Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-30-2007, 10:34 AM   #21
boxsterz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
Hi,

I'm skeptical that the WW was the cause of your issues. For 9 mos. to pass is too long for an issue to manifest itself and there could be too many intervening possibilities in this rather long time interval.

There is only 1 ingredient in Water Wetter which could pose any kind of issue at all - Tolyltriazole, a PolySiloxane Polymer used for corrosion inhibitance.

The other ingredients are either alcohols (DiIsoPropyl Alcohol Ether and TriIsopropyl Alcohol Diether) used as surfactants, or are additives (Sodium Molybdate) actually used by petroleum refiners in Gasoline and Jet Fuel to reduce gasoline's natural tendency to swell and gel - the exact opposite of what you are inferring.

Tolyltriazole makes up only 1% of WW composition (source: Redline WW MSDS) and if you only added 60ml, that would mean no more than .6ml, a very small amount when stacked against 9 mos. volume of Fuel.

This chemical is not soluable in gasoline, but will precipitate out of solution into a white powder with a Specific Gravity higher than the Fuel meaning that it would drop to the bottom of the Tank. Should it be picked up, as a particulate, it should get trapped by the Fuel Filter and not flow past it - it could in sufficient quantities clog the Filter, but that's about it. The storage and distribution methods for gasoline will introduce a much greater volume of other particulates (oxides, waxes, parafins, etc.) than that over a 9 mo. period.

The total volume of these 4 chemicals does not total 16% of WW. I suspect that either you added considerably more WW than you stated or, more likely, that you got some contaminated Fuel in the interim. The chemistry involved simply does not validate a lot of cause and effect here.

In any event, be sure that you are also replacing the Fuel Filter and flushing the Fuel Tank to insure that no remnants of the suspect material remains. Glad you got it all sorted out...

Happy Motoring!... Jim



Jim, I know you mean well, and feel you have a lot to offer. But it's technical half speak like this that could've saved him $3K. There is no doubt about it in my mind, the water wetter was the culprit. He had the gunk analyzed. What more do you want? Can't you admit you were wrong I mean everyone is from time to time.


Cyanide will kill a human being in the minutest concentrations. The small concentrations point is invalid. 60ml was meant to treat several gallons of water/coolant. WW is obviously soluble in water, as it was engineered as an additive for water and water based coolant. Water and gas don't mix. I saw with my own eyes old gas drained out of a jalopy many many years ago. I shook the hell out of that glass jar too, and still the water stayed on the bottom and coalesced back into larger drops of water. So I can imagine how WW will not dissolve into gas. Also the fuel filter is only effective against particulates in the micron range, where liquids are much smaller.


Gasoline can be a delicate fuel, starting up my lawnmower with 3 month or older gas demonstrates that. Put fresh gas in, it starts right up on the 1st pull. I do realize however that gas can tolerate some moisture, and I also know there are fuel additives such as "Heet" designed to absorb excess moisture. How much moisture can be miscible I don't know.


I'm no chemist, and it's too bad none were available on this forum. It wouldn've been cheap to contact Redline or Porsche and get some REAL expert advice. Instead, threpwood was dissuaded from that course, which is a shame.


Last edited by boxsterz; 08-30-2007 at 11:21 AM.
 
Old 08-30-2007, 09:16 PM   #22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
Hi,

@boxsterz - As you state, you are no Chemist. It's technical half speak like this that can contribute to misinformation as well as discreditation of an otherwise sound piece of advice.

Not wanting to start a Flame War, I am also not a Chemist, but I do hold a BS in Material Science and minored in Organic Chemistry (essentially a pre-requisite) from a Big 10 university which ranks very high nationally in both chemistry and materials science.

The chemicals I listed and their properties are correct. They are not made up, but reported by Redline in it's required MSDS publication which I researched before offering my initial advise to the lister.

These are not rare chemicals at all, but well known and used for a variety of purposes. The only one which would not remain in a liquid state when mixed with gasoline is Tolyltriazole, which is also used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, and any number of other products. All other ingredients would have flowed through the injectors and been combusted in the cylinder along with the fuel, and within that specific volume of fuel which was contaminated, there would have been no residual effects. These other chemicals are not altered in the presence of gasoline and all burn well within the combustion temperatures of gasoline.

The Tolyltriazole would not, it would precipitate out of solution as a white powder and drop to the bottom of the Tank as it is heavier than gasoline. Interestingly, it is Blue upon manufacture, not Red as was the color of the gel found by the mechanic.

