Read and re-read this carefully. It might seem complex to the novice but it is really a straight forward and in depth explanation of what goes on, and what you will be looking at. Remove the spark plug from each cylinder. You will adjust BOTH valves on "the same cylinder", ONLY AFTER THAT CYLINDER has been positioned to the proper point in the 4-stroke cycle. Remove the valve cover from both cylinders. Identify each valve as INTAKE valve or EXHAUST valve by doing a visual reference. The INTAKE valve will be physically closest to where the intak manifold connects to the head and the EXHAUST valve will be nearest to where the exhaust manifold connects to the head. Next you need to determine which direction the engine rotates when running. You can determine this by spinning the engine with the starter while watching the flywheel through the fan shroud. Mark the direction with an arrow (at least on a sketch if not on the engine). Once you have determined the direction of rotation, you can proceed to positioning the engine for valve adjustment. You should trun the engine by hand a few complete revolutions to familiarize yourself with the sequence of valve movements through the entire 4 stroke cycle. It requires two complete revolutions of the crankshaft (720 degrees of crankshaft rotation) to one complete "4 stroke cycle". The 4 strokes of a four cycle engine are (and in this sequence): (1) INTAKE STROKE (2) COMPRESSION STROKE (3) POWER STROKE (4) EXHAUST STROKE. The compression stroke is the stroke where you perform the valve adjustments. Before we try to figure out how to identify the compression stroke for a specific cylinder let's describe the movements of the valves and the terms used: When a pushrod is RISING and lifting a rocker arm, the rocker arm will be pushing a valve DOWN. When a valve is DOWN, it is OPEN. When a valve is UP, it is CLOSED. OK, turn the engine by hand in the correct direction of rotation while watching both valves of the cylinder you are going to adjust the valves on. When you get to a point in the turning where the INTAKE VALVE begins to rise up (closing) and the exhaust valve is already UP (closed), you are in the beginning of the COMPRESSION STROKE. At this time you need to insert a wooden pencil or a wooden dowel rod straight into the spark plug hole until it contacts the piston. Hold the dowel firmly against the piston with one hand and resume turning the engine with the other hand. Observe how the piston pushes the dowel out of the plug hole as the piston moves toward the magical point known as Top Dead Center (TDC). At the point where the dowel movement stops, mark the dowel flush with the edge of the plug hole. Now, measure upward 1/4 inch from that mark and put a second mark. Put the dowel back in the hole, firmly against the piston and slowly resume turning the engine (in the direction of rotatation) and you will see the dowel move into the hole as the piston drops. Continue turning the engine until the second mark on the dowel is flush with the edge of the spark plug hole. This cylinder is now in the correct position for adjusting the valves ON THIS CYLINDER ONLY. After adjusting the valves on this cylinder, you will need to repeat the entire procedure to get the opposite cylinder into position to adjust its valves.

saftgeek - I hate to admit it but you are all too correct about far too many attorneys! I was a high school teacher for 20 years before deciding to go to law school and I have been deeply appalled by the how truly unethical and dishonest some lawyers are. In the six years I've been practicing law, I've run into more dishonest, downright sleezy lawyers than I met incompetant teachers in twenty years of teaching school... and people are always knocking teachers for being incompetant! Shyster lawyers make me ashamed of this profession just as incompetant teachers sometimes made me ashamed of the teaching profession. I would urge you or anyone else who has evidence of a lawyer behaving dishonestly or unethically to report them to their state bar association. It might not do any good but then again, it just might. At least in Texas, I think our state bar tries to disbar the unethical lawyers whenever they can find them. It certainly sounds like your ex-boss was exactly that type. I also truly am not trying to paint GCs as dishonest. I believe the vast majority are honest folks who do their best to do a good job when building a home and, if they make mistakes, try their best to fix them. BUT, as in all professions, there are some people building homes that are either lazy, dishonest, or so downright disorganized that the homeowner who ends up hiring one of them needs to be able to go to court and get help. And, unfortunately, the contract promulgated by the Texas Association of Builders is specifically designed to protect these bottom-feeding GCs from facing the music for their bad behaviour. The funny thing is, I KNOW that it was the TAB's lawyers who drafted the d--n contract that protects the bad builders, so when I'm knocking the contract, I'm also slamming some of the members of my own profession! I actually suspect that most builders who use the TAB form contract do so because it is available to them cheaply and they don't know any more about what it really says than the homeowner does. And, so long as there are no major problems with the build - nobody is any the worse off. But, I defy any honest person who has ever READ the TAB contract to argue with a straight face that it is a fair and balanced contract. Among other things, it requires the homeowner to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Basically an implied warranty of habitablity means that courts have said when two parties enter into a contract for one to build a home for the other, there is an implied understanding between them that the finished home will be inhabitable. The owner doesn't have to make sure to insist that language be put into the contract SAYING that the house must be able to be lived in when comleted...the courts will assume that since the contract was for the building of a home, the finished product must be something one can inhabit or it is simply not a "home." But, just in case someone WANTS just a shell - or something like that - to be built, courts will allow the parties to agree to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Asking the homeowner to waive the implied warranty of habitablity might be fair if the homeowner wanted to build something totally new and different and the builder said, "you know, I can build that for you but I don't think it'll be something you can live in when I get done, are you SURE that's what you want?" But, I think you would have to agree that, except in those rare instances, a house should be inhabitable, just like a car should be driveable, a suit should be wearable, and a wedding cake should be edible. Would you agree to buy a new car from a manufacturer who insisted that you agree to waive the "implied warranty of driveability"? Would you purchase a suit from a tailor who refused to warrant that it would be wearable? Would you order a wedding cake from a baker who refused to guarantee that it would be edible? Why would you buy a home from someone who refused to warrant that it would be habitable????? Nevertheless, the Texas Association of Builders - with the help of its attorneys no doubt! - realized that implied warranties can be waived and that most homeowners don't ever really read or understand the contract they sign. So they put language into the form contract that waives the warranty of habitablility on every single home built under it. That means the homeowner may think he is contracting for a turn-key home but, even if the house he gets is so defective that he cannot possibly live in it - say the sewage pipe has broken in the wall so that there that raw sewage has contaminated all the insulation - the homeowner cannot argue that the builder breached the contract by building an UNIHABITABLE house. Fair????? The TAB contract also requires that the owner agree upfront to "binding arbitration" in the event of a dispute. This doesn't sound too bad...unless you happen to know a couple of facts about binding arbitration. First, arbitration is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than small claims court even though most building disputes are going to be over amounts small enough have brought the claim in small claims court. Second, arbitrators are selected and PAID by the parties to the dispute which means that arbitrators make more money if they are selected for more cases. If an arbitrator wants future work, they have to make sure that the party that is more likely to bring them future business is happy. Care to guess which party is more likely to NEED to hire an arbitrator for a second or third or fourth construction dispute? Some studies have shown that homeowners win less than 5% of claims that go to arbitration but win about half of claims that are tried in a court of law. Even those few homeowners who are nominal winners in arbitration almost never win enough money to actually repair their homes! The TAB contract also requires that the builder receive his final payment, in full, (i.e. NO RETAINAGE) at the time of the final walk-through even though it also specifies that a punch list of items to be corrected/completed/repaired will be made at this same time. In theory the builder is supposed to return and finish the punch list. But, WHY should the unscrupulous builder bother? After all, he has already been paid in full AND the homeowner can't even sue him in small claims court due to the binding arbitration clause I already mentioned? Do you think that is fair? I could go on and on about other clauses that are in the TAB contract but I suspect I've made my point. A builder who insists on using the TAB contract after having some of its many unfair clauses pointed out to him may not actually BE dishonest but, IMHO, neither is he the kind of straight shooter I really want to deal with. Straight shooters are willing to play on a level playing field.

