All-in-One PCs

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

don't mix weights.

I would go further and say 'don't mix oils', particularlly synthetic
oils. Not all oil bases are compatible. Not all additive packs (yes,
oils do have additives) are compatible.

correct.

If you are going to change oil
type you are advised to use an intermediate flushing oil.

there's no need for a flushing oil if you want to switch. just switch
to the new oil and consider it done. optionally, run the engine for a
short time and change it again to really flush out the old oil.

On 2/2/16 5:25 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:29:46 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 3:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 16:21:16 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Alan Baker
wrote:


I used to turn the engine on for a second or so when the oil was at
the non-flowing and hardly dripping stage to get just a bit more out.
Please don't tell anyone, it is not a practice novices should ever
attempt.

A far better practice would be:

After the original oil has drained out, fill the engine with the
lightest weight, least expensive oil the owner's manual recommends, then
start the car, let it run just a little while to warm (and thus thin)
the oil, then drain that before refilling with your preferred weight and
brand.

don't mix weights.

I would go further and say 'don't mix oils', particularlly synthetic
oils. Not all oil bases are compatible. Not all additive packs (yes,
oils do have additives) are compatible. If you are going to change oil
type you are advised to use an intermediate flushing oil.

Do you realize the failure of logic there?

If you think that changing the type of oil constitutes "mixing" and
mixing oil is bad, then using an intermediate oil doesn't help you out.

If it's a flushing oil its got the minimum of just about anything
except solvents designed to clean out the residue of whatever was
there previously. It will also have a low viscosity to drain easily
and effectively. It's fine for running your engine long enough to
clean out the corners but use it for normal road use at your peril.

Having said all that, I know most people don't use a flushing oil and
get away with changing oil types and makes without noticeable
problems. But people like truckers are more careful.

People are believing myths. Sorry, but they just are.

On 2/2/16 5:27 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Baker
wrote:


I used to turn the engine on for a second or so when the oil was at
the non-flowing and hardly dripping stage to get just a bit more out.
Please don't tell anyone, it is not a practice novices should ever
attempt.

A far better practice would be:

After the original oil has drained out, fill the engine with the
lightest weight, least expensive oil the owner's manual recommends, then
start the car, let it run just a little while to warm (and thus thin)
the oil, then drain that before refilling with your preferred weight and
brand.

don't mix weights.

I'm not suggesting you mix weights. I'm suggesting you use lightweight
oil to flush the system, then drain it, then add the new oil. The small
amount of lightweight oil that remains won't make any difference.

that's mixing weights.

1. No. It really isn't. Are you seriously suggesting that you can never
change the weight of the oil you use in a car to match your
manufacturers suggestions for different temperature ranges? That you
must forever run the same weight as it came with from the factory?

of course you can change weights, but you're doing it for just a few
minutes and then back again.

No. You're changing weights; like from summer to winter weight, or when
moving from one climate to another.


if you're going to do a second flush, use the same weight as what
you're going to be using.

2. Even if it is technically mixing weights, there is nothing wrong with
doing so.

http://www.superstreetbike.com/how-to/engine-oil-viscosity-mythbusters

Point out where in that they say it is in any way bad to mix engine oil
weights. It doesn't, because it isn't.

it's better to not do it.

Sorry, but you have literally NOTHING to back that up.


if you're going to add oil only to run the engine for a few minutes and
drain it, then you should use the same oil you normally use.

That's just costing you extra money unnecessarily.

it's only a couple of bucks for a quart, which is a *lot* less than the
4-5 quarts for your method, *particularly* if it's synthetic.


It's expending money needlessly for the reasons I've already outlined.

an extra quart can extend the life of the engine, which saves money in
the long term.

Nope. Because:

1. It is only cleaning a small portion of the engine (just the drainback
lines from the head into which you pour it. Not the bearings, not the
main oil galleys.. ...nothing else.

2. It has no time in which it can pick up contaminants and solids. When
you fill an engine with oil, run it, then flush it, there is time for
the flush to do some good.


the easiest method is simply add a quart of whatever oil you're going
to be using and let it flow through the system.

How do you suggest doing that?

easy. once the dirty oil flow has stopped (or slowed to a trickle), add
a quart of new oil before you put the drain plug back, then wait a
while for it to flow through. once it stops, put the drain plug back
and fill as usual.

