Discussion:
Oil burning
(too old to reply)
Brian W Lawrence
2017-09-29 17:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Some 'insights' from James Allen's weekend debate:


<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
.
2017-09-29 19:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Alan Baker
2017-09-29 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
And in that article, an actual F1 engineer said:

'So your reader Tachi almost has the race description right except the
engines do use oil as a lubricant so he can’t count all of the oil as
additional power – far from it in fact.

But a small percentage could be considered as having done its job as
lubrication and still find its way to the combustion chamber.

Now it isn’t fuel, so it isn’t burning at the same ‘power’ rate. However
I am sure that in recent years oil development has had a consideration
for also making it burn well when and if it does find itself in the
combustion chamber at a convenient time in the ‘bang’ cycle.

For qualifying: it is true that within the rules you can replenish oil
after qualifying in parc ferme.

So potentially if you can have a different, much faster flow of oil into
that combustion chamber in qualifying than you would naturally need or
get in the race, then you would benefit at a higher rate in qualifying.

Tachi has made a reasonable point in that respect. However his numbers
are not correct and you cant burn at 100kg/hour on a lap because it also
has a rev condition in the rules. Plus you do have to lift off at sone
point around the lap!'

But what would he know compared to you, right?

:-)
bra
2017-09-30 01:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
But a small percentage could be considered as having done its job as
lubrication and still find its way to the combustion chamber.
I and Mercedes, and every engine mfr on earth, would like to know of an internal-combustion reciprocating engine that does NOT have oil present in the cylinder and combustion chamber from (and before) the instant it turns over.

Dry running, anyone?

I had a Plymouth Satellite Sebring with a 318 engine that must have gained lots of horsepower. In fact when I took it in for a non-binding / non governmental emissions test, the technician annotated the form with "Do the planet a favour, Dave, and junk this thing."
Alan Baker
2017-09-30 02:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by Alan Baker
But a small percentage could be considered as having done its job as
lubrication and still find its way to the combustion chamber.
I and Mercedes, and every engine mfr on earth, would like to know of an internal-combustion reciprocating engine that does NOT have oil present in the cylinder and combustion chamber from (and before) the instant it turns over.
Dry running, anyone?
I had a Plymouth Satellite Sebring with a 318 engine that must have gained lots of horsepower. In fact when I took it in for a non-binding / non governmental emissions test, the technician annotated the form with "Do the planet a favour, Dave, and junk this thing."
Don't imagine that the situation of a Plymouth Satellite Sebring running
API rated oil inadvertently has anything to do with what you CAN do with
an F1 engine where the oil is completely different and the computer
knows about its presence.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is a fuel FLOW limit in F1:
100kg/hr (IIRC), and so that creates an opportunity to add another
combustible substance that you've got handy to EXCEED that limit.

Provided the computer knows how much air is being ingested, there is no
reason that it can't allow for the addition of oil to the process in
order to generate more power for short bursts, I grant you.
Brian W Lawrence
2017-09-30 04:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
.
2017-09-30 14:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.
You're quite welcome and most deserving.

But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
Alan Baker
2017-09-30 14:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.
You're quite welcome and most deserving.
But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.

It really is that simple.

Does a small amount of oil provide as much power as the same amount of
additional gasoline would? No. Of course not.

But in F1, you are gasoline flow LIMITED. In that scenario, any
additional energy you get is gravy.
.
2017-09-30 15:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.
You're quite welcome and most deserving.
But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, friends,
enemies and neutrals, as formerly reported, a pre-
school drop out of the impression that a spark-
ignition, gasoline fueled, internal combustion
engine is a boiler.

