Usage of motoroil
John Doe
motor consume (per hour at 2000 rpm). I have read that a car is allowed to
consume half a liter of motoroil during 1000 kilometers but what about boats
(I don't count the kilometers on the water)
Punch
"John Doe" <nie...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:bc6mqb$ad6$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
punch
Steven Shelikoff
wrote:
I usually consider that the engine is burning too much oil if I have to
add any between the manufacturer recommended oil change interval. But
if you want to do the exercise, a car at say 70km/h is probably turning
at near 2000 rpm and it takes 14.3 hours to cover 1000km. So, say half
a liter every 14 hours for a car according to your numbers. That's a
little high for my taste, but not out of the realm of possibilities.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
wrote:
Since you burn oil whenever the engine is running, I guess the only way
to not have a problem is to not run the engine.
Steve
Joe
> if you burning oil you have a problem.
>
> punch
>
Obviously you do not know much about engines.
basskisser
Bull. Please, tell us where you got this bit of wisdom.
Steven Shelikoff
Seems your mental capacity in technical boating threads is about the
same as it is in the political ones.
Steve
basskisser
> same as it is in the political ones.
>
> Steve
Please provide ONE technical bulletin for ANY diesel engine that shows
the amount of oil that it should BURN. Your an idiot. It should burn
NO oil. Jeez, do you think that it's a radial aircraft engine, or
what? Now, I'm waiting for that tech sheet.
basskisser
> add any between the manufacturer recommended oil change interval. But
> if you want to do the exercise, a car at say 70km/h is probably turning
> at near 2000 rpm and it takes 14.3 hours to cover 1000km. So, say half
> a liter every 14 hours for a car according to your numbers. That's a
> little high for my taste, but not out of the realm of possibilities.
>
> Steve
Please provide any technical references to the above.
Joe
http://www.detroitdiesel.com/Public/sp/18sp401.pdf
Detroit Diesel considers anything more than a quart per 300 miles an
indication that there may be a problem.
CCred68046
>the amount of oil that it should BURN. Your an idiot. It should burn
>NO oil.
I thought diesel fuel was oil... :)
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>> I usually consider that the engine is burning too much oil if I have to
>> add any between the manufacturer recommended oil change interval. But
>> if you want to do the exercise, a car at say 70km/h is probably turning
>> at near 2000 rpm and it takes 14.3 hours to cover 1000km. So, say half
>> a liter every 14 hours for a car according to your numbers. That's a
>> little high for my taste, but not out of the realm of possibilities.
>
>Please provide any technical references to the above.
What, you can't do elementary math?
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
wrote:
lol. Yup, he's too stupid to get that.:) What a moron. But he is fun
to play with...for a little while.
Even if you don't consider the fuel as oil, there is no commonly used
reciprocating 4 stroke engine, diesel or gas, that doesn't let at least
*some* crankcase oil past the rings to be burnt. Of course, 2 stroke
gas engines burn their lube oil, so that one's obvious.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>> Seems your mental capacity in technical boating threads is about the
>> same as it is in the political ones.
>
>Please provide ONE technical bulletin for ANY diesel engine that shows
>the amount of oil that it should BURN. Your an idiot. It should burn
>NO oil. Jeez, do you think that it's a radial aircraft engine, or
>what? Now, I'm waiting for that tech sheet.
You should really confine yourself to the political threads. At least
there your stupidity might be open to at least a tiny bit of debate.
Here, there is no opening.
Oh, and it's "You're an idiot", not "Your an idiot". That's the second
time I've seen you make that mistake so it's probably not a typo.
Steve
basskisser
I have more math under my belt than you'll ever see. Now, please try
to read this again. What I asked for was technical reference to
substantiate any of the above. Have any? If yes, please provide. If
no, then as usual, you've been proven to not to what you are talking
about.
basskisser
So, where in the above article does it state that an engine DOES use
oil. And, as originally asked, where does it tell just what rate a
healthy engine uses said oil?
basskisser
Another thing, using and burning....two completely different things.
basskisser
Pure horseshit. My god, first you claim that it uses oil, then because
you are too fucking stupid to back up claims, use the "fuel is oil"
line. What a dumb shit you are. Now, again, please provide technical
data on the amount of oil that a healthy engine BURNS.
Joe
> So, where in the above article does it state that an engine DOES use
> oil.
In your original post you asked the question "Please provide ONE technical
bulletin for ANY diesel engine that shows
the amount of oil that it should BURN".
This information is provided in the link. Do you not understand the meaning
of "consume" when relating to motor oil?
>And, as originally asked, where does it tell just what rate a
> healthy engine uses said oil?
Are you really that dense? If a manufacture gives a figure for high oil
consumption anything below that amount is considered normal.
Joe
Engine Oil Consumption Guideline
Bulletin No.: 76-60-04A
Date: August, 1998
INFORMATION
Subject:
Engine Oil Consumption Guidelines
Models:
All 1996-99 Passenger Cars and Gasoline Powered Light Duty Trucks under 8500
lb GVW [Gross vehicle weight]
This bulletin is being revised to add the 1999 model year, add warranty
information under Oil Consumption heading, and change engine shut off time
for 3.4L LQ1 vehicles. This bulletin cancels and supersedes Corporate
Bulletin Number 18-61-03 and also supersedes the oil consumption
specification referenced in 1996-99 published Service Manuals. Please
discard Corporate Bulletin Number 76-60-04 (Section 6 - Engine).
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.
Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles
referenced is 1 qt. (0.946L) in 2000 miles (3200 km). This rate only applies
to personal use vehicles, UNDER WARRANTY, maintained in accordance with the
appropriate maintenance schedule, with less than 58,000 km (36,000 miles),
or 80,450 km (50,000 miles) for Cadillac, driven at legal speeds in an
unloaded (for trucks) condition.
Joe
> Pure horseshit. My god, first you claim that it uses oil, then because
> you are too fucking stupid to back up claims, use the "fuel is oil"
> data on the amount of oil that a healthy engine BURNS.
Joe
TSB 09-10-95
Diagnosing Oil Consumption in the Cummins Diesel Engine
Site
Date: Jun. 2, 1995
Models: 1994 - 1995 (BR) Ram Truck
NOTE: THIS BULLETIN APPLIES TO VEHICLES WITH CUMMINS DIESEL ENGINES.
Discussion:
On the Ram Truck equipped with the Cummins Diesel Engine, variations in oil
level may be observed if the oil check is performed on a warm engine. This
condition is due to the slow oil drain back into the oil pan from the
in-line injection fuel pump.
Before beginning documentation of a possible oil consumption concern on a
1994 Ram Truck, verify that the dipstick has been updated with P/N 4796874.
The correct dipstick, which increases the "SAFE" zone on the oil dipstick to
2 Quarts vs. 1 Quart, will have the Cummins P/N 3928740 stamped on it. After
installing the new dipstick, add oil only when the oil level is at or below
the "ADD" mark. If the oil level is in the "SAFE" zone, no additional oil is
required (Figure 1).
NOTE: OIL LEVEL READINGS ARE MOST ACCURATE WHEN THE OIL LEVEL CHECK IS
PERFORMED WHEN THE ENGINE IS COLD AND BEFORE IT IS STARTED, WITH THE VEHICLE
ON LEVEL GROUND.
OIL CONSUMPTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR CUMMINS DIESEL ENGINE:
1 Quart per 1000 Miles up to 50,000 Miles
1 Quart per 750 Miles between 50,000 to 70,000 Miles
1 Quart per 500 Miles from 70,000 Miles and Up
Because of the heavy duty construction of the Cummins Diesel Engine, engine
run-in is enhanced by loaded operating conditions which allow the engine
parts to achieve final finish and fit during the first 6000 miles. Oil
consumption may exceed the 1 Quart/1000 Miles specification prior to the
first 6000 miles.
