I know previously, you offset the canola's lack of additives by running it mixed in with Shell Rotella. Do you plan to do that same thing with your Ranger?
Canola Follow-up
- Thread starter TuBon_gRips
- Start date
- Status
No. Not initially, at least.
I'm going to run it blended with Motorcraft 5w30 and send a sample in every 1500 until it's degraded at least as much as the 3k baseline Motorcraft sample I start from. That could happen at or before 1500, or it could go out 6k or more. We'll know when I'm done.
If it doesn't at least match the straight Motorcraft, I will try a more stout base oil, but I don't think it will be T6 in this engine.
I'm going to run it blended with Motorcraft 5w30 and send a sample in every 1500 until it's degraded at least as much as the 3k baseline Motorcraft sample I start from. That could happen at or before 1500, or it could go out 6k or more. We'll know when I'm done.
If it doesn't at least match the straight Motorcraft, I will try a more stout base oil, but I don't think it will be T6 in this engine.
Glad you are back!
Always thought this was very interesting and had wondered what ever happened. What's an engine for science ha ha.
Always thought this was very interesting and had wondered what ever happened. What's an engine for science ha ha.
I tried 25% castor oil 2 years ago. After 2k miles, the engine started to tick and clack at startup. Went back to Valvoline 20w50 racing or something and after 200 miles the startup noise went away. Did a flush and all is pretty much smooth now. Uffah.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Kschachn
Well, you can call it an additive but at the 25% level I would not. That is more of a substitution, on most of my cars that would be a quart or more.
And you don't care what the automotive manufacturer would say? And it's being put into an engine anyway?
I'm not picking a fight. But you are delusional if you don't think that a 25% canola oil blend in a modern automotive engine is going to be greeted with "wow what a great idea". This is a discussion board, not a cheerleading board for any random idea that might be posted.
And yes I would anticipate that if you are doing this experiment, it is for some reason. A reason that includes some perceived deficiency with today's PCMO that is corrected or improved by the use of canola oil.
Continuing to berate me for questioning you does not help your cause. Rational explanations and discussion would.
I too think certain experiments are interesting but I have yet to see the technical reasoning behind this one. if this is one of those, "Here, hold my beer" type of experiments to just see what might happen, then ok.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Some of the uses canola has seen (military service -- and not for cooking -- and as a heavy machinery lube) are much more demanding than the inside of your typical engine. These are constant-use, minimal-maintenance scenarios, which seems to coincide with my experience; this oil seemed like it was gonna last dang near forever until I stopped using it for a while.
Maybe so, but I am pretty sure these are additized oils with special anti-oxidant packages, not virgin Canola oils.
It will be interesting to see your baseline VOA, UOA's, and observation on the visual properties of this mix.
I suspect what you are now seeing is a polymerization of the Canola oil mix.
And it can only increase the rate of polymerization of the resulting mix. The Anti-Oxidants and the AW's in the 75% host oil are the only thing slowing accelerated wear and oil degradation.
Well, you can call it an additive but at the 25% level I would not. That is more of a substitution, on most of my cars that would be a quart or more.
And you don't care what the automotive manufacturer would say? And it's being put into an engine anyway?
I'm not picking a fight. But you are delusional if you don't think that a 25% canola oil blend in a modern automotive engine is going to be greeted with "wow what a great idea". This is a discussion board, not a cheerleading board for any random idea that might be posted.
And yes I would anticipate that if you are doing this experiment, it is for some reason. A reason that includes some perceived deficiency with today's PCMO that is corrected or improved by the use of canola oil.
Continuing to berate me for questioning you does not help your cause. Rational explanations and discussion would.
I too think certain experiments are interesting but I have yet to see the technical reasoning behind this one. if this is one of those, "Here, hold my beer" type of experiments to just see what might happen, then ok.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Some of the uses canola has seen (military service -- and not for cooking -- and as a heavy machinery lube) are much more demanding than the inside of your typical engine. These are constant-use, minimal-maintenance scenarios, which seems to coincide with my experience; this oil seemed like it was gonna last dang near forever until I stopped using it for a while.
