The Peckish Synapse

customboss · February 5

3 minutes ago, Silverado4x4 said:

Never going to happen Stan my wife is the same way. I can be ready to go when waking up out of bed in in 10-15 minutes that's including a shower but with her nooooooo at least close to 1hr. We can be ready to head out the door and she will be grabbing her purse and stuff I go out and get in the truck and iam waiting and waiting almost to the point of my blood pressure rising then here she comes.

Preach it

Grumpy Bear · February 10

It is that hard

I used to think the most difficult part of being decent was remaining balanced. Yes, that takes some effort.

Like things often do, pinning a thing down is the providence of definitions. Decent is a concept for humanity. It's an absolute with God. It's also why most people reject his definitions and his Sovereignty and authority. Every faction and each person want's that for themself. Odd me thinks. They created nothing. They sustain nothing. This difficulty only exist due to the demand of the selfish to exact a result they are not due. Anyway....

This one is about 'effort' or 'difficulty' in exacting moral excellence.

Be honest and your honesty is taken advantage of. Be moral and you morality is taken advantage of. Is two examples enough? So the effort isn't in maintain balance but in being patient.

But on what OR could it be on whom?

Edited February 10 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · February 10

Odd thoughts.

I went a period of life where I didn't hear my fathers voice. About 35 years I believe. Should I conclude that because he was silent he never existed? Should four of my children who had never heard him speak, never saw a tangible benefit (yea, their existence wouldn't dawn on them as a benefit) conclude he was dead or again, never existed?

Or, might I conclude he was observing from afar and was so pleased with my life he felt no need to communicate? Oh if I were that arrogant I suppose. And arrogant that would be.

Or, might I conclude he was observing and altering his Will as my life progressed. Perhaps that. Would I welcome his voice? Would I fear it?

asilverblazer · February 10

58 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Or, might I conclude he was observing from afar and was so pleased with my life he felt no need to communicate? Oh if I were that arrogant I suppose. And arrogant that would be.

Or, might I conclude he was observing and altering his Will as my life progressed. Perhaps that. Would I welcome his voice? Would I fear it?

...he was observing from afar and gave us the communication we need via his Word. Would I welcome his voice? Would I fear it? Would I seek it? Would I obey it?

Godly fear is not to live in terror of him, it is a reverential fear of displeasing him.

Grumpy Bear · February 10

1 hour ago, asilverblazer said:

...he was observing from afar and gave us the communication we need via his Word. Would I welcome his voice? Would I fear it? Would I seek it? Would I obey it?

Godly fear is not to live in terror of him, it is a reverential fear of displeasing him.

I too believe that.

I'm also aware that of the 8 billion people now alive; belief and observance could not be more fractured toward him. I see how that gets us in trouble. I submit to the idea that he gave us the choice to live without him, just not the ability. It generates "Odd Thoughts" and sometimes they make to print.

asilverblazer · February 11

16 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

he gave us the choice to live without him, just not the ability.

Of course we all have free will, what benefit would there be to create beings with the ability to serve, worship, love but no choice to exercise those abilities. However we do not have the ability. Jer. 10:23. The entire history of mankind, while dotted with magnificent achievements has failed in every meaningful category. Every human rulership has failed to end suffering, violence, sickness, strife, pain, hunger, homelessness, injustice, inequality, etc. Our chance at ruling our selves began in the garden of Eden, and has already ended, specifically in 1914.

The question remains then, who does have the right to rule mankind? Who has the ability?

"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

This prohecy has not been fullfilled.

customboss · February 11

28 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

Of course we all have free will, what benefit would there be to create beings with the ability to serve, worship, love but no choice to exercise those abilities. However we do not have the ability. Jer. 10:23. The entire history of mankind, while dotted with magnificent achievements has failed in every meaningful category. Every human rulership has failed to end suffering, violence, sickness, strife, pain, hunger, homelessness, injustice, inequality, etc. Our chance at ruling our selves began in the garden of Eden, and has already ended, specifically in 1914.

The question remains then, who does have the right to rule mankind? Who has the ability?

"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

This prohecy has not been fullfilled.

I was watching GOT ( game of thrones ) and it came to pass as a former believer that religion just repeats itself with the same stories.
I respect anyone’s deep beliefs but trying to proselytize or feelings you are required to do that is a bore.

asilverblazer · February 11

1 hour ago, customboss said:

I was watching GOT ( game of thrones ) and it came to pass as a former believer that religion just repeats itself with the same stories.

Well, it IS a good story.

1 hour ago, customboss said:

I respect anyone’s deep beliefs but trying to proselytize or feelings you are required to do that is a bore.

Not doing something because you don't want to is YOUR free choice.