The imbecile should attempt fueling his mommy's
gasoline powered vehicle with fuel oil, kerosene,
wood dust, sugar, charcoal briquets ...
Post by Alan Baker
It really is that simple.
He's not kidding, he really is *that* simple.
Post by Alan Baker
Does a small amount of oil provide as much power as the same amount of
additional gasoline would? No. Of course not.
But in F1, you are gasoline flow LIMITED. In that scenario, any
additional energy you get is gravy.
Alan Baker
2017-10-01 20:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.
You're quite welcome and most deserving.
But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, friends,
enemies and neutrals, as formerly reported, a pre-
school drop out of the impression that a spark-
ignition, gasoline fueled, internal combustion
engine is a boiler.
Nope.
Post by .
The imbecile should attempt fueling his mommy's
gasoline powered vehicle with fuel oil, kerosene,
wood dust, sugar, charcoal briquets
Nope.
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
It really is that simple.
He's not kidding, he really is *that* simple.
Post by Alan Baker
Does a small amount of oil provide as much power as the same amount of
additional gasoline would? No. Of course not.
But in F1, you are gasoline flow LIMITED. In that scenario, any
additional energy you get is gravy.
You notice how your snappy comebacks came to an abrupt end here?
.
2017-10-01 21:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.
You're quite welcome and most deserving.
But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, friends,
enemies and neutrals, as formerly reported, a pre-
school drop out of the impression that a spark-
ignition, gasoline fueled, internal combustion
engine is a boiler.
Nope.
Post by .
The imbecile should attempt fueling his mommy's
gasoline powered vehicle with fuel oil, kerosene,
wood dust, sugar, charcoal briquets
Nope.
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
It really is that simple.
He's not kidding, he really is *that* simple.
Post by Alan Baker
Does a small amount of oil provide as much power as the same amount
of additional gasoline would? No. Of course not.
But in F1, you are gasoline flow LIMITED. In that scenario, any
additional energy you get is gravy.
No, it's *STLL* not a boiler, meathead.
Post by Alan Baker
You notice how your snappy comebacks came to an abrupt end here?
'Out at 3rd, out at 2nd, out at 1st - whether
also out at home is of very little consequence.'

This clip from my youth, thru 1:30:25, well describes his reply.

Alan Baker
2017-10-01 21:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.
You're quite welcome and most deserving.
But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, friends,
enemies and neutrals, as formerly reported, a pre-
school drop out of the impression that a spark-
ignition, gasoline fueled, internal combustion
engine is a boiler.
Nope.
Post by .
The imbecile should attempt fueling his mommy's
gasoline powered vehicle with fuel oil, kerosene,
wood dust, sugar, charcoal briquets
Nope.
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
It really is that simple.
He's not kidding, he really is *that* simple.
Post by Alan Baker
Does a small amount of oil provide as much power as the same amount
of additional gasoline would? No. Of course not.
But in F1, you are gasoline flow LIMITED. In that scenario, any
additional energy you get is gravy.
No, it's *STLL* not a boiler, meathead.
So you're seriously suggesting that if you add a small amount of a
heavier hydrocarbon blend to the lighter blend that is gasoline, it
suddenly can't be burnt in an internal combustion engine?
larkim
2017-09-30 16:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What do the SCCA rules say about it, and are they the same as the FIA rules ;-) ?
Alan LeHun
2017-10-01 00:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?

How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
--
Alan LeHun
Edmund
2017-10-01 17:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?
There are additional advantages too but that doesn't take away anything
from what he said.
Post by Alan LeHun
How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
This is the wrong question, they still have a couple kg OIL to burn
which can produce a significant amount of ENERGY just by burning
it alone. As said there are other advantages too which are very likely
exploited to the max too.

