Did something stupid, please advise

[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

[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.

[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.