From: sharkey on
Andrew McKenna <NOcmorSPAM3047(a)NObigpond.SPAMnet.au> wrote:
>
> 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.

Thanks for clarifying what you were trying to say, Andew. I think I
understand your argument. You are wrong, though.

-----sharks
--
Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: sharkey on
atec <"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Olive ?

But what should I run in my Boxer?

-----sharks
From: sharkey on
jlittler(a)my-deja.com <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Why are EFI motors getting cleaner and having
> > lower emissions (despite their inherent inefficiencies)?
>
> Better EFI programming, smaller steps between measurement intervals,
> more powerful CPUs able to interpolate faster and more often per
> second, ability to manage a greater amount of data over a longer
> period to calculate more effectively given a wider range of paramerts.
> The ability to monitor the gas mix in the exhaust in a fairly
> primitive way to be able to then say "oh no lean off the mixture, it's
> too rich" (feedback loop on the result)

That's gotten a lot better too, with wideband O2 sensors rather than the
old narrowband ones.

Also, knock sensors allow the computer to lean the mix right out and
just rich it up a smidge any time it starts knocking.

-----sharks
--
Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: Nev.. on
Knobdoodle wrote:

> [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?

Eh? I thought we'd already established that there was no waste, or, if
there was, it was only measurable at a theoretical level.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX
From: Nev.. on
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>
>> Some of the things it does are measured, others aren't. The result
>> when combined is effectivly an _estimate_.
>
> But, but , but Nev's car says 16.23 l/100 kms (or something). This suggests
> an accuracy of 0.01%. Actual accuracy is probably 10% but all those
> significant digits look so neat.
>
> Theo
> The Compuguestimator on the Norge says I use 5.6 l.100 kms. Reality at the
> pump suggests 5.1.

No no no.. I have never quoted any figures produced by the trip computer
for calculated fuel economy/usage/whatever. Where I did throw some
l/100km figures into the discussion (in reply to Boxer's comments) they
were measured at the pump, not quoted from the trip computer.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?