Will switching from Synthetic to Dyno oil harm my engine?

..Philip. wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>.Philip. wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>.Philip. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Steve" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All together, class: "What does static compression ratio have to
>>>>>>>>do with the peak pressure achieved during combustion?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>NOTHING!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Post again if you can't figure out why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I can't figure out why. By your logic, mechanical compression
>>>>>>>ratio would be meaningless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ignition timing (injection timing for a conventional diesel) and
>>>>>>>induction charge affect the combustion chamber
>>>>>>>temperature/pressure, but so does mechanical compression ratio.
>>>>>>>For gasoline engines,
>>>>>>>that is why compression ratios were reduced when NOx limits were
>>>>>>>imposed
>>>>>>>- to reduce peak combustion temperatures. EGR (to reduce
>>>>>>>effective induction charge) and changes in ignition timing were
>>>>>>>part of the solution, but mechanical compression ratio was an
>>>>>>>important key. Recall that the pressure is the result of the addition
>>>>>>>of heat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PV = nRT. heating is adiabaic. the above sounds like constant
>>>>>>volume which clearly is not the case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Rapidly rising pressure results in heat. You can have pressure but
>>>>>without heat ... no ignition.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>you cannot _increase_ pressure without an _increase_ in temperature.
>>>>that's adiabatic heating. heatless pressure is /by definition/
>>>> static. i'm really not sure how you can confuse this with an
>>>>engine's ignition scenario.
>>>
>>>
>>>No confusion ... on my part. The trick wording were "Rapidly rising
>>>pressure."
>>
>>trick words: "You can have pressure but without heat ... no ignition."
>>that directly contradicts your other statement. google "adiabatic
>>heating".
>
>
> Only if you didn't follow my thought. When you fill a bottle of oxygen to
> 2000 psi ... how hot is it during this pressurization?

again, you confuse static with dynamic. again, google "adiabatic
heating" philip. put us out of your misery.

> The point I alluded
> to is the importance of "rapidly rising" pressure. That some diesels
> absolutely require glow plugs is in part ... because cranking speed does not
> compress the air quickly enough to heat it sufficient to ignite the fuel as
> it is injected. But when you get the vehicle rolling down a hill at speed
> and then pop the clutch, the elevated cranking speed is often sufficient to
> generate the rapid rises in pressure sufficient to ignite the fuel.

indirect diesels require glow plugs because the adiabatic heating is
substantially lost to the head as it flows through the narrow venturi to
the combustion chamber. direct injection engines, where the combustion
is in the same area as that in which the air was originally compressed,
don't lose as much of this heat, even though compression is less.
compression rate != compression ratio. you cannot say there is a
difference in compression rate between direct & indirect.

the reason you can [just] start an indirect diesel without electrically
heating the glow plugs if you tow/roll the vehicle fast enough is that
after a number of compression strokes, the glow plug & the combustion
chamber area, although not hot, warm sufficiently for losses to decrease
to the point where flash can occur. direct injection diesels for the
reasons stated above, start easily in all but the worst conditions,
rolling, towed or conventionally cranked.

>
> So what does this non sequitur have to do with soot or the title of this
> thread?

jim beam wrote:
> .Philip. wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> philip, i don't usually stick my nose into others' ****ing matches,
>>> but i gotta tell ya, both huw & steve know their stuff. you just
>>> keep flinging poo at the fan for your own entertainment.
>>>
>>> normal people show up on these groups because they want to learn
>>> something. the price we pay for free knowledge on something you
>>> don't know is sharing knowledge on the stuff you /do/ know. right now,
>>> i
>>> don't see you contributing anything except entropy. you're
>>> certainly not contributing knowledge. if steve & huw leave this forum
>>> because
>>> of some dysfunctional need to pick fights outside of your knowledge
>>> depth, the rest of us lose, and i have a problem with that. if you
>>> have nothing useful to say, keep it zipped & stop poisoning the
>>> well for the rest of us.
>>
>>
>> Normal people don't think outside the box very often. Normal people
>> get put off by questions whose answers don't mirror what they've
>> memorized.
>
> wow, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
>
>> I've
>> been visiting this forum for nearly 3 yrs under a couple of names.
>
> and that's relevant because...
>
>> You have
>> no enforcement power beyond reflecting on your own problem ...
>> whatever that is. There is no requirement for you to be involved in
>> any thread, jim
>
> how does no enforcement power reflect my own problem? i don't follow
> your logic [but i don't follow your thermodynamics either]. you're
> entitled to say what you want to whomever philip, but i'm telling you,
> your ****ing match with huw & steve is wretched to behold.

