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.

No Asslicker, this thread is titled "usage of motoroil". You have
consistently shown your ignorance on this subject and will not answer these
simple questions.

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?

I am an Engineer, a Telecommunications Engineer. Never said I was a P.E
which in your mind is the *only* type of Engineer.
I do not offer my services to the public, nor call myself a Professional
Engineer. My Fl Low Voltage Specialty License does allow me to contract,
design, install, and pull permits for telecommunications infrastructure
projects in Florida and Georgia.

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.

All you have to do is answer Yes that you agree, or No that you do not
agree.
Very simple, I thought it was even easy enough for you to understand.

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

Simple statements that you cant grasp.

Ok, make it easier. Just agree or disagree with each statement.

It seems that you have not done a good job of learning how to enlighten mind
and body, I have never seen an individual with so little patience and a
complete lack of reasoning.

While I have seem many people who enjoy a heated discussion in Usenet, I
have never known anyone who asked him fellow workers what they think about
his stupidity. Do your fellow workers walk away slowly as you talk to them
about your rec.boats arguments?

Does your daughter ever look at you and shake her head in embarrassment?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"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.

Sort of like a high school kid pumping up his chest. ; )


"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.

No Asslicker, this thread is titled "usage of motoroil". You have
consistently shown your ignorance on this subject and will not answer
these
simple questions.

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?

I am an Engineer, a Telecommunications Engineer. Never said I was a P.E
which in your mind is the *only* type of Engineer.
I do not offer my services to the public, nor call myself a Professional
Engineer. My Fl Low Voltage Specialty License does allow me to contract,
design, install, and pull permits for telecommunications infrastructure
projects in Florida and Georgia.

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.

All you have to do is answer Yes that you agree, or No that you do not
agree.
Very simple, I thought it was even easy enough for you to understand.

On 24 Jul 2003 12:51:45 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(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.

Dummy, it does creat a seal. Not a 100% effective one though. That's
part of the job of the rings.

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.

You laughing at a true statement shows my stupidity? The fact you think
that shows even more of 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??

I said *if* it did, not that it does. I'm leaving it as an exercise for
you to figure out what the peak pressure is. Show your work.

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.

Much or many times. Either one you want. Now go ahead and figure it
out, if you can.

Of course, none of this changes the basic fact that you were wrong when
you said a normal engine should burn NO oil. If you don't believe me,
GM, Popular Mechanics, Detroit Diesel and Toyota all say you're wrong.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 24 Jul 2003 12:51:45 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(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.

Dummy, it does creat a seal. Not a 100% effective one though. That's
part of the job of the rings.

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.

You laughing at a true statement shows my stupidity? The fact you think
that shows even more of 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??

I said *if* it did, not that it does. I'm leaving it as an exercise for
you to figure out what the peak pressure is. Show your work.

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.

Much or many times. Either one you want. Now go ahead and figure it
out, if you can.

Of course, none of this changes the basic fact that you were wrong when
you said a normal engine should burn NO oil. If you don't believe me,
GM, Popular Mechanics, Detroit Diesel and Toyota all say you're wrong.

Steve

Whatever, Shecoughed. You don't know crap, and never will. I given
several examples backing my opinion. When given them, and the heat
gets turned up, you resort to name calling, acting like a little
school girl. I'm sorry that you don't have the mental capacity to
learn anything except what is already locked in your little brain.
Once again, you've shown you don't have the insight to learn anything
new. good day.

On 25 Jul 2003 04:33:50 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 24 Jul 2003 12:51:45 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(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.

Dummy, it does creat a seal. Not a 100% effective one though. That's
part of the job of the rings.

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.

You laughing at a true statement shows my stupidity? The fact you think
that shows even more of 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??

I said *if* it did, not that it does. I'm leaving it as an exercise for
you to figure out what the peak pressure is. Show your work.

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.

Much or many times. Either one you want. Now go ahead and figure it
out, if you can.

Of course, none of this changes the basic fact that you were wrong when
you said a normal engine should burn NO oil. If you don't believe me,
GM, Popular Mechanics, Detroit Diesel and Toyota all say you're wrong.

Whatever, Shecoughed. You don't know crap, and never will. I given

Shecoughed? That's something a little schoolgirl would do.

several examples backing my opinion. When given them, and the heat
gets turned up, you resort to name calling, acting like a little

You haven't given a single example backing up your opinion. The only
real cite you gave goes against your opinion. And for the examples of
other ways an engine looses oil, (exhaust valve and exhaust valve stem)
Toyota specifically says oil lost that way is burned.

school girl. I'm sorry that you don't have the mental capacity to
learn anything except what is already locked in your little brain.

You don't seem to even have anything locked in your little brain. Not
only can't you understand simple english statements but you're also
stupid enough to bring your 8 yo daughter in to defend you.

Once again, you've shown you don't have the insight to learn anything
new. good day.

