On 16 Jul 2003 11:21:50 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever an engine's piston rings are replaced whether in part or in
entirety it is necessary to break in the engine. Piston rings are
replaced at a complete engine overhaul or repair, top overhaul or
single cylinder overhaul or repair.

When we refer to engine or cylinder break in, we are talking about the
physical mating of the engine's piston rings to it's corresponding
cylinder wall. That is, we want to physically wear the new piston
rings into the cylinder wall until a compatible seal between the two
is achieved.

Proper engine break in will produce an engine that achieves maximum
power output with the least amount of oil consumption due to the fact

Notice it said LEAST amount, not none.

Notice it said consumption. Did you notice?

Of course. Is that why you posted this? Because you saw the word
consumption? What a simple minded fool you are.

Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere. Please try to follow. DO you still
contend that consumption and burned mean the same thing? Yes or no.

I contend that for the purposes of this discussion, burned is a subset
of consumption. I further contend that when the GM reference says that
the oil on the cylinder wall is consumed in the combustion process
during the power stroke, that IS the exact same thing as saying it is
burned. I further contend that when YOUR reference says "This oil is
burned each and every time the cylinder fires" when it's talking about
oil that gets past the rings, that oil is also burned.

So now we're getting somewhere. Please try to follow. DO you still
contend that NONE of the thin film of oil that's on the cylinder wall
and consumed in the combustion process during the power stroke is
burned? Yes or no.

that the piston rings have seated properly to the cylinder wall. When
the piston rings are broken in or seated, they do not allow combustion
gases to escape the combustion chamber past the piston rings into the
crankcase section of the engine. This lack of "blow-by" keeps your
engine running cleaner and cooler by preventing hot combustion gases
and by-products from entering the crankcase section of the engine.
Excessive "blow-by" will cause the crankcase section of the engine to
become pressurized and contaminated with combustion gases, which in
turn will force normal oil vapors out of the engine's breather,
causing the engine to consume excessive amounts of oil. In addition to
sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston rings must
also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls for
lubrication. If the rings do not seat properly, they cannot perform

Notice it said that the job of the rings is to manage the amount of oil
present on the cylinder walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away
as you have said.

Where does it say that? I can't find ANYWHERE where it says "the job
of the rings is to manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder
walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away". Now, would you say
that if you had enough of a seal to "seal combustion gases in the
combustion chamber", that oil would get past that seal? Absolutely
NOT.

Your stupidity is now approaching the point of absurdity. You can't
even read what you posted. And now, I quote directly from it only a few
sentences above the quote and you say you can't find it? Here is the
direct quote from YOUR cite:

"In addition to sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber,
piston rings must also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder
walls for lubrication"

HOW IN THE HELL can you read that, and then conclude, that the rings
leave oil to be burned? It says......M A N A G E, get it? That means
in a sense to keep it at a minimum, or not at all. NOW, you stated

Yes, it says manage it. Which means to keep it at a minimum. It
further says that the oil must be there for lubrication. So "manage"
cannot mean "not at all" or there would be no required oil for
lubrication.

above that the post said "the job of the rings is to manage the amount
of oil present on the cylinder
walls for lubrication, not wipe all the oil away". It does not, in
fact say that. You've added the "not wipe all the oil away". YOU said
that. The cite did not.

You're such a stupid moron that you don't even know when I'm quoting
your reference and when I'm not. I'll give you a hint: If I say I'm
quoting it or if I put quotes around it, then I'm quoting it.
Otherwise, I'm not. You'll find neither is the case when I said "not
wipe all the oil away." That is what YOU say the rings do, i.e.., they
wipe ALL the oil away so none is left on the cylinder walls. Am I
stating your position correctly, that you believe ALL of the oil is
wiped away from the cylinder by the rings on their way down? If that is
your position, it disagrees with your cite which says AND I QUOTE: "In
addition to sealing combustion gases in the combustion chamber, piston
rings must also manage the amount of oil present on the cylinder walls
for lubrication". I.e., the cite is saying there must be some oil
present on the cylinder walls for lubrication and one of the jobs of the
rings is to manage that amount and prevent excessive oil on the cylinder
walls.

this function and will allow excessive amounts of oil to accumulate on
the cylinder wall surfaces. This oil is burned each and every time the
cylinder fires. The burning of this oil, coupled with "blow-by"
induced engine breathing, are reasons that an engine that hasn't been
broken in will consume more than its share of oil.