DOCUMENTATION PROCEDURE:
1. Change oil and filter (total capacity with the filter is 11 quarts with
the new dipstick).
2. Record date, vehicle miles, oil brand and viscosity used. Maintain in
vehicle service file for reference.
3. Instruct operator on correct oil check procedure. Instruct the operator
to add oil only when the oil level is below the "ADD" mark.
Notes:
Policy: Reimbursable within the provisions of the warranty.
Time Allowance: Labor Operation No: 09-60-40-92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0.2 Hrs.
Failure Code: P8 - New Part
Joe
> > Detroit Diesel considers anything more than a quart per 300 miles an
> > indication that there may be a problem.
>
> Another thing, using and burning....two completely different things.
Please explain the difference.
Steven Shelikoff
>> Pure horseshit. My god, first you claim that it uses oil, then because
>> you are too fucking stupid to back up claims, use the "fuel is oil"
>> What a dumb shit you are. Now, again, please provide technical
>> data on the amount of oil that a healthy engine BURNS.
>
>
>Engine Oil Consumption Guideline
>
>Bulletin No.: 76-60-04A
>
>Date: August, 1998
[...]
>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.
>
>Oil Consumption
>
>The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles
>referenced is 1 qt. (0.946L) in 2000 miles (3200 km). This rate only applies
>to personal use vehicles, UNDER WARRANTY, maintained in accordance with the
>appropriate maintenance schedule, with less than 58,000 km (36,000 miles),
>or 80,450 km (50,000 miles) for Cadillac, driven at legal speeds in an
>unloaded (for trucks) condition.
It's just too easy. Basskisser should keep constrain feeble mind to the
political threads. Next he's going to say something like "consumed in
the combustion process" isn't the same thing as "burned". What a moron.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message news:<3ee93369...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>> On 12 Jun 2003 12:16:51 -0700, atl_...@yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:
>>
>> >shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>> >> I usually consider that the engine is burning too much oil if I have to
>> >> add any between the manufacturer recommended oil change interval. But
>> >> if you want to do the exercise, a car at say 70km/h is probably turning
>> >> at near 2000 rpm and it takes 14.3 hours to cover 1000km. So, say half
>> >> a liter every 14 hours for a car according to your numbers. That's a
>> >> little high for my taste, but not out of the realm of possibilities.
>> >
>> >Please provide any technical references to the above.
>>
>> What, you can't do elementary math?
>
>I have more math under my belt than you'll ever see. Now, please try
>to read this again. What I asked for was technical reference to
>substantiate any of the above. Have any? If yes, please provide. If
>no, then as usual, you've been proven to not to what you are talking
>about.
Technical reference to substantiate that 1000/70 is about 14.3? Or that
a car's engine rpm at 70km is near 2000? What don't you understand? It
was already a given in the original post that a car is allowed to
consume half a liter of motoroil during 1000 kilometers. All he asked
is what that relates to with a boat. Are you so devoid of logic that
you're having problems understanding that?
As for proof that engines "consume oil in the combustion process",
you've already been given that.
Steve
basskisser
> a car's engine rpm at 70km is near 2000? What don't you understand? It
> was already a given in the original post that a car is allowed to
> consume half a liter of motoroil during 1000 kilometers. All he asked
> is what that relates to with a boat. Are you so devoid of logic that
> you're having problems understanding that?
>
> As for proof that engines "consume oil in the combustion process",
> you've already been given that.
>
outlandish statements. ONE shred. If you are so certain of your
statements, there must be some data to substantiate that a given motor
is designed to burn "x" amount of oil for "y" amount of hours. Either
that, or, you don't know what you're talking about. AND, as usual,
when someone catches you in one of your idiotic diatribes, you regress
to slander and put-downs. Now, what kind of LOGIC is that?
Steven Shelikoff
> shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>
>>Technical reference to substantiate that 1000/70 is about 14.3? Or that
>>a car's engine rpm at 70km is near 2000? What don't you understand? It
>>was already a given in the original post that a car is allowed to
>>consume half a liter of motoroil during 1000 kilometers. All he asked
>>is what that relates to with a boat. Are you so devoid of logic that
>>you're having problems understanding that?
>>
>>As for proof that engines "consume oil in the combustion process",
>>you've already been given that.
>>
>
> Please provide ONE shred of technical data that backs up your
> outlandish statements. ONE shred. If you are so certain of your
> statements, there must be some data to substantiate that a given motor
> is designed to burn "x" amount of oil for "y" amount of hours. Either
You mean you didn't see it when it was already posted? I hope it's because
your server just didn't get it and that you really do know how to use a
newsreader. I'll post it again for you:
From GM:
----------------
Engine Oil Consumption Guideline
Bulletin No.: 76-60-04A
Date: August, 1998
INFORMATION
Subject:
Engine Oil Consumption Guidelines
Models:
All 1996-99 Passenger Cars and Gasoline Powered Light Duty Trucks under
8500 lb GVW [Gross vehicle weight]
This bulletin is being revised to add the 1999 model year, add warranty
information under Oil Consumption heading, and change engine shut off time
for 3.4L LQ1 vehicles. This bulletin cancels and supersedes Corporate
Bulletin Number 18-61-03 and also supersedes the oil consumption
specification referenced in 1996-99 published Service Manuals. Please
discard Corporate Bulletin Number 76-60-04 (Section 6 - Engine).
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.
Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles
referenced is 1 qt. (0.946L) in 2000 miles (3200 km). This rate only
applies to personal use vehicles, UNDER WARRANTY, maintained in accordance
with the appropriate maintenance schedule, with less than 58,000 km (36,000
miles),or 80,450 km (50,000 miles) for Cadillac, driven at legal speeds
in an unloaded (for trucks) condition.
----------------
From Dodge:
----------------
TSB 09-10-95
Diagnosing Oil Consumption in the Cummins Diesel Engine
Site
Date: Jun. 2, 1995
Models: 1994 - 1995 (BR) Ram Truck
NOTE: THIS BULLETIN APPLIES TO VEHICLES WITH CUMMINS DIESEL ENGINES.
[...]
OIL CONSUMPTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR CUMMINS DIESEL ENGINE:
1 Quart per 1000 Miles up to 50,000 Miles
1 Quart per 750 Miles between 50,000 to 70,000 Miles
1 Quart per 500 Miles from 70,000 Miles and Up
Because of the heavy duty construction of the Cummins Diesel Engine, engine
run-in is enhanced by loaded operating conditions which allow the engine
parts to achieve final finish and fit during the first 6000 miles. Oil
consumption may exceed the 1 Quart/1000 Miles specification prior to the
first 6000 miles.
[...]
----------------
> that, or, you don't know what you're talking about. AND, as usual,
> when someone catches you in one of your idiotic diatribes, you regress
> to slander and put-downs. Now, what kind of LOGIC is that?
We already know that you don't know what you're talking about. As far as
your "logic" is concerned, it's self evident that you've described yourself
above. Now, are you going to admit you're wrong or continue to make an ass
of yourself?
Steve
Joe
> outlandish statements. ONE shred. If you are so certain of your
> statements, there must be some data to substantiate that a given motor
> is designed to burn "x" amount of oil for "y" amount of hours. Either
> that, or, you don't know what you're talking about. AND, as usual,
> when someone catches you in one of your idiotic diatribes, you regress
> to slander and put-downs. Now, what kind of LOGIC is that?
It's been provided, all *you* have to do is understand the fact that
"burning" = "consuming" when discussing engine oil.
basskisser
So are you HONESTLY trying to tell me that a Detroit diesel engine
that BURNS one quart of oil every 301 miles is a healthy engine?? Are
you really? I'd love to sell you some!
basskisser
Usage, burning, two different matters. You're saying that a healthy
engine that has a compression of say, 100psi, with well seated rings,
is going to blow oil past them to be burned, when the crankcase
pressure is somewhere around 40 psi?
basskisser
Simple. Burning oil is just that. Burning it in the combustion chamber
from either a bad wiper ring along with bad compression rings, or
blowing by the valve stem seals. With me so far?
