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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.