facthunter Posted October 21 Posted October 21 the worst situation is where the engine is operated for only a short time and is not hot enough to expel the water. I gallon of hydrocarbon fuel makes over a gallon of WATER. Do the reaction and use the appropriate atomic weights to check. Nev. 1 1
onetrack Posted October 22 Posted October 22 And combustion also produces a considerable amount of acids, which do serious damage to engine internals. Oil contains additives such as detergents that deal with acids from combustion by neutralising them. 1 1
facthunter Posted October 22 Posted October 22 Sulphur as one of the worst contaminants. 7% of Bunker fuel. Nev 1
nomadpete Posted October 22 Posted October 22 1 hour ago, facthunter said: Sulphur as one of the worst contaminants. 7% of Bunker fuel. Nev I'll remember not to put it in my fire pump, Nev 1
facthunter Posted October 22 Posted October 22 It can be in other fuels . Any of it is too much.. Fired up the Honda with the 2 stage pump that I mentioned before. It sure puts out the pressure but gets hot pretty fast. Crankcase temp very high. I always put GOOD oil in such things. They actually work hard. Nev 1
onetrack Posted October 22 Posted October 22 Yeah, and the Hondas, and many other small engines, don't hold a lot of oil in the crankcase.
Jerry_Atrick Posted October 22 Posted October 22 (edited) New thought.. I am not one to shy away from political discourse, nor one to shy away form indigenous rights. However, I think Lydia Thorpe scored an own-goal for her heckling of the king.. OK.. she scoes a lot of own goals, but that one, I think, irked many who would see her side of the story.. maybe. And, I am none-too-happy with Michael Wests portrayal of the monarchs as the landlords of Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth (it is even arguable they are landlords of the UK anymore), and stoking ship into the fire to support republicanism turns more people away, I would suggest. Just a random couple of thoughts about how to turn people away from your cause (maybe I should read this twice!) Edited October 22 by Jerry_Atrick 2
Marty_d Posted October 22 Posted October 22 19 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said: New thought.. I am not one to shy away from political discourse, nor one to shy away form indigenous rights. However, I think Lydia Thorpe scored an own-goal for her heckling of the king.. OK.. she scoes a lot of own goals, but that one, I think, irked many who would see her side of the story.. maybe. And, I am none-too-happy with Michael Wests portrayal of the monarchs as the landlords of Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth (it is even arguable they are landlords of the UK anymore), and stoking ship into the fire to support republicanism turns more people away, I would suggest. Just a random couple of thoughts about how to turn people away from your cause (maybe I should read this twice!) Yeah I agree. She got some support among the more activist indigenous people, but others haven't liked her outburst much. I don't agree with Voldemort (nothing new there) but I think it was a bit embarrassing for the government. 1
old man emu Posted October 22 Posted October 22 Parliamentarians make this oath or affirmation: "I,....., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law." Thorpe's cry, "You are not my king", is a rejection of her allegiance to the King of Australia. Should she be removed from Parliament due to her stated lack of allegiance? 3
Marty_d Posted October 22 Posted October 22 Not in my opinion. The backlash of doing so isn't worth it. For better or worse she is an elected Senator so unless she does something illegal I think the decision to quit is hers. 1 1
nomadpete Posted October 22 Posted October 22 I never have particulatly liked Lydia. Always gave me the impression of trying to ride a wagon of anti-popularism or infamy. And you might have already gathered that I am not particularly sympathetic toward much of the indigenous political movement. My first reaction to her attention seeking outburst was that it was inapproprate. As one of her own elders said of it, "there's a time and place" to make a stand. And "she doesn't speak for all of us". However, having had a bit of a think about it, I now don't feel at all put out by her outburst. Moreover, I think it is disingenuous to turn it into a anti monarchy argument. That argument should be separated and made in terms of present benefit (or not) to the country. Bear in mind that some recent researchers allege many early atrocities were carried out by early British military. That said, the British military of the time was responsible for any genocide and of setting a standard. I do not mind courtesy and respect when greeting heads of state. But I do believe it would have been honorable for the king to announce an apology for historic acts by his military forces in a past era. After all, one of our past PM's has managed to. There is no way to "give us back our land". It's two hundred years too late for that. It's too late to go back to undo the past. But an acknowledgement of the history would be a good thing. I think Lydia noisily makes the point that the head of state is portraying a "Everything is hunky dory. Nothing to see here" attitude, when everything isn't. Heads of state should address the thorny issues as well as bask in the glory. 1 2
nomadpete Posted October 23 Posted October 23 2 hours ago, old man emu said: Parliamentarians make this oath or affirmation: "I,....., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law." Thorpe's cry, "You are not my king", is a rejection of her allegiance to the King of Australia. Should she be removed from Parliament due to her stated lack of allegiance? I see your point. But if you want to make meaningful influence in the way a government acts, how can you do it without participating in the government, with the authority that comes from being democratically elected to it? Should the pro republic politicians also be removed from parliament for their professed lack of allegiance to the monarch? 1 1