You see cause and effect while admittedly knowing nothing about the interaction of these chemicals with other substances, not a very sound conclusion, and seemingly taking a jab at those who at least stepped forward, did some research, and replied to the lister's request - seems you've been absent from this thread up to that point. You are merely looking at the linearity of one event preceeding the other. That has the same validity as saying that Rain caused the issue because the car was rained on before the engine started acting up.

My knowledge of these chemicals and their interactions says this incident was not the culprit, therefore, something else must be responsible. A likely possibility, though certainly not the only one, is that in the lengthy interim (in the same 9 mos. I added more than 93 gal. of fuel to my car which is solely used for occaisional pleasure driving), something else was introduced into the Fuel supply causing the issue such as contaminated fuel, or even as the lister eluded a mischievous substance was introduced (perhaps a Red Gummy Bear - just as possible). But it's unlikely that the WW was the cause.

You have offered no proof, other than your belief that the WW was the culprit, along with some anecdote about Fresh Gas being better than Stale Gas to make, or solidify, whatever case you're trying to make, now that's technical half speak.

I am fully prepared to admit being wrong, as I have done often in the past, if someone can show that to be the case.

With repsect to the Lister, I did not shoot from the hip with my initial reply but researched his query pretty thoroughly before responding. I would never intentionally give someone harmful advice or offer any whatever if I didn't feel I knew what I was talking about (ever casually notice how many threads I do not reply to? This is often the reason why).

And, it wasn't me who mistakenly added the questionable substance to begin with, or the one who chose a path of action. So don't try and infer that I am somehow responsible for all this because I am simply not.

People make their own choices, whether it is to choose or to ignore any particular advice offered here, by anyone. To try and condemn advice here is to make people ignore sound advice and cause those knowledgeable people to shrink from giving it. Then we're just talking about Headlight mods and Wheel colors and many owners would not like to see the forum move to that direction.

I won't discuss this further on open forum with you as you seem intent on being divisive and simply use it as a soapbox for whatever vindictiveness you harbor toward me or whatever. If you want to PM me, I'll reply as I see fit, but I won't be party to a lynch mob no matter how badly you may wish to organize one. I welcome other knowledgeable replies as well...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Last edited by MNBoxster; 08-31-2007 at 10:53 AM.
MNBoxster is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 11:51 PM   #23
boxsterz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
@ MNBoxster,


I've taken my share of undergrad engineering chem also, not to your extent, however, I know better than to assert a finding without empirical evidence. That burden of proof, was furnished by a 3rd party lab which analysed the susbstance and found independently that the jelly is/was most likely a coolant additive.


I'm not sure how you MISSED that in your retort


I'm don't know if they did a mass spectrometry on the jelly or not, but I do believe they're more thorough and reliable than your +30yr academic record and memory. I'm basing the crux of my belief upon the lab's conlusion. My anecdotal experience was ment to support 2 beliefs: 1) that the fuel filter would NOT trap the WW, which you state "should". 2) I would also posit that WW like water, will not readily dissolve into gas.



I harbor no ill feelings towards you, and hey I know what a lynch mob feels like here. I am only after the truth. To that end, I do believe an experiment would settle this, as the saying goes, "an experiment is worth a thousand experts..." In this case it will suffice for "would be" experts which I do not claim to be


It would be easy enough to replicate. We get some gas, put the proportionate WW into it, and see if it dissolves into the gas and if it can be trapped partially or not by a filter as you assert, OR if it can pass through a filter, and ultimately jell within 9 mo. I realize we cannot duplicate everything, but enough to draw a workable and probable conclusion. Are you willing to put your "knowledge" to the test?



BTW, I don't hold you reponsible for someone elses actions. However, I do hold you or anyone else to giving bad advice and not owning it, if it's revealed as such. I do not think it was sound advice to dissuade and summarily dismiss getting a second opinion from more informed sources. It would've been a cheap and easy double check. But I gather since your explanation reads good, the lister took it as truth. That much I have issue with. I want to make clear, I do not want to steal your thunder, steal your wife, steal your car, steal your money, wish you ill will, or any such thing. I actually appreciate your input on average, I only wish that you'd give even better advice

Last edited by boxsterz; 08-30-2007 at 11:54 PM.
 