Maybe so, but I am pretty sure these are additized oils with special anti-oxidant packages, not virgin Canola oils.
It will be interesting to see your baseline VOA, UOA's, and observation on the visual properties of this mix.
I suspect what you are now seeing is a polymerization of the Canola oil mix.
And it can only increase the rate of polymerization of the resulting mix. The Anti-Oxidants and the AW's in the 75% host oil are the only thing slowing accelerated wear and oil degradation.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
if this is one of those, "Here, hold my beer" type of experiments to just see what might happen, then ok.
You haven't picked up on that yet?
if this is one of those, "Here, hold my beer" type of experiments to just see what might happen, then ok.
You haven't picked up on that yet?
MolaKule
Staff member
For Historical reference.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Trajan
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-029.html
Has data, but no pictures of engine internals, so be warned
And let us not forget the context:
Quote:
The canola-based motor oil project was initiated in 1996 in response to a need for a motor oil compatible with, and nontoxic to, fragile ecosystems. The oils are composed primarily of high oleic canola as the base oil. This oil is combined with sources of hydroxy fatty acids and wax esters or estilides. Additional modifications include the inclusion of bio-based pour-point depressants and supplemental antioxidants.
Italics are mine for emphasis.
Yup, exactly. The patent referenced in that work, US 5,888,947 which covers specific compositions of vegetable based oils even references this problem:
The percentage of long chain fatty acids also responds to
the function of time. After 25 hours, the percentage of long
chain fatty acids changes from an estimated 95 percent of the
oil composition to 90 percent. At 40 hours, the long chain
component measures 80 to 85 percent of the oil composition.
What is suspected to be occurring is a mechanical fracturing
or dimeriZation of the polyunsaturated fatty acid compo
nents of the invention. This fracturing may be due to a loss
of antioxidants or a loss of antioxidant function at the
unsaturated sites.
Specifically canola oil which contains high percentage of unsaturated fatty acids is highly susceptible to oxidation, especially at elevated temperatures. Without a highly tuned concentration of antioxidants the oil will be likely to break down easily. While the temperatures of storage in an engine will cause very slow breakdown, the elevated temperatures of a running engine will speed the process.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Trajan
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-029.html
Has data, but no pictures of engine internals, so be warned
And let us not forget the context:
Quote:
The canola-based motor oil project was initiated in 1996 in response to a need for a motor oil compatible with, and nontoxic to, fragile ecosystems. The oils are composed primarily of high oleic canola as the base oil. This oil is combined with sources of hydroxy fatty acids and wax esters or estilides. Additional modifications include the inclusion of bio-based pour-point depressants and supplemental antioxidants.
Italics are mine for emphasis.
Yup, exactly. The patent referenced in that work, US 5,888,947 which covers specific compositions of vegetable based oils even references this problem:
The percentage of long chain fatty acids also responds to
the function of time. After 25 hours, the percentage of long
chain fatty acids changes from an estimated 95 percent of the
oil composition to 90 percent. At 40 hours, the long chain
component measures 80 to 85 percent of the oil composition.
What is suspected to be occurring is a mechanical fracturing
or dimeriZation of the polyunsaturated fatty acid compo
nents of the invention. This fracturing may be due to a loss
of antioxidants or a loss of antioxidant function at the
unsaturated sites.
Specifically canola oil which contains high percentage of unsaturated fatty acids is highly susceptible to oxidation, especially at elevated temperatures. Without a highly tuned concentration of antioxidants the oil will be likely to break down easily. While the temperatures of storage in an engine will cause very slow breakdown, the elevated temperatures of a running engine will speed the process.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
if this is one of those, "Here, hold my beer" type of experiments to just see what might happen, then ok.
You haven't picked up on that yet?
OK, and had not got that message as I had initially thought this might be a serious chemistry experiemnt.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
if this is one of those, "Here, hold my beer" type of experiments to just see what might happen, then ok.
You haven't picked up on that yet?
OK, and had not got that message as I had initially thought this might be a serious chemistry experiemnt.
