On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:22:14 -0700, "jps" 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.

Damn Steve, did your father beat you or call you a moron or what? Do you
have children and understand the weight of this hateful tone of yours?

How someone can be as smart as you and so socially stunted is awesome. Best
of luck with your personal challenge.

As usual, you're jumping into something where you have no idea what
you're talking about. I'm not the one who brought his daughter into the
discussion. DimDummy brought his daughter into the discussion when he
said:

Funny, my 8 year old girl can understand the difference between
burning, and consuming, but you can't. So, I know I'll have to talk
real slow and simple for you, but here goes:

Burn: to consume fuel and give off heat, light and gases.
Consume:to do away with completely. To waste.

What's funny is that he used consume in his definition of burn. Anyway,
I then replied:

Ask your 8 year old girl if she can understand the difference between
"consumed in the combustion process" and "burned". If she can't, then
she's smarter than you are and you can learn something from her.

To which DimDummy replied:

hooohooo!! You are a funny little man!! I love it!! Are you ACTUALLY,
TRULY so thick headed that you can't see a defined difference?? Now
really? Please, if you honestly CAN NOT see a difference between
"burned", and "consumed in the combustion process", say so, and I'll
help you! Just say so!

With that reply, it's obvious he asked his daughter and she replied with
something like "Daddy, they're the same thing." Otherwise, he would
have told us what the difference is, and gloated in it. But instead, he
continued on with one of his usual fits with things like:

Oh, come on, now, you really aren't that stupid are you? You're just
kidding, right? I knew you were wrong, but I didn't realize you were
just dumb.

BUT, he never came back and said that his daughter can understand the
difference between "consumed in the combustion process" and "burned."
That's probably because DimDummy is too ashamed to admit that, unlike
her father, his 8yo daughter is smart enough to realize that there is no
difference between "burned" and "consumed in the combustion process" and
that her father is not very bright.

So if you're going to come down on anyone as being socially stunted, you
should come down on DimDummy for using his own 8 yo daughter for a
personal attack in a newsgroup. And this isn't even the first time he's
done that.

Steve

On 9 Jul 2003 04:29:27 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Are you REALLY that ****ing stupid?? The EXHAUST VALVE was slightly
burned, you idiot.

Like I said, you need to learn to write and think more clearly. The
subject of your sentence was the oil that was being pulled through the
exhaust valve, not the exhaust valve. So the parenthetical could have
just as easily applied to the subject. Brush up on your english skills.

So, "just as easily applied to the subject", huh? So if we were
writing about, say, baking a cake, and I said that I used a pan
(slightly browned with age).... would you, or someone who actually
knows how to read, come to the conclusion that it was the cake that
was "slightly browned with age?" You may, people with average or above
intelligence would NOT.

Well, let's put it into the proper perspective and replace your wording
of the original sentence but change the subject to a cake and a pan.

Here's your original statement:

"Fixed, it didn't burn oil, ran much better. It DID however CONSUME a
little. It would pull a little through an exhaust valve (slightly
burned) through the valve stem seal."

And here is changing the topic from oil and a valve to cake and a pan:

"I fixed my oven so I didn't burn the cake. However, I did consume a
little. I would pull a little from the pan (slightly burned) and chomp
it down."

Someone with even below average intelligence can see that your statement
is poor sentence structure with duplicate meanings if you meant that the
valve, not the oil, was slightly burned and that my mimic of your
statement is poor sentence structure with duplicate meanings if I meant
that the pan, not the cake, was slightly burned. Of course, I woudn't
expect you to see that, since your intelligence is well below average.

Now, back to the issue at hand. IF this layer of oil is burned during
the combustion process, that would mean that after the combustion, the
rings, which you say so desperately NEED this layer of oil, has NONE
on it.
Also, do you or do you NOT contend that burned and consumed do NOT
mean the same?

This is great! You're finally asking questions that can lead back to a
proper technical discussion. Of course, if you bothered to read for
content the provided technical reference in the first place, you would
already know the answer to your question above. But for what seems like
the hundredth time, I'll put it back for you again.

"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."

Do you see where it says "During the power stroke, PART of this oil
layer is consumed in the combustion process"? I added the emphases on
PART. Can you understand how this sentence answers your question?

Also, do you or do you NOT contend that burned and consumed do NOT
mean the same?

I'll answer that directly if you answer my followon question directly.
My answer is that I contend that consumed can mean burned. It can also
mean other things. For instance, fusion and fission come to mind.

Now, do you or do you NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" DO mean the same thing?

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Also, do you or do you NOT contend that burned and consumed do NOT
mean the same?

I'll answer that directly if you answer my followon question directly.
My answer is that I contend that consumed can mean burned. It can also
mean other things. For instance, fusion and fission come to mind.