Old 08-31-2007, 12:16 AM   #24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 342
Yea let's keep the thread positive as I would hate if this thread turned into canada-flaming cartagena

I haven't actually looked at the test result yet because the result is being sent back to me. The lab tech (chemist) said that their conclusion (coolant additive, they didn't mention WW) was drawn based on the graphs analysis, so I bet the analysis was a spectroscopy which means there should be other weird chemicals other than ones from the WW.

I should have received the result next week. I will scan and post it here so we can all look at it and see if we can analyze it in more detail

Please note that I occasionally used redline fuel injector cleaner, which has a RED color as well...so this could possibly be the culprint. I don't use this anymore though, as I avoid adding anything to the gas from now on.
__________________
2004 Porsche Boxster S
threpwood is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 03:09 AM   #25
boxsterz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sounds good. I see no reason to make this private as the results benefit all car owners, not just boxsters. I repeat that I'm not on some MNBoxster witch hunt, so there is no reason for Jim to shy away. This is a search for the truth. Period.


Funny if it was the injector cleaner, as it's supposed to UN-clogg injectors! It's possible that a chemical reaction between the injector cleaner AND the WW made the jelly. Again, I'm no chemist, but it would be easy enough to test empirically and far more revealing than some paper exercise.


We'll know more when the test results are in. Hopefully Jim will chime in on that too.


Please do post the chart analysis so everyone knows what's up.





Quote:
Originally Posted by threpwood
Yea let's keep the thread positive as I would hate if this thread turned into canada-flaming cartagena

I haven't actually looked at the test result yet because the result is being sent back to me. The lab tech (chemist) said that their conclusion (coolant additive, they didn't mention WW) was drawn based on the graphs analysis, so I bet the analysis was a spectroscopy which means there should be other weird chemicals other than ones from the WW.

I should have received the result next week. I will scan and post it here so we can all look at it and see if we can analyze it in more detail

Please note that I occasionally used redline fuel injector cleaner, which has a RED color as well...so this could possibly be the culprint. I don't use this anymore though, as I avoid adding anything to the gas from now on.
 
Old 08-31-2007, 04:25 AM   #26
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: florida
Posts: 87
Biggest lesson of all... don't rely on an internet message board to fix your 60k car. Call a qualified mechanic or the manufacturer of the substance that causes your question in the first place. I'm sure that a simple call to the WW manufacturer could have avoided this.
prOk is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 06:09 AM   #27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Depends on the day of the week....
Posts: 1,400
I agree with Jim, I highly doubt that whatever amount of WW you added caused this. I'm also REALLY surprised to see them tear down your engine this much to fix the problem.

Patrick
Cloudsurfer is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 08:13 AM   #28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,820
it may not be related, but isn't the factory coolant pink? and couldn't this be considered a coolant additive? is it possible that some of this somehow migrated into the fuel supply? not sure if any of the lubricants / additives in the factory coolant would congeal when added to fuel or not.....anyone?
__________________
insite
'99 Boxster
3.4L Conversion

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/KMTGPR-1.jpg
insite is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 10:30 AM   #29
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
Hi,

Well, the plot thickens, other substances were also added to the Fuel system. This alone can add a whole other dimension to the issue.

A simple add it to the Gas experiment is not very empirical because doesn't take into account what other substances may have been involved and in what quantity/concentrations, nor does it allow for any effect the reported time interval may have.

Just so you know, 2 days ago, I have emailed RedLine's Tech. Dept. and posited the hypothetical of 'What if WW were accidentally added to the Fuel system in an amount equal to about 60ml in a 16 gal. tank...'

Hopefully they'll reply, and with some useful information. If it turns out this could cause a problem, I'll be more than happy to eat some proverbial Corvus Corax...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99
MNBoxster is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 11:16 AM   #30
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 196
I have never used any additives like these...my question is why would you? I am assuming if you use the correct fluids (coolant, fuel...) per manufacturers recs, you would not need to use these products, so why do it and take the risk?
__________________
2000 Boxster S
Black/Black/Black
IowaS is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 02:41 PM   #31
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaS
I have never used any additives like these...my question is why would you? I am assuming if you use the correct fluids (coolant, fuel...) per manufacturers recs, you would not need to use these products, so why do it and take the risk?
Hi,

The Marketing behind many of these additives is, and has always been, tremendous making them truly irresistable to many. Wild claims are unsupported and those anecdotal recommendations people often receive are merely Placebo Effect.

