Quantum Leaps

Grumpy Bear · December 28, 2017

Find the AFR for Gasoline:

Octene (C8H16) is a proxy for pump gasoline according to the Engineering department at Cal State University.

I submit my proof.

Carbon has a molecular mass of 12.0107 gr/ml

Hydrogen has a molecular mass of 1.00794 gr/ml

Eight atoms of carbon * 12.0107 = 96.09

16 atoms of hydrogen * 1.00794 = 16.13

96.09 + 16.13 = 112.21 grams per mole of Octene

Air supplies our oxygen. Air is made up, primarily, of four gasses whose molar masses are:

O2 31.998 gr/ml

N2 28.0134 gr/ml

Ar 39.948 gr/ml

CO2 44.01 gr/ml

Air is not a molecule it’s a mixture so instead of purely additive it’s the ratio of each component to O2 as oxygen is what AFR is based on then added, thus:

N2 = 3.7274 : 1

Ar = 0.0444 : 1

CO2 = 0.0019 : 1

Then molar weights times their ratios are added to find the molar weight of air which then is: 138.27 gr/ml

Now we need to know their molar ratio. That is the number of oxygen molecules to react one molecule of Octene.

Oxygen can form 2 covalent bonds. Carbon can form 4 covalent bonds and the molecule contains 8 carbon atoms or 32 bonds. Divide by the 2 bonds per atom of oxygen giving 16 atoms of oxygen to react the carbon.

Hydrogen can form one covalent bond and the molecule contains 16 hydrogen atoms or 16 bonds. Divide by 2 bonds per atom of oxygen giving 8 atoms of oxygen to react the hydrogen.

Add the 16 atoms for the carbon and the 8 atoms for the hydrogen and we will need 24 atoms of oxygen to react one molecule of Octene. Divide the oxygen count by 2 to give the number of molecular oxygen and we have a molar ratio of 12 oxygen molecules for each 1 Octene molecule for an exact stoichiometric reaction. We have all the pieces of the puzzle we need thus:

(138.27 * l * 12 ) / 112.21 = 14.79:1

(Mole mass of air * l * mole ratio) / mole mass of fuel = AFR

l = Lambda or ratio of stoichiometric (chemical) ratio to actual (measured) ratio (as inferred by free O2). In this case it equals unity.

You can simplify the hunt for the fuels mole ratio by:

CxHy or x + y/4 = mole ratio or in this case 8 + 16/4 = 12 I showed it long hand so this would make sense.

Traditionally in gearhead literature and that of most aftermarket concerns Octane is used instead of Octene adding two more hydrogen atoms and the ratio works out to 15.13:1

So let’s work on this idea that 14.7:1 is a laid in stone number.

Gasoline is a blend of a group of hydrocarbons whose bulk is comprised of the carbon range C4 – C12. Bulk is a big word. C2-C18 is equally common. I’ve made a few gallons of it. Even within this spectrum no two crude sources contain the exact same weight percentages of each constituent as can be seen in example on the Canadian TSB web site: (look it up or don’t).

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2013/R13D0054/lab/20140306/LP1482013.asp

To know exactly what the AFR is for a fuel that fuel would need to be analyzed and each component identified by exact molecular type and its part as a weight percent of the fraction and this entire procedure duplicated as many times are were components then added by weight percent of the whole just as air was. This would also have to be done with each fill of the tank sampled from the tank and not the source.

As this is not practical a proxy was agreed upon in the academic community that approximated the average carbon/hydrogen weighted balance over a good number of field samples and to the whole number values of atoms for that molecule, i.e. there are no partial or fractions of atoms even when the analysis would so indicate. A hair split that prevents precision. Thus we say 14.7:1 regardless of the truth and make a dogma of it.

And the truth is; the difference is so slight and the consequence so small as to not matter except in the academic. And that so ONLY if the fuel is not oxygenated…which most are these days.

Just say’n 14.7 ain’t the number. You can quote whomever you like but you can’t get them to provide a proof of their claim, just hot air expelled in the heat of moment. The chemistry and the math just are not there.

Grumpy Bear · January 5, 2018

Hope he is still taking friends request!

As a younger man my friends were generally much older than I by twenty years or more. They seemed almost able to read a young man’s mind. As I grew older I found this ability less magical and more the reasonable result of someone that had walked the path ahead of me. No idea why that never occurred to the younger me and in that there is a hint about knowledge, truth and wisdom.

