X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 12:14:07 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTP id 917240 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 00:10:32 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.202.56; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from boblaptop2 (pcp09273488pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.137.39]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2006010805094401200jkvbee>; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 05:09:44 +0000 From: "Robert R Pastusek" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Idle power descent? X-Original-Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:11:34 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01C613E8.15844C10" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C613E8.15844C10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/6/2006 7:54:55 PM Central Standard Time, marv@lancaironline.net writes: I love the LML, but it is "hard" to see how one minute there is an opinioon that shock cooling does noit exist, and the previous opinion, is it is a real problem. Opinions are no substitute for science. We seemed to have forgotten that here in America where everyone has an opinion but took no science class after 7th grade. Jeff Edwards LIVP Having expressed my opinion on shock cooling, I will defer to the many of you with well more experience and hands-on inspections that counter my observations. I say this in complete honesty: I've seen scored cylinder walls and trashed piston rings--that I attributed to shock cooling--but without establishing this specific cause/effect relationship. Such rigor was probably not possible at the time, but in any case I didn't pursue it. Walter's "normal" inspection results from engines that had been operated to generate "shock cooling" would seem to establish that this was not the cause of the cylinder scoring I reported. I defer. Bob Pastusek ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C613E8.15844C10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 1/6/2006 7:54:55 PM = Central=20 Standard Time, marv@lancaironline.net writes:

I love the LML, but it is = "hard" to=20 see how one minute there is an opinioon
that shock cooling does = noit=20 exist, and the previous opinion, is it is a=20 real
problem.

Opinions are no substitute for science. We seemed to have = forgotten that=20 here in America where everyone has an opinion but took no science = class after=20 7th grade.

Jeff Edwards

LIVP

Having expressed my opinion = on shock cooling, I will defer to the many of you with = well=20 more experience and hands-on inspections that counter my observations. = I say=20 this in complete honesty: I've seen scored cylinder walls and trashed = piston=20 rings--that I attributed to shock cooling--but = without establishing=20 this specific cause/effect relationship. Such rigor was probably = not=20 possible at the time, but in any case I didn't pursue it. Walter's = "normal"=20 inspection results from engines that had been operated to generate = "shock=20 cooling" would seem to establish that this was not the cause of the = cylinder=20 scoring I reported. I defer.

Bob=20 Pastusek

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C613E8.15844C10--