Did something stupid, please advise

[Cloudsurfer]

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

[insite]

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?

[MNBoxster]

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

[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?

[MNBoxster]

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

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.

[MNBoxster]

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

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.

[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