"Joe" wrote in message . ..
I feel very very sorry for your daughter. It must be a terrible burden
to
have to live with a father such as yourself.

Please provide any and all facts that support your above diatribe.

A sampling of you posts in this thread alone provides ample proof.

Hmm, then I guess, by your posts here, that one can assume a lot about
you, too.

1. You are NOT, nor have ever been, an licensed engineer.
2. You found a .jpg of a A.S.E. certification to try to make yourself
sound like you have some training in SOMETHING.
3. You are either young, simple, or have some issues like your mommy
beating you, because you have this need to try to sound better than
everybody else.
4. You don't have a boat (because you don't ever post about anything
boating related)
5. You must have been a lousy mechanic, if your claim of being a
communications TECHNICIAN hold any water.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
. ..
I feel very very sorry for your daughter. It must be a terrible
burden
to
have to live with a father such as yourself.

Please provide any and all facts that support your above diatribe.

A sampling of you posts in this thread alone provides ample proof.

Hmm, then I guess, by your posts here, that one can assume a lot about
you, too.

1. You are NOT, nor have ever been, an licensed engineer.

I never said I was a P.E. I said I was a "Telecommunications Infrastructure
Engineer", an RCDD, and a holder of a Florida Certified Low Voltage License.

2. You found a .jpg of a A.S.E. certification to try to make yourself
sound like you have some training in SOMETHING.
3. You are either young, simple, or have some issues like your mommy
beating you, because you have this need to try to sound better than
everybody else.
4. You don't have a boat (because you don't ever post about anything
boating related)

An outright lie, which from you is expected.

5. You must have been a lousy mechanic, if your claim of being a
communications TECHNICIAN hold any water.

Sorry, not a Technician. I design, inspect, and project manage.

I too feel sorry for your daughter.

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
You should probably learn to read a little better. I said that the
pressure against the top of the rings is less than the pressure in the
cylinder. You've already stated that's impossible. But you were wrong
yet again. Now you're finally starting to understand why you were wrong
... maybe. We'll see.

Steve

Now, let me get this perfectly straight. You are saying

1. that the pressure on the TOP of the rings, due to compression is
LESS than the pressure in the rest of the cylinder?? heehe!!!

2. But, on the same hand, magically, the pressure on the bottom of the
ring is GREATER than the pressure in the rest of the crankcase?????

3. The pressure on the bottom of the rings is "many times greater"
than the 100 or so psi of the combustion chamber? How much? is it 1000
psi? 1,000,000 psi????

"Joe" wrote in message . ..
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
. ..
I feel very very sorry for your daughter. It must be a terrible
burden
to
have to live with a father such as yourself.

Please provide any and all facts that support your above diatribe.

A sampling of you posts in this thread alone provides ample proof.

Hmm, then I guess, by your posts here, that one can assume a lot about
you, too.

1. You are NOT, nor have ever been, an licensed engineer.

I never said I was a P.E. I said I was a "Telecommunications Infrastructure
Engineer", an RCDD, and a holder of a Florida Certified Low Voltage License.

Please see below:
43-15-30. Unlawful acts.
(a) Any person who violates Code Section 43-15-7 shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(b) Any person presenting or attempting to use as his own the
certificate of registration or the seal of another obtained under this
chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who gives any false or forged evidence of any kind to
the board or to any member thereof in obtaining a certificate or
certificate of registration shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(d) Any person who falsely impersonates any other registrant or any
person who attempts to use an expired or revoked certificate of
registration shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(e) Each day or occurrence shall be considered a separate offense.
(f) Any person offering services to the public who uses by name,
verbal claim, sign, advertisement, directory listing, or letterhead
the words "Engineer," "Engineers," "Professional Engineering,"
"Engineering," or "Engineered" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor unless
said person has complied with the provisions of this chapter.

2. You found a .jpg of a A.S.E. certification to try to make yourself
sound like you have some training in SOMETHING.
3. You are either young, simple, or have some issues like your mommy
beating you, because you have this need to try to sound better than
everybody else.
4. You don't have a boat (because you don't ever post about anything
boating related)

An outright lie, which from you is expected.

Yes, I know you lied.

5. You must have been a lousy mechanic, if your claim of being a
communications TECHNICIAN hold any water.

Sorry, not a Technician. I design, inspect, and project manage.

I too feel sorry for your daughter.

I feel sorry for anybody associated with you. What a putz.

