Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: P plate training ...not
Next: Australian Standard 1698
From: Hammo on 21 Feb 2007 05:04 On 19/2/07 2:51 PM, in article bigiain-2FDD0A.14514119022007(a)nasal.pacific.net.au, "Iain Chalmers" <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: > In article <C1FC1285.125C2%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au>, > Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: > >> On 16/2/07 7:26 PM, in article >> bigiain-83E7BC.19260716022007(a)nasal.pacific.net.au, "Iain Chalmers" >> <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: >> >>> >>> big (are you gonna stalk me round every aus.moto thread since I gave up >>> on you in the "magic headlights running on no energy" thread? ;-) ) >> >> Actually I noticed you had no rebuttal on your calcs based in my back of >> envelope one. Why was that? > > Because your side stepping of questions, introduction of irrelevant > details, and flat out refusal to admit to knowing things that anybody > claiming to have a chemistry degree would know, eventually bored me to > tears. So I stopped reading the thread. Hmm, how did "The Wall" start/finish? [1]. > > If you've finally decided to stop bullshitting around the point, answer > me these questions (three): Keep it civil and we'll see how we go.... > > How much power does a pair of 60 Watt headlight globes consume? Theoretically or, in reality [2]? > > How much energy does an hour of that power consumption require? Do you want the electrical energy? P = V*I then covert the answer or values you want into what units you want. > > How much petrol would a typical internal combustion engine and > alternator need to produce that much power in the form of electricity. This is not straight forward. If you want to discuss it further this is the point that will need more than the back of the envelope calcs and consideration of a number of points. This cannot be calculated with out a number of discussions about how you wish to measure it (or just jump down to my number further down). Briefly. Two separate systems. Engine gets power from fuel, Chem to mech energy. Then, Mech to electrical energy VIA alternator, taking into consideration of mechanical advantage (or velocity ratio), and all the "rotational forces" with it. Are we still on the same page for the sake of discussion? > > Feel free to estimate errors - I don't expect or need 3 significant > figures of accuracy, an answer to the nearest order of magnitude is fine. We can discuss that (or just jump to my value below). > > Oh, and I suppose we'll also need from you the specifications of the > volume of a thimble. Volume of a device to protect your middle finger from nail to first joint. It needs to be as wide as, or have the same diameter as the tip/top of that finger. Sorta like a very small metal condom. > > One warning though, as soon as you start mentioning 4 pages of > calculations about combustion efficiency or the effect of RON ratings > I'll know you're just, what was that word someone coined? Hamsturbating > again... [3] It is a two way street.....(...or bi-directional communication, just so you know it's me). Hammo [1] something like "You know you can explain it well when you tell your grandmother and she understands". Apologies to Albert E. [2] It's 120 watts (i.e. 60 watts x 2), I was arguing that it may be more, wrt resistance in the system etc. Should we keep going or just stick with 120? [3] A warning? You're telling me that might do something like turn into a tormented nerd and eat cheese or something? Or is this setting some rules that I need to play by, cos I should or something? The utilisation of RON is important to determine a benchmark for the energy for a fuel and the compression ratio the motor is required to run at. It was a better idea than just using wiki. It also means that the motor will have a specified power, specified torque and rad/s range. Useful when discussing the "waste" of something that is very small. However, if you want it rough, I'll go 20 mL per 100 km at engine crankshaft rad/s ( or rpm depending on what ) closest to max engine torque. In the end I don't care. I don't believe it to be a waste and that won't change. I have no problem with DRL's when they are more than just headlights that are on low beam. In the end it is another usenet argument. I pointed that out to Moike, but........
From: Theo Bekkers on 22 Feb 2007 17:37 Hammo wrote: > Iain Chalmers wrote: >> How much power does a pair of 60 Watt headlight globes consume? > > Theoretically or, in reality [2]? >> How much energy does an hour of that power consumption require? > [2] It's 120 watts (i.e. 60 watts x 2), I was arguing that it may be > more, wrt resistance in the system etc. Should we keep going or just > stick with 120? We could factor in the tail-lights, dash-lights and parking lights which will also be on. When John Howard insists we change the headlight globes to fluoros how much power will they use? > [3] Useful when discussing the "waste" of something that is > very small. However, if you want it rough, I'll go 20 mL per 100 km > at engine crankshaft rad/s ( or rpm depending on what ) closest to > max engine torque. But not zero, which was the original contention. > In the end I don't care. I don't believe it to be > a waste and that won't change. With 10M vehicles in Oz averaging 12,000 kms a year, that would be 24M litres of fuel. Can I please have that waste. Theo Ain't numbers fun?
