Therein lies the problem. Far too many seem to believe that those that develop engines and other products "owe" them help and assistance, and an expansion of their knowledge base. Worse, they believe they are "owed" those things on terms they dictate. If not delivered to them to thier taste they get panties in wad and criticise the delivery method or the messenger for any immediate fault they might perceive.

We don't and we won't. If anything, the "debt" is the other way around. Most of you learned most, if not all, you know about gas engines from people like Antique, Jody, BCCHI, Aussiesteve, Apalsson, Pe Reivers, me, and a couple of others. The new guys posting a lot of flawed advice are people that got their stuff from the same sources but never bothered to become deeply enough involved, or learn enough, to quote us accurately. Engines, oils, rings, ignitions, service procedures, plugs, etc., you got it from us.

BTW, there hasn't been a backyard prop stand test shown on this site yet that provided anything truly relevant to actual engine performance parameters. Spinning a prop at "X" RPM is not a true performance parameter, just how a fish scale static prop thrust test provides little of real use. That stuff does provide for some great comedy relief though. Those that appreciate the value of installing a real telemetry system on a flying aircraft are the few that are closer to developing accurate data when combined with static thrust tests.