Now, using oil simply implies that, when you check the oil after a
given time, it is low. This can be from any number of reasons.
Leaking. A bent exhaust valve. Etc. I do hope I've cleared this up for
you, and that you now understand.
basskisser
Please provide the technical data that you've used to compile the
above facts. That's all I ask.
basskisser
Are you REALLY so stupid that you don't see the difference between the
above tech reference, and what you originally eluded to? Really?
Joe
> So are you HONESTLY trying to tell me that a Detroit diesel engine
> that BURNS one quart of oil every 301 miles is a healthy engine?? Are
> you really? I'd love to sell you some!
In that scenario, yes. Those specs are for a large Detroit Diesel engine
that typically hold many gallons of oil and operate under extreme load.
Joe
> Usage, burning, two different matters. You're saying that a healthy
> engine that has a compression of say, 100psi, with well seated rings,
> is going to blow oil past them to be burned, when the crankcase
> pressure is somewhere around 40 psi?
Tell me, is the combustion chamber *always* under compression? Does the
crankcase pressure *ever* go to 0 psi while running?
What about the cross hatch pattern honed into each cylinder? Do you think
the rings wipe *all* of the oil from the hone marks?
What happens to oil left in these grooves?
Calif Bill
<Binary_BillTheSailor@Sea++.com> wrote in message
news:dt6sev4htvpnsappr...@4ax.com...
> one of those big boys holds?
>
> BB
For your perusal, you can go to different engines.
http://www.detroitdiesel.com/public/specs/4sa412.pdf
8V-4000 crankcase 127 quarts.
As to oil usage, The rings slide on a thin film, that oil scraper ring,
makes sure it is a thin film and not a thick film. You want that top
compression ring to be sliding on dry metal? The 100psi is at full
compression, at full vacuum, (you know the intake stroke?), the pressure is
negative.
Bill
Joe
> > > Another thing, using and burning....two completely different things.
> >
> > Please explain the difference.
>
> Simple. Burning oil is just that. Burning it in the combustion chamber
> from either a bad wiper ring along with bad compression rings, or
> blowing by the valve stem seals. With me so far?
No, because your wrong already. You said "bad" rings, the truth is small
amounts of oil are burned on every power stroke of every "healthy" 4 stroke
engine. You imply that if any oil passes the rings, or valve stem seals,
that they are "bad". This is not true.
Manufactures provide guidelines to determine at what point this oil
consumption is outside the specifications for a "normal" engine. You have
been provided the requested information yet your are too hard headed to
accept it.
> Now, using oil simply implies that, when you check the oil after a
> given time, it is low.
>This can be from any number of reasons.
> Leaking. A bent exhaust valve.
Really? is the oil dripping on your driveway being used?
Is any amount of oil dripping from an engine normal?
Do you think that when you bring a new car back to the dealership that is
leaking oil that they will refer to the "consumption specifications" and
determine if you leak is more than this amount?
>Etc. I do hope I've cleared this up for
> you, and that you now understand.
Yes, I thought you had a narrow mind, now I see that its closed too.
Joe
> Please provide the technical data that you've used to compile the
> above facts. That's all I ask.
Facts against your argument have been posted.
Make it easy on everybody and post ANY technical data to back your statement
that diesel engines "should burn
NO oil"
Steven Shelikoff
Ok, let's see... what I originally eluded to was, well, I might as well
quote exactly my first post you responded to:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:02:46 -0400, "Punch" <2punch.c...@AHM.com>
>wrote:
>>"John Doe" <nie...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:bc6mqb$ad6$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
>>> Sorry for my poor English. How much motoroil may a (62 hp inboard diesel)
>>> motor consume (per hour at 2000 rpm). I have read that a car is allowed to
>>> consume half a liter of motoroil during 1000 kilometers but what about
>>boats
>>> (I don't count the kilometers on the water)
>>>
>>if you burning oil you have a problem.
>
>Since you burn oil whenever the engine is running, I guess the only way
>to not have a problem is to not run the engine.
and you responded:
>Bull. Please, tell us where you got this bit of wisdom.
So getting back to your question, what I said just above is the same
thing as what the technical reference says. Simply put for your feeble
mind, my statement "you burn oil whenever the engine is running" is
functionally equivalent to the technical reference saying "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."
I won't even ask if you're REALLY so stupid that you don't see that what
I originally eluded to and the technical reference are saying the same
thing, because it's obvious that you are.
Steve
Joe
> Facts against your argument have been posted.
>
> Make it easy on everybody and post ANY technical data to back your
statement
> that diesel engines "should burn
> NO oil"
>
Still waiting.
basskisser
Uh, no, BURNING oil in NO WAY equals CONSUMPTION.
Let me tell you, if I had a new motor that BURNED a quart per thousand
miles, you'd be getting that motor back. If, after half of it's useful
life, it CONSUMED that amount of oil, I wouldn't be as concerned.
basskisser
Consumption equals burning?? HAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!! What an ignorant
closed minded ass you are.
Joe
> > OIL CONSUMPTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR CUMMINS DIESEL ENGINE:
> >
> > 1 Quart per 1000 Miles up to 50,000 Miles
> > 1 Quart per 750 Miles between 50,000 to 70,000 Miles
> > 1 Quart per 500 Miles from 70,000 Miles and Up
>
> Uh, no, BURNING oil in NO WAY equals CONSUMPTION.
> Let me tell you, if I had a new motor that BURNED a quart per thousand
> miles, you'd be getting that motor back. If, after half of it's useful
> life, it CONSUMED that amount of oil, I wouldn't be as concerned.
You are ignorant beyond comprehension.
Tell me where the oil went If after 1,000 miles the oil level was down a
quart, with no visual leaks?
Steve Barker
--
Steve (here to have fun) Barker
Stilwell, Kansas
UP (MoPac) Coffeyville Sub MP 308
Coolpix 995 / PSP 7.04
PS 7 in the background waiting to be learnt.
=======================
Remove the not dot from my address to abuse my email box
"basskisser" <atl_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c74f111.03061...@posting.google.com...
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message news:<3eee5fdc...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>> So getting back to your question, what I said just above is the same
>> thing as what the technical reference says. Simply put for your feeble
>> mind, my statement "you burn oil whenever the engine is running" is
>> functionally equivalent to the technical reference saying "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."
>>
>> I won't even ask if you're REALLY so stupid that you don't see that what
>> I originally eluded to and the technical reference are saying the same
>> thing, because it's obvious that you are.
>>
>> Steve
>
>Consumption equals burning?? HAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!! What an ignorant
>closed minded ass you are.
Holy cow man!!! You think the phrase "consumed in the combustion
process" means something other than "burning"? Do you know what
combustion means? I guess not.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
<railph...@not.hotmail.com> wrote:
>How does an engine "CONSUME" oil without burning it?
Digestion. How else? lol
Steve
Joe
> Still waiting.
And waiting
basskisser
> How does an engine "CONSUME" oil without burning it
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.
Okay, slowly now... How does this relate to an internal combustion
engine? Oil can be BURNED in the combustion chamber. Oil can also be
CONSUMED in other manners, such as through exhaust valve stems seals,
simply being pushed out of the exhaust. It is, in relation to the
motor, being CONSUMED, but NOT BURNED. If you need further
clarification and other examples, I'll give them. But, I do hope that
you understand or at least can learn from this example.
basskisser
How about loss through exhaust valve stem seals, simply pushing it out
of the exhaust? Guess you either didn't THINK of this, or didn't KNOW.
basskisser
> Tell me where the oil went If after 1,000 miles the oil level was down a
> quart, with no visual leaks?