Edmund
alister
2017-10-01 17:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?
There are additional advantages too but that doesn't take away anything
from what he said.
Post by Alan LeHun
How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
This is the wrong question, they still have a couple kg OIL to burn
which can produce a significant amount of ENERGY just by burning it
alone. As said there are other advantages too which are very likely
exploited to the max too.
Edmund
I think the best comments I have seen Pro oil burning is not for the
possible extra power it gives (& I personally expect oil in the mixture
to normally have a detrimental affect) would be the ability to introduce
Anti-Knock additives that would otherwise be banned in the fuel
--
The luck that is ordained for you will be coveted by others.
.
2017-10-01 17:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?
There are additional advantages too but that doesn't take away anything
from what he said.
Post by Alan LeHun
How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
This is the wrong question, they still have a couple kg OIL to burn
which can produce a significant amount of ENERGY just by burning it
alone. As said there are other advantages too which are very likely
exploited to the max too.
Edmund
I think the best comments I have seen Pro oil burning is not for the
possible extra power it gives (& I personally expect oil in the mixture
to normally have a detrimental affect) would be the ability to introduce
Anti-Knock additives that would otherwise be banned in the fuel
As I've already reported, oil could suppress pre-
ignition/detonation, but would and does also
contaminate and degrade performance. Water alone
would, did, and does do a superior job. The "oil
burning" smokescreen is a story fabricated from
whole cloth by losers.
Alan Baker
2017-10-01 21:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?
There are additional advantages too but that doesn't take away anything
from what he said.
Post by Alan LeHun
How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
This is the wrong question, they still have a couple kg OIL to burn
which can produce a significant amount of ENERGY just by burning it
alone. As said there are other advantages too which are very likely
exploited to the max too.
Edmund
I think the best comments I have seen Pro oil burning is not for the
possible extra power it gives (& I personally expect oil in the mixture
to normally have a detrimental affect) would be the ability to introduce
Anti-Knock additives that would otherwise be banned in the fuel
As I've already reported, oil could suppress pre-
ignition/detonation, but would and does also
contaminate and degrade performance. Water alone
would, did, and does do a superior job. The "oil
burning" smokescreen is a story fabricated from
whole cloth by losers.
WHY "would and does" it do that, bright boy?

Explain it, or just shut up.
.
2017-10-01 21:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?
There are additional advantages too but that doesn't take away anything
from what he said.
Post by Alan LeHun
How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
This is the wrong question, they still have a couple kg OIL to burn
which can produce a significant amount of ENERGY just by burning it
alone. As said there are other advantages too which are very likely
exploited to the max too.
Edmund
I think the best comments I have seen Pro oil burning is not for the
possible extra power it gives (& I personally expect oil in the mixture
to normally have a detrimental affect) would be the ability to introduce
Anti-Knock additives that would otherwise be banned in the fuel
As I've already reported, oil could suppress pre-
ignition/detonation, but would and does also
contaminate and degrade performance. Water alone
would, did, and does do a superior job. The "oil
burning" smokescreen is a story fabricated from
whole cloth by losers.
I should have also mentioned know-nothing haters.
Post by Alan Baker
WHY "would and does" it do that, bright boy?
Explain it, or just shut up.
He can matriculate, study, and discover or, as I've mentioned
before, contract for services with me and learn the how and why.
Alan Baker
2017-10-01 22:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning
controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?
There are additional advantages too but that doesn't take away anything
from what he said.
Post by Alan LeHun
How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
This is the wrong question, they still have a couple kg OIL to burn
which can produce a significant amount of ENERGY just by burning it
alone. As said there are other advantages too which are very likely
exploited to the max too.
Edmund
I think the best comments I have seen Pro oil burning is not for the
possible extra power it gives (& I personally expect oil in the mixture
to normally have a detrimental affect) would be the ability to introduce
Anti-Knock additives that would otherwise be banned in the fuel
As I've already reported, oil could suppress pre-
ignition/detonation, but would and does also
contaminate and degrade performance. Water alone
would, did, and does do a superior job. The "oil
burning" smokescreen is a story fabricated from
whole cloth by losers.
I should have also mentioned know-nothing haters.
Post by Alan Baker
WHY "would and does" it do that, bright boy?
Explain it, or just shut up.
He can matriculate, study, and discover or, as I've mentioned
before, contract for services with me and learn the how and why.
Or if you had an explanation of why it wouldn't work, you could put it
right here...

...but you really don't have one, do you?

Maximum fuel flow rate for an F1 car is 100kg/hr. If you burned all the
oil allowable (1.2l/hr on the older spec), you're changing the mixture
of hydrocarbons only slightly.

So why won't that burn successfully?

What do you believe would happen?

