P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: G-S on 12 Feb 2007 04:15 jlittler(a)my-deja.com wrote: > On Feb 12, 7:46 am, G-S <g...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >> Hammo wrote: >>> <knobdoo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>>> dfDzh.6083$sd2....(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). >> The FI systems we have don't 'calculate' that, they use pre calculated >> maps which specify ratios at certain revs and throttle openings. > > There's also a feedback loop from O2 sensor If one is fitted. I know that my Triumph Sprint ST didn't actually have an O2 sensor at all. > and knock sensor where > fitted which moves around in the tables according to the feedback (if > the o2 says it's a bit rich, knock n milliseconds off the injector > times), if knock sensor says it's knocking retard injector and > ignition timing etc Subject to lesser or greater amounts of sensors :) >>> 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. > > JL >
From: G-S on 12 Feb 2007 04:18 Hammo wrote: > On 12/2/07 10:43 AM, in article > <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>> <knobdoo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>> 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. >> <doubtful look> maybe the F1 teams do this, but too bloody expensive >> for a run of the mill road car. > > No, I don't think so, and I this is why the focus on the need for a "fuel > flow measure" to be utter bollocks. You don't think it's too expensive for a run of the mill car? That sort of system is only fitted to high end commercial diesels to my knowledge... entry level stuff isn't worth the extra cost. Long distance diesels that do 1,000,000kms between top end rebuilds do enough distance and use enough fuel that the extra cost can be worth it however. G-S
From: Knobdoodle on 12 Feb 2007 04:21 "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message news:45cfc78a$0$31884$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > 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. > When did we establish THAT?!!? Sure I agreed that there seems to be some bike charging systems that run flat-out all the time (something I have no experience of but something I've been assured [by aus.moto posters] is fairly common on modern bikes. [but has since been refuted by GS]) but, as pointed out by Dale, this was a discussion about car electrics and no-one has identified any cars that use that system. Besides; what does "only measurable at a theoretical level" matter? Isn't theorising what we're doing here? How else are you gonna' measure it; leave your car idling for 30 hours with and without the headlights on and see which ones stops first? -- Clem
From: Hammo on 12 Feb 2007 04:34 <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >> <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>> <knobdoo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> <doubtful look> maybe the F1 teams do this, but too bloody expensive >>> for a run of the mill road car. >> >> No, I don't think so, and I this is why the focus on the need for a "fuel >> flow measure" to be utter bollocks. Clem claims it to be obfuscation. >> > Or diversion Hammo; you take your pick! It is amusing that you consider it diversion. Explain how. > Totally irrelevant in the "does using headlights unnecessarily waste fuel" > (and the "is Nev's fuel-usage display totally accurate") debate anyway. Interesting justification. Discussion should be synergistic. Hammo
From: Hammo on 12 Feb 2007 04:39
<knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message >> 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. >> > When did we establish THAT?!!? > Sure I agreed that there seems to be some bike charging systems that run > flat-out all the time (something I have no experience of but something I've > been assured [by aus.moto posters] is fairly common on modern bikes. [but > has since been refuted by GS]) but, as pointed out by Dale, this was a > discussion about car electrics and no-one has identified any cars that use > that system. Sharkey is popping around with his oscilloscope, so will see if that *is* going on in the car. > > Besides; what does "only measurable at a theoretical level" matter? Isn't > theorising what we're doing here? > How else are you gonna' measure it; leave your car idling for 30 hours with > and without the headlights on and see which ones stops first? No, JL doesn't want that, he is going for "domestic". Hammo |