See below. If you don't know any more than to think that the only way
an engine can consume oil is to burn it, I certainly wouldn't let you
touch anything mechanical of mine.
Steven Shelikoff
>"Steve Barker" <railph...@not.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<VH0Ia.119658$jT4.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>> How does an engine "CONSUME" oil without burning it
>
>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.
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.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message news:<3ef0e427...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:48:53 -0500, "Steve Barker"
>> <railph...@not.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How does an engine "CONSUME" oil without burning it?
>>
>> Digestion. How else? lol
>
>How about loss through exhaust valve stem seals, simply pushing it out
>of the exhaust? Guess you either didn't THINK of this, or didn't KNOW.
Interesting that you think oil can be pushed out of the exhaust stem
valve seals but not through the intake seals or get by the rings. How
is oil so selective?
Steve
Calif Bill
I guess all the food you consumed was wasted? Consumerism destroys all? On
the last one, some of you will argue that point.
Bill
basskisser
that is says "consumed in the combustion process":
basskisser
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!
Joe
> 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 a effing idiot.
*Your* own definition of "burn" starts with "to consume".
You can TRY to play semantics all you want, you look more ridiculous with
each post.
Now, answer the questions that you have dodged-
Make it easy on everybody and post ANY technical data to back your statement
that diesel engines "should burn NO oil"
Do you still believe that in a healthy engine "no oil gets past the rings"
and burns in the combustion chamber?
Do you still dispute the following-
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
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message news:<3ef1b44...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>> On 19 Jun 2003 05:13:07 -0700, atl_...@yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:
>>
>> >"Steve Barker" <railph...@not.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<VH0Ia.119658$jT4.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>> >> How does an engine "CONSUME" oil without burning it
>> >
>> >Funny, my 8 year old girl can understand the difference between
>> >burning, and consuming, but you can't. So, I know I'll have to talk
>> >real slow and simple for you, but here goes:
>> >
>> >Burn: to consume fuel and give off heat, light and gases.
>> >Consume:to do away with completely. To waste.
>>
>> Ask your 8 year old girl if she can understand the difference between
>> "consumed in the combustion process" and "burned". If she can't, then
>> she's smarter than you are and you can learn something from her.
>
>hooohooo!! You are a funny little man!! I love it!! Are you ACTUALLY,
>TRULY so thick headed that you can't see a defined difference?? Now
>really? Please, if you honestly CAN NOT see a difference between
>"burned", and "consumed in the combustion process", say so, and I'll
>help you! Just say so!
At this point, I'm feeling pity for you. You truly are a sorry
individual. Ok, there really is a huge difference between oil being
burned and being comsumed by combustion.
So go ahead and sleep well tonight. You were right all along. Don't
even be concerned by the implicit sarcasm.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message news:<3ef1b44...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>> On 19 Jun 2003 05:13:07 -0700, atl_...@yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:
>>
>> >"Steve Barker" <railph...@not.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<VH0Ia.119658$jT4.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>> >> How does an engine "CONSUME" oil without burning it
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Steve
>Uh, asshole, please tell me WHERE in the following ORIGINAL statement,
>that is says "consumed in the combustion process":
Here's the technical reference under question:
>Engine Oil Consumption Guideline
>
>Bulletin No.: 76-60-04A
>
>Date: August, 1998
>
>INFORMATION
>
>Subject:
>Engine Oil Consumption Guidelines
>
>Models:
>All 1996-99 Passenger Cars and Gasoline Powered Light Duty Trucks under
>8500 lb GVW [Gross vehicle weight]
>
>This bulletin is being revised to add the 1999 model year, add warranty
>information under Oil Consumption heading, and change engine shut off time
>for 3.4L LQ1 vehicles. This bulletin cancels and supersedes Corporate
>Bulletin Number 18-61-03 and also supersedes the oil consumption
>specification referenced in 1996-99 published Service Manuals. Please
>discard Corporate Bulletin Number 76-60-04 (Section 6 - Engine).
>
>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 the part I emphasized? It says "part of this oil layer is
consumed in the combustion process." Now again, go ahead and ask your
8yo daugher if she thinks that means the same thing as "burned."
Obviously, you're not capable of making the connection. Hopefully she
is. And try not to use that same language with her that you use here.
Steve
basskisser
> individual. Ok, there really is a huge difference between oil being
> burned and being comsumed by combustion.
>
> So go ahead and sleep well tonight. You were right all along. Don't
> even be concerned by the implicit sarcasm.
>
> Steve
Please, give examples of how there is NO difference between something
being consumed, and something being burned. You've stated as much,
I've asked for clarification, you come back with sarcasm. Haahaa, and
I'M the "sorry individual"? Thanks for the morning laugh!
basskisser
and this has what to do with an internal combustion engine?
basskisser
Which engine manufacturer, or mechanical engineer did this come from?
Ever hear of compression? Ever hear of the amount of compression
versus oil pressure? Ever hear of positive crankcase ventilation?
During the power stroke there is a pressure of, let's just say, 100
pounds per square inch. More, in reality, because an explosion just
occured, with both valves closed. With me so far? Oil pressure? Let's
say 40 p.si. Now, as far as I've gotten in physics, I don't see how
that oil can seep past rings when there is a pressure differential of
around 60 p.s.i. Please explain.
Joe
GM Engineers. Do you dispute their statement?
> Ever hear of compression? Ever hear of the amount of compression
> versus oil pressure?
Ever heard of "4 stroke"? Are you trying to say that a cylinder is always
under compression?
>Ever hear of positive crankcase ventilation?
> During the power stroke there is a pressure of, let's just say, 100
> pounds per square inch. More, in reality, because an explosion just
> occured, with both valves closed. With me so far? Oil pressure? Let's
> say 40 p.si.
Sorry but oil pressure has little or nothing to due with oil consumption in
the combustion chamber.
The oil is simply splashed onto the cylinder walls via the crankshaft.
On the intake stroke there is a negative pressure in the cylinder while the
crankcase pressure remains. Do you dispute this?
>Now, as far as I've gotten in physics, I don't see how
> that oil can seep past rings when there is a pressure differential of
> around 60 p.s.i Please explain.
See above.
Steven Shelikoff
> shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>
>>At this point, I'm feeling pity for you. You truly are a sorry
>>individual. Ok, there really is a huge difference between oil being
>>burned and being comsumed by combustion.
>>
>>So go ahead and sleep well tonight. You were right all along. Don't
>>even be concerned by the implicit sarcasm.
>
> being consumed, and something being burned. You've stated as much,
I never said there is no difference between being consumed and burned.
I said all common RIC engines burn oil. You asked for a technical
reference and one was provided which stated that all engines consume oil
in the combustion process. You seem to be having some major heartburn
equating buring with consumed by combustion.
> I've asked for clarification, you come back with sarcasm. Haahaa, and
> I'M the "sorry individual"? Thanks for the morning laugh!
Please, give examples of the difference between being consumed by
combustion and burned ... and please don't say heartburn. Yes, you are
the sorry individual.
Steve
Joe
> Please, give examples of the difference between being consumed by
> combustion and burned ... and please don't say heartburn. Yes, you are
> the sorry individual.
I think he's off that kick now, since his own definition of "burned" began
with "to consume"
Calif Bill
Your definitions,
> > > Burn: to consume fuel and give off heat, light and gases.
> > > Consume:to do away with completely. To waste.
You wasted all that food you consumed. Did not go to your brain cells. You
wasted all gasoline your car consumed?
Burn is a special case of consume. You can consume fuel and get power and
not light: e.g. Fuel cell. Other than a bad engineer, what kind of engineer
did you say you were?
Bill
basskisser
> >> > 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 a effing idiot.
> > > *Your* own definition of "burn" starts with "to consume".