Thanks for admitting you don't know squat, were wrong when you said a
normal engine should burn no oil, and that you're not a very good
engineer if you can't figure out that simple problem. Good day to you
to, and sleep well knowing that everyone thinks you're a moron.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message

Whatever, Shecoughed. You don't know crap, and never will. I given

Shecoughed? That's something a little schoolgirl would do.

Resorting to name calling....YOU taught me that.

several examples backing my opinion. When given them, and the heat
gets turned up, you resort to name calling, acting like a little

You haven't given a single example backing up your opinion. The only
real cite you gave goes against your opinion. And for the examples of
other ways an engine looses oil, (exhaust valve and exhaust valve stem)
Toyota specifically says oil lost that way is burned.

school girl. I'm sorry that you don't have the mental capacity to
learn anything except what is already locked in your little brain.

See? YOU have just stated....name calling is something a little school
girl would do.

You don't seem to even have anything locked in your little brain. Not
only can't you understand simple english statements but you're also
stupid enough to bring your 8 yo daughter in to defend you.

Okay, one time, asshole. I don't need ANYBODY to "defend" me against
the likes of a little piece of **** like you. You are a worthless
piece of crap, and will NEVER be a man. Go ahead, you little poor
excuse of a man, give me a reason, I'd snap your little pencil neck
like a twig. Got it? Now, do you want to see if I need someone to
defend me? Come on, please do, you nasty little prick. Threaten me or
my family, we'll see. Now, go see if you can screw some woman out of
her child support.

Once again, you've shown you don't have the insight to learn anything
new. good day.

Thanks for admitting you don't know squat, were wrong when you said a
normal engine should burn no oil, and that you're not a very good
engineer if you can't figure out that simple problem. Good day to you
to, and sleep well knowing that everyone thinks you're a moron.

Yeah, sure. You spin as good as Rush. You don't have the mental
capacity to learn anything, yet you somehow think it's because of me??
I'm a damned good engineer. I have MUCH more work than I can possibly
handle, and turn down work every day, ALL from previous clients. I
NEVER hunt for new clients or work.

Okay, one time, asshole. I don't need ANYBODY to "defend" me against
the likes of a little piece of **** like you. You are a worthless
piece of crap, and will NEVER be a man. Go ahead, you little poor
excuse of a man, give me a reason, I'd snap your little pencil neck
like a twig.-


Going over the edge again?

Ya know smoking too much pot can do that to you.
http://tinyurl.com/ij7l

On 30 Jul 2003 09:24:13 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message

Whatever, Shecoughed. You don't know crap, and never will. I given

Shecoughed? That's something a little schoolgirl would do.

Resorting to name calling....YOU taught me that.

That's something else a little schoolgirl would say. But thanks for
admitting that name calling is ALL you can learn.

several examples backing my opinion. When given them, and the heat
gets turned up, you resort to name calling, acting like a little

You haven't given a single example backing up your opinion. The only
real cite you gave goes against your opinion. And for the examples of
other ways an engine looses oil, (exhaust valve and exhaust valve stem)
Toyota specifically says oil lost that way is burned.

school girl. I'm sorry that you don't have the mental capacity to
learn anything except what is already locked in your little brain.

See? YOU have just stated....name calling is something a little school
girl would do.

And it is. What's you point? Or are you just pointing out the fact
that your too stupid to figure out the difference between what I typed
and what YOU typed. You just responded negatively to something that you
yourself wrote. I don't even have to point out what a moron you are.
You're doing it for me. Sheesh!!!

You don't seem to even have anything locked in your little brain. Not
only can't you understand simple english statements but you're also
stupid enough to bring your 8 yo daughter in to defend you.

Okay, one time, asshole. I don't need ANYBODY to "defend" me against
the likes of a little piece of **** like you. You are a worthless

Then why did you call on your daughter to do exactly that? Also, your
friends at work and a certified Chrysler mechanic friend of yours? Or
were you just lying when you said you had friends? Probably.

piece of crap, and will NEVER be a man. Go ahead, you little poor
excuse of a man, give me a reason, I'd snap your little pencil neck
like a twig. Got it? Now, do you want to see if I need someone to
defend me? Come on, please do, you nasty little prick. Threaten me or
my family, we'll see. Now, go see if you can screw some woman out of
her child support.

What a nasty inferiority complex you have there. And a temper as well.
Both signs of limited capacity to reason, which you have shown boudless
amounts of.

Once again, you've shown you don't have the insight to learn anything
new. good day.

Thanks for admitting you don't know squat, were wrong when you said a
normal engine should burn no oil, and that you're not a very good
engineer if you can't figure out that simple problem. Good day to you
to, and sleep well knowing that everyone thinks you're a moron.

Yeah, sure. You spin as good as Rush. You don't have the mental
capacity to learn anything, yet you somehow think it's because of me??
I'm a damned good engineer. I have MUCH more work than I can possibly
handle, and turn down work every day, ALL from previous clients. I
NEVER hunt for new clients or work.

There's that inferiority complex brewing again. You need professional
help, and not just in engineering.

Steve