usgirl, thank you for pointing out MORAL consideration! Yes, declawing, docking tail, cropping ear, etc are reflection of human selfishness and causing so much pain and suffering to innocent voiceless animals. I used to have spasm when I was swimming and sometimes when I was sleeping. I am sure anybody who experienced awful pain of having spasm wish they can avoid this kind of torture. Can you imagine pain and suffering of declawed cats? Unfortunate part of animal is they are TOO SENSITIVE to pain and suffering yet they cannot escape from abuse and torture caused by people. Intentionally or unintentionally. There is no way for true animal lover to declaw their cats AFTER THEY LEARN WHAT IS DECLAWING. I know a man who found out about cruel mutilation of his cat after he took his cat to vet to declaw. He wept and expressed his remorse on our local forum. julietspeaks thinks PETA is stealing farm animals from slaughterhouses and releasing in wildness but what she said is all her imagination because there are many farm animal sanctuaries exist in our country. PETA rescue farm animals who are thrown away and slowly dying.

I used to live in St Louis and our church (and my children's schools) was just down the road from Monsanto. Probably one-fourth of our church membership was employed by Monsanto in executive positions. I truly do not believe they would work for and develop products that are killing tons of people. It makes sense to eat as few prepared foods as possible as many of the nutrients get lost in the commercial preparation. Fresh fruits and veggies, home made waffles, fresh meat - these are good foods and most of us thrive on them. I have had allergies since childhood - first eczema and later asthma. I had allergy tests done when I was about 9-10 - I was allergic to practically everything - everything except the milk I detested. I was allergic to wheat, nuts, chocolate - you name it. I was put in the world's most restrictive diet (there is a bit of flour in many canned soups, so my mother had to make soup). She made rice muffins and cooked (awful!). She was a woman with a mission to "cure" her only child of the curse of eczema. It didn't work. In fact, my eczema got worse - dermatologist thought it was probably due to the stress of all this highly restrictive eating and wasn't convinced that eczema was always allergy related. So, we gave up all the hoopla and the eczema continued until about a month before my 23rd birthday. It disappeared when I went on birth control pills right before getting married. Connection? Who knows - have never again had it and haven't taken the pills for decades. The asthma came right after the birth of my first child - again, no one knows if there was a connection. Allergies are mysterious things and even the best allergists will admit that there is more that they don't know than they do know. I have had sensitivities to many, many drugs - not an allergic reaction (that would often be anaphylactic shock). No one knows why. There is no question that antibiotics have been overused in the past and still are in some situations. But that has led to bacteria becoming resistant to the antibiotics. If one has the flu and no bronchial infection and ones doctor prescribes an antibiotic, question him intensively - he better have a very, very good reason for treating a virus with an antibiotic. If he doesn't, find another doctor. But if he has a good reason (secondary bacterial infection), then for heaven's sake - take the antibiotic. I don't get my medical information from media celebrities or TV shows - especially when they are invariably selling something. I would not trust this woman as an authority on anything other than self-promotion.