facthunter Posted October 23 Posted October 23 (edited) America had a war to get away from the British. We can separate peacefully which is a plus. There are risks having a King of another Country as your head of govt. If the indigenes get a deal it would NOT be with the Monarchy. It will have to be with the Australian Federal Govt. on behalf of the People of Australia. Nev. Edited October 23 by facthunter 1
spacesailor Posted October 23 Posted October 23 (edited) The American " civil war " American Union & Confederacy. The Union won .But the French did kick the English out of America. difference of opinion here . spacesailor Edited October 23 by spacesailor
old man emu Posted October 23 Posted October 23 3 hours ago, nomadpete said: But if you want to make meaningful influence in the way a government acts, how can you do it without participating in the government As far as I am concerned, her comments had nothing to do with influencing the actions of the Government. At no time did she direct any words towards the Australian Government. Her words were directed at King Charles and were a rejection of him as the King of Australia. She redacted her oath of allegiance to the King (which she is entitled to do), but having done so, also redacted her allegiance to the parliamentary system by which our society operates. What she said was tantamount to delivering a notice to quit the parliament. I think Parliament should accept her notice to quit and cautin her not to let the front door hit her on the arse as she leaves. 1 1
facthunter Posted October 23 Posted October 23 SHE as an individual was NOT elected to the Senate. She got there by being given the opportunity by the GREENS putting her on THEIR list in a high enough place to get in.. This idea of doing a runner and staying there for the remainder of the term is BS. Nev 1
Marty_d Posted October 23 Posted October 23 By that logic Nev, Jacquie Lambie should have quit when she left Clive Palmer's abortion of a party. She's turned out to be, on the whole, a positive influence I think. 1 1
red750 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Daily Mail: Lidia Thorpe has made the extraordinary claim that she pledged her allegiance to the Queen's 'hairs' - rather than 'heirs' - when she was sworn in as a senator more than two years ago. Ms Thorpe made global headlines when she screamed at King Charles and Queen Camilla during a parliamentary reception on Monday, accusing the King of '(committing) genocide against our people' and yelling 'f*** the colony'. More here. 1
facthunter Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Lambie is there now in her own right and has well and truly established her credentials. A horse of an entirely different colour. No self respecting person would stay with Clive Palmer and his PUP. His Party cant be compared with the Greens especially in the old days when Bob Brown ran it. Nev 1 1
nomadpete Posted October 23 Posted October 23 (edited) 5 hours ago, old man emu said: As far as I am concerned, her comments had nothing to do with influencing the actions of the Government. At no time did she direct any words towards the Australian Government. Her words were directed at King Charles and were a rejection of him as the King of Australia. She redacted her oath of allegiance to the King (which she is entitled to do), but having done so, also redacted her allegiance to the parliamentary system by which our society operates. What she said was tantamount to delivering a notice to quit the parliament. I think Parliament should accept her notice to quit and cautin her not to let the front door hit her on the arse as she leaves. Historically Lydia has been promoting various agendas for the aboriginsl peoples. As such her agenda has little efficacacy as a 'voice in the wilderness' unless she enters the political arena with the support of a majority of voters to support her. She got that but was forced to agree to an uncomfortable allegiance to promote her agenda.. I don't agree with a lot of her stuff but that is how the system works Edited October 23 by nomadpete no reason 1
old man emu Posted October 23 Posted October 23 I have no objection to anyone entering Parliament and once there to "work within the system" to achieve what the electorate has indicated its support for. Most often an Independent has to put in a lot of effort to gain success. I don't know much about Senator Thorpe, but nomadpete indicates that she has been working hard on those matters. Good on her. However, my reason for saying that, as a result of her "You are not my King" comment, she has declares that she no longer wishes to show allegiance to the King according to the oath/affirmation of service she made when being admitted as a member of the Senate. That allegiance is the very core of the role of a Senator. The King exercises power over his Australian subjects based on the advice of parliament operating in both Houses. We know that the King's use of that power is very laissez faire. Advice come to him and his response is "Ok. Do it." He can because his parliament has sworn that it will give good advice, that is how it shows allegiance. If Thorpe denies that Charles is the King of Australia, how can her advice be trusted? 1
willedoo Posted October 23 Posted October 23 3 hours ago, red750 said: Lidia Thorpe has made the extraordinary claim that she pledged her allegiance to the Queen's 'hairs' - rather than 'heirs' That reminds me of a mate who said when God was giving out ears, he thought he said beers and asked for two big ones. 1 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now