Or are you just to much of a pussy to make any REAL statement on the matter?
t***@gmail.com
2017-10-02 01:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Or are you just to much of a pussy to make any REAL statement on the matter?
Hey Stupid. That would be 'too' much.
Alan Baker
2017-10-01 21:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?
There are additional advantages too but that doesn't take away anything
from what he said.
Post by Alan LeHun
How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
This is the wrong question, they still have a couple kg OIL to burn
which can produce a significant amount of ENERGY just by burning it
alone. As said there are other advantages too which are very likely
exploited to the max too.
Edmund
I think the best comments I have seen Pro oil burning is not for the
possible extra power it gives (& I personally expect oil in the mixture
to normally have a detrimental affect) would be the ability to introduce
Anti-Knock additives that would otherwise be banned in the fuel
Now that could make sense as well; assuming the engines have the extra
capacity to advance the timing beyond the normal limit and get
additional power from the advance if they can avoid detonation.
Alan LeHun
2017-10-02 00:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
the ability to introduce
Anti-Knock additives that would otherwise be banned in the fuel
Yep. It's the oil itself that has the anti-knock properties, and it also
allows for higher turbo pressure because of improved detonation
characteristics.

Yes, the oil has a high calorific value, but it is a lot less than the
fuel itself, and the quantities being ingested in the combustion chamber
are relatively small so energy derived 'simply' from combustion are low.
Certainly compared to what can be achieved by virtue of higher turbo
boost and knock limits.
--
Alan LeHun
Edmund
2017-10-02 07:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
the ability to introduce Anti-Knock additives that would otherwise be
banned in the fuel
Yep. It's the oil itself that has the anti-knock properties, and it also
allows for higher turbo pressure because of improved detonation
characteristics.
Yes, the oil has a high calorific value, but it is a lot less than the
fuel itself,
Do you have figures?
Post by Alan LeHun
and the quantities being ingested in the combustion chamber
are relatively small so energy derived 'simply' from combustion are low.
Certainly compared to what can be achieved by virtue of higher turbo
boost and knock limits.
I am not disagreeing here but it is not one or the other, it is both.
What is next? unleaded oil?
Alan LeHun
2017-10-02 20:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Alan LeHun
Yes, the oil has a high calorific value, but it is a lot less than the
fuel itself,
Do you have figures?
No. Ianae I'm afraid.
Post by Edmund
Post by Alan LeHun
and the quantities being ingested in the combustion chamber
are relatively small so energy derived 'simply' from combustion are low.
Certainly compared to what can be achieved by virtue of higher turbo
boost and knock limits.
I am not disagreeing here but it is not one or the other, it is both.
What is next? unleaded oil?
--
Alan LeHun
Alan Baker
2017-10-01 21:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
If it burns, and you can get it into the cylinder, it can produce power.
It really is that simple.
Are you serious? Is that what you think the oil burning controversy was
about? That extra power that was derived 'simply' from the burning of
the oil?
That is what the controversy is about. If it afforded no advantage,
there'd be no fuss.
Post by Alan LeHun
How much extra power do you think that would have provided? 1/100hp
perhaps?
The energy density of motor oil is pretty much the same as gasoline, so
if you can burn a litre of oil in addition during the course of a lap
when you would normally burn 3 litres of gasoline (about 75 litres per
100 km times a 4 km lap as a ballpark), then even assuming you can only
get half the benefit of that energy, you're still upping your power (for
one lap) by something like 16%.

Remember: this is a fuel consumption rate-limited formula: 100kg per
hour. Burning some oil allows you to exceed that limit for hydrocarbon
combustion.
Brian W Lawrence
2017-09-30 17:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.
You're quite welcome and most deserving.
But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
I don't recall expressing any opinions on the matter, but I
expect you can recall them vividly.
.
2017-09-30 17:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Thanks.
You're quite welcome and most deserving.
But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
I don't recall expressing any opinions on the matter, but I
expect you can recall them vividly.
And of course nothing that I wrote, with the exception
of quoting your insight remark which you now deny, came
remotely close to suggesting that you had, but I accept
your admission that you see things that aren't there.
Brian W Lawrence
2017-10-01 10:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
I don't recall expressing any opinions on the matter, but I
expect you can recall them vividly.
And of course nothing that I wrote, with the exception
of quoting your insight remark which you now deny, came
remotely close to suggesting that you had, but I accept
your admission that you see things that aren't there.
Why do you suppose I enclosed insight in quotation marks?
It's a convention in printed media that such quotes indicate
that the word(s) should not be taken literally, insight is a
word that could be used to describe whatever the anonymous F1
engineer said, but does not mean that said engineer actually
had any insight.