Notice that it says if it burns excessive amounts of oil, it's
*consuming* more than it's share of oil, not that consuming no oil is
the normal case. The normal case is consuming it's share of oil, by
burning the non-excessive oil from the cylinder wall surfaces.

Again, consumption. Read it please.

Yes, it says the engine will consume more than it's share of oil by
BURNING it, both from the cylinder walls and from "blow-by" that gets
reintroduced to the combustion chamber through the breather. Do you not
see that? Sheesh.

When a cylinder is overhauled or repaired the surface of it's walls
are honed with abrasive stones to produce a rough surface that will
help wear the piston rings in. This roughing up of the surface is
known as "cross-hatching". A cylinder wall that has been properly
"cross hatched" has a series of minute peaks and valleys cut into its
surface. The face or portion of the piston ring that interfaces with
the cross hatched cylinder wall is tapered to allow only a small
portion of the ring to contact the honed cylinder wall. When the
engine is operated, the tapered portion of the face of the piston ring
rubs against the coarse surface of the cylinder wall causing wear on
both objects. At the point where the top of the peaks produced by the
honing operation become smooth and the tapered portion of the piston
ring wears flat break in has occurred.

When the engine is operating, a force known as Break Mean Effective
Pressure or B.M.E.P is generated within the combustion chamber.
B.M.E.P. is the resultant force produced from the controlled burning
of the fuel air mixture that the engine runs on. The higher the power
setting the engine is running at, the higher the B.M.E.P. is and
conversely as the power setting is lowered the B.M.E.P. becomes less.

B.M.E.P is an important part of the break in process. When the engine
is running, B.M.E.P. is present in the cylinder behind the piston
rings and it's force pushes the piston ring outward against the coarse
honed cylinder wall. The higher the B.M.E.P, the harder the piston
ring is pushed against the wall. The surface temperature at the piston
ring face and cylinder wall interface will be greater with high
B.M.E.P. than with low B.M.E.P. This is because we are pushing the
ring harder against the rough cylinder wall surface causing high
amounts of friction and thus heat. The primary deterrent of break in
is this heat. Allowing to much heat to build up at the ring to
cylinder wall interface will cause the lubricating oil that is present
to break down and glaze the cylinder wall surface. This glaze will

Apparently there must be oil present on the cylinder wall even on a new
engine being broken in.

That's the reason for break in....jeez!

You think oil present on the cylinder wall of a new engine is the reason
for breakin? Wow, are you confused.

Oh, my god, you are WAY beyond stupid!!!! What an ignorant statement.
You have JUST shown in one statement how much you DON'T know about
engines. The reason for break in, which is clearly stated in the post,
is to make an adequate seal betweeen the rings and cylinder wall. Did
the B.M.E.P. even hit that pea brain of yours? Apparently not. Again,
please tell me, if the rings can seal well enough to keep gases out of
the crankcase, which are sometimes in the area of 100 p.s.i., and
molecularly much smaller than oil, how can the oil, with larger
molecules, and under less pressure, make there way INTO the chamber?
Let's see, gases, mostly air, can't get past the rings under 100
p.s.i. but oil, at about 35 p.s.i. can....interesting.

Is THAT the problem you're having? Visualizing how oil can get past the
rings during the power stroke as the piston is going down? I'll give
you a hint: the pressure of the oil against the rings as they are moving
down the cylinder at a high rate of speed during the power stroke is
MUCH greater than 35 psi. I'll give you another hint: the pressure
inside the cylinder is not constant everywhere. Just where do you think
some of the low spots in the pressure is? Hint: it's near the upper
side of the rings. I'll give you another hint: because oil is a viscous
fluid and also because it is designed to create a thin film that on a
molecular level resists being broken, there is more at work here than
just the simple pressure difference between the oil below the ring and
the gases above the ring.

