cleaning fun...(not)

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:10 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
wrote:

snip

Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
correctly.

snip

DFM

I'm sorry Deep, but grease provides no barrier at all. In fact grease
plus dirt equals grinding compound. This mixture will result in the
rapid erosion of metallic surfaces ( in a dynamic situation).

Thirty years working in foundries forces me to agree with Jose.
Bearings will always fail if the seals are damaged.
Bearings designed to be used in particularly aggressive conditions
will often be double sealed.

Allan Jones

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:10 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
wrote:

snip

Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
correctly.

snip

DFM

I'm sorry Deep, but grease provides no barrier at all. In fact grease
plus dirt equals grinding compound. This mixture will result in the
rapid erosion of metallic surfaces ( in a dynamic situation).

Thirty years working in foundries forces me to agree with Jose.
Bearings will always fail if the seals are damaged.
Bearings designed to be used in particularly aggressive conditions
will often be double sealed.

Allan Jones

Allan Jones wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:10 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
wrote:

snip

Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you
just
said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
correctly.

snip

DFM

I'm sorry Deep, but grease provides no barrier at all. In fact grease
plus dirt equals grinding compound. This mixture will result in the
rapid erosion of metallic surfaces ( in a dynamic situation).

So you are saying you shouldn't grease bearings? Did you read what I wrote?
When you pack bearings with grease, dirt is much less likely to get in. Thus
they work better.

Thirty years working in foundries forces me to agree with Jose.
Bearings will always fail if the seals are damaged.
Bearings designed to be used in particularly aggressive conditions
will often be double sealed.

So you weren't working on bikes all that time then? )

I was originally (somewhere miles up the thread) reffering to basic wheel
bearing assemblies. The subject of sealed bearings hadn't even come up!
---
DFM

Allan Jones wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:10 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
wrote:

snip

Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you
just
said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
correctly.

snip

DFM

I'm sorry Deep, but grease provides no barrier at all. In fact grease
plus dirt equals grinding compound. This mixture will result in the
rapid erosion of metallic surfaces ( in a dynamic situation).

So you are saying you shouldn't grease bearings? Did you read what I wrote?
When you pack bearings with grease, dirt is much less likely to get in. Thus
they work better.

Thirty years working in foundries forces me to agree with Jose.
Bearings will always fail if the seals are damaged.
Bearings designed to be used in particularly aggressive conditions
will often be double sealed.

So you weren't working on bikes all that time then? )

I was originally (somewhere miles up the thread) reffering to basic wheel
bearing assemblies. The subject of sealed bearings hadn't even come up!
---
DFM

Deep Freud Moors:

Jose Rizal wrote in message
ink.net...
Deep Freud Moors:

Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???

"The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt
and
water out."

Note that it says "primary", not "sole".

It's still wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you state it.
The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Educate yourself and you
won't have to make up things like this. It's annoying for most of
everyone of us who know better.

It's annoying you because what I say stands up, and your only way of dealing
with it is to try change the subject. I suggest you take some time out and
do some yoga or some ****.

Funny, since when do your statements stand by themselves? So far you've
dodged the challenge of providing any sort of reference to your mythical
claims, instead resorting to repetition to make yourself belive they're
true. Sorry, no cigar.

Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect,

It provides more than a "somewhat" lubricating effect, it provides *all
the necessary* lubrication required by the bearings.

Which is somewhat of a lubricating effect, is it not?

No. You need to learn English a little better, or you're being
deliberately dumb. "Somewhat" is different from "all that is
necessary". Dodge and duck all you like, you don't fool anyone.

but its role of
inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important
from a
reliability point of view.

What rubbish. Why do you make up things like this?

Now folks, watch as Jose completely misinterprets what I said, and starts
crapping on about something else...

Who do you think you're addressing, an audience for your comedy show?
Again you sidestep the issue, and try to divert attention. Pretty
juvenile, and quite futile. Show proof for your claims, some
references, otherwise live with the fact that you made wrong claims
about something you know nothing about.

A secondary benefit
of grease is its water repellency, not dirt repellency.

WHOAH!!! Yes, folks, that was a massive leap into something unrelated! Why
am I continuing with this guy? I dunno...

Because you're trying to save face? Unsuccessful...

You might think
that grease prevents dirt getting into the rotating parts, but you are
again wrong. Dirt is a killer in being entrained in grease, as it will
eventually be carried into the moving parts.

Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
correctly.

Now you add statements to try to change your previous statements.
Unfortunately, whether "applied correctly" or not, grease does not
provide an "effective barrier for dirt". No luck there, I'm afraid.

You've been making all these wrong claims about grease, it's time you
cut your losses and go.

Pretending that you're right will only delude yourself. You wont even
address the point I am making, choosing to change the subject instead.

Ah, the tried and tested Usenet method of accusing someone of what
you're guilty of. No luck there either. I've addressed all the
specific points you've made, and a cursory glance at previous posts show
this.

You, however, sidestep the issues, snip relevant passages proving your
claims are laughably wrong, and fail to show any kind of reference for
your claims. I'm not sure why you persist in making erroneous claims
showing an embarrasingly huge lack of knowledge; I can only guess that
you have pretensions and a desire to impress imaginary audiences in this
forum. Sorry, you failed in every respect. This has been a huge waste
of time.