Kal, an old boss of mine, told me once or twice; “The problem with common sense is…it isn’t commonly used”. It amused me when first I heard but he rarely meant exactly what he said. My mind is like a dog with a bone. It just won’t let a thought go. Chew on it until the gums bleed. A euphemism for a point of understanding I’m too dense to get first pass.

Kal was actually saying that there is no such thing as common sense, only common experience held by people common to each other. It, knowledge, isn’t universal. The more familiar we are with those persons we hold in common the more likely it becomes that a thing is commonly known to the group. Sense being a word used to convey the belief of or in the thing without actually knowing it. In effect 'common sense' is a knowledge sensed or felt to be true absent proof or understanding and yet believed. Something much different than truth which in its nature is universal.

Engineers can be quite liberal with knowledge and yet very imprecise with truth. Last post is a case in point. They take liberties with precision either believing it, the actual fact, is commonly known thus brevity and horseshoe close will suffice OR on occasion, an obscurity in facts leaves the hearer totally dependent. A marketing tool. Engineers, in general, make poor teachers and mediocre salesmen.

Sadly there is a striking similarity in men that we believe to be of more than usual understanding; such as politicians, men of law, educators and religious leaders. In example: What other explanation could there be for hundreds of religions stemming from a single source? How is this even possible?

It’s possible when we believe that knowledge and truth are the same thing! It’s the nature of the human ego to hold such a ridiculous belief. What I know is the truth, we exclaim! In what other why could we justify ourselves? There is a big problem with this.

If what you know is knowledge absent truth; what you actually know is a lie and to learn the truth of a thing you have to be willing to admit to yourself your wrong to replace one with the other. The fact that when we disagree to the point of conflict over a perceived notion literally means someone involved is absent not only truth but the humility it takes to acquire it.

Forums rarely work well for this reason and peer reviews reflect nothing of the truth of anything except the ignorance of the group. With age is the hope that you learn that you hold more beliefs than truths and are less willing to fight over it. A nice definition of wisdom.

I’m old enough now to have outlived nearly anyone that could be my senior by two or three decades and still be clear of mind which might seem to have left me in some what of a pickle…if it were not for God…who is much older and much wiser. Of whom his son said in John 17:17…”your word is truth”.

Hope he is still taking friends request!

Grumpy Bear · January 18, 2018

The Irrelevance of Truth to Men?

One can provide all the ‘facts’. Ones proofs can be as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar. Arguments can be so logical Aristotle would approve. The Apostle Paul may applaud ones reasonableness till his hands go numb. God might even open heaven and let his sprit descend like a dove…but…If you ain’t say’n what people WANT to hear…

People know the account of Jesus raising his close friend Lazarus from the dead in front of a multitude of eye witnesses. Even those without a Christian belief have heard it. But read the remainder of that account…please..

John 11:44-48 (ASV) long quote to provide context….

“” ⁴⁴ He that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. ⁴⁵ Many therefore of the Jews, who came to Mary and beheld that which he did, believed on him. ⁴⁶ But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done. ⁴⁷ The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs. ⁴⁸ If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.””

Imagine after waiting for thousands of years for the Messiah to arrive. He stands in their midst. For thirty three and a half years he has fulfilled hundreds of prophecies marking him as God son. He has perfectly fulfilled the Mosaic Law. He has raised the dead, cured the ill, feed the hungry, and their biggest worry is…. the Romans will come and take away both our place…?

Their personal social, religious and political status ranked first. When you read this account it is the fact that Christ had enough witnesses that even Rome would hear of it, and did, thus the event undeniable, that set them off.

Tiberius Caesar Dīvī Augustī Fīlius Augustus, Rome’s Emperor at the time could realize their fears!

Now here is a lesson is the logic of mortal men. They feared a man, who would himself die, Caesar; that could put them to death but not prevent their eventual natural death and yet…show no honor to the one, Jesus; with the power to both raise them from the dead and give them eternal life or…worse…fear that he may decide not to.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NASB)

³For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, ⁴and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

People hear and believe what they want. There isn’t any convincing to it…unless…the actual truth is all they desire.

Boardmember · January 20, 2018

So reading this in agreement and understanding gives me opportunity to consider - for a time, then I revert back...almost nothing I can do to prevent it.

We are imperfect. We are provably flawed. We disagree and we fight. A pretty rotten lot, as it were. (I mean some people drive FORDs!*)

But we are forgiven. Asking not much from us, really.

* ok. This is a GM forum, right? I was jesting. Even Ford drivers are eligible...