Okay?
If you're not interested in what I'm doing, why are you here, then?
Some would call you a hater. I call you a fan and thank you for your sponsorship.
If you're not interested in what I'm doing, why are you here, then?
Some would call you a hater. I call you a fan and thank you for your sponsorship.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
if this is one of those, "Here, hold my beer" type of experiments to just see what might happen, then ok.
You haven't picked up on that yet?
OK, and had not got that message as I had initially thought this might be a serious chemistry experiemnt.
Ah, well, there's a pseudo-scientific basis behind it; but it's still very much "hold my beer". A little less scientific would be filling the crank case with Flex-seal, which you can find a video of on Youtube; that was really and truly a "what will happen?" gag, with no thought toward the obvious.
You seem adamant that what will happen here is obvious, though, in the face of evidence to the contrary. That, my friend, is hardly scientific; much less so, in fact, than my willingness to subject a second engine to the experiment to attempt to confirm the results I observed in the first.
Science does not ignore evidence because it disagrees with theory, which is what you seem [censored] bent on doing.
EDIT: Why is "(edit - mod)" censored here? That's just silly.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
if this is one of those, "Here, hold my beer" type of experiments to just see what might happen, then ok.
You haven't picked up on that yet?
OK, and had not got that message as I had initially thought this might be a serious chemistry experiemnt.
Ah, well, there's a pseudo-scientific basis behind it; but it's still very much "hold my beer". A little less scientific would be filling the crank case with Flex-seal, which you can find a video of on Youtube; that was really and truly a "what will happen?" gag, with no thought toward the obvious.
You seem adamant that what will happen here is obvious, though, in the face of evidence to the contrary. That, my friend, is hardly scientific; much less so, in fact, than my willingness to subject a second engine to the experiment to attempt to confirm the results I observed in the first.
Science does not ignore evidence because it disagrees with theory, which is what you seem [censored] bent on doing.
EDIT: Why is "(edit - mod)" censored here? That's just silly.
Last edited by a moderator:
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Okay?
If you're not interested in what I'm doing, why are you here, then?
Some would call you a hater. I call you a fan and thank you for your sponsorship.
If I wasn't interested in what you are doing I wouldn't be commenting and giving caution to the wind.
I could care less what other's might call me. I do not hate any product or anyone here, and am not a sponsor.
I am an independent formulator not beholding to anyone. Over-The-Counter (OTC) or additional components added to an oil do have consequences, and people need to be warned to be extremely careful on what they might add to a finished and fully formulated lubricant.
Okay?
If you're not interested in what I'm doing, why are you here, then?
Some would call you a hater. I call you a fan and thank you for your sponsorship.
If I wasn't interested in what you are doing I wouldn't be commenting and giving caution to the wind.
I could care less what other's might call me. I do not hate any product or anyone here, and am not a sponsor.
I am an independent formulator not beholding to anyone. Over-The-Counter (OTC) or additional components added to an oil do have consequences, and people need to be warned to be extremely careful on what they might add to a finished and fully formulated lubricant.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I am an independent formulator not beholding to anyone.
So you have a stake in discounting the positive results thus far in the experiment and pushing for discontinuation of the experiment, then. Got it. Thank you for finally declaring your bias.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
people need to be warned to be extremely careful on what they might add to a finished and fully formulated lubricant
That warning was received *and acknowledged* long ago and you have been asked to please stop repeating it. I do welcome you to the new thread when I start it, to post the warning once, for all newcomers who might not have already visited this thread.
Beyond that, we all get it by now and it's not productive to keep harping on about it, other than to support your own bias. If that's not what you're after, there's really no reason for you to keep going on about it.
I am an independent formulator not beholding to anyone.
So you have a stake in discounting the positive results thus far in the experiment and pushing for discontinuation of the experiment, then. Got it. Thank you for finally declaring your bias.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
people need to be warned to be extremely careful on what they might add to a finished and fully formulated lubricant
That warning was received *and acknowledged* long ago and you have been asked to please stop repeating it. I do welcome you to the new thread when I start it, to post the warning once, for all newcomers who might not have already visited this thread.