Also, many of these additives are not the product of intense research and engineering, but often simply packaging readily available chemicals and hiking up the price some 1000%.

Remember STP Oil Treatment? Said to quiet valves, etc. Well all it was was 90Wt. Gear Oil and it certainly did quiet the valves at a 900% markup of Gear Oil.

Seafoam? Just Kerosene, Iso-Propyl Alcohol and Nahptha, all of which you can buy and apportion according to Seafoam's recipe of 40-60%, 10-20% and 25-35% respectively. You can make this home brew for about $18/gal. or buy it readymade from Sea Foam Sales Company for the equivalent of about $55-$60/gal. These ingredients will have a cleaning effect with each attacking a specific issue - Kerosene - Carbon buildup, IPA - Varnishes and Parafins, Nahptha - carbons and varnishes.

But again, as you state, use the proper fluids and change them at the proper intervals and you eliminate the need for these additives.

The possible 2 exceptions are Stabil if you are storing the car and an occasional Injector Cleaner (my preference is Jectron based on price, active ingredients, etc.). Hope this helps...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99
MNBoxster is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 09:00 PM   #32
boxsterz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
A simple add it to the Gas experiment is not very empirical because doesn't take into account what other substances may have been involved and in what quantity/concentrations, nor does it allow for any effect the reported time interval may have.

I disagree. A simple experiment would substantiate or not the hypothesis in question -- could WW gel within gas --. It would not show the whole causality chain down to the nth link, and it would not reveal all necessary conditions; however it shows sufficient conditions, which is what we're after. In other words, irrelevant of contributing factors (mixing gas x vs. gas y, vs gas z, intermixed with unknown quantities of injector cleaner, subject to heating cycles as experienced in climate j, under normal operating temps in a 9mo term, etc..) CAN WW gel in gas. An a attempt to duplicate those exact conditions of the mishap would be cost prohibitive, borderline impossible as there are too many unknowns, and besides, it doesn't cut to the chase.


We're trying to determine mainly: IF WW can turn to jelly under typical conditons and if WW will flow through or get trapped in a particulate filter.


If it is obverved to gel in gas, bang, we're done. We have our answer. It it does not, it can always be argued there were contributing factors such as unaccounted for substances as you may imply, but that's not the meat of the issue. The experiment would not encapsulate that, but it doesn't have to. It just needs to tell us the common denominators.

Last edited by boxsterz; 08-31-2007 at 10:27 PM.
 
Old 08-31-2007, 10:14 PM   #33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxsterz
I disagree. We're trying to determine mainly: IF WW can turn to jelly under typical conditons and if WW will flow through or get trapped in a particulate filter...If it is obverved to gel in gas, bang, we're done. We have our answer. It it does not, it can always be argued there were contributing factors such as unaccounted for substances as you may imply, but that's not the meat of the issue.
Hi,

Clearly you have a gross misunderstanding of chemical and model analysis.

You want to find a simple way to duplicate a very complex process. You have left out a time parameter - how long do we leave it in the gas to decide whether or not it will gel? You have totally ignored any of the myriad of components of the gas to see if they had an interaction - is the chemical make-up of US gas the same as it is in Japan? I can tell you that it is not. You make no provision for whatever effect, if any. agitation may have on the problem - car car was driven and the whole thing agitated in the process. It is well known that certain reactions require agitation for them to take place. You now totally discard the addition of a Fuel additive. Could this be the cause? What happens if the Fuel additive ages and was it aged? What temperature do we conduct this experiment at? Temperature is fundamental to how many compounds breakdown and on how chemical reactions take place, if at all. And on and on...

You wanna simply say "there you go, it gels, case closed" when in fact it may not gel under the conditions actually experienced by the lister (it would be interesting to see how you'd react if it did not gel - what would be your next Windmill? Or can't you ever see that being a possibility?). You totally ignore the very well known properties of the chemicals involved, the 2 alcohols do mix with gasoline and did burn in engine combustion, as did the Sodium Molybdate. Only the polymer Tolyltriazole could be suspect. And if so, would the miniscule amount be sufficient to do what was found? Why only the #3 injector? Is this substance also found upstream of the Filter? In the Tank?

It's Voo Doo science you're proposing based only upon an overriding self-admitted belief (which is wholly different than a proper hypothesis). If that feeds your brain, well, that's a whole other issue...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99
MNBoxster is offline  
Old 09-01-2007, 03:38 AM   #34
boxsterz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:

"
<<< You want to find a simple way to duplicate a very complex process. You have left out a time parameter - how long do we leave it in the gas to decide whether or not it will gel? >>>>> "

Originally Posted by MNBoxster



Laughable.
Einstein, how about within 9mo? Does that work for ya? Same as the Lister's mishap. BTW I said the time frame before, How is this not obvious?




Quote:


" <<<<>>>>
"

Originally Posted by MNBoxster




READ MY POST AGAIN. The complexity and possibilities are MOOT if WW straight up gells, because that is exactly what you are trying to refute. You claim that WW won't gel, based on your "knowledge". If indeed WW gels in gas with no other interaction, modification or provisions that would prove you wrong. The simpler experiment would be easier, and gets to the heart of it. However for more accuracy, the experiment would indeed include conditions that are EASILY duplicable and representative, such as agitation, and or heat, etc... I didn't feel I needed to spell that out for you, as it seemed OBVIOUS that all reasonable efforts would be made. Regardless, if it straight up gelled without much fuss, at any point, End of story. If it does not gel, then you may well be correct and by our simple experiment we may never know the full truth. It would be too complex for us to prove.



[QUOTE]
<<<<>>>>

Originally Posted by MNBoxster



Once more you distract from the focus. I realize it may be hard for you, but try and focus on the issue at hand: CAN WW GEL IN GAS. REPEAT it if you must. Maybe three times or more for you. Occurance in #3 is pure subterfuge. Maybe #3 line bung presents flow charactristics that makes the heavier WW coelesce there? Who knows? Moreover, who cares. WW jelling in gas is the issue REMEMBER????



[QUOTE]
<<<<>>>>"
Originally Posted by MNBoxster


No voodoo here. I'm all about pure science, and methodology. The logic of sufficient conditons by using the lowest common denomintors is valid. How you can lead away from that is mentally deficient. It's amazing how much you miss at your convenience. In 3 posts you leave out any mention of the lab's analysis. So you can see why you appear dense or evasive. Not sure which one is worse, but I don't care about that as much as getting to the truth.


If you would like a formal Hypothesis then I can draw one out for you. In fact, I can prolly outline the whole experiment. I know 2 Chemistry PhD's. One from CAL Tech, the other MIT. They're married! That scientific enough for you? So if want to go that route, I can get their take on this. My bet is that they will find nothing inherently unsuitable with what I propose. Not sure if I want to bother them about it at this point.



The experiment is solid, you can qualify if you wish. I warn you that anything beyond requiring a reasonable effort will be taken as stonewalling. I was being gracious in my earlier posts. Since you've changed your tune and gotten nasty I'm pulling off the gloves


SO Jim, I anticipate 3 options for you:


1) You claim witch hunt, run and hide with your tail between your legs. (I'll try co-ordinating the experiment anyways depending on the analysis of the lab being posted.)

2) You further avoid the rationally obvious, CAN WW GEL IN GAS, with more technical half speak in hopes you can throw the focus.

3) Detail and qualify the experiment like a man, and be party to the learning experience and knowledge base of this open forum.


Which will it be? Time to put up or shut up.

Last edited by boxsterz; 09-01-2007 at 07:51 AM.
 
Old 09-01-2007, 09:48 PM   #35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxsterz
...Which will it be?
Hi,

It will be none of the above. You wanna call me out? Forget it!

I don't need some Mr. Wizard experiment to confirm what I already know and what I already told you about the substances involved.

It is you who are fixated on the fact that the WW is the cause of the problem in the face of common contrary evidence about these chemicals, well known to all (but apprarently you).

But, lets be clear, when you add 60ml of WW to 16 gals. of gasoline and it doesn't gel, how are you going to conduct yourself in the aftermath? Will you admit that you know nothing of which you speak in this regard? That you bastardized the scientific method and followed a purely disjointed method of reasoning because you deduced a cause and effect which clearly wasn't there?

We'll see...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99
MNBoxster is offline  
Old 09-02-2007, 05:54 AM   #36
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
Let me call a time out here.

Time will either generate an answer or not. I know the RL folks to be pretty straight shooters so perhaps they will add to the body of knowledge.

C'mon guys, we don't need to spend our time bickering.

