Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Knobdoodle on 10 Feb 2007 03:34 "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1F39A19.2536A%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... > > > <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>>>> "jlittler(a)my-deja.com" <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Feb 9, 12:56 am, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>>>>> YFFyh.4682$sd2....(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle" >>>>>>> <knobdoo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Nev.." <i...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I think you've been reading too many physics books and you've lost >>>>>>>>> sight >>>>>>>>> of reality. 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? Do you think the computer controlling the fuel rate >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> guesses? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No; it actuates the injector the exact amount that it's been told >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>> conditions it's measured. >>>>>>>> It then displays the exact mpg (L/Hr, Km per kilojoule or whatever) >>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>> it's been told to display too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But it doesn't have any idea what a litre actually is and it >>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>> doean't have any ability to actually measure one! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eh? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's measured, but it can't measure? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it's calculated based on what actually is "measured" (or more >>>>>> accurately specified by the efi). >>>>>> >>>>>> The efi opens the injector for a period according to what it's lookup >>>>>> table tells it is the right amount given the parameters it has >>>>>> sensors >>>>>> measuring. It ASSUMES the fuel pressure (and hence fuel flow) is >>>>>> correct (unless there has been some new fangled advances in EFI I'm >>>>>> not aware of). I know of no cars that measure actual fuel flow, they >>>>>> usually calculate your fuel consumption based on the amount of time >>>>>> they've opened the injectors, and the number of KM's travelled. Those >>>>>> two parameters are based on a number of implicit assumptions: >>>>>> - the fuel pressure is correct >>>>>> - there are no blockages restricting fuel flow >>>>>> - the size of your tyres are as specified and hence the number of K's >>>>>> calculated is correct >>>>>> >>>>>> etc etc >>>>>> >>>>>> it's a reasonably accurate estimate and more than good enough for the >>>>>> purposes for which it is used. That doesn't mean the actual fuel flow >>>>>> is measured. >>>>> >>>>> Eh? >>>>> >>>>> It's measured but it doesn't measure? >>>>> >>>> Why do you keep pretending we've said "it's measured" Hammo; when we've >>>> quite clearly said the exact opposite! >>> >>> How does the efi know how much to squirt? It must have some idea, after >>> all >>> it calcs things to L/100 km. it'd have to be more than just chance. >>> Don't >>> tell me the petrol pump at the servo is guessing too!!?? >>> >> My EFI doesn't calculate L/100 km Hammo, but it still seems to know how >> much >> fuel to use. >> I have three EFI vehicles in my name and not one of them has a clue about >> L/100 km or kilogrammes per joule or wangers per wombat! >> They just pump in a little-bit-more or a little-bit-less depending on >> what >> the TPS, RPM and whatever other inputs are telling them to do. > > Hang on. You can't see that it *may* know about these things and you > conclude that it *doesn't*. Then you go onto to say that depending on the > requirements they'll adjust it by some magic number to make it all run > tickety boo? > Yep; that's pretty much how automatic systems go. If X isn't under pre-defined range for X, increase X by Y and then check again. If X is over; decrease by Z. Repeat several times per second as necessary. -- Clem
From: Knobdoodle on 10 Feb 2007 04:18 "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1F3AAB0.25B0B%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... > > > > On 10/2/07 4:26 PM, in article 12sqlsjkovn9h2c(a)corp.supernews.com, "G-S" > <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > >> Hammo wrote: >>> >>> <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>> Hammo wrote: >>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I think you've been reading too many physics books and you've >>>>>>>>>>> lost >>>>>>>>>>> sight >>>>>>>>>>> of reality. 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? Do you think the computer controlling the fuel >>>>>>>>>>> rate >>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>> guesses? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No; it actuates the injector the exact amount that it's been told >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> conditions it's measured. >>>>>>>>>> It then displays the exact mpg (L/Hr, Km per kilojoule or >>>>>>>>>> whatever) >>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>> it's been told to display too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But it doesn't have any idea what a litre actually is and it >>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>> doean't have any ability to actually measure one! >>>>>>>>> Eh? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's measured, but it can't measure? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quantify "measured". >>>>>>> That is exactly what I am asking you to do!! >>>>>>> >>>>>> But I said it's NOT measured. >>>>> Look up the page!! It measures things, so the sum of the measure must >>>>> be >>>>> something. >>>>> >>>> Some of the things it does are measured, others aren't. The result >>>> when >>>> combined is effectivly an _estimate_. >>>> >>> ...and the Captain Obvious award goes to G-S. >> >> Really? And it was so obvious that you missed the 'since Nev's unit is >> estimating, and it isn't showing the real effect then it follows that >> the estimate error is greater than the effect' that follows on from that? > > Oh dear, do you also need a whhooossshhh to go with the Cpt Ob? All > measurement is going to inaccurate and is therefore an estimate. See > below > re: Analytical measurement, ISO, NATA etc..... > > Have you forgotten all that horrible stuff in labs where I'd generate a > number and also error bars showing the "tolerance" of that answer? > > Did you miss Nev's point (or Theo's, or someone's) that the readout was 4 > significant figures, which had had the potential to either show that 1) > there is no effect, or 2) it is so small more significant numbers were > required? > >>> Is this where you wanna start talking about analytic measuring >>> techniques >>> and what is deemed to ISO, NATA and Aus Standards? >> >> Still throwing red herrings Hammo I see :) > > You can see things no-one else can, hmmmm. > Come off the grass Hammo; Blind Freddie's seeing-eye-dog's fleas can see you're trying diversion after obfuscation! That's why we keep repeating the obvious and logical with every reply. Standard Operation Procedure. -- Clem
From: G-S on 10 Feb 2007 04:18 Hammo wrote: > > > On 10/2/07 4:26 PM, in article 12sqlsjkovn9h2c(a)corp.supernews.com, "G-S" > <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > >> Hammo wrote: >>> <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>> Hammo wrote: >>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I think you've been reading too many physics books and you've lost >>>>>>>>>>> sight >>>>>>>>>>> of reality. 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? Do you think the computer controlling the fuel rate >>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>> guesses? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No; it actuates the injector the exact amount that it's been told to >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> conditions it's measured. >>>>>>>>>> It then displays the exact mpg (L/Hr, Km per kilojoule or whatever) >>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>> it's been told to display too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But it doesn't have any idea what a litre actually is and it certainly >>>>>>>>>> doean't have any ability to actually measure one! >>>>>>>>> Eh? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's measured, but it can't measure? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quantify "measured". >>>>>>> That is exactly what I am asking you to do!! >>>>>>> >>>>>> But I said it's NOT measured. >>>>> Look up the page!! It measures things, so the sum of the measure must be >>>>> something. >>>>> >>>> Some of the things it does are measured, others aren't. The result when >>>> combined is effectivly an _estimate_. >>>> >>> ...and the Captain Obvious award goes to G-S. >> Really? And it was so obvious that you missed the 'since Nev's unit is >> estimating, and it isn't showing the real effect then it follows that >> the estimate error is greater than the effect' that follows on from that? > > Oh dear, do you also need a whhooossshhh to go with the Cpt Ob? All > measurement is going to inaccurate and is therefore an estimate. See below > re: Analytical measurement, ISO, NATA etc..... > > Have you forgotten all that horrible stuff in labs where I'd generate a > number and also error bars showing the "tolerance" of that answer? That is the way they measure things in labs. Service centres don't bother with that extra unneeded complexity. > Did you miss Nev's point (or Theo's, or someone's) that the readout was 4 > significant figures, which had had the potential to either show that 1) > there is no effect, or 2) it is so small more significant numbers were > required? No, not at all! Did you miss the point where people mentioned that adding more numbers to a display does not mean they are _significant_ numbers. If the number of decimals exceeds the accuracy of the estimation (which is the case with consumer fuel measurement devices on cars) then then those extra decimals are meaningless. >>> Is this where you wanna start talking about analytic measuring techniques >>> and what is deemed to ISO, NATA and Aus Standards? >> Still throwing red herrings Hammo I see :) > > You can see things no-one else can, hmmmm. > Now you are being silly again. I'm not denying those standards exist or that they have a use. But they aren't directly relevant to the point I was discussing (although they have a bearing upon other parts of the discussion). > ...and what do they smell like? > Well the diesel fuel measurment device smells like diesel... I can see that since I own them... I would assume that unless you broke into my service centre that you can not *smile*. G-S