Grumpy Bear · January 20, 2018

"You expect people to be perfect!!" it's echoed after the fact when those we trusted to be our leaders and teachers choose to abuse their positions. This includes commercial interest who plead for favor (marketing and advertising).

No, just humble enough to admit errors and kindly displaying justice in correcting them if that is indeed what they are and wise enough to step away when not.

Imperfection is the state of humanity, not it's excuse. Imperfection never prevented a vigorous attempt nor exempts ones failure to deliver. The rottenous fruitage of the world is its choice not its destiny.

1 John 5:19 a fitting reference.

Grumpy Bear · January 30, 2018

What are you trying to say?

The traditional rule is that shall is used with first person pronouns (i.e. I and we) to form the future tense, while will is used with second and third person forms (i.e. you, he, she, it, they). For example: I shall be late.

Oxford Dictionary’s explanation concerning the grammatical usage of the words ‘will’ and ‘shall’.

English is not just my first language, it’s my only language. The means by which I communicate and receive information. Free exchange of thought that helps us learn and convey intent and or desires. I recently read that a certain publisher is discontinuing the use of the word shall due to a ‘declining frequency of use’.

Question. Is there a difference between the evolution of language and it’s devolvement?

Personally I believe so. The rule of law, or in this case the rules of grammar, are intended to provide order and clarity of and for thought. It’s the subtle differences in usage and construction of a sentence that provides context and meaning. For example the use of the words ‘can’ and ‘may’. Can asks ability and may ask permission. When Johnny asks his mother, “Can I have a glass of water” his mother’s reply “Yes” acknowledges his ability but does not give permission. If Johnny is unaware of or chooses to ignore this difference his next action may meet with a different outcome than expected.

Proper use is but one means we use to deliver a thought. Not only do we have to choose the correct sense of a word but its meaning as well. For example my use of the word ‘devolvement’ can mean the deconstruction from a higher state to a more base state. It can also simply mean the passing of property from a person to an heir. It’s meaning in this case is derived from is use in context; the context of being used opposed to evolution.

We use an extended pause in speech or a paragraph in writing to separate thoughts, a period to end a complete thought. Use an exclamation point to add emotional color or a question mark to ask a question or propose an alternate conclusion. Contractions without apostrophes are simply misspelled words. Speaking of misspellings. These too may form an alternate word with a meaning not intended such as “meet” and “meat”.

It is one thing to coin a new word to replace an old word and quite another to discontinue the proper use of a word based on the prevailing deconstruction of language so prevalent today. Precision of speech unenforced is akin to speaking in another language altogether.

‘Baby’ became ‘babe’ and now ‘Bae’ is popular when bae actually is a Danish word for turd or in Icelandic ‘bye’. If your bae is also mental you might refer to him or her as “Bae cray-cray”. A week ago I would have found that phrase as intelligible as “muy bambino loco laca basa’.

Some find it a means to make themselves special. I wonder if they realize that if everyone does it, it isn’t special at all. Others are just lazy. A few actually can’t craft a sentence. None of that conveys a clear thought.

There is a decided difference between a mistake in grammar, punctuation or spelling and a purposeful practiced disregard for rule of order. Anyone that can read this and craft any sort of reply can use spell/grammar check and use internet resources to find rules of speech.

Now let’s see how many typographical errors, slang terms, misused meanings, misspelled words and grammar errors can be found in this post. Ya know you what to…..

Grumpy Bear · February 6, 2018

Matt 5:43-48

“You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Grumpy Bear · February 18, 2018

The fella says, “Sharing knowledge is good” then something about bludgeoning baby seals with it. His remarks were not lost on me. In fact they made me do a great deal of thinking. Is that good? To think? Maybe…

Within the discussion that quote is draw from are some remarks made over differences in the oration between multiple parties. Yes, sorry a clumsy sentence but it needs to be to make the a point. Please bear with me.

Let me toss some words out on the table. Knowledge. Truth. Opinion. Fact.

John 18:38 (Wycliffe) Pilate saith to him, What is truth?

Find a University or a street corner and that will be debated and never defined. Too bad Pilate wasn’t privy to Jesus prayer just hours before; he knew what truth was.

John 17:17 (ESV) Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Then again Christ had a very different view of truth than humanity at large. He believed in absolutes. Like the absolute of God’s word. Humans tend to be a bit finicky about what is called truth. This has nothing to do with what is actually true and has everything to do with ones willingness to accept a thing as immovable. You see once a thing becomes the truth and unchangeable there is accountability “to it”.

What we are most eager to accept as true is what we are not held accountable to or for. The sun will rise tomorrow is an example of such a truth.