"If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" LOL
--

- Philip
Nuking Gay Whales for Jesus

jim beam wrote:
> .Philip. wrote:
>> Only if you didn't follow my thought. When you fill a bottle of
>> oxygen to 2000 psi ... how hot is it during this pressurization?
>
> again, you confuse static with dynamic. again, google "adiabatic
> heating" philip. put us out of your misery.

No confusion in evidence. In evidence is your determination.

>> The point I alluded
>> to is the importance of "rapidly rising" pressure. That some diesels
>> absolutely require glow plugs is in part ... because cranking speed
>> does not compress the air quickly enough to heat it sufficient to
>> ignite the fuel as it is injected. But when you get the vehicle
>> rolling down a hill at speed and then pop the clutch, the elevated
>> cranking speed is often sufficient to generate the rapid rises in
>> pressure sufficient to ignite the fuel.
>
> indirect diesels require glow plugs because the adiabatic heating is
> substantially lost to the head as it flows through the narrow venturi
> to the combustion chamber. direct injection engines, where the
> combustion is in the same area as that in which the air was originally
> compressed, don't lose as much of this heat, even though compression
> is less. compression rate != compression ratio. you cannot say there
> is a difference in compression rate between direct & indirect.

I never said there was a 'difference in compression rate' (whatever that
means, precisely). But you MUST copy/paste the passage that leads you to
believe otherwise.

> the reason you can [just] start an indirect diesel without
> electrically heating the glow plugs if you tow/roll the vehicle fast
> enough is that after a number of compression strokes, the glow plug & the
> combustion chamber area, although not hot, warm sufficiently for losses to
> decrease to the point where flash can occur. direct injection diesels for
> the reasons stated above, start easily in all but the worst conditions,
> rolling, towed or conventionally cranked.

As I detailed earlier in the context of IDI, cold cranking speed is one of
the factors that necessitates a glow plug unless/until you can elevate
cranking speed to bring about the warmer chamber conditions you've mentioned
previously.

Yer sthow sthmart.
--

- Philip

On 12/28/2004 12:54 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:

> .Philip. wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>philip, i don't usually stick my nose into others' ****ing matches,
>>>but i gotta tell ya, both huw & steve know their stuff. you just keep
>>>flinging poo at the fan for your own entertainment.
>>>
>>>normal people show up on these groups because they want to learn
>>>something. the price we pay for free knowledge on something you don't
>>>know is sharing knowledge on the stuff you /do/ know. right now, i
>>>don't see you contributing anything except entropy. you're certainly
>>>not contributing knowledge. if steve & huw leave this forum because
>>>of some dysfunctional need to pick fights outside of your knowledge
>>>depth, the rest of us lose, and i have a problem with that. if you
>>>have nothing useful to say, keep it zipped & stop poisoning the well for
>>>the rest of us.
>>
>>
>> Normal people don't think outside the box very often. Normal people get put
>> off by questions whose answers don't mirror what they've memorized.
>
> wow, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
>
>> I've
>> been visiting this forum for nearly 3 yrs under a couple of names.
>
> and that's relevant because...
>
>> You have
>> no enforcement power beyond reflecting on your own problem ... whatever that
>> is. There is no requirement for you to be involved in any thread, jim
>
> how does no enforcement power reflect my own problem? i don't follow
> your logic [but i don't follow your thermodynamics either]. you're
> entitled to say what you want to whomever philip, but i'm telling you,
> your ****ing match with huw & steve is wretched to behold.

