If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1091
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
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. the easiest method is simply add a quart of whatever oil you're going to be using and let it flow through the system. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1092
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
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. Sorry, but this is a MYTH. the easiest method is simply add a quart of whatever oil you're going to be using and let it flow through the system. |
#1093
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1094
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , dorayme 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. that's an incredibly bad idea. Why? No, please don't say all the obvious and likely irrelevant things. (btw, your head is so full of pc rules that I predicted you would object.) -- dorayme |
#1095
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article ,
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. Wtf bother. Oh, you don't trust yourself to turn off the engine within a sec, you don't have a tough old car like I did? -- dorayme |
#1096
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
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? |
#1097
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
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. -- Ken Hart |
#1098
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 02/02/2016 04:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip 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. Same here, except change "Honda" to "Ford". For $45, I get "The Works": oil change, tire and brake check, fluids and belt(s) check, and a printed report that shows the results. I consider it a bargain. After what I spent for the truck, I prefer having trained people keep it running. -- Ken Hart |
#1099
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 2/2/2016 2:08 PM, PAS wrote:
On 2/2/2016 1:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:37:32 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 2/2/2016 10:25 AM, PAS wrote: On 2/2/2016 9:38 AM, Tim Streater wrote: In article , PAS wrote: On 2/1/2016 5:57 PM, Tim Streater wrote: In article , nospam wrote: what they call tvs have built-in tuners and do *not* require a cable tuner of some sort. that's the whole *point* of having a tuner built in. you don't have to use the built-in tuner, but the fact that it has a tuner makes it a tv. And having a tuner makes you liable for the annual licence fee. If you have screens without tuners (aka monitors) then you can watch tv programmes on catchup but not as they're being broadcast. A bit angels on pinheads-ish (like this whole ****ing thread) but there it is. What, may I ask, is the annual license fee for a TV? My sister lived in London for a number of years and I didn't initially believe her when she said she needed a license for a TV. About £145 IIRC. But yuh gotta remember that the BBC employs more people than ABC, CBS, and NBC put together. At least that was the word in the 80s. Wow, that's a bit steep, IMO. ABC, NBC, and CBS are privately operated businesses, unlike the BBC. However, IMO, the BBC has far better programming. I am a regular viewer of "BBC America". BBC does indeed have some really good programming. Tonight's BBCA offerings include several showings of "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares US", and they are a product of ITV. The UK versions were a product of Channel Four Television Corporation, not the Beeb. However, I do like and watch some BBCA programs. i have to confess that I like the types of shows like "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares". When the US version of that show launched, the first episode took place on Long Island. In another episode, a restaurant I had gone to with my parents when I was young was featured. I record Ramsay's shows and watch them. I do prefer Food Channel's "Restaurant Impossible". We have gone to places visited on Diners, Drive Ins and Dives, and had some different meals for reasonable prices. -- PeterN |
#1100
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , PeterN
wrote: On 2/2/2016 11:00 AM, Neil wrote: On 2/2/2016 10:12 AM, Sandman wrote: In article , PAS wrote: Eric Stevens: "no malware"? That's a myth. Sandman: Nope. Really? http://www.macworld.com/article/2923...-viruses-wait- what.html Yeah, really. There have been a number of reports of malware that has been developed for the Mac, but none reported "in the wild" or affecting end users. So far, if you use a Mac, there is exactly no need to worry about malware. Oh? http://bgr.com/2015/10/21/mac-malware-increase-2015/ Why is this ng so impervious to facts??? It's just that some individuals have a confrontational streak. They have even been known to argue against their prior position and deny it. There is no real Mac malware. There has never ever been a verifiable report of any normal user ever having an infected Mac since Mac OS X began and very little in ye olde days before that either. Only theoretical scaremongering by anti-malware sellers and utter nonsense from anti-Apple know-nothing morons. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|