From: Dale Porter on 10 Feb 2007 08:02
"JL" <jl(a)nowhere.com> wrote
>> tell me the petrol pump at the servo is guessing too!!??
> In my experience, yes, yes very definitely.
> (it's always impressive to put 16L into a 15L tank I think)
And the amount of fuel a pump "guesses" is being transferred compared to the actual amount of fuel being transferred will vary
dependent on a number of factors. Temperature being one.
GPX250 -> CBR600 -> VTR1000 + VT250F-J
From: Knobdoodle on 10 Feb 2007 08:27
"Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message
> 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..
And some people said they were just pre-programmed responses unaffected by
It looks like those people may've been right eh?
>> 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.
OK so we've proved that it's auto-compensating for any extra load
(explaining why you don't get an idle-drop when the headlights are switched
on) but the jury's still out on whether it's really measuring
fuel-consumption or just smart-enough to know that aircon raises the usage
by a pre-set amount.
Nev, next test is to run the computer in diagnostic mode with the air-con on
and then cut the aircon-compressor belt and see if the readout changes.....
if it's not too much trouble!
From: Knobdoodle on 10 Feb 2007 08:43
<jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
> 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 !
I have no knowledge of angular force and that engineering stuff you were
talking about so I'm more than happy to accept your word that Andrew has
stumbled upon a serendipitous truism, John.
That doesn't change the simple "will the alternator require more energy to
turn" question though.
I just stick to the simple things that I DO understand (and if I can't
follow what you're saying then I'm very confident that there's not one
chance-in-hell that cowpat-for-brains Atec is ever gonna!)
From: G-S on 10 Feb 2007 17:08
> On Feb 10, 8:47 pm, Kathryn Vickers <iamsista...(a)aapt.net.au> 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"
> While patently true, there's a difference between obstinately arguing
> an inaccurate, irrelevant or indefensible point and being a devil's
> advocate that Hammo always seems to miss
And this is exactly the difference in style of comment between someone
like Dales father and Hammo...
From: G-S on 10 Feb 2007 17:13
> 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 but _still_ an irrelevant red herring.
The point under discussion isn't if the fuel used is wasted or not...
the point is 'is there fuel being used' to run the lights, and some
people seem to be in denial about the fact that there is.
Others like you seem content to throw odd, technically correct but
totally useless and irrelevant comments into the conversation.
You didn't perhaps work for Microsoft in a past life did you? :)