From: Yeebok on 8 Feb 2007 04:03
> "Iain Chalmers" <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote in message
> > 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
> My 5.7 litre HSV gets an average of about 16.5L/100km in the city and
> 10.0L/100km on the highway.
KLX300 - 26km/l. city. 0-110km/h in about 150m ;).. gotta be happy
From: Tim Moran on 8 Feb 2007 04:01
In article <1170907020.634294.244700(a)v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> On Feb 7, 5:30 pm, Toosmoky <toosm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nev.. wrote:
> > > Toosmoky wrote:
> > There was a lot to take
> > in and I must admit I was somewhat amazed at the thinking that's gone
> > into them. A lot of current cars have such features. One that I forgot
> > about is an automatic fuel cutoff.
> Christ I had a 1979 Jaguar that had an auto fuel cutoff(1)
I read that as Christ had a 1979 Jaguar
I'm guessing crucifixion didn't seem so bad after that
From: Andrew McKenna on 8 Feb 2007 04:13
> No, you read my original post, have you forgotten it already? I stated
> there where the energy to power the lights was coming from. I have
> since been advised that except for my bicycle, which has no alternator,
> my original post was correct for every vehicle in my garage which does
> have an alternator... and for the record, I followed your instructions
> as per above, and the tacho did not move, nor did the fuel rate change.
> Perhaps I need to revise some of those physics books of yours.
> '04 CBR1100XX
The mechanical resistance provided by the connection to the alternator
is constant, irrespective of whether that is a belt, chain or a bunch of
rods, and irrespective of the load on the electrical system. Adding
extra electrical load cannot possibly convert into mechanical disadvantage.
I think your critics are thinking of their bicycles with dynamo powered
headlights :-) More electrical load might make you discover that you
need to push harder to achieve the same results but there's no way the
dynamo itself gets harder to spin.
From: Nev.. on 8 Feb 2007 04:10
> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in news:45caa236$0$31829$5a62ac22(a)per-
>> GB wrote:
>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in
>>>> Are you saying that if I measure something once per
>>>> second and then multiply that by 3600 my result is not an accurate
>>>> measure of an hourly rate?
>>> No, I'm saying that that's not how it figures it out.
>> Here are a few blank lines where you can explain how it figures out an
>> hourly fuel flow rate without taking the time and the flowrate of fuel
>> into account.
> No worries, right after you show me the bit where you show me
> the part where I claimed that it figures out an hourly fuel flow
> rate without taking the time and the flow rate of fuel into
Enough of the silly monkeys. Just explain whatever it is you are
avoiding. How does the engine management computer figure out the fuel
From: Johno on 8 Feb 2007 04:16
>"Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in
>> If it's measuring 2.68l/hr once per second that would be umm...
>> 0.0007444L/sec.. I reckon it updates about maybe 3 times per second
>> meaning it's measuring 0.00024815L/sec. I would have to check your
>> physics books to see if that is near enough to a poofteenth or not, I
>> reckon it is probably pretty damn close.
I *know* I should know... but just how much is a poofteenth? Is is
metric / Imperial? How is it measured?
Johno <dang fangled new maths>
If GB has taken the fridge out of the sealed room.... Beer any1?