From: Kathryn Vickers on 10 Feb 2007 04:47 Sing along with me now (al la Summer Holiday) "Hammo's playing Devil's Advocate Trying to get bites from one or two He'll keep going 'til you lose your rag with it, Pedantic bantering keeps him sane There's nothing you can do" K H - clear your email so I can message you off the newsgroup On 10/2/07 8:18 PM, in article h5gzh.5613$sd2.3430(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message > news:C1F3AAB0.25B0B%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... >> >> >> >> On 10/2/07 4:26 PM, in article 12sqlsjkovn9h2c(a)corp.supernews.com, "G-S" >> <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Hammo wrote: >>>> >>>> <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>>> Hammo wrote: >>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I think you've been reading too many physics books and you've >>>>>>>>>>>> lost >>>>>>>>>>>> sight >>>>>>>>>>>> of reality. 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? Do you think the computer controlling the fuel >>>>>>>>>>>> rate >>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>> guesses? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No; it actuates the injector the exact amount that it's been told >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> conditions it's measured. >>>>>>>>>>> It then displays the exact mpg (L/Hr, Km per kilojoule or >>>>>>>>>>> whatever) >>>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>>> it's been told to display too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it doesn't have any idea what a litre actually is and it >>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>> doean't have any ability to actually measure one! >>>>>>>>>> Eh? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's measured, but it can't measure? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Quantify "measured". >>>>>>>> That is exactly what I am asking you to do!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I said it's NOT measured. >>>>>> Look up the page!! It measures things, so the sum of the measure must >>>>>> be >>>>>> something. >>>>>> >>>>> Some of the things it does are measured, others aren't. The result >>>>> when >>>>> combined is effectivly an _estimate_. >>>>> >>>> ...and the Captain Obvious award goes to G-S. >>> >>> Really? And it was so obvious that you missed the 'since Nev's unit is >>> estimating, and it isn't showing the real effect then it follows that >>> the estimate error is greater than the effect' that follows on from that? >> >> Oh dear, do you also need a whhooossshhh to go with the Cpt Ob? All >> measurement is going to inaccurate and is therefore an estimate. See >> below >> re: Analytical measurement, ISO, NATA etc..... >> >> Have you forgotten all that horrible stuff in labs where I'd generate a >> number and also error bars showing the "tolerance" of that answer? >> >> Did you miss Nev's point (or Theo's, or someone's) that the readout was 4 >> significant figures, which had had the potential to either show that 1) >> there is no effect, or 2) it is so small more significant numbers were >> required? >> >>>> Is this where you wanna start talking about analytic measuring >>>> techniques >>>> and what is deemed to ISO, NATA and Aus Standards? >>> >>> Still throwing red herrings Hammo I see :) >> >> You can see things no-one else can, hmmmm. >> > Come off the grass Hammo; Blind Freddie's seeing-eye-dog's fleas can see > you're trying diversion after obfuscation! > That's why we keep repeating the obvious and logical with every reply. > Standard Operation Procedure.
From: Andrew McKenna on 10 Feb 2007 04:57
Knobdoodle wrote: > So.... [waits impatiently] translate "...you need to push harder ...it > cannot possibly get harder..." into sense then please! FFS Clem, the amount of energy you're putting into pretending to be stupider than you are would power your entire house for a week! I chose the most primitive electrical system example I could think of, an old-fashioned dynamo driven by the rotating wheel of a push-bike. I figured most aus.moto posters would know what that was. At any point in time that dynamo delivers a precise amount of electrical current which is determined by the rotation speed of its shaft, which is in turn controlled by the rotation speed of the bicycle wheel. Spin the bicycle wheel faster, you get more current; don't spin the bicycle wheel at all and you don't get any. (If I was arguing with Hammo I'd have to explain which bicycle wheel was being used and what was the tyre pressure, and whether the dynamo had static or moving magnets, but I don't have to do that with you, do I?) With the cyclist pedalling at maximum speed, engage the dynamo. The bike slows down because the human pedalling has to overcome both the inertia of the rotor in the dynamo (this is actually negligible) and the resistance of the magnets to being dragged through an EMF. At this new maximum speed, the dynamo produces, I dunno, say 2W of power. Presently all this electricity is doing is going round and round, so let's add a 1W light. This magical light has no mass (so we don't have to get into arguments about it's contribution to inertial resistance on the bike) but it demands 1W of power, so since the dynamo is providing 2W it's using half. How much physical resistance have we added to the system? Nothing whatsoever, so the cyclist isn't required to do extra work (but see 'The World According To Clem' below). Let's add another one. Now we're using the total generating capacity of the dynamo, all 2W. How much harder is it for the cyclist to push along with the lights on? No harder than when they are turned off. It isn't the lights that increase his effort, it's the dynamo itself. Let's add 20 more lights. In the world according to Clem, the dark energy flowing out of these extra 20 lights travels down the wires to the dynamo and supersizes the magnets, causing the dynamo to seize, the front wheel of the cycle to stop and the cyclist to fall off. In the world according to Andrew, the extra 20 lights simply never light up (or, if they are wired up in parallel, all the lights go out). In theory the dynamo can be spun up to velocities that will deliver more than 22W. In reality no cyclist can pedal anything like that fast. Now tell me again which bit of my earlier post you found hard to understand. If it was the bit where I asserted that in order to get more electrical power out of a dynamo you had to spin it faster (as it appeared from your comments), I can't help you. -- Cheers Andrew |