All-in-One PCs

On 2/2/2016 5:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 08:29:16 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/2/2016 3:00 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:


snip


I don't know about you but I buy tools for what they will do for me
*NOW* and not for whatever diminished value they might fetch at some
distant time in the future.


Eric.
There is a simple analogy. If I want a car with a high resale value, I
would purchase a Bentley, a Ferrari, or another in that price category.
These appleseeds won't admit that.

There is an aspect of all this which hasn't yet been touched: the
time-value of money. Even with a purchase of around $1500, the thought
of a possible $500 better resale value six years in the future carries
very little weight. In fact $150 right now would be at least equally
valuable.


Yup! Ya gotta love these basement kids giving financial advice.

--
PeterN

On 2/2/16 5:41 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

Minisculely better.


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.

It barely mixes because there is no agitation. It just flows straight
from the fill neck to the drain holes.


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 used.

No. Use inexpensive but standards-compliant oil in the lightest weight
your car allows.

Again, there is no danger in mixing oils; and doubly no danger in mixing
the final oil with the very small quantity of flushing oil that will
remain after it is drained.

I have the care and feeding of a race car to consider, so these
questions are not academic to me.

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.

Minisculely better.

i never said it was huge. however, it *is* a cheap and quick way to
clear out a little more sludge.

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.

It barely mixes because there is no agitation. It just flows straight
from the fill neck to the drain holes.

it carries out some of the remaining sludge 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 used.

No. Use inexpensive but standards-compliant oil in the lightest weight
your car allows.

there is no benefit to that.

use the *same* oil as what you normally use.

On 2/2/16 6:04 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

Minisculely better.

i never said it was huge. however, it *is* a cheap and quick way to
clear out a little more sludge.

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.

It barely mixes because there is no agitation. It just flows straight
from the fill neck to the drain holes.

it carries out some of the remaining sludge 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 used.

No. Use inexpensive but standards-compliant oil in the lightest weight
your car allows.

there is no benefit to that.

Of course there is: it drains more completely, thus carrying out more as
it goes.


use the *same* oil as what you normally use.

Nope. That's stupid. All you need is oil that will:

1. Not damage your engine in the short time it will be running with no load.

2. Drain as completely as possible.

In article , Alan Baker
wrote:

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 used.

No. Use inexpensive but standards-compliant oil in the lightest weight
your car allows.

there is no benefit to that.

Of course there is: it drains more completely, thus carrying out more as
it goes.

nobody said otherwise. obviously that's better but it also costs more
and takes more time.

what's not a benefit is using a lightweight oil to do it.

use the *same* oil as what you normally use.

Nope. That's stupid. All you need is oil that will:

1. Not damage your engine in the short time it will be running with no load.

2. Drain as completely as possible.

and the same oil as you normally use qualifies.

On 2/2/16 6:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Baker
wrote:

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 used.

No. Use inexpensive but standards-compliant oil in the lightest weight
your car allows.

there is no benefit to that.

Of course there is: it drains more completely, thus carrying out more as
it goes.

nobody said otherwise. obviously that's better but it also costs more
and takes more time.

what's not a benefit is using a lightweight oil to do it.

"Of course there is: it [a lightweight oil] drains more completely [than
a heavier weight oil, because it has a lower viscosity], thus carry out
more as it [the lightweight oil] goes."


use the *same* oil as what you normally use.

Nope. That's stupid. All you need is oil that will:

1. Not damage your engine in the short time it will be running with no load.

2. Drain as completely as possible.

and the same oil as you normally use qualifies.

No. Unless you use the lightest weight oil already, using a lighter
weight oil will give you more complete flushing with less left behind.

And because you're only going to be using it for about 10 minutes,
there's no need for higher quality oils that you'd actually use for the
next 3000 miles or more.

In article , Alan Baker
wrote:


what's not a benefit is using a lightweight oil to do it.

"Of course there is: it [a lightweight oil] drains more completely [than
a heavier weight oil, because it has a lower viscosity], thus carry out
more as it [the lightweight oil] goes."

how lightweight are you suggesting? cars these days already use very
lightweight oil.

On 2/2/16 6:32 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Baker
wrote:


what's not a benefit is using a lightweight oil to do it.

"Of course there is: it [a lightweight oil] drains more completely [than
a heavier weight oil, because it has a lower viscosity], thus carry out
more as it [the lightweight oil] goes."

how lightweight are you suggesting? cars these days already use very
lightweight oil.


5W20 or 0W20.

Yes, some modern engines specify an oil that light, but even then, you
can buy the least expensive oil the complies with the standard, and that
will be considerably less expensive than the oil you probably actually
want to use while driving.

On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:41:02 -0500, nospam
wrote:

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 there is sludge in your oil pan, something is already wrong. If
there is any need to flush anything out of the engine, something is
wrong. There should not be sludge anywhere in a modern engine, under
any circumstances, as long as the oil and filter are changed at proper
intervals.

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.

You can accomplish the same thing, well actually much more, by just
letting the oil drain overnight. No need to waste a quart of oil.

I don't know much about photography, but I am an ASE, Caddy, Chevy,
Pontiac, and Olds certified master tech. Or was, at least...

On 2/2/2016 8:50 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

OK! I modify my statement. We will never really know how much you forgot.


i much prefer software over hardware. big deal.

Sorry! I must have hit a sore spot.


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.


You cannot show where I said I forgot anything. It so happens that I
served as general counsel to that company, and was on the board, until
the company was sold.

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.


Obviously.

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

You unsuccessfully tried to bash me. End of story

--
PeterN