I'll leave it to you to figure out how much higher than 35 psi the oil
pressure on the bottom side of the rings is. Knowing the viscosity of
the oil, the speed of the piston and the pressure of the ring against
the cylinder wall, you should be able to figure it out for yourself.
You should also be able to figure out for yourself how much lower the
pressure at the upper side of the top ring is than say, at the top
surface of the piston by using some typical values for the clearance
between the piston and the cylinder and typical values for how much
below the top of the piston the upper ring is. Let's see just how good
at math you really are. You claim to be an engineering math whiz.
Prove it.

All I can say is WOW. You must not have even read your own cite if you
can't even find the parts I quoted from it.

Again, show me where it says that the job of the rings is "not to wipe
all the oil away". Where IS that? Your getting so good a spinning, you
should go help your president.

Where it says, and I quote, "In addition to sealing combustion gases in
the combustion chamber, piston rings must also manage the amount of oil
present on the cylinder walls for lubrication"

If the rings wiped *all* of the oil away as you assert, there would be
*none* on the cylinder walls for lubrication. That goes against what
your cite says the job of the rings is.

Steve

Come on DimDummy, what's so hard with answering a few simple yes or no
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.

I said:

Again, you call me stupid, but you can't read. I've NEVER said
anything about the engine being new. You did. Dolt.

You replied:

Bzzzt. Wrong. I said ALL engines burn oil, whether new, old, or
anywhere in between. YOU are the one who brought up a burned exhaust
valve, which means the engine probably isn't new. I'm the one who said
it doesn't matter how old the engine is. Now we're even more sure you
can't read for content.

Hoohoo!! You are LOOSING it, man. Please read what I said, then read
your comment. You just may want to seek professional help. Seriously.

You're saying that if the rings are worn enough, they will allow oil
past them. Nevermind the fact that this is always the case. So, the
rings are allowing oil past them into the cylinder. The compression
stroke comes along and you're saying that during the compression stroke,
the oil that is in the cylinder is going to be squeezed out past a
slightly leaky exhaust valve and will be "consumed" as far as the engine
is concerned. Right so far? Ok.

Wrong so far, ok? Ever hear of valve stem seals? Ever hear of the
wearing and leaking?

But YOU said the oil was going past a slightly burned exhaust valve.
Keep your story straight. Of course oil can get past valve stem seals.
It's also burned when it does.

Bull****. Intake yes, exhaust no.

Holy cow! We now have an admission that oil can be burned if it gets
past the intake valve stem seal. You know that it does, right? Never
mind the fact that you're mistaken about oil getting past the exhaust
valve stem seals not being burned. It is burned. Just how cold do you
think it is in the exhaust port and manifold?

Get on your meds, quick. You effing idiot, this WHOLE thread has been
about oil being burned in THE CYLINDER. Now you are saying that, if
some leaks into a hot exhaust chamber, your case is made because the
oil hit something hot!!! TOO FUNNY! I suppose that you also meant,
when you said that any engine BURNS oil, that you meant that if it
leaked out of the crankcase, then dripped on the exhaust pipe, that
that was your point?? PLEASE, see a doctor.

Again, valve stem seals. Easily worn out, very common.

You actually believe that ALL the oil, which YOU say is in the cylinder
during the compression stroke, somehow makes it out before the spark?
Just how does it to that? You're digging yourself in deeper and
deeper, and proving just how stupid you are once again, if you say
"worbn valve stem seals" can somehow get all the oil out of the cylinder
between the compression and power stroke.

Again, I've NEVER made such a claim. You are putting words in my mouth
to try and make yourself sound correct. Your grasping straws, man.

Oh, good. So let's see what you did claim: You did claim that oil does
get into the cylinder but that it gets forced out of a slightly burned
exhaust valve during compression.

Wrong, read again, stupid.

So do you now claim that ALL of the
oil makes it out of the cylinder through the slightly burned exhaust
valve, or do you admit that some of the oil which makes it into the
cylinder stays in there after compression and does not make it out of
the slightly burned exhaust valve? It's a simple question with a simple
answer. Here, I'll phrase it as a yes or no to make it even simpler
since we know you can't read:

Hey, idiot, I never made such a claim.

You've claimed that oil gets into the cylinder and gets forced out
during compression through a slightly burned exhaust valve. Yes or No,
does ALL of the oil that made it into the cylinder also make it out of
the cylinder through the slightly burned exhaust valve during
compression?

