Yes showing respect is uncomfortable.

Right now Nobody wants to take a position because they are hedging that I could be holding back.

Ball is in your court guys. You watched a member here openly mock me which is the normal progression of things as the flame war that started nearly 10 years ago continues.

Lynn you are a Lawyer. When one side makes a motion you are rule bound to reply.

You do not get to question me further on my submittal because absent a credible argument the other reply is “gee Phil we jumped to conclusions and we are sorry”.

A non reply on the other hand admits my position as the fact

OBJECTION !!! Badgering the witness, PHIL
NO ONE is going to reply because we are all sick and tired of your bullying, badgering insistence on being right.
It has become PAINFULLY obvious that you will not quit until others do and you can feel self justified that you WIN...
Silence is not winning, it's just the rest being tired of your tactics.



Are you holding back ????????????

If so, the cards are on the table and now it's YOUR turn to show your hand of aces. If you have credible, documented PROOF to back up all your conjecture and smoke, we're ALL waiting to see it.


If not, then it's well past time for you to agree to disagree and stop the badgering to get your way.

Mitch,

Calm down and look through the thread. Where is the information that I posted that is wrong or incorrect ?

Your reply looks like an attempt to get the thread locked or entirely deleted.

Not good.

I have no idea about the original question and no dog in the fight. But it is very obvious to me that pictures of casting differences between a 1973 and a 1969 block don't have one single thing to do with what the metal content of either of those blocks is or is not. For example, 1965-66 396 blocks (both 961 and 962) carry the same casting numbers and part numbers across both years, but there are numerous significant casting differences between early 65 396 blocks and 66 396 blocks. That does not mean the metal content was any different. Maybe after 4 years the content was different, maybe it wasn't. But casting differences have nothing to do with that question.

And if I was going to weigh evidence and render a judgment (continuing the courtroom theme started earlier), I would find it very easy to believe the guy who is "a metallurgist and was superintendent of the melt department at the Tonawanda metal casting plant." Is anyone else posting in this thread a metallurgist? Is anyone else posting in this thread a former SUPERINTENDENT of the melt department at the Tonawanda metal casting plant (not just a low level laborer, but a SUPERINTENDENT)?

This is not the same as the silliness of an assembly line worker claiming he remembers what head marking was on a screw he installed on a certain Wednesday in between punching the clock to get his paycheck 50+ years ago. I find it hard to conceive of anyone who would be any more likely to know what the metal content of a casting was than the person who was "a metallurgist and superintendent of the melt department at the metal casting plant" at the time in question.

So what am I missing here ??

Phil - Don Quixote has nothing on you!

That's a lot of research to prove that:

- there were 12 stations at the oil sand oven where front and rear housings cores were produced. 6 International machines for front housings and 6 International machines for rear housings. So, that means 6 DIFFERENT core boxes for each housing (plus the spare core boxes up in the pattern storage area on the second floor. Not every core box was identical due to repairs and cosmetic changes made over the years. this same explanation applies to changes in the filter bowl set core area (only there were 24 individual inserts plus spares). Ditto for the cope and drag patterns where there were 3 of each (plus spares).

The flow off scar on the top rail is an addition to the patterns that I HAD MADE. There was a problem with gas accumulating at the top of the rail during mold fill. We added those pins to help the gas escape better.

anyone who thinks we added 10-20% nickel to gray cast iron isn't just silly.

I have no real knowledge of the block difference, however, I do find it hard to believe these high percentages of Tin and Nickel. Perhaps 1% and 2% is more accurate.

Bergy,

Good. Progress.

So far Where in this thread did I offer anything stating that the Nickel/Tin thing was 100% real?

Note: I didn't.

Many here are basing their informed opinions on the fact that the blocks were "all the same."

Are they? How does this relate to .10/.20?

Start there.

Phil: I can't admit your position as fact if I don't even know your position.

I can't tell from any of your posts if you believe the 010 blocks have higher tin and nickel content.

Fair enough. I appreciate your candid reply.

Just so you know I have complete understanding of all the positions taken here and unlike you I understand them.

In order to even reach a discussion point one of these sides is going to need to entertain the idea of a radically different position.

My position that the blocks were different is supported with evidence.

Ball is still in your court guys.

I'm no good at riddles; I am out.