***"Also when I turn the flywheel slow counterclockwise it makes a sound like "phphphphssss" almost like a soda bottle when it is opened slowly. Sounds like something is draining."** Is this happening when the spark plugs are removed from the engine?? If yes....is the "phphphphssss" coming from the fuel pump??? ............................................. To define "UP" & "DOWN" as relating to piston movement, learn this: When a piston is moving TOWARD the cylinder head, the direction of movement is referred to as UPWARD, or UP. When the piston is moving AWAY FROM the cylinder head, it is referred to as DOWNWARD or DOWN. This applies to all reciprocating engines regardless of the engine configuration. Just remember that the terms are for one specific cylinder at a time, no matter the total number of cylinders the engine has, or which direction they may be pointing (clock position). ...................................................... With both cylinder heads removed, turn the flywheel while watching either of the pistons. As you turn the flywheel, is this piston moving in its cylinder (meaning: traveling upward or downward). Turn the flywheel until it reaches the point of "abrupt stop". Now, watch the same piston while you turn the flywheel in the opposite direction. Does this piston move in the opposite direction JUST AS SOON AS YOU TURN THE OPPOSITE WAY? or does it seem that the flywheel rotates a few degrees before the piston begins to move in the cylinder? Continue turning the flywheel until it abruptly stops again. Now, watch the same piston as you turn the flywheel again in the direction you first turned it. Does the piston begin to move in the opposite direction immediately? or does the flywheel seem to rotate a few degrees before the piston begins to move? Go to the second cylinder and repeat the steps above for that cylinder. What we are doing in this "test" is determining whether the piston, connecting rod, and crankshaft are still intact (I only mean they are still connected together as an assembly). Due to the "1.25 turn" you cite, I expect you to find that one of the pistons will have a "dead zone" of movement in its travel. This is when the flywheel rotates a few degrees without the piston moving. The "dead zone" of movement will be at the max UP and max DOWN positions. If you find this to be true, the connecting rod is very likely "burned up" from loss of lubrication due to the oil being thinned out by gasoline contamination. If you find the "dead zone" of piston travel, you will want to compare the piston travel distance of one cylinder to the other. Using a ruler or other device, record the depth (position of piston at its max DOWN point and at its max UP point) of each piston and cylinder. Measure from the top edge of the cylinder to the top of piston. Do this for both cylinders and compare the depth figures. The cylinder having the lower value (shorter travel) will be the affected cylinder. If you detect a "dead zone" of piston travel on BOTH CYLINDERS, that means BOTH connecting rods are likely burned up. In this case do the following. Turn the fly wheel until one of the pistons reaches the max UP point for that piston. When it is at max UP, measure distance from top of cylinder to top of piston (or mark the cylinder at the top edge of piston with a crayon or pencil) Next,turn the flywheel in the opposite direction until the piston "just begins to move". When this piston begins to move, stop turning the flywheel. Using a non metallic tool (hammer HANDLE, piece of broom handle, or a dowel), push downward on this piston (hold the flywheel stationary when doing this). The piston will move in the cylinder and then stop. Measure the distance the piston moved in the cylinder and record that. Repeat the steps on the opposite cylinder. .......................................................... While each piston is in its DOWN position, inspect the cylinder walls. Are the cylinder walls nice and shiny, and smooth with a glossy surface appearance? Or are they full of rough, scratchy looking grooves that run up and down the cylinder walls? Do the above "tests" and report back with your findings. .............................................. To respond to the post by johntommybob about the possibility of the starter causing the engine to "abruptly stop" when it is being turned. Consider that the drive pinion gear on the starter is very small and has few teeth compared to the engine flywheel ring gear. This means that the armature (rotor) of the starter must turn many revolutions in order to turn the flywheel one revolution. Conversely, when turning the flywheel by hand, one revolution (or 1.25 revolution) of the flywheel would cause the starter drive pinion gear to rotate many revolutions. If the "binding" or "abrupt stop" cited in this case were due to a locked up starter, I would think that the flywheel would be "un-turnable" at all. AND it would require that the starter drive pinion gear be "stuck into" the ring gear as well. Since the starter might be burned up (remember the smoke), it would not hurt to go ahead and take the starter off the engine anyway. I just don't expect to find the starter as the cause of the "abrupt stop" symptom seen here.

Thanks again Guys, Yes, this is the first time ever(!) I have taken an engine apart ...or partially apart. A beginner isn't going to figure this out within 30-60 minutes. I'm on the web for hours learning just one thing, like what a key is. Then another hour for how pushrods work and which is for exhaust or intake (steel vs. aluminum). Every little thing about an engine, I had to learn for the first time. The HUGE BREAKTHROUGH wasn't one for all mankind, it was my breakthrough on the discovery of what the problem was. A computer geek with degrees in philosophy and mathematics actually diagnosing a non-running engine for the first time felt like a huge breakthrough after all the things named that could be the cause. :-) Mo: I didn't get the names right on a few things when I look back, but I am never offended when someone knowledgeable corrects me. I have my strengths and others have theirs; I am all ears when I need correcting. I have been on the other end too in the 1980's when workers started using PC's, they'd call their computers "hard drives" or "CPU's." When describing a problem in words, it IS very important to use the correct names for everything, so I do not take any offense. One sentance story: I had a lady whos PC had an expansion card cover missing on the back of her PC and she thought she was losing files through it. :-O ...RC would have a HAY DAY with her, LOL. -Tony

When it comes to security, though, isn't there something to be said in favor of FF + NoScript, esp. in light of all the dangerous things out there that use Java ? (I speak as a huge novice here.) Being able to selectively allow scripts with NoScript (which blocks all by default) is a bit of an advantage to other browsers with functions which only allow users to turn Java on or off. Or, in Opera's case, one can 'edit site preferences' to allow or disallow all scripts on a per site basis, but it's still allowing ALL scripts on a given site. One cannot select which ones to allow/disallow. Giving the user the ability to allow just a script associated with the main site while blocking all other unnecessary scripts from running is a boon for web-surfers, no ? I realize that there are some NoScript wannabees out there (NotScript, ScriptNo) which work with Chrome & Opera, but a lot of comments I read about them suggest they are not as user-friendly and not as efficient as the original NoScript, which (unfortunately for IE, Chrome and Opera users) only works with FF. How important should this matter be for chas045 and the rest of us when choosing a browser ?

Yeah, I should do something like that, too. In fact, I may go back in now and wipe it down. (I did just switch to a soap dispenser that produces the foamy version of soap--I am SO in love with it!) Actually, talking of inventing a gadget--here's what I *really* want: I have one of those collapsible silicone colanders (I have the rectangular one, which I like better than the round for a couple of reasons--for a colander, anyway). (these are from Bed Bath & Beyond) I want a BOWL made this way (no holes)--the rectangular might be good bcs there'd be "swishing around" room. But the round one here is nice and deep. If it were *perfect*, it would have a plug in the bottom for drainage. And duh me, they make collapsible silicone bowls. this is even the same brand as that round colander, I think this is from the U.K.--doesnt say how big (but I still think I'd rather have a rectangular one, bcs there's more elbow room to swish, but I bet the round one would fit in the sink better.) But of course, that's not *free* infrastructure, and I should probably *create* this infrastructure by simply rearranging the bowls in my bowl cabinet so that a big one is down lower where it's easily reached. And then I can wash in the kitchen sink.