Not following the maintenance schedule on your truck is your choice too - don't follow it and you will quickly learn that your trucks creator may have known what they were talking about after all.

Sharing something you find valuable and helpful wth others isn't hard or boring. Thats why we are on this forum in the first place. None of the information shared is meant to be harmful or offensive, just like telling someone that their house is on fire and they should evacuate isn't offensive. Maybe even telling someone that the FIRE THEY STARTED is going to be harmful to them. Some people would value that warning, some would ignore it, some might hate it. The beauty of our free will in action.

I'm not calling you out or arguing with you, simply replying to your comment. No offense intended nor has any been taken.

Grumpy Bear · February 12

Data from Fuelly.COM

EPA figures for this car are 36 city 43 highway and 39 combine MPG

Divide total miles by units and each car was tracked for just short of 20K miles and 500 gallons of fuel. Looks as if the EPA and the actual align quite well statistically.

Raven just surpassed 11K miles using 222 gallons for a life average of right at 50 mpg. Bought in late September so most of these miles are winter miles in northern Illinois.

I am not a hyper-miler by definition. More a 'focused' miler. Just old man conservative. I run tire pressures a few pounds above the door sticker. This effort has been rewarded with a fuel number 28% better than the National Average but still on the chart. So...others have managed to duplicate. I'm not a "one off" event. I expect this number to improve as break-in miles become diluted in the statistics and I finish a full year under much warmer weather and I become more familiar with her vicissitudes.

That said, mechanically I swim upstream. I use what are called 'mpg unfriendly' lubrication. A 7 cSt. CTV fluid replacing the 5 cSt. Mitsubishi (still within the J4 spec) fill and a 5W40 in place of the "book" 0W20. One that runs the heavy end of W40. I expect my driveline to fail any day now. :rolleyes:

I also run 10W40 in a pair of Harley Big Twins instead of the "book" 20W50 even in the desert. They run coolers

Pepper runs a Synthetic Euro spec 5W30 and not the Dexos1Gen2 "Energy Conserving" 20W labeled a 5W30 fluid the 'Book" calls for. One with a 10W40 HTHS value. She's closing in in 200K of leak free, noise free, oil consumption free, squeaky clean miles. I expect that driveline to fail any day as well.

Fact is, I've done what the circumstances and my ever growing knowledge have permitted for sixty years with these types of results. That is NOT a brag. NOT and Look at me. It's a REPORT OF RESULTS.

Yes I started maintaining and driving before I was 10. Farm kid. I popped out and dad put a wrench in my hand and groomed the brain God gave me. No work-work no eat-eat. Know what he taught me?

"Don't step on the Landmines"

KARNUT · February 12

It funny what makes us smile and tickles our fancy. I went from fast and loud to quiet and fast enough. Funny how all the work I put towards performance in the past now comes from the manufacturer in regular vehicles. The minivan is just a tick behind my Impala SS of the past. Same with my wife’s Genesis. Just a tick off my Trailblazer SS. Those are so quiet you barely hear them run. I don’t care for the latest or greatest in P/Us anymore. I like old technology just fine. Having several vehicles to choose from to drive vs one expensive new one is more enjoyable these days. My latest under 10K has me laughing to the bank. I like to travel still as long as it’s driving. Halving the manufacturer recommended maintenance is my new normal. My fuel mileage usually exceeds the manufacturer claims while my driving is on the spirited side. I’ll drive anything that is a little entertaining. I dislike slow. Sometimes you got to move. Or at least I do. I’m finally satisfied vehicle wise. I don’t need the next new thing. It’s probably my age.

Grumpy Bear · February 12

News fit to Print (Mineral Oil)

https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/new-age-base-stocks/

https://klinegroup.com/energy/brightstock-shortage/

Just the first two I picked up off the Google floor. Older articles that are aging well. Interesting more that what is happening is WHY in these posts.

Almost all the bases I used as a very young man were Group I paraffinic. Solvent refined first cut solvent refined and cold processed products before hydro-possessing or hydro-treating. Those would unfold over my career in refining. These were at best 1K mile oils being marketed as 2 to 3K mile oils. Not if you liked you equipment.

As Group II and Group III became available there was a fog about what to call them and at the time we didn't really have the Group system well defined. Every molecule in either is naturally occurring, just not in the quantity or selectivity the processes delivered. Still 'true synthetics', Esters mainly at that time, were not naturally occurring substances so Groups II and III, as the system evolved continued to be called "Mineral Oils". More appropriately they should have been called "Mineral BASED Oils". These should have advanced the OCI a good deal and yet, due to blending with Group I, did not in most cases and 3K continued to be somewhat of a hard celling.

These new Groups, II and III, had and have very NARROW and very LOW natural viscosities. The newer Group II+ and Group III+/GTL's, even lower and narrower. The former topping out at a natural W20 and the latter half that to near zero grades.