We are never willing to accept anything as true that differs from our existing knowing OR when such acceptance would demand a change we are not willing to make.

In the human mind truth is subject to our wishes, pride, needs, opinion and facts that were accepted on the basis of our wishes, pride, needs, opinion. Truth isn’t hard to nail down. Humans are. Truth remains unchanged regardless of the human wish, pride, need, opinion or facts as they may be understood. To put down an erroneous thought you have to be willing to put down your wishes, pride, need, opinion…..see any pattern there?

You need to be vulnerable, pride-less and hungry for it. YIKES!!

Then there’s this. Is man incapable of knowing anything as true he isn’t told is true by God? Yes. Even 2+2=4, although not scripture, is truth God supplies. We don’t invent truth. We uncover it. Accepting it is a bit more difficult.

I use some touchstones when in doubt about what is true. First and foremost is the Bible. I trust God over the Minister. In matters of math and science things I can verify are generally accepted by their respective educational communities. I’m much more likely to hold with Newton or Tesla than I am to a forum Troll. I give great weight to SAE tech papers. Published Doctoral Thesis. And yet all but the first can be said to be fraught with doubt. Example. People of science believed for millenniums things like a flat earth and it resting on the backs of various creatures. Some still do.

Job 26:7 (KJ) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

This statement was recorded around 1473 BCE!! What! What happened to the turtles and elephants and cobra’s?

Grumpy Bear · February 21, 2018

How far back in history would one have to go before you stopped believing history was true? For many, they say they believe only in what they see in the moment. But really, if you give it some thought this very moment is in the past. The light from this page your brain interprets as writing took time to pass through the eyes lens to be flipped upside down on land on your retina. Time to travel the synaptic highway to your brain. Time to be flipped right side up and be processed as words. Those words interpreted into some meaning and a tad more for cognitive recognition. Fact is living ‘in the moment’ is literally impossible. And yet it feels so very ‘in the moment’. It has to or you wouldn’t be able to catch a ball or even bang away on your keyboard. It is a brain feature that Ai cannot reproduce. But…you do believe this moment is happening, don’t you?

How about when you set your coffee cup down to click the mouse retrieving this post. Did that happen?

Okay so you believe in your cognitive awareness and you believe, pretty much, in your short term memories. Even though you are fully aware that short term memory is often tricked by the senses. For most of us the answer is still yes.

How about your longer term memories. Do you trust those to be error free? I certainly don’t. Recent experiences with my aged aunt shows my child memories are riddled with errors and fabrications knitted together to bridge some void that connect two fragments together into something rational and believable even if they are not. Is it possible that maybe she doesn’t recall them perfectly either? Sure, still memories that matter can be shored up with additional input such as my father’s recollections being in sync with his sisters. They in sync with other relatives and their contemporaries. Even your siblings and friends of the period may have missing pieces that complete the picture of a single memory. We can add contemporary recall for belief in historical events.

Journals and Diaries. Ah, done in the moment and looked back on even decades later they are pretty good sources much like a photographs are of yourself as a youngster. Another hard record. So hard records are also tools we can use.

Great. This is a good thing because if we only truly believed in what we can see ‘in the moment’ you would not believe you were even born. We just added ‘rational construct’ to the list as a basis to believe a historical event we did not either witness or recall. We are self-aware that we exist and use ‘rational construct’ to validate a belief in our birth even if no one ever told us we were.

Rational construction is the reason you believe in your lineage. You could deny or disbelieve in a twin you haven’t any personal recall of but it would be irrational to deny the existence of your parents, grandparents, great grands….

For history to be history, it also has to be the truth. Everything else is fable. In a very real sense the truth of one’s personal history is the foundation for one’s rationality and sanity.

People believe the ‘history’ and the ‘truth’ that grants them permission for the behaviors they prefer.

Rationality doesn’t seem to be a human priority.

Grumpy Bear · February 26, 2018

The King is dead. Long live the King.

When it comes to sales I know this much is true. If their lips are moving they are either lying or confused enough to not know the difference. I can get mad about it. Would it change anything?

GDI intake carbon build up has got to be one of the muddiest waters we tread. I just finished reading a nine part series on GDI service from ‘National Oil and Lube News’ that told me a thing or two I didn’t know but on the whole they spent nine monthly issues going absolutely nowhere but circles. I know the writer had something to say but she never quite got it said. What she did do was reference thousands of ASE tech papers. A resource I find more believable than most. HOWEVER, the majority of those papers, once run down came pretty early in GDI development and the inevitable teething process any new technology goes through. I cannot say how many times she quoted, “Damage as early as 3,000 miles”. A mantra of mind numbing proportions.

