1999 grand caravan brake rotors

Great explanation - thanks! Would make a good Paul Harvey segment:
"...And now you know the *rest* of the story". 8^) (perhaps he's
already done it)

The cliché does get the point across in few words.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Absolutely. Notice the words "many of the target groups measuring..."
in describing the "before" tests, and "average was a very
respectable..." in describing the "after" results. That's why I stated
ahead of time that it was not proof of anything.

Totally moot point. Did you miss my earlier post on accuracy vs.
repeatability. **Repeatability** is the key (equates to pattern
grouping or tightness of successive shots). Absolute accuracy is
meaningless as it is calibrated out by site adjustment (or simply
compensated for - in any case, 100% irrelevant for assessing the effects
of the treatment.

Second, most barrels tend to shoot

I doubt they gamed the results around that. But you're right - it is a
consideration.

Not enough info. to say one way or the other.

No - but I've only read up on the gun stuff as prompted by this thread.
My original point in posting was simply to say that people might want to
consider it for problem brake rotors since it aparently fixed my problem
(which is not explained away by lug not torque issues).

That's peachy. I provided it for info., and even made some disclaimers
about it myself. Al I know is my brakes don't shake anymore.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

While it may be true that non-technical people will (or are more likely
to) fall for anything, that's not the point of the cliché. The point of
the cliché is that science is what man says about the real world and is
often wrong due to not enough information, false assumptions, not all
factors being considered, or pure and plane faking of the so-called
science yet accepting it as truth or fact.

The point of the cliché is that just because science can't (yet) prove
that something works or can't explain *why* something works doesn't
necesarilly mean that it doesn't work - otherwise gravity wouldn't have
worked until Newton discovered (for lack of a better word) it.

This also means that it is entirely possible that, even though 300 Below
doesn't do a good job of proving the technology, that doesn't mean it
doesn't work. (On the other hand, it doesn't prove that it does
either.) That's the truth of the matter).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

That would be true if the cliche hadn't been a joke. But is is a joke.

Your looking for a cliche more along the lines of the priests declaring that
it's hersay to claim that the world isn't the center of the universe. All
the
religious leaders insistence that the world isn't the center of the universe
didn't make it so. But wait, that's not science, it's religion.

The root of the problem is that a true scientist creates scientific
theories,
and by the time that the general public gets ahold of them, they have
forgotten the "theory" part and are treating it as fact.

It's like the creationists that get so bent out of shape arguing against
teaching "evolution" in the schools. Notice that they don't ever preach
against teaching "the theory of evolution" it's just "evolution" A theory
is something that isn't a fact, it's an assumption. Scientists ASSUME
that the theory of evolution is correct, but if someone were to come up
with a better theory that could explain the group of facts that point to
the current theory of evolution, one that could be repeated and survive
peer review, they would change their beliefs to this in place of the current
theory of evolution.

No, your arguing religion here, not science. Science cannot explain
certain phenomina such as the mother getting a premonition out of the blue
that her daughter is in pain, then getting a phone call an hour later
saying she was in an accident. Science cannot explain the scenes and
stories reported by near-death patients. That doesen't mean that those
things never happened. But neither does "Science" make any kind of
claim that those things never happened either.

With the 300 below people, you cannot argue that "Science can't prove
that it works" or "Science cannot yet prove that it works" simply because
there appears no evidence that "Science" or more accurately the scientific
method, has been employed to even test the hypothesis that supercooling
makes any permanent change, and that if so, that the change does anything.

Well obviously. However, what we are observing is something a bit
different.

It is a fact that most businesses attempt to increase their customer base
and thus profits.

It is also a fact that advertising (such as the 300 Below website) is
usually
involved in some manner by most businesses to attempt to increase their
customer base.

It is also a widely-held theory that advertising that cites some authority
holds more weight than advertising based on pure testimonial. (ie: 4 out
of 5 dentists...)

Thus, what we all find unusual is that the 300 Below people do not appear
to believe in these theories and facts. Instead of spending their money
funding
some real scientific research that could develop a repeatable set of
experiments
on supercooling, and a theory or theories on why supercooling works, thus
creating authoratative cites that they can use in their advertising, they
have instead
elected to depend wholly on testimonial.