Jim, this is usenet 101; he's a troll. The best way to make them go
away is to ignore them. It doesn't always work, but nothing else *ever*
works.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
.... I am not aware that any community has the right to force another to
be civilized.

Dave Kelsen wrote:
> On 12/28/2004 12:54 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:
>
>> .Philip. wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> philip, i don't usually stick my nose into others' ****ing matches,
>>>> but i gotta tell ya, both huw & steve know their stuff. you just
>>>> keep flinging poo at the fan for your own entertainment.
>>>>
>>>> normal people show up on these groups because they want to learn
>>>> something. the price we pay for free knowledge on something you
>>>> don't know is sharing knowledge on the stuff you /do/ know. right now,
>>>> i
>>>> don't see you contributing anything except entropy. you're
>>>> certainly not contributing knowledge. if steve & huw leave this forum
>>>> because of some dysfunctional need to pick fights outside of your
>>>> knowledge
>>>> depth, the rest of us lose, and i have a problem with that. if you
>>>> have nothing useful to say, keep it zipped & stop poisoning the
>>>> well for the rest of us.
>>>
>>>
>>> Normal people don't think outside the box very often. Normal
>>> people get put off by questions whose answers don't mirror what
>>> they've memorized.
>>
>> wow, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
>>
>>> I've
>>> been visiting this forum for nearly 3 yrs under a couple of names.
>>
>> and that's relevant because...
>>
>>> You have
>>> no enforcement power beyond reflecting on your own problem ...
>>> whatever that is. There is no requirement for you to be involved
>>> in any thread, jim
>>
>> how does no enforcement power reflect my own problem? i don't follow
>> your logic [but i don't follow your thermodynamics either]. you're
>> entitled to say what you want to whomever philip, but i'm telling
>> you, your ****ing match with huw & steve is wretched to behold.
>
> Jim, this is usenet 101; he's a troll. The best way to make them go
> away is to ignore them. It doesn't always work, but nothing else
> *ever* works.
>
>
> RFT!!!
> Dave Kelsen

A Google search of "Dave Kelsen troll" reveals Dave's penchant for labeling
as 'troll' anyone who shows him up. Happens a lot.

--

- Philip

> If you know his work is good, and he's a friend, and you STILL insult
> his basic competance, then i've very surprised
> a) that you have any friends and
> b) that you are anything but self employed

Im not insulting his competence at all, and I'd expect him to check anything
I did as well, its basic common sense on safety/expense critical work.
Theres no reason for it to be considered an insult, most safety critical
work is double checked in industry too, you must be a very sensitive person
to get upset over this sort of thing.

> he'd let a woman work on this hyundai, but he'll be double-checking
> everything to make sure she didn't **** up.

Thats sexism, nothing to do with knowing how good she is at her job, keep
with the plot.

> Guess who was the ****ty
> engineer who made all the faults? Here's a hint, it wasn't the 5'3
> 27yo girl... No, it was the loud mouthed, self important bloke who
> wouldn't trust anyone elses work. Thing was, now he's unemployed.
> no-one trusted his work. He was so busy checking everyone elses work,
> that he never did anything himself, and what he DID do was, in a word,
> bleeding terrible.

Quaint story, still not quite seeing your point though. You are basically
trying to make out i'm a do nothing, criticising work checker - which is
utter ******** to be quite honest. All I've said is that I've seen enough
crap work done to only trust my own work, which (to date) has been
faultless, along with diagnosis, though I did point out that i do accept
thoughts from others on diagnosis. So really I dont fit your little story.
And almost all of the people I'd consider competent to work on my car
wouldnt have anyone else work on their car other than themselves. All very
well rounded, pleasant individuals, without a streak of sexism too
surprisingly.

In all honesty, if you know you are capable yourself you arent going to feel
comfortable trusting someone else with the work. Of course if I dont have
the equipment (crank regrind etc) I would have to hand it over to someone,
but I'd be finding someone I either know personally or is a friend of a
friend to do the work. Anyone can talk the talk, not many can walk the walk.