Beyond that, we all get it by now and it's not productive to keep harping on about it, other than to support your own bias. If that's not what you're after, there's really no reason for you to keep going on about it.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
You seem adamant that what will happen here is obvious, though, in the face of evidence to the contrary. That, my friend, is hardly scientific; much less so, in fact, than my willingness to subject a second engine to the experiment to attempt to confirm the results I observed in the first.
From 8/23/13: After it sat awhile it had a thick appearance and rancid smell.
If that is not degradation due to oxidation and polymerization I am not sure what it would be called.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Science does not ignore evidence because it disagrees with theory, which is what you seem [censored] bent on doing.
That doesn't make sense as my posts are based on the science of chemistry and experience in formulating.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
EDIT: Why is "(edit - mod)" censored here? That's just silly.
A question for the mods, not me.
As I said before, if this is a "Here, hold my beer" experiment then please continue, but the science does not support your assumptions
You seem adamant that what will happen here is obvious, though, in the face of evidence to the contrary. That, my friend, is hardly scientific; much less so, in fact, than my willingness to subject a second engine to the experiment to attempt to confirm the results I observed in the first.
From 8/23/13: After it sat awhile it had a thick appearance and rancid smell.
If that is not degradation due to oxidation and polymerization I am not sure what it would be called.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Science does not ignore evidence because it disagrees with theory, which is what you seem [censored] bent on doing.
That doesn't make sense as my posts are based on the science of chemistry and experience in formulating.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
EDIT: Why is "(edit - mod)" censored here? That's just silly.
A question for the mods, not me.
As I said before, if this is a "Here, hold my beer" experiment then please continue, but the science does not support your assumptions
Last edited by a moderator:
From 8/23/13: After it sat awhile it had a thick appearance and rancid smell.
That's actually from 8/29/13, and you're quoting yourself.
What I actually said, on 8/13/13: Like I said, everything was going great until I let it sit and rot for over 2 months. Just before I started driving it regularly again (last week), the oil had begun smelling rancid, now feels a little thicker than it probably should, has darkened up a lot, I can tell it's oxidized quite a bit, and the engine is definitely running like it's due for an oil change. [...] It is also important to note that this oil was put in on February 3rd, so it's a bit over 6 months old. A decent OCI for a vehicle that's been driven, and driven hard. [...] this oil seemed like it was gonna last dang near forever until I stopped using it for a while.
And following up on 8/18/13 with: Over the last week of driving the vehicle regularly, I noticed the oil losing its rancid smell and dark color and becoming less sticky; my engine also stopped sounding like it was begging me to change out this oil. I then recalled that esters absorb water from the surrounding air, which would certainly cause all of those issues. After yesterday's 160 mile romp, the oil is back to the light amber color it was before I parked the car for 2 months, feels just as slick as I remember it, and once again smells like motor oil.
If that were degradation due to oxidation and polymerization, it wouldn't have reverted with heat. Water absorption, on the other hand...
If you're really interested in getting to the truth of the matter, be honest in your posts, rather than quoting *yourself* as though your words represent what I posted.
That's actually from 8/29/13, and you're quoting yourself.
What I actually said, on 8/13/13: Like I said, everything was going great until I let it sit and rot for over 2 months. Just before I started driving it regularly again (last week), the oil had begun smelling rancid, now feels a little thicker than it probably should, has darkened up a lot, I can tell it's oxidized quite a bit, and the engine is definitely running like it's due for an oil change. [...] It is also important to note that this oil was put in on February 3rd, so it's a bit over 6 months old. A decent OCI for a vehicle that's been driven, and driven hard. [...] this oil seemed like it was gonna last dang near forever until I stopped using it for a while.
And following up on 8/18/13 with: Over the last week of driving the vehicle regularly, I noticed the oil losing its rancid smell and dark color and becoming less sticky; my engine also stopped sounding like it was begging me to change out this oil. I then recalled that esters absorb water from the surrounding air, which would certainly cause all of those issues. After yesterday's 160 mile romp, the oil is back to the light amber color it was before I parked the car for 2 months, feels just as slick as I remember it, and once again smells like motor oil.
