From: Hammo on
<jl(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> Hammo wrote:
>> QR_yh.5250$sd2.4864(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"
>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> "jlittler(a)my-deja.com" <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 9, 12:56 am, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>> YFFyh.4682$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?
>
> Because a human told it what to do, if these parameters are measured
> (which don't include measuring fuel flow), then do x.

A human told it to? That is your explanation of the sophistication of EFI?

>
>> It must have some idea, after all
>> it calcs things to L/100 km. it'd have to be more than just chance.
>
> Uhuh, it sticks it's metaphorical finger in the air and makes it's best
> guess, based on the things it does know. It's usually a pretty fair
> estimate to, same as when I walk outside, wave my arms around a bit and
> say "I think it's about 22, 24 degrees celsius this morning"

Yes, you and your "weather station". We have had that discussion before.
How about, think really hard and review the other posts. What does EFI do
that makes it so special? Why are EFI motors getting cleaner and having
lower emissions (despite their inherent inefficiencies)?

>
>> Don't
>> tell me the petrol pump at the servo is guessing too!!??
>
> In my experience, yes, yes very definitely.

Your experience is beginning to be a poor guide.
>
> JL
> (it's always impressive to put 16L into a 15L tank I think)

You thought it was that sized tank, or, you over filled the tank, or both?
Big differences.

Hammo

From: Knobdoodle on

"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:C1F4F13B.25C01%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>
>
>
> On 10/2/07 11:52 PM, in article 45cdc0d5$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au, "JL"
> <jl(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Hammo wrote:
>>
>
> Snippo
>
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> That is from up the page! That ain't invented, and it sure aint
>>> pretend.
>>
>> Yup, so you've just quoted the bit that shows he didn't say the mpg
>> (etc) were measured. What's your point (1)
>>
>> JL
>> (1) he says knowing full well Hammo doesn't actually have one
>
> Jeez that was a low blow. I do and I have maintained it. The "volume"
> injected is not a random number. It will be based on parameters that are
> peculiar to the engine and appropriate for the required performance etc.
>
The volume injected in a mechanical fuel-injection system or atomised in a
carbuerettor is "based on parameters that are peculiar to the engine and
appropriate for the required performance etc" too Hammo.
They ain't measured for display though.
>
> Based on that, there *must be* with in a known error range of fuel
> consumed.
>
Yep; that's what we said. The computer's most-likely just displaying what
it's known figures are.
>
> Are we still on the same page here?
>
> I'll guffaw at your assertion that fuel pumps are not accurate, and
> continue
> to be amazed at your lack to do anything active about ensuring that the
> "inaccuracies" are fixed. I mean, if you can't buy fuel accurately, how
> the
> hell are you going to measure it'd consumption?
>
I think that was me, not JL.
No; I don't try and fight them and rant and rave and seek to have the cheats
pilloried. I'm waaaay too lazy for anything like that!
I'm not trying to fix the world; just get through it with the least hassle
so I just buy elsewhere and make sure I tell anyone who asks.
--
Clem


From: Knobdoodle on


> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And some people said they were just pre-programmed responses unaffected
>> by
>> actual conditions.
>> It looks like those people may've been right eh?
>
"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> replied:
"bargle bargle obfuscation herring"



From: Knobdoodle on

"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:C1F528DE.25C29%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>
>
>
> On 11/2/07 9:13 AM, in article 12ssgrth1gbf586(a)corp.supernews.com, "G-S"
> <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hammo wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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? :)
>
> Yawn, resorting to thinly disguised insults now? Lame, I thought better
> of
> you.
>
> That argument is moot and has been raised already re: the inefficiencies
> of
> the internal combustion engine.
>
[crinkles brow]
What's this new diversion you're trying now Hammo?
"the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine."?!!?
What the hell has that got to do with the fuel waste through unnecessary use
of driving lights? (or the inaccuracies of trip computers?)
Is it the blargleometers?
--
Clem


From: Hammo on



On 11/2/07 10:17 PM, in article
RWCzh.6072$sd2.1804(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"
<knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:C1F528DE.25C29%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/2/07 9:13 AM, in article 12ssgrth1gbf586(a)corp.supernews.com, "G-S"
>> <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hammo wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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? :)
>>
>> Yawn, resorting to thinly disguised insults now? Lame, I thought better
>> of
>> you.
>>
>> That argument is moot and has been raised already re: the inefficiencies
>> of
>> the internal combustion engine.
>>
> [crinkles brow]
> What's this new diversion you're trying now Hammo?
> "the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine."?!!?
> What the hell has that got to do with the fuel waste through unnecessary use
> of driving lights? (or the inaccuracies of trip computers?)
> Is it the blargleometers?

Eh?

No. GS changed the direction, look above!! He bloody did! It has been
raised (previously) that there are inherent inefficiencies of the alternator
and the engine. I agree GS's comments have naught to do with it.

Hammo

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?