Yes, I did mean "cite", thanks.

Now how on earth did you conclude a double blind study is the opposite of proving or disproving something? I am sure you are aware with role "expectancy" can play in research.

 

I didnt conclude that, read my post again; I think you misused the word "empirical" earlier, no biggie

 

I use Dk white in the winter because I have 400 gal of summer blend in my storage tank and don't want to find out the hard way that it gells in the winter enough to cause a problem. As for 2 cycle oil, I also use 1 0z per gal and have for several years. The engine is very quiet, much like my friends 6.0. My truck doesn't see many miles each year, so the cost isn't really a consideration. Actually the 400 gal will last most of the winter.As a side note however, getting the air out of the fuel by doing the intank mod is a big part of the quiet engine. Mine will be 15 yrs old in Feb and might finally break the big 100k mark.

 

Let me clarify an earlier thought. Much of what gets posted is simple opinion. Not a problem at all with that. It is fun and interesting, but it most often seems to me the data is absent to really answer the question, how do you know that or how certain are you of that.

If we generate a hypothesis like "additives increase or improve something", how should we test it?

I also like science. Statistics always interests me. What folks actually decide is their call and it also fine with me. Unfortunately, I often enjoy the theory more than the more immediate content.

Steve

 

I think I see what happened here. The word 'empirical' is observation, experience, and opinion, over theory or logic. I see now that it was misused in your earlier post. I guess in my previous post in which I quoted you, I was stating that there is plenty of 'empirical' evidence, i.e. opinions, observations, etc. about additives, and few if any facts, or data to back up the benefits of it's use. Ugh. This is getting convoluted.

 

Yes. Empirical.

 

Empirical: "Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable ..."

What I was looking for here is hard data in a controlled experiment. I am not in any way challenging anyone's observations. I know folks here do things with a reason.

Here is an example. Some years ago I was the technical editor of a magazine and when I reported on engine noise level I measured decibel level, so I felt I have an empirical measure. If I had simply observed it, I would have said "in my opinion" something was louder or quieter. One time a manufacturer offered to rent a testing venue for me, if I would test their product, but I could not come up with what I felt was a valid reliable means of measurement, so I refused. I knew they would want to quote my findings and all I was going to offer was opinion, which I was afraid could mislead people.

It's a small point and I do not want to blow it out of proportion as I am not losing any sleep over it. It is just that when I read things on FTE, I am always asking myself how someone actually knows what they are doing works or doesn't work.

I know this is really getting off the track and apologize for hijacking this thread!

Steve

 

Agreed. If you haven't already done so, check out the thread I posted a link to earlier. You might appreciate it. Aklim states a fairly solid case against the use of additives and has a good perspective on it. There's plenty of conjecture when it comes up, and that particular thread is no exception.

 

I read it over. It is consistent with what I had been told previously that additives are not necessary to counter reductions in sulfur. Thanks,

Steve

 

I just read that Bosch study. Correct me if Im wrong, but does it not conclude that much of the fuel they tested, in 2002, causes abnormally high wear in fuel components? It said 80% of the fuel they tested had an HFRR higher than 460 which is the engine manufacturers recommended max. You would also figure that a lot of that is over 520 which is the vehicle manufactuers recommended max. Some of the fuel they tested showed an HFRR figure of 648, which, by their testing, causes severe wear and is "unfit". On top of that, this test was done in 2002, before ULSD was mandatory. How can one conclude from any of this that additives are unnecessary to counter the reductions in sulfur??

 

I was referring to the last sentence in the article cited above regarding additives to improve lubricity for the pumps, which is consistent which what I was told in face-to-face conversation with engineers my industry which utilizes many diesel engines. My own conversations were within the last 2-3 years well after ULSD became mandatory.

How does the old saying go, "some folks swear at em, some folks swear by em"? I suspect the discussion about additives could take place about many things folks do to their trucks. I guess in the end I would still prefer definitive data, which in this case we may not be privy too.

 

This reads more like a debate on grammar than on fuel additives.

Before the HEUI system, I don't believe we were getting fuel pressures approaching 20,000 PSI in the nozzle. At those pressures, water cuts metal (under a different configuration). Before HEUI, our oil didn't go through a shredder (HPOP) and reach 2800 PSI in an engine. We really need to shift gears in our thinking of the fluids that we beat with sticks.

 

Well said I think. Huh?

Steve