If that were degradation due to oxidation and polymerization, it wouldn't have reverted with heat. Water absorption, on the other hand...
If you're really interested in getting to the truth of the matter, be honest in your posts, rather than quoting *yourself* as though your words represent what I posted.
MolaKule
Staff member
I never quoted you or me nor said so, as that was a summary of what you said which is this:
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
...Just before I started driving it regularly again (last week), the oil had begun smelling rancid, now feels a little thicker than it probably should, has darkened up a lot, I can tell it's oxidized quite a bit, and the engine is definitely running like it's due for an oil change...
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
If that were degradation due to oxidation and polymerization, it wouldn't have reverted with heat. Water absorption, on the other hand...
How do you know it reverted to a previous state? How do you de-polymerize and de-oxidate something with heat?
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
If you're really interested in getting to the truth of the matter,...
If you could state some scientific facts and testing results, pictures, etc., maybe we can really see what is happening. Otherwise it is just an interesting experiment into the Wild Unknown.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
...Just before I started driving it regularly again (last week), the oil had begun smelling rancid, now feels a little thicker than it probably should, has darkened up a lot, I can tell it's oxidized quite a bit, and the engine is definitely running like it's due for an oil change...
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
If that were degradation due to oxidation and polymerization, it wouldn't have reverted with heat. Water absorption, on the other hand...
How do you know it reverted to a previous state? How do you de-polymerize and de-oxidate something with heat?
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
If you're really interested in getting to the truth of the matter,...
If you could state some scientific facts and testing results, pictures, etc., maybe we can really see what is happening. Otherwise it is just an interesting experiment into the Wild Unknown.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
It was directed at both of you; EdHackett because he asked, and you because your information and assumption were both incorrect.
You're not providing me any new information here, nor anything I haven't already stated myself. There's a reason I chose an oil with an antioxidant additive content that far exceeds the requirements of my application; I have stated this in the past, as well.
At this point, I have to ask; are you dense, or just trolling?
And this will win you some Kembro fans, not!
EdHackett and Solarent are professional chemists and engineers so I think their statements have validity.
It was directed at both of you; EdHackett because he asked, and you because your information and assumption were both incorrect.
You're not providing me any new information here, nor anything I haven't already stated myself. There's a reason I chose an oil with an antioxidant additive content that far exceeds the requirements of my application; I have stated this in the past, as well.
At this point, I have to ask; are you dense, or just trolling?
And this will win you some Kembro fans, not!
EdHackett and Solarent are professional chemists and engineers so I think their statements have validity.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
How do you know it reverted to a previous state? How do you de-polymerize and de-oxidate something with heat?
In answer to your first question, disregarding your claim that the oil darkening and becoming sticky was oxidation and polymerization, the oil lightening back up and losing its stickiness is a fairly strong indicator that *something* changed.
Your second question is kind of my point. IF it were oxidation and polymerization, it would have gotten *worse* with heat, not better.
It got better. Ergo, it was likely not what you claim.
What I posited, water absorption, would have improved with heat. The oil improved with heat. Therefore, it is much more likely that my suspicions are correct than it is that yours are, though it's just as likely that the true cause lies elsewhere and we're both wrong.
My point is that you are clearly wrong here, based on empirical observation.
We both AGREE that time and heat would make oxidation and polymerization WORSE. Observation showed that the desirable properties of the oil IMPROVED with time and heat, which indicates that oxidation and polymerization were not the cause of the observed degradation.
You keep coming back to oxidation and polymerization, then pointing out that what I observed disagrees with your hypothesis. Yes, I get that. The question is: DO YOU?
How do you know it reverted to a previous state? How do you de-polymerize and de-oxidate something with heat?
In answer to your first question, disregarding your claim that the oil darkening and becoming sticky was oxidation and polymerization, the oil lightening back up and losing its stickiness is a fairly strong indicator that *something* changed.