J

Coyoteboy wrote:
>> If you know his work is good, and he's a friend, and you STILL insult
>> his basic competance, then i've very surprised
>> a) that you have any friends and
>> b) that you are anything but self employed
>
> Im not insulting his competence at all, and I'd expect him to check
> anything I did as well, its basic common sense on safety/expense
> critical work. Theres no reason for it to be considered an insult,
> most safety critical work is double checked in industry too, you must
> be a very sensitive person to get upset over this sort of thing.

IF you really trust his competence, then you will not check his work. But
by doing so ... and having expressed the confidence in him as you have, your
actions invalidate your words. You really do not trust him.

>> he'd let a woman work on this hyundai, but he'll be double-checking
>> everything to make sure she didn't **** up.
>
> Thats sexism, nothing to do with knowing how good she is at her job,
> keep with the plot.

Agreed. Unless he can show a correlation between female and incompetence to
do the work. That should interesting in this PC world. LOL

>> Guess who was the ****ty
>> engineer who made all the faults? Here's a hint, it wasn't the 5'3
>> 27yo girl... No, it was the loud mouthed, self important bloke who
>> wouldn't trust anyone elses work. Thing was, now he's unemployed.
>> no-one trusted his work. He was so busy checking everyone elses work,
>> that he never did anything himself, and what he DID do was, in a
>> word, bleeding terrible.

That's a management problem for not promoting him to a quality control
position. LOL.

> Quaint story, still not quite seeing your point though. You are
> basically trying to make out i'm a do nothing, criticising work
> checker - which is utter ******** to be quite honest. All I've said
> is that I've seen enough crap work done to only trust my own work,
> which (to date) has been faultless, along with diagnosis, though I
> did point out that i do accept thoughts from others on diagnosis. So
> really I dont fit your little story. And almost all of the people I'd
> consider competent to work on my car wouldnt have anyone else work on
> their car other than themselves. All very well rounded, pleasant
> individuals, without a streak of sexism too surprisingly.
>
> In all honesty, if you know you are capable yourself you arent going
> to feel comfortable trusting someone else with the work. Of course if
> I dont have the equipment (crank regrind etc) I would have to hand it
> over to someone, but I'd be finding someone I either know personally
> or is a friend of a friend to do the work. Anyone can talk the talk,
> not many can walk the walk.
>
> J

When you have acquired the real knowledge to do the work but opt to have
someone else do it for whatever reason, I see a very human spirit of
competition emerging. Some of this is good .... too much of it toxic.
--

- Philip

> Who said anything about a light? there wasn't one, the note change

>>That is a good point. The last engine I was involved with that failed
>>internally was in my #2 son's '82 Corolla. The oil light started coming on
>>at idle

Was the post I was commenting on, read back before jumping to conclusions
please.

> I wouldn't trust anyone with a pigheaded self superior attitude like
> yours to change a flat. People like you give all the rest of us a bad
> rep, because you know it ALL, and you refuse to listen.

Not at all, I refuse to listen without proof of someone being good enough at
what they do - i.e. me having seen their work before. That is a *sensible*
way of qualifying someone as good enough to work on your car.
I personally am not about to go blabbing about what qualifications and
importance I have like you (and I have a self superior attitude?), though I
could, my whole point was that working on my car I wouldnt trust a general
spanner monkey **BASED ON EXPERIENCE**. If one doesnt learn from ones
experiences, one cant complain can one?
If you are happy to let your car be worked on by Joe Bloggs in the
dealership then thats fine, you either have a) more money than sense or b)
no belief in your own abilities or c) are too busy to do the work yourself,
and enough cash to cover it when it goes wrong.
C) is understandable.