Now that we're done examining your one way of losing oil above, let's go
back to the way the technical reference described. Please answer the
question: In what way does an engine lose oil on the cylinder wall
during the power stroke in the combustion process if it isn't burned?

Uh, the OIL ring wipes it? Ya think? Naw, that CAN'T be what the oil
ring is for. Can it?

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. If it's in the cylinder (i.e., above the rings
and piston) as the technical reference says, and it's during the power
stroke (i.e., the rings and piston are moving down) as the technical
reference says, then how is the oil ring going to wipe it away? Sheesh,
you REALLY can't comprehend simple engine mechanics.

Oh, no,buddy. YOU said that the oil gets past the RINGS. I didn't.
Funny little man....

Again, putting words in my mouth. WHERE did I say that the oil came
from the cylinder wall?

YOU didn't say that, you IDIOT. The technical reference from GM said
it. It says that the engine looses oil on the cylinder wall during the
power stroke in the combustion process.

Not sure what that technical reference means. It actually says "the
engine looses oil on the cylinder wall"? Where?

Reference NEVER says that an engine LOOSES oil on the cylinder wall.
Strictly YOUR words.

This has been going on for a month now and it's really rediculous how
stupid you are. I don't believe anyone can actually be as dumb as you,
so you must be just acting stupid for our benefit. You must have
realized you're wrong by now and just can't admit it, so you're acting
stupid to cover for your ineptness. That's the only reasonable answer
for you apparent inability to read and understand plain simple english.

Steve

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase, at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?

snip

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase,

They don't "seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting into the crankcase" . Where do you think crankcase pressure comes
from?

From GM:
"If we could perfectly seal the combustion
chamber between piston and cylinder
wall, there would not be any appreciable
cylinder block pressure. But, in fact, while
piston rings attempt to do the job for us, in
the best applications they can seal only
about 95% or less of the pressure developed
in the combustion chamber. This
"blow-by", comprised mostly of unburned
mixture of air and fuel, needs to be managed
back into the intake stream for emissions
purposes."

http://service.gm.com/techlink/html_.../200103-en.pdf

at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?


Very simple Asslicker, a piston goes down on the intake stroke, the
combustion chamber is now under a vacuum. At this time the crankcase is
ALWAYS under pressure. Couple this with oil rings that do not remove *all*
of the oil from the cylinder wall, nor provide a 100% effective seal, and
you get oil in the combustion chamber that will be burned/consumed once the
power stroke comes along.

Note that this isn't the *only* reason that oil gets past the rings but
since you are stuck (once again) on pressure differential as your reasoning
I thought I would post this (again).

On 17 Jul 2003 04:40:10 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


I said:

Again, you call me stupid, but you can't read. I've NEVER said
anything about the engine being new. You did. Dolt.

You replied:

Bzzzt. Wrong. I said ALL engines burn oil, whether new, old, or
anywhere in between. YOU are the one who brought up a burned exhaust
valve, which means the engine probably isn't new. I'm the one who said
it doesn't matter how old the engine is. Now we're even more sure you
can't read for content.

Hoohoo!! You are LOOSING it, man. Please read what I said, then read
your comment. You just may want to seek professional help. Seriously.

I'm certainly not going to use your guy. He's not helped you one bit.

You're saying that if the rings are worn enough, they will allow oil
past them. Nevermind the fact that this is always the case. So, the
rings are allowing oil past them into the cylinder. The compression
stroke comes along and you're saying that during the compression stroke,
the oil that is in the cylinder is going to be squeezed out past a
slightly leaky exhaust valve and will be "consumed" as far as the engine
is concerned. Right so far? Ok.

Wrong so far, ok? Ever hear of valve stem seals? Ever hear of the
wearing and leaking?

But YOU said the oil was going past a slightly burned exhaust valve.
Keep your story straight. Of course oil can get past valve stem seals.
It's also burned when it does.

Bull****. Intake yes, exhaust no.

Holy cow! We now have an admission that oil can be burned if it gets
past the intake valve stem seal. You know that it does, right? Never
mind the fact that you're mistaken about oil getting past the exhaust
valve stem seals not being burned. It is burned. Just how cold do you
think it is in the exhaust port and manifold?