> > > You can TRY to play semantics all you want, you look more ridiculous
> with
> > > each post.
> > >
> > > Now, answer the questions that you have dodged-
> > >
> > > Make it easy on everybody and post ANY technical data to back your
> statement
> > > that diesel engines "should burn NO oil"
> > >
> > > Do you still believe that in a healthy engine "no oil gets past the
> rings"
> > > and burns in the combustion chamber?
somewhere around a pint every million or so miles. Very neglegable.
> > >
> > > Do you still dispute the following-
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Which engine manufacturer, or mechanical engineer did this come from?
>
> GM Engineers. Do you dispute their statement?
Please provide reference.
>
> > Ever hear of compression? Ever hear of the amount of compression
> > versus oil pressure?
>
> Ever heard of "4 stroke"? Are you trying to say that a cylinder is always
> under compression?
Nope, never said that.
>
> >Ever hear of positive crankcase ventilation?
> > During the power stroke there is a pressure of, let's just say, 100
> > pounds per square inch. More, in reality, because an explosion just
> > occured, with both valves closed. With me so far? Oil pressure? Let's
> > say 40 p.si.
>
> Sorry but oil pressure has little or nothing to due with oil consumption in
> the combustion chamber.
> The oil is simply splashed onto the cylinder walls via the crankshaft.
> On the intake stroke there is a negative pressure in the cylinder while the
> crankcase pressure remains. Do you dispute this?
Of course not, but the simple thing that you DON'T understand is that
while in a negative pressure state, there is an opening MUCH larger
(intake valve open) than ANY leak the ring may cause. The larger open
area of the valve makes the vacuum condition a moot point. If during
this stage, as you are implying that this is when oil will be
magically sucked out of the crankcase, then fuel/air mixture wouldn't
be sucked in.....therefore the engine wouldn't run. Do you disput
this?
basskisser
See Webster's for definitions given above.
I'm a damn good structural engineer, you're NOT, and can be proven....
Oh, yeah, I remember, your the engineer that said concrete weighed HOW
MUCH?? Huh? Have you forgotten? Or just still stupid?
basskisser
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.
basskisser
Damn, now I'm relegated to cutting and pasting to please the idiots!:
Joe
> > I think he's off that kick now, since his own definition of "burned"
began
> > with "to consume"
>
> 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.
So now you dispute your own definition? Your are pathetic.
Joe
> > > > Make it easy on everybody and post ANY technical data to back your
> > statement
> > > > that diesel engines "should burn NO oil"
Can't find any can you?
> > > >
> > > > Do you still believe that in a healthy engine "no oil gets past the
> > rings"
> > > > and burns in the combustion chamber?
> Not enough to ever make a flip.
Really, this thread is due to *your* statements that NO oil gets past the
rings.
>Probably, in a healthy engine,
> somewhere around a pint every million or so miles. Very neglegable.
What do you base this on, please provide technical reference.
> > > >
> > > > Do you still dispute the following-
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Which engine manufacturer, or mechanical engineer did this come from?
> >
> > GM Engineers. Do you dispute their statement?
>
> Please provide reference.
Your kidding right? Once more, here it is-
Bulletin No.: 76-60-04A
Date: August, 1998
INFORMATION
Subject:
Engine Oil Consumption Guidelines
Models:
All 1996-99 Passenger Cars and Gasoline Powered Light Duty Trucks under 8500
lb GVW [Gross vehicle weight]
This bulletin is being revised to add the 1999 model year, add warranty
information under Oil Consumption heading, and change engine shut off time
for 3.4L LQ1 vehicles. This bulletin cancels and supersedes Corporate
Bulletin Number 18-61-03 and also supersedes the oil consumption
specification referenced in 1996-99 published Service Manuals. Please
discard Corporate Bulletin Number 76-60-04 (Section 6 - Engine).
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.
Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles
referenced is 1 qt. (0.946L) in 2000 miles (3200 km). This rate only applies
to personal use vehicles, UNDER WARRANTY, maintained in accordance with the
appropriate maintenance schedule, with less than 58,000 km (36,000 miles),
or 80,450 km (50,000 miles) for Cadillac, driven at legal speeds in an
unloaded (for trucks) condition.
> >
> > > Ever hear of compression? Ever hear of the amount of compression
> > > versus oil pressure?
> >
> > Ever heard of "4 stroke"? Are you trying to say that a cylinder is
always
> > under compression?
>
> Nope, never said that.
Really, that's what you were basing your argument on that "no oil gets past
the rings". You compared the cylinder psi to combustion psi and used this as
your "proof" that oil could not possible pass the rings. My facts prove you
wrong.
> >
> > >Ever hear of positive crankcase ventilation?
> > > During the power stroke there is a pressure of, let's just say, 100
> > > pounds per square inch. More, in reality, because an explosion just
> > > occured, with both valves closed. With me so far? Oil pressure? Let's
> > > say 40 p.si.
> >
> > Sorry but oil pressure has little or nothing to due with oil consumption
in
> > the combustion chamber.
> > The oil is simply splashed onto the cylinder walls via the crankshaft.
> > On the intake stroke there is a negative pressure in the cylinder while
the
> > crankcase pressure remains. Do you dispute this?
> Of course not, but the simple thing that you DON'T understand is that
> while in a negative pressure state, there is an opening MUCH larger
> (intake valve open) than ANY leak the ring may cause.
Even with the intake valves open the cylinder remains under vacuum the whole
downward stroke, while the crankcase pressure remains constant. Understand?
Pressure pushing oil towards rings while there is a vacuum in the cylinder?
I don't care if the opening is as large as the top of the piston itself and
there was 0 psi instead of a vacuum there would still be pressure forcing
the oil against the rings.
Please be aware that I only use this argument to prove yours false. In
reality a thin film of oil is left on the cylinder wall every stroke.
> The larger open area of the valve makes the vacuum condition a moot point.
If during
> this stage, as you are implying that this is when oil will be
> magically sucked out of the crankcase, then fuel/air mixture wouldn't
> be sucked in.....therefore the engine wouldn't run.
>Do you dispute this?
Yes. I never said it was "sucked out" The oil rings scrape excess oil of the
cylinder walls, not all the oil.
As stated, I only used the pressure/vacuum argument to prove yours false.
Calif Bill
So you are really JimDummy. I said it weighed about 4500# wet. So I was
off by 600#. I am really top notch Electronics / software engineer. You
are still a dumb foch. How long do you think those pistons and rings would
last with no lubrication? How long does an outboard piston last with out
seizing if the oil flow from the tank stops?
bill
Steven Shelikoff
>Steven Shelikoff <shel...@yawho.com> wrote in message news:<3EF31D19...@yawho.com>...
>> basskisser wrote:
>> > shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>> >
>> >>At this point, I'm feeling pity for you. You truly are a sorry
>> >>individual. Ok, there really is a huge difference between oil being
>> >>burned and being comsumed by combustion.
>> >>
>> >>So go ahead and sleep well tonight. You were right all along. Don't
>> >>even be concerned by the implicit sarcasm.
>> >
>> > Please, give examples of how there is NO difference between something
>> > being consumed, and something being burned. You've stated as much,
>>
>> I never said there is no difference between being consumed and burned.
>> I said all common RIC engines burn oil. You asked for a technical
>> reference and one was provided which stated that all engines consume oil
>> in the combustion process. You seem to be having some major heartburn
>> equating buring with consumed by combustion.
>>
>> > I've asked for clarification, you come back with sarcasm. Haahaa, and
>> > I'M the "sorry individual"? Thanks for the morning laugh!
>>
>> Please, give examples of the difference between being consumed by
>> combustion and burned ... and please don't say heartburn. Yes, you are
>> the sorry individual.
