From: Knobdoodle on 8 Feb 2007 08:02
"Andrew McKenna" <NOcmorSPAM3047(a)NObigpond.SPAMnet.au> wrote:
> sharkey wrote:
>> Andrew McKenna <NOcmorSPAM3047(a)NObigpond.SPAMnet.au> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> What? You need to push harder to spin it but it doesn't get harder to
> No, you need to push harder to get the result if you add electrical load.
> It cannot possibly get harder to spin.
I bet if you said this 100 times it would still be just as hilariously
What on earth are you actually trying to say?
From: Knobdoodle on 8 Feb 2007 08:04
"MrMoped" <MrMoped49(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Simple physics really! When switched on, the headlamp assembly pushes the
> light beams forward (this is particularly noticable in the absence of
> daylight), this is called an action. So using Newtons third law which
> states that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction,
> the same force applied by the headlamp to push the light beams is then
> also applied to the vehicle, pushing it back! Extra petrol is used to
> overcome the force applied by the headlamps.
But you've got red ones pushing you from behind and EVERYONE knows red ones
From: Knobdoodle on 8 Feb 2007 08:08
"Toosmoky" <toosmoky(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> Only the adult ones. Nothing worse than an immature lawnmower.
> Nothing cuts it like a Cox...
Oh is THAT what they mean when someone whispers to you that other blokes cox
have been sneaking around cutting your grass!
I dunno what I was worried about!
From: Hammo on 8 Feb 2007 08:18
On 8/2/07 8:54 PM, in article slrneslsqt.4jo.sharkey(a)anchovy.zoic.org,
"sharkey" <sharkey(a)zoic.org> wrote:
> Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> "sharkey" <sharkey(a)zoic.org> wrote:
>>> Excellent, and I'll bring the oscilloscope!
>> That'd be great.
>> Plans still the same?
>> How strong is your arm/shoulder now?
> Umm, yeah, you rostered off?
I don't know, but I will be in between rotations, and it looks like I'll be
> Strong enough for a _large_ beer :-)
Thems better not be pretend words ya city livin' auto drivin' nancy boy,
Will Rhonda be able to carry you Charlie and the scope?
Hammo (with extra extinguishers for the BBQ)
....and it's all about me, whilst I spread disinformation...
From: Knobdoodle on 8 Feb 2007 08:19
"G-S" <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote in message
> Nev.. wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in
>>>> And you very neatly ignored the bit where I also found that it did not
>>>> affect the fuel flow and therefore did not use any more fuel... no
>>>> wait.. you poo-poo'd that because it didn't suit your argument. BZZT.
>>> I didn't ignore it at all. In fact I addressed it quite
>>> comprehensively. Your fuel flow meter is not up to the task of measuring
>>> fuel flow with sufficient accuracy or repeatability
>>> to demonstrate the so-fundamental-that-it-shouldn't-need-discussing,-
>>> much-less-demonstrating principle of physics that's being discussed.
>> So for all intents and purposes, the amount of additional fuel consumed
>> when the headlights are turned on is immeasurable, so this "lights on =
>> more fuel" business exists in theory only.
> _Not_ immeasurable... just not measurable by a standard car consumption
> We have flow rate meters at work that are sensitive enough to measure this
> Place the reading device at the test point, turn on the coach headlights,
> driving lights and interior lights and the fuel consumption at idle
> increases measurably as the engine takes the additional load of driving
> the dual alterators to produce more current (averaging an extra 60 amps
> according to the current draw gauge).
> No I can't do this test moving as the test equipment isn't that movable,
> but that doesn't invalidate the results.
I'd reckon that the trip computer doesn't even HAVE a flow-meter! (Or at
least doesn't have one that measures flow that accurately)
I reckon it just measures the RPM and throttle position (and maybe 10 other
inputs) and gives you the pre-calculated result.
I can't really believe that anyone at Holden thought that having the
litres-per-hour readout absolutely-accurate would be anything worth spending
any money/time/effort on.
But then I'm a natural sceptic.