Most of the touchy feely of Esters that created the horror stories and limited their use lingers on today well after problems solved.

When POA's became a thing the viscosity puzzle was solved as was the multiple fraction fabric of Groups II and III. Newer yet at m-PAO's with even wider viscosity possibilities and actualities. But let's back up the buss a bit now that some ground work has been laid.

Group I had a very wide viscosity range, poor pour point even after solvent extraction in the heavier cuts so the lighter cuts made most of the PCMO and fortified with OCP VI polymers to give us multigrade oils but it took quite a bit and they don't last very long hence the limits on OCI. 10W30 and 10W40's were quite popular and a good deal of the heavy cuts could be used in them to 'barbell' blend part of the OCP deficiencies away. Progress without much progress but a better utilization of resources.

Most of what hindered Groups II and III from being such a big deal laid in the narrow and low range of viscosities they could be produced in. The response was 5W oils blending Group I and II and later Groups I and III with LARGER doses of OCP VII to end up at basically the same place but with a much brighter marketing face. (hey that rhymed) Did move the market off 2K and now a solid 3K was 'possible' if not always doable.

I'll skip the next few decades to make this shorter and more germane to the links. Group I is nearly dead via obsolescence and mothballing of equipment. The 1926 Cincinnati unit that was transferred to El Paso was shut down some decades ago, i.e. A unit I worked. Group III has exploded in processing capability and it's drawbacks along with it.

Add that OCP is still the cheapest VII that can be used and now regulation has added a horse to the team driving ever lower oil viscosities. Has nothing to with engineering improvements in ICE platforms. Has to do with supply and the DEMANDS of regulation World Wide. This explosion in Group III/III+/GTL has not been matched by PAO's.

Group II/III's are cheaper to produce, OPC cheaper to use and so box store oils get all the disadvantages of the chemistries with all the hype the market can muster.

PAO and POE's having the largest VI's require the lowest percentages of VII's and at the lowest molecular weights. Some blender still using this combination, driven by profits, use OCP VM's. Some do not and use the more shear stable Star Polymers and a couple don't use any at all.

There is a world of possibilities in between them. AN's, multiple esters and more recently even some OS-PAGS and newer player Group VI PIO's. Not all of which are being used to their best SYERGIES. (new buzz word for ya in bold)

As a science guy it troubles me to say that marketing of science is being bent to the will of the markets and regulation instead of regulation and marketing following the science. Selective data mining that gives misleading statement like Group III CAN be just as good as a PAO an anchor for the mind to believe it true, ALWAYS. Think I wrote something on this pages ago in "Garbage In, Garbage Out". A gullible public sips on the Kool-Aid served up by the enablers.

I haven't even touched on Re-refined and Renewable lubricants and mainly because I can't get straight answers to straight questions from anyone I trust would tell the truth. I expect there is some good stuff hiding it that group of products but I am too old to be a Guinea Pig....AGIAN. :crackup:

Edited February 12 by Grumpy Bear

customboss · February 12

40 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

News fit to Print (Mineral Oil)

https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/new-age-base-stocks/

https://klinegroup.com/energy/brightstock-shortage/

Just the first two I picked up off the Google floor. Older articles that are aging well. Interesting more that what is happening is WHY in these posts.

Almost all the bases I used as a very young man were Group I paraffinic. Solvent refined first cut solvent refined and cold processed products before hydro-possessing or hydro-treating. Those would unfold over my career in refining. These were at best 1K mile oils being marketed as 2 to 3K mile oils. Not if you liked you equipment.

As Group II and Group III became available there was a fog about what to call them and at the time we didn't really have the Group system well defined. Every molecule in either is naturally occurring, just not in the quantity or selectivity the processes delivered. Still 'true synthetics', Esters mainly at that time, were not naturally occurring substances so Groups II and III, as the system evolved continued to be called "Mineral Oils". More appropriately they should have been called "Mineral BASED Oils". These should have advanced the OCI a good deal and yet, due to blending with Group I, did not in most cases and 3K continued to be somewhat of a hard celling.

These new Groups, II and III, had and have very NARROW and very LOW natural viscosities. The newer Group II+ and Group III+/GTL's, even lower and narrower. The former topping out at a natural W20 and the latter half that to near zero grades.

Most of the touchy feely of Esters that created the horror stories and limited their use lingers on today well after problems solved.

When POA's became a thing the viscosity puzzle was solved as was the multiple fraction fabric of Groups II and III. Newer yet at m-PAO's with even wider viscosity possibilities and actualities. But let's back up the buss a bit now that some ground work has been laid.

