Will switching from Synthetic to Dyno oil harm my engine?

Well then on a simple level the presence of a turbocharger does not
correlate to increased soot production. That is the simple truth.

Huw

 

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:57:53 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"


*snip*

Who said anything about a light? there wasn't one, the note change
happened about a mile earlier. As I said earlier, he KNOWS cars. he
was a semi-pro rally driver, and did all his own race prep, and he had
been a very highly trained engineer for the previous 330+ years
(mainly on oil and other fluid ssytems, starting out on the fuel
systems of concord, at lucas.

I myself am a design/research engineer, and I also do a lot of safety
work (when i was based in the UK, i'd have comapnies phoning me up
from california to ask for help, or time, or whatever, hell, the US
govt. even reqested me at work on a project at their old navel base in
the middle of SF bay, and despite that, I don't have such a high
handed, arse-faced opinion o my abilities.

I wouldn't trust anyone with a pigheaded self superior attitude like
yours to change a flat. People like you give all the rest of us a bad
rep, because you know it ALL, and you refuse to listen.

 

If you know his work is good, and he's a friend, and you STILL insult
his basic competance, then i've very surprised
a) that you have any friends and
b) that you are anything but self employed

I know an aerospace engineer too. I can remeber her fiesta breaking
down outside where she worked. One of the engineers comming to use the
wind tunnel made some comments about her competancy to work on the
car. He gave her the same kind of gab to his mates whilst they were
waiting for their car (a brand new hyundai, about to go into the
wind-tunnel for testing iirc) to arrive on the banck of the truck. how
he'd let a woman work on this hyundai, but he'll be double-checking
everything to make sure she didn't **** up. Guess who was the shitty
engineer who made all the faults? Here's a hint, it wasn't the 5'3
27yo girl... No, it was the loud mouthed, self important bloke who
wouldn't trust anyone elses work. Thing was, now he's unemployed.
no-one trusted his work. He was so busy checking everyone elses work,
that he never did anything himself, and what he DID do was, in a word,
bleeding terrible.

 

But THAT was the statement I made. "All else being equal." That examples
may or may not actually exist is not relevant.

 

I did not say a turbo contributed to -increased- soot production. It's
the absence of a turbo when the fuel injection is calibrated for the
expected intake pressurization that increases soot.

http://tec.avl.com/wo/webobsession.servlet.go/encoded/YXBwPWtiYXNlJnBhZ2U9Y29udGVudC1tYW5hZ2VtZW50L3ZpZXcmaWQ9NDAwMDM0OTkz.html
" In addition emission and fuel consumption are influenced by an optimised
turbocharger setup. By the use, for example, of a much smaller turbocharger
(as shown in Figure 3) the NOx / soot emissions could be reduced by ~38% /
~17 % whilst simultaneously lowering specific consumption and combustion
noise. Thus it is quite obvious that the turbocharging system is not only
relevant to power but also to emissions. "

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:OQ1jaA0v8uQJ:www.md.kth.se/~magnuss/thesis-filer/Rotating_injector_chapter_7.pdf+soot++turbocharger+emission&hl=en&client=firefox-a
" The boost pressure is important for two reasons: First, for a given engine
load it determines the overall fuel/air-equivalence ratio. Second, the
in-cylinder
air density is directly proportional to the absolute inlet pressure and this
has
strong effect on the spray penetration as shown in Figure 4.7. Accordingly,
the
turbocharger boost has strong influence on the combustion and emissions"

 

Oops... sorry for the earlier link screwup

..Philip. wrote: .

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:OQ1jaA0v8uQJ:www.md.kth.se/~magnuss/thesis-filer/Rotating_injector_chapter_7.pdf+soot++turbocharger+emission&hl=en&client=firefox-a

" The boost pressure is important for two reasons: First, for a given
engine load it determines the overall fuel/air-equivalence ratio. Second,
the in-cylinder air density is directly proportional to the absolute inlet
pressure and this has strong effect on the spray penetration as shown
in Figure 4.7. Accordingly, the turbocharger boost has strong
influence on the combustion and emissions"

 

No, BMEP is "Brake Mean Effective Pressure," a far cry from the highest
pressure attained during combustion. Go look it up.


Depends on the cam and injection timing in that case. I can certainly
diddle the cam and injection timing so that both peak pressure and BMEP
are lower on the 24:1 engine... but it will be a pig that barely runs.

But that wasn't the case we're considering- we're considering your claim
that an SD22 has higher peak pressure than a Cummins B5.9 or Powerstroke
because the static compression ratio is higher.

No... YOU picked the comparison when you selected the SD22, Cummins
B5.9, and Powerstroke.

 

I did. thank you for catching my error in terminology so early.

"All else being equal" Why is this so hard for everyone to grapple with?

 

you cannot _increase_ pressure without an _increase_ in temperature.
that's adiabatic heating. heatless pressure is /by definition/ static.
i'm really not sure how you can confuse this with an engine's
ignition scenario.

 

No confusion ... on my part. The trick wording were "Rapidly rising
pressure."

 

trick words: "You can have pressure but without heat ... no ignition."
that directly contradicts your other statement. google "adiabatic heating".

