Will switching from Synthetic to Dyno oil harm my engine?

No, I'm AM a safety engineer, Used to work at Sellafield, amongst

I'm hiding no insecurities (Please explain which ones, as I fail to see what
I could be hiding, maybe you have a couch and a degree in psychology too?).
And what i say isnt bollocks - its fact, just might not be on your
watch/area, although I must say im suprised that we have higher QC standards
in a transfer line manufacturing business than in the nuclear power gen
world.

And I have no idea why you are taking all this so personally? All i did was
point out I didnt like other people working on my car as ive seen too many
people ripped off and work done poorly and you blow it up out of all
proportion and make it personal? Maybe its not me with the insecurities? I'm
not the one mouthing off about qualifications and how pertinent my job is to
the argument at hand.

So you say. But from your original text there's no evidence of this, so its
pretty easy to adjust the meaning afterwards when you realise how it sounds.

a) Please dont mis-quote - I said "and the
only place i found in the whole country" not "theres only one place in the
UK that does it" - if you read so poorly im not suprised you take everything
the wrong way and respond in an offensive manner.

b) I admitted it is not something I worked hard at finding to be perfectly
honest - as ive have pointed out from the beginning it seems pretty
pointless for my needs so i found one. I couldnt find any more and couldnt
find anyone who knew of any more without going looking into industrial
companies, and decided it wasnt worth the hastle for the information that it
would provide.

This post has gotten way off topic already - its about time we stopped
wasting bandwidth with personal experience and anecdotal evidence, all of
which is pretty worthless to the general readers.

J

 

IF you really trust his competence, then you will not check his work. But

I see your point, but I would dissagree still - I trust him, i just like to
check everything over myself, even if its just a cursory glance, as its me
that foots the bill in the end.

lol, not sure I'd like to venture into that one, i know a few very good
female engineers. But no, id not trust them either, dont know them well
enough .

J

 

You mean the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant that has been releasing
technetium-99 into the North Sea for decades?

 

The one that had to change it's name.

If I were a safety engineer, I'd be hesitant about using that one as
a reference site.

 

If I were a safety engineer, I'd be hesitant about using that one as

LOL, im sure its actually safer than a lot of places but I agree with you!


J

 

Yeah, amazing how it does that, when the plant's on the irish sea...
They got one HELL of a big pipeline going right acriss to tyneside.

 

Simple ocean currents will do:
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/355/3523.html

 

Good ;-)

If anything, of course, turbocharging allows for decreased emissions and
soot, which is why it is fitted to virtually all modern light car and truck
diesel engines. In itself though, it does not do this. Every individual
system on an engine has to work in balance and in complement with other
systems. An engine fitted with an old big and crude turbo with no
wastegate, intercooler or a
governor control to limit over fuelling [actually tubo lag] upon
acceleration, as fitted to old
Caterpillar tractors for instance, would produce clouds of soot when opened
up. Newer variable vane geometry turbo's which are electronically controlled
from the same ECU as the electronic fuelling can reduce soot dramatically.
Peugeot have just launched a range of diesel cars which have got effectively
'zero exhaust soot emmissions'.

Huw

 

Readers Digest version: When less air is available, less fuel must be
administered to avoid visibly sooty exhaust. As manifold pressure
increases, so can fuel delivery before exhaust soot becomes visible. Also,
the more fuel you put to a diesel, the hotter it runs (aspirated or
charged).

 

Simple ocean currents will do:http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/355/3523.html

Hehe, now i am worried about the knowledge of Sellafield's safety man

J

 

For my money, the best example of this is General Electric locomotives
(which you probably don't see often in Europe). Older "U" and "B" series
locos with the 7-FDL engine up to about 3600 horsepower and a single
gigantic turbocharger and no electronic controls will lay down an
AMAZING smokescreen if the throttle is advanced rapidly (though not
quite as much as Alco locomotives with the 251 series engine). Later GE
locomotives, still using an almost unchanged (mechanically speaking)
7-FDL to as much as 4400 horsepower and with a re-plumbed turbocharger
and (most importantly) electronic injection control rarely produce
visible exhaust. And the latest generation meets the new Tier-III
emission standard, albeit with the new GEVO engine which has a number of
mechanical advances over the 7-FDL.

