"No plant animal or mineral in them" if that were true it would be
easy to prove, wouldn't it? There nothing new under the Sun and includes
splitting the atom.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Coasty wrote:
>
> No plant animal or mineral in them they have been developed from a molecular
> level. Just because a molecule originates from plant, animal or mineral
> does not mean it cannot be synthesized. Once synthesized then it no longer
> comes from plant, animal or mineral it becomes fully synthetic and the
> plant, animal or mineral is no longer needed to create more of the same.
>
> Coasty

 

"No plant animal or mineral in them" if that were true it would be
easy to prove, wouldn't it? There nothing new under the Sun and includes
splitting the atom.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Coasty wrote:
>
> No plant animal or mineral in them they have been developed from a molecular
> level. Just because a molecule originates from plant, animal or mineral
> does not mean it cannot be synthesized. Once synthesized then it no longer
> comes from plant, animal or mineral it becomes fully synthetic and the
> plant, animal or mineral is no longer needed to create more of the same.
>
> Coasty

 

Actually, it appears a new fundamental particle may have been discovered
recently. Which has butkus to do with the fairly simple chemistry of
making the innards of oils from whatever source happens to be available
and cost effective. Could be made from natural gas, greasebush, coal,
peanuts, or soylent green--just happens to be most cost effective to
crack crude to the raw constituents then paste em back together with a
few metallic compounds that didn't come from oil.


L.W.(Bill) ------ III proclaimed:

> "No plant animal or mineral in them" if that were true it would be
> easy to prove, wouldn't it? There nothing new under the Sun and includes
> splitting the atom.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Coasty wrote:
>
>>No plant animal or mineral in them they have been developed from a molecular
>>level. Just because a molecule originates from plant, animal or mineral
>>does not mean it cannot be synthesized. Once synthesized then it no longer
>>comes from plant, animal or mineral it becomes fully synthetic and the
>>plant, animal or mineral is no longer needed to create more of the same.
>>
>>Coasty

 

Actually, it appears a new fundamental particle may have been discovered
recently. Which has butkus to do with the fairly simple chemistry of
making the innards of oils from whatever source happens to be available
and cost effective. Could be made from natural gas, greasebush, coal,
peanuts, or soylent green--just happens to be most cost effective to
crack crude to the raw constituents then paste em back together with a
few metallic compounds that didn't come from oil.


L.W.(Bill) ------ III proclaimed:

> "No plant animal or mineral in them" if that were true it would be
> easy to prove, wouldn't it? There nothing new under the Sun and includes
> splitting the atom.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Coasty wrote:
>
>>No plant animal or mineral in them they have been developed from a molecular
>>level. Just because a molecule originates from plant, animal or mineral
>>does not mean it cannot be synthesized. Once synthesized then it no longer
>>comes from plant, animal or mineral it becomes fully synthetic and the
>>plant, animal or mineral is no longer needed to create more of the same.
>>
>>Coasty

 

Actually, it appears a new fundamental particle may have been discovered
recently. Which has butkus to do with the fairly simple chemistry of
making the innards of oils from whatever source happens to be available
and cost effective. Could be made from natural gas, greasebush, coal,
peanuts, or soylent green--just happens to be most cost effective to
crack crude to the raw constituents then paste em back together with a
few metallic compounds that didn't come from oil.


L.W.(Bill) ------ III proclaimed:

> "No plant animal or mineral in them" if that were true it would be
> easy to prove, wouldn't it? There nothing new under the Sun and includes
> splitting the atom.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Coasty wrote:
>
>>No plant animal or mineral in them they have been developed from a molecular
>>level. Just because a molecule originates from plant, animal or mineral
>>does not mean it cannot be synthesized. Once synthesized then it no longer
>>comes from plant, animal or mineral it becomes fully synthetic and the
>>plant, animal or mineral is no longer needed to create more of the same.
>>
>>Coasty

 

Thus the fundamental wrogness. The oil is not refined, it is pasted
together from raw materials that could have as easily come from peanut
shells or fish--at greater cost, which is why most of the raw
ingredients are cracked from crude rather than dead horses.

L.W.(Bill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Typical personal attack, from a person not capable of answering
> the factual question, which is: from what do you believe synthetic oil
> is refined? Answer: it's one hundred percent petroleum, like all other
> mineral oils.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Simon Juncal wrote:
>
>>Um... did you read his whole sentence there or did you take a nap before
>>you finished it?
>>
>>Just read past the first line which you didn't understand.
>>
>>Obviously you're totally unequipped to argue with his post so you ask
>>him an IRELIVANT question, that he actually already answered.
>>
>>--
>>Simon

 

Thus the fundamental wrogness. The oil is not refined, it is pasted
together from raw materials that could have as easily come from peanut
shells or fish--at greater cost, which is why most of the raw
ingredients are cracked from crude rather than dead horses.

L.W.(Bill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Typical personal attack, from a person not capable of answering
> the factual question, which is: from what do you believe synthetic oil
> is refined? Answer: it's one hundred percent petroleum, like all other
> mineral oils.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Simon Juncal wrote:
>
>>Um... did you read his whole sentence there or did you take a nap before
>>you finished it?
>>
>>Just read past the first line which you didn't understand.
>>
>>Obviously you're totally unequipped to argue with his post so you ask
>>him an IRELIVANT question, that he actually already answered.
>>
>>--
>>Simon

 

Thus the fundamental wrogness. The oil is not refined, it is pasted
together from raw materials that could have as easily come from peanut
shells or fish--at greater cost, which is why most of the raw
ingredients are cracked from crude rather than dead horses.

L.W.(Bill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Typical personal attack, from a person not capable of answering
> the factual question, which is: from what do you believe synthetic oil
> is refined? Answer: it's one hundred percent petroleum, like all other
> mineral oils.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Simon Juncal wrote:
>
>>Um... did you read his whole sentence there or did you take a nap before
>>you finished it?
>>
>>Just read past the first line which you didn't understand.
>>
>>Obviously you're totally unequipped to argue with his post so you ask
>>him an IRELIVANT question, that he actually already answered.
>>
>>--
>>Simon

 

Yup, like ethanol still needs fifteen percent gasoline to be run in
new cars especially made for it. Along with dollar for dollar tax
subsidies.
Sure we make cooking oils that may be used for small motors and
sewing machines, out a lot plant products, buy my point is not since the
old castorbean has any oil been made SAE capable. Like any oil that
mixes with water would be disastrous to the corrosion properties in an
modern engine
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lon wrote:
>
> Actually, it appears a new fundamental particle may have been discovered
> recently. Which has butkus to do with the fairly simple chemistry of
> making the innards of oils from whatever source happens to be available
> and cost effective. Could be made from natural gas, greasebush, coal,
> peanuts, or soylent green--just happens to be most cost effective to
> crack crude to the raw constituents then paste em back together with a
> few metallic compounds that didn't come from oil.

 

Yup, like ethanol still needs fifteen percent gasoline to be run in
new cars especially made for it. Along with dollar for dollar tax
subsidies.
Sure we make cooking oils that may be used for small motors and
sewing machines, out a lot plant products, buy my point is not since the
old castorbean has any oil been made SAE capable. Like any oil that
mixes with water would be disastrous to the corrosion properties in an
modern engine
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lon wrote:
>
> Actually, it appears a new fundamental particle may have been discovered
> recently. Which has butkus to do with the fairly simple chemistry of
> making the innards of oils from whatever source happens to be available
> and cost effective. Could be made from natural gas, greasebush, coal,
> peanuts, or soylent green--just happens to be most cost effective to
> crack crude to the raw constituents then paste em back together with a
> few metallic compounds that didn't come from oil.