From: Hammo on



On 16/2/07 1:05 PM, in article 45d511b7(a)news.bekkers.com.au, "Theo Bekkers"
<tbekkers(a)bekkers.com.au> wrote:

> Hammo wrote:
>
>> Iso-height?
>
> There's an ISO standard for Ivory tower height?
>
Touch´┐Ż!

Nice one.

Hammo

From: Knobdoodle on

"Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message
news:45d4ff71$0$24697$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Knobdoodle wrote:
>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:C1FA9FDA.26FDF%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>> , "GB"<gb0506(a)kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> GB, long since given up on this bullshit.
>>> Yet you keep looking and watching and POSTING!
>>>
>> P'raps it's in the vain hope that someone will actually have the spine to
>> admit they were wrong about that unnecessary-headlights-don't-waste-fuel
>> stuff.....
>> Eh Hammo?
>> Eh Nev?
>> Eh Andrew?
>
> Me? I'm definitely in the camp that fuel converted to light is not a
> waste, but fuel converted to a red glow under the bonnet probably is.
>
Good try Nev but the Hammoflage doesn't really work for you.
It's much simpler if you just accept that you're too pissweak to admit that
you're wrong (and you think that making yourself look stupid is somehow a
better situation).
--
Clem


From: Knobdoodle on

"Andrew McKenna" <NOcmorSPAM3047(a)NObigpond.SPAMnet.au> wrote in message
news:mkaBh.1811$4c6.1087(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Knobdoodle wrote:
>
>> P'raps it's in the vain hope that someone will actually have the spine to
>> admit they were wrong about that unnecessary-headlights-don't-waste-fuel
>> stuff.....
>> Eh Hammo?
>> Eh Nev?
>> Eh Andrew?
>
> Oi, don't you go dragging me into that camp. I repeatedly said more lights
> need more energy. All I claimed was that adding electrical demand could
> not by itself increase mechanical load; something has to decide to supply
> more mechanical effort to satisfy the electrical demand, or to leave the
> demand unsatisfied. That something (in the simple example I used) was the
> person pedalling the push-bike. Everything I've read since confirms your
> viewpoint, not mine, but since I still don't understand it I'm holding off
> admitting error.
> --
Hmm... that even sorta' makes sense.
OK; good luck then.
--
Clem
(PS. It's about magnetism. The current running through the coils in the
alternator creates magnetism and as these magnets are moved in relation to
each other they create currents in each-other which, if allowed to flow,
produce magnetism themselves in the opposite direction.
So; no load = open circuit = no current = no magnetism = easy spin.
Full load = short circuit = maximum current = full magnetism in the opposite
direction = very hard spin!
That said; even with a short circuit you can only ever get almost as much
power out as you're pushing in (by spinning the alternator) so if you're
only pedalling 1 kilowatt-worth you can't run the lights at the MCG (even if
the design of the alternator could transfer all of the input energy to the
output 100% efficiently)


From: Dale Porter on
"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote
>
> My apologies, I misread what you were suggesting as your posts have often
> been brief, pointed and coming from an angle that was not directly related
> to the topic, but rather (as it seemed to be) personal in nature.
>
>

I'd guess you felt they were more personal than they were in reality following my comment "It's all about you..." which was simply a
glib comment stemming from the general discussion about cars and alternators as a whole, which you then came in and asked to be
shown what you have (greatly narrowing that part of the discussion in that part of the thread). You then went for personal comments,
suggesting I had gone sooky la-la.

I think at the time I suggested to you that you were not aware of the intentions surrounding my remark. Read the thread in sequence,
then imagine me making the comments with a cheeky grin.

--
Dale Porter
GPX250 -> CBR600 -> VTR1000 + VT250F-J


From: Andrew McKenna on
Knobdoodle wrote:

> Hmm... that even sorta' makes sense.
> OK; good luck then.
Clem



OK, thanks. I think we're tantalisingly close. I moved away from
alternators because they use electro-magnets which complicate the
discussion. That's why I substituted a dynamo, with static magnets and a
spinning squirrel cage (coil).

Now I thought that the magnetic field offered up by the static magnets
was fixed, and the amount of current in the system was determined solely
by the speed the squirrel cage rotates within that field.

I think what you are trying to tell me is that the spinning coil can
amplify or reduce the magnetic field of the static magnets depending on
the electrical demand (load) on the circuit. That's the bit I don't
understand.

Actually, there's another bit to do with electro-magnets and the lights
at the MCG that I don't understand either, but let's get the static
magnets out of the way first.

--
Cheers

Andrew

(and if I'd found a aus.electrics.for.n00bs I'd've posted there instead,
but I didn't)