And the only places that oil flows is from the valve cover to the oil pan.

it still cleans out some dirty oil.

A little tiny bit, because unsurprisingly, a drain line... ...drains.


All you'll do is flush the drain-back lines from where you put the oil
into the car (typically through the valve cover) back into the oil pan.
You won't flush anything out from anywhere else, and if your car has a V
engine, you won't even flush out the drain lines on the other head.

you'll never get *everything*, but it will be better than not doing it.

It would be next to completely useless.

nope.

Yes. Really.


That is about as useless a thing as there could possibly be.

nope. it's actually useful, just not a whole lot.

Minisculely useful. Essentially NOT useful.

nope.

Wrong. Sorry.

In article , Alan Baker
wrote:

1. It is only cleaning a small portion of the engine (just the drainback
lines from the head into which you pour it. Not the bearings, not the
main oil galleys.. ...nothing else.

it's better than nothing.

2. It has no time in which it can pick up contaminants and solids. When
you fill an engine with oil, run it, then flush it, there is time for
the flush to do some good.

it mixes with the old oil from the valve cover to the pan. it doesn't
have to get into every nook and crevice because the sludge accumulates
in the pan.

if what you're saying is true, then what drains is as clean as what was
poured in and that's *definitely* not true. have you even done it??

refilling oil and running it is obviously better than a single quart.
nobody said otherwise. it's also more expensive and more time
consuming. the point is using the *same* oil as you normally use.

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:57:59 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 3:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:54:00 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 1:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:41:30 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/30/2016 3:41 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , J.
Clarke wrote:
I remember one Iron Butt when several of the front runners dropped out
when their BMWs failed, all with final-drive problems that did not
afflict Hondas, Harleys, or anything else in the same event. That alone
is sufficient to make me steer clear of BMWs. Although I'm finding that
in general "German innovation" has gone from the basic guts of the
machine working superbly well to seeing how much worthless
overcomplicated technocruft they can add.
That pretty much covers ALL car makers these days, and it's only going
to get worse.

There was an article in the car section of yesterday's newspaper here
that said most people open the bonnet / hood of their car would have
trouble even finding the oil-check stick, let alone doing any actual
repairs. :-(

When I was a young man I would repair just about anything on my car.
That is not the case now, I can't. Under the hood of my car is a sea of
wires and hoses and accessibility to components is also a problem. I do
my own routine maintenance such as oil and filter changes and brakes.
That's about it. But with the exception of a few cars I've had, there
wasn't much more required. As complicated as cars are, they also are
quite reliable.

I have tow Subarus and I like what they do - they color code things like
the oil dipstick, master cylinder cover, and others with yellow plastic
so you can easily identify them and find them. Also, on their 2.5L
engine, the oil filter is under the hood, you don't have to get under
the car to remove and replace it. An oil change takes me less than 30
minutes. I replaced the oil drain plug with a Fumoto valve. I attach a
hose to the valve, put the valve in oil drain bucket, and then flip the
valve and the oil drains.

I get the Honda service agent to change my oil.

1. I get the right oil rather than a substitute 'as good as'.

2. When I take the car in for an oil change, the agents check over
all kinds of other things.

The price is not that high for what I get and I believe the overall
job is a major part of why my cars last as long they do.


Right. Some people like it DIY, and some like paying a little more for a
more seamless, more user-friendly experience.

But "I get the right oil" is pretty lame. You can easily get the correct
oil all by yourself.

Not for Hondas, at least not in New Zealand. They specify particular
synthetic oils which can only be bought from Honda. While you can buy
nominally equivalent oils from other oil companies they won't match
the properties of the additive packs in a number of important details.
Valve train life is the most vulnerable aspect with piston rings and
bores coming next. Mind you, you have to run the cars over a
considerable distance to notice the difference.


I'd be very much surprised if New Zealand's laws in this area were that
different than they are in North America. Auto manufacturers can specify
that oil meets certain (typically SAE) standards, but that's about it.

And do you really imagine that Honda's in other parts of the world need
different oil than yours?

The workshop manual for the US equivalent of my 2003 Honda (Acura) RL
car says:

API Service Grade: Use "Energy
Conserving" SJ or "Energy Conserving
II" SH grade oil. SAE 5 W - 30
preferred. You can also use an oil that
bears the API CERTIFICATION mark.

.... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/2/2016 7:03 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 02/02/2016 04:21 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Of course it is a device.

an antenna is not considered a device by anyone except you.

What? You took a survey? What airline?

ad hominem.

i have a ee degree and have forgotten more about antennas than you'll
ever know. i used to eat drink and sleep this stuff. i've designed and
built devices from a box parts, including ones with antennas.

My degree is in Electronic Communications. I had (allowed to expire) a
Federal Communications Commission First Class Radiotelephone Operators
License with Ship Radar endorsement. I still hold a General Class
License (lifetime).

In electronics, there are passive devices, such as resistors,
capacitors, inductors, and wire. And there are active devices, such as
transistors and vacuum tubes (or for the Europeans, "valves")

Generally, active devices use a power source and provide a signal gain.
Generally.
Generally, passive devices do not have a signal gain. Generally. (A
common exception might be resonant circuits, but any gain at resonance
is balanced by a loss at other frequencies.)

An antenna is a device. It is a passive device. It may have "gain", but
that gain is a ratio based on the received signal strength compared to a
reference antenna. For example, a Yagi style antenna may have a gain of
10 decibels on TV channel 9. But that doesn't mean it amplifies the
signal- it just receives 10 dB more at a certain frequency and azimuth
than a simple non-directional dipole antenna.


I don't know of an electronic wireless communication system that does
not require some sort of antenna. It may be a very small antenna, and it
may have some other function, typically tuning; but if it provides a
coupling between the electronic signal and the atmosphere, it is an
antenna. Old pocket AM radio receivers had a "loopstick", a multi-tap
coil of wire. This was part of the tuning circuit, but it also served as
the antenna.

"Aerial" v. "Antenna"-- This distinction is often found in Ham Radio
circles. An antenna is a part of the transceiver, like a walkie-talkie
antenna, while an aerial is an antenna supported by an elevated
structure, usually a simple piece of wire between two poles.
Functionally, an aerial and an antenna are the same thing. It is a
molehill just waiting to be made into a mountain.


In my 20+ years as a Broadcast Chief Engineer, I used to eat, drink, and
sleep this stuff too. When you start spending time outside your mom's
basement, you'll find lots of interesting people who know lots of things.


Just to satisfy myself, I asked a friend of mine, who designed
gyroscopic and GPS guidance systems, and his answer was identical to
yours.


--
PeterN

On 2/2/16 5:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:57:59 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 3:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:54:00 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 1:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:41:30 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/30/2016 3:41 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , J.
Clarke wrote:
I remember one Iron Butt when several of the front runners dropped out
when their BMWs failed, all with final-drive problems that did not
afflict Hondas, Harleys, or anything else in the same event. That alone
is sufficient to make me steer clear of BMWs. Although I'm finding that
in general "German innovation" has gone from the basic guts of the
machine working superbly well to seeing how much worthless
overcomplicated technocruft they can add.
That pretty much covers ALL car makers these days, and it's only going
to get worse.

There was an article in the car section of yesterday's newspaper here
that said most people open the bonnet / hood of their car would have
trouble even finding the oil-check stick, let alone doing any actual
repairs. :-(

When I was a young man I would repair just about anything on my car.
That is not the case now, I can't. Under the hood of my car is a sea of
wires and hoses and accessibility to components is also a problem. I do
my own routine maintenance such as oil and filter changes and brakes.
That's about it. But with the exception of a few cars I've had, there
wasn't much more required. As complicated as cars are, they also are
quite reliable.

I have tow Subarus and I like what they do - they color code things like
the oil dipstick, master cylinder cover, and others with yellow plastic
so you can easily identify them and find them. Also, on their 2.5L
engine, the oil filter is under the hood, you don't have to get under
the car to remove and replace it. An oil change takes me less than 30
minutes. I replaced the oil drain plug with a Fumoto valve. I attach a
hose to the valve, put the valve in oil drain bucket, and then flip the
valve and the oil drains.

I get the Honda service agent to change my oil.

1. I get the right oil rather than a substitute 'as good as'.

2. When I take the car in for an oil change, the agents check over
all kinds of other things.

The price is not that high for what I get and I believe the overall
job is a major part of why my cars last as long they do.