On 23 Jul 2003 07:02:18 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
You should probably learn to read a little better. I said that the
pressure against the top of the rings is less than the pressure in the
cylinder. You've already stated that's impossible. But you were wrong
yet again. Now you're finally starting to understand why you were wrong
... maybe. We'll see.

Steve

Now, let me get this perfectly straight. You are saying

1. that the pressure on the TOP of the rings, due to compression is
LESS than the pressure in the rest of the cylinder?? heehe!!!

2. But, on the same hand, magically, the pressure on the bottom of the
ring is GREATER than the pressure in the rest of the crankcase?????

3. The pressure on the bottom of the rings is "many times greater"
than the 100 or so psi of the combustion chamber? How much? is it 1000
psi? 1,000,000 psi????

However, just to keep things on track and prevent all your obfuscation
... The original point I made is that all RIC engines burn some oil in
normal operation. You said that's wrong and an engine should burn NO
oil and asked for references saying engines should burn oil. References
from such notable sources as GM and Detroit Diesel say engines normally
burn oil. Yet you refuse to believe those sources.

GM says:

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.

Here's another one, quoting from the auto clinic section of the feb 2002
issue of popular mechanics:

Engines burn a small amount of oil. Modern low-volatility oils and tighter engine
sealing mean they burn somewhat less--but they still burn it.

And if you don't like GM, Detroit Diesel or Popular Mechanics, how about
Toyota. From the Supra handbook at
http://www.brandwood.net/supra/handbook/2/oil.html

ENGINE OIL CONSUMPTION It is normal that an engine should consume some
engine oil during normal engine operation. The causes of oil consumption in a
normal engine are as follows.

Oil is used to lubricate pistons, piston rings and cylinders. A thin film of oil is left
on the cylinder wall when a piston moves downwards in the cylinder. High
negative pressure generated when the vehicle is decelerating sucks some of
this oil into the combustion chamber. This oil as well as some part of the oil film
left on the cylinder wall is burned by the high temperature combustion gasses
during the combustion process.

Oil is also used to lubricate the stems of the intake valves. Some of this oil is
sucked into the combustion chamber together with the intake air and is burned
along with the fuel. High temperature exhaust gases also burn the oil used to
lubricate the exhaust valve stems.

So you see, Toyota (who also probably knows more about engines than you
do) says that engines normally BURN oil. They also say that in the
example YOU gave of oil getting by the exhaust valve stems, the oil ends
up being BURNED. They also say that the oil that gets by the intake
valve stems is also BURNED, as is the oil film left on the cylinder wall
.... BURNED. I know that last one might just confuse you because they
used the word consume. But they do say that the way oil is consumed is
by BURNing it.

So if you want to continue to claim that an engine should normally burn
NO oil, you'll have to take that up with GM, Toyota and Popular
Mechanics who ALL explicitly say you're wrong.

Steve

HEY!

You forgot where most of the oil goes- Past the exhaust valve.

(but only on the exhaust stroke.)

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 23 Jul 2003 07:02:18 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
You should probably learn to read a little better. I said that the
pressure against the top of the rings is less than the pressure in the
cylinder. You've already stated that's impossible. But you were wrong
yet again. Now you're finally starting to understand why you were wrong
... maybe. We'll see.

Steve

Now, let me get this perfectly straight. You are saying

1. that the pressure on the TOP of the rings, due to compression is
LESS than the pressure in the rest of the cylinder?? heehe!!!

Uh, no. Please learn to read. I said that during the power stroke, the
pressure against the rings is less than the pressure in the rest of the
cylinder. However, it's also true that the pressure against the top of
the rings is less than the pressure in the rest of the cylinder during
the compression stroke. This is due to the fact that the rings don't
produce a 100% seal and let some of the compressed mixture by them and
that escaping gas has to pass through the thin turbulent gap between the
piston and the cylinder.

Whoa here, won't that layer of viscous oil on the cylinder wall (the
one you claim is there getting burned) create a seal? It MUST, if as
you've stated, it is viscous enough to cause a pressure at the rings
of "several times" the compression of the engine.

But the difference isn't nearly as great as
during the power stroke. You can laugh all you want. It only shows
your ignorance.

No, it shows YOUR stupidity.

2. But, on the same hand, magically, the pressure on the bottom of the
ring is GREATER than the pressure in the rest of the crankcase?????

Exactly. Because the ring is moving down and pushing oil out of the way
as it does so. When it's moving back up, that's not the case anymore.

