P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Dale Porter on 8 Feb 2007 00:42 "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1F0F1F0.11B92%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... > > > > On 8/2/07 1:02 PM, in article slrnesl15j.3o1.sharkey(a)anchovy.zoic.org, > "sharkey" <sharkey(a)zoic.org> wrote: > >> Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>> >>> Paul is correct. Feel free to point out where he is wrong. >> >> Sure. That's not how a switch-mode regulator works, at all. >> >> -----sharks > > When you pop over, feel free to show me that is what I have.... > > It's all about you, isn't it? -- Dale Porter GPX250 -> CBR600 -> VTR1000 + VT250F-J
From: Theo Bekkers on 8 Feb 2007 00:55 CrazyCam wrote: > Mad-Biker wrote: >> windows up, door locked for added safety in a roll over, check. > > I'd have thought that the doors being locked might be good if folk > were trying to pull occupants out of car, or, OTOH, bad... for the > same reason. > Many years ago, in britain, it used to be illegal to drive a car with > the doors locked. > > The logic was that if you stacked it, locked doors made it harder for > people to pull you out of the remains. Buy a Mercedes. The doors lock when you reach 15 km/h to 'improve the structural strength of the vehicle'. Some magical thing unlocks them after you crash, apparently. Theo
From: Hammo on 8 Feb 2007 01:59 On 8/2/07 4:42 PM, in article eqed8u$1hvv$1(a)otis.netspace.net.au, "Dale Porter" <daleaporter(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message > news:C1F0F1F0.11B92%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... >> On 8/2/07 1:02 PM, in article slrnesl15j.3o1.sharkey(a)anchovy.zoic.org, >> "sharkey" <sharkey(a)zoic.org> wrote: >> >>> Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>> >>>> Paul is correct. Feel free to point out where he is wrong. >>> >>> Sure. That's not how a switch-mode regulator works, at all. >>> >>> -----sharks >> >> When you pop over, feel free to show me that is what I have.... > It's all about you, isn't it? Oh,boo hoo, did you want to wear the pretty hat too? You'll have to nice to Sharkey, he is the guest! Hammo
From: Iain Chalmers on 8 Feb 2007 02:01 Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >"Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > So you've conceded that it DOES waste fuel but now you're trying to > > negotiate how much are you Hammo? > > Pick a (real) number; any number... I'll support you the whole way. > > Nah, I used "probably". I also used the lights and consumed no petrol. The > probable load of _all_ electrics might add a thimble to the L/100 km > consumption. Feel free to quantify. I'd happily concede that evaporation > is more of a concern when it comes to "waste". Without arguing the authority of wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator#Automotive_alternators says automotive alternators achieve between 50 and 60% efficiency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megajoule says 3.6MJ=1kWh, so 1kWh~=0.28MJ or 1Wh=0.00028MJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion#Engine_Efficiency says piston engines get ~ 20% efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content says you get ~32MJ/l from petrol. So, 120W headlights will need 120/0.50 =~ 240W of input power to the alternator. To run them for an hour will require 240*0.00028 =~ 0.067 MJ. At 20% efficiency the engine will consume 0.067/0.20 =~ 0.34MJ Which is (near enough) 100mL of petrol. If you're driving along at 100kmh, you should expect to consume an extra 0.1L of fuel an hour, which is an extra 0.1L/100km (or around and extra 1.5mpg). If you're only averaging 50kmh, you'll still consume 0.1L/h to drive the headlights, but you'll be driving them for twice as long which will bump your fuel economy up by 0.2L/100km. (I think I got all my orders of magnitude right there) It's a more than a thimbleful, but small enough to disappear into the noise for most people I suspect... My little bike gets around 4.75L/100km so I _might_ notice a 0.1L increase, but it's only got 60W of headlight. I suspect Nev's lucky to get less than 20L/100km out of his car, and he'd be unlikely to notice a 0.1L/100km increase - it'd almost certainly be overshadowed by head/tail winds, traffic delays, imperceptible inclines, etc... bored-at-work-big -- "Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history, all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled, watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com)
From: Iain Chalmers on 8 Feb 2007 02:16
In article <45c9c5bc$0$25322$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: > But the diagnostics indicate that it's not using more fuel... or if it > is, it's less than 1 decilitre per hour per 800 rpm See my other post - wikipedia and the back-of-the-envelop suggests 1 decilitre per hour is pretty close to what your 120W headlights require... Can I get you to do another experiment? I'm wondering if 800rpm is too slow for the alternator to be developing all the required output, and what you're seeing is the headlights drawing the battery charge down rather then being powered by the engine. I'd be interested to know if you see any fuel flow difference in the diagnostics if you hold the engine at a slightly higher speed when you switch the lights on and off - maybe up at 2500 or 3000 rpm? curious-big -- "Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history, all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled, watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com) |