Right. Some people like it DIY, and some like paying a little more for a
more seamless, more user-friendly experience.

But "I get the right oil" is pretty lame. You can easily get the correct
oil all by yourself.

Not for Hondas, at least not in New Zealand. They specify particular
synthetic oils which can only be bought from Honda. While you can buy
nominally equivalent oils from other oil companies they won't match
the properties of the additive packs in a number of important details.
Valve train life is the most vulnerable aspect with piston rings and
bores coming next. Mind you, you have to run the cars over a
considerable distance to notice the difference.


I'd be very much surprised if New Zealand's laws in this area were that
different than they are in North America. Auto manufacturers can specify
that oil meets certain (typically SAE) standards, but that's about it.

And do you really imagine that Honda's in other parts of the world need
different oil than yours?

The workshop manual for the US equivalent of my 2003 Honda (Acura) RL
car says:

API Service Grade: Use "Energy
Conserving" SJ or "Energy Conserving
II" SH grade oil. SAE 5 W - 30
preferred. You can also use an oil that
bears the API CERTIFICATION mark.

... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.


What does your manual say?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Yeah, so? It's a device. The definition is: Device - a thing made
or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of mechanical
or electronic equipment.

it's a device only when you're talking components.

That is as close as anyone here will ever get to a retraction on
nospam's part. I'll treasure it.

It's a device. Pure and simple and I've shown you that it is properly
called a device by figures with more authority than you have.

you've done no such thing,

Read the cites.

they don't say what you think they do because you're taking things out
of context and twisting things.

you see some words on a link you pulled up in a google search and
pretend you know what they mean.

what's really funny is that it doesn't make one bit of difference and
you don't even realize it.

a tv has a tuner, whether or not it has an antenna attached. period.

no amount of your waffling and arguing is going to change that.

once again, read *these* cites:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/19/a...-the-differenc
e-between-a-hdtv-and-a-moni/
There are two main differences, a tuner and the resolutions. (some
may say 3 if you include the connections) In order to be considered a
HDTV or a TV for that matter the display must include a tuner,
traditionally this meant a NTSC tuner, but today ATSC tuners are also
required on most TVs and soon all TVs will require a ATSC tuner to
get the name TV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television
A standard television set is composed of multiple internal electronic
circuits, including a tuner for receiving and decoding broadcast
signals. A visual display device which lacks a tuner is correctly
called a video monitor rather than a television.

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

In electronics, there are passive devices, such as resistors,
capacitors, inductors, and wire. And there are active devices, such as
transistors and vacuum tubes (or for the Europeans, "valves")

Generally, active devices use a power source and provide a signal gain.
Generally.
Generally, passive devices do not have a signal gain. Generally. (A
common exception might be resonant circuits, but any gain at resonance
is balanced by a loss at other frequencies.)

An antenna is a device. It is a passive device. It may have "gain", but
that gain is a ratio based on the received signal strength compared to a
reference antenna. For example, a Yagi style antenna may have a gain of
10 decibels on TV channel 9. But that doesn't mean it amplifies the
signal- it just receives 10 dB more at a certain frequency and azimuth
than a simple non-directional dipole antenna.

antennas can also be active.

it also doesn't matter.

tony is talking about attaching an external device to a monitor to be
able to watch video content. that is a different type of device.

a tv has a tuner. a monitor does not. period.

In article , PeterN
wrote:


i have a ee degree and have forgotten more about antennas than you'll
ever know. i used to eat drink and sleep this stuff.

We live in the present. That you forgot it all explains a lot. Perhaps
that's why you now write apps.

i didn't say i forgot it all. more of your lies and twists.

i much prefer software over hardware. big deal.

i've designed and
built devices from a box parts, including ones with antennas.


So have I.

we live in the present. that you forgot it all explains a lot. perhaps
that's why you were a lawyer. you couldn't cut it as a hardware
designer.

And I was on the board of a device manufacturer who built RF
implantable spasticity control devices. If you think for one minute that
the receiving antenna was not a separate device, I have a bridge for sale.

i said it's not considered a device in the context in which tony is
using it.

it also doesn't matter one way or the other.

a tv has a tuner and a monitor does not. end of story.