From: Hammo on
<knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
<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.

Obfuscation, that is a long bow to draw. ...and it is standard operating
procedure.

You can repeat something till you are blue in the face and it won't change
it. If by logical and obvious, you mean "it works for you" then I am happy
that you have achieved your goal.

I don't agree and therefore I'm going to point out what I consider to be
logical [though not necessarily obvious]. For example are you aware of the
grades of analytical glassware that is used to measure liquids? For you it
is a moot point as you take the stance of lights on in the day is waste of
fuel, where as I don't (depending on the DRL). There is no waste as I want
it on and it does it's job well. Yes, it uses fuel, no it's not a waste.

Crystal?

Hammo

From: Hammo on
<geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
> Hammo wrote:
>> <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.

Yes, and if I wanted and answer that was based on speculation......
>
>> 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.

This is called speculation, or assumption. Do you know that that is the
case with the fuel measurement? I can see and appreciate that the point is
valid, though, I don't tend to go with the the popularist vote in order to
be ice box, man.

Also, I was referring to significant figures, not decimals. See lab work
(above and as you pointed out unneeded complexity, surely that'd be a
given?).
>
>>>> 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.

No, you claimed it was nought more than a red herring. Your
wording/phrasing implied that you believed it to be a "scent-thrower".
>
> But they aren't directly relevant to the point I was discussing
> (although they have a bearing upon other parts of the discussion).

It was an attempt to discredit the standards by which things are measured
and therefore calculated and "standardised". Pretty important.
>
>> ...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*.

I was not going to commit any acts of criminalality. I was asking if you
were having olfactory hallucinations with the visual ones.

Hammo

PS Did you consider the lubricity of diesel vs ULP in measurements?

From: Nev.. on
Knobdoodle wrote:
> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote:
>> Ok so I tested it myself.
>>
>> 5.7 Lt EFI Holden in diagnostics mode.
>> All Lights off idle speed ~803
>> All Lights on idle speed ~803
>> All lights off fuel rate 2.68L/hr
>> All lights on fuel rate 2.68L/hr

OK so I went out to my car, on a different day, in different weather
conditions and the above measurements all replicated.. surprising since
some people have been so adamant that the system which measured them
wasn't accurate, reliable or repeatable.. but anyway..

> Hey Nev; what's it do when the air is switched on?

Fuel flow increases from 2.68L/hr to about 3.2L/hr

> Does the idle drop or stay the same?

stays the same after a momentary flicker no more than �20RPM

> Of course aircon is a much larger load than just headlights but it might
> indicate if your engine computer is automatically compensating or not.

Turning the lights on and off with the aircon turned on made no
difference to the fuel flow rate or the engine RPM.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX
From: Smee R11S on
Kathryn Vickers wrote:
> 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

Hehehehehe
You aint half statin the obvious Nurse Vickers.
(I'm not following ths thread)
From: jlittler on
On Feb 9, 10:37 pm, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > 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)
>
> I'm not surprised that YOU are having this discussion John, but I'm
> absolutely STUNNED that you're having it with a poster who display about
> half the mental capacity of an overripe marrow!
>
> C'mon; do you reeeeeealy reckon he's following you here?

ATEC or Andrew ? Or are they the same beast ? I've not noticed the
Andrew character before. Or are you being really subtle and meaning
yourself :-)

The interesting part was Andrew's statement that you were pissing on
was actually (pedantically) correct. I think he proved himself
clueless in the later post (I lost interest) but he actually threw in
an interesting (extremely minor) - it just seemed like a good
opportunity to engage in pointless esoteric argument as we do so well
here !

JL

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?