Now, do you or do you NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" DO mean the same thing?

correct, I do NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" mean the same thing. IF it said "consumed VIA
combustion", yes. However, it simply says that oil is consumed
(through many different ways) DURING the combustion PROCESS." The
process is as follows on a four stroke engine: Intake, Compression,
Power, Exhaust. Only during ONE of these cycles does combustion take
place.

I contend, and always have contended that burned and consumed mean
different things. I stated this, and you stated that I was wrong.

On 9 Jul 2003 12:13:48 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Also, do you or do you NOT contend that burned and consumed do NOT
mean the same?

I'll answer that directly if you answer my followon question directly.
My answer is that I contend that consumed can mean burned. It can also
mean other things. For instance, fusion and fission come to mind.

Now, do you or do you NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" DO mean the same thing?

correct, I do NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" mean the same thing. IF it said "consumed VIA
combustion", yes. However, it simply says that oil is consumed
(through many different ways) DURING the combustion PROCESS." The

No no no, wrong. It does NOT say oil is consumed DURING the combustion
process. Are you really that incapable of reading? It says oil is
consumed IN the combustion process.

Now that you know what it says, i.e., that part of the thin film of oil
left in the cylinder is consumed IN the combustion process, please tell
us how that is different than being burned.

process is as follows on a four stroke engine: Intake, Compression,
Power, Exhaust. Only during ONE of these cycles does combustion take
place.

Well, not really. I hate to say you're wrong yet again, but you're
wrong yet again. Combustion starts during the compression stroke,
continues during the power stroke and is sometimes still going on during
the exhaust stroke but not necessarily. A diesel has less chance of
combustion during the exhaust stroke then a gas engine because it can
shut the fuel supply off before that starts. For a gas engine, just
about the only time it's not going on *in a particular cylinder* for any
full stroke is during the intake stroke. If it was, you'd likely have a
backfire up the intake port and a carb fart.

I contend, and always have contended that burned and consumed mean
different things. I stated this, and you stated that I was wrong.

Nope. You don't even know what I stated and are forgetting what you
stated. I stated that all RIC engines burn a small amount of oil in
normal operation. You said I was wrong and said they should burn NO
oil. Do you want me to quote you on that? You then asked for proof
they burn oil and proof was provided in the form of a tech sheet from GM
which says:

"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."

Now you're trying to do everything you can think of to deny that a thin
film of oil on the cylinder wall being consumed in the combustion
process during the power stroke is somehow different than being burned.
Keep trying. You haven't succeeded yet. All you've done is make
yourself look even more inept, as if that was even possible.

Steve

Having trouble with lower unit on Mercruiser going up and down in the trim
mode....I suspect the selinoid but not sure how to check that....any help
would be app'd....thanks
Steven Shelikoff wrote in message ...
On 9 Jul 2003 12:13:48 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Also, do you or do you NOT contend that burned and consumed do NOT
mean the same?

I'll answer that directly if you answer my followon question directly.
My answer is that I contend that consumed can mean burned. It can also
mean other things. For instance, fusion and fission come to mind.

Now, do you or do you NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" DO mean the same thing?

correct, I do NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" mean the same thing. IF it said "consumed VIA
combustion", yes. However, it simply says that oil is consumed
(through many different ways) DURING the combustion PROCESS." The

No no no, wrong. It does NOT say oil is consumed DURING the combustion
process. Are you really that incapable of reading? It says oil is
consumed IN the combustion process.

Now that you know what it says, i.e., that part of the thin film of oil
left in the cylinder is consumed IN the combustion process, please tell
us how that is different than being burned.

process is as follows on a four stroke engine: Intake, Compression,
Power, Exhaust. Only during ONE of these cycles does combustion take
place.

Well, not really. I hate to say you're wrong yet again, but you're
wrong yet again. Combustion starts during the compression stroke,
continues during the power stroke and is sometimes still going on during
the exhaust stroke but not necessarily. A diesel has less chance of
combustion during the exhaust stroke then a gas engine because it can
shut the fuel supply off before that starts. For a gas engine, just
about the only time it's not going on *in a particular cylinder* for any
full stroke is during the intake stroke. If it was, you'd likely have a
backfire up the intake port and a carb fart.

I contend, and always have contended that burned and consumed mean
different things. I stated this, and you stated that I was wrong.

Nope. You don't even know what I stated and are forgetting what you
stated. I stated that all RIC engines burn a small amount of oil in
normal operation. You said I was wrong and said they should burn NO
oil. Do you want me to quote you on that? You then asked for proof
they burn oil and proof was provided in the form of a tech sheet from GM
which says:

"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."

Now you're trying to do everything you can think of to deny that a thin
film of oil on the cylinder wall being consumed in the combustion
process during the power stroke is somehow different than being burned.
Keep trying. You haven't succeeded yet. All you've done is make
yourself look even more inept, as if that was even possible.

Steve