From: Knobdoodle on

"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

"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
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
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
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
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?