From: Knobdoodle on 9 Feb 2007 08:09
"Boxer" <someone(a)nowhere.com> wrote;
> The fuel computer on the Holden 5.7 litre is not very accurate so it is
> unlikely to provide the information required.
I reckon a test would be if it can tell the difference between air-con on
and aircon off.
If it can't tell the difference then it's never gonna' see headlights.
From: Aeek on 9 Feb 2007 08:12
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:09:55 +1100, Iain Chalmers
>In article <C1F11DF8.11BAB%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au>,
> Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> 10 per cent?
>Do you know what a Deux Chevaux is? Do you know why they call it that?
>Do you know how many watts 2hp is?
Its tax horsepower, not actual horsepower, 2cv > 2hp
From: atec "atec77 on 9 Feb 2007 08:22
> On Feb 9, 7:49 pm, atec <"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> jlitt...(a)my-deja.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 2:51 pm, atec <"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jlitt...(a)my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 9, 12:58 am, atec <"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>> sharkey wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrew McKenna <NOcmorSPAM3...(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.
>>>>>> Now thats wrong in so many ways .
>>>>> Actually he's dead right if you read it carefully - typical engineer's
>>>>> wording though. They never speak english.
>>>>> The MECHANICAL load is unchanged IE the effort to physically spin the
>>>>> metallicy bits around will be unchanged regardless of electrical load.
>>>> The way I understand it that statement is wrong , mechanical input
>>>> required to generate electrical energy bears relationships to each
>>>> other, more electrical energy required means more drive is required to
>>>> overcome the resistance to turning .A change in turning momentum is
>>>> proportional to energy required.
>>> And your statement is indeed correct - there's a difference between
>>> the mechanical input and the mechanical load. Pure semantics of
>>> course. mechanical load (as torque) plus electrical load(as torque)
>>> equals mechanical input required(as torque). The mechanical load is a
>>> constant (ceteris paribus), the electrical load changes with, well,
>>> the electrical load <grin> (1). To be more accurate the torque/turning
>>> force that you have to provide to generate a current equal to the
>>> current being drawn is increased as the current required increases(2)
>>> (1) there obviously being more than one meaning of the word load in
>>> this context
>> I will never agree to that ( I stick to what I know and have been taught)
> I think that translates as I'm too stupid to think for myself, n'est
> ce pas ?
>> - one being current drawn, the other being turning force> required
>> load is load , as in work to be done /required so whether explained as
>> turning force or current drawn they bear a direct relationship of watts
>> and where's consumed
> Ya gotta love a guy who makes a statement to which the only answer is
> "yeah but"...<pause> actually no you don't.
> Yes, load is load, it's measured in work done, hence why I put the
> bits in brackets about how it was measured (that'd be that torque
> thingy). But Andrew seemed to be differentiating between two different
> types of work (he later said things that make me doubt he had a clue,
> but that's a different discussion) the actual statement he made is
> (pedantically) correct.
> There's work to turn the metal things in the alternator around- that
> load is a constant, it doesn't change regardless of the electrickery.
the load does change in response to demand and thats the point , see
bicycle riding .
> Then there's the electrickery, the EMF is going to create a different
> load depending on the watts being consumed by dint of how much
> electrical load is attached.
which means the mechanical force required to maaintain the rotations
speed alters in response ( think bicycle pedals )
> Add the two together and you get the total one is variable, one is
> constant. Not difficult really.
not strictly correct either
>> (2) still not sure I'm explaining that particularly well
>> No you didn't , I suspect it's some bullshite machination dreamed up
>> to split hairs buy a drunken masturbaterpoofta ( tell me if I am wrong)
> Well i wasn't drunk but I don't know what the latter bit means so I
> can't comment, it's obviously intended to be pejorative so I guess the
> obvious reply is "gefuggedyastupidkuntgetabigblackdogupya"
now you are being impolite , google machinations and you will
understand , se not machinery of the mind . ok ?
From: Knobdoodle on 9 Feb 2007 08:22
"Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote:
> Enough of the silly monkeys. Just explain whatever it is you are
> avoiding. How does the engine management computer figure out the fuel
> flow rate?
[shrug] It doesn't.
It just displays a number that you either do or don't choose to believe.
From: Knobdoodle on 9 Feb 2007 08:33
"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers(a)bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
> sharkey wrote:
>> Excellent, and I'll bring the oscilloscope!
> I've got a 40 year old Tektronix 422 in the shed somewhere.
No need to cro about it!