Then I ran down dozens of YouTube videos. Between the crackpots and crackheads is a sprinkling of vendors, manufactures (that is anyone selling something as a cure) and interestingly, educators.

Notably ADPT (Automotive Diagnostic Publishing Training) released a video five years ago on the topic of GDI Carbon failure modes and what the industry has/is doing about it. I didn’t pick up on the date for some time. 2013 if I peg it right. According to ADPT the valve carbon issue has been, for the most part solved in advancements in; 1.) Efficient use of EGR. 2.) Advancement in PCV design. 3.) Piezoelectric PWM fuel injector operation.

Well that information, released in 13 was published ‘after the fact’ meaning the majors already had this handled by that date. Tech is a thing that is never finished of course. However it does 86 allot of nonsense and fear driven marketing. At least it does for me.

Nothing generates cash like omnipresent fear. Even after the big bad wolf is caught and slaughtered the legend of the wolf keeps the woodsman in Mead and pork rind and the villagers all a stir, broke and ignorant spending their meager earnings in the Kings stores.

I’m not going to cross post the link to the video that I’ve already posted in my build thread. Fifth post on page #20.

MikeNH · February 26, 2018

I’m not convinced it’s fixed. Ford and Toyota (maybe others too) likely spent millions, if not tens of millions of dollars to design these engines that run port and direct injection to get around the carbon issue. I’d still be very reluctant to buy something with a GDI engine currently.

Grumpy Bear · February 27, 2018

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 5:42 AM, MikeNH said:

I’m not convinced it’s fixed. Ford and Toyota (maybe others too) likely spent millions, if not tens of millions of dollars to design these engines that run port and direct injection to get around the carbon issue. I’d still be very reluctant to buy something with a GDI engine currently.

(Cross Posted because the answer is the same)

...you can't get them (manufactures) to tell the truth because if they told you it would be an admission of guilt for the past or for the present, the load of which the can not carry. Mircosoft makes a living doing this. What this does is leave the consumer planted on the door step of the wolfs den.

Here's what we know. 19 teens. Decoking was done in barn every 1500 miles. Early on 3,000 mile decoking for GDI, 1930's. No draft tubes, no PCV systems and no detergent plus low mechanical compression ratios and BDC inlet valve closing. A cake baked to fail. German cars tried again in the 50's. More compression, later inlet closings, draft tubes and detergent gas. 10,000 miles. PCV valves were not even part of the equation when GDI was at is worst. It isn't an oil issue. It's a soot issue. Finely powdered soot from periods of weak incomplete combustion diluted with EGR for NOx baked on during the engine off 'hot soak'. The oil just makes it sticky and ugly and hard to deal with.

We went through this same garbage when lead was removed from gasoline. OMG valve seats are burning up right and left. Truth turned out to be, not so much...only if you were hammering the crap out of the motor, which is true for some motors like work trucks and plows, race motors all the time. And because it was true for a few it became true for all. I ran 60's Fords with soft seats 150K well after the lead was out. Point is the story was much bigger than the truth and what part of it that was true, was 'fixed' with hard seat inserts and yet chemical companies promoted 'lead substitute' additives at stupid cost anyway and the public ate it like ice cream on a stick.

The 70's fuel shortages sold carburetor screens by the millions that didn't do a thing but ice them up in humid weather. Rumors of 100 mpg carburetors and a GM plot with Colt Industries (Holley). STP, Stud and Motor Honey ring a any bells when the EP add packages were reduced by federal mandate? Octane boosters that maybe push a point or two for tripling the cost of gas before refinery figures out how to get octane without lead?

This isn't just a GDI issue. It's a game of liars. Those telling and those taking advantage of those lies.

These things get solved...eventually. Who and when???? Can't tell you but I can tell you that millions of Ecotec3 motors are issueless and many in the 50 to 100K area. ..... Now just maybe that will come back and bite me in the a** at a later date and I'll look pretty silly. My bet is not. Both of these are far longer than the majority of owners even hold there trucks. If it does bite me later I'll tell the group. I'm not shamed by being wrong. It's how I learn.

Just say'n....I didn't buy your truck. I don't sleep on your pillow. Do what you believe is best but do it eyes wide open. Consider it without a summary dismissal in fear.

Grumpy Bear · March 7, 2018

Who among you does not stand a little closer to the precipice when a guard rail is in play?

Took long enough to ring the bell.