>
>Damn, now I'm relegated to cutting and pasting to please the idiots!:
>Oil can be BURNED in the combustion chamber. Oil can also be
>> CONSUMED in other manners, such as through exhaust valve stems seals,
>> simply being pushed out of the exhaust. It is, in relation to the
>> motor, being CONSUMED, but NOT BURNED. If you need further
>> clarification and other examples, I'll give them. But, I do hope that
>> you understand or at least can learn from this example.
You failed, so I'll ask again and see if you can accomplish a task that
one would think should be simple, given all you've said so far. Please,
give examples of the difference between being consumed by combustion and
burned. If you can't, then your only resource to refute my statement
that all engines burn oil is to also dispute the GM technical reference
which says that all engines lose oil from being consumed by combustion.
I await another chuckle at your response.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
Of course it's DimDummy. You couldn't tell that by now? There's only a
few people out there who pretend to be so smart yet are really so stupid
as he is. Actually, there's only two other people I can think of that
fit the bill, and one doesn't try to hide his identity and the other has
stopped posting altogether, and never posted political crap like
DimDummy does.
Steve
Calif Bill
"Steven Shelikoff" <shel...@yawho.com> wrote in message > >So you are
really JimDummy. I said it weighed about 4500# wet. So I was
>
> Of course it's DimDummy. You couldn't tell that by now? There's only a
> few people out there who pretend to be so smart yet are really so stupid
> as he is. Actually, there's only two other people I can think of that
> fit the bill, and one doesn't try to hide his identity and the other has
> stopped posting altogether, and never posted political crap like
> DimDummy does.
>
> Steve
I thought this was just another Dimdummy type person. Thought he was from
Florida.
Bill
Steven Shelikoff
<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"Steven Shelikoff" <shel...@yawho.com> wrote in message > >So you are
>really JimDummy. I said it weighed about 4500# wet. So I was
>>
>> Of course it's DimDummy. You couldn't tell that by now? There's only a
>> few people out there who pretend to be so smart yet are really so stupid
>> as he is. Actually, there's only two other people I can think of that
>> fit the bill, and one doesn't try to hide his identity and the other has
>> stopped posting altogether, and never posted political crap like
>> DimDummy does.
>
>I thought this was just another Dimdummy type person. Thought he was from
>Florida.
I'm not sure the world could survive another DimDummy type person.
Think of the confluence of forces of stupidity should they ever meet.
Steve
basskisser
Here in lies the problem, when PROVEN wrong, you simply say, oh, well.
And even when I PROVE myself correct, you still somehow claim I'm
dumb. I've seen this scenario over and over in my wife's business. She
hires quite a few uneducated, simple kinds of people. Seems the dumber
they are, the more they TRY to sound intelligent. You didn't even TRY
very well.
I am really top notch Electronics / software engineer. You
> are still a dumb foch. How long do you think those pistons and rings would
> last with no lubrication?
Who said they didn't get any lubrication? If you're refering to me,
please show where I've said that. Do you understand what the funny
looking ring on the BOTTOM of a four stroke piston is for?
Did you look in Webster's for the definitions? Are they identicle?
basskisser
consume oil. Burning is but ONE way. My god, your thick
Calif Bill
identicle is spelled identical.
I know what that bottom oil ring is for, do you? It is to keep excess, that
is EXCESS, oil from the top rings. If too much oil, the burning (consumed)
oil builds up carbon deposits. Then the compression rings fail to float in
their grooves, causing even more (excess) oil to be consumed. The oil ring,
leaves a very thin layer of oil on the walls of the cylinder, allowing the
upper rings to glide smoothly over the surface, without seizing. That thin
layer of oil that is left in the cylinder above the rings as they proceed
down on the power stroke is then consumed in fire, sort of like some people
will be after they leave this mortal life.
Bill
Del Cecchi
"Calif Bill" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
|> I know what that bottom oil ring is for, do you? It is to keep excess, that
|> is EXCESS, oil from the top rings. If too much oil, the burning (consumed)
|> oil builds up carbon deposits. Then the compression rings fail to float in
|> their grooves, causing even more (excess) oil to be consumed. The oil ring,
|> leaves a very thin layer of oil on the walls of the cylinder, allowing the
|> upper rings to glide smoothly over the surface, without seizing. That thin
|> layer of oil that is left in the cylinder above the rings as they proceed
|> down on the power stroke is then consumed in fire, sort of like some people
|> will be after they leave this mortal life.
|> Bill
|>
|>
In the interest of science, I did a little calculation, based on the motor in my
Explorer. No it isn't a diesel.
It might use up a quart/liter of oil in 3000 miles. In overdrive it turns about
2500 RPM at 60 MPH or 2500 revs/mile or 7,500,000 revolutions per 3000 miles.
It's a 4 liter V6, and if I assume bore=stroke, they each are about 10 cm. So
each stroke sweeps an area on the cylinder wall of pi times d times h or 314
square cm. The total area swept is 6 x 314 x 7,500,000 square cm. or
14,130,000,000 sq cm. If the film is destroyed on every other revolution by
burning, then 7,065,000,000 sq cm of film is destroyed in 3000 miles.
Therefore the film can be no thicker than 1000/7,065,000,000 cm or 1.415
nanometers. I wonder how thick an oil molecule is. A carbon atom is estimated t
be about 0.2 nanometers so that film would be as much as 7 carbon atoms thick.
Just a little calculation to add some perspective. I hope I didn't misplace any
decimal points. :-)
--
Del Cecchi
cec...@us.ibm.com
Personal Opinions Only
Steven Shelikoff
wrote:
On the order of several molecules thick is probably a pretty good
average. As long as the film is maintained, everything's ok ... and the
oil's viscosity helps maintain the film. But oil viscosity means that
it's harder to wipe away the faster the "wiper" is moving. So the
thickness is different in different parts of the cylinder. I.e., in the
middle of the piston travel when it's moving fast, the film is thicker
because more oil can sweep by the rings. At TDC and BDC when the rings
are not moving very fast, they can wipe away more oil. The good news is
that near TDC and BDC, you don't need as thick a film because the piston
isn't moving as fast.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>You are a bumbling idiot!!! The thing here is there are OTHER ways to
>consume oil. Burning is but ONE way. My god, your thick
Lol! You really are a funny little dude. Calling me thick does nothing
to advance your cause of proving to the world that you're nothing more
than a stupid moron, DimDummy.
Of course there are other ways for an engine to lose oil. But your
obvious attempt at a strawman has failed you, just like your intellect.
So, we'll try this yet again... I claimed that all engines burn oil.
You said that's not true and asked for proof. Proof was provided in the
form of a technical reference from GM that said all engines lose oil by
being consumed in the combustion process, i.e., burned. Now, are you
going to stand by your statement that engines should burn NO oil, which
flies in the face of GM? Or are you finally getting it through your
thick skull to your miniscule brain that you were wrong?
BTW, there's more ways for an engine to burn oil then just getting by
the rings. PCV valve and engine breather can cause oil to enter the
combustion chamber and be burned. Oil being drawn down the intake valve
guide (because there is a vacuum when the intake valve is open) enters
the chamber and is burned. Exhaust valve guide can get oil past it as
well, but it doesn't go in the direction you've previously stated. The
rapidly moving exhaust going past the bottom of the guide can create a
vacuum there from the bernoulli effect. This causes oil to be drawn down
the guide from top to bottom and burned by the exiting exhaust gas, like
a carb drawing gas in. So even when you try and provide alternative
methods of consumption, you can't get it right.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>"Calif Bill" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<bd7b39$r0c$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>...
[...]
>> So you are really JimDummy. I said it weighed about 4500# wet. So I was
>> off by 600#.
>
>Here in lies the problem, when PROVEN wrong, you simply say, oh, well.
>And even when I PROVE myself correct, you still somehow claim I'm
>dumb. I've seen this scenario over and over in my wife's business. She
>hires quite a few uneducated, simple kinds of people. Seems the dumber
>they are, the more they TRY to sound intelligent. You didn't even TRY
>very well.
