Will switching from Synthetic to Dyno oil harm my engine?

> 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.

I'm hiding no insecurities (Please explain which ones, as I fail to see what
I could be hiding, maybe you have a couch and a degree in psychology too?).
And what i say isnt ******** - its fact, just might not be on your
watch/area, although I must say im suprised that we have higher QC standards
in a transfer line manufacturing business than in the nuclear power gen
world.

And I have no idea why you are taking all this so personally? All i did was
point out I didnt like other people working on my car as ive seen too many
people ripped off and work done poorly and you blow it up out of all
proportion and make it personal? Maybe its not me with the insecurities? I'm
not the one mouthing off about qualifications and how pertinent my job is to
the argument at hand.

> 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.

So you say. But from your original text there's no evidence of this, so its
pretty easy to adjust the meaning afterwards when you realise how it sounds.

> 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.

a) Please dont mis-quote - I said "and the
only place i found in the whole country" not "theres only one place in the
UK that does it" - if you read so poorly im not suprised you take everything
the wrong way and respond in an offensive manner.

b) I admitted it is not something I worked hard at finding to be perfectly
honest - as ive have pointed out from the beginning it seems pretty
pointless for my needs so i found one. I couldnt find any more and couldnt
find anyone who knew of any more without going looking into industrial
companies, and decided it wasnt worth the hastle for the information that it
would provide.

This post has gotten way off topic already - its about time we stopped
wasting bandwidth with personal experience and anecdotal evidence, all of
which is pretty worthless to the general readers.

J

> 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.
>

I see your point, but I would dissagree still - I trust him, i just like to
check everything over myself, even if its just a cursory glance, as its me
that foots the bill in the end.

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

lol, not sure I'd like to venture into that one, i know a few very good
female engineers. But no, id not trust them either, dont know them well
enough :-).

J

K`Tetch wrote:
>
> No, I'm AM a safety engineer, Used to work at Sellafield, amongst
> other places.

You mean the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant that has been releasing
technetium-99 into the North Sea for decades?

Randolph > writes:
>K`Tetch wrote:

>> No, I'm AM a safety engineer, Used to work at Sellafield, amongst
>> other places.

>You mean the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant that has been releasing
>technetium-99 into the North Sea for decades?

The one that had to change it's name.

If I were a safety engineer, I'd be hesitant about using that one as
a reference site. :-)
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

> If I were a safety engineer, I'd be hesitant about using that one as
> a reference site. :-)
> --
> /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
> \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
> X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
> / \ and postings | to help me spread!

LOL, im sure its actually safer than a lot of places but I agree with you!


J

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:10:35 GMT, Randolph > wrote:

>
>K`Tetch wrote:
>>
>> No, I'm AM a safety engineer, Used to work at Sellafield, amongst
>> other places.
>
>You mean the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant that has been releasing
>technetium-99 into the North Sea for decades?

Yeah, amazing how it does that, when the plant's on the irish sea...
They got one HELL of a big pipeline going right acriss to tyneside.

K`Tetch wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:10:35 GMT, Randolph > wrote:
>
> >
> >K`Tetch wrote:
> >>
> >> No, I'm AM a safety engineer, Used to work at Sellafield, amongst
> >> other places.
> >
> >You mean the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant that has been releasing
> >technetium-99 into the North Sea for decades?
>
> Yeah, amazing how it does that, when the plant's on the irish sea...
> They got one HELL of a big pipeline going right acriss to tyneside.

Simple ocean currents will do:
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.htm.../355/3523.html

".Philip." > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Huw wrote:
>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is not important. My Nissan IDI turbo engines deposit
>>>>>> far less soot in the oil per mile than my NA Land Rover diesel
>>>>>> ever did. In fact I don't see much difference between the Nissan
>>>>>> turbo's and the small Ishikawajima NA indirect.
>>>>>> My Toyota direct injection turbo keeps oil very clean for a
>>>>>> diesel. Huw
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw. Are you saying the presence of a turbo is not relevant to
>>>>> soot production? All else being equal, Cummins and Caterpillar
>>>>> would laugh you off into the liquid abyss that surrounds your island.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is hardly relevant in the simple way I think you mean.
>>>
>>> You inferred on the simple level. I know my audience. :-)
>>>
>>>> Today's road
>>>> diesel engines produce less exhaust soot, which is representative of
>>>> total soot production, than ever before and I cannot think of one
>>>> car diesel that is not turbocharged offhand. It is interesting that
>>>> in parallel to the dominance of turbo diesels the service intervals
>>>> have also increased substantially and so have power output verses
>>>> swept volume and specific fuel efficiency.
>>>
>>> Yes Huw, all this is appreciated but a dodge from the question I
>>> posed to you.
>>>
>>
>> Well then on a simple level the presence of a turbocharger does not
>> correlate to increased soot production. That is the simple truth.
>>
>> Huw
>
> I did not say a turbo contributed to -increased- soot production. It's
> the absence of a turbo when the fuel injection is calibrated for the
> expected intake pressurization that increases soot.
>
> http://tec.avl.com/wo/webobsession.s...wMDM0OTkz.html
> " In addition emission and fuel consumption are influenced by an optimised
> turbocharger setup. By the use, for example, of a much smaller
> turbocharger
> (as shown in Figure 3) the NOx / soot emissions could be reduced by ~38% /
> ~17 % whilst simultaneously lowering specific consumption and combustion
> noise. Thus it is quite obvious that the turbocharging system is not only
> relevant to power but also to emissions. "
>
> http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:O...ient=firefox-a
> " The boost pressure is important for two reasons: First, for a given
> engine
> load it determines the overall fuel/air-equivalence ratio. Second, the
> in-cylinder
> air density is directly proportional to the absolute inlet pressure and
> this has
> strong effect on the spray penetration as shown in Figure 4.7.
> Accordingly, the
> turbocharger boost has strong influence on the combustion and emissions"
> --
>
> - Philip
> (you're making me work again, Huw)
>