It is not that 300 Below isn't doing a good job of proving their technology.
They haven't
even BEGUN to attempt the work of proving their technology. You can't do a
both job on a job that you never even start doing. You actually have to
make
an attempt before you can botch it up.

Thus, the more jaded here among us are making an assumption - based on
experience
that companies that don't attempt to even try scientifically demonstrating
their superior
technology are generally fakes - that supercooling doesen't make a
difference.

Ted

 

test

 

Natch.

 

Yes - I got that from your previous enlightening post - you continue to try to
make it look like I didn't get that. That doesn't change the fact (IMO) that
the meaning behind it is right-on - it fits many situations (that's why things
become clichés, often with the original context of its origins being almost
totally forgotten by the culture, as apparently is the case with this one.
There are many things that science, or at least those unquestionably considered
to be recognized by society as the scientific experts, say this week or last
week or next week that I absolutely know are not true.

No - this one about the bee works for me - and it absolutely does apply to
science. Look - we don't agree on these things. From my perspective, the
fallacy is when people make science into a religion. What God says is right is
right, not necessarily what ever-changing man-made science says, and not
necessarily what some religious leaders say, so don't try to pull that one on
me. You make it sound as though I'm claiming that I've scientifically proven
something about cryo-treating, or that I think that 300 Below is above
question. I have not said or implied either - and I've explicitly stated the
opposite. Please stop making it sound as if I've fallen hook, line, and sinker
for some charletons. I've simply reported my results as a single user, and have
suggested that others may want to consider it. I do not denigrate anyone who
isn't willing to take the risk (i.e., spend the money for something that is not
proven) as I have and gotten good results. The option for something that is not
proven is out there. What the hell is wrong with that!?

....But you digress

I fail to see how you get that. You are the one that has introduced religion
into this discussion. What does Newton/gravity/cliché have anything to do with
religion?

That so? Here's an excerpt from a magazine article linked on their site:
"Metals are affected by heat treating. These changes are called Phase
Trans­formations and are named variously: Bainite, Austenite, and Martensite.
Austenite is a softer form than Martensite. Cryogenic Processing will complete
martensitic transformation from austenite. A research metallurgist at the
National Bureau of Standards, states, "When carbon precipitates form, the
internal stress in the martensite is reduced, which minimizes the susceptibility
to micro cracking. The wide distribution of very hard, fine carbides from deep
cryogenic treatment, also increases wear resistance." The study concludes:
"...fine carbides and resultant tight lattice structures are precipitated from
cryo­genic treatment. These particles are responsible for the exceptional wear
characteristics imparted by the process, due to a denser structure and resulting
larger surface area of contact, reducing friction, heat and wear."
New Findings

"The subjected metals also develop a more uniform, refined microstructure with
greater density. These particles were known, but never quantified scientifically
until recently. `Carbide fillers' are precipitated as a result of the deep
cryogenic processing. In a university study from Jasy Romania, the carbides were
shown to have tripled in the structure after Cryogenic Processing. The carbides
fill the open spaces, or micro-voids, resulting in a much denser, coherent
structureof the steel. The end result is increased wear resistance. These
particles were identified and counted using a scanning electron microscope with
field particle quantification. (An automatic particle counter.) It is now
believed that these particles are largely responsible for the great gains in
wear resistivity. The change created is uniform throughout the steel unlike
coatings, and will last the life of the steel, regardless of any subse­quent
finishing operations or regrinds. It is a permanent irreversable molecular
change."

See above. So - that obstacle is out of the way. Need more science before you
believe it? Sorry - I cant give it to you, nor do I feel obligated to do so.
You're going to believe what you want to regardless what I or 300 Below present
- and that's OK. But, again, I have no obligation to prove anything to you.

If 300 Below sponsored an air-tight 100% scientific study, would you not
pooh-pooh it because the people doing the study would, after all, feel beholden
to their customer, and potentially deliberately or subconsciously skew the
results of the study - is that not what you and other skeptics would claim?

So who would have both the interest and money for funding such a study that
does not also have a vested interest in its outcome (i.e., whose results that
you would accept as scientific "proof")? Enthusiasts (gun enthiusiasts, for
example) might have the interest, but beyond "proving" it to their own
satsifaction that it improves their performance, they probably lack the
motivation or the finances to make it a truly scientific study that you or Matt
would accept.