Your second question is kind of my point. IF it were oxidation and polymerization, it would have gotten *worse* with heat, not better.
It got better. Ergo, it was likely not what you claim.
What I posited, water absorption, would have improved with heat. The oil improved with heat. Therefore, it is much more likely that my suspicions are correct than it is that yours are, though it's just as likely that the true cause lies elsewhere and we're both wrong.
My point is that you are clearly wrong here, based on empirical observation.
We both AGREE that time and heat would make oxidation and polymerization WORSE. Observation showed that the desirable properties of the oil IMPROVED with time and heat, which indicates that oxidation and polymerization were not the cause of the observed degradation.
You keep coming back to oxidation and polymerization, then pointing out that what I observed disagrees with your hypothesis. Yes, I get that. The question is: DO YOU?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
It was directed at both of you; EdHackett because he asked, and you because your information and assumption were both incorrect.
You're not providing me any new information here, nor anything I haven't already stated myself. There's a reason I chose an oil with an antioxidant additive content that far exceeds the requirements of my application; I have stated this in the past, as well.
At this point, I have to ask; are you dense, or just trolling?
And this will win you some Kembro fans, not!
EdHackett and Solarent are professional chemists and engineers so I think their statements have validity.
The dense or trolling comment was directed at you and only you; as was the "not providing me any new informatiojn" remark. When you asked if my post was directed at EdHackett or at you, and I indicated that it was directed at both of you, EdHackett was asking a question, I was answering it; and you were behaving like an imbecile, so my answer was also directed at you.
I never addressed Solarent; in fact, I don't recall seeing a post from them in this thread, so where did that name come from? As far as EdHackett, he was respectful toward me and I responded in kind. You, on the other hand, have been disrespectful toward me and the current smear campaign is merely an extension of that.
You are only discrediting yourself when you argue in circles and actively attempt to make it look as though I've attacked other members here. Now, you do provide good information (you just repeat it -- a lot) and it would be sad to lose you as a resource on this site over something so silly, so can we please move on?
EDIT: Correction: Solarent did chime in on 8/21/13, and I did respond to their post, agreeing that the result I got seemed odd affirming that I would also like to hear from you on the matter. Funny enough, you never did respond other than to say polymerization and oxidation would not have been reversed in that way; a clear indicator that this is not what we were dealing with, which you have refused to consider since.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
It was directed at both of you; EdHackett because he asked, and you because your information and assumption were both incorrect.
You're not providing me any new information here, nor anything I haven't already stated myself. There's a reason I chose an oil with an antioxidant additive content that far exceeds the requirements of my application; I have stated this in the past, as well.
At this point, I have to ask; are you dense, or just trolling?
And this will win you some Kembro fans, not!
EdHackett and Solarent are professional chemists and engineers so I think their statements have validity.
The dense or trolling comment was directed at you and only you; as was the "not providing me any new informatiojn" remark. When you asked if my post was directed at EdHackett or at you, and I indicated that it was directed at both of you, EdHackett was asking a question, I was answering it; and you were behaving like an imbecile, so my answer was also directed at you.
I never addressed Solarent; in fact, I don't recall seeing a post from them in this thread, so where did that name come from? As far as EdHackett, he was respectful toward me and I responded in kind. You, on the other hand, have been disrespectful toward me and the current smear campaign is merely an extension of that.
You are only discrediting yourself when you argue in circles and actively attempt to make it look as though I've attacked other members here. Now, you do provide good information (you just repeat it -- a lot) and it would be sad to lose you as a resource on this site over something so silly, so can we please move on?
EDIT: Correction: Solarent did chime in on 8/21/13, and I did respond to their post, agreeing that the result I got seemed odd affirming that I would also like to hear from you on the matter. Funny enough, you never did respond other than to say polymerization and oxidation would not have been reversed in that way; a clear indicator that this is not what we were dealing with, which you have refused to consider since.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
The dense or trolling comment was directed at you and only you; as was the "not providing me any new informatiojn" remark. When you asked if my post was directed at EdHackett or at you, and I indicated that it was directed at both of you, EdHackett was asking a question, I was answering it; and you were behaving like an imbecile, so my answer was also directed at you.