I have no idea whether he displayed any insight - as you pointed
out, I wouldn't understand it if he did. And in fact, I don't
know because I didn't read it. Contrary to your assumption I
posted the link so that those who think they understand the
issue could read what he said and offer their opinions. I wasn't
recommending it as either good or bad data, it was just data.
.
2017-10-01 16:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
I don't recall expressing any opinions on the matter, but I
expect you can recall them vividly.
And of course nothing that I wrote, with the exception
of quoting your insight remark which you now deny, came
remotely close to suggesting that you had, but I accept
your admission that you see things that aren't there.
Why do you suppose I enclosed insight in quotation marks?
It's a convention in printed media that such quotes indicate
that the word(s) should not be taken literally, insight is a
word that could be used to describe whatever the anonymous F1
engineer said, but does not mean that said engineer actually
had any insight.
Quotation marks have more than a single connotation.
The contentious point has not been "insight" but
"oil burning", which was *not* in quotation marks.
Post by Brian W Lawrence
I have no idea whether he displayed any insight - as you pointed
out, I wouldn't understand it if he did.
Then why did you post it other than in an attempt
to give credence to an unsupportable libel.
Post by Brian W Lawrence
And in fact, I don't
know because I didn't read it.
So you posted and recommended an article that you
didn't even read?
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Contrary to your assumption I
posted the link so that those who think they understand the
issue could read what he said and offer their opinions.
You posted a pro "oil burning" article but don't have
the courage of your convictions to either admit that
or acknowledge that you even read it.
Post by Brian W Lawrence
I wasn't
recommending it as either good or bad data, it was just data.
Do you have anything else that you neither know anything
about nor have researched that you'd recommend to others?
Brian W Lawrence
2017-10-02 15:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
I don't recall expressing any opinions on the matter, but I
expect you can recall them vividly.
And of course nothing that I wrote, with the exception
of quoting your insight remark which you now deny, came
remotely close to suggesting that you had, but I accept
your admission that you see things that aren't there.
Why do you suppose I enclosed insight in quotation marks?
It's a convention in printed media that such quotes indicate
that the word(s) should not be taken literally, insight is a
word that could be used to describe whatever the anonymous F1
engineer said, but does not mean that said engineer actually
had any insight.
Quotation marks have more than a single connotation.
The contentious point has not been "insight" but
"oil burning", which was *not* in quotation marks.
Post by Brian W Lawrence
I have no idea whether he displayed any insight - as you pointed
out, I wouldn't understand it if he did.
Then why did you post it other than in an attempt
to give credence to an unsupportable libel.
Post by Brian W Lawrence
And in fact, I don't
know because I didn't read it.
So you posted and recommended an article that you
didn't even read?
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Contrary to your assumption I
posted the link so that those who think they understand the
issue could read what he said and offer their opinions.
You posted a pro "oil burning" article but don't have
the courage of your convictions to either admit that
or acknowledge that you even read it.
Post by Brian W Lawrence
I wasn't
recommending it as either good or bad data, it was just data.
Do you have anything else that you neither know anything
about nor have researched that you'd recommend to others?
Well I wasn't 'recommending' the article per se, but yes I could
similarly 'recommend' lots of articles about topics that come up
here and elsewhere. Sometimes I do, often I don't - this is usenet,
it's not unusual.
m***@gmail.com
2017-10-01 03:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
But at least you haven't (yet) explicitly admitted to
confusing a spark ignition, gasoline fueled, internal
combustion engine for a boiler. Nor have you proposed
(like some of your confused brethren) a heretofore
undiscovered "mystery oil" that can be used as an anti-
friction lubricating, cleaning, cooling and cushioning
substance that can also be used as a propulsion fuel
in the above described prime mover.
Do you think that they chuck in a couple of tins of the same 20W50 that you buy on a garage forecourt?