 

Only if you didn't follow my thought. When you fill a bottle of oxygen to
2000 psi ... how hot is it during this pressurization? The point I alluded
to is the importance of "rapidly rising" pressure. That some diesels
absolutely require glow plugs is in part ... because cranking speed does not
compress the air quickly enough to heat it sufficient to ignite the fuel as
it is injected. But when you get the vehicle rolling down a hill at speed
and then pop the clutch, the elevated cranking speed is often sufficient to
generate the rapid rises in pressure sufficient to ignite the fuel.

So what does this non sequitur have to do with soot or the title of this
thread?

 

again, you confuse static with dynamic. again, google "adiabatic
heating" philip. put us out of your misery.

indirect diesels require glow plugs because the adiabatic heating is
substantially lost to the head as it flows through the narrow venturi to
the combustion chamber. direct injection engines, where the combustion
is in the same area as that in which the air was originally compressed,
don't lose as much of this heat, even though compression is less.
compression rate != compression ratio. you cannot say there is a
difference in compression rate between direct & indirect.

the reason you can [just] start an indirect diesel without electrically
heating the glow plugs if you tow/roll the vehicle fast enough is that
after a number of compression strokes, the glow plug & the combustion
chamber area, although not hot, warm sufficiently for losses to decrease
to the point where flash can occur. direct injection diesels for the
reasons stated above, start easily in all but the worst conditions,
rolling, towed or conventionally cranked.

 

No confusion in evidence. In evidence is your determination.

I never said there was a 'difference in compression rate' (whatever that
means, precisely). But you MUST copy/paste the passage that leads you to
believe otherwise.

As I detailed earlier in the context of IDI, cold cranking speed is one of
the factors that necessitates a glow plug unless/until you can elevate
cranking speed to bring about the warmer chamber conditions you've mentioned
previously.

Yer sthow sthmart.

 

If you know his work is good, and he's a friend, and you STILL insult

Im not insulting his competence at all, and I'd expect him to check anything
I did as well, its basic common sense on safety/expense critical work.
Theres no reason for it to be considered an insult, most safety critical
work is double checked in industry too, you must be a very sensitive person
to get upset over this sort of thing.

Thats sexism, nothing to do with knowing how good she is at her job, keep
with the plot.

Quaint story, still not quite seeing your point though. You are basically
trying to make out i'm a do nothing, criticising work checker - which is
utter bollocks to be quite honest. All I've said is that I've seen enough
crap work done to only trust my own work, which (to date) has been
faultless, along with diagnosis, though I did point out that i do accept
thoughts from others on diagnosis. So really I dont fit your little story.
And almost all of the people I'd consider competent to work on my car
wouldnt have anyone else work on their car other than themselves. All very
well rounded, pleasant individuals, without a streak of sexism too
surprisingly.

In all honesty, if you know you are capable yourself you arent going to feel
comfortable trusting someone else with the work. Of course if I dont have
the equipment (crank regrind etc) I would have to hand it over to someone,
but I'd be finding someone I either know personally or is a friend of a
friend to do the work. Anyone can talk the talk, not many can walk the walk.

J

 

IF you really trust his competence, then you will not check his work. But
by doing so ... and having expressed the confidence in him as you have, your
actions invalidate your words. You really do not trust him.

Agreed. Unless he can show a correlation between female and incompetence to
do the work. That should interesting in this PC world. LOL

That's a management problem for not promoting him to a quality control
position. LOL.

When you have acquired the real knowledge to do the work but opt to have
someone else do it for whatever reason, I see a very human spirit of
competition emerging. Some of this is good .... too much of it toxic.

 

Who said anything about a light? there wasn't one, the note change

Was the post I was commenting on, read back before jumping to conclusions
please.

Not at all, I refuse to listen without proof of someone being good enough at
what they do - i.e. me having seen their work before. That is a *sensible*
way of qualifying someone as good enough to work on your car.
I personally am not about to go blabbing about what qualifications and
importance I have like you (and I have a self superior attitude?), though I
could, my whole point was that working on my car I wouldnt trust a general
spanner monkey **BASED ON EXPERIENCE**. If one doesnt learn from ones
experiences, one cant complain can one?
If you are happy to let your car be worked on by Joe Bloggs in the
dealership then thats fine, you either have a) more money than sense or b)
no belief in your own abilities or c) are too busy to do the work yourself,
and enough cash to cover it when it goes wrong.
C) is understandable.

I personally cant think of so many perfectly tailored stories to prove my
points, i just go from experience

J

 

No, I'm AM a safety engineer, Used to work at Sellafield, amongst
other places. What you're saying is bollocks. I've met plenty of
people like you, who insist that they are the only ones that can do
the work right. Mostly they're the worst kind. covering their own
insecurity by trying to be ultra-critical of others.

No, he knew the engineer working on his car would be a woman, since
he'd spoken to her on the phone, booking the time. He had insecurity
about the quality of everyone's work except his. JUST LIKE YOU.

sounds like you do a lot of the former, and not much of the latter.
"only one place in the UK that does it" etc. if you were as
knowledgable as you claim, you'd know of at least 3 places that did
it.

 

J: It does seem you nurture your negative past experiences and project a
broad brush prejudice toward future service work performed by persons you
have no background on. Does that work for you?