Blade_1 wrote:
Quote:

sliding wrote:
Quote:

[B]"... balancing does not mean that there will be more destructive
internal engine loads present. What it does mean is that whatever
forces are generated at one journal may not be fully countered by
forces generated at another. The result is an out-of balance engine.
But the engine is no more likely to fail than if it were perfectly
balanced."[/B]

Well, the Vizard statement is made up of 4 negations, and a negation is exactly that - NOTHING.

"... balancing does NOT mean..." OK; I don't need to know what something is NOT, just tell me what it DOES mean.

"What is does mean ... whatever(?) forces ... may NOT be countered..." HUH? They may NOT? Or they MAY, I guess??? I should flip a coin? Cause that statement doesn't say anything definitive either.

"The result is an out-of-balance engine". HUH again? What if those forces WERE countered? THAT don't matter either, cause he says the result is something that is NOT [something].

"But the engine is [not] ...". See comment #1.

This Vizard guy sounds like a politician. 'See how many happy words you can say, and NOT be saying anything'.

He wouldn't want to listen to MY questions.