pictures

[johnson33]

You did a lot of research there...

[tomt]

theys somthin here ^

[tomt]

diyAudio

[tomt]

1742 replies | 65809 view(s)

- - - Updated - - -



- - - Updated - - -

[tomt]

Daisuke Obata (@dice_key37) • Instagram photos and videos






#tokyocameraclub • Instagram photos and videos




img]1744 replies | 65825 view(s)[img

- - - Updated - - -



An-Ten-Nae - Vestige (on Raindrops On Roses, 213) HQ - YouTube

[tomt]

[tomt]

1745 replies | 65913 view(s)







The trains collided near the town of bad Aibling, was moving at high speed. On the site where the crash happened, there is a twist, the machinists was no eye contact and so they are not slowed, said the Minister of transport of Germany.


РИА Новости Минтранс ФРГ: машинисты столкнувшихся поездов не видели друг друга | РИА Новости

[tomt]

1746 replies | 65940 view(s)

- - - Updated - - -

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t5...29091031_n.jpg

1746 replies | 65940 view(s)

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

[tomt]

Dirigent Michael Gielen: Der Unbeugsame | ZEIT ONLINE

He answered:

Well, what happened there is, of course?now all of you must adjust your brains?the biggest work of art there has ever been. The fact that spirits achieve with one act something which we in music could never dream of, that people practise ten years madly, fanatically for a concert. And then die. [Hesitantly.] And that is the greatest work of art that exists for the whole Cosmos. Just imagine what happened there. There are people who are so concentrated on this single performance, and then five thousand people are driven to Resurrection. In one moment. I couldn't do that. Compared to that, we are nothing, as composers. [...] It is a crime, you know of course, because the people did not agree to it. They did not come to the "concert". That is obvious. And nobody had told them: "You could be killed in the process." (Stockhausen 2002, 76?77)

[tomt]

reader comments: slick 50

7 Jun 2004
I was the Creative Director of the ad agency that launched Slick 50 into the UK and wrote all the material that supported it. I hasten to add that I have had no connection with the company for many years.

Unfortunately, my records have long gone but I believe it was around 1985 that we were approached by Mitchell Marketing and the UK representative of Slick 50. As a motoring enthusiast myself, I refused to even consider yet another new 'wonder glop' until I was presented with independent test evidence - which indeed was forthcoming.

Our ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) are rightly very quick to jump on unsupported claims and I knew we would be challenged. Incidentally, the ASA does not except 'unsolicited testimonials' as evidence.

At this point I must add that I can only speak for the UK product. I believe that this differed at that time from the US product in two significant respects: it used a different base oil as a carrier and, more importantly, the PTFE chemical package was developed in the UK to a different formulation. Even the nature of the PTFE 'platelets' was different.

Two independent test reports were supplied in support of Slick 50. One was by Engineering Research and Application Ltd - an authoritative UK company - and the other by TUV - a German company considered to be Europe's leading testing authority.

ERA recorded, amongst other improvements, an average power increase of 12.70% and TUV an average friction reduction of 19.10%.

At that time, engine management systems were not chip-controlled and, after changing the oil and filter and introducing Slick 50, the treatment could be completed by idling the engine for 30 minutes. During that period users invariably found (I know I did!) that the idle setting had to be continually backed off as friction reduction caused the idle speed to increase.

As an empirical test, we also took three ordinary saloon cars to Mallory Park racing circuit. Two had been given the Slick 50 treatment. On arrival all three had the engine oil drained from the sump and were then driven around the circuit at a steady 50 mph. I recall that the untreated engine seized up within one mile, but the other two lapped continuously for 50 untroubled laps - one was being driven by rally champion Roger Clark.

I also recall that whereas the original UK formulation could have the Slick 50 platelets trapped by an unchanged oil filter (as the Automobile Association discovered the hard way when they attempted to test the product and forgot to read the instructions!) - a later improved formulation reduced the micron size to below 5 microns, which would pass through most conventional oil filters, although the filter change is still recommended.

Incidentally, I believe that the particle bonding system was also improved to the extent that the one to two micron thick layer of Slick 50 would require grinding off to remove it. I mention this layer as I note a reference to ' blocking oilways' - which I suggest would be extremely unlikely at this level of thickness.

I also recall another test on a DAF Turbo-diesel truck. This time the supercharger was dismantled after 150,000 miles and, despite the mileage and extreme operating temperature, wear was found to be negligible, with the Slick 50 coating virtually intact.

I believe that one of your other contributors asked why engine manufacturers didn't use this process, if it was so good. Again it is my recollection, and no doubt they might confirm this, that Ford did in fact start to use a PTFE coating for their pistons.

As you might imagine, rival products (now long gone) popped up to challenge our claims. So as well as the ASA we also had to provide supporting evidence to the satisfaction of Trading Standards Authorities - which we did.

As an amusing aside, I recall an account of a how one rival product based in Australia produced their own UK evidence by submitting a newspaper report of their treated car being driven without engine oil across Australia. Unfortunately, they published a picture of the car and the Australian Slick 50 representative recognised it as the same car that had previously been treated by a Slick 50 dealer and subjected to a similar, earlier test!

We suggested that even if the second treatment was indeed effective (we made no claim that it wasn't) the results may have been affected by the earlier Slick 50 treatment.

Personally I agree that consumers should always be sceptical. I often pointed out that if you added up all the claims made by performance improvers, then treating your whole vehicle should reduce fuel consumption to nearly zero!

Our claim was really only to do with friction reduction and it was up to the driver to decide how they would exploit that benefit - improved mileage or improved performance.

Initially, Slick 50 regarded the treatment as being effective 'for the life of the engine' but I believe that in the UK they now recommend retreatment after 100,000 miles. I suspect that this has more to do with credibility and the dangers of appearing to overclaim, then any real wear risk.

I hope this has been of some value and will gladly try to find more detail if you would find it useful.

Len Teff
Syresham, Northants, UK.


1748 replies | 65955 view(s)