What about an end-user company that wanted to find out if they could achieve
some advantage over their competition by use of this technology. *THEY* indeed
might fund an internal or third-party study, but if it proves to be a valid
breakthrough, they certainly aren't going to be inclined to release the results
to the public and therefore their competition.

So, again, I ask: Who do you propose to do this study that you are demanding be
done before there could possibly be anything to this? Keep in mind - it can't
be anyone funded by 300 Below - no - can't allow that. Maybe Jack Nicklaus -
but then, it could very well be that he doesn't give a crap about the technolgy
and any real improvement it could make in his golf clubs, and only uses it in
his product as a sales gimmick - and I would agree that that is entirely
possible.

Well, you're wrong on that. See the NIS quotes above. Ironically, you are
making it look like I am not objective about this, but obviously are not wanting
to be objective yourself. Beyond that, you're telling me that if 300 Below
hired a lab to make the study, you would believe the results and not claim that
"Of course they're going to say it works - look who's paying the bill!"? I
seriously doubt it.

Again - tell me how they would do that that you wouldn't find some vested
interest issue or some other political problem in. No doubt you will
out-of-hand question the credibility of both the NIS statements and the Romanian
university study.

"Jaded" is not generally a positive attribute, but with the lack of objectivity
that, IMO, you are demonstrating, it may be an accurate description. I don't
know whom else "here" you are characterizing as being jaded. They might not
appreciate that. Perhaps you meant people with healthy skepticism. 8^)

"...companies that don't attempt to even try scientifically demonstrating their
superior technology are generally fakes". How can we believe a statement like
that - has a scientific syudy been done to show that to be thruth? Your not
allowed to make such a claim until you prove it scientifically. Or is that your
opinion based on, as you said, your experience? (rhetorical question)

Again, I reference the statements by the NIS guy. Once again, it does not
appear that you are objective on this. Can't help but wonder why.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with
"x")

 

I looked up "headspace" on google, and I now see what you mean on that
point. Excess headspace (space between the bolt and the chamber to
contain the cartridge rim - if too large, some gas escapes instead of
propelling the projectile) = lower projectile velocity = inherently
lower accuracy and precision/repeatability. Got it.

I tried to post a more thorough handling of this, but for some reason,
it doesn't show up. Perhaps this shorter version will.

But basically, by them having tested multiple barrels, treated and
untreated, unless they dishonestly manipulated the results (i.e., by
assembling the untreated barrels with excessive headspace), it would be
acceptable in scientific studies to assume that random variation in
headspace would be somewhat evenly distributed between the two groups.
I think it's reasonable to assume that, barring pure dishonesty, the
person doing the assembly is qualified and used proper tools (headspace
gage, etc.) and techniques to minimize the range of variation. The
possibility of dishonest skewing is a fact of life whether a study is
casual or 100% scientific in its design, and so is not **in itself**
(there may very well be other reasons of which I am not aware) a reason
to reject the results any more than the results of any study, scientific
or otherwise.

As with Ted, I can't figure out why, when I am not claiming to have
proven anything or that 300 Below has proven anything, it appears that
you think I have to prove that it works or that you seem to think that I
am claiming that it is proven "scientifically".

As I told Ted - all I have done is report that it looks like it fixed my
problem, and suggest that others may consider it if they are having
continual problems with their brakes. Is that so horrible?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I agree. I just haven't come across such a test as yet. Have you seen
one? Most articles I've seen use a sample size of one...


Matt

 

I understood you got it. Your missing the point. I am merely saying STOP
WITH THE BUMBLEBEE THING.

If you want to use cliches to illustrate your ideas, then go for it. I do
sometimes
as well. Just stop repeating the bumblebee one and find another cliche is
all.

I don't disagree here. But I don't think that any man while alive can ever
know
with any degree of certainty what exactly God says.

Nothing, as long as it's presented this way. The 300 Below website does NOT
present Cryo treating as "not proven" they present it as a fact. That is
the
problem.

Yes, I found that as well. You will also note of course the date - 1994 -
there
has been a lot of time elapsed since then. Why do you think that they had
to go
so far back for a link? Why isn't there anything more current?

There were a lot of companies that did cryo treating back then, much more
than today. Why is that?