He must have learned that from you. You do it sooooo well. It's
actually the one thing you seem to excell at.
>I am really top notch Electronics / software engineer. You
>> are still a dumb foch. How long do you think those pistons and rings would
>> last with no lubrication?
>
>Who said they didn't get any lubrication? If you're refering to me,
>please show where I've said that. Do you understand what the funny
>looking ring on the BOTTOM of a four stroke piston is for?
So does that question above mean you actually believe that the rings
above the bottom one just slide up and down the cylinder with NO
lubrication?
Steve
Joe
> >I thought this was just another Dimdummy type person. Thought he was
from
> >Florida.
>
> I'm not sure the world could survive another DimDummy type person.
> Think of the confluence of forces of stupidity should they ever meet.
He is definitely DimDummy.
basskisser
> >please show where I've said that. Do you understand what the funny
> >looking ring on the BOTTOM of a four stroke piston is for?
>
> So does that question above mean you actually believe that the rings
> above the bottom one just slide up and down the cylinder with NO
> lubrication?
>
> Steve
basskisser
"In the interest of science"??? What a freaking laugh!! You barely
mention viscosity, and NEVER mention temperature! Your "scientific"
approach above is nothing more than an idiot's attempt to appear to
know what he's talking about. You haven't taken into account many,
many aspects that need to be incorporated.
Steven Shelikoff
>"In the interest of science"??? What a freaking laugh!! You barely
>mention viscosity, and NEVER mention temperature! Your "scientific"
>approach above is nothing more than an idiot's attempt to appear to
>know what he's talking about. You haven't taken into account many,
>many aspects that need to be incorporated.
This, from a person who thinks that RIC engines burn NO oil. What a
laugh!!! And as for your stupidity above, I don't need to mention
temperature. While the viscosity changes with temp, the fact that the
faster a wiper moves the less it wipes doesn't depend on temperature.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>Wow, you ARE stupid!!!
That's your answer? LOL So you do actually believe that the rings
above the bottom one have NO lubrication. Good, we're making progress.
We'll have to start a file on you. lol
Steve
basskisser
> On 25 Jun 2003 09:27:15 -0700, atl_...@yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:
>
> >shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
> >> >Who said they didn't get any lubrication? If you're refering to me,
> >> >please show where I've said that. Do you understand what the funny
> >> >looking ring on the BOTTOM of a four stroke piston is for?
> >>
> >> So does that question above mean you actually believe that the rings
> >> above the bottom one just slide up and down the cylinder with NO
> >> lubrication?
> >>
> >Wow, you ARE stupid!!!
>
> That's your answer?
intelligent value sink into your little brain.
LOL So you do actually believe that the rings
> above the bottom one have NO lubrication.
*LOL* where did I say that?
Good, we're making progress.
No, we're not, because again, you're too stupid to make progress.
> We'll have to start a file on you. lol
Of what? lol
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message news:<3efa280e...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>> On 25 Jun 2003 09:27:15 -0700, atl_...@yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:
>>
>> >shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>> >> >Who said they didn't get any lubrication? If you're refering to me,
>> >> >please show where I've said that. Do you understand what the funny
>> >> >looking ring on the BOTTOM of a four stroke piston is for?
>> >>
>> >> So does that question above mean you actually believe that the rings
>> >> above the bottom one just slide up and down the cylinder with NO
>> >> lubrication?
>> >>
>> >Wow, you ARE stupid!!!
>>
>> That's your answer?
>Yes, because you are WAY too stupid to have anything of any
>intelligent value sink into your little brain.
I should just snip that out, but I'll leave it in to show how desperate
you are.
> LOL So you do actually believe that the rings
>> above the bottom one have NO lubrication.
>*LOL* where did I say that?
Ok, so how about a direct question: does oil get by the bottom ring in
order to lubricate the other two or three rings?
Steve
basskisser
> order to lubricate the other two or three rings?
>
> Steve
First of all, you forgot to add the LOL's! Secondly, if I ask you a
direct question, you NEVER give a direct answer. There is an answer,
but you're not intelligent (or opened minded enough, not sure which)
to understand. Remember now, you're the one who stated that you were
giving a "scientific" explanation, but then stated that viscosity and
heat have nothing to do with the outcome!!!
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>> Ok, so how about a direct question: does oil get by the bottom ring in
>> order to lubricate the other two or three rings?
>
>First of all, you forgot to add the LOL's! Secondly, if I ask you a
>direct question, you NEVER give a direct answer. There is an answer,
>but you're not intelligent (or opened minded enough, not sure which)
>to understand. Remember now, you're the one who stated that you were
>giving a "scientific" explanation, but then stated that viscosity and
>heat have nothing to do with the outcome!!!
Bwahaaha, you are so stupid you can't even restate what I said properly.
First, you said I was giving a "scientific" explanation, I never used
those words. Second, I said the effect I was describing was *due* to
viscosity, not that viscosity has nothing to do with it. And third,
heat does have nothing to do with the effect I was describing, as long
as the substance is a viscous liquid.
So, do you care to dispute what I said? That being: when you have
something wiping away a liquid from a surface, if the liquid has any
viscosity, the faster the wiper moves the less liquid it can wipe away.
Notice again, I didn't mention temperature because that result is
independent of temperature.
Please, use your supreme intelligence to dispute that. We're all
waiting for another chuckle at your expense.
We already know you're too stupid to answer the first question, that
being: does oil get by the bottom ring in order to lubricate the other
two or three rings? The reason is obvious. Either you actually are
stupid enough to believe that no oil gets by the bottom ring and the
other rings are unlubricated, or you know that if you conceed that
simple fact, that leads to the fact that oil also gets by the other
rings and that you were proven wrong in your assertion that an engine
should burn NO oil.
I just love watching a stupid moron such as you dig yourself deeper and
deeper in a vain attempt to struggle out of a hole which you could have
easily exited just by simply admitting your first statement was wrong
when you were given your requested technical references that proved you
wrong.
Hey, if you want more proof that you're stupid, all I have to do is ask
again for you to describe how something being consumed by combustion is
different then something being burned. But I'll spare you the
humiliation of being outwitted by your 8 year old daughter.
Steve
basskisser
>
> So, do you care to dispute what I said? That being: when you have
> something wiping away a liquid from a surface, if the liquid has any
> viscosity, the faster the wiper moves the less liquid it can wipe away.
> Notice again, I didn't mention temperature because that result is
> independent of temperature.
>
> Please, use your supreme intelligence to dispute that.
Absolutely. No problem. Why in the world would the speed of something
make a difference? I can't even FATHOM where you come up with that, so
please provide technical instances. It makes NO difference. Now, you
said that temperature didn't come in to play. It DOES. Dis-similar
metals act differently when heated/cooled. As does the AMOUNT of
heating/cooling taking place because of the mass involved. Do you
dispute this?
>
>
> I just love watching a stupid moron such as you dig yourself deeper and
> deeper in a vain attempt to struggle out of a hole which you could have
> easily exited just by simply admitting your first statement was wrong
> when you were given your requested technical references that proved you
> wrong.
Uh, yeah....the faster something moves the less ability it has to
"wipe" something off?
>
> Hey, if you want more proof that you're stupid, all I have to do is ask
> again for you to describe how something being consumed by combustion is
> different then something being burned. But I'll spare you the
> humiliation of being outwitted by your 8 year old daughter.
Okay, for the last time, and please, see if you can follow this, it's
VERY simple, simpleton. The original report sayed *oil consumption*.
Period. It didn't say "consumed by combustion". You are one of the
most closed minded dolts here, outside of Skipper.