From: Hamish Alker-Jones on 22 Feb 2007 20:28 On 23/2/07 9:37 AM, in article 45de1b99$1(a)news.bekkers.com.au, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers(a)bekkers.com.au> wrote: > Hammo wrote: >> Iain Chalmers wrote: > >>> How much power does a pair of 60 Watt headlight globes consume? >> >> Theoretically or, in reality [2]? > >>> How much energy does an hour of that power consumption require? > >> [2] It's 120 watts (i.e. 60 watts x 2), I was arguing that it may be >> more, wrt resistance in the system etc. Should we keep going or just >> stick with 120? > > We could factor in the tail-lights, dash-lights and parking lights which > will also be on. > When John Howard insists we change the headlight globes to fluoros how much > power will they use? That was in interesting turn up for the books. I'm not sure if they will be included, unless LEDs become mandated. Seeing as they are in use for headlights now, perhaps.... > >> [3] Useful when discussing the "waste" of something that is >> very small. However, if you want it rough, I'll go 20 mL per 100 km >> at engine crankshaft rad/s ( or rpm depending on what ) closest to >> max engine torque. > > But not zero, which was the original contention. We will have to agree to disagree. It was the waste of fuel bit I recall. > >> In the end I don't care. I don't believe it to be >> a waste and that won't change. > > With 10M vehicles in Oz averaging 12,000 kms a year, that would be 24M > litres of fuel. > Can I please have that waste. Sure, if you pay the people that have purchased it. An amount that would easily exceed that is evaporation. It would be interesting to see what effect on volume vs temp Opal has. Hammo
From: Theo Bekkers on 22 Feb 2007 20:39 Hamish Alker-Jones wrote: > Theo Bekkers wrote: >> When John Howard insists we change the headlight globes to fluoros >> how much power will they use? > That was in interesting turn up for the books. I'm not sure if they > will be included, unless LEDs become mandated. Seeing as they are in > use for headlights now, perhaps.... I was incredulous at the announcement. I didn't realise he was that stupid. Do you think someone will tell him that, eg, it is illegal to use flouro lighting over rotating machinery. > We will have to agree to disagree. It was the waste of fuel bit I > recall. Google is your friend (or enemy in this case) :-) >> With 10M vehicles in Oz averaging 12,000 kms a year, that would be >> 24M litres of fuel. >> Can I please have that waste. > Sure, if you pay the people that have purchased it. An amount that > would easily exceed that is evaporation. Certainly, but still 24M litres that would not have evaporated or gone up into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases. WASTED! Theo
From: Hammo on 22 Feb 2007 21:18
"Theo Bekkers" wrote: > Hamish Alker-Jones wrote: >> Theo Bekkers wrote: > >>> When John Howard insists we change the headlight globes to fluoros >>> how much power will they use? > >> That was in interesting turn up for the books. I'm not sure if they >> will be included, unless LEDs become mandated. Seeing as they are in >> use for headlights now, perhaps.... > > I was incredulous at the announcement. I didn't realise he was that stupid. > Do you think someone will tell him that, eg, it is illegal to use flouro > lighting over rotating machinery. I don't know if all the "environments" have been determined as to where the incandescent will be replaced. There are already a number of places where they won't need to be phased out.. > >> We will have to agree to disagree. It was the waste of fuel bit I >> recall. > > Google is your friend (or enemy in this case) :-) I'll have to have a look then.... >> headlights in daylight do nothing except waste fuel. > Hammo: Do tell, how? This was the catalyst. > >>> With 10M vehicles in Oz averaging 12,000 kms a year, that would be >>> 24M litres of fuel. >>> Can I please have that waste. > >> Sure, if you pay the people that have purchased it. An amount that >> would easily exceed that is evaporation. > > Certainly, but still 24M litres that would not have evaporated or gone up > into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases. WASTED! Umm, looking at what has become the benchmark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases There is no mention of petrol fumes being a green house gas. So, I have to agree to disagree. There was also a bit you have snipped related to my use of DRLs as not being a waste on the proviso that the are more than low beams switched on. Our current society dictate that money spent on things that saves lives are not a waste. ABS, airbags, seat belts etc add extra weight to the car, thereby using more fuel, are you going to slam them on the same basis? Hammo PS did you get the pictures? I sent them via theo@.... Showing the lack of uniformity around a short distance from our place with road side furnishings. |