986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners - View Single Post

08-30-2007, 11:51 PM

@ 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

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.