There are lots of limits on what an F1 car can have in the fuel tank. "Fuel" is well defined. "Oil" is not.
a425couple
2017-10-01 17:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Dear "Dot."
Would you care to tell us what happened in your past,
to turn you into such an angry, insulting, and
consistently rude poster?
.
2017-10-01 17:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by .
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
Dear "Dot."
Would you care to tell us what happened in your past,
to turn you into such an angry, insulting, and
consistently rude poster?
Fuck off, again.
Willsy
2017-10-02 16:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Another pretentious, supercilious, mouth-breathing,
knuckle-scraping idiot that can't so much as competently
post a URL, yet recommends an "insightful" article about
an issue that he doesn't begin to understand.
^^^^ but enough you, Dotty. What did you think of the article?
~misfit~
2017-09-30 00:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Or you could try;
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate
and get the same page.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Brian W Lawrence
2017-09-30 04:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Or you could try;
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate
and get the same page.
But that wouldn't have annoyed anyone :-)
~misfit~
2017-09-30 05:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Or you could try;
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate
and get the same page.
But that wouldn't have annoyed anyone :-)
LOL.

Good to see that Avast 'email' advertisment seems to have gone. ;)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Brian W Lawrence
2017-09-30 07:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
But that wouldn't have annoyed anyone :-)
LOL.
Good to see that Avast 'email' advertisment seems to have gone. ;)
I seem to have to switch that off occasionally, but then it seems to
switch itself back on - probably during an upgrade.
~misfit~
2017-09-30 23:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
But that wouldn't have annoyed anyone :-)
LOL.
Good to see that Avast 'email' advertisment seems to have gone. ;)
I seem to have to switch that off occasionally, but then it seems to
switch itself back on - probably during an upgrade.
LOL, I just mentioned exactly that in a reply to Bigbird.

Good on ya!
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Bigbird
2017-09-30 06:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Interesting that you have complained in the past about these
unneccesarily long links but then not only repeat them but fail to trim
the spurious signature. ;)
Post by ~misfit~
Or you could try;
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate
and get the same page.
...but that also is annoyingly long surely.

Try

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/w

:p
Sir Tim
2017-09-30 08:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Interesting that you have complained in the past about these
unneccesarily long links but then not only repeat them but fail to trim
the spurious signature. ;)
Post by ~misfit~
Or you could try;
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate
and get the same page.
...but that also is annoyingly long surely.
Try
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/w
:p
Or even maybe:

http://tinyurl.com/ycwt6ggw
--
Sir Tim
Bigbird
2017-09-30 10:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Post by Bigbird
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Post by Bigbird
Interesting that you have complained in the past about these
unneccesarily long links but then not only repeat them but fail to
trim the spurious signature. ;)
Post by ~misfit~
Or you could try;
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate
and get the same page.
...but that also is annoyingly long surely.
Try
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/w
:p
http://tinyurl.com/ycwt6ggw
Well if you are going to like that...

http://v.ht/iwin
Sir Tim
2017-09-30 11:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Post by Bigbird
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Post by Bigbird
Interesting that you have complained in the past about these
unneccesarily long links but then not only repeat them but fail to
trim the spurious signature. ;)
Post by ~misfit~
Or you could try;
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate
and get the same page.
...but that also is annoyingly long surely.
Try
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/w
:p
http://tinyurl.com/ycwt6ggw
Well if you are going to like that...
http://v.ht/iwin
Okay, you win :-)
--
Sir Tim
t***@gmail.com
2017-09-30 15:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Interesting that you have complained in the past about these
unneccesarily long links
Actually he complains about everything.
~misfit~
2017-09-30 23:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup&utm_content=29092017%20Weekly%20Roundup+CID_ece3336f5149915ae1329aeed7e33f42&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=WEEKEND%20DEBATE%20OIL%20BURNING%20IN%20F1%20ENGINES%20%20A%20FANS%20VIEW%20AND%20AN%20ENGINEERS%20VIEW>
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian W Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Interesting that you have complained in the past about these
unneccesarily long links but then not only repeat them but fail to
trim the spurious signature. ;)
I thought about trimming it (or obfuscating it) but decided to leave it
there, in the face of the poster so to speak. (Some people are unaware that
perhaps a recent update appends outgoing messages with these adverts.)
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by ~misfit~
Or you could try;
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate
and get the same page.
...but that also is annoyingly long surely.
Try
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/w
That is indeed shorter. However my personal preference for a URL is that it
fit on a single line of a usenet post if possible, not include refferal or
personalised data (as it's inaccurate when shared via usenet and can be used
to track and target promiscuois sharers) and give reasonable indication of
what it leads to. Which is why I prefer to not use tinyURL et al if
practical.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Loading...