Good ;-)

If anything, of course, turbocharging allows for decreased emissions and
soot, which is why it is fitted to virtually all modern light car and truck
diesel engines. In itself though, it does not do this. Every individual
system on an engine has to work in balance and in complement with other
systems. An engine fitted with an old big and crude turbo with no
wastegate, intercooler or a
governor control to limit over fuelling [actually tubo lag] upon
acceleration, as fitted to old
Caterpillar tractors for instance, would produce clouds of soot when opened
up. Newer variable vane geometry turbo's which are electronically controlled
from the same ECU as the electronic fuelling can reduce soot dramatically.
Peugeot have just launched a range of diesel cars which have got effectively
'zero exhaust soot emmissions'.

Huw

Huw wrote:
> ".Philip." > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>> Huw wrote:
>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it is not important. My Nissan IDI turbo engines deposit
>>>>>>> far less soot in the oil per mile than my NA Land Rover diesel
>>>>>>> ever did. In fact I don't see much difference between the Nissan
>>>>>>> turbo's and the small Ishikawajima NA indirect.
>>>>>>> My Toyota direct injection turbo keeps oil very clean for a
>>>>>>> diesel. Huw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw. Are you saying the presence of a turbo is not relevant to
>>>>>> soot production? All else being equal, Cummins and Caterpillar
>>>>>> would laugh you off into the liquid abyss that surrounds your
>>>>>> island.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is hardly relevant in the simple way I think you mean.
>>>>
>>>> You inferred on the simple level. I know my audience. :-)
>>>>
>>>>> Today's road
>>>>> diesel engines produce less exhaust soot, which is representative
>>>>> of total soot production, than ever before and I cannot think of one
>>>>> car diesel that is not turbocharged offhand. It is interesting
>>>>> that in parallel to the dominance of turbo diesels the service
>>>>> intervals have also increased substantially and so have power output
>>>>> verses
>>>>> swept volume and specific fuel efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> Yes Huw, all this is appreciated but a dodge from the question I
>>>> posed to you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well then on a simple level the presence of a turbocharger does not
>>> correlate to increased soot production. That is the simple truth.
>>>
>>> Huw
>>
>> I did not say a turbo contributed to -increased- soot production. It's
>> the absence of a turbo when the fuel injection is calibrated for the
>> expected intake pressurization that increases soot.
>>
>> http://tec.avl.com/wo/webobsession.s...wMDM0OTkz.html
>> " In addition emission and fuel consumption are influenced by an
>> optimised turbocharger setup. By the use, for example, of a much smaller
>> turbocharger
>> (as shown in Figure 3) the NOx / soot emissions could be reduced by
>> ~38% / ~17 % whilst simultaneously lowering specific consumption and
>> combustion noise. Thus it is quite obvious that the turbocharging system
>> is
>> not only relevant to power but also to emissions. "
>>
>> http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:O...ient=firefox-a
>> " The boost pressure is important for two reasons: First, for a given
>> engine
>> load it determines the overall fuel/air-equivalence ratio. Second,
>> the in-cylinder
>> air density is directly proportional to the absolute inlet pressure
>> and this has
>> strong effect on the spray penetration as shown in Figure 4.7.
>> Accordingly, the
>> turbocharger boost has strong influence on the combustion and
>> emissions" --
>>
>> - Philip
>> (you're making me work again, Huw)
>>
>
> Good ;-)
>
> If anything, of course, turbocharging allows for decreased emissions
> and soot, which is why it is fitted to virtually all modern light car and
> truck diesel engines. In itself though, it does not do this. Every
> individual system on an engine has to work in balance and in complement
> with
> other systems. An engine fitted with an old big and crude turbo with no
> wastegate, intercooler or a
> governor control to limit over fuelling [actually tubo lag] upon
> acceleration, as fitted to old
> Caterpillar tractors for instance, would produce clouds of soot when
> opened up. Newer variable vane geometry turbo's which are electronically
> controlled from the same ECU as the electronic fuelling can reduce soot
> dramatically. Peugeot have just launched a range of diesel cars which have
> got
> effectively 'zero exhaust soot emmissions'.
>
> Huw

Readers Digest version: When less air is available, less fuel must be
administered to avoid visibly sooty exhaust. As manifold pressure
increases, so can fuel delivery before exhaust soot becomes visible. Also,
the more fuel you put to a diesel, the hotter it runs (aspirated or
charged).
--

- Philip

"Bernd Felsche" > wrote in message
...
> "Huw" > writes:
>
>>It is hardly relevant in the simple way I think you mean. Today's
>>road diesel engines produce less exhaust soot, which is
>>representative of total soot production, than ever before and I
>>cannot think of one car diesel that is not turbocharged offhand. It
>
> Try thinking of any VW with an "SDI" engine.
>

That is one then, but it must be one of less than a handful left. I do
recall that it hardly sells at all in the UK Golf range. It may well not
sell at all here despite actually being officially available, sales are that
rare so far. Nevertheless you are correct in that it is available and does
not have a turbo.

Huw