Yes, I have done the research as well and I am aware that this
transformation
is what is most commonly cited. However, I have also found people saying
that during the course
of this that the cryo processing must be done as part of the metal quenching
process. In short, the part to be cryo treated must be heated to near
melting
point, then quenched in the cryo freezer. If this is not done, and the metal
is
quenched to room temperature, and time elapses,
the Austenite changes into a stable form in which it is not possible to
convert into
martensite later, even if cryo treated.

There are a number of very good threads on this in the sci.engr.mech,
sci.materials,
sci.engr.metallurgy newsgroups that are much more current than the 1994
article
that the 300Below site cites. There are many people giving their opinions
there
who list their qualifications and the opinions have a much wider diversity
than
the 300 Below site has.

Why do you say that?

No. It depends on how the study is done.

Surely you know that the major drug companies are required by law to do
extensive studies of their new drugs before they are allowed on the market
in
the United States. This kind of thing isn't limited to drug companies as
well.

There are auditing firms that have reputations to protect that can be hired
to
audit the study and report if the study really was done according to the
scientific
method and wasn't biased. The amount of money a company like 300Below would
pay these firms are miniscule compared to the overall yearly profits these
firms
make, and as such these firms have no vested interest in lying to protect
300Below.

AND FURTHERMORE how does anyone know that 300Below hasn't
already DONE such a study and found the results inconclusive? If 300Below
did
do such a study and had it properly audited and such, if they didn't like
the results,
then nothing requires them to release them. After all they did pay for the
results.

If 300Below really did fund a 100% scientific study, the ENTIRE methodology
would be disclosed, and you bet your bippy that somewhere someone would
attempt to replicate it.

The only time that the skeptics like me disagree with industry-funded
studies
is when they are done in such a way that the methodology isn't released so
that independent verification is impossible. It's like the Consumer Reports
surveys. CR does not release the methodology, nor do they release the names
of the respondents. So if they claim that 200 people say they hate Hondas,
there is no way for an independent to call, say, 10% of that 200 and see if
all of them did in fact answer yes to the "do you hate Hondas" question.
For
all we know CR is just making up it's results, there's no way to check.

Since just about 99.9% of industry studies are done this way, no wonder we
automatically knee-jerk dismiss them. But it's not impossible to do them
properly.

US Military for one.

Those are not NIS statements. They are 9 year old claims by a magazine that
a person
that worked at NIS claimed them.

No, I am not allowed to say that: "companies that don't attempt to even try
scientifically demonstrating their superior technology are fakes" without a
scientific study.

I am objective on this, and so far all the reading I've done in the Usenet
archives which are in the last few years are like yours, a bunch of opinion.
The only single thing I've seen at all authoratative was that a materials
scientist
stated several years ago that the US Army was going to study cryo treatment
and report their results. I could not find any results from this so I
went ahead and e-mailed the guy. He did claim that they found that a change
took place in the tested materials, but he hasn't seen a copy of the study
and has no info on whether the change is significant or not. He is going to
see if he can get a copy of the report, so we will see what happens there.
Unfortunately, this is the best lead I have and like most of these leads,
once again it's hearsay. And worse, the guy was a cryo proponent before
he announced the study was being done, so if he does come up with a
report, I'll have to rerequest it through official military channels to see
if they even did it at all.

Everyone else has different opinions. For example in one article from
, dated Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000,
Message-ID: 8ui23r$teq$ he states the following:

"We are in the wear and tool business. (See www.carbideprocessors.com)
No one in the private sector has had any definitive results. No one on the
academic side has been able to find any conclusive studies. This
doesn't mean that it doesn't work Personally I think people are seeing what
they wish to see in many cases...."

In short, my point of view is this. The 300Below claims of cryro processing
are unproven. The burden of proof is on 300Below to demonstrate their
superior
service. Furthermore, the process that 300Below claims that they use does
not even square with the recommendations of some of the cryro proponents out
there,
whom are claiming that heating must be a part of the treatment. In
addition,
there is no agreement among metallurgists (at least, not any of the ones
that
post on Usenet) that the cryo process does anything. Additional searches of
the Web that I have done turn up a bunch of companies selling the process,
but
precious little in academic studies. There's maybe 2 of them out there on
the
Web that claim the process works, which are documented well enough to
be repeated. Neither of these was published in a scientific peer-reviewed
journal
nor have they been repeated. So, I discount them.