Thanks in advance!
__________________
Rich Belloff

Brucelee is offline  
Old 09-02-2007, 11:30 PM   #37
boxsterz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
Hi,

You wanna call me out? Forget it!
You chose #1, run and hide with your tail between your legs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
I don't need some Mr. Wizard experiment to confirm what I already know and what I already told you about the substances involved.

It is you who are fixated on the fact that the WW is the cause of the problem in the face of common contrary evidence about these chemicals, well known to all (but apprarently you).

You choose #2, You further avoid the rationally obvious, CAN WW GEL IN GAS. I wish to corroborate the Lab's findings, since the Lab's finding says the jelly is most likely coolant additive. Last time I looked WW=coolant additive. "common contrary evidence about these chemicals, well known to all (but apprarently you).", Really? are there other Chemestro experts like you here? I wish they'd speak up. Maybe they'd like a crack at nullifying the simple experiment also, especially if it ends up shooting jelly. Jelly would be Tasty.




Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster

But, lets be clear, when you add 60ml of WW to 16 gals. of gasoline and it doesn't gel, how are you going to conduct yourself in the aftermath? Will you admit that you know nothing of which you speak in this regard? That you bastardized the scientific method and followed a purely disjointed method of reasoning because you deduced a cause and effect which clearly wasn't there?

We'll see...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99


Sure I admit I don't know how WW and gas will react chemically. I never said I did. I do believe however it will settle to the bottom, coalesce and not mix with gas, much the same way as I observed water doing. I never claimed to be Mr. Chemestro here. That's your braggadocio, which is what we are trying to verify: YOUR knowledge in chemisty since you go on and on and on about it.

If the simple experiment does not produce WW gelling, as I said before Mr. Short term memory, then a logical conclusion can not be drawn based upon our simple experiment, and something was missing, be it a red gummy bear, Red-line Fuel Injector Cleaner, or a plethora of other unknown substances, or insufficient heat cycles, winter gas vs. summer gas chemical make up, etc... -- But I won't argue that. -- If no gel, then no logically definitive conclusions can be drawn. I do not have the interest or resources for further exhaustive investigations in finding all necessary conditions. But back to the point,


If it comes up gel, however, then I DO KNOW, with CERTAINTY, that you are dead wrong. If you were honestly secure in your "knowledge", you'd have nothing to fear with the simple experiment, as it should do as you claim: will NOT gel. Conversely, it appears that you are being extremely evasive about the experiment. That would be the position of a charlatan.



You already picked number 1 & 2, you might as well step up to #3 and help define the experiment. Put up or shut up time.

Last edited by boxsterz; 09-03-2007 at 01:01 AM.
 
Old 09-03-2007, 11:53 PM   #38
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 342
Here's the scanned test result.
__________________
2004 Porsche Boxster S
threpwood is offline  
Old 09-03-2007, 11:55 PM   #39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 342
The graph.

The ICP result shows that the gel contains:
8.5% Kalium
7.6% Molybdenum
3.0% Natrium
and others: B, Al, Zn, Ca, Cu, Ba, Mg, Si
__________________
2004 Porsche Boxster S
threpwood is offline  
Old 09-04-2007, 12:09 AM   #40
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 342
Stolen from Wikipedia (Natrium and K):

Because potassium (K) reacts quickly with even traces of water, and its reaction products are nonvolatile, it is sometimes used alone, or as NaK (an alloy with sodium which is liquid at room temperature) to dry solvents prior to distillation. In this role, it serves as a potent desiccant.

NaK (usually pronounced "nack"), an alloy of sodium and potassium which is liquid at room temperature, is used as a heat-transfer medium. It can also be used as a desiccant for producing dry and air-free solvents.

About Molybdenum:

Because of its lower density and more stable price, molybdenum is implemented in the place of tungsten. Molybdenum can be implemented both as an alloying agent and as a flame-resistant coating for other metals. Although its melting point is 2623 °C, molybdenum rapidly oxidizes at temperatures above 760 °C, making it better-suited for use in vacuum environments.

Molybdenum disulphide (MoS2) is used as a lubricant and an anti-corrosion agent. It forms strong films on metallic surfaces, and is highly resistant to both extreme temperatures and high pressure. Sodium molybdate is a bright orange pigment used with ceramics and plastics. Molybdenum trioxide (MoO3) is used as an adhesive between enamels and metals. Molybdenum powder is used as a fertilizer for some plants, such as cauliflower.

__________________
2004 Porsche Boxster S
threpwood is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page