Hermio
Addicted to ArboristSite
No, they are not. Density is mass per unit volume.Mass and density are the same. I've read a number of obtuse posts from massively dense people
No, they are not. Density is mass per unit volume.Mass and density are the same. I've read a number of obtuse posts from massively dense people
Well, no. Density is mass per unit volume. In the SI system mass is expressed in kilograms; density is kilograms/meter³.Mass and density are the same. I've read a number of obtuse posts from massively dense people
No need to argue about that. It is used for both, which is one of the things causing confusion with English units. For example, viscosity in English units can be expressed as either pounds-mass per foot-hour or pounds-force seconds per square foot. They are not numerically equal. That is probably why most prefer to use cP or mPa-s.Well, no. Density is mass per unit volume. In the SI system mass is expressed in kilograms; density is kilograms/meter³.
I'm going to avoid the argument about whether the pound is a unit of mass or force.
Did I really need a /sarc on that post? I guess I did. Lighten up peopleWell, no. Density is mass per unit volume. In the SI system mass is expressed in kilograms; density is kilograms/meter³.
I'm going to avoid the argument about whether the pound is a unit of mass or force.
Sorry, guess you missed my facetiousness.Did I really need a /sarc on that post? I guess I did. Lighten up people
No disagreement here, but it's not hard to find folks who argue the pound is strictly a unit of force, but nevertheless don't insist on buying their potatoes by the slug.No need to argue about that. It is used for both, which is one of the things causing confusion with English units. For example, viscosity in English units can be expressed as either pounds-mass per foot-hour or pounds-force seconds per square foot. They are not numerically equal. That is probably why most prefer to use cP or mPa-s.
Would you happen to be an engineer? The use of a slug as a unit of mass is rather obscure, as is the use of a poundal as a unit of force. Both are ways to avoid the use of g-sub-c as a units correction in equations of motion, and I have never seen either used except in engineering courses.No disagreement here, but it's not hard to find folks who argue the pound is strictly a unit of force, but nevertheless don't insist on buying their potatoes by the slug.
My first chainsaw used 16:1 as standard. It gave me a headache to breathe all those oil fumes.I've run 16:1 on accident, after double dosing my usual 32:1 mix. Colorless oil and couldn't remember if I'd added oil already. 16:1 is a lot better than 128:0.
I have a quart of Amsoil Interceptor that I'm trying to use up in my dirtbike, good stuff but no dye at all, it looks like straight gas after I mixed it.... Causes me anxiety.I've run 16:1 on accident, after double dosing my usual 32:1 mix. Colorless oil and couldn't remember if I'd added oil already. 16:1 is a lot better than 128:0.
Injector oils are quite often clear . A buddy of mine often added an ounce of Sabre to his 50:1 mix to give the fuel coluration lol.I have a quart of Amsoil Interceptor that I'm trying to use up in my dirtbike, good stuff but no dye at all, it looks like straight gas after I mixed it.... Causes me anxiety.
just the difference between 30wt engine oil and an actual 2 stroke oil. No real need for 16 to 1 anymore.The wildland fire services have only changed the 2 stroke Mark 3 pumps to 50:1 over the last couple of years. I like that in a pinch, I can run one on my saw mix now. In the past it was 20:1, a quart of the cheapest oil they could find in 5 gallons. Again, we would run them with a spare quart of motor oil if that's all we could find. Initially, it was supposed to be 16:1, then over time, full Jerrys for a quart.
Of course, the Red Armor I run is probably too nice for those things...
No changes in the pumps, just research showing no increased wear.
I'm going to avoid the argument about whether the pound is a unit of mass or force.
Noun vs verb is not taught in engineering school, apparently.No need to argue about that. It is used for both, which is one of the things causing confusion with English units.
Schaeffer's two stroke oil. Series 9000 is the full synthetic. Burns clean, protects excellent!! 3OZ/per gallon. That will give you exactly a 42.7:1 mix. I have three ounces bottles so I mix five at a time. The exact measurement given because you need to know! Have a good one !Hey guys, been thinking about this lately, what do y'all run in your equipment? I normally run Super Tech full synthetic, or if they're sold out/I forgot to buy some, I run Lucas semi synthetic. I'm wondering if I should switch to a mow name brand oil. Not sure if it matters, but my 2 stroke equipment consists of an Echo 2620 and PB9010T, a Shihl MS260 and Fs55, and a Redmax BCZ260T.
I'm most interested in Echo Red Armor, because of it being red (seems like an added safety for when your tired or distracted) but it's also the most expensive. Also on the table is Redmax full synthetic, Amsoil Saber, VP Racing full synthetic, or more Lucas semi synthetic (it's only semi synthetic, bit it is the cheapest). I'm open to any other brands too.
Thanks in advance!
Courage
Hey guys, been thinking about this lately, what do y'all run in your equipment? I normally run Super Tech full synthetic, or if they're sold out/I forgot to buy some, I run Lucas semi synthetic. I'm wondering if I should switch to a mow name brand oil. Not sure if it matters, but my 2 stroke equipment consists of an Echo 2620 and PB9010T, a Shihl MS260 and Fs55, and a Redmax BCZ260T.
I'm most interested in Echo Red Armor, because of it being red (seems like an added safety for when your tired or distracted) but it's also the most expensive. Also on the table is Redmax full synthetic, Amsoil Saber, VP Racing full synthetic, or more Lucas semi synthetic (it's only semi synthetic, bit it is the cheapest). I'm open to any other brands too.
Thanks in advance!
Courage
Enter your email address to join: