From: Nev.. on 12 Feb 2007 18:58
> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in news:45d04432$0$31863$5a62ac22(a)per-
>> No. I established 'facts' by gathering data,
> They weren't facts, they were unrepeatable approximations made
> by a cheap measuring device.
And I also established that they were repeatable, and you continue to
make unsubstantiated allegations that they are not.
From: Nev.. on 12 Feb 2007 19:02
> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in
>> 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
> Where do you think the trip computer gets the raw numbers from?
Are you trying to establish that the trip computer makes accurate fuel
From: Iain Chalmers on 12 Feb 2007 20:10
"Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote:
> G-S wrote:
> > Nev.. wrote:
> >> 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.
> > No we established that you car fuel measuring device wasn't sensitive
> > enough to measure it but that practical measurment devices for measuring
> > the effect did in fact exist :)
> No. I established 'facts' by gathering data, you made 'unsubstantiated
> allegations' about the data collection method in order to discredit that
And I calculated that 120W of headlights consumes something like 100mL
per hour plus or minus 40%.
Nobody has challenged those numbers, and my sanity check calculations
seem to indicate I'm at least in the right order of magnitude with that
"Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history,
all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled,
watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people
you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com)
From: jlittler on 13 Feb 2007 00:15
On Feb 12, 6:15 pm, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
> On 12/2/07 10:43 AM, in article
> <jlitt...(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.
<raised eyebrow> Who said you needed a fuel flow measurement to
improve fuel economy/efficiency ?
(I've said repeatedly you can't make assumptions about a multitude of
things, calculate a fuel flow and then claim you know it's
particularly accurate though)
From: sharkey on 12 Feb 2007 23:42
Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
> Interesting justification. Discussion should be synergistic.
Synergy fouls your plugs!
Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.