I have an open mind on this. Perhaps the process works on rotors, perhaps
it doesen't. But even if it does work on rotors, I find some of the claims
on
the 300Below site to be really silly. For example one of them is that
rifles
experience higher barrel velocity, well how can this be the case just
because the
rifel is harder?!?! It makes no sense at all. And even worse is the claim
that it
helps aluminum bats. Aluminum is a completely different material than steel
and does not have carbon fibers in it and all the rest of that.

In summary, like I said previously, it is unusual that the 300 Below people
are not spending their money funding
some real scientific research that could develop a repeatable set of
experiments on supercooling, and a theory or theories on why supercooling
works, thus
creating authoratative cites that they can use in their advertising, they
have instead elected to depend wholly on testimonial. Unusual, and very
stupid if supercooling actually works.

Ted

 

No I have not come across such a test, and because of the reasons I
cited in my post to Ted, I am not holding my breath for one. Even
assuming that cryo-treating is the best thing since sliced bread, 300
Below would probably be wasting their money funding such a study
because, as I said, the skeptics will simply say "Well dang! You can't
believe that study - look who paid for it - you think the people who did
that are going to say it doesn't work and lose a good customer!?" - so
it will have been money wasted on 300 Below's part.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

That's good - I felt like you were trying to make it look like I was
unable to grasp that due to my being so pathetic. Apparently I was
wrong for feeling that way. 8^)

Your missing the point. I am merely saying STOP

Yes sir! (actually I will continue to use it when the situation fits -
generally when I see someone attempting to make science into a
religion.)

Actually I think its surprising how much you can know with certainty
(possibly we differ on that). The mistake many make is to essentially
say "I can't know everything with enough certainy, therefore I will
reject it all and blame God when my life gets screwed up" (I'm not
saying that applies to you - it just seems to be a common human
tendency.) You wanted another cliché - OK - here's one: "Don't throw
the baby out with the bath water".

Right or wrong, good or bad that is the nature of businesses selling a
product - listen to any car ad - even Chrysler car ads. After all, we
all want "crushed Corinthian leather" don't we? 8^) Watch the 4-wheel
drive trucks driving over huge rocks that would void your warranty.
They tend not to downplay the negatives, shortcomings, limitations, or
whatever of their products. And that is where the "healthy skepticism"
that was mentioned earlier comes in.

All good points. Proves nothing, but, yes - those observations need to
be plugged into the skepticism equation.

I can't say I disagree with that, but that sounds just as much like
hear-say than anything you have pointed out. The Worth bats are heat
treated just before the cryo:
http://www.worthsports.com/technology/batprocess.html. (though they are
aluminum as you point out below).

Maybe the cryo needs to follow heat treatment, maybe it doesn't -
neither one of us has any real basis at this point to say either way, do
we.

Useful info. Not surprising at all. But of course their opinions are
infinitely more credible than the NIS guy. I doubt the laws of physics
have changed much since 1994 (although I realize that your point is that
we probably should know more by now, which maybe we don't for some
strange reason).

Read back thru your previous post - you would have thought that there
was absolutely nothing but testimonials (and I see you even repeat that
fallacy below) on the 300 Below site - nothing about the NIS guy or the
Rumanian univeristy study, but you now acknowledge that you have seen
them. To be honest, as I said, it did not appear that you were being
(or would in the future be) objective on this no matter what was
presented. You do seem to have softened a bit and regained some
objectivity with this post, though in places...

Fair enough.

And how often do we hear of drugs being recalled because eighty or
ninety-some people surprisingly died from it when used as prescribed
even though it has gone thru all the FDA protocols that scientifically
proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was effective and safe.

Valid point (although, Arthur Anderson, RIP, had a good rep as an
auditing firm - sorry - couldn't resist.) 8^) Bottom line, humans can't
be trusted - even in scientific studies, you have no way of knowing
when. for **WHATEVER** reason they are faking things and when they
aren't.

You don't - true of practically any claim.

Ipso facto, cryogenic treatment doesn't work and is a scam? Again,
these are all things that are true of **ANY** human endeavor.

Valid point.

Valid point.

Valid point. It's used in armor piercing stuff and high-wear items like
tank tracks and gun barrels, and is so good that it's kept secret. I'm
only kidding - but a possibility. Just as likely as 300 Below having
had a study done that disproved it and hid the study.