I personally cant think of so many perfectly tailored stories to prove my
points, i just go from experience

J

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:32:59 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
> wrote:

>> If you know his work is good, and he's a friend, and you STILL insult
>> his basic competance, then i've very surprised
>> a) that you have any friends and
>> b) that you are anything but self employed
>
>Im not insulting his competence at all, and I'd expect him to check anything
>I did as well, its basic common sense on safety/expense critical work.
>Theres no reason for it to be considered an insult, most safety critical
>work is double checked in industry too, you must be a very sensitive person
>to get upset over this sort of thing.

No, I'm AM a safety engineer, Used to work at Sellafield, amongst
other places. What you're saying is ********. I've met plenty of
people like you, who insist that they are the only ones that can do
the work right. Mostly they're the worst kind. covering their own
insecurity by trying to be ultra-critical of others.

>
>> he'd let a woman work on this hyundai, but he'll be double-checking
>> everything to make sure she didn't **** up.
>
>Thats sexism, nothing to do with knowing how good she is at her job, keep
>with the plot.

No, he knew the engineer working on his car would be a woman, since
he'd spoken to her on the phone, booking the time. He had insecurity
about the quality of everyone's work except his. JUST LIKE YOU.

>
>> Guess who was the ****ty
>> engineer who made all the faults? Here's a hint, it wasn't the 5'3
>> 27yo girl... No, it was the loud mouthed, self important bloke who
>> wouldn't trust anyone elses work. Thing was, now he's unemployed.
>> no-one trusted his work. He was so busy checking everyone elses work,
>> that he never did anything himself, and what he DID do was, in a word,
>> bleeding terrible.
>
>Quaint story, still not quite seeing your point though. You are basically
>trying to make out i'm a do nothing, criticising work checker - which is
>utter ******** to be quite honest. All I've said is that I've seen enough
>crap work done to only trust my own work, which (to date) has been
>faultless, along with diagnosis, though I did point out that i do accept
>thoughts from others on diagnosis. So really I dont fit your little story.
>And almost all of the people I'd consider competent to work on my car
>wouldnt have anyone else work on their car other than themselves. All very
>well rounded, pleasant individuals, without a streak of sexism too
>surprisingly.
>
>In all honesty, if you know you are capable yourself you arent going to feel
>comfortable trusting someone else with the work. Of course if I dont have
>the equipment (crank regrind etc) I would have to hand it over to someone,
>but I'd be finding someone I either know personally or is a friend of a
>friend to do the work. Anyone can talk the talk, not many can walk the walk.

sounds like you do a lot of the former, and not much of the latter.
"only one place in the UK that does it" etc. if you were as
knowledgable as you claim, you'd know of at least 3 places that did
it.

>
>J
>

Coyoteboy wrote:
>> Who said anything about a light? there wasn't one, the note change
>
>>> That is a good point. The last engine I was involved with that
>>> failed internally was in my #2 son's '82 Corolla. The oil light
>>> started coming on at idle
>
> Was the post I was commenting on, read back before jumping to
> conclusions please.
>
>> I wouldn't trust anyone with a pigheaded self superior attitude like
>> yours to change a flat. People like you give all the rest of us a bad
>> rep, because you know it ALL, and you refuse to listen.
>
> Not at all, I refuse to listen without proof of someone being good
> enough at what they do - i.e. me having seen their work before. That
> is a *sensible* way of qualifying someone as good enough to work on
> your car.
> I personally am not about to go blabbing about what qualifications and
> importance I have like you (and I have a self superior attitude?),
> though I could, my whole point was that working on my car I wouldnt
> trust a general spanner monkey **BASED ON EXPERIENCE**. If one doesnt
> learn from ones experiences, one cant complain can one?
> If you are happy to let your car be worked on by Joe Bloggs in the
> dealership then thats fine, you either have a) more money than sense
> or b) no belief in your own abilities or c) are too busy to do the
> work yourself, and enough cash to cover it when it goes wrong.
> C) is understandable.
>
> I personally cant think of so many perfectly tailored stories to
> prove my points, i just go from experience
>
> J

J: It does seem you nurture your negative past experiences and project a
broad brush prejudice toward future service work performed by persons you
have no background on. Does that work for you?
--

- Philip