3. The pressure on the bottom of the rings is "many times greater"
than the 100 or so psi of the combustion chamber? How much? is it 1000
psi? 1,000,000 psi????

Why don't you figure it out for yourself. I've already posted
everything an engineer needs to do so. But I'll tell you what I will
do, I'll give you some feel for how much force is against the rings *if*
the oil being wiped away is at a peak pressure of 1000 psi.

HOW IN THE HELL does the oil get to anywhere NEAR "a peak pressure of
1000 psi??

Say the
cylinder it 3" in diameter and the gap between the piston and cylinder
is 0.005". Also, assume that the gap is totally filled with oil, which
really isn't the case but it is a max case possible force. The area is
3*pi*0.005=0.047 sq in. At a peak pressure 1000 psi, the oil exerting a
max case force of 47lbs against the rings as they are trying to wipe it
away at a very high speed, the top speed of the piston as it moves down
the cylinder.

In actuality, the film of oil that the rings are pushing aside is really
much less than 0.005". Some studies have shown that to prevent
excessive wear, you want an oil film thickness of at least 5 microns.
So we'll use 5 microns as a "min case", or minimum force that the oil
might exert against the rings. 5 microns is about 0.0001975 inches. So
the area in this case is 3*pi*0.0001975=0.00186 sq in. So in this min
case, 1000 psi of peak oil pressure exerts about 1.86 lbs of force
against the rings as they move at their highest speed down the cylinder.

In reality, the oil film thickness that the rings would be trying to
push away would be somewhere between the max of 0.005 and the min of
0.0002. So at 1000 psi peak pressure against the bottom of the ring,
the force would be somewhere between around 2 lbs and 47 lbs. That's
certainly within the realm of possibilities, so 1000 psi is also within
the realm of possibilities.

However, like I said, you have everything you need to figure it out.
You can figure out a representative peak piston speed knowing the stroke
and rpm of a sample engine. You can figure out the pressure/force that
oil of a certain viscosity would exert against something pushing it at
that speed. Give it a go. Let's see just how good a structural
engineer you really are, as this should be right up your ally. I'll bet
you come up with a number that is much greater than 100 psi.

Will you bet that, as you've stated prior that I'll come up with a
number that is "many times" greater than 100 psi? Or are you changing
your story to just now say "much greater"? There is a huge difference
here.

Steve

"Joe" wrote in message . ..
Why don't *you* answer some questions?

Yes or no:

In a normal engine the oil ring on a piston is not 100% effective in
removing all of the oil from the cylinder wall?

In a normal engine a thin film of oil is left on the cylinder walls on the
downward stroke?

In a normal engine some oil is burned in the combustion chamber?

In a normal engine some oil is consumed in the combustion chamber?

What's the matter? You act just like a conservative talk show host,
when the heat gets unbearable, you change the task at hand. The
previous two posts from you were relating to you calling yourself an
engineer. I blew that out of the water, when you specifically stated
you were an engineer in GA, and FL. So, anyway, I'll answer your
questions, then we'll get back to you being an engineer, okay?

All four are not questions. All four are simple statements.
A question is phrased like this:
In a normal engine IS a thin film......blah blah.

"Joe" wrote in message ...
Speaking of asslickers, did you call the engineering company that I
contract for yet? What did they say?

I could care less where you work, and would never call if I did. I (unlike
you) am mentally stable

Oh, but you stated you were going to call the company I work for and
tell them I was wasting company time on google.

Also, did you research the size of California lakes yet? Can you prove me
wrong?

I only sided with Bill due to your track record, never actually checked, nor
cared.

Now back to you flogging.

Back to YOUR flogging, now if you didn't care, nor "actually checked",
then you made an ignorant statement, right? Seems to me that a
statement made without any knowledge of the subject, is indeed
ignorant, wouldn't you agree?


Do you dispute the GM tech reference?

Yes or no:

In a normal engine the oil ring on a piston is not 100% effective in
removing all of the oil from the cylinder wall.

In a normal engine a thin film of oil is left on the cylinder walls on the
downward stroke.

In a normal engine some oil is burned in the combustion chamber.

In a normal engine some oil is consumed in the combustion chamber.

You've not asked any questions, those are simple statements.

"Put Name Here" wrote in message news:63KRa.77255$OZ2.12983@rwcrnsc54...
Don't they teach patience at the dojo?

No, they don't "teach" patience. Patience is something that comes from
within, and takes practice. What they DO teach is how to enlighten
mind and body, then you can achieve such attributes as patience,
reasoning.