Deep Freud Moors:

Jose Rizal wrote in message
ink.net...
Deep Freud Moors:

Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???

"The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt
and
water out."

Note that it says "primary", not "sole".

It's still wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you state it.
The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Educate yourself and you
won't have to make up things like this. It's annoying for most of
everyone of us who know better.

It's annoying you because what I say stands up, and your only way of dealing
with it is to try change the subject. I suggest you take some time out and
do some yoga or some ****.

Funny, since when do your statements stand by themselves? So far you've
dodged the challenge of providing any sort of reference to your mythical
claims, instead resorting to repetition to make yourself belive they're
true. Sorry, no cigar.

Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect,

It provides more than a "somewhat" lubricating effect, it provides *all
the necessary* lubrication required by the bearings.

Which is somewhat of a lubricating effect, is it not?

No. You need to learn English a little better, or you're being
deliberately dumb. "Somewhat" is different from "all that is
necessary". Dodge and duck all you like, you don't fool anyone.

but its role of
inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important
from a
reliability point of view.

What rubbish. Why do you make up things like this?

Now folks, watch as Jose completely misinterprets what I said, and starts
crapping on about something else...

Who do you think you're addressing, an audience for your comedy show?
Again you sidestep the issue, and try to divert attention. Pretty
juvenile, and quite futile. Show proof for your claims, some
references, otherwise live with the fact that you made wrong claims
about something you know nothing about.

A secondary benefit
of grease is its water repellency, not dirt repellency.

WHOAH!!! Yes, folks, that was a massive leap into something unrelated! Why
am I continuing with this guy? I dunno...

Because you're trying to save face? Unsuccessful...

You might think
that grease prevents dirt getting into the rotating parts, but you are
again wrong. Dirt is a killer in being entrained in grease, as it will
eventually be carried into the moving parts.

Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
correctly.

Now you add statements to try to change your previous statements.
Unfortunately, whether "applied correctly" or not, grease does not
provide an "effective barrier for dirt". No luck there, I'm afraid.

You've been making all these wrong claims about grease, it's time you
cut your losses and go.

Pretending that you're right will only delude yourself. You wont even
address the point I am making, choosing to change the subject instead.

Ah, the tried and tested Usenet method of accusing someone of what
you're guilty of. No luck there either. I've addressed all the
specific points you've made, and a cursory glance at previous posts show
this.

You, however, sidestep the issues, snip relevant passages proving your
claims are laughably wrong, and fail to show any kind of reference for
your claims. I'm not sure why you persist in making erroneous claims
showing an embarrasingly huge lack of knowledge; I can only guess that
you have pretensions and a desire to impress imaginary audiences in this
forum. Sorry, you failed in every respect. This has been a huge waste
of time.

Deep Freud Moors:

Jose Rizal wrote in message

You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
originally
about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!

Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether it's
used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of it
is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease being
a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
think otherwise.


As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!

At least you recognise facts when you see them. Now learn and move on.

I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for some
reason.

Your comprehension is either deliberately or congenitally defective.
Anyone reading the previous posts on this thread will easily see that
your claims have been specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.
You've made no correct statements so far, provided no references, and
not even a hint of where you got your mythical claims from. There's no
backing out from that.

Deep Freud Moors:

Jose Rizal wrote in message

You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
originally
about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!

Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether it's
used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of it
is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease being
a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
think otherwise.


As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!

At least you recognise facts when you see them. Now learn and move on.

I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for some
reason.

Your comprehension is either deliberately or congenitally defective.
Anyone reading the previous posts on this thread will easily see that
your claims have been specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.
You've made no correct statements so far, provided no references, and
not even a hint of where you got your mythical claims from. There's no
backing out from that.

Jose Rizal wrote in message
hlink.net...
Deep Freud Moors:

Jose Rizal wrote in message

You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
originally
about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that
last
comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't
it!

Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether
it's
used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of
it
is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease
being
a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
think otherwise.


As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!

At least you recognise facts when you see them. Now learn and move on.

I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for
some
reason.

Your comprehension is either deliberately or congenitally defective.
Anyone reading the previous posts on this thread will easily see that
your claims have been specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.
You've made no correct statements so far

I have made no correct statements so far? Never ever? If I was truly always
incorrect, I would be a brilliant devils advocate. This illustrates your
penchant for incorrectly overstating stuff rather well.

Why have you not addressed my original comparison yet, Jose?
---
DFM

Jose Rizal wrote in message
hlink.net...
Deep Freud Moors:

Jose Rizal wrote in message

You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
originally
about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that
last
comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't
it!

Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether
it's
used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of
it
is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease
being
a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
think otherwise.


As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!

At least you recognise facts when you see them. Now learn and move on.

I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for
some
reason.

Your comprehension is either deliberately or congenitally defective.
Anyone reading the previous posts on this thread will easily see that
your claims have been specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.
You've made no correct statements so far

I have made no correct statements so far? Never ever? If I was truly always
incorrect, I would be a brilliant devils advocate. This illustrates your
penchant for incorrectly overstating stuff rather well.

Why have you not addressed my original comparison yet, Jose?
---
DFM