>
> Steve
Joe
> shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>
> >
> > So, do you care to dispute what I said? That being: when you have
> > something wiping away a liquid from a surface, if the liquid has any
> > viscosity, the faster the wiper moves the less liquid it can wipe away.
> > Notice again, I didn't mention temperature because that result is
> > independent of temperature.
> >
> > Please, use your supreme intelligence to dispute that.
>
> Absolutely. No problem. Why in the world would the speed of something
> make a difference? I can't even FATHOM where you come up with that, so
> please provide technical instances.
At this point why would anybody go through the trouble of providing you any
(more) technical documentation?
Steven Shelikoff
>shel...@yawho.com (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
>
>>
>> So, do you care to dispute what I said? That being: when you have
>> something wiping away a liquid from a surface, if the liquid has any
>> viscosity, the faster the wiper moves the less liquid it can wipe away.
>> Notice again, I didn't mention temperature because that result is
>> independent of temperature.
>>
>> Please, use your supreme intelligence to dispute that.
>
>Absolutely. No problem. Why in the world would the speed of something
>make a difference? I can't even FATHOM where you come up with that, so
>please provide technical instances. It makes NO difference. Now, you
You are just sooooo easy. It's too easy to prove you're a stupid
moron, and lazy to boot. There are technical references all over the
web that prove that speed makes a difference in the film thickness.
I'll give you a few below, buf first, why are you so dumb that you can't
even use your intuition to reason it out for youself? Think of a tire
on a wet road. The tire builds up a wedge of water in front, wipes most
of it away, but a small amount makes it behind the tire. As the speed
increases, the film of water gets thicker and thicker until you
hydroplane. Anyway, here are your technical references found with a
simple google search:
First, ones that simply describe the wedge:
http://www.mech.mrt.ac.lk/Auto-Jang/1.files/automobile/105.Lubrication%20system/1.Basics%20of%20engine%20lubrication%20oil%20system/1.BASICS%20OF%20ENGINE%20LUBRICATING%20OIL%20SYSTEMS.htm
http://www.turbodieselregister.com/more_about_oil.htm
http://www.mengr.tamu.edu:70/mechanics-systems/lsanandres/me626/notes/finalpdf/Introduction.pdf
Now, one that goes into detail, probably way too much detail for you,
because it will take some work to derive the results you're after ...
and we already have proven you're a lazy stupid moron:
But now, the coup de grace which ties it all together in one, easy to
understand (but maybe too difficult for a moron like you) graph relating
oil film thickness to viscosity * speed / load:
http://www.benz.com/downloads/lubebasics.pdf
The last one above is really the only one you need to read. Scroll down
to the graph on the bottom of page two and notice that the relative film
thickness depends only on viscosity, SPEED, and the load.
>said that temperature didn't come in to play. It DOES. Dis-similar
>metals act differently when heated/cooled. As does the AMOUNT of
>heating/cooling taking place because of the mass involved. Do you
>dispute this?
The only thing not under dispute is that you have no idea what you're
talking about, and are only proving yourself to be a stupid moron every
time you open your newsreader. You can't even comprehend the very
basics of what's required to have a scientific/engineering type of
discussion. So you throw red herrings in the mix to hide your
stupidity. The reason I didn't have to mention temperature is the same
as the reason Benz didn't have to mention temperature. Temperature
affects the viscosity. I said the thickness of the film depends on the
viscosity. So there is no need to mention temperature (an indirect
influence) when it's already covered by viscosity (the direct
influence). The fact that you want to gig me for not mentioning
temperature as a factor when I said viscosity is a factor proves my
statement above, that you have no idea how to have a reasoned
scientific/engineering discussion. Calling yourself an engineer is an
insult to all the real engineers out there.
>> I just love watching a stupid moron such as you dig yourself deeper and
>> deeper in a vain attempt to struggle out of a hole which you could have
>> easily exited just by simply admitting your first statement was wrong
>> when you were given your requested technical references that proved you
>> wrong.
>
>Uh, yeah....the faster something moves the less ability it has to
>"wipe" something off?
Yes, believe it or not, it's true. Just like I said it was. Have you
learned something today? Let's hope so.
>> Hey, if you want more proof that you're stupid, all I have to do is ask
>> again for you to describe how something being consumed by combustion is
>> different then something being burned. But I'll spare you the
>> humiliation of being outwitted by your 8 year old daughter.
>
>Okay, for the last time, and please, see if you can follow this, it's
>VERY simple, simpleton. The original report sayed *oil consumption*.
>Period. It didn't say "consumed by combustion". You are one of the
>most closed minded dolts here, outside of Skipper.
And you've proven that you're also too stupid to use a news reader to go
back and check the original technical references provided (specifically,
the one from GM, who should know something about engines and oil) even
though it's been quoted and requoted over and over. But here, I'll do
it for you yet again:
>Engine Oil Consumption Guideline
>Bulletin No.: 76-60-04A
>Date: August, 1998
>INFORMATION
>Subject:
>Engine Oil Consumption Guidelines
[...]
>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 not see above where it says "part of this oil layer is CONSUMED
IN THE COMBUSTION PROCESS" [emphasis added]? Is your reading
comprehension skill so low that you don't understand that something
being "consumed in the combustion process" is analagous to something
being "burned"? It must be, because out of all the times the same thing
has been quoted, you haven't gotten it yet.
Steve
Joe Here
[Snip]
As a "Lurker" I just love watching Basskisser dig himself deeper, yet
totally ignoring logic. Even though proof from GM, Chrysler etc. was
posted, he still demanded proof! He'd make Johnny Cochrane proud.
Basskisser, no piston ring/oil ring provides a PERFECT seal, or valve
guide for that matter, so guess what.......oil will bypass them and
get burned in the chamber....period
Ever noticed the oil traces on an air filter when you change it? Guess
what happened to the oil vapor that seeped passed the air filter..
.......it came out the tail pipe! Ever changed a PCV valve? Ever
noticed the gunk on it? Where does the other end of it connect...
...and WHY?????? Hint: vapor......tailpipe....pollution.....
Wheather you prefer burned or consumed, it's obvious to to logical
folk that we are ignoring faulty seals holes in the sump, or a missing
filler cap etc.
As an "engineer" you should know that piston rings have have a gap,
designed to decrease as the metal heats up. When the engine is cold
(don't get into viscosity, until you've grasped the basic concept of
rings & gaps, the word multigrade might scare you) the gaps are at
their largest, and oil will pass by.
Stick to kissing Bass, me, ...I prefer ladies,
basskisser
You're a putz. IF you noticed, I NEVER claimed that an engine didn't
CONSUME oil. I'll not bother going in depth with you, because your
post above simply proves you too dumb or closed minded to grasp simple
physics.
basskisser
> Do you not see above where it says "part of this oil layer is CONSUMED
> IN THE COMBUSTION PROCESS" [emphasis added]? Is your reading
> comprehension skill so low that you don't understand that something
> being "consumed in the combustion process" is analagous to something
> being "burned"? It must be, because out of all the times the same thing
> has been quoted, you haven't gotten it yet.
>
> Steve
You IDIOT!!!:
The Reynolds equations contain, as parameters, the viscosity, the
density and the film thickness. These three parameters can vary
locally and depend on temperature, pressure fields and the elastic
behavior of the bearing surfaces. The following assumptions are made
to reduce the equation of motion for Newtonian fluids to the Reynolds
equation:
Joe
> CONSUME oil. I'll not bother going in depth with you, because your
> post above simply proves you too dumb or closed minded to grasp simple
> physics.
On 6-26 basskisser spewed:
> And I just love how people of limited intelligence, when
> they don't know what they are talking about, resort to name calling.
The only thing you seem to know is no shame.
Steven Shelikoff
You claimed an engine burns NO oil, which is totally false and you've
been given the proof you asked for. You're just too stupid to admit you
were wrong so now you're going deeper down the rabbit hole of stupidity.
Steve