Spencer
i don't know what you assert rises to the level of "theory" as much as
what might rightfully be an conclusion you have drawn based on your experience
burning wmo in your engine.
perhaps instead of "theory" you have enough empirical data to form a "hypothesis" that you use to explain what your experience has been?
not sure you have done enough testing to be able to have enough data to form a "theory" yet, much less a "law".
therefore titling a topic "danger engine damage" might well be seen as nothing more
than sensationalizing for the purpose of drawing attention to oneself?
you might want to go back and reread some of the requests for information. there
has been many such requests on both forums regarding your assertions and how you came to your conclusions.
things like condition of the engine to start with, which you finally allude to only recently.
what temperature do you run the engine at
what is the origin of the wmo you are using
what load are you running at while burning this wmo
there is certainly lots of variability in waste oil streams, not all oils carry the same additive packages, or at least in the same concentrations. the new low ash, catcon friendly being much different than some of the other oils used in cars and light trucks powered by gas engines.
there is also evidence of improved wear characteristics by others burning wmo
when the loading is high on the engine, rather than loping along at part load, so might
this also be part of the issue? i don't know, because i haven't seen you report this detail.
what temperature (coolant) do you operate at? could it be an increase of as little as 10 degree's F might alter the residue characteristics? here again i don't know for sure because you haven't reported that either.
and perhaps most importantly, have you considered the possibility that there might be another explanation for what you have observed? leaking intake drawing in dust? an engine that was not broken in properly? wmo with other contaminates that might not be present in all other feedstocks, such as paint thinners, cleaners, higher percentage of entrained water, higher or lower ph, or some other factor. reporting alternatives only adds to the reporters credibility in most every case, it shows that he has considered other possibilities and has worked to either eliminate those possible explanations, or states that he has not explored those possibilities and suggests maybe more testing or experimentation is in order to eliminate those possibilities.
it much easier to discuss the problem if we have more than simply a statement, and most especially a sensational statement, to work with.
basically i am asking you to take a step back, refocus, and come back and restate your case, make your assertion, back it up with some carefully thought out reasoning, report all the pertinent data and observations, develop your hypothesis, offer alternative explanations for what might explain what you observe, and then lets have everyone take a hard look at what it turns out to be.
that would be constructive, and something i think folks could get their heads around.
simply coming around and making a bold assertion with little to no data, but simply taking in on "say so" really doesn't work well for those with critical thinking skills.
as i have argued before, on this forum,
"it is not incumbent on me or anyone else to disprove your assertions, it is however
incumbent on you to provide proof to support your assertions"
usually it also follows that bold assertions demand bold proof, or at least some very reasoned analysis.
basically i don't know you personally, you might be a great guy, you might well be the worlds leading authority on wmo and its use as a fuel, i as well as i suspect no one else knows one way or the other. giving one the benefit of the doubt when it comes to extending credit for a burger and a coke is one thing, but quite another to expect the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to bold assertions with little or nothing more than "you say so, so its true".
thats asking one to make a leap of faith, which is something that i for one reserve for things that i cannot prove/disprove, and have to accept, such as God, and little else.
so lets start over from the top, why not step back and repackage your data, and make this a constructive topic that we all can learn from?
does that seem reasonable?
bob g