Get on your meds, quick. You effing idiot, this WHOLE thread has been
about oil being burned in THE CYLINDER. Now you are saying that, if

WRONG WRONG WRONG. This whole thread has been about me saying that all
engines burn oil. YOU said an engine should burn NO oil. I never said
where the engine has to burn the oil, only that it does. The fact that
it burns oil left in the cylinder that got past the rings is only one
way. It also burns oil that gets past the PCV valve or breather, which
happes to burn in the cylinder, but that's besides the point. It also
can burn oil by your method, which would then burn in the exhaust port
or manifold.

You have still yet to give a single shred of evidence to support your
assertion that an engine should burn NO oil. You've been provided with
a lot of evidence, including one you provided yourself, that says
burning some oil is normal for an engine.

So now I'm finally going to ask you to put up or shut up. Just like you
have asked so many times and have been provided with the requested
reference, would you please provide a technical reference that
specifically says an engine normally burns NO oil, not even a single
molecule, under normal operation.

If you can't do that, it's time for you to finally skulk away.

some leaks into a hot exhaust chamber, your case is made because the
oil hit something hot!!! TOO FUNNY! I suppose that you also meant,
when you said that any engine BURNS oil, that you meant that if it
leaked out of the crankcase, then dripped on the exhaust pipe, that
that was your point?? PLEASE, see a doctor.

No, that's just another of your strawmen for a loosing argument.

Again, valve stem seals. Easily worn out, very common.

You actually believe that ALL the oil, which YOU say is in the cylinder
during the compression stroke, somehow makes it out before the spark?
Just how does it to that? You're digging yourself in deeper and
deeper, and proving just how stupid you are once again, if you say
"worbn valve stem seals" can somehow get all the oil out of the cylinder
between the compression and power stroke.

Again, I've NEVER made such a claim. You are putting words in my mouth
to try and make yourself sound correct. Your grasping straws, man.

Oh, good. So let's see what you did claim: You did claim that oil does
get into the cylinder but that it gets forced out of a slightly burned
exhaust valve during compression.

Wrong, read again, stupid.

Instead of reading again, how about I quote you directly:

"Now, ever hear of a burned exhaust valve? If the rings are worn enough
to allow oil past them, and the exhaust valve is *slightly burned*,
the oil will push out of the valve on any stroke where there is
compression."

So do you now claim that ALL of the
oil makes it out of the cylinder through the slightly burned exhaust
valve, or do you admit that some of the oil which makes it into the
cylinder stays in there after compression and does not make it out of
the slightly burned exhaust valve? It's a simple question with a simple
answer. Here, I'll phrase it as a yes or no to make it even simpler
since we know you can't read:

Hey, idiot, I never made such a claim.

Now that you've been shown you did make such a claim, answer the
question. If the oil gets into the cylinder past the rings, does ALL of
it make it out of the slightly burned exhaust valve? Yes or no?

You've claimed that oil gets into the cylinder and gets forced out
during compression through a slightly burned exhaust valve. Yes or No,
does ALL of the oil that made it into the cylinder also make it out of
the cylinder through the slightly burned exhaust valve during
compression?

Now that we're done examining your one way of losing oil above, let's go
back to the way the technical reference described. Please answer the
question: In what way does an engine lose oil on the cylinder wall
during the power stroke in the combustion process if it isn't burned?

Uh, the OIL ring wipes it? Ya think? Naw, that CAN'T be what the oil
ring is for. Can it?

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. If it's in the cylinder (i.e., above the rings
and piston) as the technical reference says, and it's during the power
stroke (i.e., the rings and piston are moving down) as the technical
reference says, then how is the oil ring going to wipe it away? Sheesh,
you REALLY can't comprehend simple engine mechanics.

Oh, no,buddy. YOU said that the oil gets past the RINGS. I didn't.
Funny little man....

Of course you didn't. Because you don't know sqaut. As the GM
technical reference says, oil DOES get past the rings, it IS in the
cylinder ABOVE the rings as the rings are moving down. So the oil ring
cannot then wipe it away. So again, my question to you is, now that you
know the oil is already above the oil ring and that it cannot wipe it
away because it's moving in the wrong direction, in what way does an
engine lose oil on the cylinder wall during the power stroke in the
combustion process if it isn't burned?

Again, putting words in my mouth. WHERE did I say that the oil came
from the cylinder wall?

YOU didn't say that, you IDIOT. The technical reference from GM said
it. It says that the engine looses oil on the cylinder wall during the
power stroke in the combustion process.

Not sure what that technical reference means. It actually says "the
engine looses oil on the cylinder wall"? Where?

Reference NEVER says that an engine LOOSES oil on the cylinder wall.
Strictly YOUR words.

Wrong again. Wow, how can you be soooo stupid and soooo wrong every
time you say something. My words are the exact words of the reference,
which proves my point. Specifically, that the oil on the cylinder wall
is consumed in the combustion process. Does the problem you're having
with the word LOOSES mean that you don't think oil consumed in the
combustion process is lost? Just what do you think happens to it, it
miraculously reforms into a liquid and makes it's way back into the
crankcase? You really are stupid.

But moving on your reference says, and I quote "This oil is burned each
and every time the cylinder fires." when it's talking about the oil that
gets past the rings and is on the cylinder wall. Notice it says
specifically BURNED.

This has been going on for a month now and it's really rediculous how
stupid you are. I don't believe anyone can actually be as dumb as you,
so you must be just acting stupid for our benefit. You must have
realized you're wrong by now and just can't admit it, so you're acting
stupid to cover for your ineptness. That's the only reasonable answer
for you apparent inability to read and understand plain simple english.

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase, at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?

Because the pressure of the oil against the rings as they are moving
down the cylinder wall is many times greater than 100 psi. And because
oil molecules tend to stick together in a thin film. That's one of the
properties that makes oil a good lubricant. What will really blow your
mind when you think of it is that oil can get past the rings on the
power stroke, where the pressure in the cylinder is much greater than
100 psi. However, the pressure against the rings from the top is
nowhere near as high as the pressure in the cylinder due to the tight
clearance between the piston and the cylinder. If the rings had to face
the full pressure of the combustion gasses in the cylinder (as the would
if there was a lot of space between the piston and cylinder) they could
never do their job of keeping combustion gasses out of the crankcase.
As it is, they only have to seal against the small amount of gasses that
make it between the piston and the cylinder.

Steve

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:35:15 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

snip

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase,

They don't "seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting into the crankcase" . Where do you think crankcase pressure comes
from?

From GM:
"If we could perfectly seal the combustion
chamber between piston and cylinder
wall, there would not be any appreciable
cylinder block pressure. But, in fact, while
piston rings attempt to do the job for us, in
the best applications they can seal only
about 95% or less of the pressure developed
in the combustion chamber. This
"blow-by", comprised mostly of unburned
mixture of air and fuel, needs to be managed
back into the intake stream for emissions
purposes."

http://service.gm.com/techlink/html_.../200103-en.pdf

at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?


Very simple Asslicker, a piston goes down on the intake stroke, the
combustion chamber is now under a vacuum. At this time the crankcase is
ALWAYS under pressure. Couple this with oil rings that do not remove *all*
of the oil from the cylinder wall, nor provide a 100% effective seal, and
you get oil in the combustion chamber that will be burned/consumed once the
power stroke comes along.

Note that this isn't the *only* reason that oil gets past the rings but
since you are stuck (once again) on pressure differential as your reasoning
I thought I would post this (again).

What's really going to blow his mind is the fact that oil is getting
past the rings in one direction at the same time as combustion gas is
getting past the rings in the other direction. Of course, the oil is
burned shortly after it makes it's way past the upper ring, past the top
of the piston and is exposed to the full heat of combustion in the
cylinder.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase, at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?

Because the pressure of the oil against the rings as they are moving
down the cylinder wall is many times greater than 100 psi. And because
oil molecules tend to stick together in a thin film. That's one of the
properties that makes oil a good lubricant. What will really blow your
mind when you think of it is that oil can get past the rings on the
power stroke, where the pressure in the cylinder is much greater than
100 psi. However, the pressure against the rings from the top is
nowhere near as high as the pressure in the cylinder due to the tight
clearance between the piston and the cylinder. If the rings had to face
the full pressure of the combustion gasses in the cylinder (as the would
if there was a lot of space between the piston and cylinder) they could
never do their job of keeping combustion gasses out of the crankcase.
As it is, they only have to seal against the small amount of gasses that
make it between the piston and the cylinder.

