From: Knobdoodle on

"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:C1F549E2.26032%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>
>
>
> 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.
>
Looked; ain't seen.
Please post the exact sentence/s above where Geoff brought up the "the
inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine." Hammo.
--
Clem


From: Hammo on



On 11/2/07 10:42 PM, in article
1jDzh.6084$sd2.2799(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"
<knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:C1F549E2.26032%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Looked; ain't seen.
> Please post the exact sentence/s above where Geoff brought up the "the
> inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine." Hammo.

No. I didn't make that clear. Big Iain made ref to the alternator
inefficiencies. I believed that that was where GS was heading. It was to
reflect that if producing electricity was an inefficient practice, surely
power to propel from an internal combustion engine would make that appear
"efficient".

Hammo

From: Knobdoodle on

"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:C1F55141.2603C%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>
>
>
> On 11/2/07 10:42 PM, in article
> 1jDzh.6084$sd2.2799(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"
> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:C1F549E2.26032%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/2/07 10:17 PM, in article
>>> RWCzh.6072$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.
>>>
>> Looked; ain't seen.
>> Please post the exact sentence/s above where Geoff brought up the "the
>> inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine." Hammo.
>
> No. I didn't make that clear. Big Iain made ref to the alternator
> inefficiencies. I believed that that was where GS was heading. It was to
> reflect that if producing electricity was an inefficient practice, surely
> power to propel from an internal combustion engine would make that appear
> "efficient".
>
Heh heh; nice try Hammo.
--
Clem


From: Knobdoodle on

"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
> dfDzh.6083$sd2.352(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"

>> No; I'd probably say "dunno". I've never replaced an injector but I've
>> heard others tell me it was a fairly simple process (that didn't involve
>> "feedback loops" or "monitors")
>
> Geez, it must be my bed time. I meant that it was possible to exchange
> carbs from other motors and not have the dramas that would be associated
> with doing likewise with a EFI/MFI device. Think Holly with Aisan, then
> Motech with Bosch.
>
> I did not mean swap an injector, I meant the entire system.
>
Gee; the more I query the more "accidents' you seem to have had Hammo.
>>
>> Well; the RPM is probably "actual". All the rest is just make-up based
>> on
>> pre-set responses to inputs.
>
> Like what. Nev and JL have discussed a few, but what makes it efficient
> and
> highlights where GB is so terribly wrong with his assumption about
> accurate
> measurement?
>
Diversional-Blarglometer set to maximum, Captain!
>>>
>> No thanks Hammo; I've heard about youse blokes and your locker-room
>> antics.
>
> You didn't mind in your pool.
>
That 44 gallon drum of Dettol cost me a packet!
--
Clem


From: Hammo on
<knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> dfDzh.6083$sd2.352(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"
>
>>> No; I'd probably say "dunno". I've never replaced an injector but I've
>>> heard others tell me it was a fairly simple process (that didn't involve
>>> "feedback loops" or "monitors")
>>
>> Geez, it must be my bed time. I meant that it was possible to exchange
>> carbs from other motors and not have the dramas that would be associated
>> with doing likewise with a EFI/MFI device. Think Holly with Aisan, then
>> Motech with Bosch.
>>
>> I did not mean swap an injector, I meant the entire system.
>>
> Gee; the more I query the more "accidents' you seem to have had Hammo.

No, I wasn't clear. If that is interpreted as "accident" so be it.

>>>
>>> Well; the RPM is probably "actual". All the rest is just make-up based
>>> on
>>> pre-set responses to inputs.
>>
>> Like what. Nev and JL have discussed a few, but what makes it efficient
>> and
>> highlights where GB is so terribly wrong with his assumption about
>> accurate
>> measurement?
>>
> Diversional-Blarglometer set to maximum, Captain!

No, not at all.

Let me clear it for you.

70's and 80's (and probably 90's), manifold pressure gauges (aka
squidgy-meter) were popular. Used to measure "economy". Gave you an
indication of fuel usage. Big margin of error.

Now fuel systems are all about air to fuel ratio. Best situation is when
the ratio is adjusted for all situations. Hence EFI becoming better and
better wrt emissions. Why? It's not magic, it is due to the monitoring of
the system and adjustments that are made via many circuits many times per
second. What is based on? What measurement could possibly do this, what
principle? Stoichiometry.

I.e. The equation for combustion wrt air:fuel ratio. That monitors how much
fuel is required. It is calculated via moles of fuel based on the RON.
This is why some cars run better, or require higher octane fuels (wrt EFI).

If you have a running total of fuel used based on the chemical reaction, you
have a better indication than fuel flow as it relates to the chemistry, i.e.
irreversible chemical reaction that converts fuel to energy.

Do you see where I am coming from know?
>>>>
>>> No thanks Hammo; I've heard about youse blokes and your locker-room
>>> antics.
>>
>> You didn't mind in your pool.
>>
> That 44 gallon drum of Dettol cost me a packet!

My mouth was sore for some time too.

Hammo

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?