Thanks for proving my point. I wasn't aware that the laws of physics
had changed since '94.

OK - good.

All probably true. His opinion is as valid as yours or mine.

The ball bats are pre-heated. I also would find it hard to believe that
brake rotors were not stress-relieved as a final step before leaving the
factory - if not, that may explain warping the first time they heat up
in application on "bargain" rotors.

I find that hard to believe. The statements to the contrary are pretty
clear.

Additional searches of

Then, again, you're not being objective. Besides, peer-reviewed
journals publish articles one year saying that margerine is better for
you than butter, and the next year that butter is better, and the next
year that margerine is better, ad infintum, so, though I do respect the
scientific process, I don't put quite the credence in the scientific
community that you do (even though I'm part of it - seen too much crap -
and in that respect, like you, I too am jaded), nor do I dismiss as
easily as you do more casual "science" - lifes too short to prove
**EVERYTHING** to the Nth degree. Remember the bumble bee! (sorry -
had to say that) 8^) And olive oil will get rid of gall stones even
though the MD's will tell you that it's impossible.

Oh, I don't know - harder finish due to all the extra carbide particles
so evenly distributed throughout - could affect resonances, energy
losses, surface friction,... Again, you are dismissing so much out of
hand as even being possible. That shows lack of objectivity.

And even worse is the claim

So therefore 7050 (CU31) aluminum alloy could not possibly benefit from
cyro treatment. How do you know that similar molecular processes don't
happen in the particular alloys of aluminum. Or how do you know that
completely different mechanisms take place but that improve properties.
From the Worth page: "The aluminum alloy consists of some of the
following elements; silicon, iron, copper, manganese, magnesium,
chromium, nickel, zinc, titanium, scandium, zirconium, and very small
traces of other elements". I doubt that you can look at the list of
components and say what happens to the alloy when treated.

Ya gotta admit - "Ball Buster" is a clever name and makes you want to
believe it just from that! 8^)

Not true. NIS, Rumanian university, for starters.

Unusual, and very

Maybe so. So far no proof either way, eh? Just a lot of opinions,
speculation, hear-say both ways. The materials are going to obey the
laws of physics (known and unknown) regardless of what you or I say or
believe. That darn bumble bee just keeps flying!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

There are many independent laboratories who will perform such tests.

Matt

 

OK, point made. But, if your going to go down that road, your going to have
to use something for basis of judgement of what in the whole God scene is
the baby and what is the bathwater. And where does that something come
from? Only 2 places, either blind faith, or logic based on observable fact.
So
the argument circles and once again starts over.

This is a bit different. The usefulness of an automobile doesen't have to
be
proven to anybody (except perhaps a few hard-core bicycle riders) so it
isn't necessary for car advertisers to justify that your better off with a
car than without. So right there goes 99% of all the reasonable/logical
arguments that might be used in an advertising claim - they are already
accepted, so the only thing that is left is appeals to emotion. (which
is what the driving over axle-breaking rocks is all about)

But, like the people attempting to prove that Techron is useful, or
Dentyne gum actually reduces tooth decay, or some other unproven
claim, not only does the manufacturer have to use an emotional
sweep in the advertising (ie: pictures of kids in the gum commercials,
cute little clay cars that move in the gasoline commercials) they have
to interject some of the appeal to reason, to justify that their product
even works at all. 300Below is using just about all appeals to emotion in
it's
advertising, which isn't reasonable for a product that's unproven -
unless it's a product that doesen't work at all. (in which case the typical
MO is 100% appeals to emotion)

But neither of these is put at the forefront of the site. And besides the
site
links, I can't find any reference of them elsewhere on the Internet. So I
can't
believe that Below300 feels that they are that credible or they would be
made more obvious on the site.

You would have to spend an hour digging through all the crap on the 300Below
site to find these.

We don't. Or at least, we don't hear about drug withdrawls as long as the
benefits outweigh the risks.

Take aspirin. According to one MD here:

http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/aspirin.htm

aspirin kills "thousands" a year. Yet it's not withdrawn - because it helps
more
than it hurts.

I did think of that also.

But even you are scratching at things rather than attempting to make a
logical
response on that one. There are some claims that are so obviously
outlandish
that before any reasonable person can believe them, that they have to be
accompanied by some logical argument.