Group I had a very wide viscosity range, poor pour point even after solvent extraction in the heavier cuts so the lighter cuts made most of the PCMO and fortified with OCP VI polymers to give us multigrade oils but it took quite a bit and they don't last very long hence the limits on OCI. 10W30 and 10W40's were quite popular and a good deal of the heavy cuts could be used in them to 'barbell' blend part of the OCP deficiencies away. Progress without much progress but a better utilization of resources.

Most of what hindered Groups II and III from being such a big deal laid in the narrow and low range of viscosities they could be produced in. The response was 5W oils blending Group I and II and later Groups I and III with LARGER doses of OCP VII to end up at basically the same place but with a much brighter marketing face. (hey that rhymed) Did move the market off 2K and now a solid 3K was 'possible' if not always doable.

I'll skip the next few decades to make this shorter and more germane to the links. Group I is nearly dead via obsolescence and mothballing of equipment. The 1926 Cincinnati unit that was transferred to El Paso was shut down some decades ago, i.e. A unit I worked. Group III has exploded in processing capability and it's drawbacks along with it.

Add that OCP is still the cheapest VII that can be used and now regulation has added a horse to the team driving ever lower oil viscosities. Has nothing to with engineering improvements in ICE platforms. Has to do with supply and the DEMANDS of regulation World Wide. This explosion in Group III/III+/GTL has not been matched by PAO's.

Group II/III's are cheaper to produce, OPC cheaper to use and so box store oils get all the disadvantages of the chemistries with all the hype the market can muster.

PAO and POE's having the largest VI's require the lowest percentages of VII's and at the lowest molecular weights. Some blender still using this combination, driven by profits, use OCP VM's. Some do not and use the more shear stable Star Polymers and a couple don't use any at all.

There is a world of possibilities in between them. AN's, multiple esters and more recently even some OS-PAGS and newer player Group VI PIO's. Not all of which are being used to their best SYERGIES. (new buzz word for ya in bold)

As a science guy it troubles me to say that marketing of science is being bent to the will of the markets and regulation instead of regulation and marketing following the science. Selective data mining that gives misleading statement like Group III CAN be just as good as a PAO an anchor for the mind to believe it true, ALWAYS. Think I wrote something on this pages ago in "Garbage In, Garbage Out". A gullible public sips on the Kool-Aid served up by the enablers.

I haven't even touched on Re-refined and Renewable lubricants and mainly because I can't get straight answers to straight questions from anyone I trust would tell the truth. I expect there is some good stuff hiding it that group of products but I am too old to be a Guinea Pig....AGIAN.

Try RLI 5w40 HD low ash formula. It will rival any POE. Please call Bill Garmier or his people in lab or the production facility in Ohio. He’ll like you. You are both solid Christian men.

Edited February 12 by customboss

Grumpy Bear · February 12

4 hours ago, customboss said:

Try RLI 5w40 HD low ash formula. It will rival any POE. Please call Bill Garmier or his people in lab or the production facility in Ohio. He’ll like you. You are both solid Christian men.

4 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I am too old to be a Guinea Pig....AGIAN.

My last trip the Guinea Pig farm was a disaster. QSUD Dexos1Gen2 licensed PCMO in Dizzy. Makes me not that smart as it was the second time in my life of such a failure. The other? Guinea Pigging experiment was the Pennzoil Pennzane molecule. Toyota Paseo motor toasted in 80K. There will not be a third. :mad: Not by choice anyway.

I expect the RLI itself is right as rain. :rolleyes: Remember? I used some in Dizzy on the story it would hold up better under dilution. No joy. Since then I educated myself on those claims and they are true!! In fractions of a centipoise it takes some pretty special equipment to detect and not enough to be 'in the field' effective. Twice the NOACK of what I'm using so no, not PAO level, and their 5 and 10W40 list a HTHS of >2.9 and 3 respectively?? They do have polarity going for them.

OnTheReel · February 12

RLI still has “overstock” of 5w30 at $3.50/QT when you buy a case. For that price it’s gotta be good for something. Just not for anything I own.

customboss · February 13

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

My last trip the Guinea Pig farm was a disaster. QSUD Dexos1Gen2 licensed PCMO in Dizzy. Makes me not that smart as it was the second time in my life of such a failure. The other? Guinea Pigging experiment was the Pennzoil Pennzane molecule. Toyota Paseo motor toasted in 80K. There will not be a third. Not by choice anyway.

I expect the RLI itself is right as rain. Remember? I used some in Dizzy on the story it would hold up better under dilution. No joy. Since then I educated myself on those claims and they are true!! In fractions of a centipoise it takes some pretty special equipment to detect and not enough to be 'in the field' effective. Twice the NOACK of what I'm using so no, not PAO level, and their 5 and 10W40 list a HTHS of >2.9 and 3 respectively?? They do have polarity going for them.