated. and when it get s heated, some fractions vaporize [evaporate]
before others. see above.

are you not interested in the fact that you're apparently wasting gas?

 

further reading:
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/idealfract.html

 

Have you considered that the evaporable fractions may have been removed
when the oil was made?

Have you considered that oil is /not supposed/ to evaporate, and may
have been /designed/ not to evaporate?

I think the wastage is very, very tiny.

My crankcase contains, nominally, 135 ounces. 2% fuel inside that 135
ounces works out to about three ounces. And that's after 3,000 miles.

Any fuel not absorbed by the oil is finding its way back into the intake
via the PCV system. Which, of course, is exactly why the PCV system was
devised in the first place...

I can also tell you that any fuel in my oil is undetectable by my nose,
even when I compare/sniff brand-new oil and the stuff I just drained. I
once had a fuel-pump diaphragm break with my '75 Corolla. Oh BOY did
that oil ever smell of gasoline!!

BTW, my oil analysis was done in 2006, not 2005. I misread the report
before. I might get another one done, just to see if high-fuel still
presents itself.

 

yes indeed. but that link i carefully gave you, and which you have
equally carefully snipped, discusses evaporation with respect to
solutions. you should read it.

as for the question you've asked your sources, i suspect it was along
the lines of whether oil boils at operational temperatures and the
answer of course is "no". but if you read and think about the link i
gave you, and employ some common sense [how does motor oil have a smell
if it's not losing vapor from its surface?], then you'll see some logic
in what i'm trying to communicate.

well, according to the argument you've been using above, that would be
impossible. this is why it's important to understand the principles.

that would be good.

the reason i raise it is because that's a high percentage for a vehicle
that runs for extended periods at full working temperature and thus
should be seeing it all evaporate. to be retaining that percentage, it
has to be being "replenished" at quite a rate, and that is costing you
money. if it was just a townie runabout, colder average operating temps
and shorter durations would mean lower evaporation and that percentage
might be less of an issue.

 

Yes, That is what you said. And repeating it again doesn't make it any
less goofy or any more accurate.

How would you know what result doing it the right way would give you?
You didn't even come close to using any of the several methods I
suggested.

What about all the discrepancies in your data? Are you just going to
pretend they are not there for everyone to see?

That isn't doing my way. What you are doing is what is known as a
flim-flam. If you are going to try to pull off a mathematical flim-flam,
you could at least have taken the care to make the numbers agree between
your two sets of data. Those discrepancies kinda exposes the whole thing
don't ya think?

-jim

 

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5800.htm

 

good point - you don't /have/ a way.

whut? bullshit, fabricate and bluster are all "methods"?

whut about the discrepancies in /your/ data, asshole? whut, you don't
have any data???

so where are your numbers, asshole?

 

Hear that loud scraping sound, boys and girls? That's the sound of "jim"
frantically backing-and-filling.

He's been caught in a giant mistake, and won't admit it.

He said:
"2) Averaging miles/quart for driving intervals of different lengths
does not give an accurate average. Lets take some example numbers to see
why:

A- drive 1000 mi .5 quarts down on the dipstick = 2000 mi/qt
B- drive 1500 mi 1.2 quart down on the dipstick = 1250 mi/qt
--------------------------------------------------------
Average of A and B = 1625 mi/qt"


The giant problem with "jim's" criticism of my work is that he has
chosen as examples precisely the sort of data that you would NEVER
include in statistics: Anomalies. Plus his sample size is impossibly tiny.


I then said:
"I suspect that, as the dataset grows ever larger, that the difference
between your first method and your second will lessen greatly, and will
eventually disappear. That's why sample-size is so critical to any sort of
statistics."

And with half-a-percent difference between methods, I am right. 1663 versus
1654. Half-a-percent.

 

What is the mistake to which you refer?

That was not a mistake. The statement " Averaging miles/quart for
driving intervals of different lengths does not give an accurate
average." was a correct statement. It is not mathematically valid to
calculate the average in that manner if the mileage intervals are of
different lengths. I suggested taking some elementary remedial math
courses if you can't understand why it is invalid. This is stuff you
should have learned in about the 6th grade if yo had been paying
attention. The key point is that it will produce an invalid average when
you have mileage intervals of different lengths.
The original data you posted had mileage intervals of widely varying
lengths. After I pointed that out you posted an excel file with new data
where the mileage intervals are clearly not the same as in the original
PDF file. You keep ignoring all requests for an explanation of why the
mileage intervals in your PDF file are different than the mileage
intervals shown in your excel file.

No you are as usual completely off track. It has nothing to do with
sample size or anomalies. I chose examples that was similar to the
original data you posted where the mileage intervals are not
consistently the same length. It is the difference in length of
intervals that was evident in your original data that made it an invalid
operation to average the miles/quart.

4 days ago I said:

 

Go sit in the corner and suck your thumb for a little while. The big
people will play with you again when were done.

-jim

 

Boil away, vaporize, volatilize - call it what you will, some of your
oil disappears over time becasue it is heated to high temperatures.
There are tests to evaluate the extent to which this happens. Go to
the Mobil 1 Website and read what they have to say about volatility.
They claim low volatility, not NO volatility.

I hate to use anything connected with Amsoil as a reference, but I
will this time - http://www.bestsynthetic.com/volatility.shtml . From
this reference:

"In the NOACK Volatility Test the oil is heated to 150°C for a
specified period. Lighter oil fractions will "boil off," leading to
oil consumption, oil thickening and a loss of performance. The
percentage lost, by weight, due to this "boil-off" is reported."

As an example, the NOACK for Mobil 1 5W30 is around 9%. This means if
you heat the oil to 150 C you will lose around 9% of the oil through
vaporization. 150 C is very hot (300 F) and your oil should not get
that hot, but some volatizes at lower temperatures (hopefully nothing
like 9% or even 3%).

Ed

 

but your [ex] wife tells me are not "big people", asshole.

 

That's nice...... What are the other imaginary friends saying?

 

your ex-wife is imaginary??? then why did she leave you? could it be
because you're a useless blowhard know-nothing asshole, asshole?