Sure, your going to run across things from time to time that are "not
intuitive"
as they say. But when someone is making one of these kinds of claims, there
is tremendous burden of proof on them to accompany the claims with a
reasoned explanation. That isn't the case on the 300Below site on the
aluminum bat thing.

It's not the laws of physics that are the problem. It's in understanding
how those
laws interact to form some material property that is desirable.

Ted

 

No disrespect to Bill, but I don't see the rationale behind freezing the
rotors either. It would be interesting to see what a really knowledgable
metallurgist has to say on the subject rather than the marketing silliness
on their website. Personally, as far as usefulness goes, I'd rank this
along with "paint sealant" at a new car dealership. But hey, if it
makes you happy....

Cheers,

C

 

Unfortunately too many people, by their freedom of will have accepted
the "blind faith" junk - in many cases out of laziness and in this age
of instant gratification (they can't push a button and 5 seconds later
have an understanding of all truth, so they chuck it), because the word
of God itself tells people who have ears to hear and eyes to see how to
do it based on observable fact - to wit: II Tinothy 2:15: "Study the
shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
(better translation of "ashamed" is "disappointed in his expectations")
rightly dividing the word of truth".

So it takes work and time - lots of time in some places - to overcome
the fallacies that have crept into the truth and made it into just
another man-made religion, and the translational errors, some done
intentionally for political reasons at the time of translation - but the
tools are there - things like concordances, interlinear Greek texts -
lots of tools that will get you back to the original intent. But again,
it's freedom of will. One person might decide to not believe it at
all. Another might try a casual attempt (not putting the work into
finding out the truth and getting rid of the man-introduced errors) and
end up as II Timothy promises "disappointed in his expectations".

I choose to believe it and to do the work of finding out the truth.
What you find out is that the closer you look at the things man does,
the more imperfection you see. The closer you look at God's works, the
more perfection you see. Anyway, if I'm wrong, I guess it won't make
any difference at the end of the day. If I'm right, the promise is that
I won't be ashamed, or disappointed in my expectations.

Enough of this - I'm not willing to expand this furhter into this type
of discussion.

We're talking in circles. You have used no more logic (maybe less) in
your claim that something doesn't work than I have used in saying that
it appears to work for me. As I said before - we can argue this til the
cows come home. The materials are going to obey the lawss of physics,
and talking about it won't change a thing. You choose what you believe,
I'll choose what I believe. We'll both get the results of our beliefs.
All I know is my brakes don;t chatter anymore, and my back feels great.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

OK, now it's starting to be interesting...

Hmm, well I hate to break it to you but Man wrote the Bible. Gee Bill,
you started off so promising too! One again your trapped in yet another
circular argument. If you argue that Man's works are imperfect compared
to God's, then that means the Bible is imperfect. And if that's the case
then
what the Bible says about God - him being perfect, that is - isn't perfect
and thus wrong. But this then knocks the props out from under the argument
that Man is imperfect compared to God because God's imperfect because
what Man writes about him is imperfect. It just goes round and round with
no basis in anything. What it boils down to is once more a strict "blind
faith"
statement of "I believe God is perfect, Man is not" with no basis except
what basis applies to the person making the statement.

Old argument. Based on Matthew 5.48 See above.

This is the old "Believe in God because if He exists you will benefit
and if He doesen't then you haven't lost anything" argument. It's called
Pascal's Wager and it is stupid. It's also been disproved. See
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Not surprising. Bill, you really need to learn how to do a decent
religious argument. So often your religious posts start out full of
promise then you wreck them by tacking on some bromide.
It's a shame, didn't anyone
ever tell you to think for youself? What YOU have to say is far
more interesting than outdated theological arguments.

Just keep in mind that the Religions of the world are mostly who
created all the "justifications" that God/Jesus/Mary/Frank/Sam/whoever
existed, and all the justifications that we must believe in them, yadda
yadda yadda. All done to justify to the faithful why they need to keep
coming back to the temple every week and put more coins in the
Priest's pot. If you faith is so weak as to require these justifications
and old religious arguments to support your belief, then you have a
real problem.

I'm not claiming it doesen't work. I'm stating that the people who are
claiming that it DOES work aren't providing any theories of why
it allegedly works, nor are they providing any means of
replicating their claimed success. Thus in effect I'm claiming that
there is no basis for it working. This is different than stating that
I have proof it doesen't work.

