Who the hell let's the bar or chain hit the dirt?
If you are that careless, then you may as well use water
instead of bar oil.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller) wrote:
I'm wondering which part of "The first time the tip touches dirt even
for an instant, you've just put more crap on the bar than any amount of
used motor oil possibly could" you can't comprehend.
Face it, Doug, waste oil is perfectly fine as bar oil, despite your
bleating to the contrary.
(And the greenies who might want to cry about it are perfectly welcome
to go suck rocks.)
Don Bruder - email@example.com - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details.
Hoping you are not as obtuse as Doug, the purpose of the oil is _also_ to
help get the dirt which gets on the bar flushed away.
Unless your trees are much different that the rest of the world, the
bark/branch pockets/crotches will collect dirt.
I don't advocate using used oil. But new oil is
dirty as soon as you drive 1 mile after an oil
change. If you are changing your engine oil
every 3 months/ 3000 miles in a good engine, there
is lots of lubrication left. Some car
manufactures seem to think there is at least
another 2 months/2000 miles of use, and some seem
to think there is another 4 months/4000 miles of
If it feels oily, it will lube the bar just fine.
We're not talking fine tolerances. Any opposing
argument is justs specious.
I'm not sure what you think you read. I never said anything beyond stating
what is, or should be, self-evidently obvious: that new oil is a better
lubricant than used oil, and that oils specifically formulated for a
particular purpose are better suited to that purpose than oils which are not.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's the logical characterization by extension of your absolute position
which is repeated on a myriad of subjects...
It's not that the statements themselves are strictly incorrect (yes, new
oil <is> more lubricating than old, and yes, what is entrained in used
oil isn't a lubricant), it's that you tend to apply the principle to the
extreme where, in this case, the lubrication reqm'ts are so minimal and
the inevitable introduction of extraneous dirt and grime makes carrying
on over using virgin lubricant specifically tailored to the purpose such
overkill as to invite parody...
That help? :)
And, btw, most of the loss of function in motor oil isn't the oil, per
se, it's the breakdown of the additives that are there specifically for
the high-temperature/high-pressure conditions of an engine--conditions
not at all prevalent in the application here.
To that I certainly plead guilty... :)
I consistently try to point out the tendency to go to extremes (of which
you're not the only propoent), sadly. :(
I had hoped you just <might> see at least a modicum of levity arising in
the continuing descent into absurdium...alas, if not. I tried.
We've been waiting for that 'round these parts as long as I can remember. I
don't think Doug ever admits to being wrong. As near as I can tell, his
opinion is the nearest thing to gospel truth. Doug, thanks for setting us
all on the path to righteousness!
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.