"While on this topic, has anyone used FreezePruf (made by Liquid Fence) on fruit tree buds/blossoms?" I've not used FreezePruf, but have tried another product for which the manufacturer makes similar claims. The other product didn't work for me. Chris Doll, a retired fruit specialist from IL, has written he has tried 3 such products in his commercial orchard with no success. Some copper compounds do prevent frost damage to blooms, but there is a key difference in the claims. The copper compounds kill ice nucleating bacteria. The bacteria make the blooms more frost tender. In other words, the ice nucleating bacteria cause death of the blooms at freezing temperatures which are higher than the blooms normally endure without damage. By killing the bacteria, the blooms return to the normal frost hardiness expected. Killing the bacteria does not lower the freezing point for normal blooms. For example, if a bloom can normally take 27F before it freezes and dies, spraying copper will not improve survival at 27F. Copper will only prevent ice nucleating bacteria from killing the bloom at, say, 29F. Copper won't provide protection below 27F. The claim by FreezePruf, is that it improves cold tolerance by 2 to 9 degrees F more than is normal for the plant tissues. Some people swear by some of these products like FreezePruf. I'm dubious of the claims. Supposedly the products enter through the cuticle and translocate locally via systemic action. Part of the problem with that explanation is that typically the products are sprayed at fairly cool/cold temperatures when metabolic processes of the plant are shut down. Until I see peer reviewed research of the benefits of these type products, I wont' be buying any more of them. Testimonials, even from people you know, can be erroneous. As an FYI for the thread, allow me to share an example from my own life (I could offer more than one.) Many years ago, there was a teflon based oil additive, which claimed a one-time treatment to your engine would coat the inside of the engine with teflon (for the life of the engine) thereby offering all kinds of benefits of reduced friction (longer engine life, better fuel economy, more horsepower, increased idle speed, etc.). At the time, there were stories floating around that the manufacturer had tested this product in a brand new Caterpillar bull dozer against an untreated Cat bull dozer. They ran one of the dozers with the oil additive, the other with just regular oil. They drained the oil of both dozers, then started them up. Supposedly, after a few minutes, the motor on the untreated dozer seized up, but the treated one ran two hours with no engine oil (and no engine damage) before they finally gave up and shut it off. I had a couple friends recommend the product to me. They had tried it and claimed the treatment helped their fuel economy considerably. They knew other people who used it and claimed benefits as well. I decided to try it in a relatively new pickup I owned. At the time, I kept detailed records of the fuel economy. I had a job which required me to travel a lot on the roads. I used the oil additive according to directions, but saw no difference in idle speed of the engine or fuel economy after the treatment. It was a well thought out and well marketed scam. Why all the positive testimonials about this product when it was a sham? Part of the explanation was the cost of the treatment. It was very expensive ($50/quart at the time). There is a phenomenon called the placebo effect. The more expensive or inconvenient a placebo is to use, the more likely the user will attribute the touted benefits to the placebo. It is so drilled in our heads (and experienced in reality so often) "You get what you pay for", that an expensive placebo must really work. We create, or skew data to make it fit our expectations. Another way the company was able to "sell" their sham was that they seemed to have plausible explanations of how the product worked. Everyone knows teflon coated pans are "non-stick". It was simply the same principle extended to the inside of an engine. It sounded reasonable. I discussed this very example with my daughter not long ago. She's had a lot more college chemistry than I did. She pointed out to me that teflon coating is a fairly difficult process involving various chemical reactions and heat, none which could possibly occur inside an engine coated with motor oil. Simply putting teflon in an additive won't cause it to adhere to the internal engine surfaces (teflon by nature is pretty anti-stick). Below is a link explaining the deception of this product. At the time I tried the product, it was before the information age. We didn't have the benefit of the internet. I just knew the product didn't work for me. Here is a link that might be useful: Slick 50 This post was edited by olpea on Wed, Mar 5, 14 at 19:10

It is very hard to imagine the cap coming off the valve while the engine is running and not having an extreme affect on the engine running if it would run at all. I am not sure but what the thickness of that valve cap would be such that it would exceed the depth of the indention in the rocker arm, which holds the push rod in place, letting the push rod fall out and rocker arm dislocate. I would come nearing thinking that it was dislodged when someone was working on the valves and left out when the valve was adjusted. Also, a dislodged valve cap is not going to cause the engine to "makes an awful clanging noise from the engine." It would be noisy of course. Sure, put the cap back on, adjust the valves and see what happens. (Don't try to "pop" it back in place) To answer your question, it is held in place by the close fit of the parts, not enough room for it to come out. Walt Conner

080610 Up Date: Got up extra early on Friday so as to be at the dealership before they opened. I hoped to meet with the individual who sold me the mower and to address the concern at hand. He was in and was willing to talk 1/3 hr. before the doors even opened for business. That's always a good sign. I was cordial and spoke very softly without blame. Conveyed my findings and my lack of satisfaction. They brought another dipstick outside and tested the engine with that one. Oil level showed 1/2" higher then the highest mark. A few accusations and general underhanded remarks form the fellow and he drained the oil in front of me and refilled. He then cussed for a bit when he realized he received the same results. He took it to the main shop and was gone for a while. He returned and explained for some reason the engine was not willing to drain all the way and they had finally had to tip it upside down too get all the residual (liquid gold) out. They then replaced the oil and it was at the right level. That was all that transpired. I've done about a decades worth of equipment purchases / supplies with this dealer and that was there conclusion. The machine is fully warrantied for the remainder of the season so I'll keep a close eye on it. On a side note it ran great and cut all day Friday. C.

You're supposed to use ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. 2007-model on-road diesel vehicles have to meet tighter emissions standards than previous diesels had to meet. A key to meeting these standards is reducing greatly the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel. Without so much sulfur, diesels can use catalytic convertors and particulate (soot) filters which high levels of sulfur would ruin. Until this year, diesel fuel sold in the U.S. was among the worst in the world. But, this fall, ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) will hit the pumps. All on-road diesel engines can use ULSD with no problems. Trouble is, the new sulfur standard is so low that it doesn't take much "low-sulfur" fuel to push the sulfur specification past the point where it could cause damage to these new emissions systems. Given that gasoline, "regular" diesel, and ULSD all travel the same petroleum pipelines and tanker trucks and ULSD will go into not-quite-empty diesel tanks at fuel stations, it will take a bit for fills of ULSD to sufficiently dilute the existing low-sulfur fuel. Conventional wisdom in the diesel-user's world is that three "turns" of a tank should bring the sulfur level down low enough. But, in the meantime, if you have a vehicle that requires ULSD, the warning reminds you that the fuel you're thinking of pumping doesn't qualify as ULSD yet. It's kind of like when catalytic converters were first introduced in cars, making unleaded fuel necessary -- the warnings about the old fuel containing lead were there to warn you. In very short order, just about every diesel pump will have ULSD and we'll all be happier. (Sorry if this turned into a book. I tried to edit...)