Two thousand matches. That’s how many chess matches I played Salomon in the course of about ten years. Sal instructed, coached at the high school level and competed when in college. After college as an amateur and finally as a professional. Good enough to be a Pro not good enough to make ends meet doing it. An accomplished journeyman in every sense of the word.

My record against Sal was downright embarrassing. 2/1/1997. No that’s not a date. Two wins, a draw and one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven losses. All losses first then the draw and finally two wins back to back and we retired the challenge.

Sal said he had nothing left to teach me.

Truth is I had nothing left to give and I knew it. I’ve never played since. I didn’t win that final game due to any finely honed and practiced skill. I didn’t win it on luck. I didn’t win it because Sal gave less than his best. Sal made few mistakes and never one he couldn’t recover from. At least against players at my level.

It’s called a Discovered Check. Wikipedia says this:

“In chess, a discovered attack is an attack revealed when one piece moves out of the way of another. Discovered attacks can be extremely powerful, as the piece moved can make a threat independently of the piece it reveals. ... If the discovered attack is a check, it is called a discovered check”.

In this game is was not just a Check but a Discovered Check Double Mate. Rare! Mated by both pieces independently and yet in concert.

Chess is called allot of things. The game than can never be lost twice the same way. A game of strategy. The game of Kings.

But what it really is, is a game of vision. Not just what’s in front of you. But what will be there in the next few moves with little to no variance. That’s important.

Chess played to a win is variance limited to exacting degree in its certainty of conclusion. This is never more powerful and indefensible than when discovered.

It isn’t something that is strategized. Stagey precedes it. It is hard to explain and in all likelihood the reason it took me 1999 games to see it.

The draw was a simple excited desperation. The first win that of the ‘usual’ strategizing. Which could have just as easily been a defeat or draw with any one of countless simple mistakes.

But that last game….it was mental clarity the likes of which I had never before experienced and truth be told, I never have again in a chess game. When it presents itself it is unavoidable, crystal clear and sudden.

Books and teachers place you in a space that makes it likely to happen but not a certain too. It can’t be taught, only experienced.

I had a similar experience happen a few years ago while driving.

You can’t replicate it with computer guided automatic operations.

Safety isn’t something that can be programed into a vehicle. It’s something owned and ‘seen’ by the driver that transcends awareness and whose goal is not personal preservation but rather universal mitigation of human loss in the absolute. Something automated systems can never be programed to do.

Grumpy Bear · March 20, 2018

Final Curtain

I read back over my post divided across several threads and sometimes wonder who wrote them. I also wonder who reads them.

Each has its own theme and draws different readers. It’s a truck site first and no surprise then that Pepper’s build tread produces the most views. I write to it the most and it’s also the easiest to write. Most of the time simply reporting events as they occur and the occasional random thought about something to be done or explored. As my wife doesn’t have an account her build thread I write as a service log and quality observation rant. It gets the least activity. Then there are the non-truck threads.

Quantum Leaps is a bit more heady and by default, polarizing. Personal thoughts and observations reflected off my personal experiences, beliefs and education. This column ebbs in popularity based on those reflections. More pointed to which mirror the reflection finds its source. I find this to be true in these musings that the ones that strike the most cord are those that come from my experiences followed by education and last by a mile my beliefs. That is no surprise as my core beliefs center on not my secular education or experiences but my biblical education.

Yes Dear I have some fun with. Written as a mental burlesque of sorts. A voyeurs look into the funnier moments and exchanges of a relationship. It is also the most popular.

The more personal a writing becomes the more it is read. Increase the detail and expose personal vulnerabilities and you have a winner. The largest segment of my writing is read by closet ‘Peeping Toms’. Same basic format that makes a good TV sitcom. Go figure, right?

Personal reporting takes second place. Life stripped of the more personal notes, truck stuff. A distant third are points that secular education brings to the picnic. Physics and math.

Dead last and by a country mile words that deal with issues of a moral nature which by default are also words of truth derived from the source of all moral nature. God. You can quote Adolf Hitler but not an Apostle. Road & Track is fine, the Bible is not.

So…in effect we’re good with watching through the window as long as you don’t have to ‘know’ the person, get caught or be held accountable. No wonder a biblical quote upsets so many.

It really isn’t about religion being a ‘personal choice’ and none of anyone’s business. It’s about its reminder of inescapable consequences for actions unavoidable to being known. Same reason a liar doesn’t like to be called a liar or a thief a thief publicly.

The shutters are closed on “Yes Dear” and “Quantum Leaps”.