A certain amount of "over-fueling" is necessary to start the turbo
spinning up for higher power output, but older injection systems tended
to just jump to the final target fuel flow and "wait" for the turbo to
catch up to the fuel flow. Electronic controls allow the fuel flow to
ramp up syncrhonously with the increasing boost pressure and level off
at the final value. An added advantage is that reducing the over-fueling
often causes the turbo to spool up even faster, reducing the total time
required for the engine to reach full power after the operator makes the
power demand. That's another thing that was spectacular (in a bad way)
about the old GE locootives. I'm told that in some models, the time
between advancing the throttle from idle to full power could be as much
as 90 seconds! Granted, this is a huge (almost 4000 horsepower)
16-cylinder engine in which each cylinder displaces more than an engtire
VW TDI engine, but still!

 

Not as much as it makes me scared about you two.

'dumping in the north sea' is a specific term, and states that the
polutant is discharged directly into the north sea. Quite clearly, it
does NOT. if any, it would discharge into the IRISH sea, and then
'currents' would bring it into the north sea. following that line of
reasoning, you could say 'sellafield is dumping into the pacific
ocean' or 'into the persian gulf' both rather more absure statements,
but equally as valid as those here.

That article even clarifies that you both have problems with the
written word. it is talking about unofficial, conjectural plans for a
dump that MAY be constructed there. Themn, you also have to consider
the source "we're small, we're anti-nuclear" - they're hardly going to
be providing objective rhetoric, are they.

Secondly, as ANYONE with any knowledge knows, a large project has many
cogs. a large technical project has many engineers working on it, one
person who works on all areas, is, as the saying goes "jack of all
trades, and master of none'. When there were the concorde crashes, did
people point to the guy whos job was to inspect the apssenger safety
restraints and go "ha, obviously you're incompetant". Did they go to
the avionics comapny and say "well, you're peddling a load of shit,
aren't you" no. Responsible for safety they may have been, but for a
different area of large and complex entity. As it happens, my job was
more to do with the inspection and detection gear inside the reactors
themselves, and ensurin emergency safety proceedures could be carried
out. Since it hasn't melted down, seems i did my job ok.

Again, i'll reiterate, I've seen more accidents frmo people who
thought only their work was up to scratch that they had to check on
everyone elses, to the exent of having to check every bolt is tight,
that it seems they're one of the major causes of accidents in the
industrial workplace.

If you're not competant in their ability to fasten down a bolt
accurately, then
1) if you hired them, or requested their help, why did you do so,
since you don't value their ability to do the job anyway.
2) if you didn't hire them, why did you not report your concerns about
their gross inability to do even basic functions to someone who could
remove them from doing what you consider to be doing a shabby job

Lets make no bones about it, if you don't trust someone to tighten up
a bolt adequately, you obviously have serious competacy concerns.
Regardless, we are left with two options

Either 1) you are just attempting to make yourself seem important "oh,
i just need to check everything you've done, in case you've made a
mistake, no offence old boy, just don't think you know how to tighten
nuts properly" which is pretty much time wasting, and posturing, or
2) you keep yourself surrounded by incompetants, to give a marked
constrast between the abilities, secure in your confidence that any
mistakes such people make, you in your great ability can catch before
it is turned into an accident or incident of some kind.

Fainlyl, before you think i'm prattling on endlassly, give thought to
the reason i have not posted for several days. Could it be because i
was checking some references to this? Why indeed, could it have been
that i was checking up studies on just such behavour, and it is from
the wealth of papers no this subject that the two conclusions above
come from.

In closing, i thank you. I had been asked to give a talk in about a
months time in Atlanta, and had been struggling for a topic. You have
given me such a topic. "the ultracrepidarian engineer - will we be
safe from them?

 

K`Tetch wrote:

<snip again>

As a fan, I can't let that pass.

ISTR ONE Concorde crash, caused by another aircraft shedding debris onto
the runway (and incidentally, exposing Concorde as vulnerable to tyre
problems). I do NOT recall any others. It was economics that killed
the bird, not safety - there are loads of aircraft flying with far worse
records, and I think that probably includes all helicopters.

I'm not BTW going to get myself involved in the nuclear debate.

Andy.

 

Thank you, that was my point. Someone who has safety responsibility
for one area of a complex thing, has no effect on safety in another
section.

Don't blame you. Of the 3 commenting on that, it was obvious that 2
had no clue, and i didn't realy want to comment either.

 

There were previous incidence that made the Authorities and operators well
aware of the potential risk in this area. Indeed there were several
modifications over the years to address this point which were obviously not
ultimately effective.

Huw

 

Maybe the Concorde changed from dino oil to synthetic, and it harmed the
engines....

Mike

 

They did change the tyre specification and they did introduce a protection
for the wing tanks that I know of.

Huw