Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: sharkey on 11 Feb 2007 18:38 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 11 Feb 2007 19:49 atec <"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Olive ? But what should I run in my Boxer? -----sharks
From: sharkey on 11 Feb 2007 19:55 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 11 Feb 2007 20:48 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 11 Feb 2007 21:14
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 |