Steve

Okay, here we go. You are now claiming that the pressure in the
crankcase, at the time that a piston is moving down the cylinder, is
"many times greater than 100 p.s.i.????? Are you just plain flipping
NUTS? Let's say it's an eight cylinder motor, okay? Using YOUR
analogy, then, with eight cylinders, there is almost always a cylinder
moving "down". SO, just how many times 100 psi should my oil pressure
gauge show? Should it be 500 psi? 600psi? Now, because it is
essentially ONE vessel ie: the crankcase, there can not be a
differential in pressure, so don't even try it. That would be akin to
saying that the pressure is different in one side of an air compressor
tank than it is in the other side. NOT.

Now, there is the EXACT same amount of pressure of the gasses on the
rings, in pounds per square inch, as there is on the top of the
piston. VERY simple physics.

"Joe" wrote in message .. .
snip

Again, I ask a simple question. If the rings, on a properly broken in
engine seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting INTO the crankcase,

They don't "seal well enough to keep molecularly small exhaust gases from
getting into the crankcase" . Where do you think crankcase pressure comes
from?

From GM:
"If we could perfectly seal the combustion
chamber between piston and cylinder
wall, there would not be any appreciable
cylinder block pressure. But, in fact, while
piston rings attempt to do the job for us, in
the best applications they can seal only
about 95% or less of the pressure developed
in the combustion chamber. This
"blow-by", comprised mostly of unburned
mixture of air and fuel, needs to be managed
back into the intake stream for emissions
purposes."

http://service.gm.com/techlink/html_.../200103-en.pdf

at a pressure of approx. 100 p.s.i., how
in the HELL does something molecularly larger (oil) make it through
the same rings at a third of the pressure? How?


Very simple Asslicker, a piston goes down on the intake stroke, the
combustion chamber is now under a vacuum. At this time the crankcase is
ALWAYS under pressure. Couple this with oil rings that do not remove *all*
of the oil from the cylinder wall, nor provide a 100% effective seal, and
you get oil in the combustion chamber that will be burned/consumed once the
power stroke comes along.

Note that this isn't the *only* reason that oil gets past the rings but
since you are stuck (once again) on pressure differential as your reasoning
I thought I would post this (again).

Speaking of asslickers, did you call the engineering company that I
contract for yet? What did they say? Also, did you research the size
of California lakes yet? Can you prove me wrong?

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 14 Jul 2003 10:26:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

This from someone who has convinced himself (and Joe) that consume and
burn mean the same thing!!!!! By the way, my neighbor and I had a good
laugh at you and Joe last evening. He's a Chrysler certified mechanic,
so I've shown him your posts. As we were working on his Honda
lawnmower motor, I told him I thought it was the carb acting up, and
he said "Nah, probably not burning enough oil."!

Birds of a feather.

Don't you find it a little curious that NO ONE has agreed with your
position?

DimDummy's neighbor has. Obviously they drink from the same well. At
least his 8yo daughter now knows her father is an idiot.

You have no shame. Because you're wrong, and know it, you'll stop at
nothing to try to make yourself look like a man. You're not. You
wouldn't be worth getting my shoes messy to stop on your idiot little
pencil neck. **** you.

And because you're wrong, and you know it, you have to use your own 8 yo
daughter since you can't stand up for yourself. What a pig you are.

Steve

Let me tell you something Steve, you keep up that crap about my
daughter, and I'll hunt you down like the worthless ****ing dog you
are. Do you understand me? Now, do what you want, call the
authorities, etc. You are a good for nothing piece of ****. Are you
married? If so, I'll bet your wife is just miserable living around an
anal dick sucker such as yourself. If not, now you know why. I've had
it with you. Keep it up, ****head.

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
YOU are the worthless pig who resorted to using your own 8 yo daughter.
Only a desperate unthinking fool would do that.

Steve

what are you going to do about it, asshole? Huh, big boy? Huh?