You attempt to discourage questions and alternative scientific observations by resorting to name calling? Very professional of you.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
You are only discrediting yourself when you argue in circles and actively attempt to make it look as though I've attacked other members here. Now, you do provide good information (you just repeat it -- a lot) and it would be sad to lose you as a resource on this site over something so silly, so can we please move on?
I am not going anywhere soon.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
..a clear indicator that this is not what we were dealing with, which you have refused to consider since.
How do you or did you know that was not what was occurring?
Yes, please move on!
The dense or trolling comment was directed at you and only you; as was the "not providing me any new informatiojn" remark. When you asked if my post was directed at EdHackett or at you, and I indicated that it was directed at both of you, EdHackett was asking a question, I was answering it; and you were behaving like an imbecile, so my answer was also directed at you.
You attempt to discourage questions and alternative scientific observations by resorting to name calling? Very professional of you.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
You are only discrediting yourself when you argue in circles and actively attempt to make it look as though I've attacked other members here. Now, you do provide good information (you just repeat it -- a lot) and it would be sad to lose you as a resource on this site over something so silly, so can we please move on?
I am not going anywhere soon.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
..a clear indicator that this is not what we were dealing with, which you have refused to consider since.
How do you or did you know that was not what was occurring?
Yes, please move on!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
You attempt to discourage questions and alternative scientific observations by resorting to name calling? Very professional of you.
First, I'm here on leisure time, not as a professional. Second, I welcomed your comments the first handful of times you repeated them, and I welcome anything *new* you have to contribute. What I'm attempting ti discourage is the constant beating if the same mf'n dead horse. Further, I didn't *call* you an imbecile, I said you were acting like one, there's a huge difference.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I am not going anywhere soon.
I hope not. As I said, you're a valuable resource on this site; even if you are somewhat repetitive.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
How do you or did you know that was not what was occurring?
I don't and I didn't. In fact, I'm sure oxidation and polymerization *were* occurring. I'm equally sure they were not the cause of the darkening and stickiness. How? As you're already said, heat and time would not reverse those processes; yet the darkening and stickiness both reversed with heat ant time. I've explained this numerous times *today*, just as I did 5 years ago. Again, and I'm asking (which I'll remind you is different from calling), are you dense, or just trolling?
You seem like a pretty bright guy most of the time, so I doubt that you're dense. That doesn't leave many other options.
More to the point, why is it that you've taken to attacking my image and focusing on me asking if you were trolling 5 years ago rather than answering the relevant comments regarding the actual oil? Is it too much for you to face that you made the case against your point for me?
You attempt to discourage questions and alternative scientific observations by resorting to name calling? Very professional of you.
First, I'm here on leisure time, not as a professional. Second, I welcomed your comments the first handful of times you repeated them, and I welcome anything *new* you have to contribute. What I'm attempting ti discourage is the constant beating if the same mf'n dead horse. Further, I didn't *call* you an imbecile, I said you were acting like one, there's a huge difference.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I am not going anywhere soon.
I hope not. As I said, you're a valuable resource on this site; even if you are somewhat repetitive.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
How do you or did you know that was not what was occurring?
I don't and I didn't. In fact, I'm sure oxidation and polymerization *were* occurring. I'm equally sure they were not the cause of the darkening and stickiness. How? As you're already said, heat and time would not reverse those processes; yet the darkening and stickiness both reversed with heat ant time. I've explained this numerous times *today*, just as I did 5 years ago. Again, and I'm asking (which I'll remind you is different from calling), are you dense, or just trolling?
You seem like a pretty bright guy most of the time, so I doubt that you're dense. That doesn't leave many other options.
More to the point, why is it that you've taken to attacking my image and focusing on me asking if you were trolling 5 years ago rather than answering the relevant comments regarding the actual oil? Is it too much for you to face that you made the case against your point for me?
- Status
Similar threads
