Did something stupid, please advise

[MNBoxster]

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

[Brucelee]

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!

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

You wanna call me out? Forget it!

You chose #1, run and hide with your tail between your legs.

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.

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.

[threpwood]

Here's the scanned test result.

[threpwood]

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

[threpwood]

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.

Threpwood, I think you got lucky that Porsche covered this under warranty. Good for you!

[threpwood]

My warranty was out like a month before the accident Hence the $3000 for the fix.

Porsche japan initially asked me if I wanted a new overpriced 3.2 engine for $10,000 or take a risk and let them try to fix it for $3000 (with no guarantee of success). I'm glad I made the later choice because it's 'only' the fuel lines that got clogged and nothing else.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by boxsterz

You chose #1, run and hide with your tail between your legs.





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.







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.

I asked you to cool down. Please do so.

Thanks.

threpwood,


Thanks for the update!



Brucelee,

In all fairness, what would you have me do? MNBoxster is doing a disservice to all forum members and automotive enthusiasts. He seems more interested in maintaining his image rather than allowing real knowledge to gel (pun intended), which would benefit everyone.


It's your forum, I understand you may not wish to run it democratically :ah:




I'll wait for our "expert" to chime in, this should be good

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by boxsterz

threpwood,


Thanks for the update!



Brucelee,

In all fairness, what would you have me do? MNBoxster is doing a disservice to all forum members and automotive enthusiasts. He seems more interested in maintaining his image rather than allowing real knowledge to gel (pun intended), which would benefit everyone.


It's your forum, I understand you may not wish to run it democratically :ah:




I'll wait for our "expert" to chime in, this should be good

This is NOT about democracy. You guys can debate all you like. Leave out the name calling and attitude and just make your points without making it personal.

That is all I ask.

[OldBlevins]

I'm no chemist and my knowledge is pretty sketchy, but there's one thing we've run across from time to time in our fleet. We've had instances with our tanker trunks where we've used a material with a positive charge, emptied the tank completely, then filled it with another material that had a negative charge. It gelled in the distribution lines and was a mess to clean up. We've found we had to completely clean the tanks and lines out before putting an opposite-charged material in them, even though the amount of material left in the tank was negligible. *Why* this is, I have no clue.

[MNBoxster]

Hi,

Well, the spectral analysis doesn't reveal the presence of any of the compounds which make-up Water Wetter - check it out yourself at RedLine's MSDS publication: http://www.redlineoil.com/msds/17.pdf There is no mention of any Potassium (Kalium) in RedLine's publication for instance.

The Lab's conclusion also mentions that the gel is consistent with a Long-Life Coolant - exactly what the Boxster uses. The OEM coolant is the equivalent of Artego Coolant in europe and Texaco / Havoline Dex-Cool here in the US.

If you review Havoline's Dex-Cool MSDS - http://www.havoline.com/images/products/pdfs/anti_exlife.pdf , you'll see that it contains Potassium 2-ethylhexanoate in a fairly abundant quantity, 2nd in abundance along with diethylene glycol.

Spectral analysis is a very sound testing method, but the conclusions drawn from it are where there is room for error.

The analysis is not consistent with the chemical make-up of Water Wetter, nor does the Lab specifically identify the sample as being Water Wetter - only a Coolant Booster. There may be other Coolant Boosters (more like conditioners which Water Wetter really isn't) which have a chemical make-up consistent with the sample, I don't know. The information given to us and upon which I made my initial and subsequent research and replies was Water Wetter.

But, the results are consistent with the make-up of Long Term coolant. We already know that Water Wetter was added to the Fuel system either mistakenly (not knowing the proper fill point) or absent-mindedly. What is the possibility that the same was done with Coolant, perhaps even with no cognitive knowledge or memory of it?

I make no prediction one way or the other, except to say that the analysis does not rule out, and may actually seem to favor this as a possibility.

The reported Time Lag is also nagging at me because I cannot believe that an issue such as this would manifest itself so long after the supposed cause was introduced (9 mos.), though without further research, I must allow the possibility to remain open that it well could...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99