This is somewhat of a glass half-full, half-empty routine. You are a
person who is willing to believe that something works until proven
that it doesen't. I am a person who believes that something doesen't
work until proven that it does. It is no wonder we don't agree on this.

Ted

 

Physically, yes (you didn't really think that I thought otherwise did
you?), but quess who told them **WHAT** to write. But the Bible itself
even addresses this in II Peter 1:21 (which, no doubt, you don't believe
- and that is absolutely your privilege).

Only if you start out with your initial false assumption that man wrote
it independent of God's direction (and - no - I don't expect you to
necessarily believe that; again - free will). (sorry for the split
infinitive, but I think they are saying that those are acceptable now)

And of course, your argument (which appears to be that the Bible is
imperfect, therefore I can't believe it, therefore, the only thing
remaining for knowing truth is my own human logic which says that the
Bible is imperfect, and therefore the only thing remaining for knowing
truth is...) is not circular. (sarcasm)

Again, once you start with your foundation made of sand, your building
is doomed to crumble. A good foundation is built on rock.

...same as your beliefs, right?

So your wisdom that is higher than God's wisdom, and that will ensure
your eternal life based on your own brand of circular human logic,
is...?

So old = bad? I see. Not very good logic. Gravity is old, yet still
works.

Ummm - how could you say that something like that is proved or
disproved? It is self-evident, though probably not of much worth and
certainly not the basis of my faith like you seem to falsely assume.
Ironic that you use the word "stupid" immediately prior to making a
statement like that. BTW - that is not the basis for my faith.

See

To what purpose? I can't make you believe or not believe anything, nor
would I try. Again, free will. I don't argue these things (Proverbs
26:4 - hmmm - perhaps I am guilty of this?).

Not familiar with that expression or its meaning. At least my bumble
bee cliché has obvious and clear meaning.

Oh - I see - you mean that I should accept what you're trying to tell
me. Oh wait - that wouldn't be thinking for myself now would it.
Sounds like another of your circular arguments ("If I don't think like
Ted thinks I ought to, then I am not thinking for myself. Therefore, I
must think like Ted to show that I'm thinking for myself").

Hmmm - funny Ted - I haven't set foot in a church building in several
years (OK - my daughter did get married recently, but that's an
exception) - can't stomach most of what I hear because the truth has
been watered down so much to be pallatable to those who want to reject
God's Word and elevate man's "wisdom". Do you think maybe that that
might be a clue that I might in fact think for myself just a bit, Ted?
You ever been excommunicated, Ted. Well I have. So get off your
holier-than-thou-because-you're-a-smarter-than-God-independent-thinker
bullsh**!

I just proved to you that I don't require such justifications, so does
that mean that (by your own words) my faith is not weak and that I in
fact don't have a real problem.

Again - old is by definition bad. A running theme with you. Gravity is
old and it still works. If someone were to listen to your logic and
believe that old is inherently bad and false, then, believing that
gravity is a crock, he might try driving off of a cliff believing that
he will not get hurt. Problem is that reality is a bitch.

They don't owe you that. Why do you assert that they do? They had to
think these things thru and decide what they want to believe and
disbelieve just like you did. I replicate my success all the time, and
I am under no obligation to prove it to you or even to tell you what it
is just so you can vomit all over it.

Thus in effect I'm claiming that

I have proof, but not that you would accept.

I am a person who believes that something doesen't

And that's pretty sad. Not uncommon, but sad. (Actually I think people
are not being honest with themselves when they say such things - it just
makes them feel macho to say things like that.) I can think of many
things that you cannot prove, but that you act on, or you would not
still be alive.

Amen. We both will get the results based on our beliefs and how they
line up with God's reality, whether provable or not. If you have
problems with that, don't complain to me - I didn't set it up that way.
God went to the trouble of not only making salvation available to you,
but he had the factory shop manual of life written so you could know the
truth, and people will still complain about it. I Timothy 2:4,5

I Corinthians 1:17-25

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

One Troll in a town can cause some noise,
Two trolls in a town can make a very lot of noise.

(old joke about lawyers)

 

gentelmen...gentlemen.....this is robert who started this post about
rotars for a 1999 dodge grand caravan.....this original question sure
has gone through a lot of twists and turns....